"Decadent" capitalism in the Third World?

I can't speak for all left communists on this only for our own organisation. For us capitalism is a global system. While there may be the remnants of feudal forms in some parts of the economy in some countries that doesn't mean that their economy itself is feudal rather today it is capitalist.

We don't believe that capitalism can develop these economies in any progressive way. In fact we would go as far as to say that capitalism now acts as a fetter on the development of the economy.

I hope that begins to answer your question.

Devrim

That makes sense. But what alternative model of development do you propose? Can these economies go from under-developed to socialism directly?

Yes, I don't see why not. Marx after all talked about the possibility of a leap over the capitalist means of production in Russia, and it must be remebered that these are actually capitalist economies not feudal ones.

Devrim

Another point to remember is that we conceive of capitalism as a global system. The "forces of production" don't have to be fully developed in a particular country in order to put communism on the agenda as long they have already reached this point elsewhere in the world.

From the German Ideology: "Incidentally, to lead to collisions in a country, this contradiction need not necessarily have reached its extreme limit in this particular country. The competition with industrially more advanced countries, brought about by the expansion of international intercourse, is sufficient to produce a similar contradiction in countries with a backward industry (e.g. the latent proletariat in Germany brought into view by view by the competition of English industry)."

In other words, the "ripeness for revolution" is something that is posed on a global scale, not in the context of this or that individual country.

A question for Socialist: If the 'under-developed' countries were to use capitalism to develop their economies, where would they sell their products, given the saturation of the world market? How could they compete with the already developed economies?

There is no need for poverty or starvation. This can be a world of plenty! But rotten, stinking decadent Capitalism needs to be smashed GLOBALLY. The so called "Third World" economies mentioned by "Socialist" just need tractors and technology.

There's good recent examples of "underdeveloped countries" being developed by capitalism: China and India. Massive capital investment in in these countries has only resulted in massive job losses in the "developed countries" and this has only further exacerbated the global problems for capital. Where do these new, dynamic economies then sell their goods if their export targets are hit by crisis and unemployment and unable to buy them. The problem hasn't been solved, just displaced to an even more insecure level. Where are all the masses of Chinese exports now to go (the cry of the Third Reich was "Export or Die" and this holds true for all national capitals in the main). The "success" of the Chinese economy was based on low wages and a ready export markets, the economies of which were based on the sand of easy credit.
China's new policy is to use the domestic market as a substitute and to this end has injected hundreds of billions into the economy. At the moment the bourgeoisie have passed laws making it illegal in many key industries to lay off workers or to cut wages; products like steel and clothing are still being made and stockpiled and this cannot last for long. In the meantime, the less protected migrant workers are flooding back to the countryside or to areas where pay is not so low. There can be no possibility of success in this attempt by the Chinese bourgeoisie to replace an export market with a domestic market. They are playing for time at best and their "intervention" will only increase the effects of the crisis overall.

That makes sense. But what alternative model of development do you propose? Can these economies go from under-developed to socialism directly?

When I have tackled these questions before, I have found that there are some reoccurring issues that keep coming up in the theory. First of all, the phrase "alternative model of development" should be synonymous with the word communism or communization, if you will.

I don't see any reason why severely underdeveloped countries couldn't develop in leaps in bounds assuming there would be a few guaranteed preconditions. First of all, the division between mental and manual labor has to be eradicated. People in society will have to learn how to consider, do, reflect, and repeat in their own individual capacity, as it relates to the collective citizenry. A hyper-industrial communism is almost out of the question, most obviously for ecological reasons (sustainability and natural harmony are essential to the survival and nourishment of the human species), but also because the naturally arising proletarian political structures will push and pull towards whatever will most effieciently meet the needs of the people.

The organicponicos movement in Cuba is a good example of an agricultural system that would benefit (and really most efficiently provide for the needs) countries/regions with backwards infrastructure and low development. Also, leaps and bounds were made in China in terms of how quickly and effieciently large portions of the country became developed. In the early 1900s Chinas life expectancy and literacy rates were comparable to those of the core economies in like the mid 1800s for example. The same for development rates and GDP. By the third quarter of the 20th century China had almost caught up to the economic powerhouses, in the near future it will surpass them. No doubt China is capitalist, but it at least shows that such a feat is technically possible.

I believe socialism shouldn't only be seen as a specific phase or time period in history but rather a process which is everyday bringing us closer to a more conscious, efficient human system. As the proletariat guides society through this period and slowly begins eliminating class, reaching communism becomes one step closer with everyday. In this sense, I believe communists should urge for communism directly rather than merely attempting to reach the checkpoint that some "marxists" call "socialism."