Revolution in the Third World

[Leo]

The condition of the third world which is also called ‘south’ these days is a big question. Many argue that a proletarian revolution can and should happen in those undeveloped countries, some argue that third world is unimportant and the only meaningful revolution would happen in the First World.
The transformation to capitalism in Europe was a transformation of one form of private property into another form of private property. Marx says that “The genesis of capitalist production...is founded on the complete separation of the producer from the means of production.” Marx explains this process further: “The process of elimination transforming individualized and scattered means of production into socially concentrated means of production, of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, this painful and fearful expropriation of the working people, forms the origin, the genesis of capital... Private property, based on personal labor ... will be supplanted by capitalist private property, based on the exploitation of the labor of others, on wage labor” Marx continues by carefully separates Russia from rest of Europe regarding the situation of peasantry. “Thus, in the final analysis, it is a question of the transformation of one form of private property into another form of private property. Since the land in the hands of the Russian peasants has never been their private property, how could this development be applicable?” Another significant difference between the process of industrialization of Russia and the West is that Russia was not forced, unlike the West; to pass through a long incubation period in the engineering industry in order to utilize machines, steam engines, railways, etc. Marx describes another difference of Russia: “Russia is the sole European country where the “agricultural commune” has kept going on a nationwide scale up to the present day. It is not the prey of a foreign conqueror, as the East Indies, and neither does it lead a life cut off from the modern world.”
The distinctions between two models of peasant ‘development’ are very significant today. Capitalism is a global system. It was possible because of the exploitation of three continents by the Europeans, and the major capitalist / imperialist country developed in a similar way. The development of peasantry in major capitalist countries was different from the development of peasantry in the exploited countries. Peasants in the third world, like peasants of Russia in late nineteenth century, do not have anything individually and live in semi-communal poverty but they are not ‘officially’ colonies of major forces and they are not cut of from the modern world because of the cities in the third world. If capitalism was not a global system, we could say that those countries could have their own capitalist development, but the reality is even if they go through anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolutions and manage to take control of their countries, they won’t be able to expand and exploit therefore they will still depend on their peasants for their survival. One way to develop a capitalist industry would be settling with the major capitalist powers and sharing the resources with them for having a place in the world market but the only example of such development is seen at China, which has vast resources and even a vaster labor force. Such development is impossible for any other country which is not China. Regarding the historical socio-economical conditions, capitalist development is impossible for the third world.
This being said, lets return to Marx about what can be done in Russia. He says “The rural commune, still established on a nationwide scale, may gradually detach itself from its primitive features and develop directly as an element of collective production on a nationwide scale.” He continues of the significance of a revolution to preserve the commune “At the same time as the commune is bled dry and tortured, its land rendered barren and poor, the literary lackeys of the “new pillars of society” ironically depict the wounds inflicted on it as so many symptoms of its spontaneous decrepitude. They allege that it is dying a natural death and they would be doing a good job by shortening its agony. As far as this is concerned, it is no longer a matter of solving a problem; it is simply a matter of beating an enemy. To save the Russian commune, a Russian revolution is needed” and he concludes: “If the revolution takes place at the right time, if it concentrates all its forces to ensure the free development of the village commune, the latter will soon emerge as the regenerative force in Russian society and as something superior to those countries enslaved by the capitalist regime... If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.”
It is of course not certain if the communal nature of the third world peasantry will develop in the way which Marx hopes to see in Russia, but I think, depending on the similarities between nineteen century Russia and current Third World, it is highly possible. We know that it happened in Russia, after the October Revolution, peasants of Ukraine, guided by Nestor Makhno who was completely unaware of Marx’s ideas regarding the village commune, established an anarchist peasant commune. Unfortunately this Movement was crushed by the Red Army after helping them defeat the Whites. Currently Third World peasantry has the same intellectual potential with people living in cities. What’s more, what will open the way of Proletarian Revolution in Europe is the Agricultural Communal Revolution in the third world because antagonisms between Third World and First World intellectuals are growing everyday and after a point it will be impossible for those two ‘separate’ worlds to get together by forming a communist society. As the Third World reclaims its resources and labor power, the real face of capitalism will be seen clearly, and this will cause proletarian revolutions in the west. What’s more is that the intellectual development of the Agricultural Village Commune, therefore the success of revolutions in the Third World depends on the Proletarian revolutions in the west. This relationship is historically ‘perfect’, and honestly I can’t think of any other way for the ‘two worlds’ to form the communist society of the future.

[redstar2000]

The quotations from Marx with regard to Russia are interesting...and it would have been helpful if you had posted links to the sources.

Meanwhile, I have to say that I think Marx got this one drastically wrong.


Originally posted by Marx+--> (Marx)Since the land in the hands of the Russian peasants has never been their private property, how could this development be applicable?[/b]

It was the private property of the feudal aristocracy...and, over time, became the private property of the peasantry.


Russia was not forced, unlike the West, to pass through a long incubation period in the engineering industry in order to utilize machines, steam engines, railways, etc.

Which simply means that Russians were not forced to learn modern habits of thinking...until they were trained by westerners in the use of that modern technology. That was not an "advantage" for Russians but rather a disadvantage. It does not "help" matters when the guy who's in charge of keeping the steam-engine running still believes in witchcraft. :o


Russia is the sole European country where the “agricultural commune” has kept going on a nationwide scale up to the present day.

Possibly true up through c.1900...almost certainly not true after that.


...and neither does [Russia] lead a life cut off from the modern world.

Actually, it pretty much did...especially anywhere outside of St. Petersburg.


Such development is impossible for any other country which is not China.

I don't see why that should be the case at all. The "old" imperialist countries can "delay" the rise of modern capitalism in the global "south" but cannot "stop it" from happening.


Regarding the historical socio-economical conditions, capitalist development is impossible for the third world.

On the contrary, it's inevitable. Examples are numerous: South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Turkey, Iran, Brazil, Venezuela, etc., etc., etc.


Originally posted by [email protected]
The rural commune, still established on a nationwide scale, may gradually detach itself from its primitive features and develop directly as an element of collective production on a nationwide scale. -- emphasis added.

Didn't happen and, in my opinion, would never have happened. The Stolypin reforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolypin_Reform) placed Russian agriculture firmly on the capitalist road.


Marx
If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

Wishful thinking. A Russian Revolution could only have been a bourgeois revolution and would have been unlikely to even be of any particular interest to the western proletariat.

As things turned out, the red flags of October did cause considerable stir among western workers...because they were misinformed about what was actually happening there.


...after the October Revolution, peasants of Ukraine, guided by Nestor Makhno who was completely unaware of Marx’s ideas regarding the village commune, established an anarchist peasant commune.

But Makhno's movement was completely unable to establish any base of support among the urban proletariat in the Ukraine. Kiev did not become Makhno's "Petrograd".


What’s more, what will open the way of Proletarian Revolution in Europe is the Agricultural Communal Revolution in the third world...

Unlikely. Peasant communes are at a terrific disadvantage in the "third world" trying to compete economically with corporate plantations which have access to modern technology. Such communes that exist will lose labor to both the corporate plantations and the "drawing power" of the cities...not to mention the option of emigrating to some "richer" country.


...because antagonisms between Third World and First World intellectuals are growing everyday and after a point it will be impossible for those two ‘separate’ worlds to get together by forming a communist society.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intellectual antagonisms" here...but I think it is self-evidently impossible for "Third World intellectuals" to form a "communist society" without modern technological development.


As the Third World reclaims its resources and labor power, the real face of capitalism will be seen clearly, and this will cause proletarian revolutions in the west.

Now this is a different matter altogether...and quite plausible. The "old" capitalist countries will indeed face considerable economic difficulties with the rise of new capitalist countries.


I can’t think of any other way for the ‘two worlds’ to form the communist society of the future.

I think the "third world" must pass through the whole capitalist epoch...it cannot be avoided. Peasant communalism is no "substitute" for that.

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

[KC]

I think the "third world" must pass through the whole capitalist epoch...it cannot be avoided.

But they are in the capitalist epoch. They are just underdeveloped because they are exploited by imperialism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 18 2006, 01:06 PM

I think the "third world" must pass through the whole capitalist epoch...it cannot be avoided.

But they are in the capitalist epoch. They are just underdeveloped because they are exploited by imperialism.
Agreed...they must break the domination of the imperialists and develop a modern capitalist economy with a modern bourgeoisie and a modern proletariat.

Which is what they seem to be actually doing. :D

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

[Leo]

Redstar2000, first of all, thaks for your reply. :)


The quotations from Marx with regard to Russia are interesting...and it would have been helpful if you had posted links to the sources.

Of course, I used two sources for this. First one first draft of a letter to Vera Zasulich, here’s the link:
http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm
The second one is Preface written in 1882 to Russian Edition of the Communist Manifesto and the link is: http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1848/co...tm#preface-1882 (http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882)


Meanwhile, I have to say that I think Marx got this one drastically wrong.

It was the private property of the feudal aristocracy...and, over time, became the private property of the peasantry.

Possibly true up through c.1900...almost certainly not true after that.

In the case of Russia, yes, but remember, Marx didn’t say ‘village commune will develop in Russia, he said if it develops…’ and the village commune was not allowed to develop as he hoped.


Actually, it pretty much did...especially anywhere outside of St. Petersburg.

Well, isn’t that the whole point Marx makes? The existence of cities like St. Petersburg?


I don't see why that should be the case at all. The "old" imperialist countries can "delay" the rise of modern capitalism in the global "south" but cannot "stop it" from happening.

On the contrary, it's inevitable. Examples are numerous: South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Turkey, Iran, Brazil, Venezuela, etc., etc., etc.

I would say that those countries are all parts of the capitalist economy with industrialized urban areas, but they all have a large population of backwards peasants, they can’t exploit others and they too are, although not in the same level with rest of the ‘south’, exploited. Those countries all have something specific that enables them to get a step above the third world, but they are not the first world, and they can never be the first world if they don’t exploit resources and labor force of others which is not available to them. The term ‘second world’ might describe such countries. A new solution might be necessary.


Didn't happen and, in my opinion, would never have happened. The Stolypin reforms placed Russian agriculture firmly on the capitalist road.

As it didn’t happen in Russia, it could have never happened in Russia. Nevertheless it is not that it was tried and it failed, so we cannot know if it will fail or not under similar conditions.


But Makhno's movement was completely unable to establish any base of support among the urban proletariat in the Ukraine. Kiev did not become Makhno's "Petrograd".

Also true… but nevertheless it was a peasant movement, it did not had much to offer workers, neither did it had a vision regarding what to do with the workers. Yet it did prove that agricultural commune could have worked among peasants.


Unlikely. Peasant communes are at a terrific disadvantage in the "third world" trying to compete economically with corporate plantations which have access to modern technology. Such communes that exist will lose labor to both the corporate plantations and the "drawing power" of the cities...not to mention the option of emigrating to some "richer" country.

Well, ideally the movement must aim to abolish cultural differences between urban workers and agricultural peasants, or we can say abolishing the backwardness of the peasantry and make them ‘agricultural workers’ instead of agricultural peasants. After a typical revolution in the third world with its anti-feudal and anti-imperialist characteristics, if the focus is the agricultural commune instead of industrial development, and this lack of resource in the West causes proletarian revolutions there, then the third world can start industrializing in solidarity with the communist west. Such development with solidarity will eventually result in one communist union between those ‘two worlds.


I'm not sure what you mean by "intellectual antagonisms" here...but I think it is self-evidently impossible for "Third World intellectuals" to form a "communist society" without modern technological development.

I think the "third world" must pass through the whole capitalist epoch...it cannot be avoided. Peasant communalism is no "substitute" for that.

Well, okay, let’s presume that we are living in a world where the third world had become capitalist and first world became communist, do you think they will live in harmony? Do you think third world ruling class will be peaceful against the communist system which will be threatening their rule? And in the case of an open conflict, capitalist countries, who would be the majority in that word, can easily destroy, by force, the peaceful communist society.

If we somehow proceed to communism without the third world, they will never join us. Capitalism is an unequalizing system. To preserve the balance of production and consumption, there always has to be a growing imbalance of income, not only among classes but also among regions. The new communist movement must aim to be an equalizing system, and we must move together with the most unfortunate, we can’t just ‘go’ with our development; we must be with them while they develop.

I don’t know if ‘agricultural communalism’ can actually work as a substitute for capitalism, but with every single cell in my body, I hope that you are wrong and ‘agricultural communalism’ can work, because I think very tragic events can follow if some substitute for capitalism is not found for the development in the third world.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18 2006, 08:33 PM
I don’t know if ‘agricultural communalism’ can actually work as a substitute for capitalism, but with every single cell in my body, I hope that you are wrong and ‘agricultural communalism’ can work, because I think very tragic events can follow if some substitute for capitalism is not found for the development in the third world.
True that.

“A revolution which in this day follows the line of industrial development, economic growth, and scientific advance; of the development of the actual productive forces, like the one conceived in this time, will unquestionably be captured by capitalist civilization.” - Douglas Bravo (Venezuela)

EDIT ADD: Every time I see the title of this thread I kinda sing it to myself to the tune of "keep on rockin' in the free world".

[Leo]

Also, I think the development of the State of Israel out of &#39;nothing&#39; is significant. If you&#39;ve ever heard of kibbutzs, Israeli communal farms, the success of Israeli industrialization and economy is caused by that communal farming system (and foreign support <_< ).

It might work in a similar way... If the revolution in the third world focuses on agricultural communes and the revolution in the first world shows solidarity and actively helps the third world for their communist urban (polis :lol: ) development, capitalism might be replaced in the Third World.

Now I&#39;m anxiously waiting for Redstar2000&#39;s reply...


Every time I see the title of this thread I kinda sing it to myself to the tune of "keep on rockin&#39; in the free world".

I&#39;ve never heard of the song but I hope it&#39;s good&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Douglas Bravo+--> (Douglas Bravo)A revolution which in this day follows the line of industrial development, economic growth, and scientific advance; of the development of the actual productive forces, like the one conceived in this time, will unquestionably be captured by capitalist civilization.[/b]

Quite so...and no other revolution is possible. That&#39;s the part he left out.

A "revolution" to "preserve backwardness" and "underdevelopment" might be "made"...but it would not stand against the pressures of the world market. The most capable peasant producers would have a material incentive to privatize their holdings...in order to purchase what would be perceived as "luxury" goods from the "first world".


Leo Uilleann
Those countries all have something specific that enables them to get a step above the third world, but they are not the first world, and they can never be the first world if they don’t exploit resources and labor force of others which is not available to them.

There&#39;s nothing that stops these emerging capitalist countries from investing in other less developed economies. Brazil is a big energy investor in Bolivia and is buying cattle ranches in Angola, for example. They will have conflicts with each other just as the "old" capitalist countries had in Europe...and maybe some shooting wars as well. "New" imperialisms seem to be especially bellicose...so that&#39;s something to "watch for".


After a typical revolution in the third world with its anti-feudal and anti-imperialist characteristics, if the focus is the agricultural commune instead of industrial development, and this lack of resource in the West causes proletarian revolutions there, then the third world can start industrializing in solidarity with the communist west.

Why would those revolutionaries in a backward "third world" country want to wait for a "first world" proletarian revolution before beginning their own development? Global communication has made them aware of "how people live" in the "first world"...so why wouldn&#39;t they want to start living like that themselves as soon as possible?


Well, okay, let’s presume that we are living in a world where the third world had become capitalist and first world became communist, do you think they will live in harmony?

Nope.

We will be providing covert support to the real communists in those countries in whatever way we can. And they will bitterly attack us in words...though our own nuclear deterrent should keep things reasonably peaceful. Don&#39;t forget, also, that they will have their own inter-imperialist rivalries to cope with.


I think very tragic events can follow if some substitute for capitalism is not found for the development in the third world.

Tragedy is commonplace in this period of history; as the old Chinese curse has it, we live "in interesting times".

It&#39;s not really "our call" on how the "third world" will develop; all we can really say about it is what history has demonstrated to us...that people "have" to wade through the blood to climb the mountain. Capitalism emerges everywhere "dripping with blood" as Marx put it...and I think he was right about that.

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

[Fistful of Steel]

I think it&#39;s necessary for us in the industrialized, more advanced capitalist countries to aspire to communism first. If an isolated country in Latin America or Africa became genuinely communist it&#39;d have a hard go of sustaining itself with all the embargos likely to occur, but if the Western world advances into communism we could help foster it everywhere else (or at least further the countries along).

[Leo]

A "revolution" to "preserve backwardness" and "underdevelopment" might be "made"...but it would not stand against the pressures of the world market. The most capable peasant producers would have a material incentive to privatize their holdings...in order to purchase what would be perceived as "luxury" goods from the "first world".

First of all, it would be a matter of inter-southern solidarity and also the instance of movements in the west, so it would be a matter of time untill the world market is abolished.


There&#39;s nothing that stops these emerging capitalist countries from investing in other less developed economies. Brazil is a big energy investor in Bolivia and is buying cattle ranches in Angola, for example. They will have conflicts with each other just as the "old" capitalist countries had in Europe...and maybe some shooting wars as well. "New" imperialisms seem to be especially bellicose...so that&#39;s something to "watch for".

I see your point, but still there is still one thing that would stop them: that another country, especially a major capitalist to be exploiting the same place they want to. I would think that it would be very hard for them to get in the same level with major capitalist powers in North America and Western Europe. Of course, their inner conflicts, had been happening for some time. Usually such powers rise on and steal from each other, they don&#39;t, and can&#39;t take anything from major capitalists. Still I agree that such inner conflicts should be &#39;watched.&#39;


Why would those revolutionaries in a backward "third world" country want to wait for a "first world" proletarian revolution before beginning their own development? Global communication has made them aware of "how people live" in the "first world"...so why wouldn&#39;t they want to start living like that themselves as soon as possible?

I actually disagree with you here... The mentality of revolution would never be like that in the third world. People who are revolting against exploiters and oppressors don&#39;t want to be like them, they want to be something else. Historically they&#39;ve all became like the exploiters and oppressors, but they never had an actual alternative, history made them do so.

The question I ask is this: does it has to be black or white? The peasantry in the third world are not identical, when their development is concerned, to the European Peasantry. Considering this difference and the situation of the western proletariat, the advancement they have, the idea of western proletariat helping the rest to &#39;catch up&#39; without the ills of capitalism seems historically possible to me, also it seems fair as the west owes its advancement to the backwardness of the third world.


Nope.

We will be providing covert support to the real communists in those countries in whatever way we can. And they will bitterly attack us in words...though our own nuclear deterrent should keep things reasonably peaceful. Don&#39;t forget, also, that they will have their own inter-imperialist rivalries to cope with.

They will have inter-imperialist rivalries indeed, but I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if the only thing they agree on would be their hatred towards the communist region of the world. Even the scepter or name of communism is enough to unite all capitalists/imperialists. Communism threathens everything they have.


Tragedy is commonplace in this period of history; as the old Chinese curse has it, we live "in interesting times".

It&#39;s not really "our call" on how the "third world" will develop; all we can really say about it is what history has demonstrated to us...that people "have" to wade through the blood to climb the mountain. Capitalism emerges everywhere "dripping with blood" as Marx put it...and I think he was right about that.

We do live in interesting times indeed... Time periods almost always have something to make them fairly interesting.

I know it is not our call, as we in the First World... but they are not &#39;us&#39; either. We, as humanity, I mean collectively, can learn from history. Residents of the third world lost as much blood as we did, even more actually... I can&#39;t say we can find a formula that will definetly result in third world developing without the ills of capitalism, but we have to try&#33; History has its own agenda, yes, but we not trying because of the way it has been in the past, or we trying it will also be a part of that agenda.

In the final analysis, we must always think of the humanity collectively. Communist movement should aim equality, and we can&#39;t have equality if half of the world is living in shit.

We have to try&#33;

[Rawthentic]

agreed, but those "third-world" nations cannot become communist without first going through the historical transformation of capitalism. And its not just the productive or material forces that are not fully developed that it is why communism is not possible; its is because through these undeveloped productive material forces the consciousness of the peasants in "third world" countries is not one necessary to overthrow capitalism with class consciousness. Their class struggle is one of anti-imperialism and progressive nationalism. These are not possible for a communist world since the communist revolution must occur in an advanced capitalist nation, which would obviously not have the anti imperialist class struggle mindset. It would be more of an internationalist and completely anti capitalist nature.

[Leo]

agreed, but those "third-world" nations cannot become communist without first going through the historical transformation of capitalism. And its not just the productive or material forces that are not fully developed that it is why communism is not possible; its is because through these undeveloped productive material forces the consciousness of the peasants in "third world" countries is not one necessary to overthrow capitalism with class consciousness. Their class struggle is one of anti-imperialism and progressive nationalism. These are not possible for a communist world since the communist revolution must occur in an advanced capitalist nation, which would obviously not have the anti imperialist class struggle mindset. It would be more of an internationalist and completely anti capitalist nature.

My point is that all those &#39;Third World&#39; countries are not identical with the first world countries, therefore there might follow a different path because they did follow a different path in the past. Yes, it is necassary to develop productive materials and the mindset of the people, but the question I ask is this: is capitalism the only way to do that? Certanly it was in the west, but the development of capitalism itself wasn&#39;t seperate from imperialism. Some countries that are not major capitalists (but also not recent colonies) are also trying to exploit the parts pf the third world that are &#39;free&#39; to exploit. Yet almost all of the former colonies are still shitholes. Even if they manage to make their &#39;anti-imperialist&#39; revolutions, they won&#39;t have their capitalist development because they won&#39;t even be allowed to exploit the unexploited.

I say we have to push for the global revolution. We can manage to have a development in the third world without the ills of capitalism. I repeat what I said again, we have to try&#33;

[Rawthentic]

Granted, Im sure if there was a worldwide communist revolution, then these "third-world" nations could be helped in some way i suppose. Imperialism is the last stage of capitalism, where capitalism and the free flow of commodities is creeping into all the corners of the world on behalf of imperialist nations ( US, France, England, etc). The commodities and capital in these nations becomes centralized in the hands of a few, obviously creating inequality but also speeds up class-struggle, yet not exactly the one fit for communist revolution. It is against foreign corporations and foreigners in general. I love, Cuba, really, but with the victory of their revolution, they stagnated the capitalist process. Cuba doesnt even have class-struggle at all because people live relatively the same. The capitalist world has "kept with the flow", and these are the ones that are most likely to have a communist revolution in the near future. I dont see the logic behind the making of communism in the "third world", but yes, capitalism is necessary for this. It cannot skip form a feudal or semi-feudal colony to a communist nation. The technology and abundance is not nearly as advanced as in advanced capitalist nations.

[Leo]

Imperialism is the last stage of capitalism, where capitalism and the free flow of commodities is creeping into all the corners of the world on behalf of imperialist nations ( US, France, England, etc).

One of Lenin&#39;s most naive mistakes. I disagree very much with Imperialism being the last stage of capitalism. Quite the contrary capitalism would not be possible without Imperialism. If the countries who are major capitalists today did not take hold of three continents, capitalism would never be possible. Since its very beginnings, capitalism had been a globally dominant system.


The commodities and capital in these nations becomes centralized in the hands of a few, obviously creating inequality but also speeds up class-struggle, yet not exactly the one fit for communist revolution. It is against foreign corporations and foreigners in general. I love, Cuba, really, but with the victory of their revolution, they stagnated the capitalist process.

Very true, good analysis, but there are two things: first one is that none of those self proclaimed socialist countries realized that they had to go through capitalism to reach communism and tried to figure out a way to &#39;walk around&#39; capitalism to reach communism, second one is that they will never become major capitalist like the west. They might, after long time of trying, become a danger is the capitalist area, but the west would them smash them like a bug. Therefore I think looking at the material conditions that they seem unable to go through capitalism directly. This why the idea of &#39;walking around&#39; it seems historically possible to me. After all it has never been tried.


Cuba doesnt even have class-struggle at all because people live relatively the same.

Well that relatively phrase is pretty enough. After all there is the party and there is the non-party. Don&#39;t misundersand me, Cuba is the best place to live in the entire World for a worker, but still...


The capitalist world has "kept with the flow", and these are the ones that are most likely to have a communist revolution in the near future. I dont see the logic behind the making of communism in the "third world", but yes, capitalism is necessary for this. It cannot skip form a feudal or semi-feudal colony to a communist nation. The technology and abundance is not nearly as advanced as in advanced capitalist nations.

As I said, it is not going to skip capitalism and directly go to communism. It can&#39;t... It is impossible. What I propose is to &#39;walk around&#39; capitalism (or to be completely scientific, avoid all the ills of capitalism while passing through industrial development) in the third world, a period which would be a mixture of agricultural communalism and industrial development with the aid of the communist nations. Remember, the only difference between the agricultural worker and the industial worker is the mindset.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21 2006, 02:16 AM
One of Lenin&#39;s most naive mistakes. I disagree very much with Imperialism being the last stage of capitalism. Quite the contrary capitalism would not be possible without Imperialism. If the countries who are major capitalists today did not take hold of three continents, capitalism would never be possible. Since its very beginnings, capitalism had been a globally dominant system.
Amazing that Marx et al who actually lived through that period were so wrong then :o

Early capitalism was not an international system of finance; it was still possible to talk of “English capitalism” and “French capitalism” as different entities that had only marginal impact on each other. It wasn’t until the late 1800’s that Western capitalism took on a distinctly imperialist character. Unless you believe that it was self-restraint that prevented the Great Powers from craving up Africa in the prior century?

Of course you are right to say that modern capitalism in the West would be impossible without imperialism. However this is very different from early capitalism, of which Imperialism is an evolved form.

[Leo]

Amazing that Marx et al who actually lived through that period were so wrong then

Of course you are right to say that modern capitalism in the West would be impossible without imperialism. However this is very different from early capitalism, of which Imperialism is an evolved form.

Marx does definatly noticed this, he doesn&#39;t call it imperialism though...

What enabled capitalism was the discovery of Americas, exploitation of the raw material there. It did evolve in a cycle while growing, requiring more and more imperialism, and eventually evolving in a way that it did not only exploit resources but it also exploited labor force. Lenin caught this cycle (as did Rosa Luxemburg) at one point but he didn&#39;t trace it back. It was really not hard to catch at the time they were living in, WW1 did make it pretty obvious and Lenin and Luxemburg were able to understand that the war was coming almost ten years before. There is a reason why major capitalist powers had always been Europeans and lately European settlers in America, and it is not because Europeans are superior to other people.


Early capitalism was not an international system of finance; it was still possible to talk of “English capitalism” and “French capitalism” as different entities that had only marginal impact on each other. It wasn’t until the late 1800’s that Western capitalism took on a distinctly imperialist character. Unless you believe that it was self-restraint that prevented the Great Powers from craving up Africa in the prior century?

It wasn&#39;t self-restraint, they didn&#39;t need it at that point, they were too busy trying get everything they could in the Americas. &#39;English&#39; Capitalism and &#39;French&#39; Capitalism, altough subjectively very different because of their rivalry, and their development based on their success in exploiting resources so that adds another difference, but objectively their difference wasn&#39;t that big.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21 2006, 05:49 PM
What enabled capitalism was the discovery of Americas, exploitation of the raw material there.
Impossible. Both the British and French bourgeoisie had ended their interests in America almost a full century before the Treaty of Berlin. In particular the French had only ever had a passing interest in the continent, witness Napoleon trading it away for a pittance.

But answer me this – how did German capitalism ever form or evolve if it did not possess any colonies until the very late 1800’s… which just so happened to be the same time it matured into an early form of liberal/modern democracy?

[Leo]

Impossible. Both the British and French bourgeoisie had ended their interests in America almost a full century before the Treaty of Berlin. In particular the French had only ever had a passing interest in the continent, witness Napoleon trading it away for a pittance.

Well this is how it happened. You know how much raw material came from those continents? Spanish and French interests seemed passing, that&#39;s why England became the &#39;Empire Where the Sun Never Sets&#39;, because they kept taking.


But answer me this – how did German capitalism ever form or evolve if it did not possess any colonies until the very late 1800’s… which just so happened to be the same time it matured into an early form of liberal/modern democracy?

It evolved like this: WW1... You eventually need to exploit if you&#39;re gonna be a capitalist. You can read history for the reasons behind German aggression. What they had wasn&#39;t enough for them.

[Tickin&#39; TimebOmb John]

i believe revolution of a socialist, or at the very least anti-capitalist nature is neccesary in the third world before the first world can ever experience a communist revolution. these third world revolutions will not create communist societies, but must act as a trigger for revolutions in the first world. i belive that this has become the case because globalistation has meant that many of the most poorly payed jobs once practised in the first world have been moved to the third world, and some workers of the first world now have relative comfort, and no interest in the class struggle and revolution. when the third world working class rejects the corporations that are exploiting them, then they will return to the first world who will also revolt due to rejection of the oppresive measures these firms will attempt to employ them under.

not only is revolution in the third world of a socialist nature possible, it is neccesary before the first world can come to revolution

[JC1]

Originally posted by "RedStar citing development in the imperialist epoch"
On the contrary, it&#39;s inevitable. Examples are numerous: South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Turkey, Iran, Brazil, Venezuela, etc., etc., etc.


All these are examples of how imerialism retards development. South Korea and Tawain are urbanizied, becuase communist&#39;s destroyed the aristocfracy, but the capital is still owned by forienger&#39;s. Thailand, Malaysia, India, Turkey , Iran and Brazil are all semi-fuedal country&#39;s with large urban population&#39;s, that are still a small part of the full population. The diffrence between them and other semi-fuedal country&#39;s is quantative not qualitive.

Venezuala is sort of a multi-class state.

Since 1900, there has been no 3rd world country that didnt undergo socialist reveloution that developed past a certian point. Even alot of the fmr. socialist countries are overun by imperialists.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 23 2006, 03:59 PM
Well this is how it happened. You know how much raw material came from those continents? Spanish and French interests seemed passing, that&#39;s why England became the &#39;Empire Where the Sun Never Sets&#39;, because they kept taking.

Its was England&#39;s colonies in India, not America, that gave it a "head-start" over the other European powers. But you failed to answer my question - how did European capitalism evolve/occur without colonies prior to 1884? That is your position isn&#39;t it?

A quick reading of history illustrates that capitalism on mainland Europe predates the Scramble for Africa by a full century while occuring after the loss of the American colonies.


It evolved like this: WW1... You eventually need to exploit if you&#39;re gonna be a capitalist. You can read history for the reasons behind German aggression. What they had wasn&#39;t enough for them.
That imperialism played a role in WWI is not in question here. What is is your seemingly bizarre statement that Germany was not a capitalist society until that war :huh:

[Leo]

Its was England&#39;s colonies in India, not America, that gave it a "head-start" over the other European powers. But you failed to answer my question - how did European capitalism evolve/occur without colonies prior to 1884? That is your position isn&#39;t it?

A quick reading of history illustrates that capitalism on mainland Europe predates the Scramble for Africa by a full century while occuring after the loss of the American colonies.

It doesn&#39;t predate the discovery of Americas, that&#39;s my point. Despite the fact that the Americas was too big of a bite to be swallowed in one generation, first &#39;Imperialist&#39; wars date back to 1600s in the Carribean. The plunder done in Americas was the background of capitalism, those resources made capitalism possible, and then they needed more resources, and they continued their growth, and then they needed even more resources and so forth.


That imperialism played a role in WWI is not in question here. What is is your seemingly bizarre statement that Germany was not a capitalist society until that war

No, that wasn&#39;t my point. You gotta know about Prussia for being able to tell about German capitalism. What Prussia lacked about colonies and resources, they made up with their incredible military. Historians say &#39;States usually has armies, but Prussian army has a state&#39; about Prussia. Yet it wasn&#39;t going to go like that forever. If you want to continue your capitalist development, you have to exploit at one point or another.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 24 2006, 04:07 PM
It doesn&#39;t predate the discovery of Americas, that&#39;s my point. Despite the fact that the Americas was too big of a bite to be swallowed in one generation, first &#39;Imperialist&#39; wars date back to 1600s in the Carribean. The plunder done in Americas was the background of capitalism, those resources made capitalism possible, and then they needed more resources, and they continued their growth, and then they needed even more resources and so forth.
I think I&#39;m understanding what you&#39;re saying - that the discovery of America generated income and oppertunities for the bourgeoisie. Correct?


You gotta know about Prussia for being able to tell about German capitalism. What Prussia lacked about colonies and resources, they made up with their incredible military. Historians say &#39;States usually has armies, but Prussian army has a state&#39; about Prussia.
That makes no sense. Prussia lacked "colonies and resources" from which to extract wealth and so relied on an army... an institution that drained wealth?

Above all, it doesn&#39;t answer my question. How did Prussia/Germany emerge as a capitalist society without taking colonies until the late 1800s? If you contened that imperialism is a fundamental aspect of all capitalist societies, and required for their formation, you should be able to explain this one.


If you want to continue your capitalist development, you have to exploit at one point or another
My point exactly. To make the transition from early capitalism to modern/liberal capitalism requires a superprofit extracted from foreign resources. Early capitalism however does not require this. There are plenty of examples of early European capitalist societies emerging without colonial possessions before being forced to aquire them to fund social programs.

[Leo]

I think I&#39;m understanding what you&#39;re saying - that the discovery of America generated income and oppertunities for the bourgeoisie. Correct?

Yes, resources... It all dates back to that shameless murderer Coulombs adventure.


That makes no sense. Prussia lacked "colonies and resources" from which to extract wealth and so relied on an army... an institution that drained wealth?

Above all, it doesn&#39;t answer my question. How did Prussia/Germany emerge as a capitalist society without taking colonies until the late 1800s? If you contened that imperialism is a fundamental aspect of all capitalist societies, and required for their formation, you should be able to explain this one.

Prussia was probably the only state in human history that managed to benefit that much from wars. It was unseen, they could win wars when their enemies were three times bigger then them. They gained enormous advantages from lands they gained, war tributes etc. Such policies reached their climate during Bismarck era. Prussia was simply diplomatically manipulating, playing with European powers to maximize their profit and to minimize their loss. After all the resources were coming to Europe from the colonies, and with its military, Germany got them indirectly. But their war games were not enough after a point, they needed actual colonies. We know what followed afterwards.


My point exactly. To make the transition from early capitalism to modern/liberal capitalism requires a superprofit extracted from foreign resources. Early capitalism however does not require this. There are plenty of examples of early European capitalist societies emerging without colonial possessions before being forced to aquire them to fund social programs.

The only example is Germany, there isn&#39;t any other example and Germany is a special case because they managed to delay the need for colonies. Imperialism and capitalism always result in each other.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 24 2006, 07:36 PM
Prussia was probably the only state in human history that managed to benefit that much from wars. It was unseen, they could win wars when their enemies were three times bigger then them. They gained enormous advantages from lands they gained, war tributes etc. Such policies reached their climate during Bismarck era. Prussia was simply diplomatically manipulating, playing with European powers to maximize their profit and to minimize their loss. After all the resources were coming to Europe from the colonies, and with its military, Germany got them indirectly. But their war games were not enough after a point, they needed actual colonies. We know what followed afterwards.
Again whatever sense you are making is ridiculed by historical fact. The Prussian army was not some rampaging beast that supplied Prussia with tribute. Following the Napoleonic Wars, Prussia fought a total of three wars prior to the creation of Germany. With the exception of the first war against Denmark, triggered by the actions of Copenhagen and persecuted by the German Confederation as a whole, the wars were aimed solely at countering Austrian influence and unifying Germany.

There were no rivers of tribute flowing into Berlin. No massive land gains that could have supported the ruling class, even if it worked that way. The German ruling class had no access to foreign resources or sources of wealth. Its even more illogical to suggest that Prussia got resources from colonies “indirectly” as none of its foes had colonial empires&#33;

Furthermore by the time that social reforms were enacted under Bismarck, Germany was unified and at peace. Are you are seriously contending that political mechanisms and diplomacy somehow generate surplus labour?

I really suggest that you read up on European history before spouting anymore of this rubbish.


The only example is Germany, there isn&#39;t any other example and Germany is a special case because they managed to delay the need for colonies. Imperialism and capitalism always result in each other.
How about Austria? Or Italy? Denmark? Spain and France? The only colonial empire of note during the 1800s was Britain and that was due to its holdings in India.

So really in the century that capitalism came to dominate Europe… there were no colonial powers on the continent :o

Imperialism is a result of capitalism but it is a distinct stage in its development.

[Leo]

Again whatever sense you are making is ridiculed by historical fact. The Prussian army was not some rampaging beast that supplied Prussia with tribute. Following the Napoleonic Wars, Prussia fought a total of three wars prior to the creation of Germany. With the exception of the first war against Denmark, triggered by the actions of Copenhagen and persecuted by the German Confederation as a whole, the wars were aimed solely at countering Austrian influence and unifying Germany.

There were no rivers of tribute flowing into Berlin. No massive land gains that could have supported the ruling class, even if it worked that way. The German ruling class had no access to foreign resources or sources of wealth. Its even more illogical to suggest that Prussia got resources from colonies “indirectly” as none of its foes had colonial empires&#33;

Furthermore by the time that social reforms were enacted under Bismarck, Germany was unified and at peace. Are you are seriously contending that political mechanisms and diplomacy somehow generate surplus labour?

I really suggest that you read up on European history before spouting anymore of this rubbish.

I really studied European History, maybe you should too, I am not talking about post Napoleonic wars, I am talking about wars of Frederick the Great. It wasn&#39;t Germany at that point, it was Prussia, the seeds of German capitalism had been thrown during the incredible victories of Frederick, and afterwards we can really think the whole &#39;unifying Germany&#39; campaign as an imperialist one, to get more resources and more labor power.

And did Prussia not fight with France more than occasionally? Are you going to say that France did not have a colonial empire?&#33;


How about Austria? Or Italy? Denmark? Spain and France? The only colonial empire of note during the 1800s was Britain and that was due to its holdings in India.


Let&#39;s go one by one; Austria wasn&#39;t that much industrialized than, say, Ottoman Empire or Russia. It was doing a little better but not that better. Italy was independent city states, after the unification they tried to colonize themselves; one part of the country (south) was exploited by the other part (north). Spain had a very good background and a very strong potential but they started losing everything and their industrial development didn&#39;t really come up until late 19th - early 20th century. Still they had some colonies. And France was a colonial empire, they were constantly competing with England, where did you learn history?


Imperialism is a result of capitalism but it is a distinct stage in its development.

There was raw material. Lots of it. It had been flowing to Europe through England, Spain, Portugal, France and Holland. Remember that Germany was the latecomer. Another thing is this: when that much extra raw material flaws into some countries in a continent, the others are also going to benefit from this, indirectly, and less, but they will benefit from it.

[ComradeOm]

I really studied European History, maybe you should too, I am not talking about post Napoleonic wars, I am talking about wars of Frederick the Great. It wasn&#39;t Germany at that point, it was Prussia, the seeds of German capitalism had been thrown during the incredible victories of Frederick, and afterwards we can really think the whole &#39;unifying Germany&#39; campaign as an imperialist one, to get more resources and more labor power
WTF? This makes no sense. The victories of a feudal king decades before the birth of capitalism in Germany somehow influenced the later growth of that same system? Prussia&#39;s victories did not generate any superprofit&#33;

Really, I’m trying to understand how you can possibly expect anyone to believe that the campaigns of Frederick played any role in the growth of capitalism in Germany decades after his death. Of far more importance were the wars that Prussia lost against Napoleon.


And did Prussia not fight with France more than occasionally? Are you going to say that France did not have a colonial empire?&#33;
Not in 1871. Its “empire” amounted to a few West Indies islands and Algeria.


Austria wasn&#39;t that much industrialized than, say, Ottoman Empire or Russia.
Don’t confuse political paralysis and chaos with economic stagnation. The Austro-Hungarian empire was riddled with massive difficulties but was far more industrialised than either Russia or Turkey. Its industrialisation levels were, while not that of Britain or France, easily in the same league. Note that there were over 2000 km of railroad tracks in the country by the mid 19th century. It was most certainly and unquestionably a capitalist nation/entity. Note the lack of colonies.


Italy was independent city states, after the unification they tried to colonize themselves; one part of the country (south) was exploited by the other part (north)
Wealth gaps have existed in every nation during history. You cannot seriously compare the state of Naples to that of Britain’s India.


And France was a colonial empire, they were constantly competing with England, where did you learn history?
Obviously not the school of clichéd history. France lost what remained of its empire following the defeat of Napoleon. Prior to the great wave of imperialism in the end of the 19th century the only French colony of note was Algeria.


There was raw material. Lots of it. It had been flowing to Europe through England, Spain, Portugal, France and Holland. Remember that Germany was the latecomer.
The exchange of capital prior to the late 1800s was negligible. Lenin, who compiled the most detailed study of this in his time, noted this in Imperialism. The table below lists the capital exported abroad, in billions of francs, for the three leading European capitalist nations. Sorry if the table is screwed up.


Year Great Britain France Germany
1862 3.6 --- ---
1872 15.0 10 &#40;1869&#41; ---
1882 22.0 15 &#40;1880&#41; ?
1893 42.0 20 &#40;1890&#41; ?
1902 62.0 27-37 12.5
1914 75-100.0 60 44.0

Note that as capitalism in these three nations advanced and developed the investment in maintaining and expanding colonial territories drastically increased. By contrast colonial possession were not necessary in the earliest years of capitalism in a nation.

Now I&#39;m getting tired of explain this. History squarely contradicts this notion that imperialist holdings are somehow a prerequisite for the establishment of a capitalist mode of production.

[Leo]

WTF? This makes no sense. The victories of a feudal king decades before the birth of capitalism in Germany somehow influenced the later growth of that same system? Prussia&#39;s victories did not generate any superprofit&#33;

Really, I’m trying to understand how you can possibly expect anyone to believe that the campaigns of Frederick played any role in the growth of capitalism in Germany decades after his death. Of far more importance were the wars that Prussia lost against Napoleon.

Frederick was not just a feudal king, and his victories on the broad sense generate superprofit. During his reign Prussia got into the league of European superpowers and had a political voice among them. They gained important territories, their army made Austria, Russia and most importantly France lose enormous profit and by then France did have a colonial empire. Successes of Prussia pushed the nation far ahead of other nations without colonies. You can&#39;t be a student of history if you don&#39;t realize connections between events, even though they don&#39;t seem direct.


Not in 1871. Its “empire” amounted to a few West Indies islands and Algeria.

Doesn&#39;t matter, France had taken enough... Europe in general had taken enough, when raw materials in such a great amonut enter a continent, it is going to effect the entire continent through trade. Great Briatin benefited the most from the flaw of raw materials but we can even explain the capitalist development of Denmark by that flaw because raw materials become more accessible when they enter in such great amounts to Europe. There is something called trade. Germany became a major power, instead of being like Denmark or Italy, because of its military techniques.


The Austro-Hungarian empire was riddled with massive difficulties but was far more industrialised than either Russia or Turkey. Its industrialisation levels were, while not that of Britain or France, easily in the same league. Note that there were over 2000 km of railroad tracks in the country by the mid 19th century. It was most certainly and unquestionably a capitalist nation/entity. Note the lack of colonies.

Because it was closer to the west, and even then, Austria was regarded as the least industrialized nation among the major powers. Austria, like other nations, benefited from the flaw of raw material to Europe, even though they benefited from it indirectly. As I said, there is something called trade.


Wealth gaps have existed in every nation during history. You cannot seriously compare the state of Naples to that of Britain’s India.

You have no idea what you&#39;re talking about my friend. Read about the lives of peasants in Southern Italy, who made up the entire population of Southern Italy. It might not be as bad as India (but it was pretty close even in early twentieth century), but after all Italy is not Great Britain.


Obviously not the school of clichéd history. France lost what remained of its empire following the defeat of Napoleon. Prior to the great wave of imperialism in the end of the 19th century the only French colony of note was Algeria.

As I said before, they had aquired enough at that time. In the end of 19th century, French had already moved towards Great Britatin against new competitors in the imperial arena.


The exchange of capital prior to the late 1800s was negligible. Lenin, who compiled the most detailed study of this in his time, noted this in Imperialism. The table below lists the capital exported abroad, in billions of francs, for the three leading European capitalist nations. Sorry if the table is screwed up...Note that as capitalism in these three nations advanced and developed the investment in maintaining and expanding colonial territories drastically increased. By contrast colonial possession were not necessary in the earliest years of capitalism in a nation.

Now I&#39;m getting tired of explain this. History squarely contradicts this notion that imperialist holdings are somehow a prerequisite for the establishment of a capitalist mode of production.

But I am not talking about systematiacal exchange of capital, I am talking about simple merchants who were trading the raw materials all over Europe. In fact, this trade was what made them evolve into the capitalist class eventually.

History doesn&#39;t contradict this notion that imperialist holdings are somehow a prerequisite for the establishment of a capitalist mode of production. In fact there is no other way of explaining why Europeans developed first unless you will say that they were the superior race. In fact they were, because of the way religion had evolved in Europe, far more backwards than the Islamic society which had all those inventions and things like that. The only place that was not so backwards before the Renaissance in Europe was Spain (Note that Columbus went to Americas from Spain), and that was because it had a significant Muslim population. Now how will you explain why Europeans developed into capitalism instead of Muslims? The only explanation is this: because they went to the Americas and got hold of raw materials there.