Can we discuss this? I don’t believe that Marx’s definition of communism is a form of society that comes after socialism. I think communism exists now within the working class. Its the real struggle against capitalist class owned private property and capitalist directed production and distribution of the historic means of production.
I actually really don’t like the definition of communism as something strictly “out there”. Communism exists just as sure as capitalism exists. Socialism can become communist, but communism goes away when capitalism goes away. Communism is the negation of “bourgeois” private property. The left is already too idealist and prefigurative, and Marx was really against that.
If you ask me, the idea of socialism as the achievement of minimum demands, that leads to communism as the realization of maximum demands, is not a Marxist communist theory of change, it is a social democratic one.
I think you’re getting at the concept of communism as a movement vs. communism as a mode of production. As a communist, I am committed to bringing about communism the mode of production, so in a way this process itself is “communism” from a certain view. However, this becomes very confusing for those not familiar, and so I try to keep things compartmentalized when discussing with those not as informed.
Socialism is chiefly a mode of production best seen as a transition between capitalism and communism. It’s the process of building the communist society where money, class, and the state have been abolished, where private property is no longer a thing. Drawing a distinction between the process of building something, and the object being built, is important. It’s the difference between the movement and the goal.
Yes but I think points of emphasis matter. Socialism may exist in some formal ways and some informal ways, but assuming it does, for example I know that you consider China to be at least partially/mostly socialist, the task is not for a socialist nation to become a communist nation, but for a socialist nation to become a socialist international, topple imperial international capitalist totality, and continually develop mass proletarian international productive forces, etc.,
So yes it is important to delineate “communist society” vs communist movement, in that the communist/proletarian movement actually exists, as it is the embodiment of the revolutionary potential of the working class; where “communist society” does not exist, and will not exist for a very long time.
So why define communism as something that it is not? Like its fine to imagine a better world, but it isn’t practical and it isn’t part of communism as it is inherently prefigurative. Communists concern ourseves with what exists, and what will exist (I’m not a huge fan of predictive Marxism, but knowing where we are headed is necessary for a successful political project) not what should exist.
You’re clearly alluding to the words in The German Ideology about communism being the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. And yet in the same work, and in several others, Marx and Engels also do talk about “communist society” and give some rough descriptions of how it would operate. The notion that communism is pure negativity and that it “goes away when capitalism goes away” (or that “the idea of socialism as the achievement of minimum demands, that leads to communism as the realization of maximum demands, is not a Marxist communist theory of change, it is a social democratic one”) is something you would have to take up with a lot of works, again, but this is most clearly put down in Critique of the Gotha Programme.
And I don’t think Marx would go so far as to say “communism exists now within the working class,” because there is no world-historic struggle by the collective proletariat to <upheave> the present state of things; struggle on the individual level is not communism, as is also made clear in TGI, nor would communism exist within the working class semantically regardless, as it is the <real movement> [which seizes upon the immanent negativity in capitalism and reorganizes production, thereby upheaving capitalist relations of production], it is not some rebellious spirit people come to possess.
Its true that Marx discusses communist society in Critique of the Gotha Programme, that is a good call out. However CotGP is not a description of communism, but a criticism of Lassalle. Marx is also very specific in the way he defines “society” and is explicit that it is a tendency of the “old materialism”, which is still the dominant form of materialism as it is bourgeois materialism, to define society in a way that is static, abstract, and impractical. Marxists can’t define any society in an idealist, bourgeois way, and also adhere to a revolutionary program.
Theses on Feuerbach is such an important document. Unfortunately, many Marxists do not understand it, and default to idealist conceptions of individuals and society; or at least inconsistent in how they apply a Marxist method to analysis.
From Thesis I:
The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism… is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.
It matters how we define the individual. Not just abstractly, but as a sensing, experiencing subject. Since we can’t possibly imagine what those experiences will be in “communist society” we can’t imagine a communist individual existing in that society.
From Thesis III:
The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.
This is just a really important passage, as it defines Marxist praxis. The individual in society experiences their world, thinks about it, takes action that changes it; then, by experiencing the changes, changes the self. This changed self contemplates, and takes action, so on. This process of change, the process that fuses of subject and object in the individual , is necessary to understand in order to change anything in society.
How does this relate to defining far off post socialist “communist society?” Well, communist society will be brought about through mass, continual change of this sort, the society will be defined by this revolutionary process. However, this process does not come about by achieving communist society, this process is present now and generally referred to by communists as “theory + practice.” So communism isn’t actually defined by a future condition but by a present condition that will continually develop into the central characteristic of individuals in communist society.
VIII:
All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.
Ideas only exist in practice. Since “communist society” can not be practiced, it does not exist. It cant define communists, it is an ideal. So what defines communism is what is practiced.
IX:
The highest point reached by contemplative materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is contemplation of single individuals and of civil society.
The “comprehension” of “communist society” does not even reach the level of contemplating single individuals! Only an abstract civil society. So it does not even reach the level of bourgeois materialism, it’s not scientific, its pre-modern conception. It is post apocalypse, it’s heaven and hell. Its fine to think this way, it is fine to daydream, but it can not be what defines us.
In the Manifesto, Marx defines communists by what we do:
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
Marx is then explicit:
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.
This is a total dismissal of the definition of communism as some future idyllic society. Right here at the beginning of part two of the manifesto. Defining communism as an idyllic future society is not the historic role of communists. Understanding existing conditions and plotting a way forward is our role.
I see too many socialists and communists more consumed by what could be than what is. And that’s probably not you! I’m sure you have the correct discipline that allows you to both imagine a better world and fight for one. If imagining a better world is the impetus for actually engaging in the here and now, then that’s a subjective factor that is part of the process. But emphasis matters, Lenin was known to “bend the stick”. Communism is concretely not “what comes after socialism.” Communism is the struggle today, not the dreams of tomorrow, and I’m tired of this other definition being what defines us.
However CotGP is not a description of communism, but a criticism of Lassalle.
It’s a criticism of Lassalle that also contains a description of communism. These things aren’t mutually exclusive.
Since we can’t possibly imagine what those experiences will be in “communist society” we can’t imagine a communist individual existing in that society.
Marx violates this in TGI.
The issue you seem to be having throughout everything is the comprehension of revolutionary subjects as unconscious pseudo-subjects, where revolution comes about as a mechanical inevitability springing from capitalism, and ““communist society”” (unpredictably) from this (“communist society will be brought about”), hence the ability to preserve the movement towards communist society via ~“revolutionary praxis” but do away with this as the ultimate goal.
So communism isn’t actually defined by a future condition but by a present condition that will continually develop into the central characteristic of individuals in communist society.
For Marx, communism is defined by a present condition (“the premises now in existence” ~ TGI) which carries the possibility for the creation of a communist society (“Looked at historically this inversion appears as the point of entry necessary in order to enforce, at the expense of the majority, the creation of wealth as such, i.e. the ruthless productive powers of social labour, which alone can form the material basis for a free human society.” – Draft Ch. 6 of Capital). This possibility is immanent to these conditions and therefore Marx and Engels can sketch certain features of this possible society through studying present society and its historical premises, which is the actual basis for their call for the proletariat to become organized and unite.
I don’t care if you disagree with Marx but that is what you’re doing.
Ideas only exist in practice.
This isn’t what Marx is saying, nor is it true.
This is a total dismissal of the definition of communism as some future idyllic society. Right here at the beginning of part two of the manifesto.
I already addressed a very similar passage from TGI.
If imagining a better world is the impetus for actually engaging in the here and now, then that’s a subjective factor that is part of the process.
No, it’s absolutely not just motivation. Communist society being a real possibility/historical necessity (in what is effectively though not explicitly a moral “should”), is what Marxism rests on–this is where “historical materialism” is supposed to transcend the “social materialism” of classical political economy. You can’t justify the call for global proletarian revolution without this. If it turns out that Marx doesn’t manage to prove this, that it can’t be proven because of when the owl of Minerva spreads its wings, then the only thing to do is to drop Marxism.
He says this twice in TonF. The first time he says it is in the second Thesis:
The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.
He also says it in the last, most famous line. You can nit pick this semantically or whatever, but semantics aren’t Marxist.
It is what he is saying. Like I get your point that because capitalism creates two opposed classes, one which creates value through labor, and another that exploits that labor for their own benefit, that capitalism creates not just the possibility for the oppressed class to not just overthrow the power of the ruling class, but, because the working class is the vast, vast majority, we create a more just and democratic society. Where, for for the first time in history, the ruling class would be the vast mass of people, where cooperation and solidarity is our objective interest, which carries within it the possibility of abolition of class antagonism.
But you are going to have to provide something more substantive on your theory of individuals as pseudo-subjects. I’m not confused about this. I think you’re being overly mechanical, and dismissing my point without evidence. It seems like you’re just chucking subjectivity out the window, and giving into determinism. There is a deterministic element to Marxism, the world dictates the limits and possibilities, but people change it. I really don’t buy what your selling here, and you’re not supporting your argument, on this very load-bearing point.
I’m not getting rid of goals. To me the goal is to determine what is happening here and now, and make predictions and plans based in concretion. Marx’s theories about “communist society” are concrete enough to believe, but they are still very abstract and impossible to relate to directly. They change nothing on their own.
I’m not trying to disprove them. But I don’t see how something in the far flung future defines us, and you aren’t convincing me. To me its a very idealist attitude that isn’t based in people’s direct experience since it isn’t an absolute given that we experience the central contradictions of capitalism directly. The vast majority of people are unconvinced of it, and you can’t even convince me, a Marxist. If all you are gonna do is tell me I’m wrong without acknowledging a single point that I’ve made, and I don’t mean just quoting and debunking, but actually addressing, then thanks for your time.
I see a lot of people fixated on a future that doesn’t exist, and not really communists, who often are quite practical, even if it isn’t as practical as I would like. But lots of socialists and new people joining our movements, I don’t think the over emphasis on what comes way in the future is helpful. These people have to get out of their idealisms and into actual work. Communists balance this in practice, but emphasize the idealized in definition. New communists tend to learn axioms before learning about their own communities, which is exactly backwards, and not what Marxism teaches us.
Can we discuss this? I don’t believe that Marx’s definition of communism is a form of society that comes after socialism. I think communism exists now within the working class. Its the real struggle against capitalist class owned private property and capitalist directed production and distribution of the historic means of production.
I actually really don’t like the definition of communism as something strictly “out there”. Communism exists just as sure as capitalism exists. Socialism can become communist, but communism goes away when capitalism goes away. Communism is the negation of “bourgeois” private property. The left is already too idealist and prefigurative, and Marx was really against that.
If you ask me, the idea of socialism as the achievement of minimum demands, that leads to communism as the realization of maximum demands, is not a Marxist communist theory of change, it is a social democratic one.
I think you’re getting at the concept of communism as a movement vs. communism as a mode of production. As a communist, I am committed to bringing about communism the mode of production, so in a way this process itself is “communism” from a certain view. However, this becomes very confusing for those not familiar, and so I try to keep things compartmentalized when discussing with those not as informed.
Socialism is chiefly a mode of production best seen as a transition between capitalism and communism. It’s the process of building the communist society where money, class, and the state have been abolished, where private property is no longer a thing. Drawing a distinction between the process of building something, and the object being built, is important. It’s the difference between the movement and the goal.
Yes but I think points of emphasis matter. Socialism may exist in some formal ways and some informal ways, but assuming it does, for example I know that you consider China to be at least partially/mostly socialist, the task is not for a socialist nation to become a communist nation, but for a socialist nation to become a socialist international, topple imperial international capitalist totality, and continually develop mass proletarian international productive forces, etc.,
So yes it is important to delineate “communist society” vs communist movement, in that the communist/proletarian movement actually exists, as it is the embodiment of the revolutionary potential of the working class; where “communist society” does not exist, and will not exist for a very long time.
So why define communism as something that it is not? Like its fine to imagine a better world, but it isn’t practical and it isn’t part of communism as it is inherently prefigurative. Communists concern ourseves with what exists, and what will exist (I’m not a huge fan of predictive Marxism, but knowing where we are headed is necessary for a successful political project) not what should exist.
You’re clearly alluding to the words in The German Ideology about communism being the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. And yet in the same work, and in several others, Marx and Engels also do talk about “communist society” and give some rough descriptions of how it would operate. The notion that communism is pure negativity and that it “goes away when capitalism goes away” (or that “the idea of socialism as the achievement of minimum demands, that leads to communism as the realization of maximum demands, is not a Marxist communist theory of change, it is a social democratic one”) is something you would have to take up with a lot of works, again, but this is most clearly put down in Critique of the Gotha Programme.
And I don’t think Marx would go so far as to say “communism exists now within the working class,” because there is no world-historic struggle by the collective proletariat to <upheave> the present state of things; struggle on the individual level is not communism, as is also made clear in TGI, nor would communism exist within the working class semantically regardless, as it is the <real movement> [which seizes upon the immanent negativity in capitalism and reorganizes production, thereby upheaving capitalist relations of production], it is not some rebellious spirit people come to possess.
Its true that Marx discusses communist society in Critique of the Gotha Programme, that is a good call out. However CotGP is not a description of communism, but a criticism of Lassalle. Marx is also very specific in the way he defines “society” and is explicit that it is a tendency of the “old materialism”, which is still the dominant form of materialism as it is bourgeois materialism, to define society in a way that is static, abstract, and impractical. Marxists can’t define any society in an idealist, bourgeois way, and also adhere to a revolutionary program.
Theses on Feuerbach is such an important document. Unfortunately, many Marxists do not understand it, and default to idealist conceptions of individuals and society; or at least inconsistent in how they apply a Marxist method to analysis.
From Thesis I:
It matters how we define the individual. Not just abstractly, but as a sensing, experiencing subject. Since we can’t possibly imagine what those experiences will be in “communist society” we can’t imagine a communist individual existing in that society.
From Thesis III:
This is just a really important passage, as it defines Marxist praxis. The individual in society experiences their world, thinks about it, takes action that changes it; then, by experiencing the changes, changes the self. This changed self contemplates, and takes action, so on. This process of change, the process that fuses of subject and object in the individual , is necessary to understand in order to change anything in society.
How does this relate to defining far off post socialist “communist society?” Well, communist society will be brought about through mass, continual change of this sort, the society will be defined by this revolutionary process. However, this process does not come about by achieving communist society, this process is present now and generally referred to by communists as “theory + practice.” So communism isn’t actually defined by a future condition but by a present condition that will continually develop into the central characteristic of individuals in communist society.
VIII:
Ideas only exist in practice. Since “communist society” can not be practiced, it does not exist. It cant define communists, it is an ideal. So what defines communism is what is practiced.
IX:
The “comprehension” of “communist society” does not even reach the level of contemplating single individuals! Only an abstract civil society. So it does not even reach the level of bourgeois materialism, it’s not scientific, its pre-modern conception. It is post apocalypse, it’s heaven and hell. Its fine to think this way, it is fine to daydream, but it can not be what defines us.
In the Manifesto, Marx defines communists by what we do:
Marx is then explicit:
This is a total dismissal of the definition of communism as some future idyllic society. Right here at the beginning of part two of the manifesto. Defining communism as an idyllic future society is not the historic role of communists. Understanding existing conditions and plotting a way forward is our role.
I see too many socialists and communists more consumed by what could be than what is. And that’s probably not you! I’m sure you have the correct discipline that allows you to both imagine a better world and fight for one. If imagining a better world is the impetus for actually engaging in the here and now, then that’s a subjective factor that is part of the process. But emphasis matters, Lenin was known to “bend the stick”. Communism is concretely not “what comes after socialism.” Communism is the struggle today, not the dreams of tomorrow, and I’m tired of this other definition being what defines us.
It’s a criticism of Lassalle that also contains a description of communism. These things aren’t mutually exclusive.
Marx violates this in TGI.
The issue you seem to be having throughout everything is the comprehension of revolutionary subjects as unconscious pseudo-subjects, where revolution comes about as a mechanical inevitability springing from capitalism, and ““communist society”” (unpredictably) from this (“communist society will be brought about”), hence the ability to preserve the movement towards communist society via ~“revolutionary praxis” but do away with this as the ultimate goal.
For Marx, communism is defined by a present condition (“the premises now in existence” ~ TGI) which carries the possibility for the creation of a communist society (“Looked at historically this inversion appears as the point of entry necessary in order to enforce, at the expense of the majority, the creation of wealth as such, i.e. the ruthless productive powers of social labour, which alone can form the material basis for a free human society.” – Draft Ch. 6 of Capital). This possibility is immanent to these conditions and therefore Marx and Engels can sketch certain features of this possible society through studying present society and its historical premises, which is the actual basis for their call for the proletariat to become organized and unite.
I don’t care if you disagree with Marx but that is what you’re doing.
This isn’t what Marx is saying, nor is it true.
I already addressed a very similar passage from TGI.
No, it’s absolutely not just motivation. Communist society being a real possibility/historical necessity (in what is effectively though not explicitly a moral “should”), is what Marxism rests on–this is where “historical materialism” is supposed to transcend the “social materialism” of classical political economy. You can’t justify the call for global proletarian revolution without this. If it turns out that Marx doesn’t manage to prove this, that it can’t be proven because of when the owl of Minerva spreads its wings, then the only thing to do is to drop Marxism.
He says this twice in TonF. The first time he says it is in the second Thesis:
He also says it in the last, most famous line. You can nit pick this semantically or whatever, but semantics aren’t Marxist.
It is what he is saying. Like I get your point that because capitalism creates two opposed classes, one which creates value through labor, and another that exploits that labor for their own benefit, that capitalism creates not just the possibility for the oppressed class to not just overthrow the power of the ruling class, but, because the working class is the vast, vast majority, we create a more just and democratic society. Where, for for the first time in history, the ruling class would be the vast mass of people, where cooperation and solidarity is our objective interest, which carries within it the possibility of abolition of class antagonism.
But you are going to have to provide something more substantive on your theory of individuals as pseudo-subjects. I’m not confused about this. I think you’re being overly mechanical, and dismissing my point without evidence. It seems like you’re just chucking subjectivity out the window, and giving into determinism. There is a deterministic element to Marxism, the world dictates the limits and possibilities, but people change it. I really don’t buy what your selling here, and you’re not supporting your argument, on this very load-bearing point.
I’m not getting rid of goals. To me the goal is to determine what is happening here and now, and make predictions and plans based in concretion. Marx’s theories about “communist society” are concrete enough to believe, but they are still very abstract and impossible to relate to directly. They change nothing on their own.
I’m not trying to disprove them. But I don’t see how something in the far flung future defines us, and you aren’t convincing me. To me its a very idealist attitude that isn’t based in people’s direct experience since it isn’t an absolute given that we experience the central contradictions of capitalism directly. The vast majority of people are unconvinced of it, and you can’t even convince me, a Marxist. If all you are gonna do is tell me I’m wrong without acknowledging a single point that I’ve made, and I don’t mean just quoting and debunking, but actually addressing, then thanks for your time.
I see a lot of people fixated on a future that doesn’t exist, and not really communists, who often are quite practical, even if it isn’t as practical as I would like. But lots of socialists and new people joining our movements, I don’t think the over emphasis on what comes way in the future is helpful. These people have to get out of their idealisms and into actual work. Communists balance this in practice, but emphasize the idealized in definition. New communists tend to learn axioms before learning about their own communities, which is exactly backwards, and not what Marxism teaches us.