Feudalism?
Results 1 to 20 of 27
Non-workers governments that also are not capitalist?
Is it possible that there could be a government that is not capitalist that is also not a workers government? This idea has been in my head. I don't buy into "state-capitalist" arguments, but I also have a lot of trouble buying into the idea that, say, The Peoples Republic Of Poland was a workers government, since it was clearly not controlled by the working class and there was not workers democracy there.
Is this a possible theory?
Edit: I am not referring to feudalism or other pre-capitalist systems. I am mostly thinking of the former eastern bloc.
Last edited by gorillafuck; 18th October 2010 at 02:00.
Feudalism?
I think state socialist societies are best understood as having a sui generis class structure, so those would count (though that's a whole can of worms to itself.) As Paul notes, governments can also be beholden to landlords, &c.
Not what I meant.
It answered your question regardless.
What did you?
OP edited to be more clear.
Are you refering to workers government as meaning socialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat?
"But like Trotskyites working with fascists in the USSR to plant no warning bombs to rip out the lungs of Soviet children from their tiny rib cages you will probably choose to turn a blind eye." - RedSunRising
RIP tech,you will be missed
Marxist Book Resource
I am not quite sure. But it's an odd thing, because eastern bloc states weren't under the control of the working class, but they did not have capitalist (free-market, private profit driven) economies either.
Sounds like you may want to read "What was the USSR?"
It's analysis' of a bunch of different theories, not just the classic "THE USSR WAS STATE CAPITALIST".
Right. This is why I consider their class structure sui generis. Additionally, while there are planned economies under which the law of value might apply, those weren't implemented - planning was heavily irrational, in the technical sense (which isn't incompatible with planning succeeding at its intended purpose.)
Depending on how you define your terms, Actually Existing Socialisms might have been capitalist, but the economic, social, and political dynamics were very, very different than in traditional capitalist states. It's best for analytic clarity to shunt it off, especially as "was it capitalist? was it socialist?" gets laden with normative baggage.
Ya i completely agree, i believe that the fSU had the same character as the paris commune that of a society in transition.
I think it wasnt a case of was it capitalism or was it socialism but of the transformation of the one into the other,the dictatorship of the proletariat, the problem of course was that it stagnated and no longer moved forwards but succumbed to the pressure pushing it back to capitalism
Anyway that might be a bit off topic im not sure. You might want to look up bonapartism in general or Trotsky's view of the Soviet thermidor
"But like Trotskyites working with fascists in the USSR to plant no warning bombs to rip out the lungs of Soviet children from their tiny rib cages you will probably choose to turn a blind eye." - RedSunRising
RIP tech,you will be missed
Marxist Book Resource
Has anyone else ever noticed the similarities between the 'Asiatic Mode of Production', and the fSU?
In extreme cases, like Tawatinsuyu, there are striking similarities. But other than that and maybe a few Greek polities - Mycenae, maybe? - I can't think of any premodern states that practiced comprehensive planning. The stuff that typically gets labelled as "the Asiatic Mode" is more "like European feudalism, but with actual breaks between wars."
Well, a country can have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat without it being socialist. Though, we would then have to ask which direction it's going. Either through collectivization or privatization. There's only two ways one can go from this. Take the Soviet Union for example. During the 1920's, it was definitely not Socialist yet, but it did have a DoTP operating under the interests of said workers. That's the best that I can think of on any country having a worker's state without there being Socialism.
No it can't, when the Proletarian class overthrows the former ruling class it does so with former economic relations.
When a proletarian class overthrows the bourgeois state, this does not imply that the economy will right there & then be predominantly collectivized. During the state of revolution, it is a battle of who controls the state - either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. When the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois state, they are then inheriting a society in which the predominant mode of production is capitalism. The proletariat then gradually works its way of developing socialism in order minimize the disruption of those who reside of said backwards society. When the bourgeoisie takes over the State through a socialist society, it is then where within months to years, the predominant mode of production is still socialism, because the bourgeoisie had inherited a society of such. Though, the process from socialism to capitalism would be much quicker than the process from capitalism to socialism, because the bourgeoisie do not care about the disruptions of those of said society like the proletariat does.
Last edited by The Vegan Marxist; 18th October 2010 at 06:34.
The transition to capitalism from socialism(or a degenerated workers state mode of production) after 1990 came almost overnight with Yeltsins vouchers .
"Marxist psychology is not a school amidst schools, but the only genuine psychology as a science. A psychology other than this cannot exist. And the other way around: everything that was and is genuinely scientific belongs to Marxist psychology" -Lev Vygotsky
"The Bolsheviks have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of historical possibilities. They are not supposed to perform miracles. For a model and faultless proletarian revolution in an isolated land, exhausted by world war, strangled by imperialism, betrayed by the international proletariat, would be a miracle."
-Rosa Luxemburg
Yes, this is true. It all depends really. There's many different factors varying the the dismantling of a Socialist nation. Some can take overnight, others longer. Depends really. But you just showed that the transition will be a lot quicker than it would from capitalism to socialism.
Proletarian Revolutions happen when the mass of Proletarians become conciseness of class distinctions and establish there own organization with which to overthrowing the preexisting state.
Why would an entire class seek to perpetuate preexisting forms of Exploitation? It's not logical. When a Mass overthroughs the state, when it strikes with economic and political power, the bourgeois losses it's legitimacy with the new state of things, industry becomes collectivized.
So Yes, the economy with the overthrowing of the existing Political State comes under the control of the entire mass of society.
Backwards societies are a Social construct of Capitalism, with which is used to remain it's hegemony over class. No society is "backwards" anymore, their are laborers and industry everywhere.
Capitalism has reached every corner of the globe. It exists has a global phenomena. It is more advanced everywhere, then in the times of Marx who foresaw the possibility of a Revolution in his lifetime.
Any society where that has happened was never Socialist in the first place. Council Republics, Federations of Anarcho - Syndicalist Unions and Communes were destroyed overnight in European history.
Even if we presume you are correct, it's for the reason that the Bourgeois is a minority, and acts through legal means rather then violent means - and the other reason you outlined.
