Historical Materialism and Communist Theory?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I am looking for both anarchist and marxist perspectives. Personally, I am unsure as to whether or not third world countries can go straight to communism. However, if they cannot, what happens when third world countries exist alongside communism? Do communist countries use a type of imperialism to ensure that the countries go through fascism and capitalism, or am I missing something?

[KC]

Marx himself believed that if a revolution in Russia sparked socialist revolution in Europe, that it could skip capitalism. Lenin heavily relied on German revolution, and when it failed to happen, the Bolsheviks were pretty fucked.

Many people on this site will say that it is impossible, and that it goes against Marx's analysis of historical materialism, but they don't realize that historical materialism isn't concrete. Marx himself considered Russia to be an exception. I think it is possible for third world countries to skip the capitalist phase as long as it is accompanied by socialist revolution. I essentially agree with Marx's analysis.

[redstar2000]

Communist Societies and the "Third World" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083721402&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[Dreckt]

Personally, I am unsure as to whether or not third world countries can go straight to communism. However, if they cannot, what happens when third world countries exist alongside communism?

I don't think there is something as "living besides communism". Communism will be fullfilled when the whole world is one. There can be, however, a socialist state, with capitalist states living around them.


Do communist countries use a type of imperialism to ensure that the countries go through fascism and capitalism, or am I missing something?

No, communism does not practice any kind of imperialism. The Third World is already capitalist. They are not capitalist in the sence the US or EU is, since those superstates have what I would call "controlled capitalism" - they have police, and laws that protects the rich's profit.

Africa, where most of the Third World is, for example, also have capitalism. Some countries, though, have lesser control over their economy, such as Somalia, but the same rules applies - the more money you have the richer you are (thus capitalism), but there are, of course, more factors to this (I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me can explain in a better way).

I don't understand why Third World countries should go through fascism? Not all countries went through it - maybe you mean feudalism? But this is long gone. Building feudalism would require new kings, and centuries of feudalism before the societies can "naturally" revolt against the overclass and establish capitalism. Besides, the First World will not allow this, since they are exploiting the Third World already, and with feudalism comes power - military power, and sovereignty (thus conflicting with the already powerful First World).

My "ideal" suggestion is that they stabilize their economies. Once again, this conflicts with the First World. They want the Third World to be chaotic, to wage war so that they can keep exploiting them.

Now, when a revolution occurs (hopefully soon) in the US, this will probably spread to Europe, and later to Asia. The tricky part here is the very question of the left today (I believe): what will happen after the revolution? Either there will be socialist states, think of Cuba but with much more freedom (and since the First World do have recources, we won't live in poverty like the capitalists often claim a socialist revolution must result in).

In this case, the countries will start reforming the societies into societies for the people, and not for profit (like they do today). These countries will help other countries who need help, such as the Third World. Thus, the Third World will likely also become socialist, and in the end, all governments will fall appart and there will be communism (no so hard, is it :) ).

Now, let's assume people want communism right away (without a socialist transision). The revolution would most likely spread all over the world like a wave, and all those with power would fall under the rage of the people.

At least, that is the way I understand it...

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I too am unsure on this aspect.

I thought that as the western capitalist world dominates the entire world, its makes all the third world countries conform to its own rules.

Progress by third world countries is heavily linked to what the first world does.

As the first world is capitalist, the third world will have to work with imperialism as best it can in order to progress.

Thing is, when the first world becomes communist, the third world might be forced to work with the communist first world. As the first world will still hold hegemonic ideology.

But different countries will develop in different ways, maybe some will have, what now are Maoist revolutions and the communist countries will be able to bring these friendly countries up to speed. While others, still developing capitalism will have less trade partners resulting in a faster collapse of capitalism.

Just an idea thrown out there :)

[Morpheus]

I see no reason why "third world" countries can't have anarcho-communist revolutions. In fact, the revolution may even start there before the west because they're more oppressed and are therefore more likely to revolt. It will require delivering a major blow to imperialism, though.

[KC]

I see no reason why "third world" countries can't have anarcho-communist revolutions. In fact, the revolution may even start there before the west because they're more oppressed and are therefore more likely to revolt. It will require delivering a major blow to imperialism, though.

Revolution in the third world first is practically inevitable, because of imperialism. As capitalism develops, the increasing misery of the workers will be felt in countries exploited by imperialism. The condition of the working class in these countries will ever degenerate, until it is unbearable.

Since the working class in exploited countries will feel it first (and most), it will require a revolution in these countries to offset the comfort of the working class of the imperialist countries.

[Dreckt]

Revolution in the third world first is practically inevitable, because of imperialism. As capitalism develops, the increasing misery of the workers will be felt in countries exploited by imperialism. The condition of the working class in these countries will ever degenerate, until it is unbearable.

I do support revolutions in the Third World if they benefit the workers, but will the First World allow it? Won't they just turn their backs on those countries and let them suffer even more?

I agree that a revolution would turn the Third World countries into a better place, but my concern here is if they will last, and what they should do about the threat of the American Empire?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:05 PM

Revolution in the third world first is practically inevitable, because of imperialism. As capitalism develops, the increasing misery of the workers will be felt in countries exploited by imperialism. The condition of the working class in these countries will ever degenerate, until it is unbearable.

I do support revolutions in the Third World if they benefit the workers, but will the First World allow it? Won't they just turn their backs on those countries and let them suffer even more?

I agree that a revolution would turn the Third World countries into a better place, but my concern here is if they will last, and what they should do about the threat of the American Empire?
If anything, the key for communism is in the third world.

Imperialist machinery cannot fight against a series of revolution in the third world at the same time. If the empire is overthrowed from the neocolonies, the source of cheap labor the empires had will dissipate. The Imperialist countries will recieve a massive economical blow, making it póssible for discontent in the first world, and finally revolution.

[RedRevolution]

Third world revolutions will end as the USSR did, the technological base isn't there. Before capitalism had it's revolutions a capitalist ideal class of traders already existed. The only communist ideal class (which would be workers controlling their own capital) are bloggers, media and Linux. They are underneath communist even if in ideas/superficially they are other things. This reovlution is spreading through other technologies turning capitalists into fucntioning communists - after that what revolution will be needed?

[Dreckt]

Imperialist machinery cannot fight against a series of revolution in the third world at the same time.

No - but they can fight them one at a time, like Afghanistan and Iraq.


If the empire is overthrowed from the neocolonies, the source of cheap labor the empires had will dissipate. The Imperialist countries will recieve a massive economical blow, making it póssible for discontent in the first world, and finally revolution.

Yes, that is if they don't do anything about it. We certainly know that they won't sit back and watch this on TV. Especially not if the revolutions threaten the American economy.

[RedRevolution]

No - but they can fight them one at a time, like Afghanistan and Iraq.

So Afghanistan and Iraq were examples of communist revoluntionaries? Not in my communism!

[wet blanket]

The third world is in an interesting position as far as imperialism and revolution goes, and by 'interesting' I mean "pretty much fucked".

On one hand, the biggest imperialist centers of capital in the world have several organs of capital investment for development which bring relatively advanced industrial capital into pretty primitive economies. However, along with it, they bring "free market" regulations which put the 3rd world workers at a severe disadvantage in terms of class struggle which makes the development of their domestic economy very slow(everything is being exported on the cheap and there's no tax revenue to support the building of infrastructure).

On the other hand, revolutionary nationalism in these third world countries has proven itself over and over and over again to be a disgusting failure which often includes mass killings and even a step backwards in terms of development and the well-being of its citizens.

Perhaps the 'best thing' for the workers in these countries would be a somewhat protectionist capitalist economy focoused on national development of infrastructure(roads, schools, medicine, running water, sewage, electricity) and then as the middle class begins to emerge, less regulation.
While this is nothing revolutionary, it's about the best these backwards countries can do before they have a strong working class and the means of production capable of eliminating scarcity to the point where socialism is possible.

[red_che]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 2 2006, 09:26 PM
I am looking for both anarchist and marxist perspectives. Personally, I am unsure as to whether or not third world countries can go straight to communism. However, if they cannot, what happens when third world countries exist alongside communism? Do communist countries use a type of imperialism to ensure that the countries go through fascism and capitalism, or am I missing something?

In The Principles of Communism, Engels said this:


-18- What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.


-19- Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.(my emphasis are in italics)

[KC]

You also have to remember that that was written before imperialism developed. Obviously, though, you were just presenting the international character of proletarian revolution.

[red_che]

Yeah. And since capitalism already developed into imperialism, the more the proletarian revolution becomes international in character and international in necessity.