Socialism is inevitable? (Poll)

[Akshay!]

Do you think socialism is inevitable?

I can imagine several alternate futures so obviously I don't believe in this theory but those who do, please explain why.

[Craig_J]

I think it is inevitable. Eventually people have to realise that, contrary to what they're told, the money they make isn't actually what they earn. What they earn is mostly what is used to pump up the profit of the bourgeosie. Eventually people have to come to terms with that and start to realise how simple capitalist economics work. People have to see that they're being exploited and that their contributions could be towards society (which is also something they're falsley told their contributions go towards in modern capitalist society) rather than for the fat cats at the top of the pile who have to make no effort in order to produce more unjustified wealth.

However, the only way this can ever happen is through serious conciousness raising. It seems like society has been dumbed (sp?) down so much that they just go out work, spend, die. That's where the role of current socialists come in to make sure the inevitable does happen and that it happens as soon as possible.

Also, I don't think anyone on this forum would say it's impossible, not even the most pessimistic of us! Would beat any point in being on here or holding any leftist beliefs!

[Skyhilist]

Lol hopefully nobody votes impossible otherwise why are we even here?

[Le Libérer]

Lol hopefully nobody votes impossible otherwise why are we even here?
Impossible is not an option!

[V.Vendetta]

No, its not inevitable. However I would argue that we will either have libertarian socialism or the not-too-distant ruin of civilization; I can't see a third option.

Ultimately people make their own history; if the workers of the world don't rise up and overthrow the ruling class, and start managing our own affairs freely, then we won't see socialism. It's up to all of us collectively, our goal is in no way inevitable.

[tuwix]

Do you think socialism is inevitable?

I can imagine several alternate futures so obviously I don't believe in this theory but those who do, please explain why.


I think that communism is inevitable.
Everything pursue an equilibrium. Maintaince of such inequality is imposible in longer period of time. This inequality is main reason of the class struggle.
Besides civilisation being stopped in its development by capitalism is evolving to a state when scarcity will disappear. Then money an private property will become obsolete.
But earlier tha capitalism will be shaken by ongoing class struggle and finally it will collapse.

[Manar]

Are we Christians? Is a Messiah inevitably going to descend from heaven and usher in an eternal Kingdom of Communism? Communism is only as inevitable as communists make it.

[Bardo]

I'd say socialism is inevitable. There will come a time where capitalism is no longer an option even for capitalists. As the developing world catches up with the developed world, extremely cheap labor to exploit will become rarer and rarer and automation will start replacing more and more human labor anyway. Capitalism simply cannot function with the majority of the population of a society unemployed and unable to consume it's products. Eventually, the contradictions within capitalism itself will tear it down if the workers don't destroy it first.

It's inevitable.

[Rocky Rococo]

What is inevitable is what a critical mass of people are willing to fight for, to sacrifice for, to do whatever it takes to make happen. There are very few places in the world at present where such a mass exists for socialism. Helping to create that mass, wherever we may be, that is our task.

[Lokomotive293]

No, unfortunately not at all. You all know the saying "socialism or barbarism", and I have the feeling we're getting ever closer to the latter. Maybe that's just my apocalyptic state of mind, but if you think of how weak we are, and how strong the enemy (We only exist because they don't care enough to destroy us), and how we don't have all the time we want (think of the environment, the threat of nuclear war, etc.), I don't know if we can win again, or if we had our chance and that was it.

But, yeah, Che Guevara said: Let us be realistic, let us try the impossible :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

My view is socialism or barbarism. Which means either people will take control or there will be barbarism; this second option would inclde capitalism overcoming working class challenges but hanging on long enough to produce collapse from it's own problems (environmental destruction, war, etc).

[Blake's Baby]

I think this is barbarism.

Luckily, I think the door of the potential for socialism isn't shut yet, 'socialism or barbarism' still applies. But inevitable? No; as several people have said in different ways, socialist society still has to be worked for. It might not happen. Capitlism may be a wreck, but the working class still needs to organise to put it out of our misery. Universal destruction may of course occur first.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Capitalism is moribund; it can no longer develop the productive forces, nor can it contain the contradictory forces it has set in motion. Socialism is inevitable, unless of course something wipes us hairless apes out. And yes, of course socialism will not spontaneously happen, and it needs to be struggled for, but this struggle is also part of the process of the dissolution of capitalism and it, too, is inevitable.

[Akshay!]

Capitalism is moribund; it can no longer develop the productive forces, nor can it contain the contradictory forces it has set in motion. Socialism is inevitable, unless of course something wipes us hairless apes out. And yes, of course socialism will not spontaneously happen, and it needs to be struggled for, but this struggle is also part of the process of the dissolution of capitalism and it, too, is inevitable.

What about the possibility that there's a nuclear war and almost everything is wiped out except some places where capitalists continue to control and exploit the rest of the population? Or a situation in which all countries become kinda like Sweden and everytime the revolution happens, it is defeated? Or if, in reaction to revolutions the capitalists support fascism and the whole world becomes fascist and every communist is murdered and the fascist make sure that none of the people are able to even Think of anything like communism through some advanced technique of thought control which hasn't been invented yet? Or something related to global warming? I could list several other possibilities but my question is - Aren't several other futures possible? Why is it "inevitable"? And btw, why is the struggle that you mentioned, inevitable?

[hatzel]

Are we Christians? Is a Messiah inevitably going to descend from heaven and usher in an eternal Kingdom of Communism?

Dude with a Hezbollah avatar [EDIT: well it was the Hezbollah flag when I made this post, but the times they are a-changing, clearly] (a logo which just so happens to quote the Qur'an in stating that 'the party of Allah' will inevitably be triumphant) seriously just used the 'sometimes you guys are too much like some kind of religious thing or something'-argument, shit just got real up in this thread...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What about the possibility that there's a nuclear war and almost everything is wiped out except some places where capitalists continue to control and exploit the rest of the population? Or a situation in which all countries become kinda like Sweden and everytime the revolution happens, it is defeated? Or if, in reaction to revolutions the capitalists support fascism and the whole world becomes fascist and every communist is murdered and the fascist make sure that none of the people are able to even Think of anything like communism through some advanced technique of thought control which hasn't been invented yet? Or something related to global warming? I could list several other possibilities but my question is - Aren't several other futures possible? Why is it "inevitable"? And btw, why is the struggle that you mentioned, inevitable?

The struggle for socialism is inevitable because an individual's consciousness is in the main determined by their social being. As long as the proletariat exists, there will exist socialist tendencies, though they might be confused, especially if there exists no organised communist movement. Perhaps some sort of "mind control" would negate that, but I am not sure the concept makes much sense. It isn't at all clear how one could filter thoughts like that, especially given how much our mental life is distributed and even external.

Anyway, let us suppose that some sort of catastrophe happens. What then? If it has wiped out humanity, then obviously, there will be no socialism. But that's besides the point. It goes outside the parameters of the question.

If humanity survives in some form, in a capitalist society, well, one of the most important results of Marx's investigations of capitalist society is how unstable it is. After the forces of production have developed to a specific degree in the imperial centres, capitalism can't escape the cycle of crises etc. etc. Sweden is sometimes held up as an example of stable capitalism, but it too has been forced to institute austerity measures, and the recent riots in the country show just how much this supposed liberal utopia is unstable.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Likely - history is progressive, it moves forwards; it always has and it always will.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Likely - history is progressive, it moves forwards; it always has and it always will.
I'd think the events of the twentieth century does away with that notion. History is not inherently progressive. Without human agency, the abstraction we know as "history" would not even be possible. As Marx once observed:

History does nothing, it ‘possesses no immense wealth’, it ‘wages no battles’. It is man, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; ‘history’ is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims.
Under the weight of capitalism's own contradictions, only revolutionary crises are inevitable. The actual toppling of the capitalist system is a different matter; without class-conscious workers to carry this out, it is likely that we will stay where we are.

[Rafiq]

Dude with a Hezbollah avatar (a logo which just so happens to quote the Qur'an in stating that 'the party of Allah' will inevitably be triumphant) seriously just used the 'sometimes you guys are too much like some kind of religious thing or something'-argument, shit just got real up in this thread...

I still can't get my head around why he's allowed to run amok around the forum spouting about his bullshit. Islamists are part of the three horsemen of the bourgeois- decadent apocalypse, alongside ultra nationalist setiment (europe) and american libertarianism. Not to mention the undeniable fact of the group's antisemitism and reactionary conservativism.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Petrol Bomb]

Who the hell voted impossible!?

[Lokomotive293]

The struggle for socialism is inevitable because an individual's consciousness is in the main determined by their social being. As long as the proletariat exists, there will exist socialist tendencies, though they might be confused, especially if there exists no organised communist movement. Perhaps some sort of "mind control" would negate that, but I am not sure the concept makes much sense. It isn't at all clear how one could filter thoughts like that, especially given how much our mental life is distributed and even external.

Anyway, let us suppose that some sort of catastrophe happens. What then? If it has wiped out humanity, then obviously, there will be no socialism. But that's besides the point. It goes outside the parameters of the question.

If humanity survives in some form, in a capitalist society, well, one of the most important results of Marx's investigations of capitalist society is how unstable it is. After the forces of production have developed to a specific degree in the imperial centres, capitalism can't escape the cycle of crises etc. etc. Sweden is sometimes held up as an example of stable capitalism, but it too has been forced to institute austerity measures, and the recent riots in the country show just how much this supposed liberal utopia is unstable.

The problem is that it's very likely that catastrophe may be a result of capitalism, which is why we need socialism before it can happen...

But, I'm with you. The struggle for socialism is inevitable, as well as it being neccessary for further progress, however, its success is not. That depends on us.

[CriticalJames]

But, I'm with you. The struggle for socialism is inevitable, as well as it being neccessary for further progress, however, its success is not. That depends on us.

I really agree with this.

I like to look at the works of thinkers such as Max Weber, who thought that capitalism was the outcome of a set of very specific conditions, and it was very possible that capitalism wouldn't have developed without these conditions. I think that the same's true for socialism, wherein we've already met a few of these conditions (class struggle and crisis). The future of humanity is dependent on the outcome of the class struggle and whether or not the working classes are victorious in this struggle.

[Red Nightmare]

I think it is possible, but I think that the Left will have to unite with all of the different factions of itself before it can successfully unite the proletariat at large.

[soso17]

Who the hell voted impossible!?

My guess, if they're still around…

Theophys and Alexander99

[ind_com]

Likely, but not inevitable.

[ind_com]

I seriously want to know who voted impossible.

[Old Bolshie]

As a historical materialist I believe that Socialism is inevitable. However, this does not mean that we just should be sitting on a chair waiting for it. The struggle will always be necessary and pretty much like the previous changes of the mode of production the transition from capitalism to socialism will necessarily be achieved through a violent class struggle.

[Akshay!]

btw, I have one more related question - What was Marx's view on "Is Socialism Inevitable?"

[Old Bolshie]

btw, I have one more related question - What was Marx's view on "Is Socialism Inevitable?"

"The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto.

[Sky Hedgehogian Maestro]

I think it is inevitable. Eventually people have to realise that, contrary to what they're told, the money they make isn't actually what they earn. What they earn is mostly what is used to pump up the profit of the bourgeosie. Eventually people have to come to terms with that and start to realise how simple capitalist economics work. People have to see that they're being exploited and that their contributions could be towards society (which is also something they're falsley told their contributions go towards in modern capitalist society) rather than for the fat cats at the top of the pile who have to make no effort in order to produce more unjustified wealth.

However, the only way this can ever happen is through serious conciousness raising. It seems like society has been dumbed (sp?) down so much that they just go out work, spend, die. That's where the role of current socialists come in to make sure the inevitable does happen and that it happens as soon as possible.

Also, I don't think anyone on this forum would say it's impossible, not even the most pessimistic of us! Would beat any point in being on here or holding any leftist beliefs!

I outline this in the "Postcapitalist Theory" thread (in Learning right now, but I believe it will soon be moved to "Theory") that not only is socialism inevitable, capitalism is doomed to die no matter what happens. If it thrives, it will end sooner.

[Blake's Baby]

"The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto.

So, they have the same level of inevitability? That would be 'zero' in both cases then.

[Old Bolshie]

So, they have the same level of inevitability? That would be 'zero' in both cases then.

What you didn't get it in Marx quote? He states that the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are inevitable. Why it would be zero?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think it's unfortunate that this is phrased as "inevitable" (which is silly, because the Earth could be hit by an asteroid tomorrow) as opposed to "an historical necessity", suggesting that socialism represents a necessary consequence of the development of capitalism.

Also, I voted "Impossible" because I think that, in terms of how the issue is framed in this thread, it is impossible. I don't believe there will ever be a single totalizing socialism, and that imagining it as such is just a disturbing reflection of liberal ideologies of progress, history, etc.

Further, I voted "Impossible" because, from our current point, any socialism that we could conceive of, shaped by our relationship to capitalism, is impossible. Any socialism we could conceive of at this low point of struggle is not possible. It's only when the existing order has been ruptured that we can even start talking about possible socialisms.

[Blake's Baby]

What you didn't get it in Marx quote? He states that the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are inevitable. Why it would be zero?

No he doesn't, he says that they are as inevitable as each other. In other words, whatever 'amount of inevitability' one of them has is the same as the 'amount of inevitability' the other has.

If, for example, the 'amount of inevitability' that one of them has is 'zero' then the inevitability of the other - being the same - is also 'zero'.

I don't know whether you've ever met a gravedigger - they don't tend to go around offing the corpse very often. So even if capitalism produces its gravediggers, they night just dig a grave that's never filled.

Of course, Marx is wrong. It is inevitable that capitalism will end (on Earth at least) as eventually the sun will burn out. But it is not inevitable that socialist society will be established. As VMC suggests we could be wiped out eg by an asteroid strike before we get the chance.

[Old Bolshie]

No he doesn't, he says that they are as inevitable as each other. In other words, whatever 'amount of inevitability' one of them has is the same as the 'amount of inevitability' the other has.

If, for example, the 'amount of inevitability' that one of them has is 'zero' then the inevitability of the other - being the same - is also 'zero'.

Of course, Marx is wrong.

Too much confusion for nothing. Marx was very clear: "the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." If you disagree with Marx's prediction that's another issue. It was asked what was Marx's opinion.


I don't know whether you've ever met a gravedigger - they don't tend to go around offing the corpse very often. So even if capitalism produces its gravediggers, they night just dig a grave that's never filled.Marx specifically says "victory of the proletariat". He doesn't say solely that the bourgeoisie will fall.


Of course, Marx is wrong. It is inevitable that capitalism will end (on Earth at least) as eventually the sun will burn out. But it is not inevitable that socialist society will be established. As VMC suggests we could be wiped out eg by an asteroid strike before we get the chance.And I guess that when Marx said that the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat was inevitable he was not thinking in an asteroid striking the earth which would be damn absurd if that was the case. This asteroid thing is also a piss poor counter argument to what Marx said.

[Akshay!]

4 idiots have voted impossible. Why are they here?

[Ele'ill]

4 idiots have voted impossible. Why are they here?

well, one of them on this very page of this thread has explained why they voted that way maybe you should read the thread you created unless you don't care about it in which case then why are you here?

[Akshay!]

well, one of them on this very page of this thread has explained why they voted that way maybe you should read the thread you created unless you don't care about it in which case then why are you here?

Sorry, somehow missed that particular post. :(

[Blake's Baby]

Too much confusion for nothing. Marx was very clear: "the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." If you disagree with Marx's prediction that's another issue. It was asked what was Marx's opinion.

Marx specifically says "victory of the proletariat". He doesn't say solely that the bourgeoisie will fall...

And is it the language that's confusing you, or the maths?

Term 1 - 'the fall of the bourgeoisie'

Term 2 - 'victory of the proletariat'

Relationship between them - 'equally inevitable'

So, as I'm sure you would agree, whatever is true (in terms of 'being inevitable') about one of them must logically be true of the other.

That being the case, if it is true that the 'victory of the proletariat' is not inevitable, then neither is the fall of the bourgeoisie.

And of course 'the victory of the proletariat' is not inevitable, because something could prevent it (see, giant asteroid).

But, 'the fall of the bourgeoisie' is inevitable - if the asteroid strikes, the bourgoeoisie will fall anyway.

So, the assertion that they have the same inevitably is demonstrably false.


... And I guess that when Marx said that the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat was inevitable he was not thinking in an asteroid striking the earth which would be damn absurd if that was the case. This asteroid thing is also a piss poor counter argument to what Marx said.

It's only a fucking example. One of many hypotheticals which demonstrates Marx's argument is invalid here. They can't both be equally inevitable.

[Old Bolshie]

And is it the language that's confusing you, or the maths?

Term 1 - 'the fall of the bourgeoisie'

Term 2 - 'victory of the proletariat'

Relationship between them - 'equally inevitable'

So, as I'm sure you would agree, whatever is true (in terms of 'being inevitable') about one of them must logically be true of the other.

That being the case, if it is true that the 'victory of the proletariat' is not inevitable, then neither is the fall of the bourgeoisie.

And of course 'the victory of the proletariat' is not inevitable, because something could prevent it (see, giant asteroid).

But, 'the fall of the bourgeoisie' is inevitable - if the asteroid strikes, the bourgoeoisie will fall anyway.

So, the assertion that they have the same inevitably is demonstrably false.


It's only a fucking example. One of many hypotheticals which demonstrates Marx's argument is invalid here. They can't both be equally inevitable.

There was a misunderstanding here then. I thought that you were trying to say that Marx didn't mean that the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat were inevitable but apparently you only disagree with Marx's assertion. That argument of the asteroid is pretty weak though.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Likely - history is progressive, it moves forwards; it always has and it always will.
Oy, haven't we gotten past this kind of teleological nonsense? History doesn't do anything in particular. It doesn't "move" in any particular direction. It moves chronologically, that's about it. This is akin to the notion that natural selection moves toward perfection as if it has some kind of purpose (see Stephen Jay Gould's Bully for Brontosaurus, for further clarification).

I disagree strongly with any deterministic view that socialism is inevitable. I'll take possible, thank you. Socialism or barbarism? Sure, that makes sense (for bonus points, comrades, to whom is that saying attributed?). What is clear is that to have socialism requires a big sustained fight against the current social order.

[Klaatu]

I think it depends on the majority view: do they feel well-paid? If people feel cheated/exploited, (this depends on long-term economic activity or lack thereof), then yes, there can and will be Socialism.

[Geiseric]

Socialism is arbitrary, probably the most arbitrary thing ever.

[Sea]

Capitalist industry has already brought with it complex cooperative production in which many workers must work together. All that remains, from a vulgarly oversimplified perspective of course, is to do away with the ruling class such that the management of production is socialized.

The only way to answer the OP's question is to draw lines from statements like this. That is, to speculate.

[Tenka]

Possible (neither likely nor inevitable).
What I voted.
It is also entirely possible that we'll blast ourselves into a new Dark Age before any actual revolution hits off.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

It is. That's why I'll buy some popcorn and wait for it to happen.

[Blake's Baby]

There was a misunderstanding here then. I thought that you were trying to say that Marx didn't mean that the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat were inevitable but apparently you only disagree with Marx's assertion. That argument of the asteroid is pretty weak though.

I disagree with the idea that they have the same amount of inevitability (ie, that they are equally inevitable).

I think that the 'fall of the bourgeoisie' is inevitable, because I can't really envision capitalism lasting beyond the burning out of the sun.

I don't think socialism is inevitable, because we could all sit on our arses and not overthrow capitalism.

The asteroid is, as I've said said, a hypothetical; no-one is suggesting that an asteroid will destroy capitalism or indeed prevent socialism. But it's a demonstration that there are circumstances that logically render Marx's statement untrue.

[Doctor Hilarius]

Socialism is really a longshot, though it is still worth fighting for.

Capitalism is a lot more resilient than the left gives it credit for. The collapse of capitalism is not imminent, it is a persistent system where the profit motive allows it to continue into near-infinity.

Automation, historically, has not been shown to reduce employment.

The Earth's resources are plentiful, and even if there is a major event such as peak oil, capitalism will find a way to survive through alternative energy sources (they used to be afraid of peak whale oil, no joke).

Capitalism in the Western world has actually raised standards of living across the board in the West, though this is largely at the expense of the developing world. The power is concentrated in the West, so we are the only ones with the power to stop ourselves, however, we are the ones benefiting economically from the system, so it is doubtful that there will be a Western socialist revolution anytime soon.

The proletariat is also more divided now than ever before in human history. Varying levels of skilled workers even in the lowest levels of the workforce has created various strata of proletariat, alienating them from each other.

In short, capitalism is probably the most difficult foe in human history for those who oppose it. Socialism is a very long-shot, but just because something is hard to achieve does not mean it isn't a worthy goal.

[CriticalJames]

Socialism is really a longshot, though it is still worth fighting for.

Capitalism is a lot more resilient than the left gives it credit for. The collapse of capitalism is not imminent, it is a persistent system where the profit motive allows it to continue into near-infinity.

Automation, historically, has not been shown to reduce employment.

The Earth's resources are plentiful, and even if there is a major event such as peak oil, capitalism will find a way to survive through alternative energy sources (they used to be afraid of peak whale oil, no joke).

Capitalism in the Western world has actually raised standards of living across the board in the West, though this is largely at the expense of the developing world. The power is concentrated in the West, so we are the only ones with the power to stop ourselves, however, we are the ones benefiting economically from the system, so it is doubtful that there will be a Western socialist revolution anytime soon.

The proletariat is also more divided now than ever before in human history. Varying levels of skilled workers even in the lowest levels of the workforce has created various strata of proletariat, alienating them from each other.

In short, capitalism is probably the most difficult foe in human history for those who oppose it. Socialism is a very long-shot, but just because something is hard to achieve does not mean it isn't a worthy goal.

Marx credits capitalism for being a very dynamic system. While prone to crisis, the nature of capitalism allows it to bounce back, as the rich will always want to recover from crises. The problem is that every time a crises occur, the rich and powerful introduced austerity-like measures and essentially make the working classes pay for the money lost during these crises of capitalism.

The idea is that eventually these measures will become so severe the working classes will fight back. This is easily summarised with Lenin's quote:
"A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution."

[Orange Juche]

Global warming taking a massive toll on this planet, and our species (and civilization as we know it) is inevitable. It's already in the alpha stages. If socialism can somehow break through before that clock runs out, maybe we've got a shot. Otherwise I see a dystopian, Mad Max scenario.

[Point Blank]

Voted "possible".

Claiming socialism is inevitable (and that we only need to wait and see it happen) is utopianism, because it denies the active aspect of Marxian theory: class struggle.

Claiming class struggle will automatically lead to socialism because 'people eventually will realise A and react with B' ignores the fact it's humans we are talking about, and not things/natural events governed by laws of cause and effect. Class struggle happens, but saying it will inevitably result in socialism/anything is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

Don't care what the Communist Manifesto says!

[DoCt SPARTAN]

The Human species struck with ether disease, poverty, corporatist dictatorships, or the complete self-destruction of imperialist capitalist countries (as Marx predicted). Only then the people will realize that socialist politics and economics would have been the answer to their problems. Revolution will happen the proletariat will take over the elite. Socialism will occur.

But here in America as of now in a rich right-wing town. like mine. People hear the word "socialism" they believe will steal there illusion of freedom. So most of the middle aged people who listened to all the propaganda during the cold war era are hypnotized, with half the worlds population.

[MarxArchist]

Likely - history is progressive, it moves forwards; it always has and it always will.
Dark ages. NAZI Germany etc.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

whilst not strictly inevitable (i.e you don't get anything without consciously making it happen) I think that as long as there is a struggle, socialism will remain in sight.

[Althusser]

Dats da dialectic!

[Madame Ennui]

If capitalism keeps going it might turn into a technocracy which might mean that socialism becomes impossible unless something happens then. Or a dictatorship might form and indoctrination goes into overdrive to nationalize the people of America and a new red scare begins.

[human strike]

Before the right-wing, be it fascism, anarcho-capitalism, or the current neoliberalism we have, destroys the proletarian class, we must build our red strongholds to uphold the values of socialism.

Wake up! Capitalists are trying to take agriculture away from peasants' management!

I'm not sure if you're being serious...

[Sotionov]

Chapter I - The Fundamental Doctrines of Marxist Socialism

(b) The Materialist Interpretation of History and Historic Necessity

The question of the correctness of the materialist interpretation of history is the question of the determining causes of historic necessity. To be a materialist means first of all to trace back all phenomena to the necessary movements of matter. These movements of matter are accomplished according to the materialist doctrine from beginning to end as a mechanical process, each individual process being the necessary result of preceding mechanical facts. Mechanical facts determine, in the last resort, all occurrences, even those which appear to be caused by ideas. It is, finally, always the movement of matter which determines the form of ideas and the directions of the will; and thus these also (and with them everything that happens in the world of humanity) are inevitable. The materialist is thus a Calvinist without God. If he does not believe in a predestination ordained by a divinity, yet he believes and must believe that starting from any chosen point of time all further events are, through the whole of existing matter and the directions of force in its parts, determined beforehand.

The application of materialism to the interpretation of history means then, first of all, belief in the inevitableness of all historical events and developments.

Etc, etc.

From Bernstein's Evolutionary Socialism.


Just as a side note, I'm neither marxist nor materialist, but an interesting, very clear quote.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

I voted likely but not inevitable. I think it's almost inevitable, not in the sense that we can just sit here and not do anything and it will happen, but I think it's almost inevitable that one day the working class WILL make it happen.

Even if we went through fascism or something like that first, eventually there will come a time when the workers realise what a mistake they've made and how much their lives suck.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wait, Bernstein?
:lol: If you're neither a Marxist nor a materialist yourself, then you're citing the right theorist!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Possible.

[Forward Union]

It would be inevitable but environmental obliteration puts a time limit.

[MarxArchist]

Revolt and change is inevitable. Capitalism can't and won't continue forever. The process of change and what will manifest is the unknowable. It took capitalism about 200 years to birth out of the embryonic capitalist conditions that feudal relations slowly gave way to. Capitalism is a fairly new system as far as human history is concerned and it's 'productive forces' may still be healthy enough to maintain growth for another 100 years. I think the environment will give in before then, if "anarchy" in production is maintained. If profit remains the driving force.

It will be either an economic or environmental crisis that sparks the change from capitalism into a new system. Our goal is to create a system of liberty by giving each person free and equal access to the means of production but with capitalism's inevitable end there are so many different paths humanity can take no one knows forsure what will happen which is why it's so important communism is seen as a viable and desirable alternative. Thats why communists have much work to do. Most people don't even know what communism actually is outside of vague images painted for them of Stalin as Dr Evil overlooking hungry Russians with bags under their eyes out in the streets drinking vodka in the cold. Some very basic things need to be explained to the mass of people and that starts with why workers need to control production/distribution. Why ones amount of liberty can largley be measured by the ammount of independence one has in providing life's necessities.

[Comrade #138672]

Very, very, very likely, but not necessarily inevitable (we might destroy ourselves instead). It's a matter of time and hard work.


Who the hell voted impossible!?Trolls. Just ignore them. They think they're being funny. We shouldn't waste our time on them.

[Brutus]

The internal contradictions of capitalism mean that it will inevitably collapse, and the proletariat is the only class with revolutionary potential; surely this means socialism is inevitable. Well...inevitable as long as we don't all die due to the ever rising CO2 and pollution levels

[MarxArchist]

The internal contradictions of capitalism mean that it will inevitably collapse, and the proletariat is the only class with revolutionary potential; surely this means socialism is inevitable. Well...inevitable as long as we don't all die due to the ever rising CO2 and pollution levels

But it's internal contradictions can be managed, or, profits can be maintained by a sort of fascism and or super exploitation of certain workers in various parts of the world. War can also "demolish" markets which then must be "rebuilt" which is profitable. When Germany's economy was intentionally crippled after WW1 we saw how fascism was used to create vast amounts of wealth in NAZI Germany. This sort of situation could happen locally or globally in the event the contradictions inherent to the capitalist system become too much for profit to be possible. The choice to replace capitalism with some other system will inevitably manifest, this doesn't mean socialism is the only possibility.

[Brutus]

Yes, it can 'fix' them, but they'll become 'unfixed' eventually.

[Black Cross]

Inevitable is bold. Even assuming Marx was right and socialism is inevitable, that doesn't really factor in the possibility of extinction, self-inflicted or otherwise.

[Human Liberation Front]

With capitalisms' slow death and the increase in workers being overworked for little pay, union busting and disillusion with the bourgeois dream of the Middle Class I believe Socialism will be inevitable. However, it does depend on the people tearing themselves away from the shiny gadgets and Facebook we seem to so enamored with.

[TheIrrationalist]

It is possible, but not inevitable. Actually I'm quite pessimistic about the possibility of revolution, well at least in my lifetime. But at some point this system is going to be 'overthrown', but is it socialism that comes after this system, I don't know.

[RedSonRising]

I believe the question is whether or not this and the next immediate generation of activists will be able to build enough power to salvage what land, space, rights, and resources we have left in order to rebuild and establish socialism once a crisis of sustainability hits. If Capitalism implodes at the end of growth, we could possibly end up in some sort of neo-feudal world which makes democratization of land and labor much more difficult.

[Marxaveli]

Possible. Hard to say if it's likely - it all depends on how material factors play out, but it certainly isn't impossible or inevitable. Anyone who voted for either of the extremes is overly deterministic - even Marx himself never said that socialism was inevitable, only that the destruction of capitalism was! I think saying socialism is inevitable is a misuse or misunderstanding of 'the materialist conception of history', which is used to understand the changing relationships and dynamic developments of human society and not to predict the future in some predetermined way. If socialism is inevitable, then here is no point to have this forum or for workers to ever organize and build a revolutionary program. It will, just happen, and we have nothing to worry about. That is complete idealism: You guys who say it is inevitable should know better than that! Especially if you are a Marxist.

On the other end, it isn't impossible either - unless of course you are a dogmatic capitalist and subscribe to the common propaganda or nonsense bourgeois works like Fukuyama's "The End of History".....Whenever I hear someone say that socialism is impossible and will never happen, I just tell them that 500 years ago, people said we'd never walk on the moon either, that the earth was thought to be flat, and that monarchs thought their lineage by Divine Right Absolutism would continue their rulership indefinitely - all of these which proved to NOT be the case. And of course, 9 outta 10 times, they have no rebuttal to that, cause they know I'm right, but more importantly that their argument is based on a flawed premise that the world always works in a certain mechanist way.

[Brotto Rühle]

Socialism or barbarism.

[TruProl]

It's impossible until it becomes inevitable.

[FreedomForAll]

Nothing in politics is inevitable. Will people eventually change current political systems? Yes. Will it be international socialism? Impossible to know. Nobody could predict the modern state of affairs two hundred years ago, so it is really is somewhat difficult to answer this.

[Dodo]

Socialism is not the goal of Marxism. The next "stage" does not HAVE TO BE what we call socialism. We support socialism because the conditions point to that.

A Marxist has to make that distinction. Marxism is not the dogmatic belief in "establishment of a pre-determined socialist doctrines". Therefore I picked "possible".
The dogmatic and deterministic approach on potential existance of socialism, as far as I understand dialectics is as anti-Marxist as it gets.

Didn't Marx had trouble with French Socialists because of this when he said he was not a Marxist?
I try to refrain from calling myself a socialist because of this. I stick to Marxist.


From Engels

"For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher."

[Czy]

Although society can advance to the point where productive forces make huge social advances possible, success or failure depends upon the class struggle — that is, it is politics that is decisive. Nothing is inevitable; only praxis makes change. It could even happen that an asteroid destroys the world before the proletariat can be victorious — where is your ‘inevitability’ then?

Marxism is not economic determinism.

-Czy

[Sabot Cat]

This is a rather speculative question, so I'll try to provide a speculative answer:

Right now, I believe that the working class has the ability to seize the means of production from the bourgeois through a general strike. The Revolutions of 1989 and the Arab Spring show that the masses have power, when organized and united by a common goal. The relative freedom of information offered by the internet is also a new powerful tool that can help us resist the clout of televised media. If all of the proletariat were to have class consciousness, and support each other under the fire of more oppressive regimes, there would be a truly global revolution.

However, this opportunity is soon fleeting. I fear the inhumanities made possible by the probable advent of artificial intelligence (AI). Truly automated drones, tanks, and soldiers could maintain an authoritarian order proclaimed by a shadowy few people locked away in some mountain-based complex or among the people incognito. Striking becomes less of a potential threat for employers when you can easily be replace people with robotic scabs, as new opportunities to attain capital through labor dries up. You might see the advent of a meager system of redistribution from the bourgeois to those who have been displaced in employment by AIs, filtered through plutocratic dictatorships or electoral democracies. From that point, a violent or peaceful revolution would be nearly impossible, and the capitalist system would exist in perpetuity until it's rendered irrelevant by further advances or obsolete by extinction of our species.

I don't know what will happen in the future, but I hope that we will band together as workers before the final victory of the capitalists. I hope that the general increase of global knowledge will culminate in an awareness of our circumstances and our similarities in them, so that we can overturn this exploitative social order. But until we get to that day, these will only remain hopes.

[Gambino]

Possible.
We got to fight for it.

[helot]

It's possible but i think, to rephrase Rosa, it's socialism or extinction.







However, this opportunity is soon fleeting. I fear the inhumanities made possible by the probable advent of artificial intelligence (AI). Truly automated drones, tanks, and soldiers could maintain an authoritarian order proclaimed by a shadowy few people locked away in some mountain-based complex or among the people incognito. Striking becomes less of a potential threat for employers when you can easily be replace people with robotic scabs, as new opportunities to attain capital through labor dries up. You might see the advent of a meager system of redistribution from the bourgeois to those who have been displaced in employment by AIs, filtered through plutocratic dictatorships or electoral democracies. From that point, a violent or peaceful revolution would be nearly impossible, and the capitalist system would exist in perpetuity until it's rendered irrelevant by further advances or obsolete by extinction of our species.



So cylons?


Btw, how would you even have a job if there are robots capable of doing all work which there must be in this hypothetic scenario you came up with as you reference robotic scabs? From this we can also see that capitalism wouldnt exist. How can capitalism exist without a proletariat? Shit, there wouldn't even be wage labour. You could claim that the robots become the exploited class but this seems more like a utopian slave society

[Sabot Cat]

So cylons?

I'm not overly familiar with Battlestar Galactica, so... maybe?



Btw, how would you even have a job if there are robots capable of doing all work which there must be in this hypothetic scenario you came up with as you reference robotic scabs?

Well, there could be a large number of robots without there being enough robots to replace every single worker on Earth. The transition between those two points would be the time period I'm describing.


From this we can also see that capitalism wouldnt exist. How can capitalism exist without a proletariat? Shit, there wouldn't even be wage labour. You could claim that the robots become the exploited class but this seems more like a utopian slave society

Perhaps, but I don't think it can happen all at once. I also don't think exploitation would end just because it could; if that were the case, we wouldn't need a revolution now.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Oil will rise to the top of water, and in the same way, socialism will rise above capitalism. Even so, I think that calling anything "inevitable" is almost religious in nature. If, for example, the world ended tomorrow, there would be no people to bring about a new system (it's a crazy example, but you get my point).:laugh:

[LeninistRevolutionary]

Well there's a good chance that we can get socialism, even now the younger generations are starting to consider alternatives to capitalism. Once we show them that things like libertarian-ism and fascism are bad ideas they will come to communism. The most annoying part is dealing with the people who think they know enough about communism to dismiss it. I guess we could always get blown up by some idiots with nuke before it happens, but so long as humanity exists we shall move towards socialism.

[Tim Redd]

Oil will rise to the top of water, and in the same way, socialism will rise above capitalism.


Even so, I think that calling anything "inevitable" is almost religious in nature. If, for example, the world ended tomorrow, there would be no people to bring about a new system (it's a crazy example, but you get my point).:laugh:

I agree with the second quote but the first seems to contradict the second.

The historical tendency is for socialism/communism to triumph but it isn't inevitable.

[IBleedRed]

There are two separate points here.

That the collapse of capitalism is inevitable might be true.
That the construction of socialism is inevitable might not be true, and most likely isn't.

[ColossalButtwipe]

If history shows us anything it's that social relations will eventually change. Slave society turned into feudalism, feudalism turned into capitalism, and capitalism will inevitably turn into something else. Whether or not this system will be socialist will remain to be seen.

[Thirsty Crow]

The fuck it is inevitable.
Anyone arguing so should have a (historical) reality check.

There are no magical historical tendencies or any kind of Providence at play. The first generations of Marxists can be excused for such idealist naivete, but nowadays this shit simply cannot fly.

At best, it's possible.

Oh yeah, and this:


Once we show them that things like libertarian-ism and fascism are bad ideas they will come to communism.

Like all that stands between us and a really nice future are ideas.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Sure socialism is possible. But to say it is inevitable, is really weird. One cannot say it will be one day. I sure hope so and will fight for it, but inevitable? No.

The same goes for Likely. We cannot know if socialism is likely. Personally, i think it is getting less and less likely, because people are getting more and more dosed by multimedia. TV and internet are keeping people calm. And all that while wtate repression is ever growing. So likely? No.

ps. I think we must use the terms socialism and communism as we should. In that light i will say socialism will exist, already existed and might very well exist today (in a somewhat moderate fashion). For Communism however, the above applies.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm beginning to feel like socialism is impossible because of how everything is set up in this fucking country. I hate The United States.

[tallguy]

Likely - history is progressive, it moves forwards; it always has and it always will.I disagree. I think you are basing you view of history on mankind's hitherto seemingly endless increasing access to primary resources which has, in turn, allowed for ever more complex societies, in turn allowing for an apparently similarly seemingly endless upward trajectory in the "civilising" of civilisation itself.

However, we have now hit the resource buffers at a planetary level. It is entirely possible, consequently, that the future could be a re-run of the past, only even less fun than before because we have 7 billion mouths to feed now.

Socialism only happens if we fight for it and fight for it hard. And if you think it was hard trying to get it on the way up, it may be a hell of a lot harder on the way down as those in charge have all the lessons of the past to draw on. It will take the blood of many of us to unseat the bastards. Of that I have little doubt.

Now, at the very peak of civilisation's complexity, now is the time for revolution.

It's now or it may be never.

[BlackFlag]

Socialism is hard to achieve in my opinion, and even harder to bring about.
As long as the high up stay powerful and the bourgeois keep a tight hold on the workers Socialism will stay hard to achieve.
This is because of families such as the Rothschild's and Goldman Sacc's. Now, before I get flooded with 'Anti-Semitism' just because both of those people are Jewish, keep in mind that I AM JEWISH.

There's plenty on both sides, people like Obama will make a fortune as they go on, he's going to make more money when he's not president as a 'guest speaker' and such.
But, if for some magical second people like the Rothschild's lose a grip and start to fade away, that's when Socialism may be achieved.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

After a while, capitalism can only continue growing after destruction on a humongous scale (annihilating large parts of the world's economy). This is somewhat related to the cyclical scale of the system. After growth comes recession, then comes depression and then comes recovery followed by growth. The system can only support this cycle for so long: until further growth becomes nearly impossible or not sufficiently profitable for the capitalist. After this happens, you either get an economical crisis or you opt for the easy way out: you allow everything to be destroyed in a total war after which growth becomes easy and desirable again. I think someday people will realise how pointless this is and take matters into their own hands. So, if we, as socialists manage to generate enough awareness among the people who suffer the most as a result of this cycle, socialism should definitely be possible.

[Wake_Robin]

Even Jack London thought the revolution would take the better part of a millennium.
What is inevitable is the implosion of the capitalist system. What form the oligarchs shape our world after that is up to them, unless the great masses of people stand against them and their designs. Absent a coherent, coordinated international socialist movement, the world is theirs for the foreseeable future.

[A Psychological Symphony]

Nothing is inevitable and anything is possible.

[Brutus]

Nothing is inevitable and anything is possible.

Death is inevitable, and I can't walk on the sun. Idealistic poppycock.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Socialism or Barbarism...I feel less sure every day. :(

I mean sure most or all of us here are aware of the inherent contradictions in capitalism and its unstable tendencies, blah blah blah...but the idea that they will lead to socialism seems to rest on the intensifying contradictions of capital leading to greater class consciousness. On the contrary, they seem to make some people more reactionary as the bourgeoisie ramps up its effort in the "war of position", while revolutionaries still rely heavily on the "Old Guard" in that war.

In short, it's a race against time and nobody can say for sure how much there will be left to save by the time a revolution can save it.