Parallel Systems?

[Comrade #138672]

The main problem with socialism or communism is getting the majority to co-operate in order for it to work. What if we could somehow escape this problem by introducing parallel systems?

What I mean with this is, let's say 50% of the people is pro-capitalism and the other 50% is pro-communism. Instead of a bad compromise, we could each decide to go our separate ways. Perhaps "the north" becomes a communistic state while "the south" becomes a capitalistic state. Would this be possible? And if not, why not?

I know that there will be many problems with this idea, but I feel that it deserves consideration and discussion nonetheless.

[Luka]

No it wouldn't work because most people wouldn't leave their home, family, friends, etc. and move to somewhere else for political reasons.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Rival systems cannot co-exist. Capitalism has a ferocious drive to reproduce itself-all other systems from feudalism to hunter gatherer systems have been subsumed into the global market. There was an attempt to create two global systems, one socialist, one capitalist-this was known as the Cold War. Connected to this there was ab attempt by the "global south" to create an independent sphere of development. This was destroyed by the 1980s.Today there is an attempt to create another sphere of capitalist development outside of US imperialist hegemony-the Bolivarian revolution, etc. This might or might not suceed but is still operates within the logic of capitalism.

Socialism must be international or not at all. The world must be socialist, operate on a democratic planned economy, or cease to exist within the next 50-70 years.

[Misanthrope]

Capitalism and communism will never coexist, it is theoretically impossible. Moreover, you cannot just draw lines on a map and decide what economic system is present there, that doesn't work.

[Questionable]

The relationship between the two systems would be antagonistic. The northern capitalists would see free labor and untapped resources in the south and would seek to find a way to exploit it. The southern socialists would need to form some type of government for dealing with diplomatic, military, and trade relationships with the north.

The biggest flaw with this is that it relies on the hope that capitalists would be content to let some parts of the world remain free from their profit-searching, which we know they are not.

[nihilust]

i can understand what you are implying and wish it were so simple, i would leave my family for a better state. If you would not, then you are choosing the side of the oppressor. However, the capitalist state, as it does now, would continue to aggressively overpower other nations for further resources and exploitations of their people.

[Art Vandelay]

Capitalism, is a global system, and thus must be overthrown globally. Basically what you are arguing (a long standing point of contention among "communists"), perhaps without knowing it, is whether or not socialism is possible in one country; albeit here you are arguing whether or not it is possible in a multitude of countries. Regardless the answer is the same and I will point you into the direction of comrade Engels for your answer:


— 19 —
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

Engels, The principles of Communism, 1847.

[Comrade #138672]

I see. Whether it is a country or 50% of the world, what if there was the consensus to not interfere with each other? Penalizing any attempts to do.

Although I suppose this is not possible and might be even worse. It could easily lead to war.

[Art Vandelay]

I see. Whether it is a country or 50% of the world, what if there was the consensus to not interfere with each other? Penalizing any attempts to do.

Although I suppose this is not possible and might be even worse.

Capitalism relies on constant expansion and growth to sustain its existence. It simply would not be possible for the two world powers to peacefully co-exist. While we did not really see open warfare during the cold war (we did but not on a mass scale) that was during a period of relative growth and economic prosperity for capitalism. Given the current economic situation and assuming that any future one is just as (if not more) bleak, having two superpowers like your proposed (one socialist and one capitalist) would cause a world war. Capitalism always needs to carve out new markets for itself and would need access to the entirety of the worlds resources.

[Comrade #138672]

Thanks for all your answers. I might actually be learning something here.

[Questionable]

Not to mention the resource problem. We're abstracting from the real world by assuming that north and south would have equal resources and enough to live. In reality, the geographical locations of these societies would make them unequal, and they would either enter trade relations, or, more likely, go to war with each other over the division of the world.

[Art Vandelay]

Not to mention the resource problem. We're abstracting from the real world by assuming that north and south would have equal resources and enough to live. In reality, the geographical locations of these societies would make them unequal, and they would either enter trade relations, or, more likely, go to war with each other over the division of the world.

And might I add here, that entering into trade relations would open back up, any "socialist state," to the world market. Thus making socialism impossible in one country (or a multitude), when said country continues to trade with other capitalist states.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I mean, a dictatorship of the proletariat could be exist "in the north" but eventually the revolution has to spread for socialism to be implemented.

This is why many look down on the traditional Marxist-Leninist view of "Socialism in One Country" doctrine. This isn't of course to be confused with the Third-Periodist version of SIOC (building vs. achieving)

[Book O'Dead]

Capitalism, is a global system, and thus must be overthrown globally. Basically what you are arguing (a long standing point of contention among "communists"), perhaps without knowing it, is whether or not socialism is possible in one country; albeit here you are arguing whether or not it is possible in a multitude of countries. Regardless the answer is the same and I will point you into the direction of comrade Engels for your answer:


Engels, The principles of Communism, 1847.

Alas, I would take you seriously if it weren't for this little gem you wrote not 2 hours ago:


"Too many of us are simply content to regurgitate the same old shit that so and so said a hundred years ago. "

[MaximMK]

Ive thought of this sometimes but the capitalists would never leave the communists alone. Their greed for more profit will make them want the communists land and the people themselves as workforce.

[Art Vandelay]

Alas, I would take you seriously if it weren't for this little gem you wrote not 2 hours ago:

Fuck off and quite bringing up shit from other threads, I am done discussing things with you as you have consistently shown yourself utterly inept at marxist thought and at being a productive party in a debate (not to mention one of the worst posters on the site, which really says something when the site in question is revleft). I also, in that same paragraph, stated that valuable lessons must be taken from the past; convenient to ignore that part. Just cause I think that Marxism must still be contributed to, doesn't mean I think that we should revise one of its fundamental principles; your fucking clueless.

[Comrade #138672]

So I suppose panarchism (intentionally experimenting with governments and see whatever works best; where individuals can freely choose their government) wouldn't work either, because the capitalistic governments would engulf all other governments because of its predatory tendencies.

[Art Vandelay]

So I suppose panarchism (intentionally experimenting with governments and see whatever works best; where individuals can freely choose their government) wouldn't work either, because the capitalistic governments would engulf all other governments because of its predatory tendencies.

Indeed, simply put: capital must be surpassed globally.

[aristos]

Capital must be indeed surpassed globaly in ordr for antagonisms to cease, but a situation where parallel systems exist is still possible given the right circumstances.
In most cases this would be a temporal state, since both systems would fight for dominance - capitalism, because it needs constant expansion and hierarchical reshuffeling, communism/technocracy/anrachism because they will constantly feel threatened. As such this will result in either one system engulfing the other through industrial dominance or one of them will inevitably militarily attack with the purpose to anihilate.
That said under very specific circumstances this state of things can go on for a very long time indeed, and maybe even indefinitely. One such circumstance would be the developement of weapons of total anihilation that would assure a permanent detente. We had (and still have) this in the form of MAD to an extent. The difference is that in the configuration they exist today the nuclear weapons are not powerful enough to anihilate all human life on earth and, at least theoretically, they can be sabotaged or circumvented.
Another possible circumstance is parallel space colonization by both systems that would keep them industrially at paritiy.

[Comrade #138672]

It wouldn't work even if trading was prohibited; enforced by a special contract? Something like a "superconstitution" that would override even the system's separate constitutions in order to keep the systems from interfering with each other. You will probably say that capitalists will take over because of their greed and self-interest, but wouldn't it be in their own self-interest if they stayed away from the other system? That would be better for them than having the communists take over everything.

Let's assume that there are no disagreements geographically and resources perfectly divided.

[Art Vandelay]

Capital must be indeed surpassed globaly in ordr for antagonisms to cease, but a situation where parallel systems exist is still possible given the right circumstances.
In most cases this would be a temporal state, since both systems would fight for dominance - capitalism, because it needs constant expansion and hierarchical reshuffeling, communism/technocracy/anrachism because they will constantly feel threatened. As such this will result in either one system engulfing the other through industrial dominance or one of them will inevitably militarily attack with the purpose to anihilate.
That said under very specific circumstances this state of things can go on for a very long time indeed, and maybe even indefinitely. One such circumstance would be the developement of weapons of total anihilation that would assure a permanent detente. We had (and still have) this in the form of MAD to an extent. The difference is that in the configuration they exist today the nuclear weapons are not powerful enough to anihilate all human life on earth and, at least theoretically, they can be sabotaged or circumvented.
Another possible circumstance is parallel space colonization by both systems that would keep them industrially at paritiy.

No. Socialism cannot develop in a single country, or even a multitude of countries.

[Art Vandelay]

Let's assume that there are no disagreements geographically and resources perfectly divided.

Well you can discuss these theories or "what if" scenarios if you would like, but in reality that will never happen, making said discussion rather irrelevant.

[Skyhilist]

Well here's my idea on avoiding conflict. In a post revolution of society, the entire world (or countries if only a few are post-revolution) should all agree on basic rules (not too in depth and voted upon by the people) that everyone can agree to follow. The economy is converted to a gift economy and the monetary system is eliminated. Villages and towns or areas in general have the right to choose their own rules. People have the right to choose which set of rules to live by, by choosing where to live (which won't be a burden with the monetary system eliminated). This way people can have their own variations and can live in a society that more closely matches their viewpoints, eliminating the vast majority of conflicts. Rules within towns, villages, and areas are made collectively by the people. One current group of people that comes to mind is the EZLN. To have something like that but where individual villages and towns could have their own variations of anarcho-communist rules would be great (of course decided by the people and able to be changed by the people at any time). Of course in a revolutionized society there would be no private property rules or anything of that nature, which would be one of the things that the people of the nation could decide as a whole. Over time as more and more nations revolutionized they could join together to form one post-revolution nation hopefully eventually eliminating nationalism. This is what I would like to see for the future of civilization, because it embraces pan-leftism and should be easier to accomplish with conflicting ideologies in a post-revolution world.

[Comrade #138672]

Well you can discuss these theories or "what if" scenarios if you would like, but in reality that will never happen, making said discussion rather irrelevant.To me it's not irrelevant. It can still provide some insights. Do you never temporarily assume anything for a thought experiment or to simplify thinking to focus on a particular detail?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Well here's my idea on avoiding conflict. In a post revolution of society, the entire world (or countries if only a few are post-revolution) should all agree on basic rules (not too in depth and voted upon by the people) that everyone can agree to follow. The economy is converted to a gift economy and the monetary system is eliminated. Villages and towns or areas in general have the right to choose their own rules. People have the right to choose which set of rules to live by, by choosing where to live (which won't be a burden with the monetary system eliminated). This way people can have their own variations and can live in a society that more closely matches their viewpoints, eliminating the vast majority of conflicts. Rules within towns, villages, and areas are made collectively by the people. One current group of people that comes to mind is the EZLN. To have something like that but where individual villages and towns could have their own variations of anarcho-communist rules would be great (of course decided by the people and able to be changed by the people at any time). Of course in a revolutionized society there would be no private property rules or anything of that nature, which would be one of the things that the people of the nation could decide as a whole. Over time as more and more nations revolutionized they could join together to form one post-revolution nation hopefully eventually eliminating nationalism. This is what I would like to see for the future of civilization, because it embraces pan-leftism and should be easier to accomplish with conflicting ideologies in a post-revolution world.

Well, the thing is ideologies do not drive history, or if they do its as an adjunct to economic systems. Rather material conditions and how societies organize themselves drives history.Rival ideologies won't be a problem in a post-revolutionary world.

A problem with the EZLN is that they have not made any effort to connect with and organize the working classes of Mexico. They deliberately avoid this.It is not possible to create socialism on a town by town or village by village basis.Socialist struggle depends on working class unity. both nationally and especially internationally. This does not mean there will have to be a single centralized state, I feel there would be room for incredible diversity on a socialist world, but this cannot be based on highly localized autonomy.

The Paris Commune of 1871 to an extent showed a possible way forward and Lenin elaborated on this in his State and Revolution, which is a good read.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

To me it's not irrelevant. It can still provide some insights. Do you never temporarily assume anything for a thought experiment or to simplify thinking to focus on a particular detail?

It can be worthwhile to use an abstract or simple model to discuss society. Marx did this in Capital.Even if the world were divided into two systems with equal amounts of resources, rival systems still would not be able to co-exist.

Interestingly, in the real world there is a great deal of mineral wealth in the Global South-oil especially but many other natural resources. The "South" is still exploited and poor and , with some exceptions, has not been able to follow an independent course of development.

[Skyhilist]

Well, the thing is ideologies do not drive history, or if they do its as an adjunct to economic systems. Rather material conditions and how societies organize themselves drives history.Rival ideologies won't be a problem in a post-revolutionary world.

A problem with the EZLN is that they have not made any effort to connect with and organize the working classes of Mexico. They deliberately avoid this.It is not possible to create socialism on a town by town or village by village basis.Socialist struggle depends on working class unity. both nationally and especially internationally. This does not mean there will have to be a single centralized state, I feel there would be room for incredible diversity on a socialist world, but this cannot be based on highly localized autonomy.

The Paris Commune of 1871 to an extent showed a possible way forward and Lenin elaborated on this in his State and Revolution, which is a good read.

The EZLN do not need to go outside their own lands because their goal is not necessarily to revolutionize all of Mexico. I'm using them as an example of how societies could exist, not as how they could cause revolution (which I believed should be achieved using anarcho-syndicalism). By the way I'm not talking about creating completely different systems on a smaller level as you've suggested. I'm talking about having different variations in the more in depth rules of society while maintaining the same system. Think of it as the difference between someone speaking American English and someone speaking British English. Some of the words are spelled slightly differently or used in slightly different context, but people speaking the two different variants of English can still clearly understand each other.

[ckaihatsu]

Well here's my idea on avoiding conflict.


(This shouldn't be your overriding concern if you're involved in revolutionary politics.)





In a post revolution of society, the entire world (or countries if only a few are post-revolution) should all agree on basic rules (not too in depth and voted upon by the people) that everyone can agree to follow. The economy is converted to a gift economy and the monetary system is eliminated.


I actually think that this would go a long way itself and it benefits from being simple and it doesn't elicit controversy.





Villages and towns or areas in general have the right to choose their own rules. People have the right to choose which set of rules to live by, by choosing where to live (which won't be a burden with the monetary system eliminated). This way people can have their own variations and can live in a society that more closely matches their viewpoints, eliminating the vast majority of conflicts. Rules within towns, villages, and areas are made collectively by the people.





Well, the thing is ideologies do not drive history, or if they do its as an adjunct to economic systems. Rather material conditions and how societies organize themselves drives history.Rival ideologies won't be a problem in a post-revolutionary world.





One current group of people that comes to mind is the EZLN. To have something like that but where individual villages and towns could have their own variations of anarcho-communist rules would be great (of course decided by the people and able to be changed by the people at any time). Of course in a revolutionized society there would be no private property rules or anything of that nature, which would be one of the things that the people of the nation could decide as a whole. Over time as more and more nations revolutionized they could join together to form one post-revolution nation hopefully eventually eliminating nationalism. This is what I would like to see for the future of civilization, because it embraces pan-leftism and should be easier to accomplish with conflicting ideologies in a post-revolution world.


Speaking simply in terms of a timeline, I think that the momentum of a worldwide revolution would also confer distinct possibilities and forms of post-revolution *organization*.

People could live wherever and however they'd like to live, within societal limits, of course, but I don't think that the wheel would have to be re-invented when it comes to 'joining nations' or 'eliminating nationalism'. That's exactly what a revolution would do in the process of overcoming bourgeois rule, by definition.