What is the difference between the forms of capitalism?

[MikeN]

I've been wondering what makes capitalism in the rich half of the world and in particular in western europe (germany, france, sweden, uk, ect) different from the same system in the rest of the world (ukraine, bangladesh, philippines ect)? What is their success based on? Why is it that in those countries life is possible because there are jobs and human rights while in all others from the 2nd group it is not possible, unemployment is 90%, no human rights, hunger, ect?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Nowhere in the world is there an unemployment rate of 90%. Capitalist society would literally cease to function with such a high rate of unemployment.

Capitalism, fundamentally, doesn't differ at all across borders - you have a working class toiling and a capitalist class accumulating wealth off the backs of those labouring. However, there are historic factors that have led to the capitalist financial institutions of the 'west' dominating and out-competing the 'emerging' economies in the world. In part, it's just the sheer amount of capital accumulated by the old financial institutions - there are literally some pension funds in the City of London that are centuries old and have been investing and accumulating wealth and capital in all the time they've existed. Perhaps more relevant is the fact that the financial institutions of the 'west' have dominated businesses in the sorts of countries like Bangladesh or the Philippines since before decolonisation and continued to do so regardless of the flags changing.

Workers in the 'west' fought long battles and struggled hard for centuries to win themselves better conditions, better wages and rights and as a result they live a comparatively 'better' life but all those struggles taught both us and the capitalist class vital lessons which the capitalist class is now utilising to prevent those same conditions being repeated the world over and simultaneously has led to the atomisation of the working class in the 'west'. Fundamentally, imperialism is an international system of combined and uneven development - it is a system that is simultaneous in its rapid global growth and its local stagnation, all predicated on ensuring the most profitable extraction of wealth.

[MikeN]

So simple, their success is in the fact of them being old and monopolists? If venesuela now takes up the neo liberal course it will not become rich and prosperous overnight (despite the reassurances of the west and beliefs of the people in that country), it will only be poorer. Just like it did not happen in the former ussr, where people gave up state capitalism for the transition to neo liberalism in hope for "a better life", and where they still continue paying the hard price of that lesson (war in ukraine), and who knows what that price may become in the future. Is that right?

[willowtooth]

I've been wondering what makes capitalism in the rich half of the world and in particular in western europe (germany, france, sweden, uk, ect) different from the same system in the rest of the world (ukraine, bangladesh, philippines ect)? What is their success based on? Why is it that in those countries life is possible because there are jobs and human rights while in all others from the 2nd group it is not possible, unemployment is 90%, no human rights, hunger, ect?
war...capitalism is defined by war and exploitation, if "bangladesh" owned and controlled more land, like say half of southeast asia then "capitalism" would work much better for them... but they don't... so they're all poor and stuff

[MikeN]

Nowhere in the world is there an unemployment rate of 90%. Capitalist society would literally cease to function with such a high rate of unemployment.
In industrial capitalism (n america, w europe) the employer and the employee are connected with the value (labour). However in the 3d world there are some peculiar forms of economic systems with very little or no production that i would like to consider. 1. What happens if we (hypothetically) divide all the land in a country and distribute it equally between citizens (create sort of agrarian communism)? it would slide into feudalism (some would become lords, some serfs, ect), right? 2. What if capitalists don't need labour and make money out of natural resources, natural rents (russian model)? They buy a piece of machinery in china that would last lets say 100 years; this machine converts one type of natural resource (energy) into products or semi products (food, furniture, cars, ect): in agriculture 10 people plow, sow, harvest crops from huge pieces of land using machinery. So what is the place for labor force here? Capitalists are generally happy without them. It's either you do like in saudi arabia, pay dividends to everyone (communism) or some would have more, some - less or nothing (this is the essence of the conflict in the whole area of former ussr). 3. Small part of population, say 10% are employed in industries, 50% - are in feudal production and the remaining 40% are homeless (landless) and jobless, so they scavenge, live in slums, on the garbage dumps, by recycling plastics, eating leftovers from restaurants, ect (philippines, bangladesh). You should see that one common trait in 2 and 3 is redundant populations, capitalists could have survived on their own, there's no application for knowledge, skills, education, ect. Sometimes capitalists need certain amount of people to serve in the army (protection of the land) and they feed them, so capitalists, employees kind of change roles (russia). How would you characterize these systems, how it got to where it is and what are prospects for them?

[John Nada]

The difference is places like the US, France, Japan, Germany, ect. are imperialists. Capitalism has reached it's highest stage. Lenin lists these five characteristics of imperialism:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

Countries like Bangladesh and the Philippines are not imperialists, in fact they're oppressed by imperialism. Rather, they're semi-feudal, semi-colonial and bureaucratic capitalist. Their economies are dominated by one or more imperialist powers. Older precapitalist elements were cooped by imperialism, and a local comprador-bourgeoisie which benefits as colonial middlemen emerged. Bureaucratic-bourgeoisie associated with the state use it to accumulate wealth and their despotic rule is supported by imperialism. This type of capitalism didn't emerge from the construction of the home market and a bourgeois-democratic revolution like in the US or France(in fact, the imperialist countries subvert these to protect "their" share of the foreign market), but rather was imposed under imperialism on top of semi-feudalism.

The imperialist countries, specifically their bourgeoisie but also the the petit-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy to an extent, benefit from keeping the oppressed nations underdeveloped. The imperialist-bourgeoisie can superexploit workers and reap superprofits far beyond what's possible at home. And a fraction of that goes to the petit-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy to "buy them off".

[MikeN]

So if these 3d world countries try to establish communism, such attempts will be suppressed by the imperialists and their real fate is to remain poor, exploited nations for good? The scale of imperial propaganda is impressive: they write neo-liberal economic textbooks and put a picture with black people from bangladesh on the cover; they call them "emerging economies"? All of that has been done to such an extent that poor people in those countries sincerely believe that capitalism will make them prosperous!

[willowtooth]

So if these 3d world countries try to establish communism, such attempts will be suppressed by the imperialists and their real fate is to remain poor, exploited nations for good? The scale of imperial propaganda is impressive: they write neo-liberal economic textbooks and put a picture with black people from bangladesh on the cover; they call them "emerging economies"? All of that has been done to such an extent that poor people in those countries sincerely believe that capitalism will make them prosperous!

In fact ww2 was largely fought by the americans in order to suppress communism, FDR knew that pearl harbor would happen and let it happen anyway and couldve easily prevented it, but they wanted to make sure the communists didn't take over east asia and western europe. They then fought the korean and vietnam war, and still continuously fight against any socialist movement in south america africa, asia, any country really.

they fund the school of the assassins or as its formerly called the western hemisphere institute for security cooperation

http://www.soaw.org/

[John Nada]

So if these 3d world countries try to establish communism, such attempts will be suppressed by the imperialists and their real fate is to remain poor, exploited nations for good? The scale of imperial propaganda is impressive: they write neo-liberal economic textbooks and put a picture with black people from bangladesh on the cover; they call them "emerging economies"? All of that has been done to such an extent that poor people in those countries sincerely believe that capitalism will make them prosperous!There's a lot of ideological garbage that attempts to prettify imperialist super-exploitation. There's a picture I've seen comparing an old ad for slaves to ads for outsourcing to El Salvador. First ad has slaves for like a few hundred dollars, then another says the Salvadorian workers pay is 1.50/day(IIRC), then the same ad a couple years later half that pay!

If Third-World nations continue down the path of comprador-capitalism and semi-feudalism, they have little hope of either reforming or growing their way out of the ranks of oppressed nations. There might be some technological development, possibly even progressive reforms, but the overall base(that is, productive forces and productive relations) as well as the superstructure(state and culture) will for the most part remain semi-feudal and subjugated by imperialism. The imperialists, bourgeoisie and landowners have little interest in changing the dynamic and a lot on maintaining the status quo.

Only a national-democratic revolution, led by the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry, under the guidance of a Communist Party, can break the chains of the three evils of semi-feudalism, (semi/neo-)colonialism and bureaucratic capitalism. They can complete unfinished democratic tasks of agrarian revolution, industrialization and democratization. From there, move without stopping towards a dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction.

Funny thing is, rather than the Third-World nations can't begin constructing socialism, they're more likely to have revolutions before the First-World. Revolutions tend to break out in the weakest link, rather than the more "advance" countries. In breaking away from imperialism, this provides new revolutionary bases and deprives imperialism of it's neocolonies, weakening the imperialist-bourgeoisie. And in defeating the imperialist militaries in the inevitable intervention, this too weakens the imperialist bourgeoisie, possibly provoking revolutions in the imperialist countries too.

[ComradeAllende]

Only a national-democratic revolution, led by the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry, under the guidance of a Communist Party, can break the chains of the three evils of semi-feudalism, (semi/neo-)colonialism and bureaucratic capitalism. They can complete unfinished democratic tasks of agrarian revolution, industrialization and democratization. From there, move without stopping towards a dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction.

Wouldn't the contradictions between the class aims of the peasantry and the working class undermine the effectiveness of the national-democratic revolution? While peasants have served as the mass base for revolutionary politics in the Third World, I don't see how a socialist regime can be sustained unless either (A) the peasantry abandon private ownership of land or (B) the working class contents itself with a state-capitalist regime that attempts to build the economic foundations for socialism a la Lenin's NEP?


Funny thing is, rather than the Third-World nations can't begin constructing socialism, they're more likely to have revolutions before the First-World. Revolutions tend to break out in the weakest link, rather than the more "advance" countries. In breaking away from imperialism, this provides new revolutionary bases and deprives imperialism of it's neocolonies, weakening the imperialist-bourgeoisie. And in defeating the imperialist militaries in the inevitable intervention, this too weakens the imperialist bourgeoisie, possibly provoking revolutions in the imperialist countries too.

I'm curious as to how a Third World revolution would spark revolutionary change in the First World given contemporary circumstances. Considering the growing power of the far-right in various advanced capitalist nations, any revolutions in the Third World would either be met with harsh suppression in the advanced nations, both internally against potential insurrections and externally to retard the advance of non-imperialist nations.

[John Nada]

Wouldn't the contradictions between the class aims of the peasantry and the working class undermine the effectiveness of the national-democratic revolution? While peasants have served as the mass base for revolutionary politics in the Third World, I don't see how a socialist regime can be sustained unless either (A) the peasantry abandon private ownership of land or (B) the working class contents itself with a state-capitalist regime that attempts to build the economic foundations for socialism a la Lenin's NEP?The peasantry, exploited by the landowners and increasingly proletarianized, has an objective interest in completing the democratic revolution. The poor peasantry and semi-proletarians can be an ally of the proletariat for the socialist revolution. This was first proven in the October Revolution. The worker-peasant alliance is what the hammer and sickle represents:hammersickle:. And it wasn't Lenin or Mao who first theorized it, but Marx and Engels(The Peasant Question in France and Germany (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/index.htm), even if the former two elaborated on it in practice. Note that Engels approvingly mentions Danish Socialist, who had to primarily worked in the countryside.

The peasantry and other laboring classes can't be ignored. Each year millions of new proletarians are drawn from their ranks, moving to the cities and imperialist countries for work. And many countries with a large peasantry and semi-proletariat also possess a proletariat larger than some First World countries. Should Communists merely wait until the masses are fully proletarianized(with all the destruction of primitive accumulation) along the "Prussian path"(to the benefit of imperialism and the traditional ruling classes, retaining the autocratic features), then suddenly start caring? No, as Lenin said, a Communist should be not merely a trade unionist but a tribune of the people. For Socialism won't only liberate the proletariat, but all of the toiling masses.

There may need to be some form of NEP and/or revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry as a transitory phase. This depends on the local and international conditions. But the alternative is waiting for proletarianization to the advantage of the traditional ruling classes and to the disadvantage of not just the peasantry but the proletariat too. Whereas completing the democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat would ensure an uninterrupted move towards socialism.

What Lenin said of the two possible paths from semi-feudalism:
Those two paths of objectively possible bourgeois development we would call the Prussian path and the American path, respectively. In the first case feudal landlord economy slowly evolves into bourgeois, Junker landlord economy, which condemns the peasants to decades of most harrowing expropriation and bondage, while at the same time a small minority of Grossbauern (“big peasants”) arises. In the second case there is no landlord economy, or else it is broken up by revolution, which confiscates and splits up the feudal estates. In that case the peasant predominates, becomes the sole agent of agriculture, and evolves into a capitalist farmer. In the first case the main content of the evolution is transformation of feudal bondage into servitude and capitalist exploitation on the land of the feudal landlords—Junkers. In the second case the main background is transformation of the patriarchal peasant into a bourgeois farmer. Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/agrprogr/ch01s5.htm

Lenin alludes to this, but Prussia had an incomplete bourgeois revolution with absolutism surviving and the nobility only completely losing power after WWII, whereas the American bourgeois revolution resulted in the destruction of the planter class and the abolition of slavery. To apply it to the Third World, most(with a few exceptions) are going along the "Prussian path". That is, capitalist development retaining the precapitalist elements like the traditional elite classes, autocracy, patriarchy, usury and neocolonial subjugation. The alternative, the "American path", would mean smashing these and the establishing a revolutionary democracy as part of a minimum program, followed by steps towards socialism, the maximum program.
I'm curious as to how a Third World revolution would spark revolutionary change in the First World given contemporary circumstances. Considering the growing power of the far-right in various advanced capitalist nations, any revolutions in the Third World would either be met with harsh suppression in the advanced nations, both internally against potential insurrections and externally to retard the advance of non-imperialist nations.A Third World revolution would spark change, because that's where the center of gravity has shifted. This is rather recent, but the majority of the industrial proletariat is now located in the Third World, places where the overall situation may be similar to what the op described, but still have a large proletariat. It may be a minority in a place like India, but even if it's only 1/10 of the population, that's comparable to the US. It seems reasonable that somewhere like the Philippines, which has a vibrant democratic movement and a party with an army, is closer to revolution than the US. True, it's been fifty years of protracted people's war(possibly close to a few years until the strategic stalemate), but socialist in the US have been trying to push the Democrats and/or the unions to the left for a century and unfortunately have less to show for it.

If it comes down to revolutionary war of resistance, then the progressive side will win. This is possible, Vietnam and Cuba did it. Even unpopular reactionaries like in Afghanistan have been successfully resisting the US-led Coalition. With the support of the masses, as well as progressives in the aggressor countries, imperialism can be defeated. In defeating the imperialist armies, this will leaving them sore. No more will the workers or peasants of that liberated country suffer imperialist extortion. This will embolden the masses in other nations to rebel. Considering that the US and its allies were(are) stretched thin fighting unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq against a parochial, mostly reactionary forces, they'd have a hard time fighting several Vietnams.

There's a couple ways in which a revolutionary war can qualitatively change both sides. There's the military side, that is actually tying down imperialists, an economic side of losing the oversea investment, and a political side, in inspiring other countries to have revolutions and of turning imperialist war into class war. I think of the global socialist revolution not as some instantaneous event, but a prolonged war fought in piecemeal. Still, with climate change, the proletariat has a few decades to do what took the bourgeoisie centuries.

[MikeN]

So without a revolution all 3d world countries will have to remain in the current criminal capitalist state? It is even worse than slavery or feudalism because in them workers at least lived on the land, were not homeless, were busy growing produce and were generally self sufficient and happy (even than part of the product went to the lord). One common feature that can be traced in any corner of the world today is that there's absolutely no employment in the countryside and all people try to go to the polluted, overpopulated skyscraper/slum mega cities (or to empires) to engage in tough competitions over a small quantity of jobs and once it's won lucky ones start working to exhaustion, paying rent for themselves and sending remittances home (what happens to the losers is up to anyone to figure out as there's no statistics) Is there any way to revert these systems to the feudal/slavery state?

[willowtooth]

So without a revolution all 3d world countries will have to remain in the current criminal capitalist state? It is even worse than slavery or feudalism because in them workers at least lived on the land, were not homeless, were busy growing produce and were generally self sufficient and happy (even than part of the product went to the lord). One common feature that can be traced in any corner of the world today is that there's absolutely no employment in the countryside and all people try to go to the polluted, overpopulated skyscraper/slum mega cities (or to empires) to engage in tough competitions over a small quantity of jobs and once it's won lucky ones start working to exhaustion, paying rent for themselves and sending remittances home (what happens to the losers is up to anyone to figure out as there's no statistics) Is there any way to revert these systems to the feudal/slavery state?

Thats like asking if we can go back to when people thought the world was flat, its impossible and the concept itself is a bit eurocentric, you wouldn't describe the Sentinelese or the Ayoreo to be capitalists. The "countryside" is largely a product of modern agricultural development. For most of human history we have always congregated and formed a "city" of somekind. It's sort of a romantic fantasy that doesn't really exist, its rare to even meet someone who grew up in a small rural town who doesn't hate it and want to leave as soon as they can. The same goes for most people in the 3rd world countryside as well. Marx wrote about western europe not the entire world he was in fact surprised to hear that africans wanted to be communists.

So the question can be asked, should or can barbaric societies become capitalist without resorting to feudalism and slavery? Do we bulldoze the rainforest to build them a walmart and fucking denny's? Do we invite them into the major cities and subject them to all the things you just listed? Or do we allow them to starve in the jungle and let them and their kids die from easily curable diseases?

What do you think?

[MikeN]

its rare to even meet someone who grew up in a small rural town who doesn't hate it and want to leave as soon as they can That was true for the 20th century. In the 21 on the contrary people should want to go back to the countryside because cities became unlivable and serve as a temporary place of stay for majority only as long as they work hard, under a constant fear of being thrown out to the slums.

Or do we allow them to starve in the jungle and let them and their kids die from easily curable diseases? In the 21 c there must be huge numbers of those to whom it happens as a result of being pushed out to the streets of the big cities, so jungle may be much safer in this respect.


I don't have enough knowledge yet to interpret what is happening, but i would like to share my observations so that experienced people on the forum make a "diagnosis" of the disease that i believe a bigger part of the world is afflicted with and try to come up with solutions.
1. Today all over the world (with exception of the empire nations) there is no work. Education, knowledge, skills are of absolutely no use (in the 20 c it was different- a person with skills could easily find employment). After getting a master's degree a person needs to spend like 6 years constantly sending his cvs and possibility of being hired is very low.
2. All people go to big cities in a rat race, but the number of those who lose the race and what happens to them afterwards is unknown. No capitalist government keeps statistics on homeless, they also remove bodies from the streets, so that the general picture for the society looks good. The figure that every government does have is the number of people in the country = n of passports.
I know that for example in the 19 cent's russia before the ussr there was a feudal system which was bad, but better compared to what came after the capitalist transition of 1990. Similarly in asia, other parts of the world there might have been feudal systems of the same kind, not without shortcomings but much better than what they are today.
So in your opinion its not possible to go back to the feudal arrangement, but a communist revolution isn't a real option either. Where is the world heading to? What does Marx say about it?

[willowtooth]

That was true for the 20th century. In the 21 on the contrary people should want to go back to the countryside because cities became unlivable and serve as a temporary place of stay for majority only as long as they work hard, under a constant fear of being thrown out to the slums.

No absolutely not, it is a constant romanticization that the "countryside is so much nicer than the cities", and this is because the rich can afford to move there, they can afford to move anywhere really and live comfortably. This causes people to move out to the suburbs and extrapolate costs onto the rest of society so they can all be made of ticky tacky

2_2lGkEU4Xs


In the 21 c there must be huge numbers of those to whom it happens as a result of being pushed out to the streets of the big cities, so jungle may be much safer in this respect.


I don't have enough knowledge yet to interpret what is happening, but i would like to share my observations so that experienced people on the forum make a "diagnosis" of the disease that i believe a bigger part of the world is afflicted with and try to come up with solutions.
1. Today all over the world (with exception of the empire nations) there is no work. Education, knowledge, skills are of absolutely no use (in the 20 c it was different- a person with skills could easily find employment). After getting a master's degree a person needs to spend like 6 years constantly sending his cvs and possibility of being hired is very low.
2. All people go to big cities in a rat race, but the number of those who lose the race and what happens to them afterwards is unknown. No capitalist government keeps statistics on homeless, they also remove bodies from the streets, so that the general picture for the society looks good. The figure that every government does have is the number of people in the country = n of passports.
I know that for example in the 19 cent's russia before the ussr there was a feudal system which was bad, but better compared to what came after the capitalist transition of 1990. Similarly in asia, other parts of the world there might have been feudal systems of the same kind, not without shortcomings but much better than what they are today.
So in your opinion its not possible to go back to the feudal arrangement, but a communist revolution isn't a real option either. Where is the world heading to? What does Marx say about it? there was a recent economic study which found that 14th century English peasants had more vacation time than the average worker today, and you could easily find similair stories about specific regions and places of time that had maybe some benefits that we do not have today, but again we can not just go back in time, to when we didn't know the earth was round. Anything short of maybe a nuclear extinction and a restarting of humanity so to speak wouldn't allow us to go back to the lives of feudal peasants in 14th century England, no matter how much vacation time they got

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html

There is no need to "go back to a feudal system" since feudal systems still exist, there are still kings and queens. Saudi Arabia can easily be described as a feudal monarchy. I own the land by genetic descent therefore you must pay me so and so much money I deem fit. Thats basically how saudi arabia and everyother monarchy is really organized. Even though we typically use this word to describe medieval Western Europe the system still exists in the world. And you can visit it anytime you want to lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history

[MikeN]

No absolutely not, it is a constant romanticization that the "countryside is so much nicer than the cities", and this is because the rich can afford to move there Whatever you say. However the cost of room anywhere in the world starts from 200$/month and it takes from 3 months up to years to find a job and a certain % of people will never find it. For this category there's no place in cities nor in countryside. The question im asking: how to solve the problem of redundant homeless, jobless, ect populations who have nothing, for whom under the current system there's no place anywhere? In our time instead of something (work, slavery) nothing is offered. Strict birth control is needed for the future in every country. Mini communist societies, feudal societies? People want to go to slavery, they are searching for slave masters randomly and end up in terrible conditions! How much easier it would be if there was one global database of all masters.

Saudi Arabia can easily be described as a feudal monarchy. I own the land by genetic descent therefore you must pay me so and so much money I deem fit. I think saudi arabia is a communist country because every citizen there receives a share of natural rent.

Thats basically how saudi arabia and everyother monarchy is really organized. Isnt it organized the same way anywhere in the world? If you are landless(homeless) you cannot get land! Even in empires in w europe workers pay to landlords 50-70% of the monthly income just for a place to sleep (you cant sleep at work, can you?) What will happen if they increase rent to 100% of the wage?

[John Nada]

So without a revolution all 3d world countries will have to remain in the current criminal capitalist state? It is even worse than slavery or feudalism because in them workers at least lived on the land, were not homeless, were busy growing produce and were generally self sufficient and happy (even than part of the product went to the lord). One common feature that can be traced in any corner of the world today is that there's absolutely no employment in the countryside and all people try to go to the polluted, overpopulated skyscraper/slum mega cities (or to empires) to engage in tough competitions over a small quantity of jobs and once it's won lucky ones start working to exhaustion, paying rent for themselves and sending remittances home (what happens to the losers is up to anyone to figure out as there's no statistics) Is there any way to revert these systems to the feudal/slavery state?Semi-feudalism and bureaucratic-capitalism is almost the worst of both worlds. However, there is no reverting back to the "glorious past", anymore than a tree shrinking back to a seed. This anti-Enlightenment romanticism is fascism. You can see that embodied in reactionary parties like the BJP in India or AKP of Turkey.

This sentiment is not new. Marx describes this in the Communist Manifesto (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm) as a form of Reactionary Socialism, Feudal Socialism, the so-called socialism of the feudal exploiting classes like the nobility and clergy, who have contradictions with the bourgeoisie but are even more reactionary.
Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation[A], these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.(1)

In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus, the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophesies of coming catastrophe.

In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.
In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.

For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeois amounts to this, that under the bourgeois régime a class is being developed which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society.

What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat as that it creates a revolutionary proletariat.Bold mine: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm This is the so-called "socialism" of despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia.

The dying ruling classes oppose capitalism and bourgeois-democracy from the right. They are no friends to the working-classes. These compradors, landowners and clergy claim to oppose capitalism not because they care about the plight of the masses, but because it creates a new revolutionary class, the proletariat. A class most dangerous to the exploiter, for it can end class altogether.
So in your opinion its not possible to go back to the feudal arrangement, but a communist revolution isn't a real option either. Where is the world heading to? What does Marx say about it?Not only can't you go back to a feudal mode of production(the material base, capitalist productive forces and productive relations, are here and not going backward bare an asteroid strike or nuclear war), but it's reactionary to even try. The solution everywhere is revolution. National-democratic revolutions under the leadership of the proletariat in the oppressed nations(followed by a nonstop move towards the socialist revolution), and socialist-proletarian revolutions in the imperialist countries. It's socialism or barbarism(fascism, nuclear war, climate change, ect.).