How will Socialism emerge?

[Zealot]

It seems to me that, historically, transitions from one form of society to another came about gradually and from the bottom up. In other words, to a large extent economic transitions preceded political transitions. As Marx and Engels discovered, the superstructure is built from its economic base.

For example, the transition from feudalism to capitalism occurred because production was socialised and the capitalist was therefore able to undersell its competition. This forced some to become capitalists and others to become wage-workers since their individual product became increasingly worthless. At a certain point during this transition the need to make a grab for political power became essential to completely dominate the affairs of the country, to destroy the last remnants of feudal lords and the aristocracy who still posed a threat to capitalists and who still had political power (not economic power, however).

A parallel story is to be found in the transition from slave society to feudalism (i.e., an economic transition was made before a political transition).

Traditionally, Marxists have favoured a type of top down transition, through a Proletarian Dictatorship, rather than the bottom up transition witnessed in essentially every society of the past. Have we been wrong? Or, in other words, does a Socialist mode of production have to be evolved before political power is taken and ultimately made to wither?

Note: I had this thought while high so it may not make much sense. Also, I didn't know whether this belonged in learning or theory but yeah.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, there is a fundamental difference between socialism and previous forms of society.

Capitalism developed in fuedalism, yes; it developed economically, because the burghers were able to exploit workers in the chartered towns of the Middle Ages. The capitalists were a new revolutionary class because they had a different relationship to production, they embodied a new way of organising wealth and property. The capitalists built their economic power inside feudalism through the exploitation of the emerging working class. But the capitalists themselves were not an exploited class. The class that was at the basis of feudalism - the exploited class par excellence in feudalism - was the peasantry.

So far so explicable, I hope.

In capitalism, however, the exploited class is the proletariat (=the peasantry in feudalism). But the revolutionary class in capitalism, the class that embodies the new relationships of production, is the proletariat (=the bourgeoisie in feudalism). The proletariat's position in capitalism thus doesn't correspond with previous situations. It is a revolutionary class, due its position in production, like the bourgeoisie in feudalism, but it is also an exploited class, like the peasantry in feudalism, and not like the bourgeoise, which was another exploiting class.

It's easy to build economic power inside one system on the back of an exploited class, as the bourgeoisie did. It's impossible for an exploited class to build its own economic power, which is why the peasants didn't overthrow feudalism. The proletariat has no other classes to exploit (if it did, it wouldn't be the proletariat). So, no, we can't build our economic power inside capitalism. We have to overthrow it first and then reorganise society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It seems to me that, historically, transitions from one form of society to another came about gradually and from the bottom up. In other words, to a large extent economic transitions preceded political transitions. As Marx and Engels discovered, the superstructure is built from its economic base.As Blake's Baby said, this was true of the capitalists as far as emerging within feudal society where they developed different (and marginal, initially under the feudal system) relations of production.

But at a certain point they did actually need political transitions in order to fully realize and develop bourgoise social relations. They needed to end the pesantry and create a pool of wage laborers, they needed to do away with feudal laws and ridged social arrangements for a more dynamic kind of system.

So often the economic relations were actually the result of initiatives from the top of society such as enclosures and so on. Later bourgoise economic transformations were literally from the top down as in the state capitalism of the unification of German states by Prussia.


Traditionally, Marxists have favoured a type of top down transition, through a Proletarian Dictatorship, rather than the bottom up transition witnessed in essentially every society of the past. Have we been wrong? Or, in other words, does a Socialist mode of production have to be evolved before political power is taken and ultimately made to wither? I think just on a practical level it can not. Capitalism was able to develop within the system because there was a degree of autonomy in the towns - the aristocracy got their power from exploiting the pesantry - they basically just taxed the rich of the towns so while in some places they became increasingly dependant on the wealth of the town capitalists their base of power and their society did not rest on the capitalist class as the capitalist power rests on the working class.

But in a sense, potential worker's power does organically come from within the capitalist system because it's capitalism which creates the working class and a surplus capable of allowing for a communist society. What is required "at the bottom" for this change is for the class to become an independant and consious hegemonic force - to be organized for the purpose of their own power.

[The Douche]

The tendency towards communization reflects the historical tendency of economic change to precede political change.

All great working class upheavals/attempted revolutions have seen the collectivisation/communization of society/labor to some extent before/alongside political insurrection.

The formation of things like workers/soldiers/peasants/neighborhood councils for the social organization of society represent the base from which the socialist superstructure can develop, but historically this base has been compromised by some means.

[The Jay]

I think that democracy at work will lead to democracy in politics. If the people control the surplus then they get to wield the results of society's wealth. With that and organization things will progress.

[Let's Get Free]

Socialism does not occur at the head of a leader with a ready-made theory, or at the dictate of a prophet. A truly organic revolution is a product of universal life, and although it has its messengers and executors it is really not the work of any one person. The struggle for socialism must be a democratic, bottom-up process, there can be no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Once the revolutionary crisis is over social reconstruction should be the task of the popular masses themselves.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's easy to build economic power inside one system on the back of an exploited class, as the bourgeoisie did. It's impossible for an exploited class to build its own economic power, which is why the peasants didn't overthrow feudalism. The proletariat has no other classes to exploit (if it did, it wouldn't be the proletariat). So, no, we can't build our economic power inside capitalism. We have to overthrow it first and then reorganise society.

Despite what Douche said about communization, I think this can be extended to all manner of working-class economic struggles vs. worker-class political struggles. Meaningful economic change at whatever level can only be achieved politically, not through "communization," mere labour disputes, or other non-political means.

[RedMaterialist]

Well, not all transitions are gradual. For instance, the French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and Vietnamese revolutions. The English transition to capitalism from feudalism was gradual. In the U.S. there was no transition, as the U.S. never went through a feudal period. Although I guess you could say the transition from slavery to capitalism in the U.S. south was pretty violent and sudden.

[The Douche]

Despite what Douche said about communization, I think this can be extended to all manner of working-class economic struggles vs. worker-class political struggles. Meaningful economic change at whatever level can only be achieved politically, not through communization, mere labour disputes, or other non-political means.

If you really believe this, and you have not misspoken, then you are not a communist.

Would the election of a communist head of state suddenly create communism?

I find it embarrassing that you are still on here. Go fuck off somewhere else to talk about populist strongman dictators and whatever other horseshit you try and pass of as marxism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

As for as economic transformation preceding political transformation, OP is quite wrong. Economisim does not work. A successful revolution culminates in the seizure of state power by the proletariat. History has shown this.

[The Douche]

As for as economic transformation preceding political transformation, OP is quite wrong. Economisim does not work. A successful revolution culminates in the seizure of state power by the proletariat. History has shown this.

You sure about that? History has shows us something about successful communist revolution? And if the proletarian revolution you speak of, was successful, why don't we have communism?

[ckaihatsu]

It's entirely possible that, as the global capitalist class (ECB, IMF, etc.) shows itself to be increasingly unable to do anything meaningful -- even *with* massive diversions of monies from public funds -- their political credibility will plummet to nothing, leaving those who *can* do meaningful, productive things -- the world's working class -- finally at the levers and collectively in control of it all.

In this way it would be 'bottom-up', from widespread, deciding public opinion, but would be 'top-down' in that the proletariat would have to quickly get its shit together at such a point of political-power-vacuum and decisively organize global production in a demonstratively better way.

[sanpal]

I think that democracy at work will lead to democracy in politics. If the people control the surplus then they get to wield the results of society's wealth. With that and organization things will progress.

I'm curious how many plants, factories, etc. in the today's USA now is in workers' property to develop "... democracy at work ..." which "... will lead to democracy in politics." ?? (How much percents of all economy?) And why this trend would be increased (why capitalists would pass their means of production to workers voluntarily)?

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you really believe this, and you have not misspoken, then you are not a communist.

Would the election of a communist head of state suddenly create communism?

Douche, this has nothing to do with government politics. How exactly were the worker-class movements in Germany, France, and Italy before WWI engaging in "communization"? How, more importantly, is "communization" different from the stuff of Thomas More and Robert Owen? How much of an impact do the Zapatistas have on worker developments globally?

A better question to ask: Since "communization" is related to "the economic is political" as a slogan, how is it different from "the group lifestyle is political"?

Politically exercised class power creates the political conditions necessary to implement the full economic program.

[The Douche]

The conversion of the private into the social (communization) is not political? The rejection of private property is not a political?

I don't think that you actually understand what communization is. The formation of organs through which we organize production/distribution and the day-to-day functioning of society is communization. I don't know why you've brought up the Zapatistas.

Libcom is down so I can't provide any particularly good links, but I can't believe you are talking about communization coming from the utopian socialists, when its firmly based in Marx, and your suggestions only betray your own ignorance of Marxism.

[l'Enfermé]

I don't know what "communisation" means in other language, but it's French bullshit that emerged in the 1970s which was revived by Tiqqun. It's not firmly based in Marx at all, actually Marx's conception of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat as a transition period between capitalist and communist society is obviously at odds with the views of the communisation-ists. Only ultra-lefts who have discarded most of Marx already would claim that communisation is based in Marx.

[Zealot]

Despite what Douche said about communization, I think this can be extended to all manner of working-class economic struggles vs. worker-class political struggles. Meaningful economic change at whatever level can only be achieved politically, not through "communization," mere labour disputes, or other non-political means.

The consensus here seems to be that since capitalists weren't a suppressed class under feudalism they were able to go from economic to political power and that the proletariat do not have such an advantage. Depending on one's view of the Soviet Union, the capitalist class is generally considered a suppressed class. Yet they were still able to organise economically, which finally culminated in political power when the Soviet Union fell.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The conversion of the private into the social (communization) is not political? The rejection of private property is not a political?

Facebook, Twitter, and all things "social media" and "freeware" isn't political. IP debates and Pirate phenomena around single issues have very limited political value.

"The social" is something I personally avoid. There is "the societal" and there is "the group" (as in not large enough). Already I mentioned above societal phenomena, and again already they have very limited political value. "Communization" doesn't convert the private into "the societal," but into "the group," hence I brought into question "the group lifestyle is political." If the former has very limited political value, the more limited the latter's political value.

[Blake's Baby]

The consensus here seems to be that since capitalists weren't a suppressed class under feudalism they were able to go from economic to political power and that the proletariat do not have such an advantage. Depending on one's view of the Soviet Union, the capitalist class is generally considered a suppressed class. Yet they were still able to organise economically, which finally culminated in political power when the Soviet Union fell.

Depending on whether one considers the Soviet Union 'actually existing socialism', or state capitalism, you mean?

The fall of the Soviet Union is only a 'problem' if you think it was ever socialist. If you don't, it just moved from one organisation of capitalism (up to 1917) to a different organisation of capitalism (say 1917-21) to another organisation ('21-91) to another organisation (1991-present) without ever really overcoming property, wages, exploitation of surplus value, commodity production, alienated labour, etc. The closest to doing so was in the period 1917-21, but that was also the time the system was under the most stress, due to the later phases of WWI and then the civil war.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Keep in mind that "capitalism" as it developed in the feudal period was not only practiced by the various groups which would eventually compose the proto-bourgeoisie but also the aristocracy. I say this to note the complexity of human social development and to stress our need to remain nondogmatic in our analysis of both the transition between social systems as well as those systems themselves.

[human strike]

I don't know what "communisation" means in other language, but it's French bullshit that emerged in the 1970s which was revived by Tiqqun. It's not firmly based in Marx at all, actually Marx's conception of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat as a transition period between capitalist and communist society is obviously at odds with the views of the communisation-ists. Only ultra-lefts who have discarded most of Marx already would claim that communisation is based in Marx.

Arguably Marx contradicts himself.


Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Is this really compatible with the DoP? Communisation's Marxian roots may not be so obvious in Tiqqun but it's plainly obvious in Theorie Communiste, Dauvé, etc.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Arguably Marx contradicts himself.

Can you please expand upon this? I am not familiar with Communisation, Tiqqun, Theorie Communiste, etc. and would like to hear an explanation as to where you consider Marx to be contradictory.

[Rafiq]

The conversion of the private into the social (communization) is not political? The rejection of private property is not a political?

I don't think that you actually understand what communization is. The formation of organs through which we organize production/distribution and the day-to-day functioning of society is communization. I don't know why you've brought up the Zapatistas.

Libcom is down so I can't provide any particularly good links, but I can't believe you are talking about communization coming from the utopian socialists, when its firmly based in Marx, and your suggestions only betray your own ignorance of Marxism.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. Advocating politically exercised class power does not at all equate to some sort of reformism, nor does it imply the exemplification of political class power constrained by the Bourgeois-Legalist (bourgeois state-political hegemony). The reason the Zapitistas were brought up resided with the fact that indeed they have formulated the organs in which production and distribution were organized, and they have achieved little to nothing on a larger scale. And no, Communization has absolutely nothing to do with Marx and the Marxists after him, it has origins in Bakuninism, i.e. "The economic is the political".

[human strike]

And no, Communization has absolutely nothing to do with Marx and the Marxists after him, it has origins in Bakuninism, i.e. "The economic is the political".

Except I think it's quite obvious that its origins are in left communism and libertarian marxism. Unless you're going to claim that they have nothing to do with Marx either?

[Avanti]

the hood will swarm the ivory tower.

local open source production will unite the community and propel its identity. capitalism is decaying.

we need to unite communitarian, grey and black capital.

and form organic communities, spearheaded by the dopes and losers. they will be the winners of the future.

because they can survive.

they are the new amazonians.

[l'Enfermé]

Arguably Marx contradicts himself.

No. He doesn't contradict himself. You just don't understand his meaning. He's merely being consistent with his whole anti-utopian "the embryo of the communist mode of production already exists in the capitalist mode of production" notion.


Is this really compatible with the DoP? Communisation's Marxian roots may not be so obvious in Tiqqun but it's plainly obvious in Theorie Communiste, Dauvé, etc.
It has a very small Marxist influence, but that's meaningless. Stalinism has a much bigger Marxist influence, but we both know how strongly Stalinism and Marxism are opposed to each other. Council communist has a Marxist influence, but Marxism and Council Communism still are opposed to each other, so what does it matter?


Except I think it's quite obvious that its origins are in left communism and libertarian marxism. Unless you're going to claim that they have nothing to do with Marx either?
"Libertarian" Marxism is not a real thing and Left-Communism is Left-Communism, not Marxism. Marxism is Marxism, Left-Communism is Left-Communism. I thought this was obvious.

[human strike]

Left-Communism is Left-Communism, not Marxism. Marxism is Marxism, Left-Communism is Left-Communism. I thought this was obvious.

Since when has left communism not been marxist? I think you're making a very bizarre claim there.

[l'Enfermé]

Since when has left communism not been marxist? I think you're making a very bizarre claim there.
If Left-Communism is not Left-Communism, why is it called Left-Communism and not Marxism? :confused:

[Blake's Baby]

It is called Marxism.

But all sorts of revisionists also claim to be 'Marxists'.

So when Left Comms talk to Anarchists, we generally call ourselves 'Marxists'. We follow the Marxist method, have a Marxist conception of historical development, affirm the necessity of the DotP etc.

When we talk to people who claim to be Marxists, we call ourselves Left Communists. What would be the point of saying to you 'we're Marxists'. You would say 'I'm a Marxist'. The term would then be meaningless because we'd be using it to mean that we're Marxists, you'd be using it to mean that you were whatever it is that you are.

[hetz]

and form organic communities, spearheaded by the dopes and losers. they will be the winners of the future. because they can survive.Can someone please do something about this spam?

[Blake's Baby]

You can; you can ignore it.

Avanti's shamanarchism may be annoying, but it's not harming anyone. On the other hand, some people on this site defend Stalinism, which has been an 85-year disaster for the entire population of the planet and resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people; compared to that, the word 'cyberpunk' being thrown around somewhat casually is small fry.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

You can; you can ignore it.

Avanti's shamanarchism may be annoying, but it's not harming anyone. On the other hand, some people on this site defend Stalinism, which has been an 85-year disaster for the entire population of the planet and resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people; compared to that, the word 'cyberpunk' being thrown around somewhat casually is small fry.

Shamanarchism is the greatest word i've ever word (stores in memory banks)

Back on topic, seeing as the world will dramatically change in the coming years, there are a variety of ways socialism can emerge (if it even does at all)
(assuming you mean it overthrowing the entile capitalist system instead of settling down in a few places.)