Results 1 to 20 of 41
Are communists wrong about
Capitalism having completely replaced feudalism? In India, for instance, there is caste system, widow burning, dowry related deaths, in short, aspects of feudalism still survive.
So isn't an analysis based on the Marxist method a little inaccurate here? Wouldnt this method apply only to industrialized nations? In semi-feudal societies like india, africa, the exploitation of workers may have more to do with 'feudalistic leftovers' and less to do with the principles of capitalist production.
Your exaples are merely cultural though, burning people and subjegateing women should be frowned upon but it is not full-blown feudalism though. Capitalism has still manifested it's self in those places in one way or another though- they are where the cheap labor is in this day and age- they are the epicenters of the prolateriate if you will.
I think if anything it is that we need to realize the revolutionary potential these places hold.
Comrade Samuel: The defender of truth, justice and the un-American way.
India's social backwardness is no doubt a product of prolonged economic backwardness relative to the world around it. Chauvinism finds a nice nest in conditions like that.
Not that the west is any exception, its culture has its roots in some aspects of feudalism too. See marriage.
This is where the theory of "combined and uneven development" comes in. Capitalism is a global system. There is no region in the world that is not subject to it. But the development of capitalism in different societies is not even -- some are more "advanced" than others.
"Just as the Columbia we think represents man’s finest aspirations in the field of science and technology, so too does the struggle of the Afghan people represent man’s highest aspirations for freedom. I am dedicating, on behalf of the American people, the March 22nd launch of the Columbia to the people of Afghanistan.” -Ronald Reagan
Yeah, the argument is not really 'has capitalism driven out every aspect of feudalism/pre-capitalist society?', because the answer then is obviously 'no', even in capitalism's heartlands; the UK still has a monarchy and aristocracy, the Duke of Westminster and the Queen are both fabulously wealthy, and Scotland still has some very odd land tenure; Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain and some other countries likewise are monarchies; Germany produced the current Pope; The USA, though a republic, has the 'electoral college' system originally established by the nascent 'aristocracy' there to limit the power of 'the mob'; Japan is still and imperial state based on a divine monarchy, etc. Capitalism has these aspects of feudal society still preseved inside it.
The question is rather whether capitalism itself has reached (or passed) the limit of its historic mission to revolutionise production, create a proletariat and develop a world market.
Marx wrote about systems becoming a 'fetter' on future development. The point I think is not that capitalism needs to do away with all these aspects of feudalism, but that capitalism cannot develop society (particularly, the economy) for the benefit of humanity. Not, 'does feudalism still exist?' but 'can socialism exist?' and I'd argue that the answer to the latter question is, 'yes'.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
I think it is pretty normal for a 'new' system still bears some of the marks of the preceding system. Much like socialism develops from capitalism, so does capitalism emerge from feudalism. I think it is thus interesting what Marx said about that: “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges”. I personally think the same can be said about capitalism and feudalism. Other examples would be countries still having monarchs. I think the existence in monarchs only exists in countries where the change from feudalism to capitalism took a less radical path than, arguably the most notorious one, te French revolution, but instead took a path of compromise. Although France also still has the 'birthmarks' from Feudalism.
The bourgeoisie itself is a class that remains from, and took shape during, feudalism.
Is this resistance or a costume party?
Either way I think black with bandanas is a boring theme.
fka Creep
You, my friend, are succumbing to the most ruthless version of Stalinism.
No, unlike.
Capitalism developed in feudalism, because the bourgeoisie was a new exploiting class that developed its economic power 'in the cracks' inside the feudal system, as the bourgeoisie (first in the 'free towns' away from control by lords) was able to exploit the new proletariat.
Socialism doesn't develop inside capitalism, because socialism is not a new exploiting social system, we don't have some kind of slave class to exploit for a couple of hundred years to develop our economic power. So unlike the transition from capitalism to feudalism, we won't have a long period of development of socialism as an economic system before the political revolution to establish proletarian power.
Also, unlike the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the transition to socialism will not happen piecemeal over a couple of hundred years. Feudalism was a local system, caitalism could defeat it locally. Capitalism has become a world system, it must be defeated as a world system.
In sum: though the transition from feudalism to capitalism was a piecemeal transition, the transition to socialist society can't be.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
You're basing your opinion of whether an economic system exists by providing examples of social phenomena. Try looking at the relation of the different classes to the means of production for your answer.
No feudalism does not exist in any meaningful way (although there could be tiny isolated pockets where it exists). However, I'm yet to see a decent example of said economic relations anywhere.
I agree, partially. There is a difference between the transition or changefrom feudalism to capitalism and from capitalism to socialism. But our society is right now all capitalist, so even during the socialism it is logical that some things sti remain although they will disappear over time. That is where the transition from feudalism to capitalism is different because capitalism is just a different exploiting system.
I disagree that socialism doesn't develop during capitalism. The class that is to be the 'maker' of revolution develops during capitalism. And, arguably, durig the dictatorship of the proletariat, which isn't socialism, a form of capitalism still exists.
Is this resistance or a costume party?
Either way I think black with bandanas is a boring theme.
fka Creep
None of the things mentioned in the OP are inherently "feudal". Feudalism is a mode of production. It's basis is "peasant agriculture and the carrying on of independent handicrafts" (Marx - Das Kapital, vol. 1). Feudal lords, serfdom, etc, etc. Castes, widow-burning, dowry-related killings are no more signs of feudalism in India than rape and pedophilia are in the West.
The capitalist class developed capitalism inside feudalism; we can't develop socialism inside capitalism in the same way. Certainly the proletariat develops inside capitalism, but (again unlike feudalism) the 'new revolutionary class' in capitalism is also an exploited class. The exploited class par excellence in feudalism was the peasantry (they produced most of the labour which wasexploited for surplus production for the aristocracy and the Church), but the revolutionary class in feudalism was the bourgeoisie (they embodied the new economic forms). So exploited is not the same as revolutionary in feudalism, though it is in capitalism.
I agree with you about the dictatorship of the proletariat, it isn't socialism, it is a form of capitalism controlled by the proletariat; but, again, the difference is capitalism had its 3-500 years of economic development before the political revolutions ('English Civil War', French Revolution etc), whereas the proletariat must have its political revolution first in order to take control of the state and economy.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Is this resistance or a costume party?
Either way I think black with bandanas is a boring theme.
fka Creep
I believed that a political revolution, as defined by Marx and engels, was a revolution that didn't overthrow property relations, but was simply a different faction of the bourgeoisie coming into power. A social revolution is a revolution that takes control of the economy and the political situation. That's how I always understood it at least, so a social revolution is inevitable if the proletariat takes power, and we don't want to stop at a political revolution.
What I mean is the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood coming into power through Arab Spring is a political revolution, since it doesn't change the mode of production, but the bolsheviks coming into power and fundamentally altering the economic laws in favor of the proletariat is a social one.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
But it wasn't a change in the mode of production. So it was a political revolution.
The revolutions against feudalism didn't fundamentally overturn property relations; property relations had been undermined by the rising economic power of the bourgeoisie for several hundred years before the political revolutions of the 17th-19th centuries made them masters of the state.
The political revolution of the proletariat must in some sense precede the social (or maybe economic) revolution: the proletariat must control the state and economy before it can abolish them. The 'political revolution' is the seizure of power; the 'social revolution' is the destruction of capitalism and the state.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Historical Materialism shouldn't be thought of in a strict, stageist way - so yes, it could be possible for capitalism and feudalism to exist alongside each other within the same geographical space.
Indeed, far from capitalism being a complete succession and replacement of feudalism, it may be that capitalism uses certain features of feudalism - the strong state, social hierarchies, links between the ruling and landowning classes, etc. - in order to enhance and propagate itself. It can use antiquated forms of social relationship like caste, invent new forms of racism, and play-up fundamentalist religion, in order to govern the population in a "divide and rule" fashion.
Also, as has already been said, India is part of a world system, and the various particular features of its capitalism can develop at hugely divergent rates according to the needs of the global economy. It may be that the social upheavals and class struggles in Europe that precipitated capitalism "from within" did not occur in the same way in India, where capitalist economic relations were rather imposed "from outside" via colonial domination.
for freedom and peace
Well they started a planned economy which did change the mode of production. So it was social.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
planned economy is not a mode of production but a way of managing capitalism. So no political
No it's definitely different than capitalism, especially since there's no private ownership, and nothing like unemployment, abject poverty, a ruling class... There was only a state that took form in between capitalism and socialism, what marx called "bonapartist."
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
