Is anyone Marxist here ?

[RedArmyFaction]

This may seem like a stupid question but is anyone actually Marxist here ? I get the impression that most people here are Marxist-Lennist.

Now i admire Lenin very much but I believe the reason why Marxist Lennist countries suffer problems with their economies is because it was under-developed before they went into socialism. Marx intended revolutions to occur in heavily industrialised countries with fully developed economies like UK, France, Germany and USA and was not based on the peasantry (unlike Lenin's revolution). The Mensheviks wanted to wait until capitalism reached a good level.

However, Marxist Lennism is a variant of Marxism which in Lenin went into socialism while the economy was still poor.

Am i the only person here who believes in Marxism and waiting for the economy to reach it's highest level and then go into socialism ? This way you are less likely to suffer food shortages ETC. This is what China is doing. They are gearing up their economy for socialism.

In short...........Do you believe in having a good economy before socialism ?

[More Fire for the People]

I am a Marxist but not in the sense that I am pre-Lenin but I am post-Lenin. Fuck that sounds pretentious.

[Luís Henrique]

I am Marxist, but not Leninist. There are lots of people who define themselves like that here.

Luís Henrique

[Tower of Bebel]

Is Menshevism correct marxism?

[Marsella]

Is Menshevism correct marxism?

Well that is a pretty broad movement you are trying to categorize there, from people who supported WW1, to people who were left of the Bolsheviks.

Whilst many claim they are Marxist here, the only people I consistently see applying Marxist class analysis are ComradeRed and LSD (even though he is an anarchist)

People ramble on about scientific analysis but rarely demonstrate it themselves. ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now i admire Lenin very much but I believe the reason why Marxist Lennist countries suffer problems with their economies is because it was under-developed before they went into socialism. Marx intended revolutions to occur in heavily industrialised countries with fully developed economies like UK, France, Germany and USA and was not based on the peasantry (unlike Lenin's revolution). The Mensheviks wanted to wait until capitalism reached a good level.

However, Marxist Lennism is a variant of Marxism which in Lenin went into socialism while the economy was still poor.

I don't think you've been formally introduced into the notion of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, and its distinctiveness from a proper "proletocracy" (DOTP). :(

Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Chapter 10 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch10.htm)

The Trade Unions and Trotsky's Mistakes (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TUTM20.html)

That last statement of yours can be more properly attributed to Trotsky. Lenin's RDDOTPP - a thoroughly Marxist theory for going into capitalism - was basically an acknowledgement that the bourgeoisie were/are incapable of performing their own tasks, and because of that the proles and petit-bourgeoisie have to do that for them.



I will admit that, for a short time between the two works, Lenin euphorically modified his theory to fit with Trotsky's, but by the time of the latter work, he realized his errors.

[Vanguard1917]

There is no doubt that certain economic precondtions have been met in order to build socialism. No one understood this better than the Bolsheviks. They recognised that capitalism is a world system - not one confined to regional or national boundaries - and that the revolution can succeed in Russia if, and only if, it signalled the begining of proletarian revolutions worldwide.

The Mensheviks, on the other hand, were bourgeois philistines who were as close to 'correct Marxism' as all other groups of counter-revolutionaries.

[bezdomni]

lol, didn't the RAF consider themselves Marxist-Leninist?

At any rate, you're an economist...not a revolutionary communist. If you actually agreed with Marx and Engels, you'd know that the conditions for revolution exist in every country in the world today. Your first world chauvinism is deeply mistaken, it's the superexploited proletariat and peasantry in the third world that are the most revolutionary...which is why you have People's War in places like Nepal, Bhutan, India, Peru...etc, but don't even have real revolutionary communist parties in places like the U.K.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Vanguard1917 and SovietPants: Why did you have to resort to polemics?

[RedArmyFaction]

lol, didn't the RAF consider themselves Marxist-Leninist?

At any rate, you're an economist...not a revolutionary communist. If you actually agreed with Marx and Engels, you'd know that the conditions for revolution exist in every country in the world today. Your first world chauvinism is deeply mistaken, it's the superexploited proletariat and peasantry in the third world that are the most revolutionary...which is why you have People's War in places like Nepal, Bhutan, India, Peru...etc, but don't even have real revolutionary communist parties in places like the U.K.

I disagree here. Marx's works were based on the proletariat not the peasantry. Marx rejected the idea of a revolution occuring in less developed countries based on the peasantry. Am i a "economist" ? What would happen if you went into socialism with a collapsed economy ? Starvation and famines that's what.

[Dros]

I find your disdain for Bolshevism highly ironic considering your name, RAF. Also, the word is Leninist, not Lennist.

And I agree (as usual) with Soviet Pants.

[RedArmyFaction]

I find your disdain for Bolshevism highly ironic considering your name, RAF. Also, the word is Leninist, not Lennist.

And I agree (as usual) with Soviet Pants.


Sovietpants seems to be implying............"who cares about the state of the economy; we'll just go into socialism anyway!". Without a thought of the consquences. Well un-Marxist.

[RedJacobin]

You can certainly do an economic determinist reading of Marx, based on an unscientific method of picking out quotes from "sacred texts."

But then, how do you explain Marx's support for less-developed agrarian Ireland against more-developed industrial Britain and Marx's hypothesis that the Russian peasant commune could be the basis for socialist agriculture?

Also, what does it mean to be a Marxist?

Does it mean accepting everything Marx ever wrote? Or does it mean accepting the science of revolution developed by Marx and applying that science to social reality? I would say that it is the second.

So what if Marx "intended" for revolutions to occur first in Western Europe? We know now that particular thesis of his was wrong.

Every science is continually advanced to higher stages as our knowledge of reality is deepened. The science of revolution developed by Marx was raised to higher stages by Lenin and Mao. In order to be a Marxist today, one must be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

[RedArmyFaction]

Also................I don't have a dislike for Maxist-Lennism. I'm just simply stating basic Marxist theory and it's applications, which alot of you seem to have a problem with.

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm a Marxist. Leninism has brought nothing but Bourgeoise revolution.


Also................I don't have a dislike for Maxist-Lennism. I'm just simply stating basic Marxist theory and it's applications, which alot of you seem to have a problem with.

That's the exact reason why I hate Leninists.

[chimx]

I am an advocate of historical materialism which leaves me unable to follow Lenin's line.

[RedJacobin]

Also................I don't have a dislike for Maxist-Lennism. I'm just simply stating basic Marxist theory and it's applications, which alot of you seem to have a problem with.
The idea that revolution must occur first in the countries with the higher level of productive forces is not basic Marxist theory. It is a religious reading of Marx based on quote-picking. And it is contradicted by other quotes.

[RedArmyFaction]

Every science is continually advanced to higher stages as our knowledge of reality is deepened. The science of revolution developed by Marx was raised to higher stages by Lenin and Mao. In order to be a Marxist today, one must be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

Well both Lenin and Mao as a result of their economic policies, ended up causing famines because the economy collapsed and there were food shortages. Was this have happened with a Marxist approach ? I very much doubt it.

[RedArmyFaction]

The idea that revolution must occur first in the countries with the higher level of productive forces is not basic Marxist theory. It is a religious reading of Marx based on quote-picking. And it is contradicted by other quotes.


I might as well bang my head against a brick wall here.

It is basic Marxist theory. Marx continually mentions the word "PROLETARIAT" in which Marx meant the industrial workers and in which they represent the masses. In Marx's time, the industrial workforce in Russia were not in the masses as Russia was still in the early stages of capitalism. The use of the word "proletariat" means he was taking about highly industrialised countries..............which Russia wasn't at that time.

[Bilan]

Well both Lenin and Mao as a result of their economic policies, ended up causing famines because the economy collapsed and there were food shortages. Was this have happened with a Marxist approach ? I very much doubt it.

Being orthodox to any theory is not going to guarantee that famines, and so on, don't occur.
Assessing the conditions and applying the most practical methods to suit those conditions is what will do that.

And even so, to blame it simply on Lenin and Mao's economic policies -particularly Lenins- is a bit unfair on your part, I'd say, as it was quite a chaotic period following the revolution, what with the civil war and all.

[RedJacobin]

I might as well bang my head against a brick wall here. It is basic Marxist theory. Marx continually mentions the word "PROLETARIAT" in which Marx meant the industrial workers and in which they represent the masses. In Marx's time, the industrial workforce in Russia were not in the masses as Russia was still in the early stages of capitalism. The use of the word "proletariat" means he was taking about highly industrialised countries..............which Russia wasn't at that time.
Read Marx on Ireland. Read Marx on the Russian peasant commune.

Also, I think your method is wrong here.

Leaving aside the whole question of whether Lenin and Mao “caused” famines (I think they did not and the causal factors were much more complicated: imperialist encirclement, bad weather conditions, and so on)...

Causing famines is not the determinant of whether one is following a Marxist approach.

[La Comédie Noire]

Read Marx on Ireland. Read Marx on the Russian peasant commune.

Also, I think your method is wrong here.

Leaving aside the whole question of whether Lenin and Mao “caused” famines (I think they did not and the causal factors were much more complicated: imperialist encirclement, bad weather conditions, and so on)...

Causing famines is not the determinant of whether one is following a Marxist approach.

The point you are missing is if russia had been an advanced capitalist nation these famines wouldn't have occured in the first place. A Marxist approach means you realize the effect of material conditions on history.

[RedArmyFaction]

The point you are missing is if russia had been an advanced capitalist nation these famines wouldn't have occured in the first place. A Marxist approach means you realize the effect of material conditions on history.

Thank you, Comrade Floyd. Least someone understands where i'm coming from !

[Dros]

Before I start: It's Leninism. There is no such thing as Lennism.


Well both Lenin and Mao as a result of their economic policies, ended up causing famines because the economy collapsed and there were food shortages. Was this have happened with a Marxist approach ? I very much doubt it.

Right. And there certainly wasn't a famine all over eastern Europe that was caused by a specific and discernible fungus epidemic. Somehow Lenin caused the famine. And with regards to Mao's alleged causing of famines a.) there have been famines in China since there have been people in China so saying Mao caused it makes no sense b.) after that one famine, there wasn't another famine during Mao's rule (MAO SOLVED THE FOOD PROBLEM FOR THE PEASENTRY IN CHINA) c.) don't forget all the other factors that caused that famine (climate).

As for the other part of the argument. You're brutally misreading Marx here. Others have demonstrated that rather clearly. I think that Stalin and Lenin successfully demonstrated that socialism is capable of developing the means of production even if you do think they had their revolution "to early". Anyway, the very fact that there was a revolution demonstrates that it was the proper time for a revolution.

[BobKKKindle$]

Am i the only person here who believes in Marxism and waiting for the economy to reach it's highest level and then go into socialism ? This way you are less likely to suffer food shortages ETC. This is what China is doing. They are gearing up their economy for socialism.

This is all very well, but imperialism has prevented the oppressed nations from undergoing development, as market competition relegates these nations to the production of a single or a small range of primary goods, which attain a low value on the marketplace. In these countries the bourgeoisie is too weak or it too closely tied to foreign governments that the task of achieving economic independence (and, other historic tasks normally associated with the bourgeoisie, such as national liberation) falls to the proletariat, in cooperation with the peasantry and other revolutionary groups. Simply 'waiting' for development to occur is a defeatist strategy, and shows a failure to understand the reasons for underdevelopment. Workers in these countries are forced to live in appalling conditions of poverty and face the permanent danger of poverty, as foreign enterprise can withdraw invested assets at short notice, and so it is clearly in these nations that the greatest potential for revolution exists, and so long as you choose to abstain from struggle until these nations are sufficiently developed, you are complicit in the crushing exploitation endured by third-world workers.

Marx recognized that Marxism should be an 'organic' science - meaning that Marxists should be able to adapt their theories as capitalism underwent new changes which Marx was unable to predict, he was alive when capitalism had only just emerged as a mode of production distinct from previous epochs. To assume that Marx is infallible shows a failure to understand the Marxist method.

[La Comédie Noire]

As for the other part of the argument. You're brutally misreading Marx here. Others have demonstrated that rather clearly. I think that Stalin and Lenin successfully demonstrated that socialism is capable of developing the means of production even if you do think they had their revolution "to early". Anyway, the very fact that there was a revolution demonstrates that it was the proper time for a revolution.

No one is debating whether or not there was revolution. What those revolutions acheived are what falls into question. What doe's it seem like they acheived? Capitalism


This is all very well, but imperialism has prevented the oppressed nations from undergoing development, as market competition relegates these nations to the production of a single or a small range of primary goods, which attain a low value on the marketplace. In these countries the bourgeoisie is too weak or it too closely tied to foreign governments that the task of achieving economic independence (and, in pre-capitalist societies, carrying out the historic tasks normally associated with the bourgeoisie) falls to the proletariat, in cooperation with the peasantry and other revolutionary groups. Simply 'waiting' for development to occur is a defeatist strategy, and shows a failure to understand the reasons for underdevelopment.

As material conditions change so do the tactics of the ruling class. The end result is still the same, Capitalism.

[BobKKKindle$]

Clearly, the theory of permanent revolution (which I have outlined above) is essential to understanding how we should approach undeveloped states. The further development of this theory, in the form of 'deflected' permanent revolution, a concept associated with the SWP, shows how, in some cases, anti-imperialist revolution could occur without the leading role of the proletariat, when the intelligentsia was able to gain sufficient political power to take control of the state apparatus - as occurred in the case of Cuba and many other 'third-world' revolutions. Thereafter, state-capitalist regimes arose, which used the language of socialism (Marxism as an ideology) to create an appearance of legitimacy, although such governments were primarily concerned with economic self-sufficiency and were not based on the power of the working-class, expressed through soviets and other democratic institutions.

This theory is one of the most important post-war developments in Marxist theory and enables us to understand the origins and class nature of the Chinese revolution - clearly the SWP's position is superior to the ideas propagated by other orthodox trotskyists, as well as the anti-revisionist left.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Clearly, the theory of permanent revolution (which I have outlined above) is essential to understanding how we should approach undeveloped states.

No, it isn't. :(

Oh, and when did Trotsky factor into this thread? The original question dealt with Marx vs. Lenin.


The further development of this theory, in the form of 'deflected' permanent revolution, a concept associated with the SWP, shows how, in some cases, anti-imperialist revolution could occur without the leading role of the proletariat, when the intelligentsia was able to gain sufficient political power to take control of the state apparatus - as occurred in the case of Cuba and many other 'third-world' revolutions.

Link?

[Just so that I can properly critique this further "development."]


Thereafter, state-capitalist regimes arose, which used the language of socialism (Marxism as an ideology) to create an appearance of legitimacy, although such governments were primarily concerned with economic self-sufficiency and were not based on the power of the working-class, expressed through soviets and other democratic institutions.

State capitalism can arise even with active, democratic participation of the working class. What's your point, aside from your remark regarding bureaucratic versus "revolutionary-democratic" superstructures? :confused:


This theory is one of the most important post-war developments in Marxist theory and enables us to understand the origins and class nature of the Chinese revolution - clearly the SWP's position is superior to the ideas propagated by other orthodox trotskyists, as well as the anti-revisionist left.

Not quite. The Maoists were neo-Mensheviks who conceded to more militant methods to bring about their bourgeois revolution (in other words, Socialist-Revolutionary militancy + ideological Menshevism). Funny how you mention the "anti-revisionist left," though.

[BobKKKindle$]

Link?

[Just so that I can properly critique this further "development."]

Here's a quick summary: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=9889 and the full text is available at the MIA (search under Tony Cliff)

Why do you disagree with Trotsky's theory? Do you think Socialists should not engage in struggle until a successful bourgeois revolution (and the subsequent period of industrial development) has occurred - do you think it is even possible for such a revolution to occur, given the role of imperialism in undermining the independence of the bourgeoisie in the oppressed nations? Do you think Lenin had an alternative interpretation, or was he in full agreement with Trotsky, after April 1917, when Lenin called for the seizure of power?


What's your point, aside from your remark regarding bureaucratic versus "revolutionary-democratic" superstructures?

The theory was developed in order to account for revolutions which overthrew imperialism, following the second world war, and the class nature of the societies that arose. This is an issue of contention within the left, as other leftists would credit these societies (particularly the Cuban revolution, despite the minimal role of the working class) as being socialist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why do you disagree with Trotsky's theory? Do you think Socialists should not engage in struggle until a successful bourgeois revolution (and the subsequent period of industrial development) has occurred

Are you now accusing me of Menshevism? :confused:

While the modern world is fully capitalist, there are certain woefully underdeveloped areas where triggering a proper, worldwide socialist revolution isn't appropriate (Somalia, for example, wouldn't be a good trigger point, but parts of Latin America, on the other hand). In these areas, "revolutionary democracy" is still quite relevant.

As for historical questions, I'm a "two-stageist" of the "left" variety - just as Lenin was (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch10.htm ).


Do you think Lenin had an alternative interpretation, or was he in full agreement with Trotsky, after April 1917, when Lenin called for the seizure of power?

Come now! You've seen my posts all over this board regarding the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1050907&postcount=23) (and other petit-bourgeois segments), haven't you? :confused:

[kromando33]

Just to confirm, 'permanent revolution' is a feeble reactionary concept which is basically the only idea Trotsky used, but he stole that too. It's nothing but a justification for social-imperialism. In reality this theory does not focus attempt on the revolutionary proletarian nation in question, but is a desperate attempt to stir nationalistic sentiment through foreign imperialism ideologically disguised as 'internationalism'. Foreign wars produce the opposite results in the foreign proletarians, instead of stirring class consciousness within them it instead lets the bourgeois state rally them with nationalism under the banner of reaction. 'Permanent Revolution' breeds proletarian sectarianism based on narrow nationalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Every science is continually advanced to higher stages as our knowledge of reality is deepened. The science of revolution developed by Marx was raised to higher stages by Lenin and Mao. In order to be a Marxist today, one must be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

Great - sectarianism in this very thread. :rolleyes:

When did Mao come into the picture? The original question was in regards to orthodox Marxism versus "Leninism."


Just to confirm, 'permanent revolution' is a feeble reactionary concept which is basically the only idea Trotsky used, but he stole that too. It's nothing but a justification for social-imperialism. In reality this theory does not focus attempt on the revolutionary proletarian nation in question, but is a desperate attempt to stir nationalistic sentiment through foreign imperialism ideologically disguised as 'internationalism'. Foreign wars produce the opposite results in the foreign proletarians, instead of stirring class consciousness within them it instead lets the bourgeois state rally them with nationalism under the banner of reaction. 'Permanent Revolution' breeds proletarian sectarianism based on narrow nationalism.

Similar question to you: when did Trotsky (or your criticism of him) come into the picture?

[bezdomni]

The people who disagree with Lenin on the grounds that he "rushed too much for a revolution" should really read Imperalism, which is easily his most important contribution to Marxist theory. Because the first world nations exploit most of their capital from the third world, crippling independent economic development on a global scale for the benefit of only a few economies (the imperialist economies)....this uneven-ness in development creates the conditions for socialism in the super-exploited proletariat and (sections of the) peasantry of the third world.

The people who are saying "just wait for capitalism to develop in the third world" are failing to have a Marxist analysis (and upholding a very economist, opportunist and national chauvinist line), because they ignore imperialism.

After all, Marx said "workers of the world, unite"....not "white, first world workers of the world".

[Die Neue Zeit]

The people who disagree with Lenin on the grounds that he "rushed too much for a revolution" should really read Imperalism [THSOC], which is easily his most important contribution to Marxist theory.

At least you're directing the topic back on track! :cool:

However, I suggest - as a "Leninist" critique - one should also read Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, written a few months after, to see Lenin's erroneous overemphasis on colonialism that was absent in Imperialism: TSHOC. :(



IMO, I'd also contest your assertion that Lenin's theory of imperialism was a bigger contribution to Marxist thinking than his emphasis on organization. That emphasis stretches from the base (the organization of modern monopoly capitalism) to the superstructure (the vanguard party).

[R_P_A_S]

This is what China is doing. They are gearing up their economy for socialism.
?



WHAAAAT???? you honestly believe that????

[BobKKKindle$]

The people who are saying "just wait for capitalism to develop in the third world" are failing to have a Marxist analysis (and upholding a very economist, opportunist and national chauvinist line), because they ignore imperialism.

I agree - I actually made this argument in my first post. The underdevelopment of the oppressed nations and the prosperity enjoyed by advanced countries (including, one could argue, the workers in those countries) are linked through the historic (in the form of colonialism) and ongoing exploitation of the third world. Trotsky described the situation in the oppressed nations as 'combined and uneven development' as imperialism creates isolated centers of modern industry, through foreign investment, even if most of the population is still engaged in pre-capitalist production, in the form of sustenance (or marginal) agriculture. These centers act as focal points of political radicalism, and the embryonic working class leads the bourgeois-democratic revolution, followed by the socialist revolution. In this respect, Trotskyists are in full agreement with Maoists - it is essential that we do not 'wait' for development to occur (which is, in any case, an impossibility, given the nature of imperialism) and should instead agitate for immediate revolution - I hope we can learn to transform this theoretical agreement into cooperation on a practical level.

When Trotsky spoke of 'deepening' the revolution, he also meant the need to expand the revolution beyond national borders, such that the revolution is not only permanent in terms of the immediate transition for bourgeois society to socialism, but is also international in scope. As such, accusations of 'nationalism' have no basis. International revolution is necessary in undeveloped states, as the assistance of countries in which the productive forces are fully developed if necessary, if pressing scarcity is to be overcome. Failure in this regards created the material conditions which allowed for the growth of the bureaucracy, in Soviet Russia.


Similar question to you: when did Trotsky (or your criticism of him) come into the picture?

Trotsky's theory is very relevant to this thread - it explicitly deals with revolution in undeveloped nations. So far as I know, Trotsky developed the concept of combined and uneven development - a concept this is applicable to many countries today. As for your earlier post, regarding the various forms of dictatorship, and the differences between Trotsky and Lenin, I must confess that I haven't read many of your other posts on this subject, and hopefully I'll make a statement on this issue in due course. I would be interested to hear your views on deflected PR though.


WHAAAAT???? you honestly believe that????

One would have to be naive, to believe that the PRC is still socialist in any meaningful sense of the word. However, it is still possible to argue that the PRC is 'moving towards' socialism, because economic growth is creating urban conglomerations, populated by workers who are already beginning to pose challenges to the government, despite repression, in the form of strikes, to retain the services that are being eliminated through market reforms. This resistance could form the nucleus of a new revolutionary movement.

[La Comédie Noire]

The people who disagree with Lenin on the grounds that he "rushed too much for a revolution" should really read Imperalism, which is easily his most important contribution to Marxist theory. Because the first world nations exploit most of their capital from the third world, crippling independent economic development on a global scale for the benefit of only a few economies (the imperialist economies)....this uneven-ness in development creates the conditions for socialism in the super-exploited proletariat and (sections of the) peasantry of the third world.

The people who are saying "just wait for capitalism to develop in the third world" are failing to have a Marxist analysis (and upholding a very economist, opportunist and national chauvinist line), because they ignore imperialism.

After all, Marx said "workers of the world, unite"....not "white, first world workers of the world".

I'm not saying his revolution failed because he rushed. I'm saying his revolution did exactly what it was suppost to, develop capitalism. Whether he knew it or not. It did what it could do given the material conditions at the time.

Recognizing that material conditions determine the revolutionary potential of each area is a marxist analysis. I don't Ignore imperialism, I just think who the imperialist exploiters are now will change in years to come.

Third world workers aren't going to revolt, it doesnt make sense, they are going to demand more capitalism because it is what will be most beneficial to them at the time.

I think the concept of a vanguard party is way more chauvnist then historical materialism.

[BobKKKindle$]

Third world workers aren't going to revolt, it doesnt make sense, they are going to demand more capitalism because it is what will be most beneficial to them at the time.

You're wrong. 'Third world workers' are increasingly beginning to turn to socialism, as they recognize that capitalism, particularly in its neo-liberal form, under which government provision of social services and barriers to the movement of capital and goods have been reduced so as to conform to the prevailing ideology, is simply incapable of meeting their material needs and developing the oppressed nations. This changing political orientation has thus far taken the form of electing left-wing governments to power, most notably Hugo Chavez, and the growth of worker-owned enterprises, as well as protests against the privatization of state enterprises, as in the case of the water utility in Bolivia, but may eventually develop into armed struggle against the state. Already, the peasantry in several countries has taken up arms to fight back against the effects of capitalist imperialism, as shown by the Zapatistas in Mexico. This empirical evidence destroys your assertion.

The oppressed of the world know what they want - and it's not capitalism. You seem to be arguing that capitalism can be progressive (insofar as that the oppressed nations can develop within the confines of private property and the world market system) and this shows how you simply don't understand imperialism - there is a causative relationship between poverty in the oppressed nations (known as the periphery in the terminology of dependency theory) and prosperity in the imperialist core. I think Trotsky used the expression 'the other side of the same coin' to describe this relationship. This is an elementary truth that appears in all major post-Lenin Marxist texts. For example, from Djilas' 'The New Class - The Character of the Revolution' :


Under the backward conditions existing in Czarist Russia, capitalist private ownership not only showed itself incapable of rapid industrial transformation, but actually obstructed it. The private property class had developed in a country in which extremely powerful feudal relationships still existed, while monopolies of more developed countries retained their grip on this enormous area abounding in raw materials and markets...Russia found herself in the whirlpool of modern world capitalism and in the snares of the financial interests of the gigantic banking centers.

Emphasis mine.

As such, we need revolution now - you can sit around waiting, but I'm not going to be complicit in the suffering of the oppressed.

[La Comédie Noire]

You're wrong. 'Third world workers' are increasingly beginning to turn to socialism, as they recognize that capitalism, particularly in its neo-liberal form, under which government provision of social services and barriers to the movement of capital and goods have been reduced so as to conform to the prevailing ideology, is simply incapable of meeting their material needs and developing the oppressed nations. This changing political orientation has thus far taken the form of electing left-wing governments to power, most notably Hugo Chavez, and the growth of worker-owned enterprises, as well as protests against the privatization of state enterprises, as in the case of the water utility in Bolivia, but may eventually develop into armed struggle against the state. Already, the peasantry in several countries has taken up arms to fight back against the effects of capitalist imperialism, as shown by the Zapatistas in Mexico.

Yes, they are fighting the effects of imperialism but they are willing to entertain the benefits of home bred capitalism. Not all capitalists are on the same page. Some see the benefit of reducing the continents of Africa and South America to raw material and agricultural markets, while others, like China, see the benefit of opening other markets to them. This is east meets west, this is old vs. new.

Sure they are electing people like Hugo Chavez but is it because he's a great socialist leader? No, it is because he offers them the most social programs and benefits. Which sounds a lot more like reform than revolution to me. It isn't a bad thing of course, they should have all the protection from the merciless bastards they can.


The oppressed of the world know what they want - and it's not capitalism. You seem to be arguing that capitalism can be progressive (insofar as that the oppressed nations can develop within the confines of private property and the world market system) and this shows how you simply don't understand imperialism - there is a causative relationship between poverty in the oppressed nations (known as the periphery in the terminology of dependency theory) and prosperity in the imperialist core. I think Trotsky used the expression 'the other side of the same coin' to describe this relationship. This is an elementary truth that appears in all major post-Lenin Marxist texts. For example, from Djilas' 'The New Class - The Character of the Revolution'

More correctly what they don't want is foreign exploitation. Look at the American Bourgeoise revolution for example.

Of course the third world is connected to the first world, this is where the potential for proleterian revolution lies, in the decadence of super exploitation. Don't you think as exploited third world countries become capitalist themselves they will upset the wealth of first world countries such as the United States? What do you think will happen when these privelaged workers suddenly find themselves in worse and worse conditions? They will revolt!


As such, we need revolution now - you can sit around waiting, but I'm not going to be complicit in the suffering of the oppressed.

oh but it's not a matter of will. It's a matter of material conditions.

Edit:


Under the backward conditions existing in Czarist Russia, capitalist private ownership not only showed itself incapable of rapid industrial transformation, but actually obstructed it. The private property class had developed in a country in which extremely powerful feudal relationships still existed, while monopolies of more developed countries retained their grip on this enormous area abounding in raw materials and markets...Russia found herself in the whirlpool of modern world capitalism and in the snares of the financial interests of the gigantic banking centers.

So they got a Leninist party to do it for them and now they are capitalist!

[BobKKKindle$]

Your position is blatantly anti-revolution :mad: I have consistently supported Socialist Revolution in undeveloped states - you take a weak stance which sounds like class collaborationism with some mythical national bourgeoisie which, even if it exists, wields minimal political power.


Yes, they are fighting the effects of imperialism but they are willing to entertain the benefits of home bred capitalism


More correctly what they don't want is foreign exploitation. Look at the American Bourgeoise revolution for example.

What do you mean by 'home bred capitalism'? Capitalism is an international system - you cannot examine one country in isolation from the world marketplace and the economic influence of other states, particularly now that capital flows are international and so economic crisis rapidly spreads beyond the locality of origin - as shown by the recent financial collapse. The main bourgeoisie benefits from this arrangement, as they are closely tied to the interests of foreign capital, and the small section of the bourgeoisie that (allegedly) aims to initiate independent development, presumably by closing their countries off from the rest of the world through protectionist trade policy, based on your comments, is insufficiently powerful to challenge the influence of institutions such as the IMF which force markets to remain open. This is the main premise of Permanent Revolution.

Whether a closed economy would be able to undergo development is a matter of debate - the experience of Russia under state-capitalism suggests that this might be possible. Yet you have also asserted that the proletariat would accept the exploitation of the domestic bourgeoisie as preferable to remaining within the world economy, but you have given no justification for this view, which constitutes a denial not only of class struggle, but also of historical experience. What makes a national bourgeoisie 'better' than a bourgeoisie based in New York? Do you think workers will empathize with bosses of the same nationality? Are you supportive of class collaboration?

The example of the American Revolution simply does not stand, because Permanent Revolution is concerned with countries in which the Bourgeoisie has 'arrived late on the scene' after the ascendency of the main imperial powers - this does not reflect the situation in America, where the Bourgeoisie was not tied to an imperial power. Russia exemplifies the importance of Permanent Revolution - in that country, not only were the bourgeoisie tied to foreign capital, they also retain key links with the old feudal regime, in the form of the Tsarist monarchy, which rendered the Bourgeoisie incapable of being a progressive force - as shown from my quote from 'The New Class'.

You are essentially trying to make an excuse for not engaging in socialist (as opposed to nationalist, which entails forming alliances with or conceding leadership to non-proletarian forces) struggle in undeveloped states.


Don't you think as exploited third world countries become capitalist themselves they will upset the wealth of first world countries such as the United States?

This makes no sense - these countries are already 'capitalist' at least in some urban areas where modern conditions of production prevail. Marx described Capitalism as initially progressive, because it allowed for the rapid development of productive resources, based on the economic history of countries such as Britain, and yet he was unable to predict the effects of Imperialism on oppressed states - the position of these states in the world economy makes development under (market?) capitalism impossible. These nation are necessary to provide the core with a source of cheap labour and raw materials, and if, somehow, they were able to suddenly develop to the same level as the core, available resources would run out in a very short period of time, because there is currently such a skewed distribution of energy use.

Workers are beginning to revolt because of their material conditions - I refer you to the examples I've already given. You're clearly blind to how workers in the oppressed nations live! You seem to advocate some form of state-capitalism, based on the power of the 'national bourgeoisie', instead of genuine workers' power and international revolution.

There is a simple question you have not grasped: Do you support Socialist revolution (i.e. revolution led by the working class) in undeveloped states? If not, what should our strategy be in these countries - should we be encouraging the national bourgeoisie (for the existence of which you've given no evidence) to take power and disregard workers' struggles?


What do you think will happen when these privelaged workers suddenly find themselves in worse and worse conditions? They will revolt!

What privileged workers? Are you suggesting that workers in the oppressor nations benefit from Imperialism? If so, Lenin disagrees with you - Imperialism creates conditions that are conducive to greater class struggle in these nations. From 'The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination - 1. Imperialism, Socialism, and the Liberation of Oppressed Nations':

"Hence, in Western Europe and in the United States of America, the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat for the overthrow of the capitalist governments, for the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, is on the order of the day. Imperialism is forcing the masses into this struggle by sharpening class antagonisms to an immense degree, by worsening the conditions of the masses both economically—trusts and high cost of living, and politically—growth of militarism, frequent wars, increase of reaction, strengthening and extension of national oppression and colonial plunder."

Emphasis mine.

If, as you seem to be arguing, workers (or at least a section of the working class) in the oppressor nations benefit from Imperialism, then, by implication, the interests of oppressed nation workers and their counterparts in the imperialist core are in direct opposition, and as such we have to make a decision as to which 'side' to support. I of course do not agree with this position, but the implications are, as you can see, difficult.

Workers in oppressor nations are harmed by imperialism - as Lenin argued, based on the quote above. They have no interest in maintaing imperial subjugation. If you disagree, go join MIM.


So they got a Leninist party to do it for them and now they are capitalist!

They are now capitalist not because the revolution was led by a Vanguard party or because Russia was undeveloped, but because the revolution did not spread abroad. Now that Russia is fully developed, we should begin to construct a new vanguard party to destroy Capitalism, restore the advances of the Bolshevik revolution, and build Socialism.

[Luís Henrique]

Am i the only person here who believes in Marxism and waiting for the economy to reach it's highest level and then go into socialism ?

Sorry, that's not Marxism, that's philistinism of the worst kind.


In short...........Do you believe in having a good economy before socialism ?

Of course not. If we had a "good economy" under capitalism, why on Earth would we need socialism?

We want socialism because capitalism does not and can not work.

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

We want socialism because capitalism does not and can not work.

How does capitalism not work? It revolutionized human industrial capabilities similarly to how feudalism revolutionized human agricultural capabilities.

[Vanguard1917]

How does capitalism not work? It revolutionized human industrial capabilities

I'm sure Luis wouldn't dispute this. From a Marxist perspective, at a certain stage of its development capitalism itself becomes a fetter on the advancement of society's productive forces.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm sure Luis wouldn't dispute this. From a Marxist perspective, at a certain stage of its development capitalism itself becomes a fetter on the advancement of society's productive forces.

Yes, I agree, in the Imperialist stage, under which every country has become integrated into the world economy, Capitalism is no longer a progressive force, especially in the oppressed nations, and so socialist revolution should become an immediate objective for every country - including the imperial core, as Lenin noted.

[chimx]

I'm sure Luis wouldn't dispute this. From a Marxist perspective, at a certain stage of its development capitalism itself becomes a fetter on the advancement of society's productive forces.

Not all economies advance at the same time. Are you suggesting it is within our ability to point out at exactly what point capitalism becomes a larger burden than it is progressive? Bob Kindles seems to think he can.

[BobKKKindle$]

Not all economies advance at the same time. Are you suggesting it is within our ability to point out at exactly what point capitalism becomes a larger burden than it is progressive? Bob Kindles seems to think he can.

Of course I don't know; I would argue, however, that the entire world has now passed that point, and it is now not only 'beneficial' to overthrow Capitalism, it has became a pressing necessity, for the simple reason that, if allowed to continue, Capitalism will begin to threaten our ability to sustain our existence, as a result of environmental degradation which is occurring on a colossal scale. I think every Socialist would agree with me on this point. The choice between Socialism and Barbarism is now very real.

[chimx]

But what of productive advances made under capitalism today? The entertainment industry has seen a huge change in the past decade, becoming in itself an economy of infinite surplus. We are seeing huge developments in power conservation with wind turbine (expect to see gigantic floating wind turbines in the next 10 years), food production, etc.

Not to mention in the underdeveloped world... well, they are still underdeveloped and don't have any industrial capacity for socialism.

[Luís Henrique]

How does capitalism not work? It revolutionized human industrial capabilities similarly to how feudalism revolutionized human agricultural capabilities.

It doesn't work because it does not provide a decent life for everybody; it doesn't work because it causes cyclical crisis in economy; it doesn't work because it causes technological progress to harden human life instead of easing it.

Of course capitalism worked; it is a much better system than feudalism. It does not work any more, it doesn't meet the demands of common people.

If you believe it works, then why do you oppose it? Or don't you?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

But what of productive advances made under capitalism today? The entertainment industry has seen a huge change in the past decade, becoming in itself an economy of infinite surplus. We are seeing huge developments in power conservation with wind turbine (expect to see gigantic floating wind turbines in the next 10 years), food production, etc.

Capitalism cannot stop technological development, but under capitalism every technological development becomes a cause of crisis, because it will be used to create unemployment.


Not to mention in the underdeveloped world... well, they are still underdeveloped and don't have any industrial capacity for socialism.

They are not "still" underdeveloped; they are already underdeveloped, and underdevelopment is not an initial stage of development, it is its own final stage.

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

If you believe it works, then why do you oppose it? Or don't you?
Generally I save the moralizing for personal problems with bosses and such and avoid it when speaking of general historical trends. I agree with Marx that communism is something that naturally develops out of capitalism, and it is my opinion that we are in a period of human history where economies of scarcity are becoming obsolete.


Capitalism cannot stop technological development, but under capitalism every technological development becomes a cause of crisis, because it will be used to create unemployment.

How is that unique to capitalism?


They are not "still" underdeveloped; they are already underdeveloped, and underdevelopment is not an initial stage of development, it is its own final stage.

Korea, South Africa, Algeria, even your own home town in Brazil -- you still consider these countries underdeveloped and at their final developmental stage within capitalism? What about are you opinions on the economic developments in Vietnam?

[BobKKKindle$]

I hope Comrade Floyd will deal with my post, but this is interesting, so I want to continue this discussion as well.


We are seeing huge developments in power conservation with wind turbine (expect to see gigantic floating wind turbines in the next 10 years), food production, etc.

So, are you suggesting that Capitalism will be able to resolve the apparent tension between the drive for profit and the need to preserve the environment? This for me, is one of the most important prevailing contradictions in the current epoch. What of the wars that derive from economic competition between rival nation states - surely these wars will remain an inherent feature of Capitalism in its imperialist stage?

I'd also like to add that, across the world, growth rates are low, relative to previous decades, and recent political events suggest that, once again, Capitalism is entering a violent period (within the historical stage of imperialism) during which imperialist aggression will become more frequent, as conventional forms of pressure, in the form of political influence, and the use of institutions, are no longer sufficient to guarantee access to markets and the various other 'dimensions' of imperialism.


Not to mention in the underdeveloped world... well, they are still underdeveloped and don't have any industrial capacity for socialism.

You misunderstand the concept of underdevelopment; these nations are fundamentally incapable of development within the confines of capitalism, because they are subject to the exploitation of and are essentially dependent on the oppressor states. Socialist revolution is necessary if workers in these nations are to be raised form material hardship.

To return again to an issue linked to the environment; in my earlier post I mentioned that the earth's resources would run out if every country suddenly has the same level of consumption as the oppressor states; doesn't this in itself suggest that extensive development for every country is impossible under Capitalism?

[Vanguard1917]

[capitalism] causes technological progress to harden human life instead of easing it.

While i agree that technological development under capitalism has destructive as well as dynamic features (for example, capitalism cannot invent nuclear power without also inventing the nuclear bomb, or invent the motor without also inventing the tank), i think that this assertion is too simplistic.

Can we simply say that technological progress has made life worse for people? I don't think we can.

[Dros]

This is what China is doing. They are gearing up their economy for socialism.

Are you kidding! That is totally absurd. China had socialism. There was a capitalist coup and now they are building capitalism!

[chimx]

So, are you suggesting that Capitalism will be able to resolve the apparent tension between the drive for profit and the need to preserve the environment? This for me, is one of the most important prevailing contradictions in the current epoch.
Well I don't know. I would argue that conservation movements have not played a critical role in the overthrow of previous historical epochs. I would also say that free markets will naturally shift towards conservation when it becomes economical favorable to do so. You can take for example the rise of hybrid cars onto the market right now with rising oil prices (and the rise in diesel cars in the next 10 years after hybrids die out).


What of the wars that derive from economic competition between rival nation states - surely these wars will remain an inherent feature of Capitalism in its imperialist stage?

Wars have been fought for these reasons since long before capitalism. I don't think I understand your point here.


I'd also like to add that, across the world, growth rates are low, relative to previous decades, and recent political events suggest that, once again, Capitalism is entering a violent period (within the historical stage of imperialism) during which imperialist aggression will become more frequent, as conventional forms of pressure, in the form of political influence, and the use of institutions, are no longer sufficient to guarantee access to markets and the various other 'dimensions' of imperialism.

I assume you are talking about the war in Iraq? During this period the US has also signed probably half a dozen bilateral free trade agreements. I would have to disagree with your assessment of how trade will be done in the coming years.


You misunderstand the concept of underdevelopment; these nations are fundamentally incapable of development within the confines of capitalism, because they are subject to the exploitation of and are essentially dependent on the oppressor states. Socialist revolution is necessary if workers in these nations are to be raised form material hardship.

Underdeveloped nations have, and do, develop though. I just asked Luis, but what do you think about the developments in Vietnam? They have signed a free trade agreement with the US and their economy is now soaring at 8% annual GDP growth.

Now a lot of Latin American states fit your what you are saying. Industry tends to revolve around resource extraction. Cooper mining in Chile for example. It will be interesting to see how these countries grow over the next 10 years with the surge of FTAs, and if they try to copy the export-model of Korea and Vietnam.

[Luís Henrique]

Generally I save the moralizing for personal problems with bosses and such and avoid it when speaking of general historical trends.

Curious, I would say that working or not working is a removed issue from morality as one can get.


I agree with Marx that communism is something that naturally develops out of capitalism, and it is my opinion that we are in a period of human history where economies of scarcity are becoming obsolete.

I don't think Marx ever thought that communism naturally develops out of capitalism.


How is that unique to capitalism?

Which other system turns technological advancement into an instrument of increased enslaving of the working masses?


Korea, South Africa, Algeria, even your own home town in Brazil -- you still consider these countries underdeveloped and at their final developmental stage within capitalism?

I would say that Korea probably jumped into the first world (if Severian was here, he would probably contradict me with good data and reasoning). The same I would say of Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong, and of Greece, Portugal, and Spain. There are very specifical reasons why this happened. Unless Ethiopia becomes a "communist" superpower, Somalia isn't going to be propped by Western capital the way the Asian Tigers were, and its chance of being admitted into the European Union are even fainter.

South Africa, Algeria, and Brazil, are undeniably underdeveloped countries, ballrooms for French, German, American, Italian, British, Belgian, Dutch, Japanese, Canadian, corporations dance their capitalist accumulation dance. And there is no road from this to first world, except by very unlikely political circumstances; further capitalist development of Brazil or Algeria means further economical dependence towards the US, Europe, and Japan.


What about are you opinions on the economic developments in Vietnam?

That it is quickly becoming a country like Brazil or South Africa, ie, an underdeveloped capitalist country. It is not, and it is not in the way of becoming, a first world country, and it is no longer a semi-feudal or semi-colonial country.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

A cursory study of Marx's work will show that Marx both lambasted capitalism for its exploitation, oppression and injustice and celebrated its transformative economic and cultural dynamism. I think it's clear that he saw this duality of capitalism not as different aspects of its nature, aspects which could be separated out, either conceptually or in fact. Rather he saw this duality, in good Hegelian fashion, as a contradictory unity. That is, capitalism is not dynamic and liberational despite the fact that it is exploitative and oppressive. Instead, it is dynamic and liberational because it is exploitative and oppressive.

So I don't think it is clear that Marx would have argued that capitalism is at one time in its history progressive, and then at another time, regressive. It is both at the same time.

Also, rather than seeing the 'end stage' of capitalist development as being manifest within some abstract notion of how it satisfies or doesn't satisfy human need, it should be seen in terms of it own internal ability to sustain itself as a mode of production. Periodically, capitalism enters into crisis and becomes vulnerable to attack. If it survives its crises then it usually emerges stronger with a renewed dynamism. That is why serious Marxists should have no problem with Bolshevism. It is beholden on us to attack capitalism whenever and wherever it is weakest.

There may come a point when capitalism cannot shrug off its crisis but enters a prolonged period of crises which makes its further development untenable and it collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. Until that time, we need to integrate the best elements and insights of Leninism into our continuing struggle of agitating, educating and organising our class in opposition to its exploitation and seizing any opportunity that comes along to stick the boot into bourgeois society.

[Luís Henrique]

Can we simply say that technological progress has made life worse for people? I don't think we can.

To the extent that technological progress has bettered people's life, this is due to class struggle, not to the inherent dynamic of capitalism. Under unfettered capitalism, technological progress becomes a way to unemploy people, and to reduce the income of those still employed via increased competition among workers.

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

Curious, I would say that working or not working is a removed issue from morality as one can get.

What? I think we have a misunderstanding somewhere. I tend to judge conflicts on a moral level when they are personal to me. But what's the point in moralizing the shift from feudalism to capitalism or capitalism to communism? They are historical inevitabilities that care very little about human emotion.


I don't think Marx ever thought that communism naturally develops out of capitalism.

"The great significance of Marx's [Critique of the Gotha Programme] is, that here too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism." -Lenin

Maybe my use of the term "naturally" is confusing?


Which other system turns technological advancement into an instrument of increased enslaving of the working masses?

Feudalism?


I would say that Korea probably jumped into the first world

What do you mean by jumped? And I can tell you exactly what Severian would say, because we've argued about it before. He would say that given the cold war tensions with the USSR and DPRK, the America government provided significant amounts of economic aid to the ROK so as to build up their economy to help thwart the spread of communism in eastern Asia. I of course would then rebuttal that the ROK didn't do squat with the American aid and didn't actually start growing and developing until the late 1970s when foreign investment poured into the country and an authoritarian regime shifted the economy towards an export-oriented model similar to what we see happening in China and Vietnam today.


That it is quickly becoming a country like Brazil or South Africa, ie, an underdeveloped capitalist country. It is not, and it is not in the way of becoming, a first world country, and it is no longer a semi-feudal or semi-colonial country.

Well time will tell with it, but given what it is doing with trade, my bet is that it follows a path similar to China and Korea.

[BobKKKindle$]

Well I don't know. I would argue that conservation movements have not played a critical role in the overthrow of previous historical epochs. I would also say that free markets will naturally shift towards conservation when it becomes economical favorable to do so. You can take for example the rise of hybrid cars onto the market right now with rising oil prices (and the rise in diesel cars in the next 10 years after hybrids die out).

We have never before faced the danger of environmental collapse due the unrestrained production of goods, and it is only recently that we have begun to fully understand the effects of modern industry, especially the use of fossil fuels, on the environment. One cannot deny that the environmental movement is one of the most important contemporary political developments, given the increasing interest in sustainable living across the world, and the conflict between capitalism and the environment will, I feel, grow to be an integral part of socialist analysis, as the ecological effects of capitalism become more acute.

I mention the environment because the destruction of the environment (and the lack of any indication that capitalism will change and cease expansion) shows that capitalism is no longer progressive in any sense - especially in underdeveloped states, which have not been able to develop under capitalism, and where the effects of environmental degradation will be greatest.


Wars have been fought for these reasons since long before capitalism. I don't think I understand your point here.

Wrong; Although wars are a feature of all class societies, it is only under capitalism that war becomes a requirement of the system, due to the prevalence of exchange production, under which profit is the driving force behind all economic activity, which finds its expression in imperialism, which, be it in non-forceful (i.e. trade agreements etc) or militaristic form, is necessary to prevent a fall in the rate of profit. Imperialism culminates in inter-imperial conflict (as well as smaller conflicts against oppressed nations when key interests are at stake) It is for this reason that Lenin described Imperialism as a stage of capitalism. The essential distinction between Capitalism and other modes of production is the prevalence of exchange production (the production of goods for the sole purpose of selling them as commodities) which is closely tied to the simplification of class antagonisms.

I would treat Imperialist war as a pretty good reason to overthrow Capitalism, even if there is a chance development could occur despite imperialism.


I don't think Marx ever thought that communism naturally develops out of capitalism.

I can see his point here, as Marx did describe Capitalism as creating it's own 'gravediggers' or something along those lines.

[chimx]

Wrong; Although wars are a feature of all class societies, it is only under capitalism that war becomes a requirement of the system

How was the seizure of territories not an intrinsic feature of feudal rule? It was extremely important and the basis of most wars.

In slave economies, wars were fought to gain more slaves. Again, this was extremely important for the maintenance of the economy.

--

I agree that ecological detestation is something to worry about, but I am skeptical about it being a catalyst to change.

[Luís Henrique]

What? I think we have a misunderstanding somewhere. I tend to judge conflicts on a moral level when they are personal to me. But what's the point in moralizing the shift from feudalism to capitalism or capitalism to communism? They are historical inevitabilities that care very little about human emotion.

Well, I oppose capitalism because it doesn't work. I don't think capitalism not working is moral issue.


"The great significance of Marx's [Critique of the Gotha Programme] is, that here too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism." -LeninIf Lenin meant what you seem to believe he meant, then he was flatly wrong. Communism doesn't develop out of capitalism (though it requires capitalism, which more probably is what Lenin was trying to say). People have to effectively struggle for it; capitalism won't mutate into communism by itself.


Feudalism?No. Under feudalism, technological progress favoured the working masses, not the exploiting elite (this being one of the reasons why the system was so refractary to techonologic innovation). Better techniques, less need to overwork oneself; and unemployment wasn't a risk for feudal serfs or tenants. It was the exploiting class that had to resort to class struggle to make inroads into peasant prosperity if technology advanced.


What do you mean by jumped? And I can tell you exactly what Severian would say, because we've argued about it before. He would say that given the cold war tensions with the USSR and DPRK, the America government provided significant amounts of economic aid to the ROK so as to build up their economy to help thwart the spread of communism in eastern Asia.Up to here, I am in agreement with him. Where we would probably disagree is that he would further point out that Western imperialism has already reversed whatever small movement South Korea may have made towards an autonomous capitalism.


I of course would then rebuttal that the ROK didn't do squat with the American aid and didn't actually start growing and developing until the late 1970s when foreign investment poured into the country and an authoritarian regime shifted the economy towards an export-oriented modelWell, yes. This doesn't mean they have not had a politically motivated aflux of American money. Yes, they squandered it up to the 70's, and only from them on devised a serious strategy to overcome underdevelopment.


similar to what we see happening in China and Vietnam today.I don't think so. China is a big economy because it has a huge population, but its GNP per capita is still much lower than Brazil's. Yes, it has a government that is determined to push the boundary between third and first world (while Brazil's governments are satisfied to tail "the West"). But I don't think they are going to be able to face the political and economic consequences of such challenge.

South Korea used State money and organisational resources to prop up some Korean private corporations - Dae Woo, Kia, Hyundai - and make them competitive in an international level (now Dae Woo is part of General Motors, KIA was merged into Hyundai, and Hyundai was broken into smaller companies). This move included several measures that would entail harsh American retaliation if taken by other third world countries (for instance, a prohibition of automobile imports). Are China or Vietnam really building national capitalist corporations?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I can see his point here, as Marx did describe Capitalism as creating it's own 'gravediggers' or something along those lines.

Yeah, but those gravediggers still have to actually dig the grave. It's not going to happen by itself.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

We have never before faced the danger of environmental collapse due the unrestrained production of goods, and it is only recently that we have begun to fully understand the effects of modern industry, especially the use of fossil fuels, on the environment. One cannot deny that the environmental movement is one of the most important contemporary political developments, given the increasing interest in sustainable living across the world, and the conflict between capitalism and the environment will, I feel, grow to be an integral part of socialist analysis, as the ecological effects of capitalism become more acute.

I could argue that, rather than making our natural environment worse than previous epochs, the capitalist epoch has ultimately improved the situation of human beings vis a vis their natural environment. Our environment, as a result of human intervention, is undeniably better suited for human inhabitation than it has ever been. As a result of our development, we are today far less vulnerable to the destructive aspects of nature than we have ever been before.

Marx puts it like this in the Grundrisse:

'Hence the great civilizing influence of capital; its production of a stage of society in comparison to which all earlier ones appear as mere local developments of humanity and as nature-idolatry. For the first time, nature becomes purely an object for humankind, purely a matter of utility; ceases to be recognized as a power for itself; and the theoretical discovery of its autonomous laws appears merely as a ruse so as to subjugate it under human needs, whether as an object of consumption or as a means of production. In accord with this tendency, capital drives beyond national barriers and prejudices as much as beyond nature worship, as well as all traditional, confined, complacent, encrusted satisfactions of present needs, and reproductions of old ways of life. It is destructive towards all of this, and constantly revolutionizes it, tearing down all the barriers which hem in the development of the forces of production, the expansion of needs, the all-sided development of production, and the exploitation and exchange of natural and mental forces.'
http://http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch08.htm

[RedArmyFaction]

Right. And there certainly wasn't a famine all over eastern Europe that was caused by a specific and discernible fungus epidemic. Somehow Lenin caused the famine. And with regards to Mao's alleged causing of famines a.) there have been famines in China since there have been people in China so saying Mao caused it makes no sense b.) after that one famine, there wasn't another famine during Mao's rule (MAO SOLVED THE FOOD PROBLEM FOR THE PEASENTRY IN CHINA) c.) don't forget all the other factors that caused that famine (climate).

As for the other part of the argument. You're brutally misreading Marx here. Others have demonstrated that rather clearly. I think that Stalin and Lenin successfully demonstrated that socialism is capable of developing the means of production even if you do think they had their revolution "to early". Anyway, the very fact that there was a revolution demonstrates that it was the proper time for a revolution.


So where are there no famines happening in China now then ? After China's economic reforms from Mao's teachings, China returned to capitalism. This reduced poverty from 56% to the current rate of 9%. Mao made no progress with the none existant economy back then.

You say Lenin showed socialism was capable of developing the means of production ? What was the NEP policy all about then ? He had to ditch socialism and go back to capialism because of shortages. Before the NEP, production was virtually at a stand still.

[La Comédie Noire]

“Your position is blatantly anti-revolution I have consistently supported Socialist Revolution in undeveloped states - you take a weak stance which sounds like class collaborationism with some mythical national bourgeoisie which, even if it exists, wields minimal political power.”
My position is materialist which means I fail to see the possibility of Communist Revolution right now. I don’t want to collaborate with the Bourgeoisie, in fact I don’t have to, the job gets done somehow. You keep acting as though this is some choice, like if only we had a few more dedicated party members we’d be on our way to Socialism. That’s not how it works!
As for your question on the National Bourgeoisie, look at China. China was a country totally absent of modern class antagonisms, in fact even the feudalistic class relations were weak.
The National Bourgeoisie was to “weak” and “dependent upon foreign imperialism” to start its own revolution but with the Agrarian revolution and The Great Leap Forward Mao developed the means of production to a point where all they needed to do was cease them. Not only did the Bourgeoisie cease them but so did the People’s Cadres!

“What do you mean by 'home bred capitalism'? Capitalism is an international system - you cannot examine one country in isolation from the world marketplace and the economic influence of other states, particularly now that capital flows are international and so economic crisis rapidly spreads beyond the locality of origin - as shown by the recent financial collapse.”
You would be hard pressed to find one country totally dependent on foreign trade as such each country is affected or “influenced” to different degrees by the fate’s of other countries. Look at the Great Depression for example. The United States fared better than Canada, which while bad, was a hell of a lot better than Germany. Oh it is an International System alright but countries participation and dependency with other countries vary.
What I mean by home bred capitalism is when there are no more farms to be had and mining jobs to work, the people demand some way to make their living. Some Bourgeoisie, the ones who own mines believe it or not, are against this while others would be glad to “help” them out.
Capitalism is not static; it won’t be the same as it is now 30 years from now. It adapts and changes and develops in other places no matter what the repercussions may be to the upper most crust of the ruling class at the time.





“The main bourgeoisie benefits from this arrangement, as they are closely tied to the interests of foreign capital, and the small section of the bourgeoisie that (allegedly) aims to initiate independent development, presumably by closing their countries off from the rest of the world through protectionist trade policy, based on your comments, is insufficiently powerful to challenge the influence of institutions such as the IMF which force markets to remain open. This is the main premise of Permanent Revolution.”
This is exactly why countries like Venezuela and Ecuador are leaving the IMF. They don’t want to sit there and feed our fat white asses forever.

“Whether a closed economy would be able to undergo development is a matter of debate - the experience of Russia under state-capitalism suggests that this might be possible. Yet you have also asserted that the proletariat would accept the exploitation of the domestic bourgeoisie as preferable to remaining within the world economy, but you have given no justification for this view, which constitutes a denial not only of class struggle, but also of historical experience. What makes a national bourgeoisie 'better' than a bourgeoisie based in New York? Do you think workers will empathize with bosses of the same nationality? Are you supportive of class collaboration?”
Venezuela and Ecuador, and I suspect much more of South America in the years to come, are sure as hell gonna try! But it’s not like they are totally out of the loop. Venezuela still manages to sell the United States oil, which they use to fund their reforms!
The Proletariat will accept this because it is a real possibility. Class struggle means working for your class interests. It is in the proletariat’s best interest right now to have places to actually sell their labor power and actually have places to buy what they need. Just as not all Bourgeois are on the same page neither are all Proles. Material reality determines class consciousness. Why do you think the two great Leninist revolts ended up bringing Capitalism? They may not have planned it but that’s how it happened.
I am not supportive of class collaboration, not like it would make much of a difference whether I did or not. It’s not a matter of will; it’s a matter of material conditions.

“The example of the American Revolution simply does not stand, because Permanent Revolution is concerned with countries in which the Bourgeoisie has 'arrived late on the scene' after the ascendency of the main imperial powers - this does not reflect the situation in America, where the Bourgeoisie was not tied to an imperial power. Russia exemplifies the importance of Permanent Revolution - in that country, not only were the bourgeoisie tied to foreign capital, they also retain key links with the old feudal regime, in the form of the Tsarist monarchy, which rendered the Bourgeoisie incapable of being a progressive force - as shown from my quote from 'The New Class'.”
They were tied to the Nation State of Britain, an old brand of imperialism yet imperialism none the less.
They were incapable of taking power until after the “Socialist” regime then they did just fine. We both agree, Leninism does do the job of Bourgeoisie revolution, however you seem to think if things where somehow done a little bit differently we’d be in Communism.

“You are essentially trying to make an excuse for not engaging in socialist (as opposed to nationalist, which entails forming alliances with or conceding leadership to non-proletarian forces) struggle in undeveloped states.”
No, I’m just calling it something different. It just seems to come out that way eventually, regardless of whether I choose to engage or not. As for “non-proletarian forces” well you don’t get much more non proletarian than peasant revolution.


“This makes no sense - these countries are already 'capitalist' at least in some urban areas where modern conditions of production prevail. Marx described Capitalism as initially progressive, because it allowed for the rapid development of productive resources, based on the economic history of countries such as Britain, and yet he was unable to predict the effects of Imperialism on oppressed states - the position of these states in the world economy makes development under (market?) capitalism impossible. These nation are necessary to provide the core with a source of cheap labour and raw materials, and if, somehow, they were able to suddenly develop to the same level as the core, available resources would run out in a very short period of time, because there is currently such a skewed distribution of energy use.”
I thought they were “semi colonial”? It’s your choice really because no matter what you call it still comes out the same.
Capitalism is slowing down, I’ll give you that, but it’s definitely not stopping.
Look at China again. We use it for a source of cheap labor yet from all indications it’s on it’s way!
There is a problem with energy, right now. But who knows what the new Bourgeoisie will come up with once the oil capitalists release their grip of the energy market?

“Workers are beginning to revolt because of their material conditions - I refer you to the examples I've already given. You're clearly blind to how workers in the oppressed nations live! You seem to advocate some form of state-capitalism, based on the power of the 'national bourgeoisie', instead of genuine workers' power and international revolution.”
What Venezuela? Good, like I said they need all the protection from the bastards they can get. I’m not advocating national struggle or Bourgeoisie Revolution; it’s just how it has happened so far. I’m for class struggle but it’s different for each section of the working class based on their material conditions. Of course we need Proletarian Internationalism but it’s not possible just yet. We still have a ways to go. That’s why it’s called a struggle.



“There is a simple question you have not grasped: Do you support Socialist revolution (i.e. revolution led by the working class) in undeveloped states? If not, what should our strategy be in these countries - should we be encouraging the national bourgeoisie (for the existence of which you've given no evidence) to take power and disregard workers' struggles?”
It’s not Socialist revolution though. It’s going to happen whether I support it or not. There is no strategy and it is foolish and arrogant to think we can formulate one.

“What privileged workers? Are you suggesting that workers in the oppressor nations benefit from Imperialism? If so, Lenin disagrees with you - Imperialism creates conditions that are conducive to greater class struggle in these nations. From 'The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination - 1. Imperialism, Socialism, and the Liberation of Oppressed Nations':”
I was talking about the first world workers like myself. We are privileged at this point, but not for long.

“Workers in oppressor nations are harmed by imperialism - as Lenin argued, based on the quote above.”
All workers are oppressed by Capitalism, just some less than others, and make no mistake Capitalism has no loyalties therefore which workers benefit the most is always changing.

“They have no interest in maintaining imperial subjugation. If you disagree, go join MIM.”
Exactly, that’s why they will find it more beneficial to fight for reforms and develop industry in their own country.

“They are now capitalist not because the revolution was led by a Vanguard party or because Russia was undeveloped, but because the revolution did not spread abroad. Now that Russia is fully developed, we should begin to construct a new vanguard party to destroy Capitalism, restore the advances of the Bolshevik revolution, and build Socialism.”

Exactly it did not spread abroad because it was not a socialist revolution. It was a group of people reacting to the atrocious conditions of their country and demanding change. That change came in the only way it was possible, industrialization and social reform. Which eventually led to, surprise Capitalism!

[Davie zepeda]

true in fact i consider my self Marxist even thou i have yet to read all of his work i have read gunrise it was deep into order of money and mode of production and wealth .nvm that it is necessary to understand for the third world to change it must go through the cap mode in order to speed the process of tech and better mode of production what your trying to reach is the first world stats once there your mode can switch to marxist because you can hold and maintain the progress of it while if you rush into IT you only destroy the struggle it took so much to build .IT TAKES FIRST WORLD EQUIPMENT TO BUILD A EQUAL SOCIETY.

[Davie zepeda]

So where are there no famines happening in China now then ? After China's economic reforms from Mao's teachings, China returned to capitalism. This reduced poverty from 56% to the current rate of 9%. Mao made no progress with the none existant economy back then.

You say Lenin showed socialism was capable of developing the means of production ? What was the NEP policy all about then ? He had to ditch socialism and go back to capialism because of shortages. Before the NEP, production was virtually at a stand still.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LOL AFRICA RIGHT IS CAP AND LOOK HOW HORRIBLE IT IS GOING LOOK AT LATIN AMERICAN CAP COUNTRY'S THEY GO THROUGH FAMINES DAILY SHUT UP EVER GOVERNMENT HAS ISSUES STUPID THAT IS EVERY SYSTEM . PLUS AFRICA IS IMPROVING NOW WITH THE CHINESS CAP SYSTEM YOU MAY CALL CHINA A CAP SYSTEM BUT THERE RED ON THE INSIDE THERE HELPING OTHERS .

[RedArmyFaction]

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LOL AFRICA RIGHT IS CAP AND LOOK HOW HORRIBLE IT IS GOING LOOK AT LATIN AMERICAN CAP COUNTRY'S THEY GO THROUGH FAMINES DAILY SHUT UP EVER GOVERNMENT HAS ISSUES STUPID THAT IS EVERY SYSTEM . PLUS AFRICA IS IMPROVING NOW WITH THE CHINESS CAP SYSTEM YOU MAY CALL CHINA A CAP SYSTEM BUT THERE RED ON THE INSIDE THERE HELPING OTHERS .

Excuse me moron. Is africa capitalist ? Are they heavily industrialized ? Have they got masses of proletariat ? No ! The bulk of africa is feudal and is no where near advanced stages of capitalism.

Remember, Marx states capitalism is required for communism and is required in it's most advanced form. Marx predicted, when capitalism reached advanced levels, the proletariat, will realise their exploitation by their rich masters and over-throw them.

Socialism will not encourage the economy to be in a fit state because everyone gets paid the same and people lose the incentive to work. Hence production tends to fall. Socialism is required to over-throw the ruling class and put everything in state ownership.

[Davie zepeda]

they are cap look there system moron sudan is cap morocco is cap and more so the new found oil sources found in africa .fedual my ass they know what they doing just because you let your people die dosen't mean your feudal it means they don't care neglect.

cap system is there and established . just as in latin American it just doesn't work because all the profits goes right into the pockets of people like saca and elite you think it isn't there just because you don't see it gusse what go there and you'll see it call me idiot call me stupid but in tell you see it for your self then talk ive seen Mexico and el Salvador and there so called first world systems nothing but lie's you have to realize you do not need to be industrialize there other ways to exploited people and country's as we see in Haiti, Dominica and panama.

[zein al-abdeen]

Marxist, just marxist

[kromando33]

Davie grammar is your friend.

[chimx]

capitalism won't mutate into communism by itself.

I had never meant to imply this


No. Under feudalism, technological progress favoured the working masses, not the exploiting elite/quote]

The heavy plough was developed to vastly increase harvests while reducing the man power needed to work fields. Since arable land was finite, surplus labor was often forced elsewhere.

[quote]Are China or Vietnam really building national capitalist corporations?

As far as I know. Vietnam has many larger corporations that are actually buying up land all over southeastern asia. Vietnamese rubber corporations are building plantations all over Laos and Cambodia. Vietnam has also shifted towards a manufacturing economy rather than one of resource extraction. For example, there motorcycle industry is quite large, though I don't know if there are national corporations. I know Japan's Yamaha has factories there. There textile industry does have large national corporations, such as VINATEX. I believe the Vietnamese government is currently working on the development of national oil refineries as well.

I'm not as up on China, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[proleterian fist]

Hi there comrades and I am a Marksist,too.
Let's have a look at the history.Lenin was the pioneer of Soviet Revolution and added new theories to Marksist teaching.
Stalin has been critized too much but he has beaten down Germany and sacrificed his son in revolution way.
Some of people recognize him as a merciless murderer but he killed only traitors of Soviet Russia who wanted to not to share their products with other comrades.
Che guevara was the pioneer of South Africa Revolution and he didn't ever make Soviet styled revolution and Marksist thought.He was a revolutionary and socialist just like Mao Zedung in People's Republic of China.

[Cryotank Screams]

Excuse me moron. Is africa capitalist ?

No offense comrade but Africa is a continent not a country thus I think it would be better not to discuss it as one whole.

[Luís Henrique]

Excuse me moron.

Be civil. Take this as a warning.


Is africa capitalist ? Are they heavily industrialized ?

And since when capitalism=heavily industrialised?


Have they got masses of proletariat ? No ! The bulk of africa is feudal and is no where near advanced stages of capitalism.

No, you are wrong. Africa is by no means feudal. Africa is capitalist; the productive relationships in Africa are capitalist relations - private property of means of production, production of commodities, wage slavery, etc.


Remember, Marx states capitalism is required for communism and is required in it's most advanced form.

Where does Marx "requires" capitalism in its most advanced form for communism?

What is required for communism is class struggle, proletarian class struggle. Not idle contemplation while capitalism dispossesses us.


Marx predicted, when capitalism reached advanced levels, the proletariat, will realise their exploitation by their rich masters and over-throw them.

Where have you read this? Marx always said, by fighting against capitalism, the proletariat will come to a level of organisation that will allow it to overthrow capitalism.


Socialism will not encourage the economy to be in a fit state because everyone gets paid the same and people lose the incentive to work. Hence production tends to fall.

That's sheer bourgeois ideology; it is a shame that someone who boasts to be Marxist repeats such reactionary nonsense. And on top of giving others lessons about what is and what is not Marxism...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

they are cap look there system moron

Be civil you too, and consider this a warning.

Luís Henrique

[MarxSchmarx]

In short...........Do you believe in having a good economy before socialism ?

A socialist economy is a good economy.

[chimx]

A socialist economy is a good economy.

So the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, China, and Vietnam all abandoned this good economic model because... what? They were bored of it?

[Davie zepeda]

yeah but what i was stating before to improve a country which is consider third world to first world stats it needs cap to improve it's output or it would surely fall before you can export a revolution you must be able to support your self when you are isolated.

[BobKKKindle$]

I could argue that, rather than making our natural environment worse than previous epochs, the capitalist epoch has ultimately improved the situation of human beings vis a vis their natural environment.

This is a somewhat difficult issue, I realise. In the early stages of capitalist development, as a result of the renewed development of the productive forces, humans gained have greater control over their natural environment, as the use of machinery in agricultural production allowed for the accumulation of a greater surplus than ever before, and so we have become less susceptible to famines resulting from poor weather, and modern communications technology allows us to interact over great distances.

However, as Marx recognized, the process of capital accumulation is beyond the control of any individual capitalist; it is a dynamic that arises from competition between rival capitals and forms the basis of alienation, as experienced by the bourgeoisie. This is why Marx referred to capitalist society as '"like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.'' As such, we are unable to stop capital accumulation (expressed as the continual search for new markets and new sources of raw materials) regardless of the environmental impacts, and, if this process is allowed to continue, environmental change, in the form of global warming, will accelerate beyond our control, as temperature increases as a result of gas emissions will release carbon dioxide reserves contained within ice in the polar regions, and forest areas will become net carbon emitters due to the decomposition of organic material. Global Warming will become a positive feedback system. In this respect, Capital is undermining our ability to control the natural world - the increased regularity of natural disasters, in the form of drought in equatorial areas, suggests that this breakdown of control may already have begun.

Thus, it is clear, when one conducts a deeper analysis, that capitalism, at least in its final stage, has not improved our position vis a vis the natural environment. I've expressed this point rather poorly - but I hope you can see what I'm getting at.


You say Lenin showed socialism was capable of developing the means of production ? What was the NEP policy all about then ? He had to ditch socialism and go back to capialism because of shortages. Before the NEP, production was virtually at a stand still.

The NEP was a temporary concession, as Lenin felt the introduction of limited market forces would regenerate the Soviet economy after the civil war, during which it had been necessary to use extreme methods of state control in order to ensure that the Red Army had sufficient food supplies - we should not view War Communism as an early attempt to attain socialism but instead as a pragmatic move, designed to meet the challenges faced by the new Soviet State. The NEP did result in the growth of an embryonic new class system but the new class which began to emerge - the urban petty bourgeoisie - did not form a ruling class, as it did not command control of the state apparatus, and it was not the class that was eventually able to attain hegemonic political power towards the end of the 1920s - the class that did was the party bureaucracy under the leadership of Stalin.