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?
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:
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.
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.
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.