Signal Markers of Socialism's Genesis in the Late Capitalist Era

The current era of late capitalism reproduces a multitude of objective contradictions, the cornerstone of which is the misalignment between productive forces and production relations. In the 21st century, nano-, bio-, and cognitive technologies (NBIC), along with new energy systems within the sixth technological wave, have outgrown the late-capitalist mode of production, giving rise to a contradiction between post-capitalist productive forces and social relations. In historical logic, this contradiction must be resolved dialectically, enabling a transition to a new system of social organization—socialism.

We should note immediately that the conceptualization of socialism represents an incomplete formation, one that appeals to the historical retrospective of building a social project in a specific country—the USSR. The Soviet experience is interpreted here as a historically interrupted transition attempt that failed due to skipping over the capitalist stage and the unpreparedness of the nomenklatura. In the USSR, the construction of the socialist project was based on the idea of permanent development of productive forces—the first division of the social production system and the formation of a material-technical base: automation of production, development of manufacturing industry, and so forth. 

It's clear that in today's reality, we can no longer speak of "building" socialism. Rather, the transition to socialism appears to be an objectively evolutionary process developing immanently within capitalism, manifesting through a series of concrete socio-economic trends (the subordinate role of private property, growth of the public sector, "soft collectivism," transformation of class structure).

Evolution of productive forces in the context of social transformations

At present, there is a pressing need to rethink classical notions of the transition from late capitalism to socialism in the context of the new—fourth—industrial revolution. Recall that within the three previous industrial revolutions, production costs declined while transaction costs grew. By the end of the 20th century, nearly half of all costs in the economy were attributable to transactions.

Within the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the transition to post-capitalism has become instrumentally possible due to several effects of 21st-century technological development: 

• reduction in the need for labor (living labor) due to the application of information technologies; 
• incorrect price formation due to the growing number of so-called "digital" goods and markets; 
• growth in the number of goods, services, and organizations no longer subject to the dictates of the market and managerial hierarchy.

Thus, the development of digital technologies has enabled a sharp reduction in circulation costs, such as information costs and exchange costs. Markets and agents have become digital. 

In today's platform economy, which represents not merely a technological superstructure but the fundamental infrastructure of modern services, personal data has become the key asset. In essence, to reference Hans Christian Andersen's famous tale, the "shadow" begins to control the person, their choices and behavior. 

Accordingly, in conditions where the digital technologies of the sixth technological wave are misaligned with the objectively existing late-capitalist mode of production, a dialectical contradiction emerges between post-capitalist productive forces and social relations. Capitalism, which according to Marx should have ended in the mid-19th century but demonstrated high adaptability, now finds itself at a crossroads: 

• the refeudalization of socio-economic relations and transition to so-called techno-feudalism;
• a socialist alternative for resolving capitalism's contradictions.

It should be noted here that as long as we can switch between digital platforms while maintaining freedom of movement, talk of techno-feudalism is premature. That leaves the socialist alternative.

Transformed Forms of Capitalism in Its Regressive Phase

The regression of capitalism in the 21st century is accompanied by a flourishing of "transformed forms" that impede the evolutionary genesis of a more progressive—socialist—formation. Late capitalism in its regressive phase begins to mass-produce elements (simulacra) with poorly defined ontological status; in other words, actual forms begin to be replaced by transformed ones.

Ontologically, five main transformed forms of capitalism in its regressive phase can be identified.

The first is the substitution of content with form and the "marketization of personality": what becomes essential is not the quality of a product but its advertising image; people strive to turn themselves into brands, while the "like" in digital space simultaneously serves as currency, transaction, and power. 

The second the total spread of commodity fetishism: economic relations are perceived as relations between things, and the market becomes a universal structure of social control. 

The third the transformation of humans into functional appendages of alienation amid exponential information growth. 

The fourth the formation of an "anti-economy" phenomenon with an anti-human orientation and the automation of creativity through AI. According to McKinsey¹ generative AI could accelerate labor productivity growth by 0.1–0.6% annually through 2040. The combination of generative AI with all other technologies could boost labor productivity by 0.2–3.3% per year.

The forms of "transformation" described above are far from exhaustive of all those characteristic of the late capitalist era. For our purposes, this framework allows us to move on to presenting the main signal markers of socialism's genesis.

On the Genesis of the Main Signal Markers of Socialism Within the Late Capitalist System

Socialism is substantively conceptualized as an evolving system and an immanent evolutionary line of capitalism's development, which is established in two ways:

• through formal institutional characteristics;
• through the practice of moving toward social relations of universality and equality of labor.

A retrospective analysis of the Soviet experience in building socialism represents a historically interrupted attempt in which Bolshevik ideologues and practitioners leapfrogged over the capitalist stage of social development. Later, in the 1950s-1960s, having copied the Western capitalist model, the party nomenclature proved unprepared for building socialism, while disrespect for the individual led to a loss of faith in the project. The Soviet state sector found itself in a transitional state (between state capitalism and socialism) and transformed into new—hybrid socio- and politico-economic forms. 

Under current conditions, we are increasingly observing the emergence of key signaling markers of socialism within the system of late capitalism, among which the following stand out:

• the subordinate role of private property in a number of national economies;
• growth in the public sector's share within the national economy system; 
• strengthening of solidarity relations and "soft collectivism";
• transformation of class structure with the formation of a creative class and precariat; 
• introduction of mechanisms for public evaluation of production results.

Conclusion

The proposed original conceptualization of socialism as an evolutionary process developing immanently within capitalism through gradual restructuring of the content of production relations contributes to the discussion on the genesis of post-capitalist relations, aligns with M. Albert and R. Hahnel's "participatory economics" model, D. Laibman's concept, and S.Yu. Glazyev's position. 

Thus, in today's realities of digital capitalism and the platform economy, we can identify only isolated signs of emerging socialism. All this prevents us from speaking of it as a fully formed phenomenon.