• prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning.

    I’m sure I’m way out of my depth here, and it’s been over a decade since I studied this stuff in school… But this seems incredibly naive? As we’re seeing now, that environment is far more ripe for fascism, or some type of neo-feudalism.

    • i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      The starting point for the Marxian analysis centers on the existing dominant forces of monopolistic industrial capitalism. Therefore socialist revolution still must move through capitalism by process of subordinating the ruling class to a proletarian state. As Cowbee pointed out, fascism is not a state absent capitalism, but rather mode of capitalism itself. Because of the inherent contradictions, we assume that any capitalist system already produces various quantities of fascism as a mechanism for maintaining superiority of the owner class.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I’m dramatically simplifying things for the sake of a Lemmy comment.

      First, fascism is just Capitalism in decline, it isn’t meaningfully separate from Capitalism itself.

      Secondly, when I say that Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because of Capitalism’s mechanisms working towards monopolist syndicates ripe for planning, that doesn’t mean Marx wasn’t also revolutionary. Such central planning and socialism can’t take place without revolution, because the proletariat needs to gain supremacy over Capital, which is impossible electorally.

      Does that clear it up?