Why capitalism before communism

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[AvanteRedGarde]

To put Marx into context. He was writing as capitalism was just arising from feudalism. At the time, he correctly surmised that society wouldn't jump from fuedalism to socialism.

That said, many Marxists upheld the idea that capitalism was necessary for the development of socialism. Therefore, they supported colonialization and imperialism against today's Third World. They argued that such conquest would overthrow traditional ruling classes and usher in the conditions for socialism.

They were wrong. Imperialism has never led to to complete overthrow of feudalism or traditional ruling classes. More often, imperialism left feudalism intact as an auxiliary to capitalism. This provided for a constant stream of peasants who could enter the more traditional industrial working class if need be, and a place for them to go back to when the capitalism enters downturns. In the end, the growth of capitalism via imperialism di not set the stage for socialism. Rather, it simply strengthened capitalism.

Conditions are different than in 1860. Feudalism has not been destroyed by capitalism, by rather coopted by capitalism. Fuedalism exists today as part of the dominant capitalism imperialist system, not separate from it.

Everything else you said was correct. Nepal would be a good example, but I have my doubts about the UCPN. Historically though, since 1919 when has there been a revolution in a country with a signifigant traditional industrial proletariat, or a 'post industrial' society for that matter?

[BlackCapital]

Its an interesting question. I believe there is definitely a rationale behind the theory that capitalism is necessary prior to communism though. China, Russia, and to some extent Cuba were lacking the heavy industry produced by capitalism prior to their revolutions, and they have all wound up in more or less a similar situations and course of action.

To rapidly industrialize the country they have resorted to state capitalism, and justify this by pointing to the capitalism->communism theory. Stalin was in such a dither to industrialize and catch up with advanced countries that he heavily exploited workers through the state to do it as quickly as possible. We know how that turned out.

My point is, for industry to arise and advance to a modern stage some type of exploitation may be unavoidable. How exactly, I don't know, but there must be a logical reason for it. For instance, how are people in the Sudan suppose to go about setting up factories and mills that are collectively owned out of practically nothing? It seems that it would first require a capitalist presence to develop industry that they cannot, at least in any reasonable amount of time. I don't really see that as much of an issue today though because most of the world already has industry in it, although its owned by other countries or corporations. Now the people just have to take it.

[BlackCapital]

Actually the capitalist class will have some capital anywhere in the world. This can be expropriated by the working class and should should prove sufficient for collectively owned non-exploitative industries.

Yes, exactly. Hence my last sentence saying I don't think its as much of an issue anymore because most regions are already industrialized. I think the feudalism->capitalism->communism progression theory is one that applies to progression through history/the future. Not so much individual regions or countries. This makes sense, because of course communism is suppose to take place on a near if not completely world-wide scale.

[More Fire for the People]

World-historically, capitalism had to proceed communism but now that capitalism has affected every social relationship in the world, regardless of the mode of production, it is materially possible to establish communism anywhere.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I guess I'm not the first to ask this question. But why do some of the present day communists believe that capitalism is necessary before we get to communism?

Because like Marx we understand capitalism to be both the last exploitative mode of production and the premise of communism in both developing the means of production to a level making an abundance in social production a possibility and generalising itself internationally.


If there is a largely peasant society like Nepal (where Maoists are currently ruling) or most of the Third World, why can't the peasants start the industrialization process by themselves? By overthrowing the feudal rulers /capitalist class, the peasant class will have got capital from that class. So, why not start industries by common ownership where the workers own the means of production and have communism right there? Thus, the peasant and working classes can:
1) Take over existing bourgeoisie-run industries
2) Start industries of their own without the need for a state or a bourgeoisie class to "oversee" the entire process

There are a number of issues with the above. For one, you seem to entertain the illusion that the peasantry is in some way a revolutionary and communist class. The working class is in this era the only truly revolutionary class and the sole bearer of communism.

Secondly, and more importantly, you take a distinctively national perspective, something diametrically opposed to the method of Marxism. Instead of seeing capitalism as an international mode of production, you see only the national economy. Given this and the correct premise that the capitalist mode of production is a prerequisite to the establishment of communism you conclude that the only way for a backward and peasant dominated country such as Nepal is to undergo a period of bourgeois capitalism and intensive industrialisation. This perspective is based on an inability to perceive of capitalism as international, and in today's era, internationally decadent. When in the past it was possible for new capitalist powers and nations to emerge and the working class to support this process as a step forward, today this is impossible - capitalism no longer has a step forward to offer. Only the international proletarian revolution offers any hope for backward and peasant dominated regions of the globe.


Also if any books have been already written about this question, I'd be grateful for the references.

Even though I've been noting and recommending this work left and right as of late I think it is useful with regard to this topic: Communism: Not a Nice Idea but a Material Necessity. Part 1 of the chapter The Study of Capital and the Foundations of Communism can be found here (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/075_commy_07.html)

[Led Zeppelin]

World-historically, capitalism had to proceed communism but now that capitalism has affected every social relationship in the world, regardless of the mode of production, it is materially possible to establish communism anywhere.

So it's materially possible to establish communism in Sudan or Afghanistan?

The reason Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and other Marxists do not believe that socialism can be built in one backward or even one advanced nation is because the material conditions for it do not, and cannot, exist in any single nation.

Socialism as a historical stage is based on material conditions higher than the most advanced capitalist society can muster. Since capitalism itself requires a global system to achieve that degree of development, it would be pretty odd to suggest that socialism can achieve it in a single nation, in isolation from the rest of the world.

Socialism is an international movement for that reason.

An historical example; the USSR tried to build socialism and claimed it had actually done so at some point. Yet it always lacked behind the most advanced capitalist countries, and eventually fell due to internal contradictions and some other factors.

If a nation such as the USSR could not "do it by itself", while controlling an industrialized society comprising a huge landmass, then neither can...Nepal.

[Coggeh]

So it's materially possible to establish communism in Sudan or Afghanistan?

The reason Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and other Marxists do not believe that socialism can be built in one backward or even one advanced nation is because the material conditions for it do not, and cannot, exist in any single nation.

Socialism as a historical stage is based on material conditions higher than the most advanced capitalist society can muster. Since capitalism itself requires a global system to achieve that degree of development, it would be pretty odd to suggest that socialism can achieve it in a single nation, in isolation from the rest of the world.

Socialism is an international movement for that reason.

An historical example; the USSR tried to build socialism and claimed it had actually done so at some point. Yet it always lacked behind the most advanced capitalist countries, and eventually fell due to internal contradictions and some other factors.

If a nation such as the USSR could not "do it by itself", while controlling an industrialized society comprising a huge landmass, then neither can...Nepal.
I think he may have meant socialism . Socialism can be established in one nation . However it cannot survive isolated in one nation .

[AvanteRedGarde]

Actually, no nation, save perhaps China, has ever industrialized as quickly as the Soviet Union.

[More Fire for the People]

So it's materially possible to establish communism in Sudan or Afghanistan?

The reason Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and other Marxists do not believe that socialism can be built in one backward or even one advanced nation is because the material conditions for it do not, and cannot, exist in any single nation.

Socialism as a historical stage is based on material conditions higher than the most advanced capitalist society can muster. Since capitalism itself requires a global system to achieve that degree of development, it would be pretty odd to suggest that socialism can achieve it in a single nation, in isolation from the rest of the world.

Socialism is an international movement for that reason.

An historical example; the USSR tried to build socialism and claimed it had actually done so at some point. Yet it always lacked behind the most advanced capitalist countries, and eventually fell due to internal contradictions and some other factors.

If a nation such as the USSR could not "do it by itself", while controlling an industrialized society comprising a huge landmass, then neither can...Nepal.
The material requisites to build socialism are the same as capitalism with the added fact that production is in the hands of the working class and they are paid the full value of their labor.

[thecoffeecake1]

sorry it's late and i didnt read any replies so sorry if this is a repeat.

Capitalism will pull a society out of poverty and develop it to a point were socialism/communism will take over. remember, communism can only function in a developed society.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think he may have meant socialism . Socialism can be established in one nation . However it cannot survive isolated in one nation .

I know he meant socialism, I was referring to that as well.

And no, socialism can't be built in one nation, it can only be in the process of being built in one (or several) nations. Only a global effort could actual establish socialism as a historical stage.

I'm not sure if you believe that socialism was built and established in any of the Stalinist countries?


The material requisites to build socialism are the same as capitalism with the added fact that production is in the hands of the working class and they are paid the full value of their labor.

But you base your conclusions on a false premise.

There is no global equalized stage of development in capitalist nations, there are highly developed capitalist nations and there are backward capitalist nations. So when you say that the material requisites to build socialism is the same for capitalism, I'm not sure what kind of capitalism you are referring to.

The reason this is important is because you can't have a backward society in which workers are paid the full value of their labor, since the material conditions for that don't exist in that nation. You can start the process of building the material conditions for it, that is, start to build socialism, but you won't get there in isolation, because getting there requires material conditions higher than even the most advanced capitalist society has, and a single nation - a backward one at that - cannot achieve such a development by itself.

This is the materialist reason for the failure of Stalinism in the past.

You have to keep in mind that socialism isn't about generalizing want, it's about abolishing it.