Thread: Capitalism To Communism..

Results 1 to 11 of 11

  1. #1
    Join Date Mar 2004
    Location Bronx, NY
    Posts 353
    Organisation
    Kasama Project
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    Everything I've read on this site about the origin of Communism is that we would first need a Capitalist system to industrialize ( in the older texts, industrialization doesn't apply so much to modern day) and what not, and from there a workers revolution takes place to install a Socialist state that will progress into Communism. My question is, why is Capitalism needed, or is it not? And if it is, why is Socialism/Communism incapable of industrializing?
    Siento que llegó nuestra hora, esta es nuestra revolución
    Somos una luz cegadora, fuerte, mas brillante que el sol
    Porque siento que este es el momento
    De olvidar lo que nos separó y pensar en lo que nos une!
    -Amaral

    Kasama Project

    Formerly Culture of a Peachy Nation
  2. #2
    Join Date Sep 2002
    Location U$A
    Posts 12,168
    Rep Power 28

    Default

    Well, consider the alternative scenario.

    A feudal society is one of extreme scarcity; getting rid of all the lords, knights, priests, etc. and dividing up their wealth would still leave people in extreme poverty...spending their whole lives in mostly trying to scratch a living from the soil. Things like literacy might completely disappear...no one would have the time or the energy to read, much less write (by longhand) a book.

    So capitalism is a necessity.

    When socialists take power in a backward country (Russia, China), the consequence isn't socialism -- it's state monopoly capitalism and does all the same things that ordinary capitalism did in Europe and North America.

    Eventually, it transforms itself into ordinary capitalism...as we have seen.

    Some have argued that in the modern era, the native capitalists in backward countries are incapable of industrialization -- they are "in the pockets" of the imperialists.

    That may well be true in some backward countries.

    Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
    The Redstar2000 Papers
    Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
  3. #3
    Join Date Mar 2004
    Location Durham, England
    Posts 483
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    For communism to work it needs a strong economic grounding, the kind of grounding that only capatalism can provide. This strengthening of the economy can be done under a socialist system, however, and this is arguably the way things worked in countries like Russia and China, the only problem being things were perverted off course long before anything approaching communism could develop...
    Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV

    And you think you're so clever and classless and free

    But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see

    John Lennon: Working Class Hero
  4. #4
    Join Date Jul 2004
    Posts 898
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    So Marxist communism is the only kind of communism? I highly doubt that. In early primitive societies there existed forms of communism (mainly in nomadic peoples). I don't think they had industries or capitalism.
  5. #5
    Join Date Mar 2004
    Location Durham, England
    Posts 483
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    So Marxist communism is the only kind of communism?
    Nobody's said that, but, in the context of this disscusion it's definately the most relavent...
    Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV

    And you think you're so clever and classless and free

    But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see

    John Lennon: Working Class Hero
  6. #6
    Join Date Jan 2005
    Posts 652
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Then why is it that Marx is credited for communism and if he says communism doesn't allow, this then everyone agrees. Noing that pre-Marxist communists(tribes) allowed religion?
  7. #7
    Join Date Jan 2004
    Location Québec, Canada
    Posts 6,827
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Then why is it that Marx is credited for communism and if he says communism doesn't allow, this then everyone agrees. Noing that pre-Marxist communists(tribes) allowed religion?
    They also allowed, nay encouraged, profuse beating on heads with sticks.

    I like to think we've evolved since then.
    I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I leave it up to you...
  8. #8
    Join Date Jan 2005
    Posts 652
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Iraq detainees may beg to differ.
  9. #9
    Join Date Sep 2002
    Location U$A
    Posts 12,168
    Rep Power 28

    Default

    Originally posted by ComradeChris+--> (ComradeChris)In early primitive societies there existed forms of communism (mainly in nomadic peoples). I don't think they had industries or capitalism.[/b]


    I don't think that's really true...though students of pre-literate societies wrangle about it endlessly.

    The problem is one of evidence...without written sources, everyone is just guessing about the forms of property (if any) that pre-literate societies had.

    It's my view that when nomad society emerged from savagery, it was a proto-class society that did have private property in herd animals and women & children. And possibly even slaves as well. (&#33

    I think to find "primitive communism", you'd have to go all the way back to true savagery...when human societies consisted, more or less, of isolated extended families and "property" was what you could carry on your back. If you happened to run into another band of humans, you killed them and ate them...if you could. Or they did the same to you and your group.

    This seems to me to be the most plausible scenario...but then I'm guessing like everybody else.

    guerillablack
    Then why is it that Marx is credited for communism and if he says communism doesn't allow this, then everyone agrees.
    Marx gets the "major credit" because he (and Engels) were the first guys to put the idea of communism on a scientific basis.

    There were socialists and communists before him, of course, but they all thought of socialism/communism as an "ideal"...a way that people "ought" to live without regard to objective material conditions. It was a "moral choice" and not a practical choice.

    Just like Darwin "gets the credit" for evolution even though there were certainly "evolutionists" before him (his own grandfather was one&#33. Darwin developed scientific proof of why evolution had to be true...instead of fanciful speculation about why it "might" be true.

    And, by the way, Marx was a human being, and not everything he said was "true" even in his own lifetime. We are all free to modify Marx's understanding in the light of later evidence. (Just as Darwin has been extensively modified.)

    But there's a "catch" -- if you want to replace some idea of Marx's with a different idea, you have to come up with convincing evidence why that should be done.

    Marx has turned out to be right about a ton of stuff...so if you think he was wrong about a particular thing, you'd better have some good reasons for saying so.

    Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
    The Redstar2000 Papers
    Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
  10. #10
    Join Date Dec 2004
    Posts 147
    Rep Power 14

    Default

    The problem is one of evidence...without written sources, everyone is just guessing about the forms of property (if any) that pre-literate societies had.
    I believe that you have missed something:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
    (Browse down to "Other forms of communism" on that page.)
  11. #11
    Join Date Jul 2004
    Posts 898
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Originally posted by Roses in the Hospital@Feb 19 2005, 07:24 PM
    So Marxist communism is the only kind of communism?
    Nobody's said that, but, in the context of this disscusion it's definately the most relavent...
    Well everyone is discussing how one has to go through capitalism as Marx predicted. Well...good for him...we were in Capitalism when he said that. So that's a given. It's amazing how close the US was to becoming socialist upon confederation...too bad they omitted the good portions of the text like limiting excessive wealth in the hands of the few.

    The problem is one of evidence...without written sources, everyone is just guessing about the forms of property (if any) that pre-literate societies had.
    The lack of evidence and settlement should mean they didn't have perminant settlements or material possessions. Unless upon their death they destroyed all these things beyond recognition. THe bones are there...just not many objects.

    I believe that you have missed something:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
    (Browse down to "Other forms of communism" on that page.)
    People here seem to think that if any religion is involved communism can't exist...because Marx said so.

    I just found this little ditty interesting however:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

Similar Threads

  1. Capitalism and Communism
    By Djehuti in forum Theory
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25th December 2005, 21:34
  2. My Rant on Capitalism and Communism
    By Capitalist Lawyer in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 5th August 2004, 14:03
  3. Communism vs. Capitalism
    By Osman Ghazi in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 3rd February 2004, 11:07
  4. Communism or Capitalism...
    By Sam Adams in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 10th January 2004, 10:54

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread