Marx and non-developed countries

[Sotionov]

Marx's idea was that in the most developed countries there will be a rise of the proletariat and the establishment of the DotP (which would be followed by socialism/communism), and accordingly Marxists have organized to advocate and fight fot that.

What was Marx's view about the rest of the countries? Should people in them (especially if they are Marxist) advocate DotP/socialism/communism, or advocate and fight for (or at least do nothing to opposse) the development of capitalism?

[tuwix]

But the most famous Marx's discovery was class struggle. And class struggle will last until all stratification will be erased. I don't know is it possible, but it is perfectly possible to elliminate a private and state property which is the source of major stratification. And class struggle happens everywhere. There is no matter is country developed or not. Marx only suggested that developed countries are the most propable place for that. But class struggle will cause attempts to build socialism in all world.

[the demoralist]

Marx's idea was that in the most developed countries there will be a rise of the proletariat and the establishment of the DotP (which would be followed by socialism/communism), and accordingly Marxists have organized to advocate and fight fot that.

For me, this is poses one of the biggest problems Marxism must address.

The only places when nominally "Marxist" regimes have consolidated themselves have been developing regions like Russia, China, parts of Africa, and so on. The tendency has been to see it as a way of catching up with the west through an alternative path to development to that of liberal industrial capitalism. Less as the "negation" of liberal capitalism, coming from within itself.

But in one reading of Marx's theory, class consciousness is the outcome of economic and technological developments outpacing the limits of bourgeois ideology.
England, which arguably industrialised first, never really experienced anything like a full-blown class consciousness that reached beyond prevailing bourgeois ideology (except for the relatively small socialist and communist parties). Neither has the USA. So there is a problem here.
Germany might be cited as an example of an advanced capitalist working class becoming revolutionary, but I tend to see their revolution more as the outcome of the catastrophe of defeat and economic chaos after WW1. Prior to that their labour movement was only becoming more bureaucratic and parliamentarian, like the rest of the west.

I'm sure Trotsky has something to say here.

[Karlorax]

I don't think the best way of looking at it is developed and non-developed. Both the First and Third World are "mal-developed" so to speak. It isn't like the First World as it currently exists should be seen as the goal of the Third World. Nor did the current First World emerge (on the whole) from ex-colonies, semi-colonies, and neocolonies that make up the Third World today.

__________________

Currently reading, dare to join me? I am no Leading Light Communist, but I am studying their work for my MA thesis

Leading Light on Conspiracy Theory is Intelligent Design (http://llco.org/leading-light-on-conspiracy-theory-is-intelligent-design/)
Was Lin Biao guilty plotting a coup? Part 1 of 2 (draft) (http://llco.org/draft-was-lin-biao-guilty-plotting-a-coup-part-1-of-2/)
Revisiting Value and Exploitation (http://llco.org/revisiting-value-and-exploitation/)
What about the Gulag? Mao’s errors? Stalin’s? (http://llco.org/revolutionary-history-initial-summations/)

[Skyhilist]

Does it really matter what Marx's view was?

What should be important is what is most relevant and applicable today. Using Marx's method (although maybe ignoring the conclusions about the 3rd world made back in the 19th century, which he didn't seem to try to make a major point of in the first place), I'd say it should be obvious that fighting for socialism is superior to fighting for capitalism. The third world is the most exploited part of the world. They need liberation and a reprieve from capitalist exploitation more than anyone. They should fight just as hard as people in the first world, if not harder.

The only difference is that 3rd world revolutions are less likely to be a catalyst for global revolution as 1st world revolutions. That doesn't mean they should just throw in the towel. Even if a 3rd world country liberating themselves isn't what leads to global liberation, at least they bettered their quality of living and made things better off for themselves than under capitalist exploitation. This seems abundantly evident for groups like the Zapatistas. Surely they would not have been better off had they simply given into the exploitation imposed on them by the neoliberal Mexican government?

But yeah, the Marxist method is meant to be applied universally, regardless of time period. If you're a Marxist, why not use it to analyze our current time period on your own, rather than relying on some conclusions reached by that method way back in the 18th century that may have reflected social conditions that are marginalized no longer present today?

[Prof. Oblivion]

What is an "undeveloped" or "noncapitalist" country????

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, I think shit is complicated on two fronts.
The first is ortho-"Marxist" conceptions of "progressive" development, where proletarianization and industrialization are understood to be the necessary preconditions for a communist end of history. It should be obvious, from our vantage point, that this says more about Marx's milieu than it does about historical reality. Secondly, in the 20th century, capitalism has become a world system premised on the international division of labour: countries where "pre-capitalist" or "non-capitalist" forms persist (subsistence agriculture, for example) are still not "outside" of capitalism, but in peculiar relation to it (these "pre-capitalist" forms remaining absolutely necessary for the reproduction of variable capital, and, y'know, the working class not starving to death . . . though that does happen too).
So, yeah, echoing Skigear, what Marx thought in particular isn't going to be "on target" in this regard. However, if we take what Marx did get right, and ask, "So, where's the industrial proletariat with nothing to lose but their chains?" Well, unsurprisingly, it's in the "majority world" (aka "third world", "periphery" and "semi-periphery", etc.).
This reminds me, I really need to read "The Accumulation of Capital".

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Most countries considered 'third-world' have developed far further industrially than most of the countries Marx called developed and thought capable of revolution in his time, despite the neo-colonial wealth-gap between the western nations and.. well, everywhere else.

E.g. China's GDP per capita is absolutely miniscule (yet some trotskyist or maoist extremist somewhere somehow will try to defend it) but it has the infrastructure to rival the biggest capitalist nations on earth.

[RedCeltic]

This I think, touches on Leon Trotsky's theories of permanent Revolution. Marx had actually viewed Socialism as a natural evolutionary process of society and felt that capitalism was a needed step in the evolution of society from an agricultural society into a socialist and eventually communist and stateless one. Lenin himself had said about the prospects of socialism in Russia, that the conditions were not ideal. England in a way had benefited from the black plague. The loss of so many surfs due to the disease crushed the institution of surfdom in England and paved the way for industrialization. This, had happened later in history when napoleon's forces marched through Europe... the Emperor ended surfdom in all nations that fell to his French legions. This excluded Russia however where Surfdom was allowed to fester until finally being removed by the revolution. Stalin, naturally attempted to fast forward with is plans for rapid industrialization. So, while in time, others like Trotsky and Stalin have found alternative ways of building on Marx's theories, Marx himself was not opposed to the ideas of Capitalism and Imperialism as needed steps forward... imperialism being that force that would spread industrialization to the non developed world such as we see today in the globalized economy.

[Zergling]

I don't see how it would be any different from an industrialized nation in Europe like Germany helping a not so industrialized nation out like Romania. Out of all the countries of the world, I think a vast majority of nations where assisting them go through industrialization would be difficult would be African ones. South America, Asia, and the Middle East despite still lacking compared to the West are well enough where industrialization and assistance when needed from proletarians from the developed world wouldn't be impossible to achieve. Heck Brazil, China, and a number of others have industrialized in such a short amount of time it is incredible and could be spread elsewhere.

[blake 3:17]

Lots of garbage that advocates capitalist development as a universal. Worst part of Marxism.

[Bea Arthur]

What about a people's right NOT to develop??? Every people should have that freedom.

[bluemangroup]

Notably Lenin called for a 'revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry,' as Russia at the time of the 1905 Revolution was predominately rural with a growing urban working-class/proletariat class in the cities.

Lenin's strategy for the building of a revolutionary society post-revolution showcased a strong awareness that socialism would be hard(er) to build in backwards Russia esp. without outside (European) help. Hence why post-October 1917 he and his party banked the success of the Russian Revolution on the simultaneous triumph of a European-wide revolution particularly in Germany and Italy wherein a revolution had the greatest chance of success.

IMHO Marx still saw the possibility of a eastern (Russian) revolution, esp. in his letter addressed to Vera Zasulich but primarily he saw socialism as having the greatest chance of success in the advanced capitalist nations (Germany, Britain, etc.)

So IMHO socialism wasn't impossible in Russia or China, but proved nonetheless harder to construct post-revolution.

[Rafiq]

Lots of garbage that advocates capitalist development as a universal. Worst part of Marxism.

Within today's context yes....