People didn't dream of a "feasible or desirable" alternative to feudalism in the form of capitalism though, did they? And I'd be interested to know how many Russian/German/Spanish/Hungarian/etc. workers had a clear conception of what they were struggling for. People don't fight because they have some picture of a perfect socialism in their heads, but because it's in their self-interest.
Feasible
and desirable, please. Either without the other is not enough.
I'm not sure how relevant the comparison - or contrast - with the transition from feudalism to capitalism is, but it's certainly interesting. People obviously did develop ideas about the advantages of markets and private property and the disadvantages of feudal restrictions and privileges. On the other hand, there is also an enormous difference. Socialism, if we ever get it, is surely the point at which human beings become, or begin to become, able consciously to manage their common life for the benefit of the species. That was not (is not) the case with capitalism.
Certainly many many Spanish workers had for decades talked about and (from those Marxists and Anarchists) learned about ideas of a different life. There was widespread belief in an alternative to capitalism. Sadly, there isn't now.
People don't "fight" because of a "some picture of a perfect socialism", whatever that may be, but they definitely abstain from 'fighting' for or by other means trying to create a new society if they don't think there is any prospect of better society.
I think it's quite obvious that in our everyday lives, whether consciously or not we come into conflict with capital, even in the most minute ways. I know from personal experience, even in conservative workplaces with staff very loyal to management, people will do all they can to cut corners, waste time, extend their breaks and lighten their workload, they'll cooperate with each other to get this done. The point of this isn't that those acts are revolutionary, but that the potential for struggle is immanent to capitalist society, regardless of what people may think. Where we go from here, I'm not sure, but I'm confident that the seeds of a future society lie here, not in any recipes for future soup kitchens, or dreams of Nye and Clem.
Struggle is endemic to capitalism. (It may be endemic to other societies too, but OK we're talking about capitalism.) You are confident that the "seeds of a future society" lie in this conflict between capital and workers. OK, but if we can't see beyond the current society, we are not going to move beyond it.
Socialism is not going to be made by accident, is it? The question tag there is not intended rhetorically. I'm interested in whether that is in fact what you believe: that socialism will come about despite people not intending it.
As well as being unnecessary, I'm unsure how possible it is to talk of a "feasible and desirable alternative to capitalism". By that I mean, capital dominates our every day lives to such an extent that to imagine social relations without it is very difficult, if not impossible.
You have not shown that it is unnecessary and frankly I think you are clutching at straws. You seem to think we can't even think about a post-capitalist world, but somehow we are going to achieve it because workers will one way or another resist some of the pressure from their employers.
There is another famous passage from Marx, which I have not got time to look up at the moment. I can't remember where it is from, but I expect you know it. Certainly, you'll like it. The gist of it is that it does not matter what the opinion of this or that worker is. What matters is what the working class
is and how it will be forced to act by the development of capitalism. (I paraphrase grossly.)
Two points about it:
a) I doubt Marx meant that it wouldn't matter
at any point what workers think. I think he meant just that the development of capitalism and the struggle between workers and capital would drive people to socialist conclusions.
b) If I'm wrong about that and he was really claiming that it didn't ever matter what workers thought, (i) his political activity is difficult to understand and (ii) he was obviously wrong.
Socialism and in particular the expropriation of the means of production, the creation of new non-market means of organising production and distribution and via those means the subordination of the economic to democracy are not going to happen behind our backs. They can't. These are conscious acts or they are nothing.
