Some years ago, I participated in a discussion about Marxism, Communism and Socialism, during which I developed my theory that the Marxist inspired revolutions that happened in Russia, China and elsewhere should never have happened according to the Marxist theory of history itself.

The Marxist theory of history, based on dialectic materialism, argues that a social system is replaced by another when the "means of production" reach such level of developpement that the ancient social order becomes a hindrance to those means of production.

The classic example corroborating this theory is the replacement of the Feudal system by the Bourgeois capitalist one, like in the French revolution. Indeed, in that case the theory works well, and the specific mode of violent revolution or a more peaceful transition aside, what caused the replacement of the Feudal system is exactly that. "Means of production" (we could talk about "economic system") reaching such level that the old social order bacame an obstacle to the real economic forces in action and was removed by them.

But what about the "workers revolutions", the "communist revolutions"?
The problem with them is that they don't fit into the Marxist theory of history at all. In fact they are in direct contradiction with it's core. When those revolutions took place, the capitalist system was not an obstacle to some new, more developed means of production, and the "working class", contrary to the bourgeois in bourgeois revolutions, did not represent a new, more efficient form of economic organisation in which workers would manage economy better than the capitalists.
The opposite is true, and history confirms it by the fact that the working class never took effectively the reins of the economy in revolutionary countries, bureaucracy did.
The very nature of the role of the working class at that time would make it impossible for it to manage economy better than the capitalist class whose role was precisely to create, plan and manage. Bureaucracy was never a match and autogestion neither.

So what happened?
The forefathers of Marxism secretely knew about this discrepancy and tried to camouflage it by various theoretical acrobacies, like the idea that those revolutions are a shortcut (one does not see why such a shortcut would be needed by a theory pretending to be based on ineluctable material laws of history and not on moral justice). The "compensating element" that was invented was "class consciousness" (of what exactly is not clear, since this consciousness, in the frame of the Marxist theory, would only have a meaning if this class effectively represented, at least potentially, new means of production - a new economic order hindered by the capitalistic organisation).
Without entering into the labyrinth of theoretical contradictions that resulted, it is clear that these revolutions could not even have worked as shortcuts, because there was no form of economic organisation in view (and still isn't) that would be hindered by capitalism and would have to remove it as an obstacle.

So, is communism doomed?
Well, if there is to be a "communism", it won't have anything to do with communist parties, revolutions, battles for justice and against the exploiters.
If capitalism is to be removed, it would mean that economy reached some kind of "level" where capitalism becomes an obstacle.
Can we envision such situation?

Well, it is very difficult to envision if we stay at the current conceptual level of the economy itself, which is basically constituted by production, trade and finance. this is a very primitive reductionist concept corresponding to the present level of economic developpement.

What I propose is to widen that concept, transcend it and integrate it into a new level.
Economy, in this new paradigm would mean the whole system of human activity on this planet and everything this activity depends on, and every consequence of that activity. Basically, ecomomy becomes the equivalent of ecology and the economical system is seen as a part of the ecosystem. The ecosystem is also a part of the economy in the sense that the all encompassing effects of human economy is becoming the directing force controling the ecosystem or the biosphere. So far mostly destructively, but not necessarilly in the future.

What I am saying is that the qualitative developpement of the economy means, as it allways meant, the rise of control, but at a certain point, that control doesn't just mean the control of directly production oriented natural resources, it doesn't just mean the marketing of those resources or products and the financial system reflecting and controling these exchanges. It means control of the whole system of everything involved in human activities and making sure that those activities run efficiently, securely, smoothly: what an economy wants.
At that level, economy means everything and the organisation of economy means much more than the trade of some goods on the "bazaar". It means the control of the whole thing, the whole system of relations in wich human activity is taking place. At this level of economic control, the whole planet is the economy and those in control of it will want it to run smoothly, like a company that doesn't want to be bankrupt tomorrow if it missmanages it's interdependencies. Such developed economy will have to structurally integrate what is now still the realm of dreamers and idealists: ecology.

What does it mean for capitalism?
Well, one can envision that at such level of economic developement, capitalist organisation would become a source of instability and chaos, an obstacle for such integrated "Total Economy".
The conceptual level of sophistication of the capitalist system resembles a beduin's bazaar compared with Total Economy. It's present level is reduced to just a few elements of the total system of structural interdependence represented by the concept of Total Economy.

One of the implications is that democracy becomes an integral part of the economy and an active element leading to its full developpement. That's why the present productivist and financialist concept of globalisation are incomplete. Total economy, as the control of the whole system surrounding and including human activity also includes the political level of control and the globalisdation of democracy.

Does socialism have a place in that vision of history?
Yes, in the sense that it represents one aspect of why humans associated into economy in the first place.
It is true that when one associates himself with an economy, he becomes partly a mechandise himself, an economic value. but the reason for this partial reification is a compromise, it is the price to pay in order to satisfy the needs which are the reason for this association itself. Those needs are always ultimately human and our reasons for economic association are ultimately human reasons.
Socialism is the expression of one half of the dichotomy present in human associations.

Some years ago I read in the Economist and other magazines like Time and Newsweek excited articles about what was, if I remember correctly, the Francis Fukuyama's book "The End of History and the Last Man".The author argued that liberal democracy, as we know it, is "it". While the emphasis was on liberal democracy, it is clear that all the excitement came from the implication that capitalism is "it", the end of history.
The brief sketch of the theory of Total Economy exposed here contradicts such conclusion. Capitalism is still a primitive form of economy that doesn't control, the whole system of structural relationships on which human activity depends. Capitalism is far below the Total Economy that will replace it if we are lucky (ie. if we don't manage to destroy our environnement and ourselves before reaching such level of structural economic developpement).
Will Total Economy be "Communism"? Hard to say, but global democracy of a higher structural kind of integration is a prerequisite and an indivisible element of Total Economy.
As I propose a new paradigm of economy, I propose another conceptual jump that would integrate all the subjective aspects of the economy. They include the political sphere but also the educational sphere and the information sphere.
In fact I am talking about the integration of knowledge as a controling factor inside the discrete individual human components of the economy. A concept where managing knowledge and decisions at all levels of human association from the individual to the global ones, becomes an integrated system where all levels and their relationships are clearly articulated like in a complete self respecting self regulatory system.

For those who think that democracy might not be necessary for maximum efficiency of the economy, it is good to remember that an economy is not in it's essence a production machine, it is an association created for the exchange of work, goods etc. That means that "efficiency" must be understood in this context of the very nature of the economy. A super efficient economy is one that realises to a maximum this intrinsic purpose. Human needs are the real motor of economy, but as it develops, some compromises of the past don't have to be made anymore.
If there is something even remotely looking like "teleology" in history, it is based on the most elementary primary reasons why humans associated into a system of exchanges in the first place. As this system realises its full and complete potential of self regulation and efficient function, the primary purposes have the chance to fully express themselves.

Does Total Economy imply a sort of fossilization, ossification, immobilism?
Not at all, just a clarification, an explicit articulation of the sytem of interdependent relations constituting the economy going global and total. With such articulation our true history doesn't end, it just begins.
When the problems of childhood and growing up are resolved, when adulthood is reached, real life begins.
What we called history is just a process of maturation and structural completion of a system that will reach its maturity in Total Economy. What we will do then will be real history.



I would like to add some comments on the present process of globalisation.

It seems that now that there is no global threat to capitalism in some other comprehensive philosophy or model like Marxism and Communism, capitalism is slowly returning to its own roots of wild ruthless capitalism, but this time on a global scale and under the cover of globalisation.

One could ask oneself, in front of such stupidity, if capitalism has learned anything from its historical experience? It makes the same stupid mistakes that were at the origin of ideologies like Communism.

(Example: The New Rulers of the World - Documentary, Book.)

I just hope that the reaction, and reaction there will be, will not be in the form of more bloody wars.

On the other hand, the antiglobalist movements, as confused and incoherent as they seem for the moment, could be the embryo of a new global social movement that would be the political reaction to a purely economic nondemocratic concept of globalisation.
If we are lucky, this could lead to a new form of integration of the world on a much more conscious global political level and create something quite different than the purely economic and ruthless globalisation that is promoted now.



? 2002. All rights reserved.