was socialism possible before capitalism?

[A.R.Amistad]

This question on historical materialism has also bugged me. I know that Engels said that the abolition of private property was impossible before capitalism since private property is a characteristic of capitalism. but societies such as the Iroquois seem to have functioned as socialist without ever having undergone a capitalist mode of production, and I don't think one could classify the Iroquois as "primitive communist."

[DaComm]

Doesn't the idea of Permanent Revolution state that in socially retarded countries where Capitalism has not replaced feudalism as the paramount economic system, like Russia, where there is a highly authoritative and strict state which the Capitalists are too weak and fearful to revolt from, that the workers (since Capitalism has not developed yet the industrial worker is not in numerous numbers, it must join forces with the peasantry) to overthrow the Feudal system themselves? Such case would be Socialism before Capitalism.

[A.R.Amistad]

Doesn't the idea of Permanent Revolution state that in socially retarded countries where Capitalism has not replaced feudalism as the paramount economic system, like Russia, where there is a highly authoritative and strict state which the Capitalists are too weak and fearful to revolt from, that the workers (since Capitalism has not developed yet the industrial worker is not in numerous numbers, it must join forces with the peasantry) to overthrow the Feudal system themselves? Such case would be Socialism before Capitalism.

Yes, but I think that applies today because capitalism is an international system.

[ContrarianLemming]

yes, socialism has always been possible, and was in practice before capitalism, in the various easrly christian communes for example.

[DaComm]

You do?

[Blackscare]

I suppose it could happen, but in order for it to happen smoothly and without degeneration it would have to happen simultaneously with revolutions in at least one highly industrialized nation, so that the development of the recently-feudal society(s) could be facilitated speedily and efficiently.

I believe even Lenin and many of the Old Bolsheviks assumed heavily that the imminent revolutions in places like Germany would succeed and the center of revolution would then shift to such places. When they failed, however, they found themselves in a much more stark situation.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I guess the basic Marxist view would be that material conditions and the means of production have to be developed enough for socialism to exist. Scarcity implies hierarchy-if there are fewer goods available, someone has to allocate and distribute them.There were many religiously inspired communist movements in Europe and elsewhere,Anabapists, the Diggers,Taoist movements, etc. but since material conditions weren't developed, their projects couldn't succeed.

Although Native societies were far more advanced than previously thought, it may be that they retained a great deal of egalitarianism because they were smaller and could exist in decentralized units.More urbanized societies like the Aztecs (which essentially developed as a conquest state) would inevitably loose this.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Do you include the earliest forms of capitalism, the one that started in, i think it was the 13th century? Ore do you just mean the sort of "fullblooded" capitalism that the industrial revolution brought and the one we are suffering trough right now?

[Lyev]

The working class have always existed, but just not in the form they exist today. Proletarians didn't exist before capitalism, in feudalist society etc., and if socialism entails the proletariat seizing state-power and controlling the means of production from thereafter, then I don't see how socialism can exist before this point. There have been social and political movements that have rebelled against oppression way before capitalism, or tried to redistribute wealth, such at the Graachi brothers, or Spartacus, and in the English Civil there was the Levellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers), but the social relations that are abolished to create socialism and anything after it can't be abolished if they don't exist, clearly. Of course, this doesn't mean that feudalism is somehow more progressive than capitalism. Each epoch in history is an evolution, a better developed layer, on top of the old mode of production. So, in a word, no.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The Italisn Marxist-Feminist Silvia Federici has theorized alternate ways non-western cultures could have developed into socialism drawing on their own traditions and possibly bypassing the capitalist stage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Federici

Marx himself may have been moving in this direction in his very late stage with his thoughts on the Russian mir, the village collective, possibly forming a basis for socialism.

Still, matewrial conditions need to be developed enough for this to happen.

[S.Artesian]

The Italisn Marxist-Feminist Silvia Federici has theorized alternate ways non-western cultures could have developed into socialism drawing on their own traditions and possibly bypassing the capitalist stage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Federici

Marx himself may have been moving in this direction in his very late stage with his thoughts on the Russian mir, the village collective, possibly forming a basis for socialism.

Still, matewrial conditions need to be developed enough for this to happen.

Marx was wrong, if that was indeed the direction he was moving on the Russian village commune. I don't know what direction he was headed, but the idea that the village commune could form some basis for socialism ignores one historical fact: that the commune was envisioned to be, by the Czar's "modernist" advisors, a tax-collecting vehicle-- a little bit like the Spanish provided corporate status for the Aztec and indigenous villages in Mexico in the 16th century.

And it ignores one social fact: The appallingly low productivity of Russian agriculture, communal and non-communal.

[A.R.Amistad]

The Italisn Marxist-Feminist Silvia Federici has theorized alternate ways non-western cultures could have developed into socialism drawing on their own traditions and possibly bypassing the capitalist stage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Federici

Marx himself may have been moving in this direction in his very late stage with his thoughts on the Russian mir, the village collective, possibly forming a basis for socialism.

Still, matewrial conditions need to be developed enough for this to happen.

it seems like the Iroquois made a revolutionary leap from agricultural slave-society to agricultural communism. I suppose that that area of North America was enough to satisfy their needs, but that type of socialism wouldn't satisfy the needs and wants of today. Still, it seems like it could be possible, according to historical materialist theory, that socialism of different sorts could be implemented in earlier societies.

[Tatarin]

but societies such as the Iroquois seem to have functioned as socialist without ever having undergone a capitalist mode of production, and I don't think one could classify the Iroquois as "primitive communist."

In a sence, no society did use the capitalist mode of production before capitalism. But further down, capitalism itself can be counted as a product of feudalism, and so on. In the end the real question is indeed about authority, and who can and can't control property.

And sure, while there were smaller societies that can be considered utopian, I believe they were very small and limited, not to mention sanctioned by a religious institution. So while the institution may sanction these groups, would they really accept all of their followers to live such a life?

[A.R.Amistad]

In a sence, no society did use the capitalist mode of production before capitalism. But further down, capitalism itself can be counted as a product of feudalism, and so on. In the end the real question is indeed about authority, and who can and can't control property.

And sure, while there were smaller societies that can be considered utopian, I believe they were very small and limited, not to mention sanctioned by a religious institution. So while the institution may sanction these groups, would they really accept all of their followers to live such a life?

So, maybe it is safe to say that international socialism is only possible as a result of capitalism, and before that a few isolated socialist societies could have existed, but not an international socialist one?

[Lyev]

So, maybe it is safe to say that international socialism is only possible as a result of capitalism, and before that a few isolated socialist societies could have existed, but not an international socialist one?No. How are you defining socialism here?

[A.R.Amistad]

No. How are you defining socialism here?
I'm assuming that capitalism has made it possible, even necessary, for socialism to be an international system.

Anyway, I don't want to stray off topic here too much. Does anyone know of some historical materialist works that address this question maybe?

[Tatarin]

So, maybe it is safe to say that international socialism is only possible as a result of capitalism, and before that a few isolated socialist societies could have existed, but not an international socialist one?

Yes, I believe that's right. I guess it also falls on how socialism is defined - a short transitional state, or one that can exist for years? Anyway, I think earlier societies "should" be named "utopian" or "egalitarian" rather than socialist. But oh well, it's a word game. :P

[Jolly Red Giant]

This issue cannot be isolated from the global nature of capitalism.

Socialism was not and is not possible before the emergence of capitalism, in simple terms, for the following reasons -
1. socialism requires an established industrial proletariat to create it
2. capitialism has to reach the limit of its productive capacity in order to be replaced

The early forms of what some people are calling 'socialist' societies could not survive in the face of capitalism simply because capitalism would have a greater productive capacity and wealth creating capacity than any 'primitive socialist/communist' society.

Small isolated communities could exist - but they would only survive for a limited period until the conflicts of capitalism would tear them apart. The longest surviving community in modern times that operates somewhat outside the capitalist world (and on somewhat of a communal basis) is probably the Amish in Pennsylvania, but they have only done so by eliminating much of the industrial aspects of capitalist society and the existance of a rigid and dogmatic religious outlook. And even then the Amish are riddled with social contradictions and social problems (not least the issue of widespread rape of young Amish women and girls).

[Lyev]

I'm assuming that capitalism has made it possible, even necessary, for socialism to be an international system.

Anyway, I don't want to stray off topic here too much. Does anyone know of some historical materialist works that address this question maybe?No, it makes me sound like a stagist, of course I'm not, but before even capitalism, socialism is not really on the agenda anywhere. This is even reflected in the development of socialist theory; it didn't really come about until first espoused by Gracchus Babeuf et al, in the form in which we are familiar with it now, but even back then it was relatively crude. But, around the 1780s and afterwards we see the beginnings of modern capitalist society, what with the industrial revolution perhaps starting, in earnest, some 50 years after the French Revolution, and then the expansion of world markets and suchlike. I'm not sure about any works that address this whole issue, perhaps try The 18th Brumaire, by Marx? I know it applies historical materialism to the French Consulate and stuff, but perhaps that recommendation is a bit tenuous. I've always seen historical materialism as a way to view class struggle: a way to bring about change through conflict of antagonistic, contradictory forces. Proletarian against bourgeois, labour against capital.

[the last donut of the night]

I think that we all run into a large problem when we discuss the transitions between economic modes -- ie. feudalism to capitalism, capitalist to socialism, etc. Marx ran into this problem too: admittedly, his somewhat eurocentric view of society led him to have this strange idea of a very strict and linear change in these material systems. Feudalism led to capitalism, and capitalism led to socialism, etc. The idea that the world moved from primitive communism to slave theocracy and to feudalism and so forth was an assumption based on Europe's history. Anybody can look at the 8th century Islamic caliphates, for example, and see that it wasn't really capitalism nor feudalism; some people say it was a primitive capitalism. The same goes for native societies (including the Haudenosaunee, Choctaw, Triple Alliance). The idea that material systems move in the strict and linear form I described above not only is wrong, but it can be anti-materialist and even chauvinist at some point.

[CAleftist]

I think that we all run into a large problem when we discuss the transitions between economic modes -- ie. feudalism to capitalism, capitalist to socialism, etc. Marx ran into this problem too: admittedly, his somewhat eurocentric view of society led him to have this strange idea of a very strict and linear change in these material systems. Feudalism led to capitalism, and capitalism led to socialism, etc. The idea that the world moved from primitive communism to slave theocracy and to feudalism and so forth was an assumption based on Europe's history. Anybody can look at the 8th century Islamic caliphates, for example, and see that it wasn't really capitalism nor feudalism; some people say it was a primitive capitalism. The same goes for native societies (including the Haudenosaunee, Choctaw, Triple Alliance). The idea that material systems move in the strict and linear form I described above not only is wrong, but it can be anti-materialist and even chauvinist at some point.

Agreed. Different cultures will evolve in differently in terms of economics.

[the last donut of the night]

Agreed. Different cultures will evolve in differently in terms of economics.

It's not that. Cultures don't push for economic change -- economic change pushes for different cultures. In other words, cultures are byproducts of their material bases. Believing it otherwise goes against historical materialism. What I meant was that the progression in material systems isn't as linear as most European Marxists thought (and still think) it to be.

[A.R.Amistad]

This issue cannot be isolated from the global nature of capitalism.

Socialism was not and is not possible before the emergence of capitalism, in simple terms, for the following reasons -
1. socialism requires an established industrial proletariat to create it
2. capitialism has to reach the limit of its productive capacity in order to be replaced

The early forms of what some people are calling 'socialist' societies could not survive in the face of capitalism simply because capitalism would have a greater productive capacity and wealth creating capacity than any 'primitive socialist/communist' society.

Small isolated communities could exist - but they would only survive for a limited period until the conflicts of capitalism would tear them apart. The longest surviving community in modern times that operates somewhat outside the capitalist world (and on somewhat of a communal basis) is probably the Amish in Pennsylvania, but they have only done so by eliminating much of the industrial aspects of capitalist society and the existance of a rigid and dogmatic religious outlook. And even then the Amish are riddled with social contradictions and social problems (not least the issue of widespread rape of young Amish women and girls).

But there actually have been large socialist societies that weren't hunter-gatherer. Not to sound like a broken record, but again the Iroquois were composed of six different nations and were based on communal ownership.

[A.R.Amistad]

I think that we all run into a large problem when we discuss the transitions between economic modes -- ie. feudalism to capitalism, capitalist to socialism, etc. Marx ran into this problem too: admittedly, his somewhat eurocentric view of society led him to have this strange idea of a very strict and linear change in these material systems. Feudalism led to capitalism, and capitalism led to socialism, etc. The idea that the world moved from primitive communism to slave theocracy and to feudalism and so forth was an assumption based on Europe's history. Anybody can look at the 8th century Islamic caliphates, for example, and see that it wasn't really capitalism nor feudalism; some people say it was a primitive capitalism. The same goes for native societies (including the Haudenosaunee, Choctaw, Triple Alliance). The idea that material systems move in the strict and linear form I described above not only is wrong, but it can be anti-materialist and even chauvinist at some point.

I agree, thank you for this enlightening response. Although, just out of curiosity, are there any Marxist works that address this issue, or is this simply an unresolved issue within the science of historical materialism?

[A.R.Amistad]

I found this in the German Ideology, and I think it might highlight our problem here. I have highlighted what I think Marx and Engels thought of the limitations of socialism before capitalism. I have highlighted the points that I think would be pre-capitalist socialism's limitations

Marx and Engels

This "alienation" [caused by private property] can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an "intolerable" power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity "propertyless", and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones.
Without this:


(1) communism could only exist as a local event;
(2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and
(3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism.


Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers — the utterly precarious position of labour — power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life — presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a "world-historical" existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

[bricolage]

If we speak as communism the ideal as a (vulgar definition of) 'stateless, classless society' I do think this was of course possible as a way of living prior to capitalism. However if we talk of communism as a movement to this ideal via working class revolution then this of course of was not as the working class did not exist in the way it does now. I guess then for me the question boils down to could we have reached communism through a different process than that which is necessitated now, I'm not sure but I'd be leaning towards the idea that yes we could have.

[Jolly Red Giant]

but again the Iroquois were composed of six different nations and were based on communal ownership.
The Iroquois system of communal ownership was similar to the clan system in Ireland up to its destruction in the mid 17th century. But like the Irish clan system - it also had a hierarchical structure. It was a primitive (for want of a batter word) form of society and like the Irish clan system was superseeded by colonial oppression rather than through its normal evolution to feudalism. It would have been impossible for the Iroquois to maintain their societal structure with the advance of capitalism in America - it just would not have been capable of the same level of production and wealth creation.