I’ve heard it said before, though I can’t remember where, that Marx regarded capitalism as a necessary stage in social development. Does this imply that capitalism is inevitable, along with all its exploitation? Maybe I’m misinterpreting something, but I don’t really like the idea. I understand that communism refers to a post-capitalist society rather than a non-capitalist society, making capitalism “necessary” for the creation of socialism, but I don’t think it follows to argue that capitalism is something every society must move through. Thoughts?
You must log in or register to comment.
There’s some flexibility in the word ‘necessary’.
Capitalism is a historical fact. We know for absolute certainty that under the historical conditions faced by Europe, capitalism was the only option. No other political economy was possible, because no other political economy developed. Anything else is just hypothesis or a thought experiment. Thus, capitalism was necessary.
Against this background, capitalism is a necessary step towards socialism/communism. If we start with capitalism, then as a matter of historical fact, we must go through capitalism to get to communism.
That does not mean capitalism is necessary everywhere nor that every communist society will have to go through capitalism (but, see final para, below). These things are historically contingent.
Today, we have something that was unavailable to Europeans stuck in early capitalism – the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, over 100 years of experience working towards communism, and 200–300+ years of capitalist development.
Nowhere today has to go through capitalism to develop its means of production. We already learned how to make production efficient during capitalism. We learned: how to divide labour, build production lines, minimise storage costs (for just-in-time production), and build rail networks; we learned about containerisation and automation; we already have 3D printing, heat treated glass, and other high tech production methods/products; and we discovered how to produce green energy and share data almost anywhere on the planet (solar panels in the desert charging a satellite phone, for example), and more.
As a matter of historical fact, we only have these things because of capitalism – that was the political economy within which these things were developed. But now we have that knowledge. We could, with the political will, rapidly develop every country in the world today (well, we could start today, although the project would take a while to complete).
That development is a prerequisite to communism. For example, we can’t automate jobs and reduce the working day, for instance, without the right infrastructure. The world can’t go straight from underdeveloped feudalism straight to fully automated luxury communism. But, today, nobody needs to.
As such, on the one hand, capitalism is not ‘necessary’ in the sense that everywhere must go through the same development as e.g. Britain or Germany or Russia (which, incidentally, each had very different developmental paths).
On the other hand: (1) Capitalism was necessary in Europe (and, later, most of the rest of the world) because it happened. (2) I can’t think of anywhere that hasn’t already gone through capitalism, so there’s no point worrying that some places might inevitably have to go through capitalism before they get to communism – they’re all already at the capitalism stage and the exploitation is already here. (3) We can’t separate one country from another, especially today, so even if, say, there is a country that never had capitalism, it is still connected to the rest of the world and so when it achieves communism, it will be because the world went through capitalism first. Therefore, capitalism was necessary, even if things could have gone differently.
I think we’d do well to separate the political organization (capitalism, feudalism, socialism, clan) from two other scientific concepts:
- Energy and energy sources: (muscle power, then fossil fuels, then nuclear and renewables) ->
- Production technology system: (industrialism, agricultural cultivation)
Using muscle power, humanity only had X amount of joules available to do work, and when we were able to harness fossil fuels to power steam engines, the number of daily joules massively increased.
Capitalism was not historically inevitable given these tech improvements, as demonstrated by the fact that in the 1900s, that two countries (the USSR and China) essentially “skipped over” capitalism and went straight to socialist organization. They harnessed energy sources, as well as industrialism, under socialist relations.
Start MoP -> End Examples Clan Socialist Mongolia Clan Feudal Germany Clan Slave West Africa Slave Capitalist US Feudal Capitalist Western Europe Feudal Socialist USSR, China, DPRK, Vietnam, Cuba Capitalist Socialist East Germany Socialist Capitalist USSR Feudal Slave Roman Republic Slave Feudal Late Roman Empire (Colonate) That’s a useful way of looking at the problem. And that table is incredibly helpful. I have a question, though (I have a feeling that the answer will mainly involve a rewording of your comment): does it take a shift in the MoP (mode of production?) somewhere to allow somewhere else to ‘skip’ a stage of development?
For example, fossil power was initially developed within a system of industrial capitalism. Could e.g. the USSR have gone from feudal to socialist if coal power hadn’t been developed in Britain during a capitalist phase? Another way of phrasing the question is whether the USSR would’ve been able to develop so rapidly if it had to rely on muscle power?
Likewise – although this will again blur the distinction between production and energy – will e.g. Norway be able to go straight to communism one day because of advances in (1) the mode of production and (2) energy technology both coming out of China? (We could add a (3) production technology system, if one is developed in an advanced socialist state.)
My initial thought is that someone, somewhere has to make a new way of doing things ideologically and materially possible before other people can skip the torturous bit in the middle (capitalism, slavery, feudalism, etc, one and day socialism, when it’s seen as backwards to future communists). Or would you say that it could be possible to skip a stage even without e.g. another advance in energy production? Or is this a moot point, as there are already high tech energy systems in development that just need rolling out (if we can garner the political will).
Good question… its tough to say with these historical hypotheticals. We don’t know if the USSR or China would have been able to build their industrial socialisms if they didn’t have previous industrial capitalism from western europe to work and learn from. But really, did capitalism itself teach them anything, or was it industrialism itself: its technology, practices, and techniques that helped?
The key difference between the systems being, who controls the surplus, and who receives the benefits of the surplus. If anything, a parasitic private class informed the leaders of USSR of what to be wary of, and not do.
I also doubt the USSR would have been able to become a super-power based on muscle-power alone: industrialism and fossil fuel energy sources were necessary.
My initial thought is that someone, somewhere has to make a new way of doing things ideologically and materially possible before other people can skip the torturous bit in the middle (capitalism, slavery, feudalism, etc, one and day socialism, when it’s seen as backwards to future communists)
I see where you’re coming from, but the people who develop technology, and the people who control production, are usually two different groups. The latter group is parasitic and completely unecessary, while the former is vital. Its a matter of opinion of course, but I don’t think its historically inevitable or necessary that these parasites need to control production for advances to take place. Workers just want to work and make new things, and they do that regardless of the structures above them.
Norway and other bourgeios countries will still have to pass through the same steps that China or Cuba or the USSR did: a revolutionary struggle removing the capitalists from power. Energy tech isn’t going to solve the problem if the people in control of that tech, are private owners.
good analysis id say. whereas certain political economies could have developed in wildly different ways to the capitalism we know today, it was thanks to sufficiently developed technology that it was able to spread itself all around the globe like a virus.
Capitalism was not inevitable. Feudalism could have just stagnated or died out. Capitalism is what ultimately resolved the contradictions of Feudalism and this happened over the course of centuries. Likewise, Socialism will resolve the contradictions of Capitalism (hopefully before life on Earth is doomed).
In Marx’s time, it was presumed that the most advanced centers of Capitalism would be the first to progress to Socialism, but historically this didn’t bear out. The Socialist revolution didn’t take place in England or Germany, but in Russia, which was a backwater by contemporary standards, barely letting go of serfdom. As a functionally feudal monarchy on Europe’s periphery, the bourgeois class of Russia was stunted, and this certainly played a role in their defeat. The vast majority of places we see revolutionary class struggle endure, from China to Korea to Cuba to Vietnam tend not to be the centers of industrial production (at least, at the times of their revolutions).
So you could say that countries like the USSR and China skipped past Capitalism, but only in a regional sense. It still remains as a world-hegemonic system which they have always been forced to contend with.
So you could say that countries like the USSR and China skipped past Capitalism
They didn’t though. They tried but ultimately did had to resort to state capitalism. And while in USSR it could be explained being destroyed by war and in horrible internal and external emergency, China only did it 30 years after revolution after trying to specifically avoid it at first.
Yes i do think capitalism is inevitable, Marx might been wrong about socialism coming first in most developed nations, but note how everywhere the revolution did happened, even in most backward countries it did happened as the reaction for the capitalism, specifically imperialism. So still capitalism, but not necessarily their own capitalism.
But surely it is worth interrogating what capitalism is and how it can be contrasted from the existence of capital. I think it is correct to say China, for example, couldn’t skip “capitalism.”
But when I think of capitalism, I think of the domination of capitalist social relations. I would go as far as saying capitalist relations will usurp all human social relations. These relations are present in the PRC, but how dominant are they? Have they usurped all relations and firmly entrenched its associated ideologies? I think this is contestable. While neoliberalism is, I think, a recognizable problem in the PRC, and while I do wish the Party took harder stances on its private enterprises and kept a tight leash on even its SOEs, it seems clear that the Party has been a functional barrier to a full takeover of capitalist relations.
Perhaps this view of capitalism is not good enough, but I don’t think it is merely semantical to differentiate capital, industrialism, etc. and capitalism itself. If it is true, then how does this interact with the question of capitalisms necessity? Similar to what @redtea was saying, we have learned what we need to know from capital and labor, and so we don’t really need to let these relations dominate anyone’s lives more than we need to, unless the relations themselves usurp humanity and we are left to be dominated by something that has ultimately transcended ourselves.
Capitalism (the dictatorship of capitalist social relations) IMO is not “necessary,” but since it is here there exists the possibility to utilize things like uneven and combined development pathways so that, so long as the relations do not usurp its process, socialism can be constructed dialectally. Further, I might say it is not possible to develop socialism if capitalist relations dominate the development process totally because it will just do something like what the US has done, financializing everything and consciously destroying the prospect of worker power that is instrumental to building revolutionary potential. Meanwhile, though many find the PRC to be explicitly capitalist, they fail to see that rising wages in Asia are a death sentence for the dominance of capitalist relations globally. Yes, in some ways these relations are destroying themselves, but somewhere in the world there has to be someone dictating capital and guiding the development process to arrive at this contradiction in a way that is favorable to socialist construction instead of just generic crisis.
I honestly don’t know how far capitalist relations goes in China. I can only judge based on what i hear in the news and what i deduct from the Chinese media i consume, i’m not very optimistic. Apparently the party control it and the control is raising rather than falling, but it’s clear to me they have significant problem with the petty bourgeois sentiment. The very same thing that buried socialism in Europe. And that the PRC, wating to reach any higher level of development of socialism than NEP with chinese characteristics (because frankly they are there right now), which is pretty low level athough as we can see with many massive successes already, the long and hard war with that sentiment will need to be waged. That war, which Lenin called “the hardest” part of revolution, and was certainly right about it, looking at history.
I think they can do it, but the first condition, which european socialist states couldn’t fulfill, is to not be sabotaged by imperialism.
You know, when i think about it, in a way it could be the greatest vindication of both Marx and Lenin if it happen, because it would mean the dictatorship of the proletariat, using state controlled capitalism become the most developed country and then develop further to higher stages of socialism.
But i digress, if the topic of question was involving specifically historical materialism, then i can only sign myself under @redtea comment, it was necessary because it happened just like that. But after getting all that experience the worst things can be avoided for the future, but again i can only see that under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bourgeois states appear incorrigible even after all that time.
I agree with most of what you said, and you have very fair points, but I think you’re being a little too hard on China. China isn’t perfect of course, but I think generally speaking, there is cause for great optimism, and China and socialism is on the up and up.
Its honestly frustrating how important the PRC is because it’s so far away, so often misunderstood and misrepresented. It is easy to go full optimism or full cynicism. And then there is all the work that is needed at home that could easily consume anyone. But no matter what im doing these questions about the PRC come up inevitably because if our comrades in China are even half correct it means everything, even for us in our own struggles.
In many ways the heavy obvious consequences of the PRCs success or failure are why I have turned heavily toward Indigenous and Tribal thinkers and the contradictions and potential reconciliations between marxist thinking and Indigenous understandings of capitalism to act as a balance in attempting to understand historical materialism and the normativity it seems to conjure among different classes. It seems that Indigenous “marxists” recognize very similar problems in their development, notably the creation of an aboriginal bourgeoisie class that aligns with the settler state. They usually prioritize more “preventative” approaches to capitalism because of this than the more explicitly marxist approach of “moving through” capitalism by maturing socialism. It seems to me we need a bit of both.
I don’t think the social / political system is necessary or historically inevitable, but the production system makes certain forms more likely.
IE industrialism can be arranged cooperatively (look at socialist states that did and do this), and cultivated agriculture can also be cooperative, and doesn’t necessarily need feudal arrangements.
IE, it’s not capitalism that must be passed through, but machine industry / industrialism.
This does not mean that every society must go through this but rather looks at societies as a whole. For example, one could argue that the USSR “skipped” that step, but it’s not something that as a whole could have been avoided.
The logic behind this is the same as for why slavery, feudalism and so on where necessary steps in the process of dialectical struggles that led to the one we are trying to achieve.
Marx understood the dialectical approach of Hegel, but he wanted to ground it on reality, on the material reality of existence. The way this would work is to understand that everything is matter in movement that undergoes changes. The same could be said of individuals, and of social bodies or societies.
It all starts with primitive communism, where there wasn’t any private property and everything was “distributed” because humans of any group hadn’t seized any kind of means of production. So in one way or another, a couple of small groups of people, along with technological advancements (like agriculture, farming, etc), manage to accumulate small quantities of capital, which puts them on a higher social hierarchy and allows, along with the use of force, to enslave people. And so on, and so forth, every social system hitherto existing was an evolution on the preceding one that allowed for an accelerated and greater accumulation of capital than the previous one.
These systems existed because of the necessity in a world with limited resources to allocate due to either poor extraction techniques or limited knowledge on how to do that or produce energy. Capitalism is no different than feudalism, the only difference is that it’s characterized by its accelerated velocity at which accumulates capital in the hands of the bourgeoisie, which in turns accelerates its own demise by creating greater class contradictions that collide and will bring the inevitable end of its dictatorship. Capitalism has solved the scarcity problem, we no longer need a class based system to overcome nature’s entropy. Basically what’s going on is that it allows for a faster accumulation of wealth and capital through centralization, which then goes on to pass to other hands, i.e.: the next synthesis in the dialectical struggle of class antagonism ([…] - feudal lords, thesis; bourgeoisie, antithesis; capitalism, synthesis - bourgeoisie, thesis; proletariat, antithesis; communism, synthesis).
The way I assume you are thinking about this, is one where you intertwine an anthropocentric moral with the fact that capitalism allows for exploitation, whereas a correct comparison would be to look at it the way nature works in some aspects. A wolf is not ethically wrong to kill it’s prey, or a duck is not ethically wrong when it’s raping its female counterpart to reproduce.
reading Marx and especially Engels does seem to indicate that they thought capitalism was a necessary step towards socialism but history has proven that it isnt the USSR for example was mostly feudal so was china, Mongolia the second ever and often forgotten successful socialist state had a clan society sorta thing going on and they went straight to socialism tibet was fully feudal and they went straight to socialism, its pretty clear that capitalism is not necessary for a socialist movement to take hold and be successful. Another question is if the idea of socialism or comunism as it exist today can come about without capitalism and sadly i dont think we can know the answer to that
