The End of History

[Kronsteen]

Most (not all) revolutionary leftists believe in an 'end of history'. That is, a final stage in human economic development, which once achieved has no possible sucessors and once established can't slide back into the previous stage.

That's not to say culture or technology will stop changing, or new problems will never be faced, or there won't be groups trying to reinstate an old system or overthrow the new.

For socialists the final stage is global socialism - after the initial wave of revolution and probably a few decades of building socialism, the idea is that human society will be socialist from that point onwards.

For anarchists it's similar - global self-determination. For primiativists it's a permanent return to agrarian living. And so on.

As I've said, not all revleftists believe this - some think the postrevolutionary state will need constant maintenance and protection, and may need overthrowing itself if it becomes corrupt. Others reject the notion of discrete 'stages' as idealist, and some are agnostic about the whole issue.

So what do you think? What does your tendency think? Are there any theorists who've looked seriously at the matter?

[Thirsty Crow]

As far as I can recall (and no, don't ask for sources, can't do it right now), Marx refered to the history of class societies as "pre-history of mankind" which comes to an end with the establishment of global communism, which is the beginning of the "real" history of mankind, not it's end.
I think that we shouldn't connect established global communism with the rhetoric of the "end of history" which is a gimmick of bourgeois ideology (Francis Fukuyama!).

In the end, I think we can safely conclude that global communism will establish its own developmental tendencies (for example...space colonization, to offer a most extreme example) which cannot be identified with the recognized tendencies of class societies. History will never cease (well, until at least two human beings are alive) and historiography will probably remain an important social endeavour which helps people understand their current state of existence.

[Jose Gracchus]

Its a Nietzschean gimmick, not a Marxian one. "The End of History and the Last Man" in Fukuyama's tard's book. The 'end of history' is when everyone's become a mediocrity [the nihilistic "last man", the counterpart to the Uebermensch] and greatness is no longer possible, according to Nietzsche.

[Kronsteen]

I think that we shouldn't connect established global communism with the rhetoric of the "end of history" which is a gimmick of bourgeois ideology (Francis Fukuyama!).

Well, Fukuyama didn't invent the term, and it's a nice catchy summary of an idea that doesn't depend on his, um, thinking.


As far as I can recall (and no, don't ask for sources, can't do it right now), Marx refered to the history of class societies as "pre-history of mankind" which comes to an end with the establishment of global communism, which is the beginning of the "real" history of mankind, not it's end.

That's fair enough, but perhaps I should clarify the question. Do you think that with the abolishment of the capitalist mode of production, and the establishment of a classless one, there will be no further modes of production after that?

I ask because most of the socialists I've spoken with take it as axiomatic that this is what would happen - because supposedly Marx said so. Except I don't recall Marx saying anything like it.

The remainder just say it's pointless to speculate.

I'm asking because in discussion of theory with comrades they generally think it's integral to marxism that (a) the mode of production after capitalism can't be anything other than socialism, and (b) the socialist mode must be the final one.

But I can think of no good reason to believe either.

[El Chuncho]

I am a realistic, I do not think the society I want to help bring about, a socialist one, will be the last stage in human developmental history. In the future greater societal changes will come that we cannot really imagine well at the moment. History will keep on going, mankind will keep on changing, as it has always done.

[Thirsty Crow]

That's fair enough, but perhaps I should clarify the question. Do you think that with the abolishment of the capitalist mode of production, and the establishment of a classless one, there will be no further modes of production after that?

I think that an argument grounded in Marxism - or in other words, historical materialism - would be "I don't know - maybe yes, maybe no".
I don't think that HM falls with the fall of the theory of stages (that is, modes of production) which stipulates the final one. Or more precisely - I don't think that HM would be discredited by a direct attack upon the presupposition that communism will be the final mode of production in the history of mankind

I don't think, for that matter, that this line of reasoning is useful when it comes to education and propaganda since its teleological strain leaves it vulnerable to all sorts of attack. The socialists you mention should drop it, quite frankly.

[ComradeOm]

As far as I can recall (and no, don't ask for sources, can't do it right now), Marx refered to the history of class societies as "pre-history of mankind" which comes to an end with the establishment of global communism, which is the beginning of the "real" history of mankind, not it's endHere (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm):

"The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonisms, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close"

So basically Marx is simply suggesting that after the abolition of capitalism we will no longer see societies formed on the basis of minority class rule. There may well be future social developments but they will not rest on the alienation of much of the population. Communism is therefore not the end of history but rather the end of class warfare

[Kronsteen]

There may well be future social developments but they will not rest on the alienation of much of the population. Communism is therefore not the end of history but rather the end of class warfare.

Ah, but that's precisely the question. You're saying that once class is gone, it can't come back, or emerge again with different classes. That however the details of the postrevolution mode of production change, there will never be a different mode - one with classes, and therefore with alienation and repression.

I'm asking: Is there any reason to believe this? Because I'm afraid it sounds awfully like an article of faith to me.

[ComradeOm]

Its not an article of faith; its a deduction from Marxist principles. Given that social revolution is driven by class antagonisms, it makes sense that the final abolition of these tensions (through the passing of the means of production from the minority to the majority) would similarly abolish both class society and the potential emergence of the latter

But then there are no eternal truths in Marxism. Where a new, post-communist, mode of production emerges it will not do so through the process that is familiar to us; Marxism, a study of capitalist society and its development, is no guide as to how this might occur

[Kronsteen]

Its not an article of faith; its a deduction from Marxist principles. Given that social revolution is driven by class antagonisms

The emergence of capitalism from feudalism was driven by class antagonisms, and that didn't abolish classes. The emergence of class society from classless prehistory was obviously not driven by class antagonisms, but it still happened.


it makes sense that the final abolition of these tensions (through the passing of the means of production from the minority to the majority) would similarly abolish both class society and the potential emergence of the latter

Why does it make sense? You're just assuming what you're setting out to prove - circular logic.


But then there are no eternal truths in Marxism. Where a new, post-communist, mode of production emerges it will not do so through the process that is familiar to us; Marxism, a study of capitalist society and its development, is no guide as to how this might occur

What 'process that is familiar to us'? When capitalism emerged from feudalism, it was when a minor class (the mercantilists), living in the cracks between the two major classes, became the new ruling class.

That's not going to happen again, according to Marx, because there are no cracks in capitalism for a minor class to live in.

But then you say marxism gives us no guide as to how this 'familiar process' might occur? If it's a familiar process, marxism should give us a guide, yes? And if marxism gives us no clue about how capitalism might be overthrown, what's all this stuff about workers' self-emancipation?

[Kenco Smooth]

Any speculation about a truly post revolutionary society and the historic trends that may emerge under it are seriously hampered by the fact we can't even begin to suppose just how a socialist society would take precise form. I think the section from the first chapter of volume 1 of Capital, on Aristotle and value, shows how futile trying to deduce future trends through the lenses that our society has built up in us is.


Aristotle therefore, himself, tells us what barred the way to his further analysis; it was the absence of any concept of value. What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. And why not? Compared with the beds, the house does represent something equal to them, in so far as it represents what is really equal, both in the beds and the house. And that is – human labour.

There was, however, an important fact which prevented Aristotle from seeing that, to attribute value to commodities, is merely a mode of expressing all labour as equal human labour, and consequently as labour of equal quality. Greek society was founded upon slavery, and had, therefore, for its natural basis, the inequality of men and of their labour powers. The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. This, however, is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the produce of labour takes the form of commodities, in which, consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities. The brilliancy of Aristotle’s genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, in the expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality. The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality.

[Rooster]

The emergence of capitalism from feudalism was driven by class antagonisms, and that didn't abolish classes. The emergence of class society from classless prehistory was obviously not driven by class antagonisms, but it still happened.

It abolished feudal class relations. The people in power had their economic basis on land, not through the accumlation of capital. We now no longer have serfs, guild masters, apprentices, feudal lords, knights and what not. Sure, in some countries there still are kings and queens but they exist now in a real minority and lack the context of what they had in feudal times. Class is related to the division of labour. So when productive forces grew in prehistory, with increased population, new technology, farming, metal working, pottery, different relations to production grew out of that. You got tribal leaders, slaves, subjected people, people who worked the land and people who organised it (or were involved in some spiritual role for harvest for example). This is the beginning of modern civilisation. From hunter gatheres where the means of production were pretty much evenly held in common to neolithic farmers, the bronze age, the age of writing.


What 'process that is familiar to us'? When capitalism emerged from feudalism, it was when a minor class (the mercantilists), living in the cracks between the two major classes, became the new ruling class.

That's not going to happen again, according to Marx, because there are no cracks in capitalism for a minor class to live in.

It was a minor class in terms of political clout. The same with the proletariat. There's lots of historical reasonings for why and how capitalism evolved. A few things were the growth in technology, the conquest of the new world, the black death (a good book to get would be "the making of the english working class"). For capitalism to evolve it had to do away with the old class system of serfs tied to the land so that labour could be concentrated in factories. For Marx, in capitalism, there doesn't need to be a minor class working within cracks.


But then you say marxism gives us no guide as to how this 'familiar process' might occur? If it's a familiar process, marxism should give us a guide, yes? And if marxism gives us no clue about how capitalism might be overthrown, what's all this stuff about workers' self-emancipation?

Why did Marx bother being involved with associations of workers? Why are most of his political works discussing proletariat and the bourgeoisie trembling in their boots?

[Kronsteen]

It's always nice to get a history lesson, but it would be nicer to get one that answers the questions being asked, Rooster.

The questions were:
1) What reason do we have for believing that a revolution against capitalism will remove all class relations, instead of creating new ones?
2) If there were to be a revolution which did abolish classes, why couldn't there be modes of production, with associated class structures, after capitalism but before socoalism.
3) Why couldn't there be further class-based modes after socialism?

These are pretty central questions. If the answer to all is "We don't know, we just chose to believe" then fair enough. If there are more rigorous answers, they certainly haven't been made widely known.

[caramelpence]

What reason do we have for believing that a revolution against capitalism will remove all class relations, instead of creating new ones?

The issue at hand is one of material scarcity. Marx's position, spelt out most clearly in The German Ideology but also in other important texts such as the 1859 Preface, is that a classless society requires a highly developed productive apparatus as its basis, because without having this developed apparatus it is likely that any attempt to establish a classless society will result in the generalization of material want and ultimately result in the formation of new class antagonisms. Marx also assumes, perhaps less explicitly, that the development of the productive forces up to the point where it becomes possible to abolish material scarcity and make a classless society viable can only take place in the conditions of class society because there needs to be a ruling class capable of restraining consumption and exercising control over the activity of the immediate producers in order to enable the expansion of the productive forces, whatever form that might take.

Given these premises, the overthrow of capitalism can enable the development of a classless society because it is only under the conditions of capitalist production that the forces of production become sufficiently developed to break the hold of material scarcity - that is, it is only under capitalism that the material preconditions for communism come into being. It was for this reason that Marx was, in the Manifesto and elsewhere, able to celebrate the achievements of capitalism and critique those socialists who looked back to the more primitive era of feudal guild-based production as a desirable political goal.

[Kronsteen]

a classless society requires a highly developed productive apparatus as its basis

Yes, so capitalism - or rather the technological development and creation of a large workforce that comes with it - is a necessary prerequisite for the workers to overthrow capitalism.

Necessary, but not sufficient for that overthrow to occur.

However this is not what I was asking about. The question you responded to was: What reason do we have for believing that a revolution against capitalism will remove all class relations, instead of creating new ones?

In other words, why should overthrowing capitalism result in socialism?

"Because Marx said so." is not obviously not an answer.

[ComradeOm]

The emergence of capitalism from feudalism was driven by class antagonisms, and that didn't abolish classesYes. This is not the case with a communist revolution. Or if it is nobody told me and I'd like to hand my party card back. After all, how can you have a society run by the workers in which the workers themselves are oppressed?


The emergence of class society from classless prehistory was obviously not driven by class antagonisms, but it still happened.Which is why I despise the term 'primitive communism': it is of absolutely no relevance to a post-capitalist society. It is not an earlier form of communism and it does not provide a template of any sort for what may or may not happen in communism. You cannot compare an organised industrial (or post-industrial, whatevs) society with a primitive hunter-gatherer society


Why does it make sense? You're just assuming what you're setting out to prove - circular logic.Fine, you tell me how a class society is going to emerge from a communist one. According to Marxism this is, barring some entirely unforeseen development, is impossible without pre-existing class antagonisms. That is, once workers are no longer alienated from the means of production, but in fact control them, then there is little to no scope for the emergence of a new minority rule. Which is not so much circular as pretty obvious


What 'process that is familiar to us'?Through the development of capitalism to date. Marxism does not present some divinely inspired theory of history or a complete understanding of all that ever was and ever will be. It is, put simply, fundamentally little more than a critique of capitalism and how capitalist society works. The further you move away from this central analysis then the less illuminating Marxist theory becomes

So no, I'm not going to stand up and declare with certainty that this is how post-communist society is going to work


When capitalism emerged from feudalism, it was when a minor class (the mercantilists), living in the cracks between the two major classes, became the new ruling class.

That's not going to happen again, according to Marx, because there are no cracks in capitalism for a minor class to live inAnd, on the base of this, did Marx conclude that the emergence of a communist society was impossible? Of course not! This is because Marx did not come up with a single historical straitjacket that every scenario must conform to. Rather he accepted that the transition from capitalism to communism would be as different as the transition from feudalism to capitalism was from the transition from antiquity to feudalism. And even all this talk of 'transitions' should not be taken to imply a single historical path that all nations must follow


And if marxism gives us no clue about how capitalism might be overthrown, what's all this stuff about workers' self-emancipation?Marxism, as I've noted above, is an exceptionally astute critique of capitalism. The downfall of the latter is one thing that Marx was particularly concerned about. His conclusion, based on the social trends under capitalism and observations from past history, was that the collapse of capitalism would see the emergence of a new class. This, the proletariat, would be the first historical rule of the majority and its interests would only be fulfilled through the abolition of all classes. To summarise. Marx could of course be wrong in this

[ar734]

I'm asking: Is there any reason to believe this? Because I'm afraid it sounds awfully like an article of faith to me.

I think there are actual facts which support the theory. With the Russian Revolution, capitalists as a class, were suppressed, usually by mass execution. By 1935 or so there were no more Russian capitalists in the Soviet Union. However, a new class, the bureaucracy, developed to control the working class. This new class began to corrode from the time of Stalin's death. Kruschev's first act was to condemn the crimes of Stalin. By the mid 1950's even Solzhenitsyn had been released from the gulag (after which he went to live in decidedly bourgeois Connecticut, which he later condemned as decadent.)

Finally, the bureaucratic class represented by Gorbachev collapsed. Since the socialist regime of the Soviet Union was never even close to being global, once the ruling class collapsed, it was inevitable that a reversion to a semi-capitalist state would develop. Russia seems to be a kind of gangster-capitalist, state-capital, ethnic Islamist, society.

The same process can be seen in Cuba, Vietnam, and most bizarrely, North Korea. Cuba, I think, is the closest to developing a classless society. The bureaucratic class is beginning to disintegrate. Whether Cuba will develop into another Russia is problematical.

[Jose Gracchus]

The only real attempt at a critique of Marx's account of classes is from Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Their version is the modern scientific industrial society involves thorough forms of alienation and social stratification apart from the property relations of capitalism: that is, the intellectual division of labor and control over the conditions of labor. They hypothesize that throughout the transformations to modern technological societies, a 'coordinator class', empowered via its unique access to the requisite control over information and relative authority in the workplace, as well as some control over the conditions of their labor and the labor of others, became a mediating force between the increasingly ephermal and depersonalized and legalistic institutions of capitalism especially statified and financialized capitalism. Or, in the case of Soviet-type states, became a servitor class which essentially merged with/served as/served in place of the conventional bourgeoisie in a particularly bureaucratic state form, accomplishing by brute force and political might, the formative stages of capital accumulation for a capitalist Great Power. Subsequently, this has dissolved back into a more conventional coordinator capitalism, either openly, however dysfunctionally, based on the Western model with its attendant political superstructure [Russia], or retaining the managerial mask of the Leninist party-state [China, Vietnam].

I find it weak in some places, stronger in others. I think more attention should be paid openly to the division of labor in Late Capitalism, as such, and the unique features of technological society vice the archetype of 19th C. capitalism. I kind of hold to some features of Albert and Hahnel's politics and left communist Marxism.

[Kronsteen]

I thank you (literally) for a most civil and useful post. Just two points:


Fine, you tell me how a class society is going to emerge from a communist one.

Perhaps the same way a bureaucracy emerged in Russia after the capitalists were removed. Who knows? Maybe an environmental disaster would mean food could only be grown in certain areas, which might give power to those few who could grow the food for everyone, and transport it.

The point is that there's no garruntee a new class - and therefore new class antagonisms - couldn't emerge in a communist world.

Now, if marxists can agree that post-capitalism communism isn't invulnurable - that's it's not an inherently eternal situation but one that requires maintenance, then fine. That's reasonable. What's not reasonable is to insist that it must be eternal, without giving some damn good reasons.


According to Marxism this is, barring some entirely unforeseen development, is impossible without pre-existing class antagonisms.

But class society did emerge from the classless society of primitive communism. And I agree with you, by the way, that that term is unhelpful. If Marx is really saying that class can't emerge from classlessness, he's forgetting his own ideas.

[Kronsteen]

I think there are actual facts which support the theory.

So...I ask you why, when class is gone, it can't come back.

And you respond with some history about how it did come back - when a new bureaucratic class emerged in Russia.

Then you say Russia post-Gorbachev is semi-capitalist.

And 'ethnic Islamist'?! WTF??!!

[ComradeOm]

Perhaps the same way a bureaucracy emerged in Russia after the capitalists were removedNot even the most ardent Stalinist would argue that the USSR was a classless society. This not an example of a socialist/communist society 'backsliding' into capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) but a socialist revolution failing

Who knows? Maybe an environmental disaster would mean food could only be grown in certain areas, which might give power to those few who could grow the food for everyone, and transport it.


The point is that there's no garruntee a new class - and therefore new class antagonisms - couldn't emerge in a communist world.And I'm not pretending that there is. We could all be killed by an asteroid tomorrow or I could spontaneously combust after eating a bad egg. I don't know. What we can say is that barring some unforeseeable and total catastrophe (ie, assuming that society continues to operate as normal) then there will be no re-emergence of class society

The other thing to note, and this is particularly relevant to 'primitive communism' is that we're talking of actual people here and not simply abstract trends. Any attempt to recreate class divisions will be opposed by the vast majority of a well-organised and technologically advanced population. This active opposition would be a serious hurdle to any wannabe capitalists and it could only be nullified by the most fantastical of circumstances (sudden and selective famine, asteroid impact, etc, etc). Outside of such a scenario then it is almost impossible to imagine how a minority could emerge, wrest control of the means of production from, well, everybody and establish themselves as a new ruling class


But class society did emerge from the classless society of primitive communism. And I agree with you, by the way, that that term is unhelpful. If Marx is really saying that class can't emerge from classlessness, he's forgetting his own ideas.No, he's just not treating his ideas as dogma. There are no fixed historical laws and every society emerges in its own fashion. Saying that X is impossible because Y happened several millennia years earlier is fundamentally un-Marxist. Be concious of historical trends but each society must still be studied on its own merits. Hell, Marx himself put it best:

"By studying each of these [various social evolutions] separately, and then comparing them, one will easily find the key to these phenomena, but one will never succeed with the master-key of a historico-philosophical theory whose supreme virtue consists in being supra-historical"

[Kronsteen]

Not even the most ardent Stalinist would argue that the USSR was a classless society.

Well, some of them did do just that. But only the most crazy.


This not an example of a socialist/communist society 'backsliding' into capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) but a socialist revolution failing

It depends what you mean by a 'revolution'. The overthrowing of the previous government was a success. The establishment of a new one was I think a success - for a few years Russia was very deeply democratic, with worker's council's running the factories.

Then it all went to hell. Maybe because the old order was never truely vanquished, maybe because the new one got incompetent and corrupt, I don't know - I've heard both confidently asserted by self-decribed experts.

Some (SWP organisers) have told me it's a 'universal historical law' that, for any shift from one mode of production to another, there must be a violent revolution. They used that to prove the USSR was state capitalist all along - because if it had been non-capitalist, it would have required a revolution to make it capitalist when Gorbachev came to power.

The same people told me it had been briefly genuinely socialist from 1917-c1923, then 'slipped' into stalinism and state capitalism...without a violent revolution.


Any attempt to recreate class divisions will be opposed by the vast majority of a well-organised and technologically advanced population.

Assuming they are organised, and spot what's going on soon enough, and don't act really stupidly or splinter into weak, warring factions etc.


There are no fixed historical laws

...which means when Marx assured us that the socialist mode must be the one after capitalism, he was...exaggerating. Fair enough.

The pasadasists (remember them?) would not be pleased to hear this.

[ComradeOm]

It depends what you mean by a 'revolution'. The overthrowing of the previous government was a success. The establishment of a new one was I think a success - for a few years Russia was very deeply democratic, with worker's council's running the factories.

Then it all went to hell. Maybe because the old order was never truely vanquished, maybe because the new one got incompetent and corrupt, I don't know - I've heard both confidently asserted by self-decribed expertsWell I'm going to add myself to the list of the latter and insist that Russia was never socialist. By the end of 1918, at the latest, the roots of Soviet democracy were deeply frayed. This was primarily because the bourgeoisie were not the only class liquidated during this period - the Russian proletariat was also decimated by famine, plague and civil war. The Soviet state created in 1917 could not survive the collapse of its class base and slowly toppled into tyranny. That it took over a decade for this process to complete (with the creation of the Stalinist system) should not detract from the crucial period of 1917-18. That period did not establish a lasting socialist society

Which is to simplify of course. The important thing is to note that history is never a matter of straight lines but that class remains at the centre of any real analysis


Some (SWP organisers) have told me it's a 'universal historical law' that, for any shift from one mode of production to another, there must be a violent revolution. They used that to prove the USSR was state capitalist all along - because if it had been non-capitalist, it would have required a revolution to make it capitalist when Gorbachev came to power.

The same people told me it had been briefly genuinely socialist from 1917-c1923, then 'slipped' into stalinism and state capitalism...without a violent revolution.Without going into the tortured nuances of Trotskyism, this is exactly the sort of vulgarism that gives Marxism a bad name. Marx himself devoted considerable time to fighting this sort of rigid historical determinism. Violence is often, understandably and for obvious reasons, the deciding factor in class warfare but it is simply false to say that there is any sort of "universal historical law" that dictates that this be the case


...which means when Marx assured us that the socialist mode must be the one after capitalism, he was...exaggerating. Fair enoughAgain, its a [/i]deduction[/i]. Marx believed that there was only one class that could possibly create a new society after the collapse of capitalism (which is by its nature unsustainable). This was the proletariat. Either the latter seizes power or civilisation regresses in catastrophic fashion. Socialism or barbarism, if you will

He did not derive this opinion simply by lifting past historical examples; rather it was the result of a lifetime spent examining the operation of capitalism and the growth, organisation and interaction of classes under it

[ar734]

So...I ask you why, when class is gone, it can't come back.

And you respond with some history about how it did come back - when a new bureaucratic class emerged in Russia.

Then you say Russia post-Gorbachev is semi-capitalist.

And 'ethnic Islamist'?! WTF??!!

Marx predicted that once the international capitalist class was suppressed then a workers' society could be established, ending the existence of class exploitation. Marx probably did not think that socialism could be developed by individual nation-states.

Somewhere in your question you asked why there was no reason to believe that classes in society would disappear after socialism. What I pointed out to you was that there is no reason to believe that the capitalist class is eternal or forever. This is not to say that the capitalist class cannot be partly dismantled and then recover in part. This is particularly true because of the international nature of capitalism. In fact, feudal society lasted in some parts of the world into the 20th century. In the U.S. slave-society made a comeback which lasted three centuries and only ended with the bloodiest war in U.S. history.

What I said was that a new class arose after the Russian capitalist class was supressed: the bureaucracy. Once the bureaucratic class and the Soviet state collapsed, then, Russia being mostly surrounded by international capitalism, reverted to a kind of gangster, semi-capitalist, semi-state capitalism.

As to "class" coming back, class in the Marxist sense is the economic exploitation of one part of society by another. Once all economic exploitation, slavery, suppression, is ended then the entire basis for the existence of class will have ended. If you believe there is another basis for class exploitation, then you will have to explain what it is. For now, economic exploitation is what will be destroyed, and with it the existence of class.

What part of "ethnic" and "Islamist" don't you understand?

[Kronsteen]

What part of "ethnic" and "Islamist" don't you understand?

In what sense is "Islamist" an "Ethnic" category?

In what sense is the former Soviet Union an "Ethnic" grouping?

In what sense is the former Soviet Union "Islamist"

What the hell do you mean by "Ethnic" anyway?

What the hell do you mean by "Islamist" anyway?

[ar734]

In what sense is "Islamist" an "Ethnic" category?

In what sense is the former Soviet Union an "Ethnic" grouping?

In what sense is the former Soviet Union "Islamist"

What the hell do you mean by "Ethnic" anyway?

What the hell do you mean by "Islamist" anyway?


east european, central asian, southeast asian, arabic islamists, among others.

a lot of islamists live in the former soviet union.

the former soviet union has a lot of different ethnic groups

ethnic: pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

islamist: somebody who practices islam.

[Kronsteen]

Marx probably did not think that socialism could be developed by individual nation-states.

As I recall, he explicitly said it couldn't.
(EDIT: I was wrong when I wrote this. Sorry.)


Somewhere in your question you asked why there was no reason to believe that classes in society would disappear after socialism. What I pointed out to you was that there is no reason to believe that the capitalist class is eternal or forever. This is not to say that the capitalist class cannot be partly dismantled and then recover in part.I asked whether there was any reason (not "no reason") to believe that (a) class must disappear after capitalism is overthrown, and (b) that class couldn't re-emerge in a post-capitalist classless society.

You answered a different question, and I reckon correctly. ComadeOm excellently answer the question I did ask.


Russia being mostly surrounded by international capitalism, reverted to a kind of gangster, semi-capitalist, semi-state capitalism. I'm not sure a state can be both "semi-capitalist" and "semi state-capitalist" at the same time, or even than "semi-capitalist" is even possible. But that's a detail for another time.


class in the Marxist sense is the economic exploitation of one part of society by another.No, class is the relationship of a group to the means of production. The mafia under Al Capone exploited prostitutes - that doesn't make the mafia or prostitutes a class. Though Al Capone was a capitalist.


Once all economic exploitation, slavery, suppression, is ended then the entire basis for the existence of class will have ended.Um, surely class is the basis for exploitation, not the other way around?

[Kronsteen]

ethnic: pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

islamist: somebody who practices islam.

The word for someone who practices Islam is "Muslim". The word Islamist is use by some (including some on the left) to refer to a follower of the Islam-coated ideology justifying terrorism.

If you really think Muslim is the same as Islamist...then you've been watching Fox news under hypnosis.

By you definition of "ethnic", cockneys, skatepunks and fans of The Rocky Horror Picture Show are all ethnicities.

[ar734]

Or maybe you don't believe religious ethnicity can be a political, economic force? Then, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, White Irish Catholics, White Northern Irish Protestants, Asian Buddhists, Indian Sikhs, Jamaican Rastahfarians, etc. etc., don't qualify as economic, political forces?

[Kronsteen]

Or maybe you don't believe religious ethnicity can be a political, economic force? Then, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, White Irish Catholics, White Northern Irish Protestants, Asian Buddhists, Indian Sikhs, Jamaican Rastahfarians, etc. etc., don't qualify as economic, political forces?

They can. They're just not ethnic groups.

And there's no such thing as 'religious ethnicity'. You're just using the word as a pretentious synonym of 'group'.

[ar734]

They can. They're just not ethnic groups.

And there's no such thing as 'religious ethnicity'. You're just using the word as a pretentious synonym of 'group'.

Well, you caught me, using a pretentious synonym.

[ar734]

Um, surely class is the basis for exploitation, not the other way around?

You could not be more wrong. It is the economic exploitation of one part of society by another which is the basis of class. It is slavery which produces the class of slaves and slave owners. Pre history humans lived in egalitarian, classless societies. What Marx and Engels called "primitive communism."

[Kronsteen]

You could not be more wrong. It is the economic exploitation of one part of society by another which is the basis of class. It is slavery which produces the class of slaves and slave owners.

I see. So you get capitalists and workers appearing from somewhere, with the former exploiting the latter...and at some point after doing this for a while, it stops being one group being unfair to another group, and becomes class society.

Amazing.

[robbo203]

Ah, but that's precisely the question. You're saying that once class is gone, it can't come back, or emerge again with different classes. That however the details of the postrevolution mode of production change, there will never be a different mode - one with classes, and therefore with alienation and repression.

I'm asking: Is there any reason to believe this? Because I'm afraid it sounds awfully like an article of faith to me.

I think there are strong prima facie grounds for thinking this will be the case.

Communism, after all, means a society in which goods are freely produced by voluntary labour and made freely available to individuals to take according to their self defined needs. All this would be underpinned by the institutional fact of comnmon ownership of the means of producing wealth.

The reinsurgence of class relationships of production - some new form of class society - would depend upon those attempting to introduce this class society to persuade or induce others to go along with it. Otherwise it cant happen. But how do you do this? How can you compete against a free access system where you can acquire what you want completely gratis? How can you can you gain the necessary economic or political leverage under these circumstances to compel individuals to work for you for a wage or whatever when the very fact of free access to goods and services would completely undermine the prospect of anyone exercising such leverage?

I cannot see any endogenous grounds for a communist society giving way to some new form of class society though there could be external reasons why this might happen . For instance, some catastrophic natural disaster that undermines and cripples the productive capacity of a communist society upon which free access to goods and services is fundamentally dependent

[ar734]

Amazing.[/QUOTE]

Appearing from somewhere?? Capitalism developed directly from Feudalism. Small feudal manufacturers began to increase the use of division of labor, hundreds of thousands of serfs were driven off feudal lands (enclosure) and into cities providing a huge work force for the small manufacturers; the rape of America provided the new capital.

There is nothing new about all this. Maybe you need to read the Communist Manifesto, Capital Chaps 1-10, Wages, Price and Profit.

It doesn't just stop. There is a revolution: French, Paris Commune, Russian, German, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Nicaragua....some of which failed, some of which were successful for a while, some of which are still ongoing.

It's obvious that none of the revolutions has developed into a classless society; the world is still controlled mostly by capitalism. But the world is moving toward a socialist society.

[Kronsteen]

Communism, after all, means a society in which goods are freely produced by voluntary labour and made freely available to individuals to take according to their self defined needs.

That is a decidedly utopian version of communism. Specifically, it says nothing about the need for central planning of production. If there's a need - self-defined or otherwise - for something, and a shortage of people volunteering to do it, then there's a problem.

This idea that everything can be produced or done by people deciding that's what they want to make or do - a world of hobbyists - only works if either
(a) everyone's free choice of labour magically matches everyone else's need, or
(b) there is a central government which assigns tasks as needed to those who've registered as willing and able to do them.

In short, I think you're conflated unalienated labour with enjoyable labour.


I cannot see any endogenous grounds for a communist society giving way to some new form of class society

Okay, that's reasonable and other's have made the same point. Class resurgence isn't impossible, but is very unlikely and would probably require some catastrophe.

[S.Artesian]

That's fair enough, but perhaps I should clarify the question. Do you think that with the abolishment of the capitalist mode of production, and the establishment of a classless one, there will be no further modes of production after that?

I ask because most of the socialists I've spoken with take it as axiomatic that this is what would happen - because supposedly Marx said so. Except I don't recall Marx saying anything like it.



Marx does say, in various iterations, that capitalist society is the last antagonistic mode of production, where the conditions of laboring stand in opposition to the labor process itself.

And without a class antagonism there is no determinants for, necessity for the abolition of the communist mode of production. The conflict between means and relations of production is resolved. The products of social labor exist as the products of social labor, consciously directed to the satisfaction of need.

That's what Marx says.

[S.Artesian]

It's always nice to get a history lesson, but it would be nicer to get one that answers the questions being asked, Rooster.

The questions were:
1) What reason do we have for believing that a revolution against capitalism will remove all class relations, instead of creating new ones?

Not all revolutions against capitalism will remove all class relations. All proletarian revolutions against capitalism, in order to be successful, must sustain a process of abolishing class distinctions through the conscious direction of social production, improving labor productivity, relations between city and countryside etc etc.

Why is that? Because the organization of society is based on the organization of labor and the conditions of labor; in order to abolish the conditions of labor, i.e. wage-labor, the proletariat has to abolish the organization of the means of production as private property. The proletariat exists as the proletariat only because capital exists as capital; each, proletariat and capital exists only in the organization of the other, so to abolish capitalism, the proletariat has to do away with itself, i.e. emancipate all social labor.




2) If there were to be a revolution which did abolish classes, why couldn't there be modes of production, with associated class structures, after capitalism but before socoalism.What would be that type of "intermediation" between capitalism and socialism? I mean other than "dictatorship of the proletariat"?

Modes of production are accompanied, represented, personified by classes that have essential, necessary relations to the property forms developed to "capture" social labor.

Where is that necessity for that property form leading to that "new mode of production"? If there is such a necessity, we should be able to see it evolving within the reproduction of capitalism itself; but we don't see any new classes, new property forms so evolving.




3) Why couldn't there be further class-based modes after socialism?
See above answers. What would be the social necessity of further class-based modes of production replacing socialism? Would the productivity of social labor be enhanced with a new class arrangement? A new dispossession of the producers from socially directing the production process? Would the creative, human prospects of unalienated labor be enhanced by estrangement of the products of social labor?

There is a logical [I]necessity to Marx's critique of capitalism, showing a) that the critique is an immanent-- i.e. internal to, based on the very terms of its own existence-- critique. and b) the immanent critique of capital, based on the conflicts and contradictions in capital, leads to the abolition of capital and its replacement by a mode of production which is not so conflicted; which does not need to reproduce classes.

Now you may disagree with that, but neither Marx nor those who agree with Marx are arguing from faith.

[robbo203]

That is a decidedly utopian version of communism. Specifically, it says nothing about the need for central planning of production. If there's a need - self-defined or otherwise - for something, and a shortage of people volunteering to do it, then there's a problem.

This idea that everything can be produced or done by people deciding that's what they want to make or do - a world of hobbyists - only works if either
(a) everyone's free choice of labour magically matches everyone else's need, or
(b) there is a central government which assigns tasks as needed to those who've registered as willing and able to do them.

In short, I think you're conflated unalienated labour with enjoyable labour..



If by "central planning" you mean society-wide planning ( i.e. one single mega-plan incorporating and linking up all society's inputs and outputs) then forget it. There is not a snowflakes chance in hell of this becoming realistically implementable and for all sorts of reasons (not the least of which is the "knowlege problem", meaning its simply not possible for decisionmakers to have all the necessary information at their finger tips to make informed decisions) . Realistically any advanced industrial modern economy has to entail some kind of feedback mechanism - like a self regulating system of stock control for instance

Which brings me to your description of communism as being "decidedly utopian" Actually no, quite the opposite. Why is it not possible to utilise the same kind of procedures based on calculation in kind to match up on a self regulating basis what people need with the labouyr required to produce these things? Why does it have to entail so called central planning? If people want more of good X and less of good Y meaning the labour requirements for X and Y respectively will accordingly alter why can not the factories producing X and the factories producing Y automatically convey such data about their altered labour requirements to institutions (like the communist equivalent of "job centres") where people can find out where their labour is needed in the first place?

I dont accept the Gorzian type dichotomy between alienated labour and hobby type work. You seem to share the same basic assumption that activities that are not, of their nature, hobbies - what Gorz called autonomous activities - must be alienated work so that any kind of cooperative work, for example (however enjoyable), must be alienated and alienating. To me that is not a particularly useful definition of alienation

[Kronsteen]

If by "central planning" you mean society-wide planning ( i.e. one single mega-plan incorporating and linking up all society's inputs and outputs) then forget it.

That's something of a strawman dichotomy. It's not like the only two alternatives are completely centralised control and no control at all.

There would have to be levels - what eurocrats like to call Subsidiarity. If a decision affects one factory, it gets made by the workers of that factory. If it affects all factories that make ball bearings, then it's they who decide. If it affects the lower half of Manhatten, then guess who participates in the decision making.

I think there would still need to be some central planning and administration, for issues that affect everyone, but there wouldn't be many of those.

I like your image of communist 'jobcenters', and yes, there's no reason why a well designed system of needs-calculation couldn't work. Of course, if it's badly designed, we're all in the shit.


I dont accept the Gorzian type dichotomy between alienated labour and hobby type work.

I said nothing to the effect that co-operative activities must be alienating - in any sense of the term. Nor did I say individual labour (ie. working on your own) is inherently less alienating, whether under capitalism or any other system.

[greenwarbler]

The end of history as subterfuge: All the talk of the end of history leaves one's head spinning: one wonders whether the inhabitants of the dark ages (or what later became known as such) thought to themselves (Nostradamus, for instance), that, as men were forgetting to read and write (his main concern was that they regularly bathe, and go outside on occasion), that the recording of history, and thus history in itself would come to an end.

If the project of historiography, historical analysis, consists primarily in that (in the recording of various facts of social and political import), then to suspect that an imminent end to history awaits us beyond the horizon is tantamount to expecting a meteor to impact the earth tomorrow! The old adage, "one step forwards, two back applies fittingly here, in this circumstance: that the capitalist mode of production rendered the ingabitants of the Old and New worlds slumbering denizens, casting them into a renewed superstitious ans mythologized stupor is attestable to the observation of reucing the ever-fluctuating an transient nature of human social relations to an entropic, ghost-like shell! IT is tantamount to religious observance (obeisance), complete with ritual, pomp and incense!


Now, when Marx spoke of the present era (or, perhaps his own: the industrial era) as one reflecting the turn from "prehistory to history of man," what he intended -- what he meant in writing those words was that, with the advancement of technology, and the development of the means of communication and transportation, the human species was, in fact, entering a new era, by means of which the socially-oriented (and socially-rooted) human species develops -- through the process of social evolution -- beyond the short-sighted creature, constantly fending for security and shelter in the next moment. Modern man, meant Marx, doesn't have to worry about such things, and can orient himself, instead, to those tasks of personal enrichment and development of the personality, in the carrying out of which the introduction of man into _his own_ history could _begin_!

The above is a revolutionary statement, in the least! Now, being that social evolution entails all manner of "cramping"; popular social struggles, mass walk-outs, strikes, picketing, demonstrations -- even popular uprisings, as witnessed, at present in Tunisia, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, etc (this is not even to speak of the ongoing, decades- long social struggles in various other parts of the world: the Sun Belt in China, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba-- even the United States, to name a few). These uprisings, struggles, strikes, conflicts and other events of public concern (political and social import) then render themselves as the stuff of modern history, in addition to what exists/ To suggest that "history has come to an end", in this context, is akin to arguing that "one and one makes eleven", and being satisfied with this equation!

[Queercommie Girl]

The Soviet state created in 1917 could not survive the collapse of its class base and slowly toppled into tyranny.


The "tyranny" of "Stalinism" is nothing compared with the tyranny of the militaristic nomads under Genghis Khan that you so admire.

I've always wondered why is it that some idiots always like to apply a double standard between modernity and antiquity when it comes to "imperialism" and "tyranny". Were the common people of the ancient world "sub-human" relative to modern-day masses so that the same standards of "human rights" cannot be applied to them?

One argument is that "moral consciousness" has fundamentally changed throughout the ages, so that the massacre of civilians that would be unacceptable today was actually "acceptable" in the ancient world. But this is obviously factually false. Ancient writers spoke against wanton destruction in war thousands of years before the present. There has been no "qualitative shifts" in the general "moral consciousness" of humanity. Today's neo-fascists are just as vicious as any militarist of the ancient world.

"Stalinism" is very flawed in many ways, but one simply cannot rely on Western bourgeois sources that intentionally try to demonise the USSR as much as possible, including the ridiculous Cold War scaremongering of a "Soviet invasion of the West".

[robbo203]

That's something of a strawman dichotomy. It's not like the only two alternatives are completely centralised control and no control at all..

There would have to be levels - what eurocrats like to call Subsidiarity. If a decision affects one factory, it gets made by the workers of that factory. If it affects all factories that make ball bearings, then it's they who decide. If it affects the lower half of Manhatten, then guess who participates in the decision making.


Like I said, it depends on what you mean by "central planning" which is the term you brought up. If you mean central planning in its classical sense of "society-wide" planning and the complete cooordination of inputs and outputs with a single plan then that is a non starter.

I fully realise that there are degrees or levels of control but my point was to try to get you to see that if you rule out a priori society-wide central planning then necessarily you have to incorporate a feedback mechanism in your model of a post capitalist society. There are no ifs or buts in this case. The one thing follows from the other. So in this sense we are not talking about a strawman dichotomy at all.

If you then accept the need for some kind of feedback mechanism then there is the answer to your question of how do you relate labour inputs to the expressed needs of consumers. The answer is that just as production units in a moneyless communist society will respond to changes in the pattern of demand via a self regulating or self adjusting system of stock control so too will these same production units be able to indicate their changing labour requirements in precisely the same way - through calculation in kind. An individual production unit faced with an increased demand (from the distribution centres) for a particular good as expressed via the self regulating system of stock control will be able to calculate more or less what this means in terms of increased labour inputs and accordingly transmit its labour requirements to the appropriate agency or "job centre" so that the population at large can clearly see where their labour is required.



I think there would still need to be some central planning and administration, for issues that affect everyone, but there wouldn't be many of those.

Of course. Although i would suggest that a communist society would see a marked shift towards more localised production and decisionmaking and for all sorts of reasons this would be no bad thing. In other words subsidiarity would surely figure more prominently as a principle of communist organisation




I like your image of communist 'jobcenters', and yes, there's no reason why a well designed system of needs-calculation couldn't work. Of course, if it's badly designed, we're all in the shit.
.

We are not reinventing the wheel here. This is a very important point to grasp. The infrastructure and the mechanisms that a future communist society would utilise are not something that need to be somehow magicked into existence. This infrastrucuture and these mechanisms already exist within a capitalist society. It is simply not possible to organise a moden system of production without calculation in kind. Look at you local supermarket. How does it monitor the flow of items displayed on its shelves? The answer is calculation in kind. Of course in capitalism, alongside this "natural" accounting system, you have a monetary accounting system. It is this latter system that a communist society would dispense with but no society can do without the former



I said nothing to the effect that co-operative activities must be alienating - in any sense of the term. Nor did I say individual labour (ie. working on your own) is inherently less alienating, whether under capitalism or any other system.

Well, possibly I might have misread you from your characterisation of full voluntaristic, "free access" communism - what Marx called the higher stage of communism and you seemingly dismissed as utopian. Your argument seemed to be that you cannot reasonably rely on labour being applied at whim and along the lines of a "hobby" and that it has to be integrated within a wider structure that connects labour requirements to consumer needs (albeit entailing a degree of alienation in contrast to hobby type activities). My point is simply that it is quite possible to connect labour requirements to consumer needs with labour still nevetheless being voluntaristically and freely contributed rather than coerced as under a class system