Does it suffice to say communism can only come in one fell swoop after a fully globalized...

Does it suffice to say communism can only come in one fell swoop after a fully globalized, one world government type of capitalist system?

Other urls found in this thread:


Look up Communization.

communism cant survive in humans. it is only compatible with exclusively r type species. the people who would make it happen would be K type, eventually that type of person would overthrow any sort of communist stupidity

17 and think you know everything, huh?

shitty meme

All humans are K type since its defined by our sexual organs and not just reproductive strategy…

to rerail this thread: I doubt it - apart from communization as pointed out there is a possibility of a national or regional market socialist society (hence the flag)

How can markets be socialist????

I mean socialism in the Leninist, maybe teleological sense - a transitionary state conductive to the beginning of communism
in the modern globalised world it would be inefficent to directly and immediately abolish value form and commodity production, and going through a market socialist phase would possibly make the process less bloody

They can't. Ignore all yugoflag posters.

Stop reading Mises and Hayek, start reading Marx and Kropotkin.

well, user, how do you plan on getting necessary resources from the possession of another (state) actor if you have abolished commodity production and thus have nothing to trade to the other side?
in a concrete case, say a rare mineral you have to get abroad from a capitalist society to produce thing x with high use-value
or do you agree with OP in that communism can only exist in a global system?


I'll rather have that than the catastrophe of the scale that is needed for a world revolution to be possible, let alone actually happen.
ps. Makhnovites and Kronstadt sailors deserved it

conditions for capitalism are already existent. there is no indication that this capitalist "world government" will ever going to take place, and no evidence that it'd make the task of communists easier, or any evidence that is necessary.
this is similar to second international social democracy who identified the tendency of capitalism to concentrate into monopolies coupled with the state until a point where the working class has only to win state power and it'll find that machinery ready for use. as you can see this reeks gradualism and parliamentary opportunism.

market """""socialist""""" society isn't socialist at all

this is bullshit. socialism i.e. the lower stage of communism, is communist. meaning, the law of value, commodity production are abolished. and Lenin very well understood that.
market socialism is petty bourgeois idealism and has nothing to do with communism

that's why socialism is only possible worldwide and on an international scale. through total centralization of production

it's not about what you want. this is idealist trash. communism isn't about what you find morally acceptable, it's a movement born out of material conditions, and as Marx has identified, the only way it can be successful is that if it spreads internationally.

And yet implemented NEP which was a retreat from central planning into markets - more or less the opposite of abolition of commodity production
Worldwide revolution any day now, comrades. You expect humanity has the leisure of time we might not have before an impending catastrophe due to the destructive power of capital.
Where the fuck did this come from? My personal preference for catastrophe avoidance is hardly a question of moral acceptability.
Yes - born out of, determined by, but not wholly encapsulated in material conditions. When looked at on a societal level, material conditions define the limits, parameters that delineate human activity, no more no less.
Indeed, in the strict form Marx defined and the form all socialist movements should strive for.
The worldwide revolution will come eventually as a necessity, but the sufficent conditions for 'the real movement' already exist. If ecological and other massive catastrophes are necessary before any real progress, we'll see, but I'd rather work to avoid that.

Why would someone with such strong belief in strict deterministic historial materialism even bother making such a post anyway? Your agency means nothing in the face of the great material processes so why bother even screeching out of your armchair?


No, multipolarity is actually far preferable, a global superstate could put down workers revolts with ease.

yes, and the NEP was capitalism, as acknowledged by lenin himself. the country was devastated in the aftermath of the civil war, and the since the revolutions in Europe failed the "war communism" could not last, he had no choice but to introduce capitalist measures. pretty much all the bolsheviks at the time knew that without the aid of the international proletariat having made successful revolutions the Russian one was bound to degenerate.

you can make the same argument to support reformism. "welp, revolution any time now". this isn't a matter of personal preference. socialism can not exist in isolation in one state, if it were to be successful it has to transcend national boundaries

again, you can argue for reformism in the same manner. you can say market "socialism" or state capitalism is better to manage resources to avoid catastrophe. that's totally fine, but that's not communism and is irrelevant to it.

but that's not the point I was making. the point I was making is that the marxist identification of the communist movement is through observation of the material conditions and class analysis, not ideas thought up in someone's head. we determine through that analysis that market 'socialism' is something irrelevant to that movement since it doesn't really abolish capital, hence law of value, division of labour, alienation would still exist in such society, and where those exist, there exist the communist tendency for their abolition.

it's more that, for the emancipation of the proletariat and abolition of capital, there can't be but an internationalist revolution.

again, if you're worrying about climate change and think that we should enact say reforms or something like that in order to combat it before it's too late, I have absolutely zero problem with that, my problem is identifying that sentiment with communism.

that's a moronic interpretation of my post. I never said humans have no agency , or that communism will naturally happen. in fact I don't think a revolution is inevitable, capitalism creates the conditions for it's abolition by creating the proletariat, and the periodic ruptures of the capitalist mode of production creates crisis and revolutionary potential, but it's up for the proletariat to actually make the revolution.

I agree with basically all of this, except that market socialism is socialism in the same sense as NEP SU was socialist - there is a teleological element to socialism. The Real Movement, not a state of affairs to be established.
A simple disagreement on definition.

see you quoted Marx but you're not applying that quote. Market socialism is an ideal, its alien to the real movement of the proletariat. Marx has never identified market socialism to be a step towards a communist society, let alone a necessary one. in fact he spent a great deal refuting Proudhon on that very basis.

Fortunately actualising 'the proletariat as the revolutionary subject' doesn't matter. I don't care how we get there, as long as we do. If you here say that 'but thats idealist there is only one way' I'll call that proletarian fetishism and vulgar marxism. If you think this disqualifies me as a marxist or a socialist then so be it. Societies and societal changes are but means to ends. Marxism is a methodology, not a doctrine.
My interest is in the world and changing it, not in adhering to Marx as an orthodoxy.
Which writing(s) specifically? I'll add it to my lenghty reading list.

I don't disagree that it's a methodology. I'm saying that you are asserting that Market Socialism is a step towards actual socialism without providing any analysis of class and it's movement to prove that. your assertion is merely based on you finding it more realistic I think…

liberals want to change the world too.
there is no doubt that communist movement is dynamic and not a static one, and it takes different forms in different times, and goes through various struggles in relation to the organization of society and economic relation of a specific period. there are no set of ideals to which we dogmatically adhere.
but as communist, if you describe yourself as one, your theory should be based on that communist movement, which we identify as the movement of the proletariat to emancipate itself by abolishing class society. if you think that Market socialism is in prospect, or that it's something to strive for as a step towards socialism, you do that through analysis, not assertion because you personally happen to believe so.
in Marx's refutation of Proudhon, who advocated form of market socialism, he described the society Proudhon advocates for is "abstract capitalism", where alienation is even more pervasive. and in fact would make struggle to abolish Capital even harder.
you can check this book which makes a good case against that nonsense

Poverty of Philosophy , economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844. I'm sure there are more but these are the main ones.


Quite, but that wasn't really the point of this thread. The mere mention of 'market socialism' sends people into fits and makes them argue on a tangential points
Cheers, I'll check them out.

4/6 posts offtopic, and knowing this board is pretty good grounds to suspect a derailing is imminent, better nip it in a bud

Depends, a superstate might be more unstable and prone to collapse

So not socialist.

if you wish, but as I (perhaps unclearly) argued earlier there is a teleological element to the Leninist conception of socialism, and the concept of 'Real Movement that abolishes the present state of things' supports this teleologic view as well. The Real Movement is defined by purpose and action.
but this is all tangential to the actual thread

The telos is the real movement, and unless you have an argument for why various forms of capitalism should continue to exist when they can be negated, no pasting in of "that's uh… dialectical, man!" will do. You need an actual argument.

Your understanding of what Marx meant by the real movement is also rather shoddy. What it expresses is that the proletariat by its class position necessarily has an egoistical interest in resisting capital, and this being pushed to its ultimate conclusions, beyond the everyday struggles of the working class, results in a communist society. Therefore, we can say that communism is both a real movement that necessarily exists where capital does, but at the same time constitutes a definite society that results from this movement, and that is not some future utopia that is unreachable before productivist quotas are met or notions of automation, as the Stalinists would have it. Modes of production are all about the social relaiton to production.

I think they didn't express the point clearly, but from what I've understood they don't disagree that the end struggle of the communist movement is a communist society without classes, value, exchange etc. but rather their argument is that before such a phase is reached, given that the revolution through which the proletariat has seized power is in *one* country, there still has to be a mechanism for exchange since that country will be surrounded by other capitalist state, and they identify that mechanism as already being socialism, more specifically *market socialism*.

of course this is wrong because socialism already entails abolition of commodity production and law of value. meaning, "market" can't exist in Socialism, even if it's the lower phase.
as they rightly point out, if the revolution is contained in one country, this poses a problem. how can the proletariat of that country import goods that they need from other countries without exchange; without market?

the answer is, it simply can't. existence of market means it's no socialism. therefore socialism can't be contained in one country, and Lenin understood that very well. he never called what was the soviet union "socialist". his introduction of NEP after a bloody civil war and what has been established as "war communism"(where the country exhibited forms of socialism due to economic demand of war and the proletarian state collectivizing certain goods and distributing them without market mechanism - which of course could not be sustained after the war because as I've said socialism can't be contained in one country).

Lenin clearly stated that NEP policies are reversion to Capitalism :

Lenin knew that without revolutions in Europe socialism can never be achieved in Russia alone.

now, that being said, let's assume that by 'Market Socialism' or the NEP, they argue that it's a 'transitory' stage, that is necessary before socialism.

this also is not identified. some communist do agree with the necessity for a transitory stage to develop the productive forces sufficiently(especially in backward countries). but no communist would argue that "market socialism" is means to do that, because in the transitory period, assuming it's necessary, the state naturally should move towards *centralization* of production. without the proletariat organized as ruling class, and it planning production and distribution in an increasingly centralized manner, something "market socialism" does NOT do, means you're not moving towards socialism.

the existence of market presuppose division of labour, which means independent producers, which means private property. Market Socialism offers no way in transition towards socialist mode of production, rather hinders it. it has been long recognized as petty bourgeois idealism and Marx attacked it quite a lot.

so in conclusion, Market Socialism can be neither socialism(lower stage of communism) nor a transitory phase.

Yes, that is more or less my position.
You need to flesh this claim out. I agree that market socialism is a system in transition, I don't see why it cannot lead to increased centralisation, if for example periodicall industry after industry is moved to central control. Also what does the DotP mean to you, vanguard party? 'Organic centralism'? Soviets?

so we hope for the best, organise the increasingly non-working working class (this is a big problem, left should actively move out of its traditional setting and try to approach the well-paid professional proletariat like doctors and IT workers and so on) into increasingly powerless unions while the value of labour goes down, so we can synchronise all the worlds' people's class consciousness so they all join a great big world revolution at the same time, or just some local revolutions aiming for permanent revolution that then slide into conflict with the anxious capitalists, but this time, with nukes!
Camatte really is the logical conclusion of orthodox marxist leftcom. Reforms always revert due to the influence and laws of capital, econo-political programmes are all political determinist, all we can do is hope that we don't all die before or during the Great Global Revolution, which will probably never even happen because the spectacle controls us all, capital has become its own independent self-perpetuating entity that enslaves the totality of humanity
Thank fuck I'm an opportunist willing to latch to any powerful non-reactionary anti-(liberal) capitalist action, and that communism is just means to an end rather than an end in itself so if it is real socialism or not doesn't actually matter one bit

So basically Bukharin should have become the boss after Lenin to institute his pro-capital reforms, instead of the charades of 'socialism' we got with Stalin? Is that right?

I do not agree that market socialism is a system of transition, I think like marx did it's a petty-bourgeois ideal. but in assessing the claim that it is, I think it makes no sense for it to be a system of transition particularly because of it's ideal status rather than a step of the progression towards proletarian self emancipation.
Market Socialism is the idea of having the workers being the capitalists of themselves, of their own workplace, but independently of each other. hence a market system arises for these independent producers to exchange their goods.
there is no tendency for such system to move towards centralization because it liquidates the class being conscious of itself and it's historical role in the wake of revolution, so that instead of the class moving to abolish itself, it fades away by having capitalist-workers with their own economic interest pitted against one another in a market system.
there needs to be a centralized organ of the class that increasingly centralizes production. that can be a system of councils or soviets like german-dutch leftcoms would say, or simply a class party, something the italian left would say. but in both cases, the proletariat needs to be organized as the ruling class (in whatever form, I don't specify and and neither did marx).
furthermore, market socialism, having made every proletarian a capitalist(which is what happens when you have worker management without abolition of capital), would massively hinder the means to abolitsh capitalist social relation. things like strikes for example. what would he be striking against? himself. the proletarian as class is defined in its dialectical move against capital that results in it's abolition. market socialist system makes no sense in that relationship. it's literally an ideal system thought up by intellectuals, not based on class analysis.

the proletariat are 'mass of the propertyless'. I agree that focus on worker identity is becoming less and less useful. if you look into communization theory they delve into that more and talk about organization not merely on workers-basis.

your mistake is thinking that consciousness and creating communism is the task of the communist. that's just not the case. there are defeatist times, preparation times and revolutionary times. communist tactics, however clever, can't break with the material condition and create revolutions, nor can they bring consciousness to the whole class.
these revolutions definitely can happen in closer periods, since it requires revolutionary times, which is the consequence of rupture in the capitalist mode of production, for the first revolution to happen. Capital being world wide interconnected web, that rupture would happen across the globe, especially say the center of world capital. in those times it is the opportunity of the proletarian to attack.
revolutions don't happen by communists gradually building class consciousness of teh class until a breaking point.

Lenin was definitely on the right of the bolshevik party in that period. while stalin was on the left. but that's kind of meaningless. there;s no policy introduction that could have save the russian revolution from degeneration. it happened because the revolutions in Europe failed, so , left alone, there wasn't much the russian proletariat could do. and we know the rest

The planet is dying so it's a moot question. Regardless, it's much, much easier to establish communism in an entire colony ship than in an entire planet.

fucking space stalinists

But all of humankind will be in that ship, so it's actually worldwide revolution.