Question about "feudalist countries"

[Crimson Commissar]

Why do some communists advocate capitalism in countries which are supposedly "feudalist" and "not ready for socialism"? I can understand that they're probably not ready for socialism in the western sense, but there HAS to be a better way of preparing these countries that isn't outright capitalism and bourgeois rule.

[Obs]

Read Marx.

[khad]

There are very, very few places in the contemporary world where feudalism is still a mode of production.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Why do some communists advocate capitalism in countries which are supposedly "feudalist" and "not ready for socialism"? I can understand that they're probably not ready for socialism in the western sense, but there HAS to be a better way of preparing these countries that isn't outright capitalism and bourgeois rule.

I feel like you answered yr own question.

[Crimson Commissar]

I feel like you answered yr own question.
Not really. I want to know why Maoists and some MLs support capitalism in the third world rather than some other way of preparing undeveloped countries for socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Maoists don't support capitalism in the Third World. I think you misunderstand.

[Sixiang]

There are very, very few places in the contemporary world where feudalism is still a mode of production.

This.

Most of the third world is simply just being exploited by more powerful imperial states. Maybe there are some puppets in power that make sure there are no uprisings, but they basically subscribe to a form of capitalism. Feudalism pretty much went away a while ago. It was replaced with capitalism.

[JazzRemington]

Specific historical circumstances lead to the rise and fall of feudalism, or whatever one wants to call it, in Europe and Japan. Hypothetically, something could happen that would bring about something similar to feudalism, but it wouldn't be the same thing as it was in Medieval Europe and Japan.

[Queercommie Girl]

This.

Most of the third world is simply just being exploited by more powerful imperial states. Maybe there are some puppets in power that make sure there are no uprisings, but they basically subscribe to a form of capitalism. Feudalism pretty much went away a while ago. It was replaced with capitalism.


Politically this is largely true, but culturally many countries today are still semi-feudal in nature.

Truth be told, socialists don't just have political tasks, we have cultural tasks as well. Only socialists can advance the culture of semi-feudal nations where bourgeois forces are no longer culturally progressive.

A future socialist society cannot have people still following the belief systems of Bronze Age slavelords, no matter how advanced the political system becomes.

[Queercommie Girl]

Specific historical circumstances lead to the rise and fall of feudalism, or whatever one wants to call it, in Europe and Japan. Hypothetically, something could happen that would bring about something similar to feudalism, but it wouldn't be the same thing as it was in Medieval Europe and Japan.


Japanese feudalism was learned from the Chinese, not from Europe. China during the Age of Fragmentation between the Han and Tang Dynasties had a similar system to later Japanese feudalism. But from the Tang and Song Dynasties onwards, the Chinese system changed from aristocratic feudalism to bureaucratic landlordism.

I think to use the term landlordism to describe all feudal and feudal-like systems is much more accurate and universal.

[Tommy4ever]

Something close to Feudalism is still pretty rife in India.

The system is mostly dead, but not entirely just yet.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Nepal and Bhutan are both very feudal, though there is a money economy in many areas. Same with rural India where more than half of the people live, although the cities and holy places are more modern.

I think much of the Arabian Peninsula, and certain parts of rural Africa such as Swaziland, are also feudal.

I would define "feudal" as a society based on socially entitled land ownership, which is the basis for both economic control, which leads to a military plutocracy and aristocracy under a central arbiter (king). What is interesting is how in many places, the King ends up acting as a social reformer on behalf of "the poor" or "the middle classes" to maintain his power.

It seems like some modern feudalisms have replaced their King with a "Democratic" President, ie Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Arguably, India (and Nepal since the fall of the Maharaja in Khatmandu) fit in this category too.

Lastly, some anarchies, particularly in Somalia and parts of rural Afghanistan, Pakistan and India where the state is still remote, seem to mix feudalism with anarchism (a particularly dangerous and un-enlightened mix), and those are places where it seems the Taliban and the Maoists (Naxals) are strongest.

[chegitz guevara]

If you read Marx, he wrote that it might be possible for a peasant revolution in feudal Russia to bypass capitalism entirely and go straight to socialism, provided that it was the spark of a workers revolution in Europe. A socialist Europe could then provide the capital and leadership to modernize Russia.

One can extrapolate from that, that if the workers already had power and were building the socialist mode of production, a peasant revolution in another part of the world could overthrow feudalism and get help from the workers' state.

That is what happened in China and other feudal or semi-feudal countries. On their own, they couldn't have achieved socialism, but with the aid of the USSR it was possible.

[Sixiang]

Politically this is largely true, but culturally many countries today are still semi-feudal in nature.

Truth be told, socialists don't just have political tasks, we have cultural tasks as well. Only socialists can advance the culture of semi-feudal nations where bourgeois forces are no longer culturally progressive.

A future socialist society cannot have people still following the belief systems of Bronze Age slavelords, no matter how advanced the political system becomes.

I absolutely agree with you on that.

[S.Artesian]

Why do some communists advocate capitalism in countries which are supposedly "feudalist" and "not ready for socialism"? I can understand that they're probably not ready for socialism in the western sense, but there HAS to be a better way of preparing these countries that isn't outright capitalism and bourgeois rule.

Because there is no feudalism. What exists as "archaic" relations of land, and landed labor, has been absorbed by capitalism as units of production for the world markets-- I am referring to the haciendas, the plantations etc that have survived into the 20th century.

Underdevelopment is not feudalism. It is an index to capitalism's own inability to fully transform the pre-existing relations of production into its own image, based on capitalism's own organization as private property, which can and must, preserve other private property or risk its own overthrow.

[Queercommie Girl]

Because there is no feudalism. What exists as "archaic" relations of land, and landed labor, has been absorbed by capitalism as units of production for the world markets-- I am referring to the haciendas, the plantations etc that have survived into the 20th century.

Underdevelopment is not feudalism. It is an index to capitalism's own inability to fully transform the pre-existing relations of production into its own image, based on capitalism's own organization as private property, which can and must, preserve other private property or risk its own overthrow.

Whatever the political situation is, you cannot deny that culturally many parts of the world are still stuck in feudalism or semi-feudalism.

In fact, certain extremist religious cults still have an understanding of God and the universe that is stuck in a Bronze Age slavery society.

[red cat]

Whatever the political situation is, you cannot deny that culturally many parts of the world are still stuck in feudalism or semi-feudalism.

In fact, certain extremist religious cults still have an understanding of God and the universe that is stuck in a Bronze Age slavery society.

But we know that the politics, culture and economy of any given society are interlinked. The question that arises from this naturally is that whether a society with capitalist economy and politics can have feudal or semi-feudal culture or not. If so, how much of such a society can be spanned by feudal culture and for how long ?

[Queercommie Girl]

But we know that the politics, culture and economy of any given society are interlinked. The question that arises from this naturally is that whether a society with capitalist economy and politics can have feudal or semi-feudal culture or not. If so, how much of such a society can be spanned by feudal culture and for how long ?

The inter-link is never a simple "one-to-one" process. Usually economically capitalist states that have a semi-feudal culture are those states that due to imperialist oppression and other reasons have seen their "natural" capitalist development stalled.

[red cat]

The inter-link is never a simple "one-to-one" process. Usually economically capitalist states that have a semi-feudal culture are those states that due to imperialist oppression and other reasons have seen their "natural" capitalist development stalled.

What kind of basic relations of production does feudal culture preserve ? Are all the instances of culturally semi-feudal or feudal countries just mere coincidences or are the feudal cultures there being used to preserve a particular relation of production at the basic level ? It should be noted that most or all of the countries that had their "natural" capitalist development halted by imperialism display feudal culture to a good extent.

[Hit The North]

Whatever the political situation is, you cannot deny that culturally many parts of the world are still stuck in feudalism or semi-feudalism.

In fact, certain extremist religious cults still have an understanding of God and the universe that is stuck in a Bronze Age slavery society.

Iran is controlled by fundamentalist Islamic government. Does this make Iran a feudal or semi-feudal nation?

Polls in the USA have shown large support for creationist beliefs of man's origin:


A series of Gallup polls in the United States from 1982 through 2008 on "Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design" found support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God guided the process" of between 35% and 40%, support for "God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" varied from 43% to 47%, and support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God had no part in the process" varied from 9% to 14%. The polls also noted answers to a series of more detailed questions.[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#cite_note-118)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Polls
Does this mean that the USA is a feudal or semi-feudal culture?

Monarchy and aristocracy are social relations rooted in feudalism. The British state is headed by a monarchy and British society retains a privileged aristocracy. Does this make Britain a feudal or semi-feudal society?

[Dimentio]

Nepal and Bhutan are both very feudal, though there is a money economy in many areas. Same with rural India where more than half of the people live, although the cities and holy places are more modern.

I think much of the Arabian Peninsula, and certain parts of rural Africa such as Swaziland, are also feudal.

I would define "feudal" as a society based on socially entitled land ownership, which is the basis for both economic control, which leads to a military plutocracy and aristocracy under a central arbiter (king). What is interesting is how in many places, the King ends up acting as a social reformer on behalf of "the poor" or "the middle classes" to maintain his power.

It seems like some modern feudalisms have replaced their King with a "Democratic" President, ie Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Arguably, India (and Nepal since the fall of the Maharaja in Khatmandu) fit in this category too.

Lastly, some anarchies, particularly in Somalia and parts of rural Afghanistan, Pakistan and India where the state is still remote, seem to mix feudalism with anarchism (a particularly dangerous and un-enlightened mix), and those are places where it seems the Taliban and the Maoists (Naxals) are strongest.

Guatemala and parts of rural Brazil are also more or less feudal, with indentured labour and de-facto serfdom.

Feudalism in the modern sense only means:

I. A wealthy and politically strong landowner group.

II. A landless and powerless rural population, who borrows money from the landowners and are forced to work off their debts on the holdings.

In short, debt slavery.

There is probably no country which is purely feudal, but a lot of countries still have various different modes of production on different levels.

[Queercommie Girl]

Iran is controlled by fundamentalist Islamic government. Does this make Iran a feudal or semi-feudal nation?

Polls in the USA have shown large support for creationist beliefs of man's origin:

Does this mean that the USA is a feudal or semi-feudal culture?

Monarchy and aristocracy are social relations rooted in feudalism. The British state is headed by a monarchy and British society retains a privileged aristocracy. Does this make Britain a feudal or semi-feudal society?

Culturally, I would say these states all exbihit semi-feudal features, or at least remanents of them.

In the case of the United Kingdom, Chinese Marxists generally believe that strictly speaking the UK is not a purely capitalist state, even in the political sense. It still possesses the remanents of feudalism.

For instance, you should know that the British Monarch has certain executive powers that he or she can utilise in "emergency" situations that would effectively suspend bourgeois democracy. Now if for example there is a massive socialist and proletarian uprising in Britain, the British Monarch could in theory use such "emergency executive powers" to dissolve bourgeois democracy so that the state machine can be more effectively used to crush socialism.

Just because the majority of the people, or even workers, believe in Creationism, doesn't make Creationism objectively correct. Marxism-Leninism isn't just "radical democracy". Sometimes the Truth is held in the hands of a minority, for instance a vanguardist party.

[S.Artesian]

Guatemala and parts of rural Brazil are also more or less feudal, with indentured labour and de-facto serfdom.

Feudalism in the modern sense only means:

I. A wealthy and politically strong landowner group.

II. A landless and powerless rural population, who borrows money from the landowners and are forced to work off their debts on the holdings.

In short, debt slavery.

There is probably no country which is purely feudal, but a lot of countries still have various different modes of production on different levels.


That's not feudalism; as production is production for value, not for PRODUCT. What you are describing is the uneven and combined development of capitalism in "less advanced" areas.

The exact same countries have areas, and significant value production, actually dominant value production, based on factories, agro-industry, maquiladoras... in short, industrial capitalism.

[S.Artesian]

Whatever the political situation is, you cannot deny that culturally many parts of the world are still stuck in feudalism or semi-feudalism.

In fact, certain extremist religious cults still have an understanding of God and the universe that is stuck in a Bronze Age slavery society.

And slavery exists today. But slavery is not the dominant mode of production in the world today. Nor is it the dominant mode of production in the countries in which it occurs.

[Zanthorus]

So wait, the country which Marx throughout Das Kapital uses as the very model of capitalist development, as a country which had already developed those relations to which the rest of Western Europe were inevitably doomed at the time if they continued following their then current course, is according to Chinese 'Marxists' (I assume here Iseul actually means Maoists), still not a 'purely capitalist' state, it still 'posesseses the remnants of feudalism'. This is one of the worst, most utterly ridiculous debasements of Marxism thusfar. As long as bourgeois society preserves monarchs and religions it is still 'feudal' or 'semi-feudal'? Methinks our so-called Marxists who believe this give too much credence to the revolutionary nature of the bourgeoisie.

[S.Artesian]

If you read Marx, he wrote that it might be possible for a peasant revolution in feudal Russia to bypass capitalism entirely and go straight to socialism, provided that it was the spark of a workers revolution in Europe. A socialist Europe could then provide the capital and leadership to modernize Russia.

One can extrapolate from that, that if the workers already had power and were building the socialist mode of production, a peasant revolution in another part of the world could overthrow feudalism and get help from the workers' state.

That is what happened in China and other feudal or semi-feudal countries. On their own, they couldn't have achieved socialism, but with the aid of the USSR it was possible.

Except by the time of the revolution, Russia was no longer feudal, which is why the proletariat led the revolution.

And "China and other feudal or semi-feudal countries" never achieved socialism, nor was it possible to achieve socialism with the aid of the fSU. The bourgeoisie could be expropriated, a certain greater level of economic development could be achieved, but in the end capitalism was restored.

[Queercommie Girl]

So wait, the country which Marx throughout Das Kapital uses as the very model of capitalist development, as a country which had already developed those relations to which the rest of Western Europe were inevitably doomed at the time if they continued following their then current course, is according to Chinese 'Marxists' (I assume here Iseul actually means Maoists), still not a 'purely capitalist' state, it still 'posesseses the remnants of feudalism'. This is one of the worst, most utterly ridiculous debasements of Marxism thusfar. As long as bourgeois society preserves monarchs and religions it is still 'feudal' or 'semi-feudal'? Methinks our so-called Marxists who believe this give too much credence to the revolutionary nature of the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeois revolutions, such as the French Revolution, did play a significantly progressive role in history, that's a fact. Marx himself recognised the progressive role capitalism played in history, and not just in the economic sense, but in the political and cultural senses as well, including even British colonialism in India to some extent.

And your ridiculous Eurocentric attitude means you can't fathom the existence of any school of Marxism and socialism which isn't purely based on Western philosophy.

I am indeed partly a Maoist. But that doesn't really matter as far as this is concerned, because the fact that the United Kingdom today still possesses some remanents of feudalism in the political sense (i.e. within the political superstructure) is something many Western Trotskyists recognise as well.

The only people who don't see it completely are ultra-leftist "left" communists like you who lack the ability to analyse the real world since you bury your head in books all the time. Everything must fit with your narrow idealistic dogmas, and if the facts of the real world conflict with your "ideology", then of course it must be the real world that is wrong!

So according to you, suppose in a future socialist world where the political structure completely relies on proletarian democracy, but virtually every worker agrees with Creationism, does that mean the reactionary ideology of Creationism is fully compatible with genuine Marxism? So in your eyes, Marxism has no cultural character at all, only an economic and partly political character? And it doesn't matter what workers in a socialist society might believe in, even if they all believe in things like human sacrifice, as long as the "economic structure" is proletarian?

That is to say, you believe Marxists and socialists have absolutely no cultural tasks what-so-ever?

If the fact that a capitalist state still preserves the feudal monarchy does not make it un-capitalist at all, does this mean, according to you, that even a genuine socialist state can still preserve the monarchy literally and still be completely proletarian?

I never said a state is still semi-feudal just because it preserves some religions. In fact, even a genuine proletarian socialist state might still have some religions. However, in the case of the United Kingdom, what you utterly fail to recognise is that the British Monarch is certainly not just there "for show" in the political sense. The British Monarch has certain "emergency executive powers" held in reserve in case of a "national emergency" that could literally over-ride the principles of bourgeois democracy.

You may not focus on cultural analysis so much, but at the very least Marxists certainly cannot just look at the economic base and utterly ignore what is in the political super-structure.

[Dimentio]

That's not feudalism; as production is production for value, not for PRODUCT. What you are describing is the uneven and combined development of capitalism in "less advanced" areas.

The exact same countries have areas, and significant value production, actually dominant value production, based on factories, agro-industry, maquiladoras... in short, industrial capitalism.

I do not claim that these countries in their entirety are feudal, but that they have large feudal or semi-feudal sectors of the economy which is affecting millions of people. That there are factories in the towns does not rule out the feudal relations on the countryside.

[Rafiq]

The same reason we don't advocate jumping to Communism in capitalist countries. You need transitions in order to reach things like Socialism.

[S.Artesian]

I do not claim that these countries in their entirety are feudal, but that they have large feudal or semi-feudal sectors of the economy which is affecting millions of people. That there are factories in the towns does not rule out the feudal relations on the countryside.


I was responding to what you wrote specifically:


Feudalism in the modern sense only means:

I. A wealthy and politically strong landowner group.

II. A landless and powerless rural population, who borrows money from the landowners and are forced to work off their debts on the holdings.

In short, debt slavery.Now that's not feudalism in a modern sense or in any sense of the word.

Backward, undeveloped, relations of agricultural capitalism? No doubt.

But exactly how does your description of modern feudalism today differ from the conditions of coal miners in West Virginia in the early part of the 20th century:

1. where there was a wealthy and politically strong landowning owning group who used their land for the production of mining products rather than
jute, or sugar cane, or cotton.

2. a landless population living in company towns and company houses, who paid in company scrip, shopped at company stores which extended them credit?

In short wage-slavery supplemented, reinforced by debt and the terrorism of the mine guards, detective agencies, and the official police and military?

I don't think it differs qualitatively at all.

[Dimentio]

Capitalism is generally not consisting of virtual total monopolies. Such situations are for a good reason confined to isolated locations. In terms of agricultural economies though, millions of people are suffering under feudal relations. Those miners had a semi-feudal local structure caused by the conditions which allowed the mine-lords to prey on them.

[S.Artesian]

Capitalism is generally not consisting of virtual total monopolies. Such situations are for a good reason confined to isolated locations. In terms of agricultural economies though, millions of people are suffering under feudal relations. Those miners had a semi-feudal local structure caused by the conditions which allowed the mine-lords to prey on them.

The above is nonsense. You take a word, feudalism, empty it of all historical content, and slap it on anything you like, as if it were a price tag at a clothing store.

Miners had a "semi-feudal" structure? That's rich. Hilarious.

[Dimentio]

Why you become so angry?

From what I've understood, those mining corporations had total dominance over those communities, and had established feudal, rather than capitalist, relations of power.

In Medieval Europe, there were cities, which had banks, shops, craftsmen and even some larger-scale industries. Not all of society was feudal, and there were traces of a market economy in the structure.

To just reduce a society to the dominant social relation during that time and era would be a gross simplification which would do more harm than good.

Also, I have not spoken of any need of "capitalism" in Brazil, what you seem to imply I believe in.

Since I usually get thanks both from anarchists, maoists, stalinists and trotskyists in various threads, you could see that I pretty much pander to a line of observing and then discussing possible reasons, instead of putting the ideology above reality.

[Zanthorus]

The bourgeois revolutions, such as the French Revolution, did play a significantly progressive role in history, that's a fact.

That is not the issue at hand here though. The issue here is that you believe that a country is still in some sense 'feudal' because it retains a monarchy. I should point out that this:


Marx himself recognised the progressive role capitalism played in history, and not just in the economic sense, but in the political and cultural senses as well, including even British colonialism in India to some extent.

Would appear to contradict your criticism of my...


ridiculous Eurocentric attitude

...since it seems to be common currency among the 'anti-Eurocentrist' crowd that Marx's writing on India was based heavily on the dominant pro-colonial discourse of the period. Furthermore I have never said this:


means you can't fathom the existence of any school of Marxism and socialism which isn't purely based on Western philosophy.

Or at least I don't believe I have ever made any comments to the effect that there could not be a school of Marxism which is based purely on 'Western philosophy'. This seems to be a reflection of the fact that I used the term 'Chinese Marxism' in my post, however this was only following your own ascription of your view to 'Chinese Marxism'. On the other hand, you could be trying to argue that I am a Eurocentric for disagreeing with Chinese people, but that would of course be utterly ridiculous...

I would also like to see proof of this:


...the fact that the United Kingdom today still possesses some remanents of feudalism in the political sense (i.e. within the political superstructure) is something many Western Trotskyists recognise as well.

As the idea of a 'feudalism' or 'semi-feudalism' still existing to be combatted would seem to contradict Trotsky's theories about uneven and combined development and permanent revolution.


The only people who don't see it completely are ultra-leftist "left" communists like you who lack the ability to analyse the real world since you bury your head in books all the time.

Interestingly, books contain information - information which is often highly relevant to the analysis of the real world. Perhaps you could read one sometime like, I don't know, maybe Das Kapital, before you start spouting off crap about how the UK is still partially a feudal country.


Everything must fit with your narrow idealistic dogmas, and if the facts of the real world conflict with your "ideology", then of course it must be the real world that is wrong!

Well, here are the facts as I see them:

1. Capitalism is essentially defined by the existence of generalised commodity production. The precondition for this generalised production of commodities, the only condition of society under which the products of labour can generally take the form of commodities, is when labour-power becomes a commodity to be bought and sold on the market. The purpose of the buying and selling of labour-power on the market is the production of surplus-value, the self-expansion of value, self-expanding value being capital.

2. In the economy of the UK, the majority of wealth takes on the commodity-form, and this corresponds with the fact that the majority of the UK population are proletarians, 'free labourers' who seel their labour-power to capital and produce surplus-value, and hence we have self-expanding value and thus capital.

3. Not only this, but England was taken by Marx throughout Das Kapital as the very model of capitalist development. This perspective was generally held by most of the socialist movement after him as well. It is fairly clear that Lenin and Trotsky both considered the UK to be one of the centre's of advanced capitalism during the period. I have never seen anything by anyone attempting to claim that the UK is still somehow 'feudal' because of the existence of a monarchy until you came into this thread and made the absurd claim.

I think the existence of a Monarch says more about the continuity that existed between capitalism and other class societies than anything profound about the continued existence of 'feudalism' in the UK.


The British Monarch has certain "emergency executive powers" held in reserve in case of a "national emergency" that could literally over-ride the principles of bourgeois democracy.

You think the bourgeoisie is at all interested in democracy? Would you care to explain to us then why in the 1840's the movement for universal suffrage coincided with the first mass movement of the english working-class?

[araham]

Japanese feudalism was learned from the Chinese, not from Europe. China during the Age of Fragmentation between the Han and Tang Dynasties had a similar system to later Japanese feudalism. But from the Tang and Song Dynasties onwards, the Chinese system changed from aristocratic feudalism to bureaucratic landlordism.

I think to use the term landlordism to describe all feudal and feudal-like systems is much more accurate and universal.

Would u plz define "aristocratic feudalism" and "bureaucratic landlordism" and shed light on their differences?

[S.Artesian]

Why you become so angry?

Not a bit angry. Just incredulous at how little understanding there is of how capitalism actually functions in the real world, as opposed to the abstract model Marx critiques in his economic manuscripts.


From what I've understood, those mining corporations had total dominance over those communities, and had established feudal, rather than capitalist, relations of power.


First off, there never have been feudal relations of production in the United States, Maoists etc. to the contrary not withstanding. Secondly, these coal mines were classic capitalist enterprises, producing coal as a value for the accumulation of value, using wage-labor in order to extract a surplus value. That the coal owners used force to impose and defend their property on the miners; used debt and company scrip to bind the labor force to the mine is not evidence of "feudalism." It is simply the result of class struggle.


In Medieval Europe, there were cities, which had banks, shops, craftsmen and even some larger-scale industries. Not all of society was feudal, and there were traces of a market economy in the structure.


That's fine. Medieval Europe had developed feudal relations and as populations grew some were able to escape the demands of rural service and live in cities. Not relevant to what we are talking about-- which is the existence of supposed feudal relations on the basis of "large landowners" vs. landless agricultural laborers.


To just reduce a society to the dominant social relation during that time and era would be a gross simplification which would do more harm than good.


What does that mean? I didn't reduce any society to any thing. I spoke of a dominant relation of production interrelated to uneven and combined development. That's not a simplification. Uneven and combined development is a complication which places a double burden on the working class. However, the burden is not due to feudalism.



Also, I have not spoken of any need of "capitalism" in Brazil, what you seem to imply I believe in.


I don't believe I said anything about your view of Brazil in this thread. At least I don't recall doing so.



Since I usually get thanks both from anarchists, maoists, stalinists and trotskyists in various threads, you could see that I pretty much pander to a line of observing and then discussing possible reasons, instead of putting the ideology above reality.

I have no idea what you are referring to, but any study of the property and operations of the latifundistas in Latin America will show that from about 1820 on, these areas become progressively more and more incorporated into the world markets, either through production directly for the markets [estancias of Argentina providing Britain with hides and wool], or through production for mines and industries tied to the world markets [i.e. the haciendas supplying the tin mines in Bolivia with food products].

To claim this is "feudalism" because it deviates from the abstract model of "free labor" compelled only by economic circumstance to exchange its labor for wages, is like claiming a commodity is not a commodity when its price deviates from its value.


This characterization of the real relations of capitalism as "feudal" has been used to justify everything from popular fronts to "new democracy," and has produced such laughable, crackpot assertions that the US Civil War lead to feudal relations in the South between black sharecroppers and white landowners.

[Dimentio]

Yes, and by 1150, most areas in Europe were integrated into one large, continental trading network. Europe in the 12th century was more or less a market economy (and continued to be so largely until the age of Mercantilism and the formation of national economies).

The existence of trade does not negate feudalism.

There is neither necessarily a dichotomy between feudal and capitalist relations, as capitalists could exploit conditions which are terribly anachronistic. Probably, the continued growth demands areas where conditions of super-exploitation are prevalent.

As earlier stated. An area does not need to be either-or. It could have traces of several social systems in the same time. While one (capitalism) is indeed prevalent, there are traces of others.

And I do neither agree with New Democracy. The world does not have the time to wait for capitalism to be developed in Brazil like in Western Europe for example (and it would probably be impossible, as Brazil would need to find other markets to exploit).

[Hit The North]

The British Monarch has certain "emergency executive powers" held in reserve in case of a "national emergency" that could literally over-ride the principles of bourgeois democracy.


This proves nothing as the head of state in most bourgeois democracies (including USA, France, Germany, Russia, Egypt) has "emergency executive powers" that could suspend normal bourgeois democracy. Meanwhile, the British monarchy has not played a decisive role in the politics of the nation since before the 1880s). This in spite of two world wars, a general strike and numerous economic crises. It is pretty much ceremonial and has long ago been stripped of the powers it enjoyed under feudalism.


You may not focus on cultural analysis so much, but at the very least Marxists certainly cannot just look at the economic base and utterly ignore what is in the political super-structure.

This is true. But in order to suggest that the mode of production can be determined by reference to superstructural factors, is to present a model analogous to a tail wagging the dog.

[S.Artesian]

Yes, and by 1150, most areas in Europe were integrated into one large, continental trading network. Europe in the 12th century was more or less a market economy (and continued to be so largely until the age of Mercantilism and the formation of national economies).

The existence of trade does not negate feudalism.

There is neither necessarily a dichotomy between feudal and capitalist relations, as capitalists could exploit conditions which are terribly anachronistic. Probably, the continued growth demands areas where conditions of super-exploitation are prevalent.

As earlier stated. An area does not need to be either-or. It could have traces of several social systems in the same time. While one (capitalism) is indeed prevalent, there are traces of others.

And I do neither agree with New Democracy. The world does not have the time to wait for capitalism to be developed in Brazil like in Western Europe for example (and it would probably be impossible, as Brazil would need to find other markets to exploit).


None of the above answers any of the issues I raised about the inaccuracies in your analysis.

[Crimson Commissar]

The same reason we don't advocate jumping to Communism in capitalist countries. You need transitions in order to reach things like Socialism.
But does that transition absolutely HAVE to be free market capitalism? We shouldn't advocate the oppression and greed of capitalism just for the sake of developing third world countries.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Monarchy is a silly system, but a constitutional monarchy is often better than a presidential democracy in part because the head of state has no power in the constitutional monarchy, and the PM isn't as powerful as a president.


Anyway, as long as the british want her there, she is a public employee of sorts whose job is just to be the Queen, and appear at fancy ceremonies.

[RED DAVE]

Nepal and Bhutan are both very feudal, though there is a money economy in many areas. Same with rural India where more than half of the people live, although the cities and holy places are more modern.

I think much of the Arabian Peninsula, and certain parts of rural Africa such as Swaziland, are also feudal.

I would define "feudal" as a society based on socially entitled land ownership, which is the basis for both economic control, which leads to a military plutocracy and aristocracy under a central arbiter (king). What is interesting is how in many places, the King ends up acting as a social reformer on behalf of "the poor" or "the middle classes" to maintain his power.You are making the common mistake of confusing the political forms with the underlying economic forms. The economic basis for feudalism is agricultural. It does not involve production for a market but for subsistence. It also involves hereditary ownership of the land and legal binding of the peasants to the land: they can't own and they can't leave. Also, underfeudalism, there is no working class is the modern sense: a class of landless or owners of no property who sell their labor power.

None of this is true in, say, Nepal or India. Do not confuse under-development with feudalism.

RED DAVE

[Dave B]

Friedrich Engels;

The Decline of Feudalism and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie





There was scarcely room for money in the typical feudal economy in the early Middle Ages. The lord obtained everything he needed from his serfs, either in the form of services, or in the form of finished products.

Flax and wool were spun, woven into cloth, and made into clothing by the serfs' women; the man tilled the fields, and the children tended the lord's cattle and gathered for him the fruits of the forest, bird-nests, firewood; in addition, the whole family had to deliver up grain, fruit, eggs, butter, cheese, poultry, calves, and who knows how much else. Each feudal domain was sufficient unto itself; even feudal military obligations were taken in kind; trade and exchange were absent and money was superfluous.

Europe had declined to so low a level, had retrogressed so far, that money at this time served far less a social function than it did a political: it was used for the payment of taxes, and was acquired chiefly by robbery.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/decline/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/decline/index.htm)


And as ‘feudalism’ or the ‘corvee’ system becomes integrated into capitalism; that has perhaps advanced elsewhere;



Chapter Ten: The Working-Day

SECTION 2 THE GREED FOR SURPLUS-LABOUR. MANUFACTURER AND BOYARD





But as soon as people, whose production still moves within the lower forms of slave-labour, corvée-labour, &c., are drawn into the whirlpool of an international market dominated by the capitalistic mode of production, the sale of their products for export becoming their principal interest, the civilised horrors of over-work are grafted on the barbaric horrors of slavery, serfdom, &c. Hence the negro labour in the Southern States of the American Union preserved something of a patriarchal character, so long as production was chiefly directed to immediate local consumption.

But in proportion, as the export of cotton became of vital interest to these states, the over-working of the negro and sometimes the using up of his life in 7 years of labour became a factor in a calculated and calculating system. It was no longer a question of obtaining from him a certain quantity of useful products. It was now a question of production of surplus-labour itself: So was it also with the corvée, e.g., in the Danubian Principalities (now Roumania).


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm)

[chegitz guevara]

Except by the time of the revolution, Russia was no longer feudal, which is why the proletariat led the revolution.

Which is entirely irrelevant to my point. My point was that Marx theorized it was possible for a country to skip the capitalist mode of production with the aid of a successful workers revolution in another country. There was a successful workers revolution in Russia. It gave aid to other revolutions (the ones that succeeded, not the ones that had yet to succeed).


And "China and other feudal or semi-feudal countries" never achieved socialism, nor was it possible to achieve socialism with the aid of the fSU. The bourgeoisie could be expropriated, a certain greater level of economic development could be achieved, but in the end capitalism was restored.

Again, my point was that it was possible for the peasantry to overthrow capitalism, because a successful workers revolution existed to give them aid, and that successful peasant revolutions, in fact, did overthrow capitalism.

One can debate whether or not any of them achieved socialism. I don't particularly care, since they've largely all reverted to the capitalist mode of production, with a few exceptions.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You are making the common mistake of confusing the political forms with the underlying economic forms. The economic basis for feudalism is agricultural. It does not involve production for a market but for subsistence. It also involves hereditary ownership of the land and legal binding of the peasants to the land: they can't own and they can't leave. Also, underfeudalism, there is no working class is the modern sense: a class of landless or owners of no property who sell their labor power.

None of this is true in, say, Nepal or India. Do not confuse under-development with feudalism.


Is it really the case though? From my understanding, there's a lot of subsistence agriculture still in that part of the world, and insofar as they do produce a surplus it goes to hereditary landlords, who then sell for profit.

Anyways, from my understanding, there's no serfdom in most of India, but there are certain other aspects of feudalism. You are correct to say feudalism and underdevelopment aren't the same, but underdevelopment can also mean the limited influence of the bourgeoise on how these local economies work. From my understanding, this is why promises of land reform were so appealing; it would take the power out of traditional landed aristocrats. And it is these aristocrats who have been pushing to return land appropriated and given to the peasants by maoist guerillas.

You also have other aspects of feudalism, such as crony usurers instead of banking capital and no or limited middle classes.