Socialism over night
- This topic has 53 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello! I am a newcomer to this forum. I remember reading that the conditions for capitalism to make socialism possible over night happened a certain amount of years after Marx’s death. What were these conditions that made this possible?
I’d say by within a generation of Marx’s death in 1883, i.e by the end of the 19th century. By then, capitalism had come to dominate the whole world (a phenomenon some called “imperialism”, which began to be noted and commented on at this time). Also, with the application of electricity and chemistry to production and other technological advances(what has been called the “second industrial revolution”, see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Industrial_Revolution ) the possibility of producing enough for all had been reached. In short, the material basis for socialism as a world system had been created,
Technologically we can have a society based on “from each according to ability, to each according to need.” With automation and robotics and all the scientific knowledge we possess, and despite what many environmentalists try to say, we do have the ample raw materials (or alternatives), to provide for the material needs of all the world’s population…plus more
The only thing lacking is the political will of our fellow-workers, which is something I don’t think Marx anticipated and something our Party founders underestimated, that workers would decline to use their political power to change society and benefit themselves by acting in their own interests.
Why this is so is an ongoing debate.
But it was not possible to be established in one single economically backward country like Russia. The Bolsheviks formulated the wrong concept of socialism in one country. Most of the so-called socialist revolutions have taken place in economical backward countries
Hello! I am a newcomer to this forum. I remember reading that the conditions for capitalism to make socialism possible over night happened a certain amount of years after Marx’s death. What were these conditions that made this possible?
No, it’s not ‘the conditions for capitalism’ that ‘make socialism possible’, but ‘the conditions for socialism’.
The fundamental ‘condition for socialism’ is the revolutionary class consciousness of the proletariat, and this has never yet existed. Socialism is only possible when this condition has been fulfilled.
You’ve probably read something written by the followers of Engels, who claim to be ‘materialists’, and who ignore Marx’s views about the self-determination of the proletariat, and who claim that ‘material conditions’ will unconsciously bring socialism for the proletariat, and so those ‘materialists’ can ignore the proletariat itself.
Of course, workers who get involved with ‘materialist’ parties soon come to realise that the party has no intention whatsoever of allowing workers themselves to determine for themselves the nature of any ‘conditions’ that are required, and so those workers soon leave the ‘materialist’ party.
All ‘materialist’ parties insist that they, and they alone, have a special insight into ‘material’ factors, PRIOR TO workers themselves determining these factors. That is, the ‘materialist’ parties claim the ‘material’ in itself precedes workers themselves producing of the ‘material’, and so workers can have no productive democratic control of the ‘material’. Hence, workers MUST passively accept the determination of ‘material’ by a small elite who claim to know already what it is.
I started reading about socialism about a year and a half ago. My memory gets cloudy when it comes to sourcing concepts I have come across. My understanding was that socialism was only possible because of what has been achieved under capitalism, or even because capitalism came into existence first. That’s why I said “the conditions in capitalism.” Then, after some developments occurred, there was no longer a need for a transitional period but could now be accomplished overnight.
My understanding was that socialism was only possible because of what has been achieved under capitalism, or even because capitalism came into existence first. That’s why I said “the conditions in capitalism.” Then, after some developments occurred, there was no longer a need for a transitional period but could now be accomplished overnight.
That was not Marx’s opinion.
In Marx’s opinion, socialism was possible without capitalism, if only under certain conditions.
Also in Marx’s opinion, nothing could be ‘accomplished overnight’, in any conditions, but only after a growth in class consciousness, sufficient to allow the direct producers to take control of production.
I think that you’ve been reading the wrong sources. My advice is to stick to Marx, and avoid Engels, or any self-proclaimed ‘materialists’. It should go without saying that anything tainted with Lenin’s or Trotsky’s views is destructive of Marx’s own view that ONLY the self-emancipation of the proletariat within capitalism could bring socialism, and NOT any ‘materialist party’ that claims to ‘know’ what workers supposedly can’t themselves.
Marx himself clearly warned of the dangers of a ‘materialist’ elite.
“Marx himself clearly warned of the dangers of a ‘materialist’ elite.”
I’m not saying that we do not need to be aware of self proclaimed elites (of whatever persuasion) , but I would be interested if you could provide chapter and verse for your assertion, Birdy boy. Starting to feel like old times again, what with you rattling on and another thread having a troll. All we need now is Brian to tell us all off and start handing out warnings.
So Marx didn’t hold that capitalism paved the way for socialism by creating its material basis? That must have been Groucho Marx. Here’s what Karl Marx wrote in his Preface to A Critique of Political Economy:
Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals’ social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
It might be useful for GeneKrupa to know that Bijou Drains and ALB are both ‘materialists’, and followers of Engels.
As such, they place all their hopes in ‘matter’ (which is what they think Marx meant by ‘material’), to the detriment of workers’ productive activity.
If they have to choose between ‘matter’ and ‘workers’, they’ll always choose ‘matter’.
Marx warned that they would. They see themselves as part of an elite, who ‘know’ what workers can’t, which is why they won’t have workers voting to replace ‘matter’. All ‘materialists’ deny democracy, in the service of ‘matter’.
This was, of course, also Lenin’s viewpoint, as he too was a ‘materialist’, and a follower of Engels.
It is not what Marx, Engels, or Jehovah have said. The reality is that socialism-communism is a post-capitalist world society
I have to agree with Marcos. The question was a straightforward one and the answer an easy one. I don’t think what Marx, Engels or Kropotkin thought counts for much and turning the topic into a philosophical discussion rather than one about applying technical knowledge is not fruitful .
We can debate at what time in history capitalism produced the material conditions to establish a free-access society for all but today there is no question that with the technological wonders of the world we can provide a decent standard of living for everyone on the planet. Perhaps not overnight but within a relatively short time, no more than a decade in my estimation, and a handful of years for most people when the infrastructure is already sufficient and doesn’t require to be put into place.
Capitalism may prefer lucrative big projects but for energy, but much of the world, can be provided with power off-the-grid locally via appropriate green energy such as solar, wind, geo-thermic, hydro or whatever. (i am minded how to help my first wife’s family i helped to provide an expensive telephone landline to their rural home. Just a matter of a few years later the mobile phone arrived on the scene making such costs superfluous) That is just one example. In the developing world, it is not increasing food production to end hunger that is required but reliable cold storage and efficient silos to end food waste and logistic supply chains to bring the produce to urban areas. These already exist. I have travelled a fair amount off the beaten track and rarely have i encountered a situation where i could not acquire a cold coca cola. Capitalism has created the distribution network.
Interesting
Unfortunately, alan, ‘technological wonders’ which ‘provide a decent standard of living for everyone on the planet’, is not ‘socialism’.
Your ‘materialist’ approach to this issue echoes Engels in philosophical approach, and Lenin in political approach.
Unless your account of the emergence of ‘socialism’ fundamentally involves the conscious activity of the democratically-organised proletariat, then it won’t be any sort of ‘socialism’ that you, I, Marx, ALB or Bijou Drains, envisage.
Many Marxists have pointed out this political problem, since before Lenin. Put simply, either ‘matter’ or ‘conscious humanity’ builds ‘socialism’. Engels interpreted ‘material’ to be ‘matter’, whilst Marx interpreted ‘material’ to be ‘humanity’ (in opposition to ‘ideal’ meaning ‘divine’).
‘Material conditions’, for Marx, simply means ‘social conditions’. Marx’s fundamental concern was ‘social production’, not ‘matter’. That’s why all his core concepts involve terms like ‘social’ and ‘production’ (eg. ‘social individual’, ‘mode/relations/forces of production’). ‘Material production’ means ‘human production’.
‘Material’ meaning ‘Matter’ (the physical, hard stuff, tangibility, etc.) is Engels’ misunderstanding of Marx’s rejection of ‘divine creation’, of Marx’s attempt to make any ‘production’ a ‘profane production’.
So, alan, your ‘technological wonders’ and their achievements can be made by other political means than by the democratic direct producers. The danger is, that EVERY ‘materialist’ party ALWAYS turns to non-democratic, elite, ‘specialist’, ‘scientific’ politics, and rejects the argument that only self-determination by the class conscious proletariat can build ‘socialism’.
Of course, IF that is what one believes, that there is an alternative to workers democratically determining for themselves what ‘material’ means, then simply say so to all workers who ask you who will control social production. If you think that the SPGB should determine ‘material’, then say so. ALB and Bijou Drains will support you, as I already know their political beliefs, whereas you always avoid this political question.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.