A troubling concept

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Marx is often quoted, famously, as saying 'Je ne suis pas un Marxiste' - I am not a Marxist. Obviously, this isn't quite true. But a more intriguing concept: is Socialism necessarily a corollary of Marxism?

For me, what Marx was never clear about was a true solution to Capitalism. Communism, broadly, represents a mode of production; as feudalism was the pre-cursor to capitalism, so it seems if we accept the Marxian critique of capitalism, if we analyse history through the prism of historical materialism, then capitalism is the pre-cursor to communism. Communism being a mode of production where property is of the commons not private, where there is no statehood, no money and where there are no classes.

But is this socialism? If we are to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably, then certainly. But, aside from the most ambitious of anarchists, the vast majority of Marxists accept that we will not go to sleep under the Capitalist mode of production one night, and wake to communism the next morning. This sort of utopian childishness is ahistoric; the best Marxist analyst of the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, Rodney Hilton, investigates the decline of feudalism from the 13th and 14th centuries, but has also stated that the proper, mature development of capitalism was not seen even until after the 17th century.

So, whilst feudalism (and before that the asiatic and ancient), capitalism and communism (including socialism only when used interchangeably with communism) can be seen as modes of production, what are we to make of 'Socialism' when seen to refer to that period after the disposition of the bourgeoisie that rules under capitalism, but before the existence of a society which is classless, stateless and moneyless? This, for me, is of huge significance as, as I have outlined above, this period will not be overnight, or weeks or months, or even years. It is likely that, long after capitalism enters its terminal decline (i'm talking a measurable decline, not the doomsday predictions that periodically crop up amongst the left proponents of the msot extreme versions of crisis theory), some combination of states, money and classes will still exist. What fills the gap? Is the 'Socialism' that is the answer of many leftists, the pre-communism Socialism of the 20th Century Soviet Bloc, for example, not more of an ideology that is, in many ways, separate from communism/socialism (the interchangeable, small-s 'socialism')?

[GoddessCleoLover]

I seriously that it will have ANY resemblance to 20th century Soviet bloc "socialism". That experiment has been completely discredited. Workers long ago rejected that model. Even in the Third World the Soviet model has very little appeal. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe is the last state that even pays lip service to the Soviet model, and the rest of Africa sees what a hellhole Zimbabwe has become. In Latin America Castroism has lost what little luster it had since the loss of Soviet subsidies revealed that the Cuban emperor had no clothes. The struggles in the Arab world show no desire for anything on the Soviet model. Even India's Naxalite movement is based upon a Maoist rather than Soviet model.

We are pretty much back to basics when it comes to planning a post-revolutionary society. In the most general terms, IMO we ought to reject the single vanguard party dictatorship in favor of a democratic and class-based model.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I do understand that, but I still think (and this is not a personal attack, as I am just as guilty of this as anybody else) that we are missing something: as I said previously, the transition between the terminal decline of feudalism (which became apparent, I believe, by the late 14th century in England at least) and the maturity of Capitalism as a defined mode of production was centuries, not weeks, months or years. And this is logical, when you think that we're not just playing fiddlesticks: we're talking about not merely a political revolution - revolutions can happen overnight sure - but a complete upheaval in the social structure, economic organisation and political/cultural fabric of society.

And my concern is this: is what comes in between say, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the definite existence of a communist society, not mere ideology? I mean sure, some roads (vanguardism) may, in the eyes of some of us, be a definite route back to capitalism in some indirect way, but by posturing against this are we not merely playing ideology too?

[GoddessCleoLover]

To me it isn't about posturing about ideology, rather finding a political system that enjoys the trust and support of a majority of workers. I have only general ideas, no detailed blueprint to offer. OTOH I am willing to listen to the reasonable ideas of others.

[Lynx]

Technological innovation and environmental challenges will move things along a bit faster than the transition between feudalism and capitalism.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Technological innovation and environmental challenges will move things along a bit faster than the transition between feudalism and capitalism.

Or capitalism could branch off into unheard of levels of despotism and decay that leads to a new dark ages or worse still, the near complete collapse of humanity.

[GoddessCleoLover]

From your mouth to God's ear, Lynx. So far the bourgeoisie has mastered the challenges of both technological innovation and the environment. I am still hoping for a workers' revolution in China, because I don't really see it happening here in the forseeable future.

[Lynx]

Or capitalism could branch off into unheard of levels of despotism and decay that leads to a new dark ages or worse still, the near complete collapse of humanity.
Either outcome will not take centuries, if that's any consolation.

[Lynx]

From your mouth to God's ear, Lynx. So far the bourgeoisie has mastered the challenges of both technological innovation and the environment. I am still hoping for a workers' revolution in China, because I don't really see it happening here in the forseeable future.
China's export oriented economic phase may be coming to an end, will be interesting to see how they manage a transition to internal consumption.
The environment has been ignored - lot of talk, little action.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The environment is more likely to lead to a catastrophe leading to barbarism than it is to socialism. I hope that I am wrong, but that is my very real fear.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

The environment is more likely to lead to a catastrophe leading to barbarism than it is to socialism. I hope that I am wrong, but that is my very real fear.

Barbarism will inevitably lead to a isolated group of enlightened individuals attempting to reach the stars which will have the added bane of inviting a socialist space race who will help guide us to egalitarian prosperity (unless they're Borge or Farengi)

[GoddessCleoLover]

Barbarism will inevitably lead to a isolated group of enlightened individuals attempting to reach the stars which will have the added bane of inviting a socialist space race who will help guide us to egalitarian prosperity (unless they're Borge or Farengi)

You did a good job keeping the trolling under control for the past week or so. Any particular reason you decided to start trolling again?:D

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

You did a good job keeping the trolling under control for the past week or so. Any particular reason you decided to start trolling again?:D

Ennui and a recent spat of bad luck. The tears of a clown my friend, the tears of a clown.

[blake 3:17]

To me it isn't about posturing about ideology, rather finding a political system that enjoys the trust and support of a majority of workers. I have only general ideas, no detailed blueprint to offer. OTOH I am willing to listen to the reasonable ideas of others.

I'm coming to a point where I am maybe not a Marxist, while most definitely a socialist.

The ecological crisis and the total insanity of global food production appears to have solutions within non-proletarian classes and peoples, most especially the global peasantry and indigenous peoples.

My perspective is maybe best explained by James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State and Walden Bello's more recent The Food Wars.

There's a good review of The Food Wars here: http://www.zcommunications.org/walden-bellos-the-food-wars-by-michael-mcgehee

This is not to dismiss the proletariat, of which I am a member, but to question the role particular classes play in the struggle for socialism and ecology.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I'm coming to a point where I am maybe not a Marxist, while most definitely a socialist.

The ecological crisis and the total insanity of global food production appears to have solutions within non-proletarian classes and peoples, most especially the global peasantry and indigenous peoples.

My perspective is maybe best explained by James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State and Walden Bello's more recent The Food Wars.

There's a good review of The Food Wars here: http://www.zcommunications.org/walden-bellos-the-food-wars-by-michael-mcgehee

I certainly agree that Marx seems to have missed the importance of the environment. I prefer the term Marxian to Marxist since I certainly do not believe that Uncle Karl was some all-knowing being.

[prolcon]

Do productive relations cease to change post-capitalism?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Changing the relations of production ought to be one of the major goals of the revolution.

[prolcon]

Changing the relations of production ought to be one of the major goals of the revolution.

Thanks for answering the question.

You really suck sometimes, you know that?

[Ostrinski]

Comrade, these are legitimate concerns. This is from another post I made:

This is what cannot be denied. The bourgeoisie developed the foundations of their hegemony from within feudal society. That is, when the landed aristocracy and gentry had control of the political apparatus usually in the form of a monarchy. They maintained that political control long after their economy began decaying. The capitalist class developed within this arrangement with the rise of more concentrated living spaces, the development of the factory system, industry, etc. At the end they ended up with all the wealth as they had better means of accumulating it than the aristocrats, so all they had to do was knock off the political shell, to dispose of the carcass of the old society.

The proletariat does not have this luxury. The only way they can possibly overturn and subsequently quash their class adversary is by political means. In other words, just the opposite. Whereas the bourgeoisie completed their revolution by replacing the monarchy with the republic after developing their economic hegemony within the old system, the proletariat must begin with the political conquest of state power because they don't exploit others in order to accumulate wealth like the bourgeoisie. Therefore they cannot build the foundations of the new society within this one.

The systematic liquidation of the bourgeoisie and the management of the last, decaying wretched vestiges of the capitalist society (the chicken without its head, if you will) is the only task of the workers while in the driver's seat of this revolutionary government.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Thanks for answering the question.

You really suck sometimes, you know that?

I have no idea why that post was so offensive to you. I was trying to make my point without starting a round of polemics about the USSR.

[MarxSchmarx]

Changing the relations of production ought to be one of the major goals of the revolution. Thanks for answering the question.

You really suck sometimes, you know that?


I have no idea why that post was so offensive to you. I was trying to make my point without starting a round of polemics about the USSR.

GramsciGuy is right - don't flame, prolcon, this is a verbal warning.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And my concern is this: is what comes in between say, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the definite existence of a communist society, not mere ideology? I mean sure, some roads (vanguardism) may, in the eyes of some of us, be a definite route back to capitalism in some indirect way, but by posturing against this are we not merely playing ideology too?

In my view "vanguiardism" is only relevant in terms of how does the revolutionary movement best organize and relate to the struggles of the class and other oppressed people in society. So an organized vanguard is not a "worker's state" in the ready waiting for capitalism to be smashed, but a vehicle for trying to plot a course through the ups and downs of class struggle that keeps an eye on the ultimate goal of working class self-emancipation.

With workers organizing their own economic, political, and military power they can then begin to reorganize society. For the capitalists, they had their own relativly autonomous economic power organized in the towns (which then began to reflect their political desires as well) and so they could grow slowly and didn't need an overt or consuous class understanding, the needs of how they secured their living created some basic ideology around how things should be done. With workers this is only true to a certain extent; they will be drivin to organize unions or fight for reforms because their interests are at odds with the interests of the capitalists.

But unlike capitalist power which could grow within feudalism, only overlaping with the feudal system and subject to taxes and restrictions on trade, workers already have their hands on the economic power, they are just legally and politically denied control over this power. So the potential economic power of the class is held back by superstructural elements of capitalist society whereas the conflict between feudalism and capitalism was different in that two competing modes and relations of production sat one within the other (though conflicts often played out in the rehlm of the superstructure - christian religious conflicts etc).

Because of this, some on the left, see forming an alternative within capitalism as the strategy: socialist communes and anarchist "prefigurative" organizations which will just flourish to the point where socialist relations have enough of a hold within society, that the state can be overwhelmed and capitalism falls over with a slight push.

Personally, I don't see this happening because capitalist states were essentially founded as a way to force people into market-relations and they are pretty good at transforming all non-market relationships eventually into property relationships. And if that fails, they will just send men with guns after us to force us in line like with native americans in the past or the Zapatistas etc.

So I think it does mean that workers have to smash the old state and capitalist institutions and replace it with their own "state" - that is their own power from below institutionalized to ensure democratic decision-making by workers and for the promotion of reorganizing society along socialist relations.

[prolcon]

Just to go back to my original question: when socialism happens, does that mean productive relations remain static?