Feudalism

[Taboo Tongue]

I know Nepal has just broken the chains of feudalism. But are there any countries that are still feudal?
I know there are some semi-feudal pockets like Chiapas, Mexico. Are there any other semi-feudal pockets?


Originally posted by RedStar2000+--> (RedStar2000)Feudalism: the replacement of a single despot by a small number of mini-despots who owned huge tracts of agricultural holdings, with laborors being the property of the estate rather than the "lord" (serfs).
[/b]

Marx.org
Feudal society is the type of civilisation, generally associated with predominantly small-scale agricultural production, based on traditional patterns of land-ownership and territory, in which the rights and duties of every member of society is defined by traditional inheritance and kinship relations. more (http://marx.org/glossary/terms/f/e.htm#feudal-society)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Most of Africa and India?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:49 am
Most of Africa and India?
Not really. India is capitalist with little bits of feudalism here and there. Africa is bascially the same. It comes down to capitalist cities vs feudal rural areas.

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by manic expression+May 08, 2007 04:20 pm--> (manic expression @ May 08, 2007 04:20 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 03:49 am
Most of Africa and India?
Not really. India is capitalist with little bits of feudalism here and there. Africa is bascially the same. It comes down to capitalist cities vs feudal rural areas. [/b]
I agree, pockets exist in rural areas. However, on the national level they are intermixed with capitalist urban areas, they coexist. One way of measuring it is: if theres a Maoist insurgency feudal property relations still likely exist there to some degree.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Some shitty little island somewhere just bacame the last country to be free from feudalism (as a whole country)

[Janus]

Bhutan, Nepal, and various areas of Pakistan and India still exist in semi-feudal conditions.

[Comrade Castro]

Most arab countries + afghan/pakistan + iran are quite feudal in some rural areas.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by BreadBros+May 08, 2007 10:30 pm--> (BreadBros @ May 08, 2007 10:30 pm)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 08, 2007 04:20 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 03:49 am
Most of Africa and India?
Not really. India is capitalist with little bits of feudalism here and there. Africa is bascially the same. It comes down to capitalist cities vs feudal rural areas.
I agree, pockets exist in rural areas. However, on the national level they are intermixed with capitalist urban areas, they coexist. One way of measuring it is: if theres a Maoist insurgency feudal property relations still likely exist there to some degree. [/b]
Well I don't accept that any places in India are semi-feudal. India as a whole is capitalist.

Speaking of Maoist insurgency wherever it is happening is not fighting feudal property relationship they are fighting capitalist property relations. Those areas are still undeveloped and people there want full benefits of capitalism which cannot be satisfied by Capitalism because of the very nature of it. So their struggle simply turned out to a struggle for socialism.

And the Caste system is still a feudal practice. It is not still eradicated by capitalists because of vote-bank politics not because people still want to maintain the caste system. Only a permanent workers revolution can successfully eradicate it.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 08, 2007 11:10 pm
Most arab countries + afghan/pakistan + iran are quite feudal in some rural areas.
I am not sure if Iran is that feudal anymore. It is a surprisingly modern country. And even the more backwards areas can still be quite capitalistic.

I will make myself unpopular for saying this, but I think North Korea is a good example of feudalism still existing in the modern era. If countries like the Soviet Union were examples of State Capitalism, there is an argument that North Korea is even further backwards and is a form of feudalism mixed with a srong state.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+May 09, 2007 08:53 am--> (Demogorgon @ May 09, 2007 08:53 am)
Comrade [email protected] 08, 2007 11:10 pm
Most arab countries + afghan/pakistan + iran are quite feudal in some rural areas.
I am not sure if Iran is that feudal anymore. It is a surprisingly modern country. And even the more backwards areas can still be quite capitalistic.

I will make myself unpopular for saying this, but I think North Korea is a good example of feudalism still existing in the modern era. If countries like the Soviet Union were examples of State Capitalism, there is an argument that North Korea is even further backwards and is a form of feudalism mixed with a srong state. [/b]
I actually agree with you here. From what I have seen of North Korea, it's extremely feudal, it's like the Middle Ages class structure. I tell you, it boils my leftist blood to hear such a travesty called a "communist society."

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:23 am
Speaking of Maoist insurgency wherever it is happening is not fighting feudal property relationship they are fighting capitalist property relations. Those areas are still undeveloped and people there want full benefits of capitalism which cannot be satisfied by Capitalism because of the very nature of it. So their struggle simply turned out to a struggle for socialism.

And the Caste system is still a feudal practice. It is not still eradicated by capitalists because of vote-bank politics not because people still want to maintain the caste system. Only a permanent workers revolution can successfully eradicate it.
The problem is that "permanent revolution" has NEVER been tried. You can only have the DOTP (and I'm not even talking about socialism) after the full development of capitalism, which is MUCH MORE than just "property relations" (accumulation is the key here).

As for the "struggle for socialism," non-wage farmers as a class do NOT aspire to such because of their desire for property.

The Maoist insurgencies' struggles are all about struggles for merely revolutionary-democratic tasks (which can quite easily eradicate feudal practices like the caste system, mind you :) ).

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hammer+May 10, 2007 07:02 am--> (Hammer @ May 10, 2007 07:02 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 07:23 am
Speaking of Maoist insurgency wherever it is happening is not fighting feudal property relationship they are fighting capitalist property relations. Those areas are still undeveloped and people there want full benefits of capitalism which cannot be satisfied by Capitalism because of the very nature of it. So their struggle simply turned out to a struggle for socialism.

And the Caste system is still a feudal practice. It is not still eradicated by capitalists because of vote-bank politics not because people still want to maintain the caste system. Only a permanent workers revolution can successfully eradicate it.
The problem is that "permanent revolution" has NEVER been tried.[/b]
Communism is also never been tried. Is it pointless to work towards it then ?

In reality bourgeosie democratic tasks are carried out by the bourgeoisie themselves so there is no need to carry it out newly. It is enough to make sure alll those things reach out to those who really need it.


You can only have the DOTP (and I'm not even talking about socialism) after the full development of capitalism, which is MUCH MORE than just "property relations" (accumulation is the key here).

IMO Capitalism has been fully developed in the economic sense. And the Indian capitalistrs did not come from heaven. They are mostly Zamindars,Zaheerdars,Polygars,Nawabs,Nizams of the past whose property relations in the feudal times(from the Alexanders Invasion era - dusk of Mughal era more time span than the European Feudalism) helped in the primitive accumulation of Capital both during the British times and the Post Indepence stages.



As for the "struggle for socialism," non-wage farmers as a class do NOT aspire to such because of their desire for property.


Clearly you don't know what yuou are speaking about. India's social structure is much complex and require very hard work to understand it in Marxist terms(Even Indian Marxist are not very correct in these matters).It is not as simple as you presume.


The Maoist insurgencies' struggles are all about struggles for merely revolutionary-democratic tasks (which can quite easily eradicate feudal practices like the caste system, mind you :) ).

The democratic tasks have been carried out for nearly two centuries and still Caste system is not eradicated. Instead from late 1970's to this day it is gaining new strength - because of the caste based Vote-Bank politics of bourgeoisie politicians and a lack of non-sectarian revolutinary workers movement to counter it.

The weakness of Maoists insurgency is that the workers and farmers struggle is not two separate things. An insurgency in rural India will not be successful both in short and long terms with out insurrection in the Urban areas. The trouble for Maoists is this they virtually have no presence in the cities(they even don't have presence all over India only in pockets of Central Provinces).

[RedAnarchist]

Sark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sark) in the Channel Islands is a feudal society.

[The Grey Blur]

We live in the era of global capitalism. Feudalism doesn't and can't exist in any meaningful sense.