Capitalism To Communism..

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Everything I've read on this site about the origin of Communism is that we would first need a Capitalist system to industrialize ( in the older texts, industrialization doesn't apply so much to modern day) and what not, and from there a workers revolution takes place to install a Socialist state that will progress into Communism. My question is, why is Capitalism needed, or is it not? And if it is, why is Socialism/Communism incapable of industrializing?

[redstar2000]

Well, consider the alternative scenario.

A feudal society is one of extreme scarcity; getting rid of all the lords, knights, priests, etc. and dividing up their wealth would still leave people in extreme poverty...spending their whole lives in mostly trying to scratch a living from the soil. Things like literacy might completely disappear...no one would have the time or the energy to read, much less write (by longhand) a book.

So capitalism is a necessity.

When socialists take power in a backward country (Russia, China), the consequence isn't socialism -- it's state monopoly capitalism and does all the same things that ordinary capitalism did in Europe and North America.

Eventually, it transforms itself into ordinary capitalism...as we have seen.

Some have argued that in the modern era, the native capitalists in backward countries are incapable of industrialization -- they are "in the pockets" of the imperialists.

That may well be true in some backward countries.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Roses in the Hospital]

For communism to work it needs a strong economic grounding, the kind of grounding that only capatalism can provide. This strengthening of the economy can be done under a socialist system, however, and this is arguably the way things worked in countries like Russia and China, the only problem being things were perverted off course long before anything approaching communism could develop...

[ComradeChris]

So Marxist communism is the only kind of communism? I highly doubt that. In early primitive societies there existed forms of communism (mainly in nomadic peoples). I don't think they had industries or capitalism.

[Roses in the Hospital]

So Marxist communism is the only kind of communism?

Nobody's said that, but, in the context of this disscusion it's definately the most relavent...

[guerillablack]

Then why is it that Marx is credited for communism and if he says communism doesn't allow, this then everyone agrees. Noing that pre-Marxist communists(tribes) allowed religion?

[LSD]

Then why is it that Marx is credited for communism and if he says communism doesn't allow, this then everyone agrees. Noing that pre-Marxist communists(tribes) allowed religion?

They also allowed, nay encouraged, profuse beating on heads with sticks.

I like to think we've evolved since then.

[guerillablack]

Iraq detainees may beg to differ.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+--> (ComradeChris)In early primitive societies there existed forms of communism (mainly in nomadic peoples). I don't think they had industries or capitalism.[/b]

I don't think that's really true...though students of pre-literate societies wrangle about it endlessly.

The problem is one of evidence...without written sources, everyone is just guessing about the forms of property (if any) that pre-literate societies had.

It's my view that when nomad society emerged from savagery, it was a proto-class society that did have private property in herd animals and women & children. And possibly even slaves as well. (!)

I think to find "primitive communism", you'd have to go all the way back to true savagery...when human societies consisted, more or less, of isolated extended families and "property" was what you could carry on your back. If you happened to run into another band of humans, you killed them and ate them...if you could. Or they did the same to you and your group.

This seems to me to be the most plausible scenario...but then I'm guessing like everybody else.


guerillablack
Then why is it that Marx is credited for communism and if he says communism doesn't allow this, then everyone agrees.

Marx gets the "major credit" because he (and Engels) were the first guys to put the idea of communism on a scientific basis.

There were socialists and communists before him, of course, but they all thought of socialism/communism as an "ideal"...a way that people "ought" to live without regard to objective material conditions. It was a "moral choice" and not a practical choice.

Just like Darwin "gets the credit" for evolution even though there were certainly "evolutionists" before him (his own grandfather was one!). Darwin developed scientific proof of why evolution had to be true...instead of fanciful speculation about why it "might" be true.

And, by the way, Marx was a human being, and not everything he said was "true" even in his own lifetime. We are all free to modify Marx's understanding in the light of later evidence. (Just as Darwin has been extensively modified.)

But there's a "catch" -- if you want to replace some idea of Marx's with a different idea, you have to come up with convincing evidence why that should be done.

Marx has turned out to be right about a ton of stuff...so if you think he was wrong about a particular thing, you'd better have some good reasons for saying so.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

The problem is one of evidence...without written sources, everyone is just guessing about the forms of property (if any) that pre-literate societies had.

I believe that you have missed something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
(Browse down to "Other forms of communism" on that page.)

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 19 2005, 07:24 PM

So Marxist communism is the only kind of communism?

Nobody's said that, but, in the context of this disscusion it's definately the most relavent...
Well everyone is discussing how one has to go through capitalism as Marx predicted. Well...good for him...we were in Capitalism when he said that. So that's a given. It's amazing how close the US was to becoming socialist upon confederation...too bad they omitted the good portions of the text like limiting excessive wealth in the hands of the few.


The problem is one of evidence...without written sources, everyone is just guessing about the forms of property (if any) that pre-literate societies had.

The lack of evidence and settlement should mean they didn't have perminant settlements or material possessions. Unless upon their death they destroyed all these things beyond recognition. THe bones are there...just not many objects.


I believe that you have missed something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
(Browse down to "Other forms of communism" on that page.)

People here seem to think that if any religion is involved communism can't exist...because Marx said so.

I just found this little ditty interesting however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism