Revolution in advanced countries vs. Revolution in backwards countries

[RasTheDestroyer]

A friend of mine declared this proposition: 'the state arises out of and disappears due to material conditions. The state arises as the agency of propertied classes. And as society becomes wealthy, it (the state) disappears'


The bold statement represented my tentative theory in the past; today I lean more towards upholding a different view: first, that nations with low levels of capitalist productivity and wealth and a small industrial proletariat (Maoist China, Bolshevik Russia) succeed and advance farther in their revolutions than do the advanced capitalist countries (Western Europe) with higher levels of capitalist productivity and a larger proletariat. Second, that the growth of wealth and productivity in capitalist societies leads to a problem of uneven development - perhaps rooted in the widespread emergence of a division of labor - that produces greater concentrations of wealth in monopolistic consolidations and a more centralized ownership of the means of production. The State, rather than disappearing in this stage of capital, must consolidate its power and expand its executive powers in preparation for the external seizure of cheap raw materials, natural resources and labor. This more or less defines the imperialist paradigm that follows from a mass accumulation of wealth. A strata of the workers in these advanced and wealthy capitalist societies are transformed into a labor aristocracy that belongs to a class composition ingrained with years of capitalist habits of mind, attitudes, and patterns of consciousness that are harder to undo than they are in underdeveloped capitalist societies. These habits of mind and patterns of consciousness serve the interests of the ruling class and are reinforced though cultural hegemony.

Thoughts?

[theAnarch]

While there is a "Labor Aristocracy" in the United States, the idea that there is essential no working class in the US and that the cycle of capitalist exploitation that drives the bourgeoisie to sap more and more work from the toiler for less and less pay does not exist is hog walish. While US capitalism is much stronger and wealthier than the capitalists in the third world the US worker suffers from the same system of exploitation and alienation from the sweat of his brow. Id also like to point out that anyone who thinks there is no poverty in America, and that we all live in great big houses needs to get out of the suburbs and visit Southern Appalachia (where Im from), The Black Belt of the deep south, the old industrial towns and coal fields of western Pennsylvania, the slums of Chicago and Detroit, the Farms and ranches of the middle and northwest, or one of the many tent cities all across this country.

[RasTheDestroyer]

i agree, but don't think there is anything in my post to suggest i don't

the key word to highlight this is 'strata'

[theAnarch]

Sorry, I just feel its necessary to always make that clear in any discussion of this sort.

Any way as far as the main topic goes.....making revolution in developed nations such as the United States is much more difficult because capital is much stronger, but at the same time you would have many advantages ; Large proletarian, absence of feudalism, the progressive tasks of the bourgeois revolution was completed more than a hundred years ago, no need for crack industrialization.

[ComradeOm]

The bold statement represented my tentative theory in the past; today I lean more towards upholding a different view: first, that nations with low levels of capitalist productivity and wealth and a small industrial proletariat (Maoist China, Bolshevik Russia) succeed and advance farther in their revolutions than do the advanced capitalist countries (Western Europe) with higher levels of capitalist productivity and a larger proletariatCorrelation does not imply causation. Particularly not when the sample size is so small and the results so debatable. The Russian Revolution was the product of an emerging industrial proletariat meeting a decrepit feudal state; an almost unique set of circumstances that has not, AFAIK, been repeated since or is likely to occur today

[Pawn Power]

What are "backwards countries"?

[RasTheDestroyer]

Two points:

1. I agree that the 'sample size' of proletarian victories in nations with limited capitalist productivity is small. But, the sample size of proletarian defeat in seizing state power or an absence of any proletarian revolution at all in advanced capitalist nations is numerous.

2. While the unique combination of feudalism and small, concentrated industrial capitalist forms in the Soviet Union are not replicable, what it has in common with China, and with proletarian victories where capitalism has not yet become the dominant mode of production, is the feature of being the 'weakest link' of imperialism, a condition which Lenin believed enabled revolution to break out and a consequence of the uneven development of capitalism. With capitalism being weak and feudalism in the Soviet Union and later semi-colonialism in China still being the dominant political force, the working class could play an active and leading role in the bourgeois democratic revolution that it would later supersede.

Which debatable results are you referring to? I think there are very clear and explicable reasons for the 'setbacks' in the revolution in the Soviet Union, most of which aren't inherent to its organizational strategy. The soviet councils and their delegates were organically tied to the working classes, and without the [poor] peasant-worker alliance and the Bolshevik-Menshevik split the victory probably would not have been won. After the October Revolution land and industry were promptly nationalized. Its main setbacks were the result of the isolation caused by the defeat of the socialist revolutions in Germany and Hungary, on whose assistance Russia had bet much; World War 1 and the joint uprisings internally by the propertied classes and externally by fourteen imperialist powres; and the heavy casualties suffered by the Bolsheviks and peasants in the civil war, causing the dislocation of both the party apparatus from the masses and industry from production, which fell off sharply. Those last two factors played the most profound role in the state apparatus rising above society and forming a Bolshevik Dictatorship that would later be liquidated and consolidated by Stalin.

[RasTheDestroyer]

The Russian Revolution was the product of an emerging industrial proletariat meeting a decrepit feudal state



nations with low levels of capitalist productivity and wealth and a small industrial proletariat (Maoist China, Bolshevik Russia).

[RasTheDestroyer]

What are "backwards countries"?

It's a term referring to either precapitalist societies in a capitalist world, or nations where capitalism is still weak and/or the peripheral mode of produciton

[RasTheDestroyer]

btw, ComradeOn, I'm reading your essay The Russian Revolution. It's excellent. Have you read 'Russia - How the Revolution was Lost' by Chris Harman?

I can't post it until my post count is up to 25, but it can be found on marxists.org

[RasTheDestroyer]

As a side question to everyone: in what region of the world do you believe proletarian revolution is most on the horizon and why?

I will have to return to this thread tomorrow after I get some work done. Goodbye for now. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

It can be in advanced countries if and only if outstanding role models for left politics today are emulated, most notably the total organization models provided by the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD with their alternative cultures and mutual aid plus massive bureaucracy and programmatic clarity.

[ComradeOm]

But, the sample size of proletarian defeat in seizing state power or an absence of any proletarian revolution at all in advanced capitalist nations is numerousAnd since when did the absence of evidence become evidence of absence?


While the unique combination of feudalism and small, concentrated industrial capitalist forms in the Soviet Union are not replicable, what it has in common with China, and with proletarian victories where capitalism has not yet become the dominant mode of production, is the feature of being the 'weakest link' of imperialism, a condition which Lenin believed enabled revolution to break out and a consequence of the uneven development of capitalismActually I do believe that Lenin ever used the phrase "the weakest link" in that context. He was also adamant that revolution in Russia would fail unless it was accompanied by similar events in the West. Lenin staked everything on revolutions in the "the advanced capitalist countries"


Which debatable results are you referring to?How about the fact that both revolutions failed? The reasons for this are legion but do not detract from it. Frankly, if you want to construct some overarching theory based on a grand total of two revolutions (and of course the multitude that did not occur elsewhere) it would be that socialist revolutions in nations with "low levels of capitalist productivity and wealth and a small industrial proletariat" face overwhelming obstacles in the construction of a socialist society


nations with low levels of capitalist productivity and wealth and a small industrial proletariat (Maoist China, Bolshevik Russia) And...? Incidentally, the Russian proletariat was several million strong by 1917

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Weakest link," FYI for Ras, means the weakest link amongst the imperialist powers themselves.

[Pawn Power]

It's a term referring to either precapitalist societies in a capitalist world, or nations where capitalism is still weak and/or the peripheral mode of produciton

So countries like Bolivia who have hosted the "People's Climate Conference (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/18/bolivia-climate-change-talks-cochabamba)" and Ecuador who have argued to "keep the oil in the soil (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/11/ecuadorian_activist_heads_to_cop15_with)" to limit CO2 admissions and climate change?

These acts don't seem "backwards" at all but extremely outward looking and advanced in terms of economic and social development.

[ComradeOm]

So countries like Bolivia who have hosted the "People's Climate Conference (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/18/bolivia-climate-change-talks-cochabamba)" and Ecuador who have argued to "keep the oil in the soil (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/11/ecuadorian_activist_heads_to_cop15_with)" to limit CO2 admissions and climate change?Since when has environmentalism become an indicator as to a country's economic development? :blink:

[Pawn Power]

Since when has environmentalism become an indicator as to a country's economic development? :blink:

Its a big indicator on how advanced their economic development is. Backwards countries like the United States push forward economic policies that do not take into account externalities like the health and environmental costs of extraction, production, and distribution. This is a very primitive and shallow way to conduct economic development.

You can calculate that value of say car production, but if you ignore the long-term economic and environmental costs to society (pollution, inefficiency etc) then you miss a enormous economic costs. Like the cost to government to build massive road infrastructure to make driving even reasonable, the health costs that government absorbs from increases cancer, asthma, and lung disease. The factors are not included in the production of cars but has an enormous economic impact on an economy. If you calculated these costs then cars would "cost" much much more.

In an advanced economic structure these external costs would be calculated, some countries, like Bolivia, are starting to do this. Economies like the one in the US and many others are rather short-sighted and, in my opinion, "backwards" because they do not calculate the resultant economic costs of environmental destruction and other externalities.

[ComradeOm]

Well we've finally done it. A technologically sophisticated industrial base is considered backwards while a commodity orientated economy (largely reliant on the export of agricultural produce) is now advanced. Up is down and black is white. This is a triumph of sorts... a perverted triumph perhaps, but a triumph nonetheless for mankind's unfailing ability to blithely talk around the obvious

I suppose that we can now consider the pre-capitalist societies of medieval times, which did very little environmental damage, to be the pinnacle of economic 'development' :rolleyes:


You can calculate that value of say car production, but if you ignore the long-term economic and environmental costs to society (pollution, inefficiency etc) then you miss a enormous economic costsAnd if you lack the physical infrastructure, technological know-how, and educated labour force necessary to maintain a car industry in the first place...?

[Pawn Power]

Well we've finally done it. A technologically sophisticated industrial base is considered backwards while a commodity orientated economy (largely reliant on the export of agricultural produce) is now advanced. Up is down and black is white. This is a triumph of sorts... a perverted triumph perhaps, but a triumph nonetheless for mankind's unfailing ability to blithely talk around the obvious

I suppose that we can now consider the pre-capitalist societies of medieval times, which did very little environmental damage, to be the pinnacle of economic 'development' :rolleyes:

And if you lack the physical infrastructure, technological know-how, and educated labour force necessary to maintain a car industry in the first place...?

If you define an economy as "backwards" which values human life, the planet, and takes into account economic effects other than market share than I don't want to live in your "advanced" economy.

It is no accident that the words "economic development" have become synonymous with "capitalist development" because the institutions that hold the power to define these words and are the same ones who have the power to advance their agendas. Now, we can accept there misleading definitions (that is, "economic development" as creating wealth for an elite class) or we can try to re-frame the debate, as many of those in the Southern hemisphere are doing, and talk about economic development in terms of developing economies that serve people's needs.

[ComradeOm]

If you define an economy as "backwards" which values human life, the planet, and takes into account economic effects other than market share than I don't want to live in your "advanced" economyDo you live in the US? If so, I suggest you emigrate, or move to live on a commune, because by every rational criteria the US is an advanced economy. And no, I don't consider environmentalism to be a rational criterion


Now, we can accept there misleading definitions (that is, "economic development" as creating wealth for an elite class) or we can try to re-frame the debate, as many of those in the Southern hemisphere are doing, and talk about economic development in terms of developing economies that serve people's needs.Which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to paper over the reality - that the status of the imperialist nations* is built not on waffle about green economics but on solid industrial bases. This bullshit about redefining just what is and isn't economically backwards (based on a single highly subjective criterion) only de-emphasises the subservient role that the underdeveloped nations play in supplying the rich with cheap labour and materials

*And implicit in this new definition is the understanding that the imperialist powers are not in a position of global dominance. Because how can 'backwards' nations dominate - particularly economically and politically, the 'advanced'?

[Pawn Power]

Which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to paper over the reality - that the status of the imperialist nations* is built not on waffle about green economics but on solid industrial bases. This bullshit about redefining just what is and isn't economically backwards (based on a single highly subjective criterion) only de-emphasises the subservient role that the underdeveloped nations play in supplying the rich with cheap labour and materials

*And implicit in this new definition is the understanding that the imperialist powers are not in a position of global dominance. Because how can 'backwards' nations dominate - particularly economically and politically, the 'advanced'?

Well, I disagree obviously.

To be blunt, at no offense to you- labeling nations as "backwards" comes off as chauvinistic at best, racist at worst. Whats more, it is not a very good way to build solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the southern part of the globe.

I understand what people are trying to get by adopting this language of "backwards" economies. However, it allows for very little agency to certain people (mainly those in the so-called third world). There is no doubt that particular countries have been ransacked and pillaged for the advancement of imperialism and capitalism. Though, there is a difference between an economy that is exemplary of the past (a "backward economy"), and those that are being presently plundered by neoliberalism and the expansion of capital.

Even if we were going to create a bizarre beeline of economic development as many Marxists do, it would still be immensely short sighted to called these economies "backwards" become it would ignore the current conditions imposed upon them and, more importantly, the innovative way they are reworking their economies to serve people.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the countries most affected by international neoliberal policies are at the forefront in resisting. Looking for economic incentives to "keep the oil in the soil" is so far ahead of where economies like the US is at, that something like that doesn't even enter into the logic of a majority of our economists (except, perhaps some of the more radical Marxist ones- Harvey, etc.) This is just an example but illustrates the long-term view of how economies work (something that US economist can't do because it does not increase quarterly profits). We need to dive capitalism out of our heads before we can drive it out of our lives and create a new world.

[RasTheDestroyer]

ComradeOn: I think you're more preoccupied with empirical data like 'sample sizes' than with grounding an analysis of socialist revolutions in some methodological understanding of the directions in which they unfold.

my thesis was only that revolutions succeed and/or advance further in backwards countries, not that permanent victory is inevitable or that they face few obstacles. mainly it was premised on the global character of imperialist capitalism, the global dimensions of class division of labor that follow from it, and the need to emphasize the role of consciousness, superstructure and human relations in unleashing the productive capacity of society against the mechanical Stalinist logic that the formula for pushing a revolution through its many stages is the mere rapid acceleration of industry and machinery at the expense of focusing on support for mass organizations, democratic representation and the initiative of the broad masses. Wrapped up in a slogan: machines don't emancipate people; people emancipate people.

Lenin highlights the class nature of the revolution here: " In the last analysis, the outcome of the struggle will be determined by the fact that Russia, India, China, etc account for the overwhelming majority of the population of the globe. And during the past few years it is this majority that has been drawn into the struggle for emancipation with extraordinary rapidity..."

Any proletarian revolution is of course by definition a revolution for the emancipation of the proletariat, and unless you maintain that the basic law of class struggle is suspended - that capitalist exploitation under the general law of accumulation must intensify until a critical threshold is surpassed, and that this general accumulation creates widening differentials of production and exchange manifested in class antagonisms - then why don't you agree that the most exploited and backwards societies will be the fulcrum, the concentrated focal point of global revolution, while the most advanced nation's revolutionary ambitions are dampened by the equalization of wage rates and employment through the domestic export of capital, which obtains increased prominence in the era of imperialism (a proposition of Lenin's); the increased supply of credit; the temporary resolution of national under-consumption offered by the parasitic expropriation of surplus value from external territories; and the tightening capitalist stranglehold over cultural and ideological institutions like the mass media that is produced by mass accumulation? After all, nation-states are just the imagined unitary political constructs of modernity. They are the guise in which class differences within and between them are dressed. Lenin's view of imperialism is a synthesis of those of Hilferding and Kautsky, identical to them in analysis but departing from them in its conclusion that imperialism would be the final stage of capitalist crisis and in its skepticism of a post-imperialist stage based on an internationally united financial capital bundled up in a single world trust. All three more or less agreed that imperialism could at some points strengthen capitalism. A cursory glance at the international monetary, economic, and financial institutions established after the Second World War, along with the multilateral collective defense and security alliances and trade blocs, suggests his conclusion was incorrect and probably the result of emphasizing the role of 'nation-states' too much.

Debord described the society of the spectacle as 'capital accumulated to the point that it has become an image,' while before him Gramsci grounded his analysis in an emphasis on the political and ideological superstructure of society in his concept of 'cultural hegemony.' These concepts arise from having class consciousness and the internal and external forces at the material base of society which produce them as their point of focus, and are related to the influence of superstructural forces on the ideological suppression of revolution in advanced societies, despite the fact that they have a vast panoply of economic weapons at their disposal to support them.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that there are more than two 'examples.' I was just furnishing the two most important of the 20th century, but of course there is/was Vietnam, North Korea, the republics of Eastern Europe, independent Yugoslavia under Tito, Mongolia, Cuba, Chile,Venezuela today etc.

All of their revolutionary experiments were/are either halted or reversed, with the exception of Venezuela which is still proceeding, but notwithstanding that they all wrangled control of state power and replaced it with new bodies of representation radically different from capitalist models of administration, something hitherto never accomplished by any advanced industrial capitalist nation (with arguably two possible exceptions). It seems a little boneheaded not to wonder how the most backwards third world country in Europe in just under 30 years managed to defeat Europe's most powerful and advanced industrial military empire - Germany - and rise to the status of global superpower, and then not to consider that maybe it had something to do with their backwards status

[RasTheDestroyer]

"Weakest link," FYI for Ras, means the weakest link amongst the imperialist powers themselves.

The Tsarist Empire was imperialist. It was a military-feudal empire with a small but rising capitalist class, heavily dependent on exports and expansion. So much so that the British Empire committed military and economic resources to the Ottoman Empire to use it as a bulwark against the spread of its sphere of influence.

[RasTheDestroyer]

Bolivia and Ecuador do have progressive, forward-looking ideas. However Bolivia's agricultural infrastructure is not yet modernized, Ecuador suffers from acute capitalist economic crises and there is widespread poverty in both countries due to their dilapidated material base. But the term 'backwards' isn't pejorative, and in fact their combination of backwards economies and progressive policies provides another point of reference for my thesis.

[RasTheDestroyer]

Also, for future reference, people who are all too fast to throw out contrived aphorisms and pithy one-liners like 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' are generally unaware of the inherent limitations on when a cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument is and isn't a fallacy.

Propositions in natural language can be reformulated from negative to positive and vice-versa. The proposition 'No advanced capitalist nation has set out or succeeded in its proletarian revolution, therefore it won't' can be inverted to 'Many advanced capitalist nations have been defeated, therefore they [probably] will be,' avoiding the 'fallacy.' You're also demonstrating a failure to distinguish between probabilistic logical reasoning which is contingent and multivariate in truth value and deduction which isn't.

[theAnarch]

I understand what the comrade above is saying and perhaps we should say semi-colonial or underdeveloped in the future. The term "backward" however is being used here to describe economic conditions not social policy. That is the ability of the nation to produce all the finished goods needed to create a high living standard and enough food to feed its population plus sustain growth. A nation like Cuba, Nepal after the revolution, revolutionary Russia ect, might have more advanced social policies but there were still industrially "backward".

edit:it also indicates the presence of pre-capitalist feudal and tribal structures.

[Pawn Power]

Bolivia and Ecuador do have progressive, forward-looking ideas. However Bolivia's agricultural infrastructure is not yet modernized, Ecuador suffers from acute capitalist economic crises and there is widespread poverty in both countries due to their dilapidated material base. But the term 'backwards' isn't pejorative, and in fact their combination of backwards economies and progressive policies provides another point of reference for my thesis.

I agree, except with the pejorative piece. I think people from South would not take to kindly to people calling their ways of life "backwards."

Of course we can disagree, but I don't think it is up to us to decide what a pejorative is, in this case. Usually it is the people who are at the receiving end of language who get to decide what they do and do not think is belittling.

Also, when we talk about "modernizing" I think it is important to think beyond how it is often defined by corporate entities and the elite class. So in your example of agricultural, modernism is defined largely defined by the degree to which you use chemical fertilizer, pesticides, etc. However, it is now moving towards "organics" with no use of chemicals. So the challenge for modernized farms are how to create high organic crop yields. Obviously, this is largely driven by the increase market demand (yuppies shopping at whole-foods, farmers markets in Soho, you know what it looks like). However, a lot of these farming technics that are now being labeled as innovative are the ones that "backwards" indigenous farmers have been using- though for different reasons around sustainability, respect for pachamama, whatever.

However, it just goes to show you how flexible words like "modern" and "advanced" are. I think we could all think of other examples outside of farming. The point is, what is consider "modern" is often what is considered profitable and I don't think we should play into certain uses of language that twist what is really best for people.

[ComradeOm]

To be blunt, at no offense to you- labeling nations as "backwards" comes off as chauvinistic at best, racist at worst. Whats more, it is not a very good way to build solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the southern part of the globeIs this what this comes down to? A semantic argument because you feel that the term "backwards" is "chauvinistic"?

You know what, I could argue for the use of the term - pointing out that contrary to being a slur, this a pretty common term in development economics*, particularly associated with Gerschenkron's theories, but dating back far further than that. Its also been in common use within "the southern part of the globe" (ha) for the better part of the last century, they having a much sharper view as to what constitutes economic progress than yourself - but rather than further offend your ultra-sensitive self I'll just use the equally acceptable 'underdeveloped' tag. Frankly I'm pretty pissed off that its taken three posts to settle this ridiculously petty semantic tiffle

*Although the proliferation of neo-liberal dogma and post-modernist nonsense in the past few decades has, like yourself, only weakened the idea that 'underdeveloped' nations have to catch up at all. By undermining the idea of economic progress, something that environmentalism excels at, the conclusion is that the underdeveloped world should be happy with their lot


Though, there is a difference between an economy that is exemplary of the past (a "backward economy"), and those that are being presently plundered by neoliberalism and the expansion of capitalNo. That's absurd and it ignores one of the principle criticisms of imperialism - it retards a subject country's economic progress by keeping it in a perpetual state of underdevelopment. On a very basic level, economic growth is can be represented in a very linear fashion - you go from pre-industrial to industrial societies. The latter being far more desirable, on almost every count, than the former. Imperialism, the supremacy of the industrialised West, prevents this transition from occupying throughout the vast majority of the globe. It hinders progress


We need to dive capitalism out of our heads before we can drive it out of our lives and create a new world.:lol:


-----

RasTheDestroyer, you've added nothing new. I'm aware of, and deeply ambivalent towards, your argument. I could also present at least half a dozen Lenin quotes to directly contradict it. I definitely am not interested in a discussion that considers "North Korea, the republics of Eastern Europe, independent Yugoslavia under Tito, Mongolia..., Chile,Venezuela today etc" to be the products of socialist revolutions

[RasTheDestroyer]

I'm happy for you that you can so easily parrot Lenin. For as many quotes by Lenin you can present to contradict my argument, I could probably present just as many of my own which contradict Lenin's (and have).

What you've been doing so far is appealing to someone regarded as an authority like Lenin to prove your point (oops! a fallacy!) while shirking those aporias in Lenin's analysis that I've dutifully pointed out. This is the acme of intellectual pablum.

In other words, your (and Lenin's) mistakes have been explained to you.

His name and ideas are not enshrined and inviolable, as much as you may think they are. Rather than piously accept Marxist theorists word for word, I am just as critical of their claims as I am of anyone else.

Consider this my last comment on this thread.

If you are in disagreement with me regarding the socialist republics I named, but are not interested in discussing your disagreement, then again you have demonstrated a [rhetorical] aporia. Until this is resolved, this discussion will not prove to be fruitful for either of us. Take care.

[Pawn Power]

Ha! -This conversation is basically over. Sorry to revert to ad-hominem attacks but I'm debating the usage of the term "backwards" with a person who has links to a hundred year old event in their signature and models their politics after that that same event, not to mention one who appeals to quotes from Lenin to "prove" a point. This is the 21st century? No?

[Vanguard1917]

Is this what this comes down to? A semantic argument because you feel that the term "backwards" is "chauvinistic"?

You know what, I could argue for the use of the term - pointing out that contrary to being a slur, this a pretty common term in development economics*, particularly associated with Gerschenkron's theories, but dating back far further than that. Its also been in common use within "the southern part of the globe" (ha) for the better part of the last century, they having a much sharper view as to what constitutes economic progress than yourself - but rather than further offend your ultra-sensitive self I'll just use the equally acceptable 'underdeveloped' tag. Frankly I'm pretty pissed off that its taken three posts to settle this ridiculously petty semantic tiffle

*Although the proliferation of neo-liberal dogma and post-modernist nonsense in the past few decades has, like yourself, only weakened the idea that 'underdeveloped' nations have to catch up at all. By undermining the idea of economic progress, something that environmentalism excels at, the conclusion is that the underdeveloped world should be happy with their lot

Exactly. Arguing that economically backward countries aren't actually backward is the same as arguing that the economically poor aren't actually poor. It's like those idiotic pomo types who argue that poverty is all about 'subjective perception' and that it is possible for a materially impoverished but 'spiritually satisfied' peasant in India or China to be considered better off than a middle-class person in the West who has access to some of the best which society has to offer (in terms of general standard of living).

As you've suggested, all that such reasoning has is immensely conservative political implications: that imperialism and poverty should not be fought (since oppressed countries are fine as they are) and that 'the underdeveloped world should be happy with their lot'. That leftists today seem happy to embrace such ideas says a lot about the demise of the progressive content of leftwing politics and the increasingly marginalised influence of Marxism.

[Pawn Power]

More bs from Vanguard. What else is new?

[theAnarch]

Are you arguing that industrial development isnt a good thing?

[ComradeOm]

Ha! -This conversation is basically over. Sorry to revert to ad-hominem attacks but I'm debating the usage of the term "backwards" with a person who has links to a hundred year old event in their signature and models their politics after that that same event, not to mention one who appeals to quotes from Lenin to "prove" a point. This is the 21st century? No?No, you've been "debating" nothing. You first stated that a country's environmental policies are a good indicator as to the state of its economic development. When I rubbished that patently ludicrous nonsense you started bleating about the term "backwards" being somehow offensive. Now that I've pointed out that this is a common economic term (I've already name checked Gerschenkron but can provide many more references if need be) and indicated a willingness to use a substitute, to avoid offending you, you've fallen back on pointless ad-hominems. So if this conversation is over, and there is a serious issue to be tackled here, then its been pretty much a one-way conversation

Edit: As an aside, its a staggering display of ignorance to claim that a certain "hundred year old event" is of no relevance to developmental economics. Its was the Russian Revolution that effectively gave birth to this field!

[mountainfire]

I'm not particularly interested in debates over the political undertones of terms like "backwards" but there is a case to be made against the term from the viewpoint of factual accuracy - the term arguably suggests that the economic and social conditions of "backward" countries are uniformly backward in the sense of being behind those of the more "advanced" countries in every or almost every respect, whereas a more accurate characterization is that these countries exhibit both backward and advanced features, and in fact contain some of the most advanced technology that capitalism has to offer due to their role as destinations of export capital. It is, for example, in China and other such countries that one finds the world's largest automotive plants. This point should be familiar to all Trotskyists because it is basically the notion of combined and uneven development, and is important not merely for the sake of factual accuracy but also because it is the presence of these advanced features that makes revolution possible in what, based on a vulgar Marxist standpoint, initially appear to be the countries where, owing to the relative numerical weakness of the working class, revolution is not possible or likely to occur.

It's also worth pointing out that if there's any term that should be considered deeply offensive as well as analytically inferior it's "feudal", and its variant "semi-feudal", because these terms, typically applied by Maoists, deny the expansionary character of capitalism, especially its tendency to eliminate pre-capitalist social formations, and entail the view that significant numbers of countries are outside of the capitalist system and therefore need to catch up and become capitalist through policies that involve class collaboration (most notably Mao's own policy of "New Democracy") before workers are allowed to fight for their own class interests on an independent basis.

[ComradeOm]

I'm not particularly interested in debates over the political undertones of terms like "backwards" but there is a case to be made against the term from the viewpoint of factual accuracy - the term arguably suggests that the economic and social conditions of "backward" countries are uniformly backward in the sense of being behind those of the more "advanced" countries in every or almost every respectThe term doesn't carry those connotations in practice; ie when talking about developmental economics. To take an example that you've alluded to, there is no doubt that Russia 1917 was backwards (and was/is uniformly considered so by pundits then and now) but this did not ignore the large, in absolute terms, and growing industrial sector in the country. But its often a good idea to consider the likes of China separately as 'industrialising' or 'developing' nations as they are clearly well on the road to industrial society


...is important not merely for the sake of factual accuracy but also because it is the presence of these advanced features that makes revolution possible in what, based on a vulgar Marxist standpoint, initially appear to be the countries where, owing to the relative numerical weakness of the working class, revolution is not possible or likely to occurThis is very true and should not be obscured. For the purposes of this thread/discussion though, it is worth noting that in standard Marxism the presence of an advanced economic base is considered infinitely more preferable to an underdeveloped or developing one. Revolution is not impossible in the latter, although it hinges on events in more advanced nations, but the very nature of industrial development is conductive to the growth of working class movements

[Pawn Power]

Are you arguing that industrial development isnt a good thing?

What do you mean by good? Morally correct, beneficent, favorable?

[Pawn Power]

No

Like I said, this conversation is basically over.

The IMF should be proud that their dogma has seeped into the minds of internet-based commies.

[mountainfire]

and growing industrial sector in the country.

It's not just that Russia had a growing industrial sector, though, it's the fact that Russia did not have to go through the successive stages of industrialization and modernization that had been followed by the earliest capitalist countries (as represented by the shift from manufacture to industrial production in Britain and elsewhere) but could borrow the most advanced industrial technology that capitalism had to offer, and that, as a result, Russia exhibited large units of production, situated alongside various forms of backwardness, such as marginal agriculture. The same conditions are present in China and India today.


Revolution is not impossible in the latter, although it hinges on events in more advanced nations, but the very nature of industrial development is conductive to the growth of working class movements

It's not that revolution is merely possible, it's that the combined existence of underdeveloped and advancement in these countries makes them highly volatile from a political standpoint and the countries where revolutionary upsurges are most likely to break out, whilst there exist more serious and stable barriers to revolution in the advanced countries - most notably the existence of powerful trade union bureaucracies and established reformist parties on the left. We can all agree that, because socialism can only be built in conditions of material abundance, any revolution that takes place in an underdeveloped country must spread to other more advanced countries in order to survive, but it's also the case that relationships of dependence flow from the advanced countries to underdeveloped countries as well as in the opposite direction - the most obvious example being the role of the Middle East in supplying oil - which is exactly the point that Trotsky makes when he characterizes the world during the age of imperialism as an integrated economic unit. The scope of interdependence in the contemporary world is total, and therefore any revolution must be international, regardless of where it begins.

[bailey_187]

The IMF should be proud that their dogma has seeped into the minds of internet-based commies.

What is really sad is that this anti-industrialisation bullshit has seeped into Marxism from hippy circles.

The critcism of the IMF ideology by Marxists should be that it holds back economic growth, not that its promotion (in words?) of it is a bad thing.

[bailey_187]

What do you mean by good? Morally correct, beneficent, favorable?

For Marxists, the increase in productivity and the forces of production that come about from industrialisation is central to creating a more advanced society, with more advanced relations of production. Because a greater division of labour allows society to create the essentials of life with less work required. The labour freed up then goes to create a bigger surplus. The result of this is that the struggle for survival becomes so much easier. This opens up other possibilities for humans beyond mere survival. As Marx said: ‘The less time society requires to produce wheat, cattle etc, the more time it wins for other production, material or mental. Just as in the case of an individual, the multiplicity of its development, its enjoyment and its activity depends on economisation of time.’ (i think this is the whole freedom/necesity thing, but im sure because i never really got it.)

So if you think being able ot create a bigger surplus (what is needed for an actual communism) is favourable, industrialisation is good.

[Vanguard1917]

corporate fascist class traitor


Lol. GracchusBabeuf (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=20114) commenting in my CP on my post in this thread. What it is that he is actually objecting to is anyone's guess.