We Live in Imperial-Stage Capitalism

The ideas of "bourgeois socialism" or "neo-feudalism" are ideological, not material.

There's been an increasing number of people (usually calling themselves “Marxists”) who have made the argument that we are living in a “bourgeois socialism.” The arguments made tend to be about how the character of capitalism has been left behind with the age of industrialism. However, this completely ignores the character of capitalism as defined by Marx’s scientific excavation of the material relationships that create the defining character of capitalism. Further, it ignores the advancement of these theories by Lenin, Dutt, and the like.

Also, there has been an increasing propensity to act as though we are regressing from capitalism into a new feudal era, again citing changes in character.

Generally, I don’t intend to write about Marxist insider baseball (though sometimes it is necessary within a broader context). Today, I must concede that I am addressing arguments that most people do not give a shit about. However, the incentive to create novel theories to explain society that distinguishes a Marxist as a “thought leader” in today’s political lifestylism is something that must be addressed.

These ideological distinctions enable “Marxist influencers” to draw lines that notate themselves as unique and thus necessitate fandom to arise. Fans police these lines and expel dissent, bringing in the “real fan” dynamic as the “real Marxists.” There is, of course, a difference between adopting “Marxism” as an aesthetic or identity and adopting Marx’s analytical framework, but here, “real Marxist” refers to agreement with a specific line. It is the basis for competitive consumption in a neoliberal lifestyle market paradigm.

Thus, it is necessary to resist.

Character

The first thing we will have to talk about is character. Not only what the word actually means but also what a “capitalistic” character is.

In this context, the word “character” denotes specific features that identify something as unique. When analyzing an economic system, we can differentiate one system from another by examining the source of power and people's material relationships to it. Societal power originates from the capacity to produce, as society relies on production. Therefore, by examining the relationships centered around production and distribution, we can uncover a system’s "character."

In defining capitalism, Marx focuses on certain material characteristics that shape social relations and structures – fundamental features that distinguish capitalism as a specific economic system. To define capitalism, Marx examined the transition from feudalism to capitalism and analyzed the historical conditions that facilitated this transformation. He argued that capitalism emerged from the breakdown of feudalism and the enclosure of common lands, among other factors.

Marx's analysis of feudalism served as a historical backdrop to better understand capitalism's specific characteristics and contradictions. His colleague Friedrich Engels provided the summary I typically reference:

[Before capitalism], the owner of the instruments of labor had himself appropriated the product, because, as a rule, it was his own product and the assistance of others was the exception.

Now, the owner of the instruments of labor always appropriated to himself the product, although it was no longer his product but exclusively the product of the labor of others.

Thus, the products now produced socially [are] not appropriated by those who had actually set in motion the means of production and actually produced the commodities, but by the capitalists.

The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialized. But they were subjected to [an outdated] form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, everyone owns his own product and brings it to market. The [new] mode of production is subjected to this [old] form of appropriation, although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests.

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. 

- Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1848)

I would firstly like to note that Engels’s telling primarily focuses on the appropriation of product rather than profit. The capitalist retains profit because they sold the product at market, which necessitates that they first own the product. The profit motive figures into this contradiction, but it ultimately services class rule and furthers accumulation.

That in mind, Marx puts forward the following key aspects to capitalism:

1. Private Ownership of the Means of Production: the means of production, such as factories, land, and machinery, are privately owned by individuals or corporations rather than collectively or socially owned.

2. Wage Labor and Exploitation: Capitalism relies on the existence of a working class who do not own the means of production and must sell their labor power to capitalists in exchange for wages, creating surplus value which accumulates amongst the ruling (owning) capitalist class. These conflicting interests form the basis of a dialectical class struggle.

3. Market Competition and Profit Motive: Capitalism is driven by a competitive market economy, where goods and services are produced for exchange and sale. The pursuit (an important term for later in this entry) of profit is the central driving force of capitalist production.

The ideas of “bourgeois socialism” and “neo-feudalism” I’m addressing here seem to primarily concern number three. In imperialism, monopoly overtakes market competition, and the maintenance of class supremacy overtakes profit motive.

Lenin argues that imperialism transforms point number three rather than eliminates it. The concentration of capital and the emergence of monopolies are seen as a result of the natural tendency of capitalism towards consolidation and the pursuit of profit, as markets and competition inevitably result in winners and losers – that is, competition eventually creates monopoly.

Monopoly enables vast market control, ultimately “rigging” the competitive elements. But even within a monopolistic framework, imperial-stage capitalism retains private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and the extraction of surplus value from workers. Further, there is no final monopoly; imperial-capitalist powers still ultimately compete with each other in their drive for territorial control and economic dominance.

Lenin also highlights the expansion of capitalist markets into other countries, securing access to resources and cheap labor. Imperialist powers seek to extend their control and influence over colonies and territories to extract wealth and exploit their resources. This expansionist drive is seen as a continuation of capitalism's inherent tendencies rather than a departure from its capitalist character.

Further, Lenin asserts imperialism as a “moribund capitalism,” that is, capitalism in terminal decline. The degenerative cycle of imperialism is a direct result of the lack of change in the fundamental character of capitalism; due to the very nature of “surplus value” (preventing the underclass from having the purchasing power to consume all that is produced), as well as advancements in technology (machinery and automation) and technique.

The “end” of the profit motive becomes clear in the analyses of Dutt; “rather than” seeking profits, capital must “degrow” to maintain the dynamics as they are, that is, their class rule. The “jettison” of profit is how this is instituted and why it ultimately comes back to the Malthusian tendency towards culling. We have seen this through World Wars, famine, stock market crashes, booms, busts, etc.

Rather than fix the problem, the goal is to revert to prosperity by chopping off the excess (today, “degrowth” is one of several ideologies providing justifications to do so). However, maintaining capitalist class dominance with the hope that the forced readjustment of the underclass can cause a “great reset” is ultimately futile. While it does work, it is on a temporary basis; the crises caused by the fundamental flaws in capitalism do not disappear. Thus, it should be understood these fundamental flaws (which, according to Marx, create the defining character of capitalism) have not been resolved.

Appropriation retains the same character: the product is appropriated to the owners of the means to produce it.

Meaning that today, we live in capitalism.

“Bourgeois Socialism” and Neo-Feudalism

Karl Marx did use the term "bourgeois socialism" (often as “petit-bourgeois socialism”); however, he was not referring to the entire society or a specific phase of capitalism. He applied this term to movements and (especially) ideologies that emerged from sections of the bourgeoisie (the capitalist, owning class) and sought to address certain social issues or alleviate some of the problems caused by capitalism without changing the system's basic structure.

Outside of this usage, Marx primarily used the term "socialism" to mechanically refer to a post-capitalist society in which the fundamental contradiction of capitalism was resolved; that is, with socialized production where the product is no longer appropriated exclusively by and for the benefit of a capitalist, owning class.

“Socialism” would then be a qualitative, material stage of society. However, it is also a word and, therefore, can be used in different ways. When members of the capitalist class aestheticize “socialism,” they generally remove elements that threaten their class rule, ignoring Marx’s material and mechanical distinctions to make it applicable as an ideology. This isn’t necessarily an intentional process but always expresses the capitalist ruling class’s material interest.

Thus, under capitalist class rule, an everyday person might desire the ideals that have been associated with “socialism” without learning about Marx’s mechanical distinctions.

We do not (and can not) live in “bourgeois socialism.” We live in an imperial-stage capitalism that many in the ruling class propose “socialistic” reforms to maintain. These are ideological justifications; even when some are instituted, they do not address the fundamental mechanics, so society does not become socialist. They are simply concessions made to attempt to preserve the status quo. They can be added and removed as the capitalist ruling class sees fit.

Neofeudalism is a term some contemporary theorists use to describe certain social, economic, and political structures or dynamics in modern society that they perceive as resembling aspects of feudalism.

The primary argument regarding neofeudalism is that we have shifted from profit-seeking to rent-seeking. Essentially, profit represents the surplus earned from “productive activities” after deducting costs, while rent is the payment made to use or control specific resources, particularly land (though today, we will also discuss ideas such as intellectual property).

What is “productive” is thus of particular interest to those that assert neofeudalism; often, it restricts their idea of “work” to “the creation of a physical, tangible product that is necessary for society to function.”

The problem: commodities aren’t “physical things necessary for society to function”; they’re products or services produced to be exchanged in a market. Today’s ruling class has commodified everything. It would be impossible to detail the extent of this; they have commodified people, places, things, actions, and ideas – the abstract as much as the material.

To include societal necessity as a requirement for “productivity” essentially locks most modern commodities out of the “commodity” classification and thus, allegedly, out of the “profit/surplus value” paradigm. In fact, many argue that most of today’s products and services are not done to create value, but rather circulate it.

I’ve seen this argument use fiat money as its basis, though only nebulously. It is arguable that because fiat money is not directly coupled to a commodity (gold) that can be used to quantify value relative to human labor, it becomes impossible to know what anything’s value actually is. Still, I would argue that fiat money simply represents that value in itself. The quantification of its worth relative to human labor is determined as it interfaces with exchange. The true value is more obscured than otherwise, but price is also not a magic number.

(Side note: this is also a topic I wish was more stringently pursued by Marxists)

These arguments trend away from what defines capitalism, however. Intentionally or not, they get into the weeds and away from the fundamentals. Capitalism is a system where the means (and act) of production are socialized but subjected to an outdated (feudal) form of appropriation where the owner of the means retains ownership of the product.

That is to say, part of the defining character of capitalism is that it retains an element of feudalism without accounting for it. Rent-seeking does not represent a distinct mode of production itself but rather a behavior or strategy for class maintenance (indefinitely stripping the subject of some fraction of their economic power with no change of ownership, thus restricting agency). All that is produced today still retains the mode Marx put forward and though the global financialization elements do indeed change aspects, they do not change modes.

So, while something like “intellectual property” certainly creates rent-seeking behaviors, ultimately, it is the commodification of the idea, as well as a tool for control. The idea, though abstract, is ultimately being bought and sold. There is rent-seeking among those who hold it, but the consumer market isn’t the true arena. The day it is acceptable to kill off every “consumer” will be the day it happens; the capitalist class sees everyday people as something to maintain and keep at bay, while the real competition happens intraclass.

While various people’s experiences might look different, these things do not change the character on a fundamental level. The flaws and contradictions Marx put forward have not been resolved. If that is how we defined capitalism before, how are we no longer in capitalism?

Novel Contributions

A Unique Selling Point (USP) is a marketing statement that differentiates a product or brand from its competitors. It is a specific aspect that gives a business a competitive advantage and makes it unique in customers' eyes. USPs aim to communicate to customers why they should buy a product or engage with a business – to choose a particular product or brand over alternatives.

Developing a strong USP requires a deep understanding of the target market, competition analysis, and identifying customers' values and desires. By effectively leveraging and promoting their USP, businesses can position themselves uniquely in the marketplace and attract customers who resonate with their distinct offerings.

Within contemporary political discourse, some adopt Marxism less as an analytical framework and more to position themselves as "thought leaders" or influencers. At one point, this was a USP. However, as more “Marxist influencers” have appeared, to simply “be Marxist” is no longer enough. Thus, “Marxist influencers” have the incentive to create novel theories or interpretations of society, presenting themselves as unique and attracting a following of fans or followers who adhere to their specific line of thought (the USP).

These ideological distinctions, promoted by these "Marxist influencers," serve to create boundaries and hierarchies within a Marxist “community” (read: fandom of the influencer or their highly specific line). Fans or followers often police these boundaries, expelling dissent and enforcing a notion of who qualifies as a "real fan" or a "real Marxist" based on whether or not they agree with the USP. This dynamic can create a competitive environment where individuals seek to assert their authenticity and outdo one another in adhering to a particular ideological line.

In the context of the neoliberal lifestyle market paradigm, where individual identity and consumption choices are heavily emphasized, adopting Marxism as an aesthetic or identity becomes a form of competitive consumption. It can be seen as a way for individuals to distinguish themselves within the marketplace of ideas and gain social capital or recognition. When one rises to the “influencer” level, it is likely because they have established a USP.

That person ceases to be a consumer by effectively marketing a demand for their own line of thought into existence. This can be done naively or cynically. To be frank, I don’t consider this to be “good” or “bad,” and I am sure that legitimate theoretical contributions (both in Marxism and outside it) have happened due to market incentives.

But many stupid things have come out of it, too. Much stupider than anything I’m addressing in this article. In fact, there is no reason for these people not to be critical of “bourgeois socialism” or “neofeudalism,” these are ideologies that should be criticized. If, ultimately, these critiques lead people back to class struggle and all this endless bickering over their various USPs is simply a stop on the way there, so be it. That would be great.

It’s just that it doesn’t seem to be that to me.

Conclusion

“Bourgeois socialism” and “Neofeudalism” are ultimately ideologies that justify and maintain capitalist society, which has developed into a global behemoth. Just as with neoliberalism, these are not modes of production. They do not change the character of society unless we are to define “character” as something purely cultural, which I do not.

Marx's focus was primarily on the defining character of capitalism, which can be boiled down to its fundamental flaw: socialized production with private appropriation of product.

None of the dynamics and aesthetics people outline with ideas of “bourgeois socialism” and “neofeudalism” change this fundamental flaw. Thus, they do not mechanically modify the mode of production. While what we produce – and the techniques and technologies used for production – differs greatly from how it was in 1850, appropriation doesn’t. While finance and monopoly have shaped the arena and transformed the scale, they haven’t changed the fundamentals.

I see this as an offshoot of the commodification of expertise and identity. I’ve written about these subjects many times, and I will again. The necessity for a USP in these markets has already brought us much stranger ideas than anything I’ve discussed today. In fact, I encourage criticism of these things – as ideologies rather than as materially different modes of production. They do exist and are more than worthy of that criticism.

But, as I noted at the start, this is stuff that most people don’t care about and I try not to write about insider baseball. That said, it would be significantly easier to talk about things people do care about if these types of USP wars were not being fought in the background.

Although that may be a mere utopian fantasy on my part.