Are communists wrong about

[Beeth]

Capitalism having completely replaced feudalism? In India, for instance, there is caste system, widow burning, dowry related deaths, in short, aspects of feudalism still survive.

So isn't an analysis based on the Marxist method a little inaccurate here? Wouldnt this method apply only to industrialized nations? In semi-feudal societies like india, africa, the exploitation of workers may have more to do with 'feudalistic leftovers' and less to do with the principles of capitalist production.

[Comrade Samuel]

Your exaples are merely cultural though, burning people and subjegateing women should be frowned upon but it is not full-blown feudalism though. Capitalism has still manifested it's self in those places in one way or another though- they are where the cheap labor is in this day and age- they are the epicenters of the prolateriate if you will.

I think if anything it is that we need to realize the revolutionary potential these places hold.

[Conscript]

India's social backwardness is no doubt a product of prolonged economic backwardness relative to the world around it. Chauvinism finds a nice nest in conditions like that.

Not that the west is any exception, its culture has its roots in some aspects of feudalism too. See marriage.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

This is where the theory of "combined and uneven development" comes in. Capitalism is a global system. There is no region in the world that is not subject to it. But the development of capitalism in different societies is not even -- some are more "advanced" than others.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, the argument is not really 'has capitalism driven out every aspect of feudalism/pre-capitalist society?', because the answer then is obviously 'no', even in capitalism's heartlands; the UK still has a monarchy and aristocracy, the Duke of Westminster and the Queen are both fabulously wealthy, and Scotland still has some very odd land tenure; Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain and some other countries likewise are monarchies; Germany produced the current Pope; The USA, though a republic, has the 'electoral college' system originally established by the nascent 'aristocracy' there to limit the power of 'the mob'; Japan is still and imperial state based on a divine monarchy, etc. Capitalism has these aspects of feudal society still preseved inside it.

The question is rather whether capitalism itself has reached (or passed) the limit of its historic mission to revolutionise production, create a proletariat and develop a world market.

Marx wrote about systems becoming a 'fetter' on future development. The point I think is not that capitalism needs to do away with all these aspects of feudalism, but that capitalism cannot develop society (particularly, the economy) for the benefit of humanity. Not, 'does feudalism still exist?' but 'can socialism exist?' and I'd argue that the answer to the latter question is, 'yes'.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I think it is pretty normal for a 'new' system still bears some of the marks of the preceding system. Much like socialism develops from capitalism, so does capitalism emerge from feudalism. I think it is thus interesting what Marx said about that: “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges”. I personally think the same can be said about capitalism and feudalism. Other examples would be countries still having monarchs. I think the existence in monarchs only exists in countries where the change from feudalism to capitalism took a less radical path than, arguably the most notorious one, te French revolution, but instead took a path of compromise. Although France also still has the 'birthmarks' from Feudalism.

The bourgeoisie itself is a class that remains from, and took shape during, feudalism.

[ind_com]

Capitalism having completely replaced feudalism? In India, for instance, there is caste system, widow burning, dowry related deaths, in short, aspects of feudalism still survive.

So isn't an analysis based on the Marxist method a little inaccurate here? Wouldnt this method apply only to industrialized nations? In semi-feudal societies like india, africa, the exploitation of workers may have more to do with 'feudalistic leftovers' and less to do with the principles of capitalist production.

You, my friend, are succumbing to the most ruthless version of Stalinism. :crying:

[Blake's Baby]

I think it is pretty normal for a 'new' system still bears some of the marks of the preceding system. Much like socialism develops from capitalism, so does capitalism emerge from feudalism. I think it is thus interesting what Marx said about that: “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges”. I personally think the same can be said about capitalism and feudalism. Other examples would be countries still having monarchs. I think the existence in monarchs only exists in countries where the change from feudalism to capitalism took a less radical path than, arguably the most notorious one, te French revolution, but instead took a path of compromise. Although France also still has the 'birthmarks' from Feudalism.

The bourgeoisie itself is a class that remains from, and took shape during, feudalism.

No, unlike.

Capitalism developed in feudalism, because the bourgeoisie was a new exploiting class that developed its economic power 'in the cracks' inside the feudal system, as the bourgeoisie (first in the 'free towns' away from control by lords) was able to exploit the new proletariat.

Socialism doesn't develop inside capitalism, because socialism is not a new exploiting social system, we don't have some kind of slave class to exploit for a couple of hundred years to develop our economic power. So unlike the transition from capitalism to feudalism, we won't have a long period of development of socialism as an economic system before the political revolution to establish proletarian power.

Also, unlike the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the transition to socialism will not happen piecemeal over a couple of hundred years. Feudalism was a local system, caitalism could defeat it locally. Capitalism has become a world system, it must be defeated as a world system.

In sum: though the transition from feudalism to capitalism was a piecemeal transition, the transition to socialist society can't be.

[Manic Impressive]

Capitalism having completely replaced feudalism? In India, for instance, there is caste system, widow burning, dowry related deaths, in short, aspects of feudalism still survive.

So isn't an analysis based on the Marxist method a little inaccurate here? Wouldnt this method apply only to industrialized nations? In semi-feudal societies like india, africa, the exploitation of workers may have more to do with 'feudalistic leftovers' and less to do with the principles of capitalist production.
You're basing your opinion of whether an economic system exists by providing examples of social phenomena. Try looking at the relation of the different classes to the means of production for your answer.

No feudalism does not exist in any meaningful way (although there could be tiny isolated pockets where it exists). However, I'm yet to see a decent example of said economic relations anywhere.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

No, unlike.

Capitalism developed in feudalism, because the bourgeoisie was a new exploiting class that developed its economic power 'in the cracks' inside the feudal system, as the bourgeoisie (first in the 'free towns' away from control by lords) was able to exploit the new proletariat.

Socialism doesn't develop inside capitalism, because socialism is not a new exploiting social system, we don't have some kind of slave class to exploit for a couple of hundred years to develop our economic power. So unlike the transition from capitalism to feudalism, we won't have a long period of development of socialism as an economic system before the political revolution to establish proletarian power.

Also, unlike the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the transition to socialism will not happen piecemeal over a couple of hundred years. Feudalism was a local system, caitalism could defeat it locally. Capitalism has become a world system, it must be defeated as a world system.

In sum: though the transition from feudalism to capitalism was a piecemeal transition, the transition to socialist society can't be.

I agree, partially. There is a difference between the transition or changefrom feudalism to capitalism and from capitalism to socialism. But our society is right now all capitalist, so even during the socialism it is logical that some things sti remain although they will disappear over time. That is where the transition from feudalism to capitalism is different because capitalism is just a different exploiting system.

I disagree that socialism doesn't develop during capitalism. The class that is to be the 'maker' of revolution develops during capitalism. And, arguably, durig the dictatorship of the proletariat, which isn't socialism, a form of capitalism still exists.

[l'Enfermé]

None of the things mentioned in the OP are inherently "feudal". Feudalism is a mode of production. It's basis is "peasant agriculture and the carrying on of independent handicrafts" (Marx - Das Kapital, vol. 1). Feudal lords, serfdom, etc, etc. Castes, widow-burning, dowry-related killings are no more signs of feudalism in India than rape and pedophilia are in the West.

[Blake's Baby]

The capitalist class developed capitalism inside feudalism; we can't develop socialism inside capitalism in the same way. Certainly the proletariat develops inside capitalism, but (again unlike feudalism) the 'new revolutionary class' in capitalism is also an exploited class. The exploited class par excellence in feudalism was the peasantry (they produced most of the labour which wasexploited for surplus production for the aristocracy and the Church), but the revolutionary class in feudalism was the bourgeoisie (they embodied the new economic forms). So exploited is not the same as revolutionary in feudalism, though it is in capitalism.

I agree with you about the dictatorship of the proletariat, it isn't socialism, it is a form of capitalism controlled by the proletariat; but, again, the difference is capitalism had its 3-500 years of economic development before the political revolutions ('English Civil War', French Revolution etc), whereas the proletariat must have its political revolution first in order to take control of the state and economy.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The capitalist class developed capitalism inside feudalism; we can't develop socialism inside capitalism in the same way. Certainly the proletariat develops inside capitalism, but (again unlike feudalism) the 'new revolutionary class' in capitalism is also an exploited class. The exploited class par excellence in feudalism was the peasantry (they produced most of the labour which wasexploited for surplus production for the aristocracy and the Church), but the revolutionary class in feudalism was the bourgeoisie (they embodied the new economic forms). So exploited is not the same as revolutionary in feudalism, though it is in capitalism.

I agree with you about the dictatorship of the proletariat, it isn't socialism, it is a form of capitalism controlled by the proletariat; but, again, the difference is capitalism had its 3-500 years of economic development before the political revolutions ('English Civil War', French Revolution etc), whereas the proletariat must have its political revolution first in order to take control of the state and economy.

I agree

[Geiseric]

The capitalist class developed capitalism inside feudalism; we can't develop socialism inside capitalism in the same way. Certainly the proletariat develops inside capitalism, but (again unlike feudalism) the 'new revolutionary class' in capitalism is also an exploited class. The exploited class par excellence in feudalism was the peasantry (they produced most of the labour which wasexploited for surplus production for the aristocracy and the Church), but the revolutionary class in feudalism was the bourgeoisie (they embodied the new economic forms). So exploited is not the same as revolutionary in feudalism, though it is in capitalism.

I agree with you about the dictatorship of the proletariat, it isn't socialism, it is a form of capitalism controlled by the proletariat; but, again, the difference is capitalism had its 3-500 years of economic development before the political revolutions ('English Civil War', French Revolution etc), whereas the proletariat must have its political revolution first in order to take control of the state and economy.

I believed that a political revolution, as defined by Marx and engels, was a revolution that didn't overthrow property relations, but was simply a different faction of the bourgeoisie coming into power. A social revolution is a revolution that takes control of the economy and the political situation. That's how I always understood it at least, so a social revolution is inevitable if the proletariat takes power, and we don't want to stop at a political revolution.

What I mean is the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood coming into power through Arab Spring is a political revolution, since it doesn't change the mode of production, but the bolsheviks coming into power and fundamentally altering the economic laws in favor of the proletariat is a social one.

[Manic Impressive]

What I mean is the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood coming into power through Arab Spring is a political revolution, since it doesn't change the mode of production, but the bolsheviks coming into power and fundamentally altering the economic laws in favor of the proletariat is a social one.
But it wasn't a change in the mode of production. So it was a political revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

I believed that a political revolution, as defined by Marx and engels, was a revolution that didn't overthrow property relations, but was simply a different faction of the bourgeoisie coming into power. A social revolution is a revolution that takes control of the economy and the political situation. That's how I always understood it at least, so a social revolution is inevitable if the proletariat takes power, and we don't want to stop at a political revolution.

What I mean is the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood coming into power through Arab Spring is a political revolution, since it doesn't change the mode of production, but the bolsheviks coming into power and fundamentally altering the economic laws in favor of the proletariat is a social one.

The revolutions against feudalism didn't fundamentally overturn property relations; property relations had been undermined by the rising economic power of the bourgeoisie for several hundred years before the political revolutions of the 17th-19th centuries made them masters of the state.

The political revolution of the proletariat must in some sense precede the social (or maybe economic) revolution: the proletariat must control the state and economy before it can abolish them. The 'political revolution' is the seizure of power; the 'social revolution' is the destruction of capitalism and the state.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Historical Materialism shouldn't be thought of in a strict, stageist way - so yes, it could be possible for capitalism and feudalism to exist alongside each other within the same geographical space.

Indeed, far from capitalism being a complete succession and replacement of feudalism, it may be that capitalism uses certain features of feudalism - the strong state, social hierarchies, links between the ruling and landowning classes, etc. - in order to enhance and propagate itself. It can use antiquated forms of social relationship like caste, invent new forms of racism, and play-up fundamentalist religion, in order to govern the population in a "divide and rule" fashion.

Also, as has already been said, India is part of a world system, and the various particular features of its capitalism can develop at hugely divergent rates according to the needs of the global economy. It may be that the social upheavals and class struggles in Europe that precipitated capitalism "from within" did not occur in the same way in India, where capitalist economic relations were rather imposed "from outside" via colonial domination.

[Geiseric]

But it wasn't a change in the mode of production. So it was a political revolution.

Well they started a planned economy which did change the mode of production. So it was social.

[Manic Impressive]

Well they started a planned economy which did change the mode of production. So it was social.
planned economy is not a mode of production but a way of managing capitalism. So no political

[Geiseric]

planned economy is not a mode of production but a way of managing capitalism. So no political

No it's definitely different than capitalism, especially since there's no private ownership, and nothing like unemployment, abject poverty, a ruling class... There was only a state that took form in between capitalism and socialism, what marx called "bonapartist."

[Blake's Baby]

Broody, you always mistake political forms for economic forms.

Economic forms are, in the context we live in, either socialism or capitalism. Unless you want to argue the Soviet Union was a socialist society, it must have been a capitalist society. Whether it was a capitalist society with private capital, or with state (national) capital, is immaterial here - Engels covered this in the 1880s, for Darwin's sake.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

for Darwin's sake.

No.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Capitalism developed in feudalism, because the bourgeoisie was a new exploiting class that developed its economic power 'in the cracks' inside the feudal system, as the bourgeoisie (first in the 'free towns' away from control by lords) was able to exploit the new proletariat.

I would suggest capitalistic relations were born earlier. A lot of people (including many Marxists) plot the origins of capitalism from the origin of towns, merchant capital's takeover of the handicrafts and guilds and so on, but really you need to look further back into the 14th century and the changing social relations in villages; the process of the poorer peasants becoming landless labourers and the wealthier peasants (farmers, husbandmen and yeomen) becoming so wealthy that they produced beyond subsistence, at profit, and indeed employed the aforementioned poorer peasants as wage labourers, which is quite well documented in manorial rolls and court records.


Socialism doesn't develop inside capitalism, because socialism is not a new exploiting social system, we don't have some kind of slave class to exploit for a couple of hundred years to develop our economic power. So unlike the transition from capitalism to feudalism, we won't have a long period of development of socialism as an economic system before the political revolution to establish proletarian power.

Also, unlike the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the transition to socialism will not happen piecemeal over a couple of hundred years. Feudalism was a local system, caitalism could defeat it locally. Capitalism has become a world system, it must be defeated as a world system.

In sum: though the transition from feudalism to capitalism was a piecemeal transition, the transition to socialist society can't be.

Of course, this is all theoretical. Whilst it would not be properly historical materialism to suggest that the move from the capitalist to communist mode of production will mirror the move from feudalism to capitalism (i.e. a general theory of transitioning modes of production), one would have to think that at least some of the features will be shared; I mean, we KNOW that the revolutionary class just like before, will come from inside the declining mode of production (the split peasantry in feudalism, the working class in capitalism), we know that moving from a class society to a post-class society will involve a transition in social structure which, unlike the political side of the revolutionary process (i.e. power!), will certainly NOT happen overnight.

Just food for thought.

[Art Vandelay]

No.

Why not? It seems like an acceptable substitution for 'for god's sake' for an atheist to use, even if it's a tad cheesy.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Why not? It seems like an acceptable substitution for 'for god's sake' for an atheist to use, even if it's a tad cheesy.

Nope.

[Let's Get Free]

No it's definitely different than capitalism, especially since there's no private ownership, and nothing like unemployment, abject poverty, a ruling class... There was only a state that took form in between capitalism and socialism, what marx called "bonapartist."

You cannot have something "in between" capitalism and socialism anymore than you can have something in between the pregnancy and not being pregnant. It's one or the other.

[Blake's Baby]

I would suggest capitalistic relations were born earlier. A lot of people (including many Marxists) plot the origins of capitalism from the origin of towns, merchant capital's takeover of the handicrafts and guilds and so on, but really you need to look further back into the 14th century and the changing social relations in villages; the process of the poorer peasants becoming landless labourers and the wealthier peasants (farmers, husbandmen and yeomen) becoming so wealthy that they produced beyond subsistence, at profit, and indeed employed the aforementioned poorer peasants as wage labourers, which is quite well documented in manorial rolls and court records...

I'm not sure why you think this contradicts what I said. In an earlier post, quoted by Negative Creep, I say "the difference is capitalism had its 3-500 years of economic development before the political revolutions". The English bourgeoisie (actually, the developing 'British' bourgeoisie) had its political revolution from 1640 or thereabouts. 300 years before that is 1340. I regard the period of the Hundred Years War (1337-1453) as being crucial for the development of capitalism in England, France and the Low Countries, and slightly later Scotland, Italy and Germany too (due to the knock-on effects of the war on neighbouring countries).



...
Of course, this is all theoretical. Whilst it would not be properly historical materialism to suggest that the move from the capitalist to communist mode of production will mirror the move from feudalism to capitalism (i.e. a general theory of transitioning modes of production), one would have to think that at least some of the features will be shared; I mean, we KNOW that the revolutionary class just like before, will come from inside the declining mode of production (the split peasantry in feudalism, the working class in capitalism), we know that moving from a class society to a post-class society will involve a transition in social structure which, unlike the political side of the revolutionary process (i.e. power!), will certainly NOT happen overnight...

The peasantry was not the revolutionary class in feudalism. The bourgeoisie was the revolutionary class in feudalism. That's the difference. The proletariat is both the exploited class (analogue of the peasantry in feudalism) and the revolutionary class (anaologue of the bourgeoisie in feudalism). That's why the socialist revolution has to be different. We can't build our economic power before our revolution (unlike the bourgeoisie) because we're too busy being exploited.

[Luís Henrique]

You cannot have something "in between" capitalism and socialism anymore than you can have something in between the pregnancy and not being pregnant. It's one or the other.

Well...

You are not pregnant, but you have already taken the decision to become so.
You are not pregnant, but you are already having regular sexual relations to that end.
You are not pregnant, but the spermatozoids are already on their way towards your ovaries.
You are not pregnant, but your ovule has already been fecundated, and is moving towards the uterus.

You are pregnant, but have already taken the decision to terminate the pregnancy.
You are pregnant, but are already in the waiting room of Planned Parenthood, waiting for your abortion.
You are pregnant, but the doctor is already inserting the appropriate instrument into you, to perform an abortion.

You are pregnant, but the fetus is already moving towards the open.

Your baby is halfway out your vagina (are you pregnant?)

***************

Lots of "transitional states" in my opinion.

(More than Thomas Aquinas would have reckoned in any way.)

Luís Henrique

[greenjuice]

America basically went from slavery to capitalism, right? Skipped the feudalism part of "historic progression". And during the abolitionist movement, a lot of them were actually for socialism, seeing wage labor as a kind of servitude, that's actually when and where the term "wage slavery" developed, so they were not only for skipping feudalism, but also capitalism, going from slavery to a classless economy of workers' self-management.

[Rusty Shackleford]

You, my friend, are succumbing to the most ruthless version of Stalinism. :crying:

Are you referring to national chauvanism?

[Rafiq]

Capitalism having completely replaced feudalism? In India, for instance, there is caste system, widow burning, dowry related deaths, in short, aspects of feudalism still survive.

So isn't an analysis based on the Marxist method a little inaccurate here? Wouldnt this method apply only to industrialized nations? In semi-feudal societies like india, africa, the exploitation of workers may have more to do with 'feudalistic leftovers' and less to do with the principles of capitalist production.

Firstly, the materialist conception of history is not an intrinsic component of communist ideology. Stop using Communsim and marxism interchangeably, it's exceedingly irritating, though judging some of the other posts you've had the grace to privilege us with, it's of no surprise that to you Marxism means nothing beyond simply being another word for "communism". Had you the slightest understanding of the notion of historical materialism, an understanding of Marxism as a completely revolutionary understanding of human social movement I can guarantee that at least half the things you've posted you would not have.

Now, to answer your question, I don't know of any Marxists who've claimed that Feudalism has been completely eradicated on a global scale. Alas, out of my own generosity I will not simply dismiss this as a straw man, though. India never experienced a radical political change that (on a political level) solidified the hegemony of the bourgeois class. Instead, over time, dynamically, the bourgeois class took control of the newly independent state and previous remnants of Feudalism (the caste system, etc.) were radically adjusted to the hunger of capital. I don't know if the developments in India's forces of production will eventually do away with these, but I can tell you that Liberalism and Capitalism are not necessarily a two-deal package, i.e. Liberalism has been for the most part a phenomena for the European bourgeoisie and the state's that it has influenced.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Rosa Luxembourg writes interestingly on this subject in her Anti-Critique of "Accumulation". She suggests that, in reality, capitalism requires the existence of non-capitalist strata for its continuing function - after all, if all intercourse exists within the realm of the bourgeoisie and proletariat, accumulation necessarily hits a limit. In fact, the constant expansion of capital, and its continuing proletarianization of new peoples and classes is necessary. As such, a Marxist analysis of capitalism presumes that non-capitalist forms persist (or else this shit would be over already).

Yup.

[Geiseric]

Broody, you always mistake political forms for economic forms.

Economic forms are, in the context we live in, either socialism or capitalism. Unless you want to argue the Soviet Union was a socialist society, it must have been a capitalist society. Whether it was a capitalist society with private capital, or with state (national) capital, is immaterial here - Engels covered this in the 1880s, for Darwin's sake.

But state capital, if it abides by the laws of use instead of exchange value, is not capitalism in the contemporary sense. Nazis had state interferance in the ecnomy which still abode by the laws of the market whereas productive property in the USSR didn't abide by a single law of market economies, and development and distribution of economic goods didn't actually profit anybody, since there was no private ownership of the capital. Seemingly fundamental laws of capital did not, 0%, abide by any laws of capitaism, or else the suger bought from Cuba wouldn't of been bought, and the current state of the russan economy would of existed as long ago as 1930, which they did not.

[Blake's Baby]

But that just made it inefficient, not socialist. And you ducked the question of what economic system you think comes between capitalism and socialism.

[robbo203]

Well...

You are not pregnant, but you have already taken the decision to become so.
You are not pregnant, but you are already having regular sexual relations to that end.
You are not pregnant, but the spermatozoids are already on their way towards your ovaries.
You are not pregnant, but your ovule has already been fecundated, and is moving towards the uterus.

You are pregnant, but have already taken the decision to terminate the pregnancy.
You are pregnant, but are already in the waiting room of Planned Parenthood, waiting for your abortion.
You are pregnant, but the doctor is already inserting the appropriate instrument into you, to perform an abortion.

You are pregnant, but the fetus is already moving towards the open.

Your baby is halfway out your vagina (are you pregnant?)

***************

Lots of "transitional states" in my opinion.

(More than Thomas Aquinas would have reckoned in any way.)

Luís Henrique

All you are saying here is that there are transitional states within capitalism and within communism but not between them which is fair enough (and the more interesting argument is about what these transitional states can and, equally importantly, cannot consist in). I contend, for instance, that we are in the capitalist transitional state right now and have been ever since capitalism became technically obsolete circa the beginning of the 20th century.

But it still remains the case that you are either pregnant or you are not - does it not?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The peasantry was not the revolutionary class in feudalism. The bourgeoisie was the revolutionary class in feudalism. That's the difference. The proletariat is both the exploited class (analogue of the peasantry in feudalism) and the revolutionary class (anaologue of the bourgeoisie in feudalism). That's why the socialist revolution has to be different. We can't build our economic power before our revolution (unlike the bourgeoisie) because we're too busy being exploited.

There was no bourgeoisie under feudalism. There were peasants (free and unfree), Lords and then higher (so Knights and above..).

Where do you think the bourgeoisie originated? They didn't just come from the ranks of the manorial Lords. They came largely from the wealthier peasantry, who by the 14th century had started to not only accumulate large landholdings, but had actually started to employ poorer peasants and produce therefore at a surplus. I haven't had a chance to look at market trade records, but from what I understand, there is evidence of this surplus from such records.

There was a definite division, by the 14th Century, between wealthier peasants and poorer peasants. By 1381, it's difficult to really think of the peasantry as a group with homogenous interests. In fact i'd argue by this point in time the wealthier peasants' interests were largely becoming similar to those of the Lords (i.e. forming a bourgeoisie) and the poorer peasants were becoming, largely landless, wage labourers.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But state capital, if it abides by the laws of use instead of exchange value, is not capitalism in the contemporary sense. Nazis had state interferance in the ecnomy which still abode by the laws of the market whereas productive property in the USSR didn't abide by a single law of market economies, and development and distribution of economic goods didn't actually profit anybody, since there was no private ownership of the capital. Seemingly fundamental laws of capital did not, 0%, abide by any laws of capitaism, or else the suger bought from Cuba wouldn't of been bought, and the current state of the russan economy would of existed as long ago as 1930, which they did not.

You're arguing about degrees of capitalism here. There's no such thing as a degree of a mode of production. A society is either capitalist or it is feudalist or it is neither of these (i.e. some un-forseeable future post-capitalist society).

Capitalism requires money, states, a bourgeoisie, a proletariat and exchange. Exchange doesn't have to be perfect competition or imperfect competition. In fact many Marxian/radical economists would argue that competition is merely a temporary form of exchange, and that oligopoly/tendencies towards monopoly also make up genuine long-run forms of exchange under capitalism. There's a large body of work in Marxism (Cowling, Sweezy et al.) that says there is a tendency towards monopoly under Capitalism.

In other words, the form of exchange is never static, and so just because production and exchange were somewhat different in the USSR to the western capitalist economies, does not disqualify it from being a capitalist mode of production. In fact, it cannot have been anything else.

[Blake's Baby]

There was no bourgeoisie under feudalism. There were peasants (free and unfree), Lords and then higher (so Knights and above..)...

Are you serious?

Of course there was a bourgeoisie under feudalism, it just wasn't the dominant class in society. It didn't create itself in 1640 out of nothing and have a revolution. It had been developing since the 1300s.


...Where do you think the bourgeoisie originated? They didn't just come from the ranks of the manorial Lords. They came largely from the wealthier peasantry, who by the 14th century had started to not only accumulate large landholdings, but had actually started to employ poorer peasants and produce therefore at a surplus. I haven't had a chance to look at market trade records, but from what I understand, there is evidence of this surplus from such records...

So you think there was a bourgeoisie, as I said earlier, and contrary to what you just said?

What is it that you're attempting to argue here? Perhaps if you sorted out what you're trying to say, you might not end up flatly contradicting yourself. What you are doing at the moment is disagreeing with what I'm saying, and then repeating the argument you just disagreed with in slightly different words.

Example:


...There was a definite division, by the 14th Century, between wealthier peasants and poorer peasants. By 1381, it's difficult to really think of the peasantry as a group with homogenous interests. In fact i'd argue by this point in time the wealthier peasants' interests were largely becoming similar to those of the Lords (i.e. forming a bourgeoisie) and the poorer peasants were becoming, largely landless, wage labourers.

The main argument I have with this is that the interests of the 'wealthier peasants' were ' largely becoming similar to those of the Lords'; I disagree, the rising bourgeoisie was coming to challenge the aristocracy for hegemony of society, but if you merely mean that both were exploiting classes, and each had its own interest in continuing class domination, then yes, I agree.

[John]

Capitalism having completely replaced feudalism? In India, for instance, there is caste system, widow burning, dowry related deaths, in short, aspects of feudalism still survive.

So isn't an analysis based on the Marxist method a little inaccurate here? Wouldnt this method apply only to industrialized nations? In semi-feudal societies like india, africa, the exploitation of workers may have more to do with 'feudalistic leftovers' and less to do with the principles of capitalist production.
And in the Amazon we see some forms of primitive communism. Get my point?

[Narodnik]

A set of stages of historical progression that Marxism talkes about is listed as: primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism.

USA went from slavery to capitalism.

Also, there's also the Marxist idea that socialism can only come in the most industrially developed capitalist societies where there are basically only the capitalists and the wage-workers (the peasants and artisant basically dissappearing).

In Ukraine and Spain entire societies have established funcioning systems that deposed capitalists and abolished capital, and in both those examples, the wage-workers were a minority.

Do these real-worlds examples show that the two mentioned Marxist ideas about economic progression are false?

[1848]

You state that the method would exclusively apply to the industrialised nations, and that is true. However, industrialisation is highly imperialistic (as imperialism is the highest form of capitalism and industry at first exists alongside capitalism) and as a result it will spread. For instance, take the industrialisation of India by the British Empire during the 19th and 20th centuries. It is natural for nations to industralise; otherwise, they would be far too behind in terms of technology and living condition. Also, previously-industralised nations would exploit non-industrialised nations and bring their culture and industry along. Certain conditions must be met for unions to spring out.