Are there stages after socialism/communism?

[Questionable]

One of my main arguments against capitalism is how the economic modes have changed with the flow of history, so even if one believes that capitalism is working for us now, things will inevitably change that will necessitate the formation of a new society, much like the fall of feudalism.

However, I had the sudden realization that I can turn this theory against itself; if capitalism is just a stage in history that will pass, does the same thing apply to communism?

[Loony]

This is a very interesting question and have been wondering about this myself. You put it in better words than I could have!

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

One of my main arguments against capitalism is how the economic modes have changed with the flow of history, so even if one believes that capitalism is working for us now, things will inevitably change that will necessitate the formation of a new society, much like the fall of feudalism.

However, I had the sudden realization that I can turn this theory against itself; if capitalism is just a stage in history that will pass, does the same thing apply to communism?

It is not the same case with communism. Communism will be the supreme return to human nature; the ultimate syntheisis in dialectics.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

No it doesn't apply to Communism. Marx said this is the final class struggle. When transformation from Capitalism to Communism occurs, economically and socially, it'll have no need to revert back. When their is classlessness and statelessness everyone is free, (A former slave who has freedom will not ask to be enslaved once more. It's against human nature) and production returns to it's original aim, to provide the necessities for society.

The only reason why Communism would reverse itself back to Capitalism is if the people wished to become enslaved again.

[hatzel]

There is no end of history. Nor, I would argue, are there discrete 'stages' to transition between. Which may in fact suggest that the answer is 'no,' but not for the expected reasons...

[Manic Impressive]

The whole history of the world is the history of class struggle. Class struggle has precipitated every change in the means of production. If classes are abolished then that factor is gone. That doesn't mean that things can't change. But I can garuntee you that none of us will be around to see it, if it does happen, so why worry about it.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Definitely. Every thing in history is finite, humanity is finite, at some time the sun will burn out, in a couple billion years. All Systems have careers. Communism will have a career, it's career will though most likely end with humanity.

[Nox]

Possibly. However it's so far ahead that we can't predict what it will be like.

[Rocky Rococo]

If we look at the history of "existing socialism" we see that its great failure was to become reactionary and suppress the forces pushing beyond statist communism. The terrible consequence of the intransigence of the "existing socialist" elite was to throw all of society back into the capitalist fire rather than accept the removal of total social and economic control from the party caste by the workers.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Once there is full automation of production, things will be difficult to predict where humanity will go. I do think that the more time humans have, the more civilised humans are. But one really can't say what sort of new institutions or interests will come once the working class is nearly abolished or becomes a minority, therefore a communist society will always need to be rather planned, at least make sure all work equally. Al systems have their end.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

If we look at the history of "existing socialism" we see that its great failure was to become reactionary and suppress the forces pushing beyond statist communism. The terrible consequence of the intransigence of the "existing socialist" elite was to throw all of society back into the capitalist fire rather than accept the removal of total social and economic control from the party caste by the workers.

Yes, i agree. I have a theory that once the USSR reached socialism (or state capitalism, centralised economy) and was forced to liberalise their markets to increase their capital accumulation "growth", instead, this should have been the time when money should have been replaced by labor vouchers and then the end of capital. Always take the road to communism, not capital-ism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm more concerned about achieving communism and less about what, if anything, might come after it.

[hatzel]

Oh, look what I just noticed:


A former slave who has freedom will not ask to be enslaved once more. It's against human nature

I'd just like to take this opportunity to quickly point out that everything you've written here flies in the face of both reality and meaning...

[Kronsteen]

It is not the same case with communism. Communism will be the supreme return to human nature; the ultimate syntheisis in dialectics.

Leaving aside strident mystical gibberish like the above quote, the OP has an intelligent question.

The usual answer is that societies move from stage to stage when conflicts between economic classes are resolved - by one class winning.

In communism, class itself has been abolished, so obviously classes can't clash.

There is though the possibility that new classes may emerge from a classless society. After all, classes did emerge from primitive communism, thousands of years ago. People will still have emotions like greed and the need to dominate others in the future, so capitalism or some other exploitative system might get a hold.

If that happens, we'll have to re-establish classlessness again by defeating the new expoliters. And that's a fight we might lose. So no, communism isn't the end of history.

That doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for. Just that the fight never quite ends.

[Manic Impressive]

In my opinion if it were to happen the main cause would be complacency. If your needs are provided for and life is all good then you've got the choice between voting on how much bread to produce or going to the beach...you start to think why bother it won't matter. More and more people do this and that leaves all the decisions up to a minority who do take an active interest in the running of society. More power is given to these people who then become the de-facto rulers, a new class out of a classless society.

That's just one scenario, but it is really pointless spending too much time thinking about it, it's like a Roman slave trying to imagine what capitalism would be like.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Oh, look what I just noticed:



I'd just like to take this opportunity to quickly point out that everything you've written here flies in the face of both reality and meaning...
Name one slave who had the means to survive outside slavery would wish to become a slave again? In regards to meaning, what are you speaking of? The unwillingness to be restrained by an entity is slavery, isn't it not?

[Igor]

(A former slave who has freedom will not ask to be enslaved once more. It's against human nature)

And man I thought we were opposed to all those human nature arguments!

But anyways, sure who knows. I really hate the idea some people here that history is some kind of script people will eventually follow. There is no end of history, there is necessarily no communism ever achieved nor there is no way to be certain that things won't go bad again. The notion that history is some fate-like construction that improves all the time for the workers until we hit the end stage and stay for apparently for eternity is both absurd and idealistic as fuck. Read less Hegel.

[roy]

i don't think the fact that society is constantly changing is an argument against trying to build a better society, anyway

[Igor]

i don't think the fact that society is constantly changing is an argument against trying to build a better society, anyway

Indeed, it's an argument for it, because the fact that society is constantly changing is precisely what makes what we fight for possible. And perhaps after a bit more revolutionary situation, would encourage people to hold tight to what has been achieved. Society is in constant emotion and where it goes can't really be predicted, thus communism should never taken for granted or we'd end up never seeing one drop of it.

[Thirsty Crow]

One of my main arguments against capitalism is how the economic modes have changed with the flow of history, so even if one believes that capitalism is working for us now, things will inevitably change that will necessitate the formation of a new society, much like the fall of feudalism.This doesn't follow.
At best, referring to past modes of production can point to the historical nature of human social organization - that different modes of this organization are nothing like obvious, natural and eternal, but subject to transformation. This simple fact can counter the deep seated notion of capitalism being a "natural" phenomenon.

But this says nothing of the inevitable fall of capitalism. You should rather focus on the way capital is being accumulated and show how this leads to disastrous social consequences.


However, I had the sudden realization that I can turn this theory against itself; if capitalism is just a stage in history that will pass, does the same thing apply to communism?
Well obviously, this applies to communism as well: it is not the endpoint of history, though again the point here is, at least from the perspective of historical materialism, that modes of production don't change for no reason whatsoever, that the development of productive powers, at a given point, necessitates certain social relations of production. In other words, you would have to show how communist relations of production can become obsolete, a fetter on further development of productive powers of mankind. And from there on it's speculation all the way.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Theoretically class struggle will be gone so it wouldn't be like some new historically progressive stage in the same way we think of feudalism to capitalism to socialism.

But other changes to production or other circumstances fundamental to human survival may create new possibilities. It would be impossible to know what those might be just as it would be impossible for a man living in a feudal commune to think of a proletarian revolution - simply stated, the proletarians that did exist at that time were few in number and marginal to the feudal system, so they just didn't exist as a revolutionary class yet.

Some utopian fiction with a post-capitalist viewpoint (not necessarily socialist/communist) tries to imagine what future conflicts might look like after there is no scarcity. One motif of these post-scarcity utopias is that once material issues are no long a concern the "next frontier" is eliminating all material concerns through some kind of post-human melding of technology and human consciousness - in other words, not only would humanity not be constrained by the needs of producing our own material survival (food, homes, things to make life happier) the goal would be to get rid of all constraints of the material world - no longer having to deal with gravity, bad weather, germs, or physical death itself because consciousness could exist in a V.R. world created by consciousness.

In some ways I think these ideas are interesting, in other ways I think it's petty-bourgeois utopian fantasies that imply that technological development (i.e. the labor done by petty-bourgeois professionals), not subjective action by humans (let alone the working class) will advance humanity.

[ckaihatsu]

[If] capitalism is just a stage in history that will pass, does the same thing apply to communism?


The way I like to think of it is that a post-capitalist society will be a 'single-interest' economy, instead of the current class-divided economics we have today. With the removal of all causes of material, economic, and social friction, how would that change the nature of history -- ?

We might look to certain "sub-areas" that exist today that are somewhat "insulated" from the blistering winds of class antagonism. Most accumulations of private property and many sectors of large state policy could be examples here -- both are 'institutionalized' and respected as pretty much inviolate. I'm thinking of fixed, stagnant capital investments, military-based syndicalism, and social service entitlement programs, though I'm sure there are other examples as well.

How do "insulated" sectors behave, internally, and in what ways are they communistic -- ? I'd note that, for starters, they *don't make the news*. Social factors that are not dynamic are *not newsworthy* -- sometimes they're acknowledged in passing as to their notable size, but that's about it -- unless something changes *to* them, *around* them, or *within* them.

So, by extension, we might say that much of what we're fighting for is the same kind of stasis and tranquility, where actually *not much happens* -- at least not in any grand, eventful ways. Why would this be something to *fight* for -- ?

Any student of history, or participant in societal matters, will probably readily admit that most of all of it is just a bunch of bother. People have given up either the bulk of their lives, or, in some cases, their actual lives, for the sake of the world to continue to turn on its axis, so to speak. And -- especially in non-progressive-political-growth periods -- *no one* walks away a hero. People may make significant accomplishments here and there, or they may be able to say that they contributed to a transient beneficial project, but there's very little possibility for *meaningful* take-away from participation in society as it is.

In earlier times at least the project of private accumulation could have been a somewhat noble undertaking, with rewards for cunning and adventure -- this corresponds to the era of bourgeois expansion where its forces at least had *development* on its side. But once things are sufficiently developed, then what -- ? The rest is internal politics, and of a type that resembles *ownership*, whether it's in the private or public sectors. It's basically running around in circles in order to stay still and is in no way satisfying.

As a civilization we *need* revolution so that we can finally get past the burden of compartmentalized ownership in all its forms and liberate both the material world and ourselves for better things -- non-splashy, but inherently more meaningful.





I'm more concerned about achieving communism and less about what, if anything, might come after it.


The strength of merely discussing a *possible* future communism is that it is unconscious *planning* -- we are reinforcing a far-off focal point that we (subconsciously) aim ourselves towards.





Possibly. However it's so far ahead that we can't predict what it will be like.


What we *can* do, though, is look at factors that we *know* will continue to exist, regardless of society's economic and political composition -- "timeless" ones -- and then base our descriptions in those terms. The best one to use is that a developed society will produce a *surplus*. We can then look into how that society *disposes* of that surplus.





I really hate the idea some people here that history is some kind of script people will eventually follow. There is no end of history, there is necessarily no communism ever achieved nor there is no way to be certain that things won't go bad again. The notion that history is some fate-like construction that improves all the time for the workers until we hit the end stage and stay for apparently for eternity is both absurd and idealistic as fuck.


*Or* -- it's *material* as fuck, since we're talking about large-scale dynamics that are playing out regardless of our actions as individuals. Why would masses suddenly take an interest in anti-capitalism, as with what we've seen in Europe and OWS in the U.S. -- ? Perhaps it's because there's *no going back* and there's no *staying still* -- those who *do* decide to try to hold back the clock or just not-participate are those who will, by default, let the more-*progressive* forces take the lead.

And once the antagonistic classes do finally confront each other in a fully-conscious way, the logic of *confrontation* will have to play out, with decisive conclusions, as in the overwhelming-majority working class subsuming the ownership class and transcending the class division altogether.





The whole history of the world is the history of class struggle. Class struggle has precipitated every change in the means of production. If classes are abolished then that factor is gone. That doesn't mean that things can't change.


Once society has self-liberated itself I think the changes we would see would be *politically* and *socially* progressive ones -- it would make for boring, seemingly self-congratulatory news, as in "Look who did what today!", but overall it would be building and uplifting for people as individuals and for humanity as a whole.





In my opinion if it were to happen the main cause would be complacency. If your needs are provided for and life is all good then you've got the choice between voting on how much bread to produce or going to the beach...you start to think why bother it won't matter. More and more people do this and that leaves all the decisions up to a minority who do take an active interest in the running of society. More power is given to these people who then become the de-facto rulers, a new class out of a classless society.


Could you give an example here -- ? What material issue in a classless society could possibly be the basis for a divergence of interests? Certainly not everyone will want to be at the cutting-edge of societal decision-making but a general complacency alone wouldn't produce a material basis for an emergent elitism.





One motif of these post-scarcity utopias is that once material issues are no long a concern the "next frontier" is eliminating all material concerns through some kind of post-human melding of technology and human consciousness - in other words, not only would humanity not be constrained by the needs of producing our own material survival (food, homes, things to make life happier) the goal would be to get rid of all constraints of the material world - no longer having to deal with gravity, bad weather, germs, or physical death itself because consciousness could exist in a V.R. world created by consciousness.

In some ways I think these ideas are interesting, in other ways I think it's petty-bourgeois utopian fantasies that imply that technological development (i.e. the labor done by petty-bourgeois professionals), not subjective action by humans (let alone the working class) will advance humanity.


Technological development *requires* subjective action, it doesn't *preclude* it.

[Sten]

Communism resolves the contradictions which have historically brought change in the class societies which have existed so far ("All history is the history of class struggle"), since it's a classless social organization. Personally, I think there might be further socio-political change, but the mode of production will remain the same (well, although according to Marx, if the mode of production doesn't change, the socio-political aspect can't change).

[Manic Impressive]

Could you give an example here -- ? What material issue in a classless society could possibly be the basis for a divergence of interests? Certainly not everyone will want to be at the cutting-edge of societal decision-making but a general complacency alone wouldn't produce a material basis for an emergent elitism.
I was basically just rehashing the platonic republic idea of how he saw democracy turning into tyranny. You know good orators who come to represent the majority view point leading to giving them more powers "as they know best" or "they were right the last time so they're probably right on that as well." The extra powers lead to that person becoming a demagogue and eventually the power corrupts them into taking even more power, then all you need is a bit of factionalism and you've got conflict which splits society into separate groups with a hierarchical class structure. The drop in collective production caused by the split creates scarcity which necessitates some form of market economy being needed rationing perhaps and so on. Which the corrupted demagogue would promote as it would be in his personal interests. The only way I could possibly see that happening is through society becoming complacent about about democracy and history in general. It's possible that history may become obsolete to them, they could feel a disconnect to what class society was, I'm talking a couple of thousand years.

But really it is pointless trying to work out how people might behave in 50 years time let alone 2000 years time or whatever. There's absolutely no way of possibly knowing what future challenges society might face or what cultural changes might take place. So nope can't provide an actual example because we're talking hypothetically.

I should also add that this isn't actually what I think will happen, just a possibility.

[ckaihatsu]

I was basically just rehashing the platonic republic idea of how he saw democracy turning into tyranny.


The democracy you're referring to here was a *class*-based one, though, even though it was the most progressive form of society at that point.

Your whole scenario that follows is *premised* on an overall class-divided base of power, one in which orators were / would be given special attention due to their social standing as part of the ruling elite.

In a class-*less* society even consistently correct, majority-sided, "winning" political types would only be as good as their last achievement -- consider the politics of business in today's world, where *currency* is king and *no one* can get by on oration alone.





You know good orators who come to represent the majority view point leading to giving them more powers "as they know best" or "they were right the last time so they're probably right on that as well." The extra powers lead to that person becoming a demagogue and eventually the power corrupts them into taking even more power, then all you need is a bit of factionalism and you've got conflict which splits society into separate groups with a hierarchical class structure. The drop in collective production caused by the split creates scarcity which necessitates some form of market economy being needed rationing perhaps and so on. Which the corrupted demagogue would promote as it would be in his personal interests. The only way I could possibly see that happening is through society becoming complacent about about democracy and history in general. It's possible that history may become obsolete to them, they could feel a disconnect to what class society was, I'm talking a couple of thousand years.

But really it is pointless trying to work out how people might behave in 50 years time let alone 2000 years time or whatever. There's absolutely no way of possibly knowing what future challenges society might face or what cultural changes might take place. So nope can't provide an actual example because we're talking hypothetically.

I should also add that this isn't actually what I think will happen, just a possibility.


In a classless society factionalism alone -- just like business factionalism today -- would not be nearly enough, in and of itself, to change the societal mode of production. There would always be those, perhaps youth, who would challenge the status quo on the grounds of counterposed policy alternatives.

[ckaihatsu]

Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/

[Rusty Shackleford]

its impossible to predict or even assumewhat comes after communism is the experience of global socialism has not even been had.

[Art Vandelay]

I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the end goal, but because there is no end goal. - RR

[jookyle]

Well, we really can't know until we get there. Perhaps a Das Communism will be written. Although one might suggest, transhumanism:)