(added screencap of Haz's tweet to make the page more interesting) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Image0.webp|thumb|Haz's world-historical tweet. They were not in fact ready to know. ]] | |||
"'''We already live in socialism'''" is a phrase used by [[Infrared]] to signify that the process of achieving [[socialism]] has already begun. The phrase was first introduced in Haz's earliest YouTube streams, and later notably during a Twitch stream discussing the controversial tweet by [[Haz Al-Din|Haz]] on the matter. <blockquote>"When we pass from joint-stock companies to trusts which assume control over, and monopolize, whole industries, it is not only private production that ceases, but also planlessness." | "'''We already live in socialism'''" is a phrase used by [[Infrared]] to signify that the process of achieving [[socialism]] has already begun. The phrase was first introduced in Haz's earliest YouTube streams, and later notably during a Twitch stream discussing the controversial tweet by [[Haz Al-Din|Haz]] on the matter. <blockquote>"When we pass from joint-stock companies to trusts which assume control over, and monopolize, whole industries, it is not only private production that ceases, but also planlessness." | ||
Revision as of 23:40, 28 January 2024
"We already live in socialism" is a phrase used by Infrared to signify that the process of achieving socialism has already begun. The phrase was first introduced in Haz's earliest YouTube streams, and later notably during a Twitch stream discussing the controversial tweet by Haz on the matter.
"When we pass from joint-stock companies to trusts which assume control over, and monopolize, whole industries, it is not only private production that ceases, but also planlessness." — Friedrich Engels (Neue Zeit, Vol. XX, 1, 1901-02, p.8)
Class consciousness
The first objective of ''We already live in socialism'' is a direct clash with the pre-conceived social-democratic socialist eschatology. Instead of socialism being regarded as a distant ideal, it can be recognized as an already immediately objective reality. The affirmation of this is inherently revolutionary, as it propels the worker to understand only his seizing of the means of production is left to start the communist movement.
The expansive force of the means of production bursts the bonds that the capitalist mode of production had imposed upon them. Their deliverance from these bonds is the one precondition for an unbroken, constantly-accelerated development of the productive forces, and therewith for a practically unlimited increase of production itself. (...) The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day-by-day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties — this possibility is now, for the first time, here, but it is here. [1]
Dialectical significance
The phrase directly deals with the question: where does the socialist mode of production come from? Is it the consciousness of men which compose the mode of production? This is not the case in the case of dialectical materialism, the mode of production is an objective and historical reality.
The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.[2]
Further, using Marxist dialectics, the Marxist conclusion is that there is no single defining point where the mode of production changes. The previous mode of production contains in itself the germ for the new one, and the new one contain remnants from the old.
This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today. The greater the mastery obtained by the new mode of production over all important fields of production and in all manufacturing countries, the more it reduced individual production to an insignificant residuum, the more clearly was brought out the incompatibility of socialized production with capitalistic appropriation.
The change thus comes when the previous mode of production develops its inherent contradictions to such extent that it is not materially sustainable anymore. Engels refers to the mode of production being in contradiction with the mode of exchange, i.e, the socialist mode of production is in rebellion against the capitalist mode of production.
In these crises, the contradiction between socialized production and capitalist appropriation ends in a violent explosion. The circulation of commodities is, for the time being, stopped. Money, the means of circulation, becomes a hindrance to circulation. All the laws of production and circulation of commodities are turned upside down. The economic collision has reached its apogee. The mode of production is in rebellion against the mode of exchange. [1]
''We already live in socialism'' becomes even more important when Engels analyzes the inherent developing social aspect of the forces of production, components of the mode of production. This can very well be equated with the information revolution and the information warfare, the internet, ideological branding and corporate culture of the 21st century.
The solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonizing with the socialized character of the means of production. But, with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilized by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself.[1]
The recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production is exactly what the worker does when he utters the phrase ''We already live in socialism''. The logical next step of this conscious realization is the seizing of the means of production.
Differences between the mode of production and the overall system
The above considerations are all qualifications of the objective changes in the mode of production. The socialist system can only be properly established with the common ownership of the means of production. However, the drive for social change comes from the clash between the nascent, new mode of production from the old.
An error that leftists often make is defining the socialist system as some ideal, or a state of affairs to be established.
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.[3]
What defines the socialist system is not some abstract ideal of removal of class or the value-form (a critique by left-communists), but the system is defined by its telos, thus the qualitative change is a change in telos. Attributing a single economic component as the defining reality of socialism and putting the rest on the side would be un-dialectical. Each of the components, whether in the socialist system or the capitalist system, are contained within the first.
For example, in regard to the capitalist system, Marx says that value-form is the most abstract (highest in form) and most universal (dominant) taken by the product.[4] In the instantiations of socialism it would obviously not be the case, as the dictatorship of the proletariat has the strongest, most abstract and universal command over production. Dialectics really is the important part here; abolition is not what determines the change, it is the telos; i.e, A and not-A are contained within each other, one taking dominance over the other in each economic system because of who controls the forces of production.
References