Socialism or Barbarism?

[Amphictyonis]

What do you make of Istvan Meszaros book title and Luxemburgs use of the phrase. Friedrich Engels also said that society must advance to socialism or revert to barbarism (what did he mean when he said this?). Speaking of Meszaros book I think he has some good insight. If you want to talk about that we can but my main point or question here is do you think Marx put forth a breakdown theory? Not a theory which says socialism is inevitable and we should do nothing but a theory that capitalism will inevitably collapse and if we don't facilitate a socialist revolution humanity will be fucked.

It's controversial, breakdown theory, so can we keep it civil? I don't think breakdown theory suggests we should wait until 'the end of capitalism' for revolution but within breakdown theory is a critique of crisis. The crisis, Marx said, would become worse and worse- once capitalism was truly global with all of the nation states economies intertwined is when the big bang of crisis would happen (the breakdown).

My personal view is we must facilitate a socialist revolution before the total breakdown happens and I think it is likely this will happen during one of the worsening crisis'.We're in a period of crisis now and I look at is as a test for the next crisis. I honestly think, in America, were dropping the ball and it scares me. No one knows how many more crisis capitalism can take. I think it unlikely a socialist revolution will happen during a capitalist boom period so another question is how many more chances are we going to have?

I know many people believe capitalism can be overthrown during a boom period and we can discuss that as well. I'm not closed to the possibility and would welcome it with open arms but I just don't see it happening. If you can convince me otherwise I'd probably be a happier person :)

[¿Que?]

Marx seems to suggest it here:

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#a3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

[Amphictyonis]

Marx seems to suggest it here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/grossman/1929/breakdown/ch02.htm

http://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/historical-materialism-and-the-inevitable-end-of-capitalism/economic-crises-the-breakdown-theory-and-the-struggle-against-revisionism-in-the-german-social-democracy/

[graymouser]

Well, in the period of World War I and II, I think "socialism or barbarism" seemed like a choice that was being actively made, and - given the rise of fascism and the Great Depression - it looked like barbarism was on the upswing. So certainly Luxemburg's claim and its popularity has to be viewed in that context.

Today, the form of the alternative has become quite clearly posed: if we do not end capitalism, with its propensity to create climate change, wars, and economic crises, we will reach a point where civilization as we know it will break down. I think that ecological catastrophe will seal the deal, but the truth is that a sudden end of the long superpower truce could do it as well. Capitalism is fundamentally an unstable system, and will continue to build instability as long as it is allowed to continue, and eventually it will go beyond the ability of politics to contain. We can't predict what precise form it will eventually take, and I don't think that socialist revolution requires the "final crisis" of capitalism per se. But we need to get to it before it's too late.

[MarxSchmarx]

Today, the form of the alternative has become quite clearly posed: if we do not end capitalism, with its propensity to create climate change, wars, and economic crises, we will reach a point where civilization as we know it will break down. I think that ecological catastrophe will seal the deal, but the truth is that a sudden end of the long superpower truce could do it as well.

I'm very skeptical that capitalism must destroy the environment and civilization. It sure is headed that way, but this is primarily because of teh issue of externalities. Externalities are not inherent to capitalism. Already the first world is by and large makign the necessary corrections as it applies to climate change issues. Moreover, we don't live in an "anarcap" fantasyland, and state governments can do things like subsidize solar energy and electric cars - developments that are arguably accelerated in authoritarian capitalist regimes like China.

I think a good analogy is the anti-trust movement. It looked like capitalism woudl inevitably create large conglomerates and monopolies that would immeserate everyone, especially in the advanced capitalist countries. This didn't happen because the state intervened, albeit to varying degrees of success. Capitalists now proceed just as smugly as ever, having given up their dream of controling all facets of people's economic lives through a single monopoly.

My guess is that the environemtnal crisis would probably have a similar trajectory. What we'll see is a "greener" capitalism that, while better than driving the human race extinct, is still barbaric.

[blake 3:17]

I'm very sympathetic to Luxemburg. Her misunderstanding of the National Question I think reveals a much deeper problem with her conception of what Socialism is. Her dreck on the Ukranians I find revolting (and not in the good sense).

Her conflation of Marxism as a science of economic crisis and a political theory of revolutionary action works to a degree, but...

Later...

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm very skeptical that capitalism must destroy the environment and civilization. It sure is headed that way, but this is primarily because of teh issue of externalities. Externalities are not inherent to capitalism. Already the first world is by and large makign the necessary corrections as it applies to climate change issues. Moreover, we don't live in an "anarcap" fantasyland, and state governments can do things like subsidize solar energy and electric cars - developments that are arguably accelerated in authoritarian capitalist regimes like China.

I think a good analogy is the anti-trust movement. It looked like capitalism woudl inevitably create large conglomerates and monopolies that would immeserate everyone, especially in the advanced capitalist countries. This didn't happen because the state intervened, albeit to varying degrees of success. Capitalists now proceed just as smugly as ever, having given up their dream of controling all facets of people's economic lives through a single monopoly.

My guess is that the environemtnal crisis would probably have a similar trajectory. What we'll see is a "greener" capitalism that, while better than driving the human race extinct, is still barbaric.

Well it's true that capitalism is very wily and dynamic when it comes to reinventing itself to avert a revolution or collapse, but I think that graymouser's argument still holds. Sure it may not be ecological disaster just as it did not turn out to be a nuclear war a generation ago, but the inherent instability of the system and short-sighted drive for profits and other built-in features of the system mean that if it is not one thing it may well be another that crops up.

[graymouser]

I'm very skeptical that capitalism must destroy the environment and civilization. It sure is headed that way, but this is primarily because of teh issue of externalities. Externalities are not inherent to capitalism. Already the first world is by and large makign the necessary corrections as it applies to climate change issues. Moreover, we don't live in an "anarcap" fantasyland, and state governments can do things like subsidize solar energy and electric cars - developments that are arguably accelerated in authoritarian capitalist regimes like China.

I think a good analogy is the anti-trust movement. It looked like capitalism woudl inevitably create large conglomerates and monopolies that would immeserate everyone, especially in the advanced capitalist countries. This didn't happen because the state intervened, albeit to varying degrees of success. Capitalists now proceed just as smugly as ever, having given up their dream of controling all facets of people's economic lives through a single monopoly.

My guess is that the environemtnal crisis would probably have a similar trajectory. What we'll see is a "greener" capitalism that, while better than driving the human race extinct, is still barbaric.
Actually, I think your view here is much too optimistic. If you follow the material that green socialists have been putting out (particularly John Bellamy Foster, who's written four valuable books on capitalism and the environment in the last fifteen years), the problem is that capitalism suffers inherently from the Jevons Paradox: technological increases in efficiency lead to increased resource consumption because, instead of simply consuming less, capitalism leverages this efficiency to produce more commodities at a cheaper price. Capitalism's inherent requirement for growth means that, unless energy consumption is absolutely regulated by the state, there is no degree of technological sophistication that will actually prevent continued climate change.

What "adjustments" do you see being made by the first world already that are sufficient? If we are going to rule out large ecological catastrophes in the next century, carbon levels need to be sharply reduced within the next 10 years. Even optimistic predictions don't call for anything like this. Switching to more efficient technologies in a few places isn't going to cut it here, you need to actually drastically reduce industrial carbon emissions (since industrial use is something like 75%-80% of all energy usage).

[MarxSchmarx]

Actually, I think your view here is much too optimistic. If you follow the material that green socialists have been putting out (particularly John Bellamy Foster, who's written four valuable books on capitalism and the environment in the last fifteen years), the problem is that capitalism suffers inherently from the Jevons Paradox: technological increases in efficiency lead to increased resource consumption because, instead of simply consuming less, capitalism leverages this efficiency to produce more commodities at a cheaper price. Capitalism's inherent requirement for growth means that, unless energy consumption is absolutely regulated by the state, there is no degree of technological sophistication that will actually prevent continued climate change.

I'm not up on Foster's works, but is the essence of the argument that the material production of ever more commodities is ecologically unsustainable? On some level I think this is correct, but I don't think this problem is unique to capitalism - after all, there is no reason to believe that we won't want ever more "stuff" under socialism or communism for that matter - even if it's more video games, more pencils, vaccines, etc... So while capitalism exacerbates this problemwith its wasteful production, some variant of Jevon's paradox is not unique to capitalism.


What "adjustments" do you see being made by the first world already that are sufficient? If we are going to rule out large ecological catastrophes in the next century, carbon levels need to be sharply reduced within the next 10 years. Even optimistic predictions don't call for anything like this. Switching to more efficient technologies in a few places isn't going to cut it here, you need to actually drastically reduce industrial carbon emissions (since industrial use is something like 75%-80% of all energy usage).

I never said anything about the lame efforts currently being undertaken as "sufficient." If all of Europe, America and China used wind and solar (and I guess dams) for power generation, got carbon trading working right, at least as a tool to control externalities, and switched to biofuels using algae and the development of practical electric vehicles, then I would say some of the worst outcomes of climate change could be mitigated. And frankly I don't think those changes are beyond the realm of capitalism to adopt. But I cannot comment at all on whether these would be "sufficient".

I'm also not sure how much stock I would put into the large catastrophe models. We know very little about how the ocean currents respond to climate change, and even less in terms of how the biosphere responds. I agree a precautionary approach is desperately needed - it's also the case that some of the powerful capitalist class thinks this as well, especially in areas that aren't directly elated to energy production or consumption like say finance, medicine or high tech industries. And these worst case scenario models do provide us some foundation for proceeding. It could very well be that dengue fever arrives in Japan and the breadbasket of America moves north from prairie states to Calgary or something. But I don't see us crashing back to the stone age, and switching to more efficient technologies in China and America alone would probably go a long way towards reducing carbon emissions.


Well it's true that capitalism is very wily and dynamic when it comes to reinventing itself to avert a revolution or collapse, but I think that graymouser's argument still holds. Sure it may not be ecological disaster just as it did not turn out to be a nuclear war a generation ago, but the inherent instability of the system and short-sighted drive for profits and other built-in features of the system mean that if it is not one thing it may well be another that crops up.

I agree that capitalism is unsustainable. I also agree that it is systematically flawed, and that it carries within it the kernel of its own destruction, for many of the reasons mentioned sooner or later it will end. I just don't think it will drive the human race extinct or even blast us back into the stone age.

[Amphictyonis]

Marx seems to suggest it here:

I'm more so talking about crisis/breakdown theory -the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Many of us see the system as impermanent no matter what. This doesn't mean socialism will automatically take hold when capitalism's crisis become worse and worse- it means we need to be more urgent. Capitalism cannot go on forever so we have a choice between socialism ASAP or when capitalism collapses....barbarism. I'm not sure if the inevitable breakdown of capitalism will be economic crisis or environmental.


An interesting read-


http://www.marxists.org/archive/grossman/1929/breakdown/

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem with the "final breakdown" stuff actually begs the question of collapses in earlier modes of production: were they inevitable at that point in time? I reckon that European feudalism and bureaucratized petty commodity production in Asia could have gone longer. I also reckon that ancient planned economies like in Egypt and in Central America could have gone longer.

[Amphictyonis]

The problem with the "final breakdown" stuff actually begs the question of collapses in earlier modes of production: were they inevitable at that point in time? .

No. I think capitalism is an entire different beast. If capitalism wasnt globalized with completley integrated markets then the chance for a global breakdown would be nil. Marx said the crisis would get worse and worse- once the system has become truly global the worsening crisis would effect the entire world. So we need to either have a socialist revolution before this happens or live in a state of barbarism after the capitalist system breaks down.

If anything breakdown/crisis theory makes the case for socialism a more urgent endeavor. We have a time limit before everything turns to shit (not that capitalism isn't shit- things can get worse for mankind). Breakdown theory isn't meant to say "hell capitalism will just go away on it's own and when it does socialism will just magically take it's place". It's meant to show that (even though Marx didn't use the term fascism) humanity would most likely either revert to barbarism/fascism after the collapse of capitalism. There needs to be a mass movement to overthrow capitalism before this happens or at the very least to make the transition while the collapse is taking place. The former is the more desirable of the two options. The sooner we can discard capitalism the better.

I think the only people who think capitalism can go on forever are capitalists. I always laugh when I see them declare 'the end of history'. We're in the advanced stages of capitalism now- in Lenins time he thought the advanced stage of capitalism had been met. This simply wasn't the case. Only just now are we truly seeing global integration/the necessary pre conditions for a successful global revolution.

If I were a fortune teller I'd say a revolution in China/Asia is key since much of global industry is located there but material condition's will have to sharply decline in the US which would result if China went socialist (or if another more severe crisis takes place). If this happens a war between China and the US would likely happen unless there is a mass movement of workers in the US to demand a switch in economic systems (facilitate revolution). I don't see socialism/communism arising from the third world or smaller second world Latin nations. I think China/India/Russia/US are all key to the transformation of our global economic system.

The question then arises, what will spark socialist revolutions in China, Russia and the US? Class consciousness of course but what will create this mass movement? What will set the stage for mass acceptance of our ideology?


(sorry for the long post)

[blake 3:17]

Then you get into the question of revolutions for their own sake.

I took part in a pretty lively study group on Rosa Luxemburg last year, and there was a general consensus the revolutionary politics she advanced were NOT premised on the economic collapse she held to be true true true.

On one level I felt an intellectual relief that the predictive science wasn't the key ingredient to an emancipatory socialist practice.

But then what?


There needs to be a mass movement to overthrow capitalism before this happens or at the very least to make the transition while the collapse is taking place. The former is the more desirable of the two options. The sooner we can discard capitalism the better.

I would probably phrase it in a different more positive way -- We need to build democratic socialism not premised on a benign state formation. On so many levels, the radical and revolutionary forces are essentially pushing for a kind Social Democracy. Most of the actual movements aims are small s & d social democratic -- basic redistribution, extended and generous public services, achieving basic gender and racial equity, establishing or maintaining basic common provisions for the young, elders and disabled -- but that doesn't mean that our methods are necessarily tied to bourgeois or self proclaimed revolutionary rules. The left turns in Russia and China seem a reasonable proof that Left Socialism from above doesn't work well for millions and millions of people. The only revolution that has worked well for the majority, without provincial insanities and displacement, has been the Cuban revolution. I think the reasons why the Cuban revolution has done as well is very complicated and contradictory.


The question then arises, what will spark socialist revolutions in China, Russia and the US? Class consciousness of course but what will create this mass movement? What will set the stage for mass acceptance of our ideology?

Revolts and large scale rebellions will happen. When people get fucked over they fight back. The French Revolution of 1789 started with bread riots years earlier. The French Revolution of 1871 (otherwise known as the Paris Commune) started with a series of rent strikes.

I don`t think there is a particular method, strategy or tactic for `mass acceptance of our ideology`. There are ideas and histories to learn, there are particular social struggles to fight for, there are mass struggles which errupt and for the socialist-commmunist-anarchist Left we push for equality, democracy, internationalism, community-labour alliances and the end of gender racial and sexual oppression. The exact means we use need to be fluid.

[Amphictyonis]

Revolts and large scale rebellions will happen. When people get fucked over they fight back. The French Revolution of 1789 started with bread riots years earlier. The French Revolution of 1871 (otherwise known as the Paris Commune) started with a series of rent strikes.

I don`t think there is a particular method, strategy or tactic for `mass acceptance of our ideology`.

You just said it, declining material conditions :)

[KurtFF8]

Not a theory which says socialism is inevitable and we should do nothing but a theory that capitalism will inevitably collapse and if we don't facilitate a socialist revolution humanity will be fucked.

This actually can constantly be found in Marx, who said throughout various writings that it's possible that socialism wouldn't be achieved and that the "ruin of every class" could be a result.

Granted he often sounded like socialism was inevitable, but to what extent that was usually a form of politics instead of theory is an interesting question.