Make Capitalism History

Front matter

Make Capitalism History

A Practical Framework for Utopia and the

Transformation of Society

Preface

I do not demand voluntarism nor do I preach an automatism; I rather intend to demonstrate the objective possibility of change and its preconditions. I neither want to paint a utopian picture nor forbid utopian thinking; my aim is to unfold well-founded hope. I neither want to be desperately waiting for the better humans nor seal history’s horrors with man’s evil nature; I rather take humans seriously in their history and their potential. I neither want to waste my life in a never-ending struggle nor bow my head before the overpowering. With confidence in existing potential and certainty of well-founded hope, I want to realise human possibilities.

For 300 years, capitalism has been turning cooperation into competition, work into exploitation, nature into the insignificant other; it strengthens racism and patriarchy, puts profit before people and, therefore, impedes peace, justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Today, when we are facing the risk of a climate crisis, the economic foundation of capitalism makes an ecological restructuring of society impossible. It is time to make capitalism history.

To make capitalism history we need an alternative. We cannot demand the end of capitalism without having at least a vague idea of what a solidary, free society may look like. This book talks about societal alternatives, which we call utopias, and discusses different ways of how we may reach them. The end of capitalism is a “great transformation” (Polanyi), and such a societal transformation usually involves three aspects: something comes to an end (abolition), something continues (preservation) and something is raised to a qualitatively new level (development). So, for vi PREFACE example, compulsion to make profit must be abolished, certain production processes can be preserved and the global disposal over our conditions of life should tend to everyone’s needs. The concept of “sublation” contains these three aspects, hence the German title of the book “Sublate Capitalism” (Kapitalismus aufheben). However, as in English, sublation is quite a philosophical and abstract term, the English title emphasises what this book is about: abolish capitalism, create a good life for all.

We consider ourselves as part of a movement heading for a liberated solidary society. Emancipatory movements have experienced a long history of reform and revolution, fighting for acceptance, fair distribution and participation. As of the 1970s, new movements have begun paying more attention to everyday power structures, such as class discrimination, sexism, racism, self-subjugation and so on. Politics entered everyday life and started to change our relationships. Thus, we now have a wide range of experiences as far as authority, critical practices and knowledge about forms of domination in many areas are concerned. However, a common perspective on how we can overcome capitalism and where we want to go is largely missing. Maybe the situation is even worse: a discussion about utopia and transformation is hardly part of our practice. Since the failure of Real Socialism, no replacement has filled the gap. There are a lot of exciting emancipatory projects; however, they are only remotely connected to an overall societal change. This book intends to offer a space in which to rethink and rediscuss the aim of, and path to, a freed society. One that goes beyond—but learns from—the old concepts of reform and revolution, the planned economy and democratic socialism.

As the subheading points out, this book should be a practical framework, an invitation to people who wants to change the world. But how do we intend to perform such invitation? The book has two parts: in the first part, we would like to develop a framework for utopian theory and a transformation theory that focuses on the constitution of a new society (transvolution). In the second part, we would like to present our own theory of utopia and transformation. This framework is designed to enable a different perspective and, thus, a different theory on utopia and transformation. Within it, ideas which contradict, improve or surpass ours are possible. We can imagine the theoretical framework as creating a room in which individual theories outline their ideas and place their own furniture. Certain pieces of furniture might not fit the room: they might be too big or better suited for the garden, other items might go well together and yet others might seem not to match. This book intends to be an invitation, to

PREFACE vii provide such a room without specifying the furniture but only placing some—particularly nice—items.

With this book we do not aspire to proclaiming truths. As you will find out, our concepts of utopia and transformation are incomplete. We do not claim to present comprehensive answers to issues as big as the free society and the path that will lead us there. For that purpose, we need more ideas, thoughts and practical experience so as to deepen, criticise and develop our thinking. This book is intended as an invitation to participate. We can unite in this common search.

Before we start, we would like to add some remarks about the book and ourselves. A book is a bridge into the mind of another person. Another person’s ideas follow individual rules and paths which can create a sense of unfamiliarity. We would like to mention some of our mental paths in advance. We are both passionate about precise terms. Therefore, you will often discover we attempt to clarify terms in order to use them with a precise meaning. A clarification necessarily excludes other meanings of the term. Secondly, this book includes very few quotes. This might easily give the impression that we pride ourselves on being the source of everything. This is not the case. We rest on the shoulders of many others. However, it is easier for us to express ideas in our own words. Often, these words are simply other people’s insights expressed in a different way; sometimes, there might actually be something new.

There is yet another idea, which does not solely pertain to us: the logic of exclusion, of asserting oneself at the expense of others; it is all around us and has penetrated theory and its debates. Theory often appears as a battle of theories in which one side thrashes the arguments of the other, until nothing else remains but to concede defeat and defect. This is no fair ground for the interests and ideas of the theoretical opponent to be taken seriously. Thus, they are likely to remain misunderstood. We attempt to distance ourselves from this belligerent and destructive modus of theory. Despite our efforts, this dynamic is deeply imprinted in all of us and is likely to surface in this book. We cannot exonerate ourselves from this influence; nevertheless, we desire theoretical debate to be actually built on inclusion and, therefore, on understanding the position of the counterpart.

Here are some words about the book itself: Quotes from (German) Wikipedia are referred to by the keyword only, while other online sources are referenced in full. We begin the first part of the book with an introduction (Chap. 1), including a presentation of the relationship between emancipatory movements on the one hand and utopia and transformation vill © PREFACE on the other. The chapter closes with reflections on theory and definitions, as well as a short criticism of capitalism. After that, we deal with the concepts of reform and revolution (Chap. 2), criticise their mistakes but preserve their insights. This is the basis of our suggestion of a new theoretical framework, transvolution (Chap. 3). We close this section with thoughts on a categorical theory of utopian possibilities (Chap. 4). During the following three chapters, we fill the framework with our concepts. Firstly, we present our theory of the individual and society (Chap. 5). We then develop our utopia of an inclusive society based on the commons (Chap. 6). This is followed by thoughts on transformation, that is, on how to overcome capitalism (Chap. 7).

We are very happy to present the English translation of our book three years after the German edition was published. Three years of interesting critique and further discussion have developed the theory. Critics pointed out many problems in the book, two major ones being the lack of a developed critique of a state-coordinated society and the overlooking of existing property relations and social struggles. Therefore, this translation includes additional—but still very limited—parts, such as an expanded critique of state-coordinated societies (Chap. 1, 3.4), new ideas about commonist planning (Chap. 6, 3.7) and a new scenario of transformation (Chap. 7, 3.4, p. 219: Commons and social struggle). We are pleasantly surprised by the fact that, all in all, much of the content remains promising to us, and people tell us and show us how thought-provoking this book is. This is especially true at a time of climate crisis.

The book does not have to be read from cover to cover for our ideas to be understood, and knowing other theories is not necessary. We have added some diagrams to illustrate significant lines of argument. Another feature are our boxes, which serve to expand on certain terms or ideas. An arrow indicates a —>keyword explained in a box.

We wish you a lot of fun reading and encourage you to actively debate your views on the website commonism.us, where you can also find additional information on this book.

Bonn, Germany Simon Sutterliitti Stefan Meretz

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book would never have been possible without the commitment of Manfred Renken, who suggested and provided the initial English translation, and of Anna Holloway, who did the proofreading. We would like to thank the Rosa-Luxemburg-Foundation, the Sunflower Foundation, the Volkswagen Foundation and the Krisis-Group. Without their generous support, this project could not have been realised.

This book is rather a transcription of a collective discourse, and therefore we would like to thank those people who participated. First and foremost, we thank our friends who joined in developing and testing the ideas: Benni and Sarah, Ranjana and Hannes, Svenja and Naima, Juli and Denis, Eva and Annette, Christian and Friederike, Jan and Uli, Andreas and Johann, Bini and Gunter, Tom and Silke, Flavio and the other Uli. We would also like to thank the Netzwerk Utopie for critical discussions and Michael Brie for supporting this book project. Many thanks for all your help.

CONTENTS l Introduction

4 Categorical Utopia Theory 5 The Individual and Society 6 Commonism

Epilogue xi

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Simon Sutterliitti is an economist, sociologist, active at the Commons- Institute and at the Netzwerk Utopie (“Network Utopia”).

Stefan Meretz is an engineer, computer scientist, co-founder of the Commons-Institute and columnist at the Vienna magazine Streifzüge (“Wanderings”).

Both blog on keimform.de and work in the project “Society After Money”.

xiii

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

1.1 12

5.1 6.1 6.2

Zal 7.2

LIST OF FIGURES

Content structure of the book

From separated production to independent self-replication of conditions

Concept of state-oriented political transformation

The stage model of traditional Marxism

Variants of transformation theories

A constitutive early form with regard to society in its phases of implementation

Illustration of the argumentative structure of the general theory of society

Capitalism (centred) and commonism (right side) in a schematic comparison according to the categories (left side) Illustration of a polycentric stigmergic mediation

Illustration of the heuristic five-step process

Object, dimension, function and goal of societal transformation

147 174 193 195

XV

CHAPTER 1 Introduction l YESTERDAY, Topay, TOMORROW, THE Day AFTER TOMORROW

We say goodbye to traditional Marxism. For a long time, its utopia of a free society was linked to a concrete practice of transformation. This age and its accompanying hopes have passed. However, emancipatory movements have not rested. They exist in abundance: interventions critical of racism, queer-feminist free spaces, ecological practices of daily life, antisexist struggles, political demonstrations, antifascist education, campaigns against transphobia and homophobia, reflections on ableism and ageism,! cooperatives, commune and housing projects, eco-villages, international solidarity, trade-union struggles and so on. Emancipatory movements detect and reflect on many new forms of domination and discrimination— and search for practices to overcome them. They disengage from statist (plan-) utopias and their hopes based on the “state as an instrument”. However, they have found neither a new utopia nor a new theory of transformation. Although some movements—above all that of 1968, as well as the environmental and women’s movements—have greatly influenced society as a whole, a new consistent idea on how to overcome capitalism has not been developed. Lip service has very often been paid to reform

!Ableism and ageism refer to discrimination against handicapped and elderly people respectively.

© The Author(s) 2023 1 S. Sutterlütti, S. Meretz, Make Capitalism History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14645-9_1 and revolution—the old concepts of transformation. However, their promise of emancipatory change under the conditions of party structure, of taking power and changing the state is no longer convincing. Therefore, emancipatory movements have often retreated to daily practices. Many forms of domination such as sexism and racism, ableism and ageism, transphobia and homophobia have been tackled at the interpersonal level. Changes of societal norms, of politics and culture have also been brought about. The environmental movement has raised awareness on transgenerational problems: we are destroying our conditions of life and those of future generations. Individual alternatives are practised—different eating habits, different consumer behaviour, energy efficiency, no-flight policy— thus achieving political change. Ever so often, applied societal alternatives raise the issue of whether criticism of underlying power relations can be elevated to an overall societal level in order to reach beyond minuscule changes within the framework of capitalism. Again and again, disillusionment prevails, the feeling that the structures of domination and exclusion within capitalist society cannot be overcome. An extended perspective of surmounting capitalism remains vague.

We intend to utilise the insights and concepts of emancipatory movements and re-establish a utopian goal. Thus, we try to create a connection between diverse practices of everyday life and making capitalism history. In the course of recent decades this connection has become shredded, it seems fickle and loose. Our emancipatory practice appears to have outgrown the old forms of party, state and seizure of power, without having found new forms for an overall societal transformation. Many of us are looking for new answers, and this book intends to contribute to this search. New answers to the problems of utopia and transformation contribute to the establishment of new criteria for practice. At the end of this book (Chap. 7, 4) we would like to suggest some ideas; however, we are convinced that each one is best qualified to find one’s own criteria in the context of a theory of transvolution. We are also convinced that emancipatory practice requires reflection on utopia and transformation. It must regain a theoretical framework exceeding capitalism if it is to develop its full potential.

1.1 Hopelessness

The point is to overcome capitalism; however, how should we do it? Today, this issue leads to hopelessness, and this hopelessness is due to three aspects: first, apart from the all-pervading power of capitalism, the main historical adversary of capitalism—communism—experienced a catastrophic defeat in the twentieth century. Any serious perspective of transition must learn from this defeat. Second, there is no well-founded and systematic theory of a societal alternative. Followers of Computer Socialism (Cockshott and Cottrell 2012), of Parecon? (Albert 2003), of the twentyfirst-century Socialism (Dieterich 2006) and other concepts simply revive socialist ideas. Others see the freed society only as “the other”, indeterminable and completely different. Third, the concepts of transvolution are patchy, the question of how to develop the free society rarely finds an answer and most of the answers that are given remain bound to the political concepts of revolution or reform, which aim at the state.

Communism has lost its innocence. A hundred years ago this book would have been one of many filled with hope for a better world, with faith in an emancipatory future of the revolution, with trust in human possibilities. That perspective of trust and hope capsized in the storms of the twentieth century. Revolutionary faith cracked when the Russian Revolution opened fire on the Kroonstad sailors,’ their antiauthoritarian revolutionaries, in 1921. Faith disappeared when Stalin proclaimed the “Great Terror”* in 1936, when German antifascists fleeing their country were extradited to the Nazi state by the Soviet Union, when Mao justified the consequences of the “Great Leap Forward”,’ when the Red Khmer drove the intellectuals to the countryside.° Hope for a better world was deprived of its images, its paths were destroyed; confronted with reality, hope had gone crazy.

Hope became hollow and, as vain hope, it either stuck to the existing socialist alternative until 1989 or—in a reformist wait-and-see

?Parecon (Participatory Economics) is a concept of an economy with comprehensive participation.

®With the slogan “All power to the Soviets—no power to the Party” the rebellious sailors turned against the dictatorial rule of the Communist Party of Russia. The island fortress Kroonstad, occupied by the sailors, was taken by the Red Army. Many rebels were executed or interned in camps.

+The “Great Terror” was a campaign of persecution against suspected opponents of Stalin’s rule from autumn 1936 to the end of 1938.

°The “Great Leap Forward” was a campaign in China from 1958 to 1961 initiated by Mao Zedong, which resulted in a severe famine.

‘The Red Khmer were a Maoist-nationalist movement in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 who forcibly tried to establish a form of agriculture-based communism. The expulsions involved are today considered as genocide.

fashion— made itself comfortable within a lack of direction and path. The prospect of a bright future lingered on as a spark. However, it lacked the substance needed to ignite. Those who are still concerned with practically overcoming capitalism and establishing a free society must justify themselves to history, they must trace past atrocities to their source and analyse them; only then can they fill the void of hopelessness (cf. Adamczak 2007).

1.2 The Old and the Empty Utopia

It is impossible to consciously achieve a goal that is vague. Thus, the old communist movement also had a concept of utopia. It was essentially dominated by the idea of what to abolish: privatisation of the means of production, capitalist domination, war, alienation and so on. A positive specification of utopia was a hot potato due to the danger of extending the existing into the future. That is why Karl Marx avoided saying anything about it for a long time; until, in a short text, “Critique of the Gotha Programme” (1875), he finally got carried away. In this text, he laid the foundation for the later-stage model Capitalism — Socialism — Communism, and for the first stage (named “first phase of the communist society”) he suggested the distribution of commodities according to work performance. The few sentences of the text followed a sad career and still shape many of today’s utopias. For example, according to Cockshott and Cottrell (2012), computer socialism attributes the main problem of old socialism to the difficulties in quantifying, calculating and coordinating resources and workload, and sees the solution in modern computers. The principle of work, which only allows for the satisfaction of people’s needs according to their work performance, is perpetuated.

Power

Power is the capability to act individually or collectively. It is the ability to be in command of material conditions or other people (cf. p. 131). It can be determined in a positive or negative way. Power is a means to achieve individual or collective aims but also a means to enforce one set of interests against others (cf. p. 65) and a means to establish domination. Very often, power and domination are incorrectly viewed as the same (question of domination, p. 49).

Those who want to evade the dangers of a positive clarification of their utopia forbid (themselves from) painting positive pictures and determine the free society as something “completely different”. This utopia is as arbitrary and as mystically unattainable as a religious imaginary of paradise. It becomes the open placeholder for all kinds of fantasy wishes. No wonder this religious communism does not take effect in society. The sad thing about the ban on images is that its originator, Theodor W. Adorno, never intended it to become a ban on thinking about utopia (cf. Chap. 4, 1). His texts opposed a detailed “ornamentation” of a future society but, nevertheless, did discuss quite a few utopian aspects. (cf. Adorno 1980).

Utopia cannot aim only at agitating the “masses”. It is, however, a necessary component of all transformation theories. Without a clear comprehension of the goal, neither criticism of the present system nor the path to the one desired can be understood.

1.3 On Revolutions and Reforms

History has taught most modern anticapitalist movements to distance themselves from centralised organisation. Criticism of the party logic is already the main difference compared to old socialist movements. The daily routine of politics still predominantly aims at gaining political —power (p. 4). This could render revolution feasible or lead to state reforms, which would at least make this world “a little bit better” and possibly prepare for the overcoming of capitalism.

The tragedy of reformism is that its practise has lost all connection to the fundamental changes in society (Chap. 2, 3). It has reached the point of chasing its own tail in political struggle. This destiny is unavoidable, as reformism lacks a true concept of surmounting capitalism. The only vision of the future which radically turns against this lack of concept is revolution. However, the current situation is not revolutionary and, therefore, one hopes, waits and organises. The revolutionary ethos is displayed with apparently radical pathos. Revolution itself—like utopia—is a gap that lacks theoretical processing (Chap. 2, 4). Revolutionaries have also drawn and suffered the consequences of socialist defeats. However, the central ideas of failed socialism—the conquest of state power and the subsequent postrevolutionary reorganisation—have remained largely unchallenged. In essence, many revolutionary theories still see societal change as a single qualitative break.

We prefer to draw different conclusions from the defeat of socialism: in order to conceptualise the overcoming of capitalism in an emancipatory way, reformism teaches us that societal change demands processes, and revolution tells us that these processes require a break. The concept of “transvolution” combines transformation and revolution and logically binds together insights of reform, revolution and constitution. It conceptualises the transformation process itself as a break with the capitalist form of society.

1.4 Transvolution and Commonism

This book challenges hopelessness. But neither indulging in past successes nor calling for a serious approach to revolution this time will give us hope. In this book, we intend to theoretically process—and practically surmise— the basis for an emancipatory overcoming of capitalism in all its complexity and contradictory nature. Our theory is not designed to point out how to achieve and secure political power but how to allow a free society to develop; how the new can be formed within the old and finally overcome the old. In other words: what must a freed society look like, how can it emerge and become generalised? That is what transvolution is about (Chap. 3), and it provides the framework for what we suggest, the seed-form theory (Chap. 7).

A transvolution, however, shall remain vague if its aim is not fully understood, because a transvolution demands that path and aim match. That is why we intend to contrast the futile duality of random “ornamentation” and heavenly “complete otherness” with a justified and possible utopia. The justified—or whatever we decide to call it—categorical utopia overcomes the opposition between a pipedream and the ban on images (cf. Chap. 1, 1.2 and Chap. 4, 1) by assessing human potential at the conceptual and rational level. In doing so, it sets itself apart from ethical and moral pipedreams such as: “This is what a freed society should look like”. The point, however, is to explore the objective possibilities of a better world. The categorical possibility utopia provides the frame for what we suggest, commonism (Chap. 6).

Figure 1.1 (p. 7) illustrates the content structure of the book. The introduction’s overview of the book themes is followed by a critique of traditional approaches to transformation which, however, acknowledges all their positive contributions. Next, we suggest a new theoretical framework

1. introduction < overview

| 2. reform and revolution | < criticism

| 3. transvolution theory 4. categorical utopia theory | < framework | 5. the individual... a ... and society < basis

| 6. commonism 7. seed form theory € content

Fig. 1.1 Content structure of the book for transformational thinking, which we furnish with our theoretical basis and the content of our utopia and transvolution.

2 ‘THE PROMISE OF THEORY

2.1 Why Theory?

There are good books which reveal the impressive endeavours that individuals are already undertaking within the framework of our capitalist society by presenting motivating examples.” Our book is different. Ours is a theoretical excursion, in which we try to explore and redefine the foundations of utopian and transformation theory. It will get theoretical, it will speak of many concepts, minute formations of terms, it will present definitions and delimitations bordering on pedantry. Sometimes our statements may seem remote and abstract. Theory often seems to be up in the clouds, detached from reality, while reality takes place here on earth. It appears aloof but, nevertheless, the theoretical clouds in the sky shape our activity on earth.

Theory shapes the frame into which we fit our daily life. It is the glasses that colour the world pink or brown or multi-coloured. Theories are ideas about reality. If our idea of reality is one of a fragile and unstable society,

7 Such is the book “Economy” by Friederike Habermann (2016).

we are likely to detect many practices where individuals try to distance themselves from the capitalist logic and try alternatives. If our theory considers capitalism as a totality that fundamentally permeates and shapes us, even acts of resistance will appear as modifications or innovations within the framework of capitalism rather than transvoluting acts. If we are absolutely positive that women and men are fundamentally different, we will always find daily proof. On the contrary, if we tend to criticise those natural differences as part of a social design, we are likely to detect acts that deviate from this two-gender, man-woman scheme.

We all are perpetually involved in theoretical discussions. We discuss what holds the world together at its core, why people display racist behaviour, what brings out the colours of the rainbow, and whether a woman would make a better boss. In doing so, we reflect on the world—we do not just observe it, we try to understand it. Crystallised patterns of understanding and explaining turn into theories about reality. Now, such theoretical discussions are not limited to direct phenomena—why is the rainbow coloured—but can include other theories: how does Goethe’s theory of colour explain the rainbow? Our discussion turns abstract. We are thinking at a meta-level. We theorise about theories, we explain explanations, we try to comprehend comprehension. We ask: what is Goethe’s understanding of colour? How does Goethe imagine the connection between colour, light and rain? In this instance, we are dealing with the clarification of Goethe’s terms, concepts, ideas; this initially does not seem to be about reality but only about another theory. However, understanding Goethe’s theory of colour might enable us to improve or to criticise our own theory of colour, to expand it with his explanations or reject it as stupid. And, maybe, by theorising about theories we can better understand rainbows.

There is a second reason why theories seem abstract: we try to comprehend things we cannot perceive with our senses. We cannot perceive Ancient Rome, surely, but a Roman aqueduct we can imagine or even look at. We even explain invisible things that we find hard to imagine. Physics tries to understand the big bang and the structure of atoms. These explanations become tangible and imaginable with the help of illustrating figures. But some things are hard to display and difficult to imagine, and a prime example is the object of social sciences: society. Society emerges from the relationships between people. From the myriads of interrelations between people emerges a structure, which gives people’s activity a frame.

It is a frame that establishes a certain religious ethic or rewards actions on the basis of profit. Therefore, in dealing with the object “society”, which is hardly perceivable or representable, our thinking will necessarily remain abstract; this is quite odd, considering we move within this context every day.

2.2 Concepts Between Play and Precision

Many parts of this book are about concepts and their content, because concepts are condensed theoretical ideas. For example, we will criticise the concepts of revolution (Chap. 2, 4) In this context, one consideration is important for us: concepts are open. Theoretical discussions are often triggered by words. However, they should not be about words but about their content. Certainly, some people’s understanding of socialism can be identical to our understanding of a free society, as their concept of revolution can be similar to our concept of transvolution (cf. Adamczak 2017; Holloway 2010). For all the seriousness with which approach theoretical dispute, we should not forget what the struggle is about: content and not words. Dealing with words, for us, lies between precise content and playful openness. Different words can mean the same thing; nevertheless, the content behind the words, the terms, should be sufficiently clear.

In this book we set out to clarify the content of some concepts and limit their semantic horizon. So, those who consider economy to mean the material re/production of society will be surprised to learn that, for us, the term economy (p. 14) refers only to capitalist mediation via the market and exchange. Likewise, in contrast to its usual meaning, we will use the concept of work in a negative sense—with which we identify—in reference to the hardship and exertion linked to this word (cf. Wikipedia: work), to activities not self-determined. We tried to give words a definition that is not too narrow, but we often found that the demarcation of the content and the narrowing involved were necessary for a precise analysis. Therefore, we ask you, dear reader, to not “bother” too much about words and to try and focus on the content involved. Theoretical discussions become more productive, as far as content is concerned, by assuming an open-minded and understanding approach, one that views concepts as a game rather than a battlefield.