In terms of socialism or barbarism...

If barbarism means wooly mammoths come back, Im for barbarism.

When Engels first said "socialism or barbarism" the kind of barbarism he had in mind was, I think, based in Enlightenment notions of civilisational decay. Rosa Luxembourg echoed this understanding in The Junius Pamphlet:

Of course, it's not actually an either/or and "Rome" was never depopulated, desolated and degenerated. That kind of "barbarism" is just romantic myth-making.
That's why imo, barbarism seems like a really useless and antiquated concept that doesn't belong in a proper communist critique, unless it is used as a synonym for "capitalist decay" as in the previous post, but even then the comparison is a bit strenuous.
Capitalism is "barbaric" because it degrades and debases actual human beings, not because it makes civilisations decadent, whatever that means. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I don't think it can be denied that the kind of "barbarism" Engels talked about carried with it more than a hint of exaggerated Romantic pathos.

I'm not saying it doesn't, but the "destruction of humanity or very large parts of it" can hardly be called a "descent into barbarism," imo. Even in a worst-case scenario, human beings would not "devolve" into some sort of atavistic "barbarity." An ecological or military global catastrophe would obviously set humanity back technologically, but as long as there will be sufficient numbers of individuals, they will behave humanly, i.e. organize, cooperate, innovate etc. It's not to say that this outcome is in any way positive, but insofar as "barbarism" implies subhuman, then I don't think it has any basis in reality. Anyway, this is perhaps more of a language problem really, and I ultimately agree that the danger posed by contemporary capitalism to all of humanity is a very real, and impeding, one.

I really doubt it. Mad Max and similar dog-eat-dog fantasies are basically capitalism's reply to the question of "what would a world without capitalism look like?".

gratuitous still from MM:

Bloke in the BDSM outfit definitely looks barbaric; conclusion: the gays will ruin the world before capitalism does.

Sorry, Weeler, you were one-upped --- by an ICCer, no less:

I think this is a pretty good start. The total breakdown of social relations and the rise of impunity and violence for its own sake, plus an illegalist capitalism gone bonkers. Sounds like barbarism to me.

So the mid 90s then?

That was my point. But isn't saying "capitalist barbarism" just a dramatic way of saying capitalism? As you've made clear, the original meaning of the word, an ethnocentric and xenophobic one, is not the meaning you're using, in which case "barbaric" is basically nothing but an intensifier, and not a meaningful way to describe reality under capitalism.

I'm not sure what you mean by "any standard whatsoever." If you mean the standard of ancient pro-Republican writers then yes, imperial Rome was decayed, but modern historical studies have shown that while Rome steadily declined in influence after the early period of the Empire (especially after the Antonines), it was never completely depopulated or destroyed in one final bang that brought down "ancient civilisation." Of course, this is a debate that has little to do with current capitalist conditions, I agree, but I think it's relevant nonetheless in any discussion where the phrase "collapse of civilisation" is introduced. The imperial infrastructure might have collapsed within itself, but civilisation continued to evolve, even after 476 (ultimately a meaningless date). Also, the contrast between Roman and Barbarian had ceased to lose much of its meaning long before this supposed "fall." The Gallo-Roman nobility is a prominent example of how local aristocracies merged into Roman institutions and culture without there being any "barbarian takeover" or culture clash.
Ultimately my main point concerning the example of Antiquity is that there is more continuity than there are sharp cataclysmic breaks. Feudalism didn't happen over night, and was built on the foundations of Rome, not on its ashes.

While I don't entirely disagree with this view, we should remember that this description of barbarians, the Germans in particular, comes, ironically, from Roman sources, like Tacitus. If you read his Germania, you will see how the "noble Germans" are contrasted with the decadence of Empire (this is where the famous "they [the Roman Empire] make a desert and they call it peace" passage comes from).
While these Germanic peoples had a more traditional kin-based society, it would be a mistake to think they were not influenced by Roman culture and traditions (many tribes were of course trading with and working for, Rome, since early Republican times). It would also be a mistake to think that the Romans themselves (by which I mean people living within the informal borders of the empire) were somehow "corrupt" and not as genuine as the Germans, just because they lived under a ruthless imperialist regime.
As for the supposed democracy of these tribes, this can be endlessly debated, as they obviously had no written constitutions and their political ideas have, mostly, not survived in any of the ancient authors (even Tacitus gives little evidence concerning this subject). It is probable that their kin-based organization was more conducive to a democratic process compared to the explicitly hierarchical Roman imperial model, but many German tribes had slaves, and were sharply divided in social classes; warriors obviously had more say in politics than non-warriors.The very martial character of some of these cultures would be almost impossible to reconcile with democratic or humanist values.
Finally, it would be problematic at least to say that barbarians or the Germans specifically "invented" feudalism. They made it possible of course, but the legal and administrative structures of feudal societies are based on the legacy of imperial Rome, no doubt about it.
All this is probably way off-topic, but I think it's worthwhile to discuss the meanings of "barbarism", if the phrase "socialisme ou barbarie" is to be taken literally.

You're absolutely right. My mistake.

The notion I was struggling with, and "what was originally said," is what Rosa L. called "the collapse of civilisation as in ancient Rome."
As for degeneration, one can only speak of it as the progressive decay of the imperial infrastructure (something there is indeed ample evidence for), not as a descent into barbarism by the people living within the empire's borders (something there is ample evidence against). Civilisation itself did not collapse or degenerate; it adapted, and it evolved.

Some people obviously did say that, Rosa L. being one of them (not that I'm singling her out; "the fall of Rome" was an widely accepted dogma at that time). And this is relevant to the meaning of the phrase "socialisme ou barbarie."

No one has said that Rome was "completely depopulated or destroyed in one final bang" as Vlad says and he seems to say that he agrees it declined and decayed. I don't know where the noble savage argument is coming from, ethnological and historical research (particularly the ameroindians) demonstrates the egalitarian nature of barbarian society (no one has argued that these were "noble savages").
After the fall of Rome (presumably Vlad you agree with the fall of Rome?) civilisation was given a further impulse by the barbarians who could no longer maintain their independence.

I totally disagree with that. I don't see human nature as inherently wonderful or inherently bad, and think that either view is really short-sighted; I just see it as incredibly varied. If humanity's capable of both Spain 36 and Germany 33-45 (or even just Spain 39, for that matter), I don't see why either socialism or mad max should seem impossible. I'd say that with the current ecological crisis, it is very possible that we'll have to either somehow create a system that puts human needs ahead of the short-term interests of capital or else lose the ecological conditions that made "civilisation" possible in the first case, in which case "S ou B" is a totally accurate summary of the situation.

Agreed.

because Mad Max and similar visions of an apocalyptic "descent into barbarism" are fucking caricatures, and "humanity" did not make Spain 36 or WWII. Those are historical events that were created by specific historical forces, and they do not represent the extremes of "good" and "evil" respectively.

I'm not denying that an ecological catastrophe is the likely consequence of modern capitalism, but if we are to speculate as to what a post-apocalyptic world would look like, we can't just fall back on holywood clichees and call that "barbarism." Personally, I am more optimistic than some of the previous posters when it comes to our capacity as human beings to maintain intrinsically human qualities like creativity, cooperativeness and altruism even in the worst of conditions. This does not amount to a blind belief in the goodness of humanity however.

I did not say anything about instinct, but I don't accept that human beings can simply devolve into atavistic pre-human animalism (compatible with the MM-type barbarism), which would indeed mean total war, everyone against everyone etc. I thought only primmos were silly enough to believe in "rewilding" (which they see as a good thing, of course). If you look at even the most war/poverty-ridden areas in the world today, you don't see "barbarians" shooting at each other, you see a concentrated effort by a powerful elite to plunder from (and exterminate when there's nothing to plunder) helpless populations of impoverished and helpless workers. To talk of barbarity is to mystify the whole thing.
In a post-apocalyptic world, capitalism will have obviously completely collapsed, and while this would obviously mean a humanitarian disaster for everyone left alive, I don't think it can be equated with Mad Max. To do so would be ridiculously simplistic and misanthropic even.

Really? So right now we are 3 minutes away from the irreversible collapse of all human civilisation into a chaos of leather pants and shooting at weird helicopters? What exactly would these 3 minutes look like if you don't mind me asking?

I don't believe anyone here actually holds MM and its sequels to be literally possible, but Alf did say that we'd have "mad max if we're lucky" in the case of some global catastrophe actually occurring. Maybe I misunderstood the point of this, no doubt purposely exaggerated, comparison, but MM has absolutely nothing to do with reality, actual or potential; it's a fictional depiction, and politically I think its message is pretty much on the right.

yes, but does this mean most people would be reduced to a state of animalistic idiocy where culture has been reduced to bloodsports (if I remember correctly the movie's plotline)? The problem I have with the MM metaphor is that it seems to make a statement about human nature, not just societal organization. But maybe it was just me who read Alf's statement that way.

Ok, I see what you mean now, but this too seems a rather pessimistic view. Tribal warfare in impoverished areas does not exist in a void; it is funded by and serves the interests of the global bourgeoisie. After capitalism has supposedly collapsed in a global catastrophe, how will this tribal "barbarism" survive without its wider network of support? I don't think it necessarily would, unless you think human beings would automatically revert to a brutal and deeply hierarchical form of organization because they'd be incapable of attempting something better, like worker's control of whatever industry would be left.
Also, even if this MM-like scenario would come to pass, global tribalism would not survive indefinitely (unless we are to disregard all historical examples that point to the contrary). As long as there will be a material interest and possibility to achieve a higher level of organization, there would be an impetus to achieve it. If low-level capitalism is possible, so is low-level civilisation obviously (not equating the two btw).

A nuclear war (well nuclear, chemical and biological to be specific), especially in todays multi-polar world would result in the destruction of modern agriculture and several years worth of nuclear winter, the permanent radioactive contamination of large chunks of the world and the human gene pool. Human populations would rapidly be subjected to epidemic after epidemic, most natural a few no doubt man made The initial exchange would no doubt be followed by an endless series of wars, perhaps some of them nuclear as the remainding neutral states would fight off refugees, remnants of combatant nations and in some areas each other.
Its not exactly mystification to describe the long term end result of all this as barbarism.

And this is the point, socialists use the term barbarism to describe capitalism as it functions today and extrapolate that the end result of capitalisms current barbarism and contradictions will end in ''either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large'' ie socialism, ''or in the common ruin of the contending classes'' ie the ruin of civilisation and barbarism. I don't really see the point in being pedantic about the word or what exactly its supposed to mystify?

Somewhere between this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVGFh5bnB7I

and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twVrnBouJ3o