Post-capitalist systems besides socialism

[Orcris]

(I'm not really sure where to put this, so I decided on OI)

I was thinking about class struggle, and realized something. Why would socialism follow capitalism? When slave society changed to feudalism, the slaves became serfs. The knights/soldiers, who were a minor class in slave society, became the aristocracy, who were the ruling class. The former slaves became serfs. When capitalist revolutions happened, the bourgeois (a minor class in feudalism) became the ruling class, and the serfs became the proletariat. When capitalism eventually falls, why would the capitalist working class become the owning class? If history follows the same path it has, a minor class will seize power and the working class will continue to be the working class. Why do you think that socialism will follow capitalism?

[tuwix]

Your doubts are correct. Socialism doesn't have to occur after capitalism. Sometimes fascism occurs. And IMHO it is a system slightly different than capitalism because capital doesn't rule there.

[Crixus]

(I'm not really sure where to put this, so I decided on OI)

I was thinking about class struggle, and realized something. Why would socialism follow capitalism? When slave society changed to feudalism, the slaves became serfs. The knights/soldiers, who were a minor class in slave society, became the aristocracy, who were the ruling class. The former slaves became serfs. When capitalist revolutions happened, the bourgeois (a minor class in feudalism) became the ruling class, and the serfs became the proletariat. When capitalism eventually falls, why would the capitalist working class become the owning class? If history follows the same path it has, a minor class will seize power and the working class will continue to be the working class. Why do you think that socialism will follow capitalism?

Because in each system there is a class extracting/allocating surplus. Class society, according to Marx, started with agriculture which created a surplus of goods. Before people hunted/gathered which didn't create a surplus and these societies are what he would call 'primitive communism'. Each person had free access to the means of sustenance with no surplus created and hence enjoyed relative equality within their society. They controlled how they survived so they controlled how they lived. Agriculture gave rise to surplus and what Marx called "big men" who, by force, hoarded the surplus for themselves. This eventually led to slavery/feudalism all the way into capitalism where not only the surplus is stolen but even access to the means of creating surplus (means of production) is controlled by a thieving minority class. In short communism isnt communism until workers both democraticlly control surplus and the means of creating surplus (means of production). Without direct worker control of the means of production and direct worker control of storage/distribution of surplus indeed class society will continue.

Was/is this the case in Russia? China? North N Korea? Cuba? No. I can think of no long term cases where industrial (non primitive) communism has existed and it will never exist unless workers democratically control the means of production and allocation of the goods produced. In Russia a minority class did seize power, as was the case in China, Cuba and N Korea. Workers had to be 'guided' through an industrialization process because the regions were not ready for communism. Socialism as seen in practice since 1917 has indeed been the history, by in large, of a minority class controlling the means of production and the goods created.

Some would argue that until capitalism has been eradicated around the globe a sort of hierarchical 'workers state' would be necessary to fight capitalism, allocate resources and keep workers 'true' to communist principles. Entire books have been written, tendencies created, battles fought and debates waged concerning the proper material conditions for socialist revolutions and what it will take to have a truly global communist system where workers control production/surplus. Welcome to the world of communist theory.

[Jimmie Higgins]

(I'm not really sure where to put this, so I decided on OI)

I was thinking about class struggle, and realized something. Why would socialism follow capitalism? When slave society changed to feudalism, the slaves became serfs. The knights/soldiers, who were a minor class in slave society, became the aristocracy, who were the ruling class. The former slaves became serfs. When capitalist revolutions happened, the bourgeois (a minor class in feudalism) became the ruling class, and the serfs became the proletariat. When capitalism eventually falls, why would the capitalist working class become the owning class? If history follows the same path it has, a minor class will seize power and the working class will continue to be the working class. Why do you think that socialism will follow capitalism?Well I think for one thing, systems don't simply fall like a specific regime might - there has to be some kind of alternative for organizing and sustaining ourselves already developed or with the immediate potential to develop.

So the whole banking system could collapse, all banks shut down, governments freeze or collapse, but people would probably rely on sort of scarsity or siege economies of hording and trading and so on. When the dust settles, more than likely it would just be a reconstructed capitalism - which might be very different in suface features due to new conditions, but it would still be production for profit through exploitation. If there is massive destruction like a huge nuclear war or something totally catostrophic where society collapsed and people scattered and had to revert to subsistance farming, then, maybe when the dust settles, some new form would exist - probably something like feudalism.

So socialism/communism isn't inevitable, but it would be a possible positive development out of capitalism which could allow for the end of classes altogether. But capitalism is contradictory and so socialism or barbarism are possible outcomes. If capitalism undermines the ability of people to produce and live decently by destroying the environment or populations, then it removes the possibility for socialism and even it's own ability to function.


Your doubts are correct. Socialism doesn't have to occur after capitalism. Sometimes fascism occurs. And IMHO it is a system slightly different than capitalism because capital doesn't rule there.I don't know about that - they still needed capital, there was still profits and exploitation and circulation of money. Capitalism doesn't need capitalists to rule and it doesn't even always need capitalists as we know them, beurocrats and aristocrats have sometimes used their social power to expand capitalist relations.

[Brutus]

Your doubts are correct. Socialism doesn't have to occur after capitalism. Sometimes fascism occurs

Fascism is capitalism

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Your doubts are correct. Socialism doesn't have to occur after capitalism. Sometimes fascism occurs. And IMHO it is a system slightly different than capitalism because capital doesn't rule there.

This is bullshit. Capitalism was alive and well in Italy and Nazi Germany - fascism isn't a separate class system.

They had coca-cola advertisements in Hitler Youth booklets, for heavens' sake!

[Brutus]

Not that Hitler was in bed with the capitalists or anything...

[Brutus]

In fact, I would say fascism is the purest form of capitalism. The bourgeoisie are totally I opposed due to lack of trade unions and strikes.

[Blake's Baby]

In ancient slave society, the 'revolutionary' class, as in the class that embodied new productive relations, was the class of equites. However the main exploited class was the slave class.

In feudal society, the class that embodied a new mode of production was the bourgeoisie. But the exploited class par excellence was the peasantry.

So in both these societies the class destined to be the new ruling class is not primarily an exploited class, but an exploiting class.

In capitalism, however, the proletariat is both an exploited class (because it is the proletariat that carries out the vast majority of the work - the world increasingly being divided into two opposing classes and all that) and the revolutionary class that embodies the new social mode of production.

The other classes in capitalism - the peasantry, the artisans and the petite-bourgeoisie - are hangovers from feudal society or (in the case of the petite-bourgeoisie) merely less-successful capitalists. A revolution that put the petite-bourgeoisie in control of society would not in any way fundamentally alter the mode of production; it would result in ... capitalism. A political but not a social revolution, I think.

I can't see what other class could take hold of society. The artisans and peasants don't have the economic power to impose their class interest on capitalism. The working class does because of its role in production - though, as an exploited class, it cannot as the bourgeoisie or the equites did build its power inside capitalism as a counterweight (not having another class to 'get rich' on the back of), it needs to take its own production into its own hands and use it for social not private ends.

I hope that goes some way to answering the question about the differences between the proletarian and all other revolutions.

Incidentally, the fact that the proletariat doesn't have another class it's exploiting is why there's nothing 'after' socialism; there are no other classes waiting in the wings to take over, there is no need of further revolutions, because socialism is human liberation, not just the liberation of the working class.

[Dear Leader]

The workers don't become the owning class in socialism, all classes are abolished.

[Fionnagáin]

(I'm not really sure where to put this, so I decided on OI)

I was thinking about class struggle, and realized something. Why would socialism follow capitalism? When slave society changed to feudalism, the slaves became serfs. The knights/soldiers, who were a minor class in slave society, became the aristocracy, who were the ruling class. The former slaves became serfs. When capitalist revolutions happened, the bourgeois (a minor class in feudalism) became the ruling class, and the serfs became the proletariat. When capitalism eventually falls, why would the capitalist working class become the owning class? If history follows the same path it has, a minor class will seize power and the working class will continue to be the working class. Why do you think that socialism will follow capitalism?
What "minor classes" are there? Not the petty bourgeois, they're already on their way out. Not the bureaucrats, they're just a function of capital, no more capable of independent struggle than the retainers of feudal lords. The professional strata? At best, petty bourgeois, more usually of the same type as the bureaucrats, and increasingly just skilled proles.

There's nobody left, when you get right down to it, but the bosses and the proles. The boss's way of things can't go on forever- environmentally, at this rate, as well as socially. The proles are the ones capable of creating anything new, and, as Blake's Baby says, with the absence of any subordinate classes for them to exploit, their creation must be classless. Thus, we have the choice of socialism or barbarism, as the cliché goes.

[rylasasin]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Technocracy yet...

You know, where the capitalist class is replaced with a "ruling class" of Scientists and Engineers and Capital is replaced with that whole Energy Accounting system?

[Comrade #138672]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Technocracy yet...

You know, where the capitalist class is replaced with a "ruling class" of Scientists and Engineers and Capital is replaced with that whole Energy Accounting system?Wouldn't they just be technocratic Capitalists?

I think the USSR was pretty much a technocracy, but it was still State Capitalism.

[rylasasin]

Wouldn't they just be technocratic Capitalists?

I think the USSR was pretty much a technocracy, but it was still State Capitalism.

The fact that you can't save energy credits (And therefore can't make a profit. No profit, no Capitalism,) which is an integral part of the Technocracy I'm talking about here (Technocracy as a mode of production, not technocracy the political term) says otherwise.

[ckaihatsu]

When capitalism eventually falls, why would the capitalist working class become the owning class? If history follows the same path it has, a minor class will seize power and the working class will continue to be the working class. Why do you think that socialism will follow capitalism?


Yeah, that happened and turned out to be *Stalinism* -- the elite professional bureaucratic section got hold of power and the workers remained workers.

[ckaihatsu]

The fact that you can't save energy credits (And therefore can't make a profit. No profit, no Capitalism,) which is an integral part of the Technocracy I'm talking about here (Technocracy as a mode of production, not technocracy the political term) says otherwise.


Technocracy -- either politically and/or economically -- is *not* a different mode of production. It's a *scheme* that would rely on a fair amount of specialization from those who would be the technocrats, which is inherently problematic because of that specialization.

Here's from a fairly recent thread:





The key word here is 'overseeing', which is from the domain of *management*, or managing. You're also having to use a very *specialized* instance of a technical procedure, one that is particular to a person's life, is individually physically exacting, and is time-sensitive. Outside of the procedure of surgery, many more *regular* technical processes are *non*-life-sensitive, *non*-individual-specific, and *non*-time-sensitive.

Since the leaning towards specialization, as you're doing, has a political component, you're effectively running *counter* to the modes of egality, transparency, and broad participation that are the hallmarks of communism.


Technocracy

http://www.revleft.com/vb/technocracy-p2599918/index.html#post2599918


And in this post I debunk the 'Energy Credits' conception:


The Free-Rider Problem in Communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2488217&postcount=37

[TheRedAnarchist23]

You can be incredibly reactionary and have a post-capitalist feudalist society.

[Crixus]

Not that Hitler was in bed with the capitalists or anything...
Capitalists all over the place funded him to stop communism.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Deterding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Deterding)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Thyssen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montagu_Norman,_1st_Baron_Norman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Papen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foster_Dulles


Other capitalists threw their chunks of money into Hitlers bed. Prescott Bush worked for Fritz Thyssen so he organized some of the American funding etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

[Brutus]

You can be incredibly reactionary and have a post-capitalist feudalist society.

Everything is in a constant state of change, so it is impossible to go back to feudalism.
DiaMat, David!

[Brutus]

I was being sarcastic, crixus

[Crixus]

I was being sarcastic, crixus

Ya I know. I just went off on some Hitler funding rant.

[Blake's Baby]

What "minor classes" are there? Not the petty bourgeois, they're already on their way out...

I don't think the petite-bourgeoisie is 'on the way out' as a class. As individuals, yes, they're always going to be out-competed by the big capitalists; but as a class? There'll always be more petites-bourgeoises along... just like there'll always be more artisans (and the same people may occupy both positions at different times). They'll never have a commanding weight in the economy, I wouldn't have thought (the fervid dreams of 'anarcho-capitalists' notwithstanding) but they still exist and capitalism seems to endlessly renew them as a class. They are after all just the 'failures' of capitalism.

[liberlict]

(I'm not really sure where to put this, so I decided on OI)

I was thinking about class struggle, and realized something. Why would socialism follow capitalism? When slave society changed to feudalism, the slaves became serfs. The knights/soldiers, who were a minor class in slave society, became the aristocracy, who were the ruling class. The former slaves became serfs. When capitalist revolutions happened, the bourgeois (a minor class in feudalism) became the ruling class, and the serfs became the proletariat. When capitalism eventually falls, why would the capitalist working class become the owning class? If history follows the same path it has, a minor class will seize power and the working class will continue to be the working class. Why do you think that socialism will follow capitalism?

Because it's not ideologically correct to suppose anything else ..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Unlike most of my comrades it seems, I'm not completely dismissive of the idea that "socialism or barbarism" may in fact be a false dichotomy.

Why? Because capitalism isn't finished yet, and while its contradictions may ensure its eventual demise, there's no reason that I can see to suggest that changing material conditions as a result of events like the financial crisis, peak oil, climate change, and a possible Singularity (http://earlywarn.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/singularity-climate-change-peak-oil.html) will not bring forth new kinds of economic relations with no ready historical or theoretical precedent.

Although, depending on how the world develops as these aforementioned events unfold (or fail to unfold), I suppose one could divide the possibilities into ones that socialists would generally consider progressive, vs possibilities that socialists would generally consider regressive.

While the various factions of the far left are completely correct in attacking the notion that There Is No Alternative (to capitalism), I sometimes get the impression that they really think that There Is No Other Alternative. Since none of us have any functioning crystal balls, I think a little intellectual humility is in order.

[Fionnagáin]

What social class do you believe might give rise to these "new kinds of economic relation"?

[evermilion]

Because it's not ideologically correct to suppose anything else ..

Class contradictions tend to simplify over time, and in a system with only two classes, the precedent of class revolution suggests the abolition of class entirely.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What social class do you believe might give rise to these "new kinds of economic relation"?

I was taking a nap, and while doing so thinking about Facebook's business model, and something along those lines did occur to me.

Basically, instead of selling labour to an employer, this hypothetical new class sells information about their habits and preferences (and possibly more) to people who can make use of that information, such as advertisers, marketers, corporate R&D, that sort of thing. Zuckerberg might think that access to Facebook is payment enough, but circumstances might force him to modify his business model, or a competitor may supercede him. A shrewd operator of this "pay4info" model might introduce a scaled version of it, with greater amounts of more detailed information providing a correspondingly greater reward.

Presumably then, if one sells enough information about oneself, it may be possible to live off the proceeds of that. Ta-da, new class! I think.

[Fionnagáin]

How is that a new class? What social relation does it embody? It doesn't sound to me any different than full-time bloggers, webcomic artists, etc., who make their money from ads, donations and merch. Petty bourgeois, really, or near enough.

[Blake's Baby]

It's artisan labour, in so far as it doesn't employ other people. A harking back to the feudal era, which is in perpetual danger (if that's the right word, I might mean perpetually has the potential) of being recuperated directly into capitalist relations.

[Nicolas_Cage]

It's my belief that we'll one day learn to respect animals. I believe in only eating the meat of animals which practice sex in a decent manner such as fish or birds. I don't eat pork due to how pigs are in that regard.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

It's my belief that we'll one day learn to respect animals. I believe in only eating the meat of animals which practice sex in a decent manner such as fish or birds. I don't eat pork due to how pigs are in that regard.

Some fish eat their partner after mating.

[Nicolas_Cage]

Some fish eat their partner after mating.

I was more talking about fish as a whole. Of course there are SOME exceptions. I don't like the way pigs will basically fuck anything.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How is that a new class? What social relation does it embody? It doesn't sound to me any different than full-time bloggers, webcomic artists, etc., who make their money from ads, donations and merch. Petty bourgeois, really, or near enough.


It's artisan labour, in so far as it doesn't employ other people. A harking back to the feudal era, which is in perpetual danger (if that's the right word, I might mean perpetually has the potential) of being recuperated directly into capitalist relations.

But in this case it is information that is being sold for an exploitative value, not labour or the products of labour.

[Fionnagáin]

So what?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

So what?

It simply means that unproductive labour, such as say account management (do not take the word emotionally - it means non-productive as in not producing commodities for the capitalist to sell, rather than 'lazy unproductive worker') does not, as I just mentioned, actually produce commodities for their capitalists.

I disagree with Noxion in the notion that this constitutes a separate class, however, as people in these sectors are clearly exploited to clean and maintain vital structures that maintain capitalist enterprise.

[Fionnagáin]

But, again, so what? Capital has always produced semi-independent functionaries. Nothing in that implies a non-capitalist mode of production.

[liberlict]

The only one I can think of is some super technocracy. Where we would have the economy run by a computer and humans peruse pleasure. If we can program computers to that extent---perhaps even having non-sentient robots as laborers--- this might work.

[Mather]

Unlike most of my comrades it seems, I'm not completely dismissive of the idea that "socialism or barbarism" may in fact be a false dichotomy.

The term socialism or barbarism came from Rosa Luxemburg, though she was only rephrasing something written along similar lines by Engles in Anti-Dühring. Luxemburg used this term in reference to the First World War and the potential for modern, technological and industrialised capitalist states to destroy each other and regress civilisation to more primitive forms through constant warfare with modern and powerful weaponry.

I'm guessing your disagreement with the term is because it appears to you as being too dualisitic? The term is not dualistic on the point of what possible outcomes succeed capitalism and I would also like to add that the term does not exclude the possibility of capitalism surviving, as it could itself assume more barbaric forms. The term is open to all the forms of possible barbarism, both capitalist and post-capitalist. However the term is dualistic in the sense that regardless of the different possible outcomes, unless it is socialism/communism then it will be barbarism for the working class. Amongst most other people who agree with the term (me included) the range of possible outcomes entailed in the term are numerous and varied:

- The term barbarism could mean that capitalism continues to survive but does so through ever more brutual and harsh means of exploitation and violence, eg; a global victory for Nazi Germany. In this case there would still be technology and a modern civilisation only that such a civilisation would be barbaric in and of itself.

- It could mean a whole number of post capitalist but non-socialist/communist outcomes that took root in the wake of some massive disaster (climate change, asteroid impact, global food shortages, nuclear war etc.). Here global civilisation would be reduced in all aspects be it economics, productive forces, technology and industry, health and social care, education, culture, urbanisation etc.

- The term could even entail more futuristic outcomes along the lines of what you posited such as a singularity or something like and alien invasion or some other unforeseen circumstance.

- It could also mean something as extreme as the extinction or near extinction of humans.

Those are just a few of the possible outcomes I can think of right now, there may be many more. But the point is that out of all these possible outcomes, none of them are positive from the standpoint of the working class. None of these possible outcomes offer the working class liberation and in most cases would entail a severe reduction of workers conditions, which are already pretty miserable. So from a workers point of view, the term socialism or barbarism does ring true.

Here is a link to put Luxemburg's term in context:

The Junius Phamphlet (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/junius/ch01.htm)


Why? Because capitalism isn't finished yet, and while its contradictions may ensure its eventual demise, there's no reason that I can see to suggest that changing material conditions as a result of events like the financial crisis, peak oil, climate change, and a possible Singularity (http://earlywarn.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/singularity-climate-change-peak-oil.html) will not bring forth new kinds of economic relations with no ready historical or theoretical precedent.

I think your failing to consider a few things here.

First off, all the examples of changes in the mode of production (antiquity/slavery to feudalism, feudalism to capitalism) took place without any past historical or theoretical precedent.

At the same time while the above point holds true, every time there was a change in the mode of production the mircocosms of that change existed within the framework of the old order and mode of production. The artisans and merchants were that microcosm in the feudal era and when they swept the old feudal order aside that microcosm became the basis upon which modern capitalism was built. There is very little evidence (if any) to suggest that a new class (independent of the existing relationship between the exploiter and the exploited yet being capable of the task of changing the mode of production) such as this exists.

I would also point out that your above point does not invalidate the fact that without social revolution and communism, all the other possible outcomes would be barbaric from the point of view of our own class.


Although, depending on how the world develops as these aforementioned events unfold (or fail to unfold), I suppose one could divide the possibilities into ones that socialists would generally consider progressive, vs possibilities that socialists would generally consider regressive.

That is the gist of what Luxemburg was saying, but it doesn't matter what socialists think so much as the working class itself. They will ultimately bear the brunt of any outcome thats is regressive.


While the various factions of the far left are completely correct in attacking the notion that There Is No Alternative (to capitalism), I sometimes get the impression that they really think that There Is No Other Alternative. Since none of us have any functioning crystal balls, I think a little intellectual humility is in order.

This is way off point, most people who subscribe to Luxemburg's term are well aware that many possible alternatives exist. However, only one of those alternatives is worth fighting for as the rest are just too awful to even consider.

[Mather]

It's my belief that we'll one day learn to respect animals. I believe in only eating the meat of animals which practice sex in a decent manner such as fish or birds. I don't eat pork due to how pigs are in that regard.


I was more talking about fish as a whole. Of course there are SOME exceptions. I don't like the way pigs will basically fuck anything.

What has any of this got to do with the topic at hand? :confused:

[Mather]

I was taking a nap, and while doing so thinking about Facebook's business model, and something along those lines did occur to me.

Basically, instead of selling labour to an employer, this hypothetical new class sells information about their habits and preferences (and possibly more) to people who can make use of that information, such as advertisers, marketers, corporate R&D, that sort of thing. Zuckerberg might think that access to Facebook is payment enough, but circumstances might force him to modify his business model, or a competitor may supercede him. A shrewd operator of this "pay4info" model might introduce a scaled version of it, with greater amounts of more detailed information providing a correspondingly greater reward.

Presumably then, if one sells enough information about oneself, it may be possible to live off the proceeds of that. Ta-da, new class! I think.

As Fionnagáin has already pointed out, there are many examples of these type of jobs and ways to get paid that act as "semi-independent functionaries" within the wider capitalist system. A lot of petit-bourgeois jobs fall under this category and examples such as the one you provided (plus professional bloggers, webzine editors, online analysts etc.) are just the modern day variant of these petit bourgeois roles in the 'digital' and 'post-industrial' age.

Though I disagree on your example constituting a new class, for the sake of argument let's assume that it does as it raises a few points that need to be taken into account.

This hypothetical class would still have to work within the wider confines of capitalism as no society nor any economy could survive on just selling data alone. The capitalist class would no doubt still be running everything else such as resource extraction, agriculture, energy production, industry, science and techonology, transport and infrastructure, goods and services etc. In this context your hypothetical class could only ever survive within the confines capitalism and would disappear upon the abolition of capitalism. Also by it's very nature your hypothetical class would remain very small, both in terms of numbers and (in all likelood) in terms of capital. Lacking the collective strengths and traditions of the working class and lacking the power and dominance of the capitalist class, your hypothetical class would always remain a peripheral and rather marginalsed part of the overall class structure.

On all of these aforementioned points, your hypothetical class shares many characteristics of the petit-bourgeois class and much like them your hypothetical class would have it's existence tied to that of the wider capitalist system. It could not survive without it.

Another similarity that your example and the petit-bourgeoisie both share is also the most important as you posited the possibility of "new kinds of economic relations with no ready historical or theoretical precedent." Your hypothetical class would lack any transformative or progressive character in the way that the emerging capitalist class did in the feudal era or in the way the working class does now. As such it would not have the historical agency necessary to carry out the task of changning the mode of production and assuming a class dominance in the post-capitalist order.

So even if you remain convinced that your example would constitute a new class (and I disagree on that point) you then have to ask yourself, why would such a class be the one that assumes the historic task of changing the mode of production?


But in this case it is information that is being sold for an exploitative value, not labour or the products of labour.

Would data itself not constitute a product of labour to some degree?

What about low-level salesmen who work on pure commission with no basic pay, is that not similar? I ask as I have worked as one myself.

They are not being paid for their labour as they make money on what they sell. Yet they are not capitalists as what they sell is the product of the company they work for and they have no dominant role in the mode of production that takes place within said company nor do they share in it's profits. Like the salesman, a member of your hypothetical class would have to actually do physical work and spend time in the process of getting the data that is then sold on. I know as I had to do the same thing with door to door sales. I could have spent an entire day walking great distances and not make a single sale, thus I didn't get paid. On other days I could have made a sale within minutes of my working day and I then had the option of working the rest of the day to make more sales or I could go home early with the money made from the first sale. Regardless of how much (or how little) work and effort I put in I wasn't paid for that, simply what I sold.

The salesman shares many similarities with your hypothetical class yet I wouldn't really consider my example as being one of a new and separate class, especially one that could possibly play a transformative role in the change of the mode of production.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The term socialism or barbarism came from Rosa Luxemburg, though she was only rephrasing something written along similar lines by Engles in Anti-Dühring. Luxemburg used this term in reference to the First World War and the potential for modern, technological and industrialised capitalist states to destroy each other and regress civilisation to more primitive forms through constant warfare with modern and powerful weaponry.

I'm guessing your disagreement with the term is because it appears to you as being too dualisitic? The term is not dualistic on the point of what possible outcomes succeed capitalism and I would also like to add that the term does not exclude the possibility of capitalism surviving, as it could itself assume more barbaric forms. The term is open to all the forms of possible barbarism, both capitalist and post-capitalist. However the term is dualistic in the sense that regardless of the different possible outcomes, unless it is socialism/communism then it will be barbarism for the working class. Amongst most other people who agree with the term (me included) the range of possible outcomes entailed in the term are numerous and varied:

- The term barbarism could mean that capitalism continues to survive but does so through ever more brutual and harsh means of exploitation and violence, eg; a global victory for Nazi Germany. In this case there would still be technology and a modern civilisation only that such a civilisation would be barbaric in and of itself.

- It could mean a whole number of post capitalist but non-socialist/communist outcomes that took root in the wake of some massive disaster (climate change, asteroid impact, global food shortages, nuclear war etc.). Here global civilisation would be reduced in all aspects be it economics, productive forces, technology and industry, health and social care, education, culture, urbanisation etc.

- The term could even entail more futuristic outcomes along the lines of what you posited such as a singularity or something like and alien invasion or some other unforeseen circumstance.

- It could also mean something as extreme as the extinction or near extinction of humans.

Those are just a few of the possible outcomes I can think of right now, there may be many more. But the point is that out of all these possible outcomes, none of them are positive from the standpoint of the working class. None of these possible outcomes offer the working class liberation and in most cases would entail a severe reduction of workers conditions, which are already pretty miserable. So from a workers point of view, the term socialism or barbarism does ring true.

Here is a link to put Luxemburg's term in context:

The Junius Phamphlet (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/junius/ch01.htm)

As you admit yourself, there are more possible outcomes than the ones you have outlined. So what precisely gives you the confidence to say that all of them bar one* are negative so far as working class interests are concerned?

*(Also, which "one"? See my last point below)


I think your failing to consider a few things here.

First off, all the examples of changes in the mode of production (antiquity/slavery to feudalism, feudalism to capitalism) took place without any past historical or theoretical precedent.

At the same time while the above point holds true, every time there was a change in the mode of production the mircocosms of that change existed within the framework of the old order and mode of production. The artisans and merchants were that microcosm in the feudal era and when they swept the old feudal order aside that microcosm became the basis upon which modern capitalism was built. There is very little evidence (if any) to suggest that a new class (independent of the existing relationship between the exploiter and the exploited yet being capable of the task of changing the mode of production) such as this exists.

Well that is rather problematic, because I don't see anything in the framework of contemporary capitalism which could plausibly constitute a "microcosm" of the next socioeconomic order, whatever that may be.


I would also point out that your above point does not invalidate the fact that without social revolution and communism, all the other possible outcomes would be barbaric from the point of view of our own class.

The events I mentioned are by no means the entire story, but they are major considerations for what might significantly shape history for the next century or so. In my view "socialism or barbarism" (or whatever it is that comes next) depends on how people on all levels react to these events as they unfold, as much it does on the events themselves.


That is the gist of what Luxemburg was saying, but it doesn't matter what socialists think so much as the working class itself. They will ultimately bear the brunt of any outcome thats is regressive.

Well, the working class are hardly united in opinion, so there are those who would welcome what you and I both would decry as barbarism. Not surprising when there are so many (billions?) individuals constituting it. I think there is a tendency to confuse the class interests of workers with the interests of workers as they actually pursue them.

I imagine that most workers want stability before they want liberation, which is partly why I reckon fascism does so well in times of capitalist crisis, because it has some reputation (even if mostly undeserved - there's another gap between what workers' interests are and what they actually pursue!) in being able to offer stability, at least for certain sections of the working class. They'll choose the liberation route if A) stability is not an option or is looking unlikely, and if B) those advocating liberation have something to show for which demonstrates the possibility. I think in the eyes of a lot of workers the situation we're in now includes A) but does not include B).


This is way off point, most people who subscribe to Luxemburg's term are well aware that many possible alternatives exist. However, only one of those alternatives is worth fighting for as the rest are just too awful to even consider.

Do you really think that the alternative advocated by an anarcho-syndicalist is the same as the alternative advocated by a Marxist-Leninist or a Blanquist? While both speak of socialism and of working in the interests of workers as a class, they could well be talking about very different things in practical terms!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As Fionnagáin has already pointed out, there are many examples of these type of jobs and ways to get paid that act as "semi-independent functionaries" within the wider capitalist system. A lot of petit-bourgeois jobs fall under this category and examples such as the one you provided (plus professional bloggers, webzine editors, online analysts etc.) are just the modern day variant of these petit bourgeois roles in the 'digital' and 'post-industrial' age.

Though I disagree on your example constituting a new class, for the sake of argument let's assume that it does as it raises a few points that need to be taken into account.

This hypothetical class would still have to work within the wider confines of capitalism as no society nor any economy could survive on just selling data alone. The capitalist class would no doubt still be running everything else such as resource extraction, agriculture, energy production, industry, science and techonology, transport and infrastructure, goods and services etc. In this context your hypothetical class could only ever survive within the confines capitalism and would disappear upon the abolition of capitalism. Also by it's very nature your hypothetical class would remain very small, both in terms of numbers and (in all likelood) in terms of capital. Lacking the collective strengths and traditions of the working class and lacking the power and dominance of the capitalist class, your hypothetical class would always remain a peripheral and rather marginalsed part of the overall class structure.

On all of these aforementioned points, your hypothetical class shares many characteristics of the petit-bourgeois class and much like them your hypothetical class would have it's existence tied to that of the wider capitalist system. It could not survive without it.

Fair points all.


Another similarity that your example and the petit-bourgeoisie both share is also the most important as you posited the possibility of "new kinds of economic relations with no ready historical or theoretical precedent." Your hypothetical class would lack any transformative or progressive character in the way that the emerging capitalist class did in the feudal era or in the way the working class does now. As such it would not have the historical agency necessary to carry out the task of changning the mode of production and assuming a class dominance in the post-capitalist order.

So which currently existing class does have this agency? It seems that such agency being in the interests of the working class has historically proven to be an insufficient condition for things to actually change. The sheer size and distribution of the working class seems to make it especially easy for other, smaller classes to divide the working class against itself.


Would data itself not constitute a product of labour to some degree?

What about low-level salesmen who work on pure commission with no basic pay, is that not similar? I ask as I have worked as one myself.

I don't see how, there's no selling being done, as long as the individual concerned continues to provide data of interest, they'll get their money and/or access to goods and services.


They are not being paid for their labour as they make money on what they sell. Yet they are not capitalists as what they sell is the product of the company they work for and they have no dominant role in the mode of production that takes place within said company nor do they share in it's profits. Like the salesman, a member of your hypothetical class would have to actually do physical work and spend time in the process of getting the data that is then sold on.

Not a whole lot of physical work, I was imagining. Unless one considers clicking a "like" button to be an onerous physical task. In fact, software could be developed to streamline the task further by instantly communicating certain details of stuff that is purchased electronically.


I know as I had to do the same thing with door to door sales. I could have spent an entire day walking great distances and not make a single sale, thus I didn't get paid. On other days I could have made a sale within minutes of my working day and I then had the option of working the rest of the day to make more sales or I could go home early with the money made from the first sale. Regardless of how much (or how little) work and effort I put in I wasn't paid for that, simply what I sold.

I think data is something different to labour which provides goods and services, because it can be produced almost incidentally and yet still have value.


The salesman shares many similarities with your hypothetical class yet I wouldn't really consider my example as being one of a new and separate class, especially one that could possibly play a transformative role in the change of the mode of production.

Well, I'm not convinced that the example I gave would have any kind of transformative role were it to actually transpire, but even flawed examples are worth examining even if only to establish the parameters of a discourse.

[Mather]

As you admit yourself, there are more possible outcomes than the ones you have outlined. So what precisely gives you the confidence to say that all of them bar one* are negative so far as working class interests are concerned?

The interests of the working class can only be realised through their own liberation. This entails class struggle, social revolution and the establishment of communism (or socialism in reference to the choice posited by Luxemburg). All the other outcomes do not entail this so I would like to ask, how would these other outcomes be beneficial to the working class or in their interests?

Should the working class fail in the task of revolution, then all the other outcomes will either entail the continued exploitation and oppression of the working class (under more brutal forms of capitalism) or their dissolution as a class in a post-capitalist outcome. Again, how is this beneficial to our class?


*(Also, which "one"? See my last point below)

?

You've lost me here.


Well that is rather problematic, because I don't see anything in the framework of contemporary capitalism which could plausibly constitute a "microcosm" of the next socioeconomic order, whatever that may be.

The working class???

Jesus Christ mate! I can't believe that I need to point that out to you.


The events I mentioned are by no means the entire story, but they are major considerations for what might significantly shape history for the next century or so.

Such events may or may not destroy capitalism. Either way, at present the only class that is able to change the mode of production is the working class. As of yet, there is no evidence to support the idea that some other class (other than the working class) has the potential to change the mode of production and supersede capitalism. I would also add that in light of there being no evidence, we cannot even begin to think of the possible class formations and class structures that a post-capitalist barbarism would have. Historical materialism is not futurology, it can only guide us on possible (and plausible) future outcomes insomuch as what we know now based upon all the objective conditions. Furthermore, historical materialism is not deterministic. The working class is a revolutionary class as it alone has the power to abolish capitalism, no other class at present has this ability. This fact is borne out of a objective materialist analysis however such an analysis merely states that the working class is able to abolish capitalism, not that it should or that it will.


Well, the working class are hardly united in opinion, so there are those who would welcome what you and I both would decry as barbarism. Not surprising when there are so many (billions?) individuals constituting it.

Indeed. However I am referring to the working class in the collective sense, as a class and not any particular set individuals within it.

No doubt there are those working class individuals who are fooled by bourgeois propaganda and manipulation, remember that the ruling ideology of the bourgeoisie is totally dominant and hegemonic. This is false consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness). But does this change the objective situation of the working class? Not one bit! For example, a worker who labours under false consciousness and supports austerity will see his/her objective conditions deteriorate even if they think that austerity is in their interests. Their living conditions and working conditions will get worse regardless of how they personally feel or think about that.

Even at the height of class struggle, the working class will not be one monolithic bloc with every single member thinking and working in agreement with one another. A working class revolution can succeed if a majority of workers support it and a majority of the working class socialises the means of production. In such a scenario, those workers who labour under false consciousness would be too small and (more importantly) to disorganised to be an obstacle to the class struggle and revolution.


I think there is a tendency to confuse the class interests of workers with the interests of workers as they actually pursue them.

No one on this thread has said that or even implied it.

In times of low levels of class struggle and working class organisation (such as now), many workers will pursue their interests in ways which neither correlate with the interests of the wider working class or in ways which challange the rule of capital. Some workers do this under false consciousness and others simply because they have no other viable option at that moment in time. For the latter it is not so much a case of them wanting to pursue their interests in such a manner as it is a case of them not having much choice in the matter.


I imagine that most workers want stability before they want liberation,

What do you base this assumption on?


which is partly why I reckon fascism does so well in times of capitalist crisis, because it has some reputation (even if mostly undeserved - there's another gap between what workers' interests are and what they actually pursue!) in being able to offer stability, at least for certain sections of the working class.

I'm afraid your wrong on this point.

Fascism does well and becomes a real threat when the bourgeoisie can no longer rule in the old way (bourgeois democracy) and working class refuses to be ruled in the old way. Fascism is a systemic reaction that occurs in capitalist societies that are going through a protracted and intense period of class struggle and crisis.


They'll choose the liberation route if A) stability is not an option or is looking unlikely, and if B) those advocating liberation have something to show for which demonstrates the possibility. I think in the eyes of a lot of workers the situation we're in now includes A) but does not include B).

That's not how things work out though. What your suggesting sounds like rational choice theory, a bogus idea associated with proponents of the free market and game theory.

Workers do not choose revolution (liberation) when 'stability' is no longer an option. There are countless examples of unstable societies that are absent of any revolution or even being in a pre-revolutionary situation. The working class revolt when the contradictions of capitalism reach a point of no return. This point is reached when the ruling class can no longer rule in the old way as their drive for ever more profits pushes the working class into conflict with them and from such conflict, the working class carries out it's historical task of revolution. As such, the working class will make revolution not out of any choice but only when all other options are no longer available.

On the point of fascism, I think you may possibly be exaggerating the appeal fascism has on the working class.

Historically the fascist party that had the largest and most organised base amongst segements of the working class was the Nazi Party. But even at it's height during the dark years of the Third Reich the Nazi Party never constituted a majority of the wider working class in Germany. Other examples of fascism (Franco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco) in Spain, Salazar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveira_Salazar) in Portugal, Dollfuss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Dollfuss) in Austria, Metaxas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioannis_Metaxas) in Greece) were pure top down affairs with little in the way of mass support, especially amongst the working class. These fascist regimes relied solely on the aristocracy, the officer class, industrialists, landowners and the Church to cement their power. Unlike the Nazis, these regimes were not as populist (nor did they enjoy the same levels of popular support) as the Nazi regime and were openly and proudly elitist. In the case of the Dolfuss and Franco regimes, fascism came to power through it's open conflict and outright opposition to the working class.

So while fascism can fool individual workers into supporting it, it does not possess the ability to fully harness the power of the working class as a class in the collective sense. The obvious reason being that fascist ideology claims to not recognise classes (or at least the need for conflict between them), though in reality fascism is a petit-bourgeois movement that is used by the ruling class and state to reassert bourgeois dominance and power. Because of this, fascism is unable to ever fully control or incorporate the working class. Whenever the threat of fascism arises (like in contemporary Greece) I am far more worried about fascism developing links and gaining support amongst the ruling class and state, such as the Golden Dawn is now doing in Greece.


Do you really think that the alternative advocated by an anarcho-syndicalist is the same as the alternative advocated by a Marxist-Leninist or a Blanquist? While both speak of socialism and of working in the interests of workers as a class, they could well be talking about very different things in practical terms!

All thoughout this thread, when I referred to "working class revolution" I mean just that. A revolution carried out by working class, for the working class. Ultimately, this is what constitutes a revolution and I was not implying any particular tendency when stating that. I wanted to discuss revolution and communism in the general sense and not have it tied down to some faction fight or tendency war as there are already many threads dealing with that.

Likewise as an anarchist, I would rephrase Luxemburg's term as Communism or Barbarism.

[liberlict]

No doubt there are those working class individuals who are fooled by bourgeois propaganda and manipulation, remember that the ruling ideology of the bourgeoisie is totally dominant and hegemonic. This is false consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness). [/I].

Dear lord. I love the way you appoint yourself spokesperson for peoples' consciousness. Perish the thought a person could ever achieve an authentic existence without embracing YOUR views.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The interests of the working class can only be realised through their own liberation. This entails class struggle, social revolution and the establishment of communism (or socialism in reference to the choice posited by Luxemburg). All the other outcomes do not entail this so I would like to ask, how would these other outcomes be beneficial to the working class or in their interests?

Should the working class fail in the task of revolution, then all the other outcomes will either entail the continued exploitation and oppression of the working class (under more brutal forms of capitalism) or their dissolution as a class in a post-capitalist outcome. Again, how is this beneficial to our class?

?

You've lost me here.

The point is that even within radical working class politics, there are divisions, differences both in theory and praxis, that can only be papered over for so long if it looks like a radical transformation of society is imminent. Such contradictions will be resolved at some point, and somebody is going to understand that resolution as a loss for the working class, whether that's actually true or not.

But how do we know if that's true or not? One could be partisan and just say that the if the winning tendency is one that one personally supports, it's also a win for the working class, but anyone could say that so I find that answer to be unsatisfactory.


The working class???

Jesus Christ mate! I can't believe that I need to point that out to you.

How? It might have the numbers and a global presence, but it's politically divided against itself in various ways, and there are numerous powerful forces which both consciously and unconsciously work to ensure that state of affairs remains in place. The artisans and merchants of the previous feudal order had a much easier time of it, being smaller and with some of them even enjoying support from the old ruling classes.


Such events may or may not destroy capitalism. Either way, at present the only class that is able to change the mode of production is the working class. As of yet, there is no evidence to support the idea that some other class (other than the working class) has the potential to change the mode of production and supersede capitalism. I would also add that in light of there being no evidence, we cannot even begin to think of the possible class formations and class structures that a post-capitalist barbarism would have. Historical materialism is not futurology, it can only guide us on possible (and plausible) future outcomes insomuch as what we know now based upon all the objective conditions. Furthermore, historical materialism is not deterministic. The working class is a revolutionary class as it alone has the power to abolish capitalism, no other class at present has this ability. This fact is borne out of a objective materialist analysis however such an analysis merely states that the working class is able to abolish capitalism, not that it should or that it will.

To be honest, I'm not so certain. If it turns out that the historical coin flips down firmly on the side of barbarism, then that would seem to me to invalidate significant parts of the Marxist framework, or at least those parts which are of interest to those seeking a better kind of society, because in that case the working class will have demonstrated that it can't abolish capitalism, even in times of severe stress for that system.


Indeed. However I am referring to the working class in the collective sense, as a class and not any particular set individuals within it.

No doubt there are those working class individuals who are fooled by bourgeois propaganda and manipulation, remember that the ruling ideology of the bourgeoisie is totally dominant and hegemonic. This is false consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness). But does this change the objective situation of the working class? Not one bit! For example, a worker who labours under false consciousness and supports austerity will see his/her objective conditions deteriorate even if they think that austerity is in their interests. Their living conditions and working conditions will get worse regardless of how they personally feel or think about that.

Even at the height of class struggle, the working class will not be one monolithic bloc with every single member thinking and working in agreement with one another. A working class revolution can succeed if a majority of workers support it and a majority of the working class socialises the means of production. In such a scenario, those workers who labour under false consciousness would be too small and (more importantly) to disorganised to be an obstacle to the class struggle and revolution.

The trouble is, getting from here (period of reaction) to there (height of class struggle) is no mean feat, and it's not even clear what if anything communists can do to help the process along. Can we even say that the process has begun? If not, where and how do we start?

What complicates this is that I suspect that if I asked different leftists, I would get a different answer each time, even if I just limited myself to revolutionary leftists.


No one on this thread has said that or even implied it.

In times of low levels of class struggle and working class organisation (such as now), many workers will pursue their interests in ways which neither correlate with the interests of the wider working class or in ways which challange the rule of capital. Some workers do this under false consciousness and others simply because they have no other viable option at that moment in time. For the latter it is not so much a case of them wanting to pursue their interests in such a manner as it is a case of them not having much choice in the matter.

Fair enough, but there is certain kind of Marxist cant which sets my intellectual teeth on edge, because the language used suggests that the speaker has it all figured out and everyone else (including other Marxists with differing views) is completely wrong.


What do you base this assumption on?

Because it's hard to appreciate freedom if one can't secure the next meal.


I'm afraid your wrong on this point.

Fascism does well and becomes a real threat when the bourgeoisie can no longer rule in the old way (bourgeois democracy) and working class refuses to be ruled in the old way. Fascism is a systemic reaction that occurs in capitalist societies that are going through a protracted and intense period of class struggle and crisis.

But that's not what most people are thinking when they support fascism, is it? Making the trains run on time may be a cliche (and untrue), but there it is.


That's not how things work out though. What your suggesting sounds like rational choice theory, a bogus idea associated with proponents of the free market and game theory.

Workers do not choose revolution (liberation) when 'stability' is no longer an option. There are countless examples of unstable societies that are absent of any revolution or even being in a pre-revolutionary situation. The working class revolt when the contradictions of capitalism reach a point of no return. This point is reached when the ruling class can no longer rule in the old way as their drive for ever more profits pushes the working class into conflict with them and from such conflict, the working class carries out it's historical task of revolution. As such, the working class will make revolution not out of any choice but only when all other options are no longer available.

But surely there's a difference between one's options in reality and what one thinks are one's options? Therefore it's entirely possible that those unstable societies that you mentioned did not lead to revolutionary situations on account of the fact that circumstances prevented a significant portion of the working classes from even realising that revolution was a potential avenue.

If I were to try and put it in more Marxist terminology, then I would say that false consciousness appears to be a sufficiently powerful mechanism to forestall revolution, even in times when the ruling classes have demonstrated that they are no longer "fit to rule" via their manifest incompetence and cupidity.


On the point of fascism, I think you may possibly be exaggerating the appeal fascism has on the working class.

Historically the fascist party that had the largest and most organised base amongst segements of the working class was the Nazi Party. But even at it's height during the dark years of the Third Reich the Nazi Party never constituted a majority of the wider working class in Germany. Other examples of fascism (Franco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco) in Spain, Salazar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveira_Salazar) in Portugal, Dollfuss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Dollfuss) in Austria, Metaxas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioannis_Metaxas) in Greece) were pure top down affairs with little in the way of mass support, especially amongst the working class. These fascist regimes relied solely on the aristocracy, the officer class, industrialists, landowners and the Church to cement their power. Unlike the Nazis, these regimes were not as populist (nor did they enjoy the same levels of popular support) as the Nazi regime and were openly and proudly elitist. In the case of the Dolfuss and Franco regimes, fascism came to power through it's open conflict and outright opposition to the working class.

So while fascism can fool individual workers into supporting it, it does not possess the ability to fully harness the power of the working class as a class in the collective sense. The obvious reason being that fascist ideology claims to not recognise classes (or at least the need for conflict between them), though in reality fascism is a petit-bourgeois movement that is used by the ruling class and state to reassert bourgeois dominance and power. Because of this, fascism is unable to ever fully control or incorporate the working class. Whenever the threat of fascism arises (like in contemporary Greece) I am far more worried about fascism developing links and gaining support amongst the ruling class and state, such as the Golden Dawn is now doing in Greece.

Fascist regimes need cooperation (or at least lack of major resistance) from the working class in order to stay in power though, surely?


All thoughout this thread, when I referred to "working class revolution" I mean just that. A revolution carried out by working class, for the working class. Ultimately, this is what constitutes a revolution and I was not implying any particular tendency when stating that. I wanted to discuss revolution and communism in the general sense and not have it tied down to some faction fight or tendency war as there are already many threads dealing with that.

Likewise as an anarchist, I would rephrase Luxemburg's term as Communism or Barbarism.

I don't think the question of tendencies can be so easily seperated from the question of revolution as you seem to imply; indeed it seems to be side-stepping the problem of political differences that exist even within radical working class politics. Revolution is a political act and as such it must have a political character, right?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dear lord. I love the way you appoint yourself spokesperson for peoples' consciousness. Perish the thought a person could ever achieve an authentic existence without embracing YOUR views.

The Marxist concept of "false consciousness" makes no statements about the internal thought processes of individuals, it describes how capitalism creates a misleading picture of socio-economic relations among the classes.

A life lived under false consciousness is as authentic as any other, it's just based on socio-economic assumptions that are contrary to the class interests of the individual.