Keywords

So far, we have dealt with transformation theory in general. Now we want to specify what transformation theories must consider and contain in order to allow for a process of liberation. We apply the term transvolution to any transformation theory aiming at overcoming capitalism (cf. Fig. 3.1, p. 74). We do not aspire to present the perfect theory. Our goal is to open up a space for different transvolution theories and to specify “guidelines for transformation,” so to speak. Our concepts and terms try to create a playground for many theories to romp about, criticise each other, and improve. Our own suggestion of a transvolution, the seed-form theory, will be presented in Chap. 7.

Fig. 3.1
A schematic of transformation theories into transvolution theory, interpersonal and political, state-based transformation.

Variants of transformation theories

Full size image

Why the name transvolution? There are two reasons, one relating to content and the other to tactics. The latter rests on the fact that the term has hardly been used within the transformation discourse and, therefore, its content is still open. The content-related reason is that transvolution combines notions of transformation and revolution, binding together the importance of process, break, and constitution.

In the German book we speak of “sublation” (Aufhebung) instead of transvolution, but sublation already seems abstract and quite far-fetched in German; in English, it is even more so. On the other hand, sublation brings together the different notions of transformation. “Aufhebung” (sublation) is a philosophical concept with three aspects: something comes to an end (elimination), something carries on (conservation), and something is elevated to a qualitatively new level (development). This is exactly what happens when a qualitative change of the societal form takes place: the break ends certain elements of the old form of society, for example, the →logic of exclusion (p. 17) and the compulsion to valorise. However, the process of change also preserves certain elements (knowledge bases, means of consumption, some methods of re/production). Yet other elements are elevated to a higher level of development: inclusive relationships turn into a logic of inclusion, voluntary connections of re/production are generalised and their potential is broadened, and so on. But, as philosophically adequate as sublation might be, transvolution seems much more intriguing.

In this chapter, we intend to take a look at the aim and path of transvolution theories: emancipation. We will find out that the process of emancipation is necessarily individual, societal, and collective. This classification requires that the transformation take a certain form. And, crucially, this new form of society must already be sufficiently shaped before the societal break takes place. Our basic question is: how can the process of constitution of a new societal form begin within capitalist society and, nonetheless, overcome this society and create a free society? In this chapter we introduce certain terms—early form, constitutive potential with regard to society, societal generalisation—which help to answer this question. Finally, we intend to present a society-constituting transvolution as a new paradigm of transformation.

1 Aim and Path of Transvolution

The aim of transvolution is human emancipation. Transvolution theories start by asking how a free society can evolve from capitalism. However, in order to discuss the path, the aim must be categorically defined. This is what we intend to do now.

1.1 The Aim: Emancipation

By no means have emancipatory movements developed a generally accepted understanding of the true meaning of emancipation. Emancipation is justified ethically, examined psychologically, or left as a blank space, an undefined “glimmer of hope linked to freedom.” It meanders within a notion of freedom, joy, liberation, development, freedom from domination, human potential. In principle, however, emancipatory movements share the assumption that a society free from domination is possible. To not just postulate but actually substantiate this possibility would probably require a book of its own. This is due to the fact that a substantiation of the possibility has only been delivered in parts, never systematically, by emancipatory theory. For our purposes, it is sufficient to take over this postulate and substantiate it with accepted descriptive specifications.

A free society “aims at what is withheld from everybody: a happiness which is not only private and accidental and does not rest on the misfortune of the others” (Schimmang 1979, transl. M.R.). It is an “association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (Marx and Engels 1848). It is a society in which we do not satisfy our →needs (p. 113) at the expense of others, a society shaped according to our needs and in which we can depend on each other without fear. It is a society in which one’s freedom is not built on the lack of freedom of other people, a society following the principle: “each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” (Marx 1875) and which realises the human potential—to lead a life free from domination.

Emancipation as liberation is a goal as well as a process. It is the process leading towards the free society. It is not fulfilled upon arrival to this society, but it is given a qualitatively new foundation at that moment. From that point on, emancipation can develop under favourable and supportive conditions. Transvolution theories try to conceptualise the process of passing from capitalism to this free society. In this context, it is important to distinguish between three levels of liberation.

1.2 Three Levels of Liberation

Liberation is not only individual, societal, or collective. Time and time again, emancipatory movements have concentrated on one of these levels: individual—usually perceived as spiritual—liberation. Others only strive for a societal change, disregarding the individual and collective aspect. Yet others attempted to overcome domination in the direct context of local communities. However, all three levels are intertwined. They do not lead separate lives; however, we can distinguish them analytically:

  1. 1.

    Liberation is individual. Each person can only liberate her/himself.

  2. 2.

    Liberation is societal. People can only liberate themselves within the frame of society.

  3. 3.

    Liberation is collective. We can only liberate ourselves in the context of our own immediate living environment.

To sum up: we can only liberate ourselves on our own, within and with society, in and with our immediate living environment. This thesis we want to demonstrate.

Liberation does not exist abstractly, separated from us. It is concrete and thus individual. It directly affects each individual person. Us directly. Domination can only be overcome by us. Freedom means to develop our individuality, our needs, our potentials and abilities. But only we can figure ourselves out and detect our needs, nobody can take that weight off our shoulders. This means that nobody can liberate someone else. Liberation is an individual task, but it depends on our scope of action.

We are born into a particular society, and our needs are formed in it; therefore, our needs always reflect a form of society. Today our needs are formed under conditions of exclusion. This creates a strong need for security, as a reaction to the constant worry of being excluded and losing freedoms. Furthermore, this is the foundation of the frequently observed need for →power (p. 4) over others. If other people have good reasons to satisfy their needs at my expense, the attempt to control and dominate them makes sense. Nevertheless, this is not a general human need; it is subject to certain (societal) conditions which essentially shape our needs. Domination is inscribed into us, we have internalised it—in a double sense, in fact: in how we dominate ourselves and how we dominate others. As a consequence, we find domination in something as personal as our needs. If we want to do away with it, then emancipation also refers to our needs. We will develop new needs, and old needs will become less important. It is a delicate process of self-understanding, self-transformation, and of finding a new form of self-development. Today we have good reasons to postpone, adjust, or suppress some of our needs. This self-repression, self-adjustment, and self-restraint helps us get along in the current society. It gives us the necessary discipline to act against our needs every day. This discipline enables us to “pull ourselves together,” “see something through,” “control ourselves.” Because our psyche is benevolent, we do not recognise most of this self-adjustment and our resulting inwardly directed hostility (cf. p. 121), for we have delegated the discomforting, self-adjusting self-treatment to the unconscious. The discomfort, however, has not disappeared; it resurfaces time and time again, as a feeling of vague unrest, dissatisfaction, sadness, or as a feeling of futility. The self-imposed restraints and conditionings make sense under today’s conditions because they maintain our agency (cf. p. 118). In order to detect and slowly remove them, we must build conditions that do not favour them; this way, we will have no use for them.

At the beginning, we can only change the conditions of our actions at a collective, interpersonal level. We can open up new social spaces. However, we bring into them all our needs and conditionings and, thus, all our interiorised domination. In our collective practise we ever so often experience continuing forms of exclusion like sexism, racism, competition, and so on Nevertheless, we always have the option to consciously respond to our needs and suggested actions. Suggestions and needs do not determine our actions. And, yet, they only change if the conditions of our action change. Under conditions that give other people no reason to act at the expense of my needs, the need for power over others will decline. This points towards the crucial direction of transvolution: disposal of conditions. Emancipation requires the possibility to build our living conditions free from domination and inclusively, conditions that will not perceive cooperation as opposition. A process of transvolution entails greater control over conditions, the possibility to adapt them more and more to the needs of all of us—hence, no more under terms of exclusion and the domination of others, no more in the spirit of “for me only.”

Conditions, however, are not merely the result of individual actions. We experience them in our immediate and interpersonal living environment, but they are, in fact, the result of a societal process. That is to say, a society is nothing else but the framework in which we produce* our living conditions. We can only change the conditions under which our actions take place by achieving a different way of producing* them; in short: a new form of society. That is why individual emancipation always involves societal emancipation.

This emphasis on the societal dimension of liberation has an important consequence: we cannot anticipate emancipation in interpersonal relationships, shared flats, families, political groups, movements, circles of friends, community projects, and so on. These societal areas remain created and contaminated by excluding societal conditions. As kind as we might be to each other, interpersonal inclusion is undermined by sexism, stress caused by paid work, self-discipline, and so on. We are often told: “If we can’t even wangle it in our close environment, how can it work in society as a whole?” We are convinced that it works the other way around: only if it works in society as a whole can we have deep friendships and satisfying living spaces/families.

Changing the form of producing* our living conditions does not happen at “the” societal level. Society is not an object we can grasp; it is a construct accessible only through thought. We can only think it, there is no way of feeling or seeing it. We only see and feel its effects, we only experience a certain part of it. But we do not only experience society; we build it. We produce* our own living conditions in society. And, thus, we reproduce our own domination and that of others. Through each act of purchase, each working hour, each relationship. This production* of living conditions takes place in interpersonal connections. It is here that we re/produce society. It is here we re/produce our living conditions. And it is only here that we can try to produce our living conditions differently. If we intend to do this in a form other than that suggested by society, we always act against the societal connection. Through our concrete actions we try to attain different goals, different logics, we try to establish new forms of usualness. However, these will remain contaminated by inconsistencies and limitations as long as they leave the societal level unchanged. If spaces render exclusion due to gender or skin colour less rational, sexism, and racism will be reduced. Nevertheless, the conditions of exclusion will only be overcome if, universally, the exclusion of other people—with no exceptions—makes no sense. Not until our emancipatory day-to-day activities take place in a free society will they really develop their new quality.

2 The Form of the Transvolution Process

2.1 Constitution Before Break

We have specified transvolution as a process of individual-collective-societal liberation. For us this is no conjecture. That human liberation must be comprehensive and universal is the one matter we consider of the utmost importance. This is a seriousness and consistency we often miss in other transformation theories. For us, this attitude of taking the issue seriously has a consequence in form and theory: the societal reorganisation of a free society requires a constitution process. It is a process in which new forms of societal organisation evolve and old forms are adapted. It is based on the needs of the people and, therefore, can only be carried out by them. This new form of society cannot simply be planned in advance and then put into practice; it must be put to practice, tried out, and developed. Before transitioning from the old form of society—the societal break or tipping point—the new one must be sufficiently developed. The consequence in form and theory is less well known than the consideration that a liberation must penetrate all levels of human life. Therefore, we want to give full and detailed reasons.

Why does a transformation need a constitution process? We live under conditions of societal domination. This domination penetrates our needs and habits, the way we feel, think, and act. It is an interiorised domination that we can only slowly shed light on and overcome under different living conditions. This turns the process of liberation into a process of trial and error. We do not know what free living conditions look like. As we cannot design or plan the free society, we cannot simply switch over. The basis of a free society is an inclusive and free from domination mediation of all our needs. We must develop these needs and conditions beforehand. We do not know which societal conditions, which forms of activity, of producing, caring, dwelling, loving, and living comply with our needs. We must get acquainted with these societal structures, tailor them and develop them according to our needs. We need a process that is characterised by learning, testing, creating, rejecting, building; a step-by-step process of gaining power of disposal over the conditions of our actions, our life and our feelings. A process of liberation can only start small and grow in close contact with our needs—until it is finally capable of truly producing* our living conditions in a comprehensive way. That is when the liberation process will have constituted a new society.

At the beginning, the constitution process is unstable, small, and limited, unable to produce all living conditions. It only covers some parts of our life. The new conditions can only expand step by step, and these steps will be sometimes smaller, sometimes bigger. However, what this means is that the process must begin within the old society. This is where we can dare to take the first tentative steps, create the first spaces tailored to our needs, be it in a flat-sharing community, project group, camp, university, strike, and so on. The steps are still inconsistent but already governed by the new societal logic—for us, the inclusive satisfaction of needs (cf. Chap. 7, 3.3). Once this constitution process has reached a critical mass to cover substantial re/productive parts of society, once we have gathered sufficient experiences with liberating structures and spaces, the process can involve society as a whole. Only then can it overcome capitalism in a societal tipping point and turn its free societal logic and form of re/production into the decisive, dominant logic of society. Thus, the societal tipping point rests on and arises from the preceding constitution process.

2.1.1 The State-Oriented Break and the Politicised Constitution

State-oriented transformation theories do not share these basics. We want to epitomise their theory of the societal break and reorganisation to clarify the differences. In state-oriented transformation theories, the emancipatory force supposedly captures (state) domination within the old society in order to achieve the societal break and build a different society. The new society, however, has no experience yet with other forms of re/production, other forms of producing* living conditions. The search process could start now. However, there is no time for a self-organised, need-oriented constitution process. Quick answers are required. As a consequence, societal reorganisation necessarily refers to the existing formative institutions. This societal task must be fulfilled by politics and the state. Thus, the new form of society does not evolve in a way that allows for needs to unfold, but rather in a projected and decreed manner. Unless a society freeing itself is developed on the basis of the needs of the people, these needs remain concealed, repressed, and the people squeeze into the new form of society (more or less voluntarily). What happens is a fall-back to old, familiar forms of the production* of living conditions. Traditional forms of domination linger after a state-oriented transformation process.

The Marxist-Leninist transformation theory was aware of this. After the initial societal break, a →society in transformation (p. 51) was supposed to be reached: socialism, the “first phase of communism” (Marx 1875). Still, the options of a constitution process in a society in transformation are clearly limited and possible acts of violence on the road to socialism must be anticipated. The fundamental transformation-theoretical insight was already in the looming in the Marxist-Leninist, state-oriented transformation theory: the societal process of constituting new circumstances must not take place after the societal break. The break can only take place on the basis of a sufficiently advanced and real societal alternative. In other words: the break has a societal—and not state—constituting foundation.

3 Elements of the Societal Transvolution

How can a constitution process begin within the frame of capitalist society and lay the foundations for a free society? To find an answer, we will first trace the content, the quality, that a constitution process requires; then we will concentrate on the form in which it must take place.

3.1 Early Form and Society-Transforming Potential

A new form of society does not fall from the sky. It must develop from the preceding society. The new form constitutes a break with the old society. It does not simply intensify certain logics and structures of the old society—for example, state or democracy. It is not simply a quantitative expansion of existing forms; it rather enforces a qualitative change of societal conditions. It develops from the old society on its own basis, on the basis of a fundamentally different logic of societal organisation. This new logic has the capacity to build new societal conditions and replace old ones; in short: it possesses a society-transforming potential. What is the essence of this potential?

As we develop in detail further on (Chap. 5, 2.2), the form of a society is characterised by two elements: first, by the way in which the living conditions are proactively produced (form of re/production); second, by the way it connects all people to each other (form of mediation). Therefore, the society-transforming potential comprises the possibility to unfold a new form of re/production and a new form of mediation. This potential can unfold without restrictions only when its logic has penetrated all of society. When the new forms of production* and mediation have not reached a level of generality and have only just started to evolve, they are in the stage of the early form. This is a social form that the not-yet unfolded form of re/production and mediation acquires in a “hostile” society. The early form is not a concrete project or a distinct movement but a form that can have many realisations. All social spaces governed by the new form of production* and mediation are manifestations of the early form. Hereafter, we shall use “early forms” as an abbreviation referring to realisations of one early form.

In order to conceptualise the early form of a different form of re/production and mediation within a form of society, one assumption is fundamental: no society is a consistent system. It is, rather, a hybrid, a mixture of various forms of re/production in which one is dominant, decisive, hegemonic. This decisive form of re/production structures all of society according to its logic and imposes this logic on the other spheres and forms. In capitalism, it is the capitalist form of re/production that is predominant and decisive. Its logic of exploitation, of competition and exclusion, sets the framework for all of the other spheres. There are, however, many spheres with their own logic and aims (reproduction and care, politics, culture, etc.). To begin with, an early form can arise only in a niche of capitalism. To allow for the development of a different form of society, it must spread from there and become generalised.

The concept of early form as a social form capable of transforming society allows for a new wording of the initial question of transvolution: what is the early form of a free society in capitalism, and how can it become generalised? In other words: which is the social form of production* and mediation with societal transformative potential, which evolves in capitalism, and how can it become generalised? According to our argumentation, all theories of transvolution must identify the early form. This leads to two questions: how can a new society emerge from the early form? Why can the early form lead to a free society? The first question asks for the connection between early form and new society, the second asks for the content quality of the early form.

3.1.1 How Does a New Society Emerge from an Early Form?

We claimed above that an early form must already comprise the new form of re/production and mediation as an unrealised potential. In accordance with our social-theoretical analysis (Chap. 5, 2), we consider the form of mediation to be the decisive element: If the societal mediation changes, production* must change as well. Reversely, a different form of production*—for example, more ecological, more social, less controlled—does not necessarily lead to a new form of mediation. Production* must always be oriented towards mediation. Thus, generalised exchange leads to capitalist production (cost-efficient, oriented towards the realisation of value, etc.).Footnote 1 Therefore, our transvolution theory emphasises the question of how the form of societal mediation changes. Other transvolution theories might give a different answer to the question of early form.

The name itself is revealing: early forms exist before their full potential has come to light. So, the new societal dynamic is never complete in the early form; it is only partly present, and its potential is yet unrealised. However, this new quality, whatever it may be, is dominant. It shapes the early form, it specifies the logic to which the other elements must submit. For example, there might still be money and exchange in the liberating early form, but they are not dominant. They might be necessary to survive in capitalism, but they are subject to a different logic—for example, the satisfaction of needs. With the expansion of the early form, these non-decisive elements are continually pushed back. The generalisation of the early form creates a society where the new quality is no more a harried stranger but a societal leader, a determining factor. It should be noted once again that the relation between the early form and the societal form is still an open one. Transvolution theories can fill the transition in different ways.

3.1.2 Which Early Form Can Create a Free Society?

An early form does not possess a liberating potential if it only allows empowerment within capitalism and does not overcome it. To understand the liberating social form, the systematic goal of its development must be comprehended. The task, therefore, is to sort out what emancipation means. Unless we manage to conceptualise the free society in its fundamental features, we cannot specify the new, the capacity to transform society and, thus, the early form that can create it. Therefore, what we need is a justified utopia. No decorative fantasy image, but thoughts about the fundamental characteristics of a free society. It is all about a categorical understanding of the utopia of a free society (cf. Chap. 4), not a descriptive illustration. Without utopia there can be no transvolution theory. Only a clear understanding of the goal allows us to understand the path.

And so we arrive to the fundamental question of transvolution: what is the early form of the free society in capitalism and how can it become generalised? There are two discourses on this issue: the utopia discourse deals with the characteristics of a free society; on the other hand, the transvolution discourse asks for the early form and how it can overcome capitalism.

Transformation theories that are allergic to utopias—that is, refuse to think about utopia (→defence against utopia, p. 97)—face the huge problem of defining the transformative potential that can create the new form of society. This entails the danger of repudiating the importance of the transformative potential with regard to society and simply replacing it with changes within the old capitalist form—for example, democratisation or →nationalisation (p. 50). This has already been the problem within the positively state-oriented, traditional reform and revolution theories (cf. Chap. 2, 2). Also, most modern state-critical transformation theories do not grasp the importance of the potential to transform society or are on the wrong track, as they do not consistently conceptualise the connection between the early form and the desired new society. Only those who specify the free society and analyse the connection between a liberating early form and a free society can detect whether the early form truly carries a liberating potential. A utopia focussed on scarcity will see the early form in technical developments. A utopia believing in central planning will look for state-oriented early forms. Our utopia finds its early form in new relations between people.

3.2 Societal Generalisation

How can the liberating early form prevail in society? How can its realisations step out of their niche role, go beyond being simply nice retreats from capitalist reality and represent the liberating “jump under the free sky of history” (Benjamin 1940, p. 701, transl. M.R.), where we can build our societal circumstances according to our needs—that is, in freedom. A transvolution theory must answer this question. The process of implementation essentially consists of two phases: in the first phase, before the societal break, the early forms expand within the old society. In the second phase, they reach the level of generality and become dominant in society: this is the societal break. Both phases—expansion within capitalism and break with capitalism—must be sufficiently conceptualised by a transvolution (cf. Fig. 3.2).

Fig. 3.2
A block diagram of constitutive early form through expansion in capitalism and break with capitalism.

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

Full size image

3.2.1 Expansion Within Capitalism

Why should liberating early forms expand within capitalism? And how? Many ideas and theories try to answer these questions. The most popular one is linked to a technical hope for which emancipatory theorists of all generations—above all, Marxists—have been striving. Because of its enormous innovative strength, capitalism is supposed to gradually render human labour redundant, so that a permanently decreased amount of necessary work walks hand in hand with increased well-being. Someday, according to the more ambitious, wealth will be available at almost zero cost (cf. Rifkin 2016). Projects based on voluntary contributions instead of forced labour will, step by step, seize the societal landscape. The realisation of freedom should be imminent (cf. “Technical utopias,” p. 102). These and other hopes of expansion do exist, and they must be discussed. Our own theory can be found below (Chap. 7). We can reveal that much: the answer to this question is not easy. We assume, however, that expansion within capitalism is based on new forms of proactive production* of living conditions. We also are seekers, and we hope for a joint success.

3.2.2 Break with Capitalism

A societal break is a turning point, a fundamental change, a turnover. It is the end of the old societal logic of re/production and mediation and the building of a new societal logic. It is also called a “societal tipping point” because the break can happen unexpectedly and suddenly. Suddenly, society “tilts” into a new form. The society-transforming break is at the core of transformation theories: they try to explain how a qualitative change can occur within capitalism and open the path towards a free society. The state-oriented transformation theories envision a break. We think the break emerges on the basis of a societal building process.

This, however, does not prejudge the way the break is effectuated. The only certainty is that it is preceded by a societal building process. Still, some transvolution theorists assume that the final break will have the form of a revolution and that there will be a sudden, probably armed, uprising. Other conceptualisations expect a slow, protracted, reformist transition.

4 Transvolution as a New Paradigm

The transvolution presented above is an attempt to overcome the old paradigm of state-oriented transformation of capitalism and to develop it in a new societal paradigm. The state-oriented paradigm is focussed on the acquisition of domination. This pushes the question of form—“What is the early form of the free society in capitalism, and how can it become generalised?”—into the background. But qualitative change of the form of society is what transformation theory needs to explain, it is its subject matter. State-based transformation theories also answer this question and look at some aspects of this issue; however, they avoid dealing with the question of individual-societal liberation as a building process. So, actually, the new paradigm of transvolution only turns back to its object and answers the question of how to build a free society. In fact, the transvolution paradigm would not be the new paradigm but the only applicable one. Nevertheless, we intend to speak of a new paradigm in order to clearly mark a discourse space in which the theoretical basics of transformation are clear—in short: question of form instead of →domination (p. 49). As we have already explained, we use the term transvolution for theories based on that paradigm.

4.1 Hopping Steps

We have compared reform to the gradual climbing of a mountain and revolution to jumping over a gorge (cf. Chaps. 2, 3, and 4). The paradigm of transvolution combines the processuality of reform with the break of revolution, climbing a mountain with the jump. Transvolution sees transformation as hopping steps. We need a process, but the process must overcome the old logic, it must embody the jump and the break. As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, it is not our intention to serve you, dear reader, a perfect theory of transvolution and to demand a decision in favour or against it. No, the intention of this book is, above all, to open the space of transvolution theory. In this space there is also room for different, even conflicting theories. This space is what matters to us, and it is the actual purpose of the book. Its frame-setting theoretical pillars—transvolution theory (Chap. 3) and categorical utopia theory (Chap. 4)—are our essential contributions. We could have bound this space to our own transvolution theory, the seed-form theory (Chap. 7), and to our utopia theory, commonism (Chap. 6), but we did not want to predefine the perception of emancipation. While providing a specific framework, this book is an invitation to muse about the liberation of the people. Our concrete theoretical applications are only suggested steps for moving within this space.

5 Summary

Transformation theories aiming at overcoming capitalism are transvolution theories. Their key question has to do with how a free society can emerge out of capitalism. Our findings are:

  • The liberation of the human being is individual, societal, and collective: each person must do it personally, but it can only take place in and with society; namely, interpersonally in concrete, immediate circumstances.

  • That is why the process of liberation must be a societal constitution process, need-oriented and self-produced.

  • The constitution process begins in the old society.

  • A free society emerges from new forms which must have evolved sufficiently before the societal break takes place.

  • State-oriented transformation theories cannot conceptualise this constitution process, as they aim at a state-oriented seizure of domination with a subsequent societal reorganisation.

  • The constitution process must have the potential to transform society.

  • A form of society is characterised by its form of re/production and mediation; therefore, the transformative potential with regard to society must embody the new forms of production* and mediation.

  • The social expression, the social form of the new production* and mediation, is the early form.

  • The basic question of transvolution is: what is the early form of the free society in capitalism and how can it expand onto a general level?

  • The content of the liberating early form can only be determined by a categorical development of the target society, the utopia. This we can conceptualise within the paradigm of the categorical utopia theory.

  • The early form evolves into the decisive societal form in a two-piece process of implementation: expansion within capitalism and a generalised societal break that leads to a free society.

  • Transvolution represents a new paradigm of transformation theory by focussing on the actual theoretical object of transformation, the qualitative change of the societal form.

  • With our transvolution theory (and subsequent categorical utopia theory) we would like to invite people into a theoretical space, providing room for ideas about human liberation.