An interesting thought

[comrade_mufasa]

I was thinking the other day if the world was not capitalist but was feudalist would the revalution come easier then if the world was capitalist? then i thought that if there was no capitalism would Marx have even created his ideas, but lets say that even through feudalism, the basic ideas of communism still were thought up. When you think of feudalism dont think of dark-age feudalism think of it as if it was being used now in this day and age with the technology we have now.

[RedStarOverChina]

Marx believed that a worker's revolution can only occur in an capitalist society, in which there is a large number of workers. However, Marx-Leninists like Mao and Lenin himself proved that a revolution in a feudal society (such as Russia and China) is possible.
I'd have to go with Marx. The revolution of USSR and PRC did not end up too well, as u might know. It is mainly because Marx-leninists' did not care to follow Marx's ideology.
However, Lenin's got a point when he decided that a worker's revolution should be launched in early 1900s. Because at the time, the middle class in Russia was not really developed. Lenin realized that if they allow the middle class to be developed, so they can set up the industrial basis for a worker's revolution, then the revolution's never gonna happen. Because by then the middle class would be too strong to be overthrown.
If u need me to explain anything said above, please tell me. It's always a pleasure to help a comrade.

[comrade_mufasa]

I understand what you are saying. It seems to me that under feudal system is more fragile then under capitalism. So under feudalism if all the serfs just stoped working then the lords would run out of resources to fight the revalutionaries.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:14 AM
I understand what you are saying. It seems to me that under feudal system is more fragile then under capitalism. So under feudalism if all the serfs just stoped working then the lords would run out of resources to fight the revalutionaries.
1
What kind of nonsense is this? Feudal society paves the
way for Capitalism and capitalist society due to the fact that peasants
are not revolutionary and a feudal society does not have the structures
to support and maintain a Classless, stateless Society. Every nation must
go through the feudalist and Capitalist means and mode of production
before achieving a classless, stateless society. Lenin and Mao did not
realize what Marx was saying and because of this - paved the way for the
development of State Beaucratic Monopoly Capitalism.

[RedStarOverChina]

"It seems to me that under feudal system is more fragile then under capitalism."
Altho it's correct to say that in the case of Russian Revolution, I would not go that far since it does not seem to be an conclusive statement.
Keep in mind that Lenin had his revolution because at the time Russia was expereincing turmoil and people lost faith in the old system. That was the same case in China. So i guess u have to judge every senario a bit differently.

I would not suggest a Proletarian revolution in a feudal society tho. It is going against Marx's economical theory.　The state will have a hard time feeding its people, because it does not have the industrial basis required.

[RedStarOverChina]

"peasants are not revolutionary " that is a mistake made by communists b4 the revolution in China.

u see, Marx thought the peasantry was not revolutionary, because they are technically capitalists, since they own land.

However, this is untrue in feudal states, where peasantry appears as serfs, who do no have any land as their capital. Thus, in these cases they should be seen as Proletariats (people with no capital as means of generating wealth, except for their labor).

Mao and Che was able to realize the peasantry's importance in the revolution, and this contributed to both's success.

[monkeydust]

I can certainly see where your coming from, but it's not really a valid question.

The fact is that the technological and paralleling intellectual progress we have made in the last 200 or so years simply could not have occured if the world were still Feudal.

The economic relationships present under Fedualism cannot allow for our current technological status to exist.

As for the inital question, I don't think a revolution from Fedualism to Communism (assuming that is what you're implying) could ever really come about - technology would simply not be sophisticated enough to allow for any proper egalitarian distribution of wealth under scarcity.

[shadows]

The real world consists of uneven development, with feudal remnants coexisting with and perhaps even facilitating capitalist economy. Underdevelopment of some parts of the world aid the capitalist agenda. Center and periphery are not confined to geographical terrain, they are reproduced everywhere. The US, certainly a capitalist center, contains its own underdeveloped peripheries (though not feudalist), and feudalistic areas (little industrial development, a predominance of peasants over workers, etc.) are integrated into a world capitalist agenda. Certainly socialist revolutions must take this into account and adapt strategy accordingly, but to imagine a socialist revolution without a proletariat is to fall into some kinda substitionist mode, where the Party becomes the proletariat (at least ideologically), which is ultimately idealist.

[Morpheus]

There are numerous historical examples of peasants being revolutionary. From the great peasant uprisings in the middle ages through the "third world" revolutions of the 20th century - all have involved mass movements of revolutionary peasants. The historical record shows that revolutions have been much more common in agrarian societies than in industrial ones. Revolution is easier against feudalism than against capitalism. Of course, proletarian revolution is impossible in a fully feudal society (because there are no proletariat) but peasant revolution is still possible.


As for the inital question, I don't think a revolution from Fedualism to Communism (assuming that is what you're implying) could ever really come about - technology would simply not be sophisticated enough to allow for any proper egalitarian distribution of wealth under scarcity

Then you distribute & manage whatever wealth does exist in an egalitarian way (instead of letting the landlords hog it all) and work towards building up new technology in an egalitarian way.

[shadows]

The peasantry can be mobilized, but after the onset of industrialism, can the peasantry mobilize independently, in its own name? The early peasant revolts differ from those after the onset of industrial development, however nascent this development might be in any particular case. Russia was more agrarian than industrial, but the differential weight was significant, at least for socialism. The industrial proletariat, though minuscule in proportion to the Russian peasantry, was socially and economically more important to the national economy of Russia. Anyway, today's proletariat differs from that of classical Marxist theory: they are less likely in the economic centers to be directly involved in production of material goods. How does this affect potential for revolution? The hoary theory, now somewhat associated with late fifties/sixties New Left paradigms, of a 'new working class' or a nonrevolutionary working class, lacks appeal. But is there some truth in this? I really don't know.

[Iepilei]

Turning peasantry into workers will not produce a technologically efficent socialist state. When we advance our technologies we must also advance the societies which such technology advances.

There must always be something to ignite something new. Capitalism needed feudalism to fuel the industrial revolution and truly get a grasp on to itself. In time, feudalism was the dated theory; just as it will be with capitalism, one day.

[shadows]

Trotsky's embrace of what came to be called 'socialist accumulation' prefigured Stalin's crude hyperindustrialization. Proletarianizing the peasants meant unequal exchange between town and country. Soviet farms, though forcibly collectivized in the thirties after Bukharin's defeat, lacked modern (for that time) machinery to increase output; yet, grain requisitions were common, and peasants suffered immensely at the hands of the Bolsheviks. Eventually, population transfer from farm to city evidenced the demise of the peasantry as a viable class; but these recruits to the working class brought with them the ideology of the peasant, which according to some accounts corresponded to Stalin's nationalism. Question: would Bukharin's 'right Bolshevism' have been an antidote to the commandism and ultimately counter-revolutionary thrust of Stalin's rule? Did Mao's policies have something in common with Bukharin's tolerance, even encouragement, of the 'greed' of the kulak?