i thik china is agood example of why this issue has to be seen from a global perspective. Chinas economic growth is almost entirely based on foriegn investment and export business. he fact that the whole reason china gets this investment is because of its cheap labour and relatively advanced industry means that it will be incapable of developing a really strong internal market as this would require raising wages so the workers could buy back some of what they produce.

I also think you underestimate the severity of the international situation now. Global warming is only one of the many dangers facing the planet. While war has been and will continue to be a constant threat and will only become more widespread as the world economy sinks further into crisis at the same time that resources dry up. Nuclear weapons are also spreading at an alarming rate and will continue to do so as every country more and more tries to fight for its own imperialist interests.

Quite possibly I do "underestimate the severity of the international situation now".

I think we'll learn to get along on a warmer planet just fine...though we might have to abandon some coastal cities like New Orleans.

I don't think we are "running out of resources"...although the temptation to contrive artificial "shortages" in order to increase profits is always present.

The limited use of nuclear weapons in localized conflicts is certainly possible...though keep in mind that the two Japanese cities bombed by the U.S. imperialists have now been completely rebuilt and are flourishing.

"First use" of nuclear weapons is now a course fraught with peril...for the first user. Any number of neighboring countries might decide that a nuclear response is imperative to get rid of those nutballs.

So it might happen...but I wouldn't bet my lunch money on it.

Your "grim scenarios" might turn out to be far more realistic than my relatively "optimistic" scenarios.

But given your pessimism, I don't understand why you are here.

Do you just want to tell us that "we're all doomed"? We've heard it all before...and in fact can just tune in to the Christian Dummyvision Network and hear it all again.

If we are truly all "doomed", then the most rational course of action would be to indulge ourselves continuously in whatever sensual pleasures we can afford.

Why haven't you decided to do that?

Sorry for the late reply, I move around a lot and sometimes can get on the internet for very long:

<<Then in whom do you place your "revolutionary faith"?>>
Primarily the peasantry and workers of the 'third world', and in the first world immigrant workers and some sections of the local working class. I'd like to note that I am not taking a MIM-ish line, the workers could become a revolutionary group and could overthrow capitalism in their country without there being revolutions in the 'third world' that would rob the 'first world' of primary resources and cause their economies to collapse, but I seriously doubt this will happen. As I've said, 90% of workers in the 'first world' are motivated by greed and materialism of varying degrees and thus have no interest in overthrowing capitalism.

<<Communism can only be achieved in the first world.>>
Incorrect, even Marx admitted this. Traditional communal structures that exist within much of Asia and Africa as well as parts of Latin America can be transformed into the basis of a communist society. In addition to this peasants have repeatedly proved themselves to be the most revolutionary class in the world- Russia (the revolution was only won because peasants were willing to fight the Whites in the Red Army), Spain, Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Algeria, Angola, Mosambique (that's not spelt right is it?), Ethopia, Benin, Cuba, Nicaragua, Peru, Nepal, Columbia, Turkey, India and so on. I'm not saying that all these revolutions were necessarily positive (Cambodia was quite the opposite in fact), or that they succeeded due to the effort of peasants alone, but in all these cases the peasantry (or sections there of) showed themselves willing to fight and die for communism. This is more than can be said for Proletariat of the 'first world'...well...ever actually.
<<Clearly, the contemporary proletariat is not revolutionary, but if you reject the possibility of revolutionary potential, what hope do you have for proletarian emancipation?>>
I don't reject the possibility of the 'first world' Proletariat becoming revolutionary, I just think that this will not happen without the 'first world' being put under massive economic pressure, to the point of collapse. The only way to do this is to have the 'third world' unite under the banner of communism against the 'first world'

<<In much of the world, true capitalism would be a step up.>>
With the growth of industry often the living standards of rural areas (i.e. the majority of the population in the 'third world') does increase and often so does productivity, with the availablity of better technology- but essentially the problems stay exactly the same for the peasantry. In many cases the growth of capitalism results in a handful of people holding title to huge plots of land, which is really a step backwards. In addition the price of land increases so farmers end up in huge amounts of debt. Rural-Urban drift happens for a reason.


<<In the US, capitalism has begun to "run its course". It has entered a clearly reactionary period and shows no sign of reversing. It is certainly possible that it will enter yet another stage of reform, but it seems unlikely.>>
It may not show any signs of reversing at this very point in time, but I expect it will. Capitalism is not suicidal. If the leadership and direction starts to significantly hurt the capitalists then the leadership and direction will be changed. More over, if the capitalists see that this conservatism is waking the population from their decadence induced coma then they will stop it. I've never really bought into determinism.

<<At this level of technological advancement and economic development, the capitalists can no longer afford to make significant concessions to the workers, nor can they allow and real progression.>>
But the workers, by enlarge, aren't calling for 'significant concessions'. They just want higher wages so they can buy a bigger TV. This the capitalists can cope with.

<<Instead, they desperately hold on to what they have and actively fight progress. That is a sure sign of a decadent class.>>
Point taken, but will this stir up a revolutionary consciousness? I seriously doubt it.


QUOTE
But then again America has always been incredibly socially backward, so it's not that suprising that when the going gets tough the Puritan banner gets held up.


<<"Socially backwards" relative to whom?>>
Most of Western Europe, definately New Zealand.


<<There have been times when the US has been ahead and times when it has been behind. There is no such thing as a "national character".>>
However there is a national leadership that remains largely constant.

<<I'm quite sure that Marx was wrong on a great deal many things, but until someone comes up with a better model, it's the best we have to work with.>>
Marx wasn't so much 'wrong', but much of it is out of date. The world has moved on in ways that he could not imagined and thus he couldn't form arguements relating to these new circumstances. There are many other models, many of them are no less plausable than that of Marx.

<<Namely that "primitive communism" doesn't exist.>>
Well, not anymore. I'm sure it exists in some particularly isolated and primitive places in the world though.

<<These societies were ecnomically equal because they were, for all intents and purposes, economically null.>>
Maybe, but they still had to divide things up, make decisions etc. They lived an equally economically null life.

<<Politically, however, they were characterized by gross discrepencies.>>
There is little evidence either way, I would say that the existance of communal and proto-communist structures, for instance communes in Africa and even the Russian mir (which was largely wiped out by the Soviets), would point towards some sort of egalitarian tradition..

<<Engels and even Marx may have written some musings on "returning to primitive communism", but it was just a doomed attempt to reconcile Hegelian "sipral" historiography with materialist progression.>>
I have no intention of 'returning' to anything. Communism will be new, however one cannot ignore history, nor can they free themselves from it. Besides, if somthing good exists then one should use it. The agarian communes that exist, when developed with 'scientific' Marxism (Marxism is not scientific, for the record- it's just not utopian), could provide the basic organisation for the majority of the world and could even be developed further and modified so that it could be applied to urban situations.

<<Frankly, it seems like a waste of time to me.>>
Most of what we do is a waste of time. You're debating what is largely a moot point with a guy you've never and will never meet who lives on the other side of the world. It's interesting never the less.

...and now I have a train to catch. I'll finish the rest when I get back (about 2 days)

Some odd stuff coming out in this thread.

As long as capitalism can "deliver the goods", why should they?

But it looks self-evident that capitalism is not doing that as well as it used to.

If Marx was right, that situation will worsen.

Poo! The normal development of domestic capitalism in those places will either destroy those formations or render them completely irrelevant.

Yes...on behalf of land reform.

Not in any other sense.

The revolutionary tasks of the proletariat are far vaster than the acquisition of a patch of dirt to scratch out a miserable "living".

To overthrow 10,000 years of class society takes quite a bit more than a rifle and a willingness to die.

They wouldn't know communism from rheumatism. All they need to "unite" under is the banner of anti-imperialism.

That's something they can manage. Peasant societies are xenophobic anyway...especially when they perceive the foreigner as a threat to their land or as an obstacle to them getting some.

If Marx was right, it is "suicidal". It does reach a point where it cannot reform -- and I think in western Europe and North America that point has been reached.

The "age of reform" is over.

Well you should. If you think capitalism is a matter of "correct leadership", the capitalists themselves might agree with you.

But it ain't true.

When a social system has reached "the end of the line", all of its "leaders" are "incompetent".

That's not "bad luck", it's a reflection of objective material reality.

No, they are not "coping with it". Wages in the U.S. have been essentially stagnant since the early 1970s. That "middle class" standard-of-living now rests on couples who both have full-time jobs and a mountain of credit-card and mortgage debt.

So I've been informed...but I've never run into one myself.

What "special" definition of "science" are you using here?

It would have to be able to exclude Marxism but include biological evolution.

Not an easy task.

Why would anyone want to do that?

As opposed, for example, to the further "high tech" development of agriculture?

I am most certain that capitalism is really a decaying social system. The capitalist system was never more violent than it was before the start of the 20th century.

Lenin was as valid today as it was, at the start of 20th century when he wrote Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, when he said that capitalism had reached its highest stage of development when it developed into Imperialism and as such, the socialist revolution has dawned on us now.

The 8th International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations Resolutions No. 1 and 2 clearly indicates the rapid decay of Imperialism (Capitalism). I suggest everybody to read it. Here is the link of the full text of their resolutions:8th ICMLPO

The Communist Party of the Philippines Central Committee also made a well-rounded summary of the current global crisis of capitalism. In its 37th Aniiversary statement, the CPP Central Committee stated that "The economic competition and political rivalry among the imperialist powers are likely to intensify because in the first place the US seeks to monopolize the spoils of war. This has been exposed by the contradictions among the US, UK, France and Germany on the question of launching the war of aggression against Iraq in 2003. The super-greed of the US signals other imperialist powers to look after their own interests and to maneuver against US voracity. The ground for friendly accommodation among the imperialist powers is bound to diminish with the ever worsening crisis of the world capitalist system and as the revolutionary struggles of the people increase in number and intensity and as more countries become assertive of their national independence."

The complete text of that statement can be read at their site: PRWC

<<As long as capitalism can "deliver the goods", why should they?>>

Exactly. The workers of the 'first world' must suffer greatly before they'll raise a finger. That's why revolutionary sentiment always gains strength during depression, as it's when the general population of the 'first world' are suffering the most.

<<If Marx was right, that situation will worsen.>>

Here's hoping.

<<Poo! The normal development of domestic capitalism in those places will either destroy those formations or render them completely irrelevant.>>

Such structures may survive, or may be modified- either way they can still be used as the basis for communism. Plus communism can be achived before capitalism completely takes hold, in fact humanity has come far closer to 'true' communism in the 'third world' than it ever has in the 'first world'.

<<Yes...on behalf of land reform. Not in any other sense.>>

No, not just on 'land reform', however land reform is generally fairly important because the land is their life and at the same time it is the cause of most of their exploitation. Many peasants do not want to become urbanised, and thus focus on building communism primarily in rural areas (i.e. where they are) because that's what they're best suited to, urbanites do not listen to peasants because they see them as pig ignorant. Urbanites are just as pig ignorant about rural areas as peasants are about urban areas and thus it's best to let them tend to what they're best at and what they know the most about. Peasants can't do secondard or tertiary production, urbanites can't do primary production. Ideally you need all three, at bare minimum you need primary.

Besides, urbanites have rarely gone beyond demanding more money. Most criticism you can level at peasants can be levelled at urbanites too.

<<The revolutionary tasks of the proletariat are far vaster than the acquisition of a patch of dirt to scratch out a miserable "living".>>

You've never been to any rural areas have you?

In the past the peasants have done far more than getting land. As I've said, most left-wing revolutions of the last century were fundementally driven by peasants, or would have been impossible without peasant labour and soldiers.

<<To overthrow 10,000 years of class society takes quite a bit more than a rifle and a willingness to die.>>

However both those things are fundemental to solution.

<<They wouldn't know communism from rheumatism.>>

And people in the 'first world' do? Most of them thing that communism involves the government owning everything, russian accents and moustaces.

<<All they need to "unite" under is the banner of anti-imperialism.>>

Because peasants are too stupid and backwards to understand marxism? In your vision, what are you going to do for primary production? Do you really thing your average urbanite can grow anything other than weed in his basement? Or can mine iron-ore? Or can fell trees? Peasants are essential to any society because primary production is essential to any society.

<<That's something they can manage. Peasant societies are xenophobic anyway>>

As are capitalist societies. In addition to this they tend to be arrogant and condencending, looking down on anything they deem to be inferior and by inferior I mean anything that does not conform to their ideals.

<<especially when they perceive the foreigner as a threat to their land or as an obstacle to them getting some.>>

Urbanites tend to be like that when the perceive some foreigner as a threat to their job, their money, their TV. Look at the constant abuse that immigrant workers get slugged with, because they are 'stealing' peoples jobs. It's no different.

<<If Marx was right, it is "suicidal". It does reach a point where it cannot reform and I think in western Europe and North America that point has been reached.>>

It will destroy itself, yes and it will get to the point where it cannot turn back or reform- however it won't drive itself straight into the ground- it will attempt to slow the decent and maintain the status quo for as long as possible as it's in their best interest to do so.

<<The "age of reform" is over.>>

In some places, yes. In other places, no.

<<Well you should. If you think capitalism is a matter of "correct leadership", the capitalists themselves might agree with you. But it ain't true.>>

No, cthe exact course of events depends on which capitalist is at the helm. If left-capitalists controlled the global economy the self-destruction would happen slower, but it would happen. It the right-capitalists controlled the global economy the self destruction would happen faster. So ironically enough, in elections communists should vote for the most horribly right wing candidate possible.

<<When a social system has reached "the end of the line", all of its "leaders" are "incompetent>>

Impotent would be a better word. When it reaches the end of the line it will self-destruct and there will be nothing that can be done about it.

<<No, they are not "coping with it". Wages in the U.S. have been essentially stagnant since the early 1970s. That "middle class" standard-of-living now rests on couples who both have full-time jobs and a mountain of credit-card and mortgage debt.>>

The US isn't the world.

Yes, wages haven't changed much and both people have to work and so on and so forth. But all people do is moan a bit, they don't attempt to do anything to improve their situation. They sit down and watch teh shopping channel.

<<What "special" definition of "science" are you using here?>>

Falsification. In order for somthing to be a science it must be theoretically possible for it to be proved to be conclusively false. You can do that with evolution, you can't do that with Marxism.

<<Why would anyone want to do that?>>

Because communalism is vital to the new society and communes promote this, hence the name.

<<As opposed, for example, to the further "high tech" development of agriculture?>>

Because a lot of the high tech stuff is not particularly sustainable and thus not at all viable in the long term. New Zealand could theoretically support around 2 billion sheep, however sheep shit and that shit gets into water ways and shit-water is not good. Besides, as I've said, many peasants do not want to leave rural areas and should not be forced to do so, simply because urbanites say that cities are superior and that they should all come live in cities. Marx said that there should be an end to the distinction between town and country and to me that seems to indicate a decentraliation of industry etc.

Why do you bold words in your posts? The majority of members on this board are fully literate and don't need you to bold what you deem the important bits. You're as bad as the Albanian foreign languages press.

The Paris Commune? Syndicalist Barcelona?

Just to name the two "biggies".

If you are suggesting here that the hypothesis that we must "wait" until capitalism "develops the whole world" for communism to be "possible" is simply wrong, I agree with you in opposing that idea.

In my opinion, communism will first be possible in the "old" (or "senile") capitalist countries...and will actually arise there in the course of this century.

On the other hand, it's difficult for me to imagine a communist society in Afghanistan or Nepal before 2500!

That's how "far" they have "to go".

The empirical evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion. The "migration to the cities" has been one of the most consistent trends we've ever observed; it may be one of those "iron laws of history".

You may well hypothesize that with the end of class society, people will no longer do that and many urban dwellers may even leave the cities.

But I think that remains to be seen.

Urban life offers more possibilities for self-development than rural life...and people like that.

Well, isn't that the case? What is peasant life besides one of isolation from the accumulated sum of human knowledge?

Just look at the U.S. right now. Where do most of the volunteers for American imperialism come from? Where are the most fervently superstitious to be found? Where does open racism, sexism, and homophobia still flourish?

And our peasantry are "kulaks"...rich peasants that are, to all intents and purposes, fully petty-bourgeois in the classical definition of the word. They have electricity, television, internet service, etc. and they're still pig ignorant.

Granted, some of them have managed to learn a few things about the modern world; but there are others who would stone people to death for adultery if they thought they could get away with it!

From what I've read, the peasantry of the "third world" are mostly illiterate, deeply superstitious, profoundly and brutally sexist, and aside from their opposition to imperialism, just reactionary as hell.

I know there is a pronounced tendency among some western "lefties" to romanticize peasant life in distant and very backward countries -- perhaps stemming from our understandable alienation from the urban class society in which we live.

But I think if any one of us ever found ourselves in a peasant environment, we'd quickly realize the enormous magnitude of our error.

There's nothing "romantic" about it; it's a hellish existence.

Hobbes was right about it as an environment where life is "nasty, brutal, and short".

I don't deny it; after all, many urbanites used to be peasants or are the sons and daughters of peasants. Peasant "consciousness" doesn't just disappear when someone "gets off the bus".

Indeed, I know from my own experience that moving from a small midwestern city to a real city like New York or San Francisco is "disorienting"...it takes some time to realize the new possibilities that have opened up.

And to clean all that old shit out from between your toes.

Only visits...as brief as I could possibly make them.

But those were all bourgeois revolutions.

Historically progressive and necessary, no question about it. But not "left wing" in any communist sense of the word.

I think there is a "pool" of knowledge about what communism could really be in western Europe.

One of the most common remarks I hear from politically unsophisticated American workers is: communism might be a good idea but human nature makes it impossible.

This is an echo of bourgeois ideology, of course. But it hints at some kind of "latent" appreciation of the concept among working people...a kind of "potential" revolutionary class consciousness that is waiting to be tapped.

It's not a matter of "stupidity"...peasants are genetically just as much modern humans as we are.

But too backward to understand Marxism? Yeah, that's pretty much the case.

There's nothing in their class background to prepare them to understand the Marxist paradigm. When the old Leninist regimes tried to impose collectivization of agriculture on the peasantry, they ran into enormous opposition. In the Ukraine, the peasants preferred to starve themselves...that is, deliberately refuse to grow grain for the cities or even for themselves. Something like that may have been at least partly responsible for the great famine under Mao as well.

And what happens when the peasantry really "runs wild"? Cambodia, that's what.

It's a thorny problem, but in my view communist cities will grow or manufacture most or nearly all of their own food. The technology to grow meat "in vats" is already under development. Fruits and vegetables could be grown in enormous greenhouses built where the suburbs are now. Urbanites would "commute" to those workplaces just as they would commute to any other workplace.

Most of the "countryside" would just be allowed to "go back to nature".

I sort of expected something like this; it's not as if I haven't heard it before.

In the "post-modern" ideological climate, we're all supposed to pretend that "every way of life" is "worthy of respect". Nothing is really "better" than anything else. Blah, blah, blah.

Well, fuck that! Some ideas are more truthful than others. Some ways of life are really better than others. Some things are not worthy of our "respect" but are rather reactionary and contemptible.

If that makes me "arrogant" and "condescending", then so be it.

I'd be ashamed not to be!

I quite agree. The "age of reform" in the "senile" capitalist countries is over. On the other hand, the younger capitalisms in Latin America are just entering their "age of reform".

Communists do not piss around in the muck of bourgeois electoral politics at all.

In North America, that's largely true. In western Europe, it's not as true.

Must I remind you that because something is true at this time that it doesn't mean it will "always" be true?

Sure you can. All you need is a sufficient span of time to make the Marxist hypothesis of proletarian revolution and communism so improbable as to be probably false.

Historical materialism has been demonstrated to be the most fruitful tool yet invented for investigating past societies and social change.

Nevertheless, if capitalism is still around and flourishing by, say, 2400...then I think the scientific conclusion would be inescapable: Marx was wrong!

It could even turn out () that the "evolutionary psychologists" are right and class society is "in our genes". Horrible thought, that, but we can't yet rule it out.

The jury is still out.

He did indeed say that, but I suspect he was wrong on that one. The "huge" manufacturing plants that were characteristic of the late 19th and early 20th centuries have been rendered technologically obsolete...mainly by the invention of the electric motor.

But the trend towards urbanization continues unabated. Indeed, I've read that we are now "on the edge" of the establishment of a world-wide urban majority...and that within a few decades, the absolute number of rural dwellers will begin to decline on the whole planet.

I think varying type-styles make a post more attractive to the reader...even though some people don't like it. When I see a large block of "unadorned" text, I find it "off-putting".

Consider it a stylistic idiosyncrasy.

You suggest that Marx would have been wrong if capitalism survives to 2400. I think this is incorrect, except under one scenario.

Kautsky (yes Kautsky) correctly summed up the alternatives as socialism or barbarism.

What happens is a matter of the outcome of events. Capitalism was more likely to survive to 2400 after 1923 than before 1916.

Its not about predicting outcomes, its about predicting forces.

Marxism has always contained the implicit recognition that capitalism could develop in ways that would mean socialism would not happen - if the class struggle failed.

But it is only if the market mechanism can accomodate the development of the forces of production when the world is sufficiently wealthy to create a surplus of supply over demand in all economic sectors that Marx would be definitively wrong and that is virtually a contradiction in terms.

Marx's 'prediction' of the limited temporality of the market mechanism as a form of economic organisation is really quite trivial, and trivially true, and one of the least interesting parts of his ideas. Falsificationism is just not a relevant model of Marxism as a form of thought.

If, in your opinion, communism will first be possible in the old capitalist societies because they were the first to have developed capitalism, then you're wrong.

History have shown otherwise. Civilization first started in the east (in Egypt, China, Mesopotamia) but they weren't the first capitalist societies. Greece was the first society to have developed a "democratic" society. But they weren't the first to establish a Republic in "modern" sense. The US wasn't even the first capitalist society that have developed but it is the most advanced capitalist society today! Why? Law of Uneven Development.

So it goes to say that while the US is the most advanced capitalist society today, it doesn't mean it will be the first to develop a communist society. It can be anywhere else. Who knows, it might be East Timor?

You have the details here all messed up...nothing new about that.

But what's really bad is covering your ignorance with an alleged "law".

What's it supposed to mean? That some capitalist countries have developed "faster" than others? That capitalist countries do not all advance "at the same pace"?

Why do you need a "law" to cover such a trivial observation?

Here's why. You have to have some "scientific sounding" formula to cover the seizure of power by Leninist parties in societies that were fundamentally pre-capitalist!

You know damn well that there's nothing in the Marxist paradigm that permits a pre-capitalist society to "leap over capitalism" and "into socialism" by means of a Leninist party despotism.

But you're too scared to say "Marx was wrong" and "we Leninists can repeal Marx's laws"...if you were honest, you'd quit trying to cover yourself with Marx's reputation. The whole appeal of Leninism in the "west" was based on the proposition that Leninism "was modern Marxism". And you don't want to give that up.

Too bad...the scam has been exposed.

Quote:

So it goes to say that while the US is the most advanced capitalist society today, it doesn't mean it will be the first to develop a communist society. It can be anywhere else. Who knows, it might be East Timor?

Yeah, right.

The U.S. may not be the "most advanced" capitalist country now, by the way. The western members of the EU are, I suspect, at least 50 years "closer" to a proletarian revolution and communism than the U.S.

Historically speaking, that's a trivial difference.

I'd guess 2500 for East Timor -- so don't hold your breath.

Quote:

gilhyle

This actually appears as a phrase at the end of a letter of Marx to Engels...a remark made "in passing".

But Marx made many passing remarks that he lacked the time or interest to actually develop and integrate into his own paradigm.

I don't see how this can be said. Historical materialism does not "rule out" contingency altogether...but it must be "big" to have a serious effect on the "big trends".

The material conditions for even a primitive "socialism" simply did not exist in the Europe of 1916. The German proletariat had power within its reach in the period 1918-23...and simply refused it!

I can't say that I see how that would be possible...barring global catastrophe and "the common ruin of the contending classes".

"End of the world" scenarios are fashionable these days -- from "peak oil" to "runaway greenhouse effect" to "world-wide pandemic" and a whole bunch more. To some extent this may reflect a vague (and correct) perception that "things cannot go on like this".

But the erosion of faith in "things as they are" is hardly enough to protect capitalism from future proletarian challenge...IF Marx was right.

Only if capitalism survives over the next several centuries and constantly raises world living standards and technological development will it be reasonable to say that "Marx was wrong."

Until then, I see no reasonable option but to "wait and see".

Do you know what that law is? Am I really covering up? Or you just don't know what "Law of Uneven Development" is?

So, you don't know it at all. How can you tell then that I was just using it up as a cover?

As I have said, you don't know a thing about historical materialism. You're just using it but have not completely understood it.

Oh, I never said such a thing. Again, don't put words into my mouth.

The world is under a capitalist society now. How could you say that pre-capitalist society could leap over it? By the way, no society/country today can be categorized as pre-capitalist. In fact, every country now is under the power and control of the capitalists, or to be more precise the Imperialists. They may be categorized as semifeudal (a feudal society cloaked under the pangs of monopoly capitalism) but not pre-capitalist anymore since their natural development have been stopped.

It is just right to get away with capitalism now, to throw it away like you throw an old toy, and then build a socialist society. Capitalism is just an old stuff now, so to speak.

You can make all those predictions all year-long, if you want. You can even say that France is the closest, or England, to communism. That they can reach communism in 50 or so years. But all of that will remain just the same, a prediction.

I don't see it as trivial, I just see it as your immaterial prediction.

And did he say categorically that every society must be capitalist? Or he just said that every society must be industrialized so they can have material conditions to establish a socialist society? Because in my understanding, capitalism isn't just simply industrialization, because if that's the case then it wouldn't make any difference with socialism.

The fact is, socialism and capitalism are both industrialization, but they differed in the relations of production. And now, since the technology for industrialization is already present, then every society can establish socialism by means of socialist construction and revolution, and then proceed towards communism when all the basis for the existence of private ownership and exploitation were removed.

No, Marx was not wrong and so was Lenin. The particular situation then when Marx said that socialism must be first built in England, or Germany, or France, or wherever, was not the same as today. Because in those times, capitalism didn't develop into Imperialism yet. And the old pre-capitalist societies weren't dominated by the Imperialism. And capitalism wasn't that widespread as it is now.

No, only your true character was exposed. That you aren't a a revolutionary.

capitalism right now can produce enough to create an abundance for the entire population of the planet, but it cannnot distribute these goods to the population. This on its own shows that capitalism is a barrier to human development on a WORLD SCALE. THis clearly is an example of the social relations becoming fetters on the productive capabilities and therefore of capitalism being decadent.

On the question of Lenin, he didn't claim that countries could 'jump' from pre-capitalism to communism but he claimed that the Russian revolution could only be succesfull if the world revolution was succesfull.

I don't beleive that there were any bougeios revolutions during the 20th century, the examples you give such as mao's coup in china are usually simply conflicts between factions of the bougeoisie of that particular country, usually with one side being supported by one imperialist power against the other.

I will go into more detail later whenn i have more time...

Apparently you don't.

Trotsky and Lenin's spin on the "law" of uneven and combined development is not even remotely an excuse for the travesty of your post.


Good grief, you're way out of your league here. What puzzles me is that you think Trotsky and Lenin "applied" the law to "predict" what was already a completely trivial a subject to economic theory. It's an obscure reference that any smart communist would stay well away from.


I will give you 100 to one.

I take Visa, Mastercard, AMEX and of course cash.

From what I can tell, there is not much that you actually are seeing.

Not to doubt you, but to promote my education, any chance of a date for that M to E letter ?

Just something to look up, while I'm 'waiting to see'.

I think that's disputable...though I'm not sure how the matter could be resolved.

I imagine around 1-1/2 billion people live at what we would consider a minimal acceptable level...leaving 4-1/2 billion people in the shit.

That's a "lot of ground" to make up.

The "new" capitalist economies have been doing that in various ways -- from China to Venezuela.

But there are large places where not much of anything is happening yet...rural Africa for example. African oil deposits are being developed but nothing of any consequence "trickles down" to the people living there.

Quote:

I don't believe that there were any bourgeois revolutions during the 20th century, the examples you give such as Mao's coup in China are usually simply conflicts between factions of the bourgeoisie of that particular country, usually with one side being supported by one imperialist power against the other.

Well, I think you are being "unfair" to Mao on this one; it wasn't a coup, it was a civil war.

The native bourgeoisie in China hardly existed as an independent force there.

There are some people -- not saying you are one of them -- who just don't want to admit that the bourgeoisie can be "progressive" any longer...mostly, I suspect, because Lenin said so.

They really do seem to think that you could take some wretchedly miserable country and make it into a "worker's paradise" by decree.

If the Maoists win in Nepal, watch the "red" rhetoric flow like lava.

What will life actually be like there for most people? At best, maybe France in 1800 or something like that.

Quote:

gilhyle

Well, I tried to find it in the Marxist Internet Archives...but unfortunately, only a tiny portion of the Marx-Engels correspondence has been posted. And as you probably know, their search engine is the worst on the internet...you either get 10,000 hits or nothing at all.

My guess: sometime after 1865. If I'm not mistaken, it actually appears as a postscript. And the phrase is "humanity must choose between socialism and barbarism"...at least that's how I remember it.

The phrase has been periodically revived. Luxemburg used it in 1915. A small group of left-Trotskyists after World War II actually called their group "Socialism or Barbarism"...and went on to abandon Trotskyism altogether. And the American publisher Monthly Review Press has published a couple of books in the last few years on the same theme.

What seems to be at work here is an "apocalyptic" vision of the present situation...that is, when things look "really awful", some lefties think that it's "now or never".

I think we have to be more "cool headed" and realize that yes, capitalism always behaves horribly, but that it's never "the end of the world".

Because if it "is" the "end of the world", then there is no more to be said or done. It's a perspective that invites surrender.

And who needs that?

I don't think somebody here, at least in this forum, thinks that the "end of the world" is near so something must be done "now or never".

But to delay the proletarian revolution is something more horrible than the end of the world might be... while the conditions already are overwhelming to start a revolution. Well, I guess, what's missing in the advance capitalist societies today is a genuine proletarian party. That's why until now their revolution have not yet begun.

As Lenin said, there can be no revolution without a revolutionary party. That's true with these capitalist societies in the "west" now.

If they win, as I am sure they will, they can establish a victorious socialist society... That is if they would not deviate from Marxism and follow Kruschev's or Deng Xiaoping's path.

Just like Vietnam, China and Russia did, right? I'll be remembering this quote.

Yeah, if they won't follow Kruchev and his gang of revisionists.

<<The Paris Commune? Syndicalist Barcelona?>>
The Paris Commune was as much the result of Prussian military success as it was of worker discontent and revolution. In addition it lasted less than a month and even if it had arisen at a time when there wasn't a large occupying army in France it's doubtful it would have lasted that much longer. The Commune lacked mass support, it lacked a cohesive ideological base, it was unorganised and made several very stupid moves in its short life (not seizing the money from the bank, for instance). I admire the Commune greatly, but have few illusions about it.
Barcelona was another triumph, however firstly it was anarcho-syndicalist, as much influenced by Kroptokin and Sorel as Marx. Secondly it emerged in one of the most industrialised areas of an otherwise backwards, agriculture-heavy country. Spain was easily the most backwards country in Western Europe and was more akin to the 'third world' than the industrialised 'first world'.

<<If you are suggesting here that the hypothesis that we must "wait" until capitalism "develops the whole world" for communism to be "possible" is simply wrong, I agree with you in opposing that idea.>>
Good. Orthodox Marxists tend to depress me.

<<In my opinion, communism will first be possible in the "old" (or "senile") capitalist countries...and will actually arise there in the course of this century.>>
Possibly, but without the squeeze being put on them by way of 'third word' revolutions I doubt that this will happen. However predicting the next 94 years is not the most accurate science.

<<On the other hand, it's difficult for me to imagine a communist society in Afghanistan or Nepal before 2500!>>

We shall see, no?

<<The empirical evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion. The "migration to the cities" has been one of the most consistent trends we've ever observed; it may be one of those "iron laws of history".>>
No. The transition of a country from a fuedal to a capitalist or proto-capitalist economy has 2 effects that relates to this. Firstly agriculture becomes less labour intensive, thus less people are necessary in order for production to take place to an acceptable level and there is a great demand for labour in cities, where early (often crude) industry is starting to emerge- this is labour intensive. Thus the people who can no longer support themselves in the countryside and who are faced with starvation may well be forced to seek work elsewhere and the cities are where that work is. From then on it takes 3, maybe 4 generations for a family to break all links with the land.
They leave because starvation is the alternative, they do not leave because they want to. Of course this isn't universal, some people will decide that they wish to go to the cities. But at the same time some urbanites become rural dwellers.

<<Well, isn't that the case? What is peasant life besides one of isolation from the accumulated sum of human knowledge?>>
Cities have the potential to be havens of education, learning and advancement- however in my experience their inhabitance is just lazier, greedier and more materialistic than their rural counterparts- not less ignorant.

<<Just look at the U.S. right now. Where do most of the volunteers for American imperialism come from?>>
The lower classes, many of which join the army because it's the best (and sometimes only) job available.
<<Where are the most fervently superstitious to be found? Where does open racism, sexism, and homophobia still flourish?>>
From my, admittedly limited, first hand experience of the US and its population I'd say that could go for most of the US.

<<And our peasantry are "kulaks"...rich peasants that are, to all intents and purposes, fully petty-bourgeois in the classical definition of the word. They have electricity, television, internet service, etc. and they're still pig ignorant.>>
The majority of them are not kulaks, as they do not employ anyone, thus they are not exploiting anyone. In addition to this often they will not own the land, they bank will own the land, they will hold the deeds. A person I know recently borrowed $2 million (around $1.5 million US) in order to buy a sheep farm and convert it to dairy (loans for agriculture work differently here, so he actually can borrow $2 million). He'll spend about the next 40-50 years working there, using the money he earns to pay off the interest on the loan and when he retires he'll sell the farm and hope it hasn't lost value, or else he's pretty screwed. I would not define him as petty-bourgeoise.
Electricty, television and the internet? Many do not have the internet, as the necessary phonelines are often not present in the middle of nowhere, but I don't see the point. Many people have all those things and are just as, if not more ignorant. Particularly in America where the fact that other countries exist in this world has not really hit home yet.

<<Granted, some of them have managed to learn a few things about the modern world; but there are others who would stone people to death for adultery if they thought they could get away with it!>>
That's to do with religion, not geographic location. Go drive past a baptist church on Sunday morning, you'll find 500 people in the pro-stoning camp.

<<From what I've read, the peasantry of the "third world" are mostly illiterate, deeply superstitious, profoundly and brutally sexist, and aside from their opposition to imperialism, just reactionary as hell.>>
There are somthing like 3 billion peasants in the world, it's hard to make grand generalisations about them. However- illiterate, yes, incredibly. This is because they're ignored by pretty much everyone, no one thinks that it's necessary for the peasantry to be educated in any way and honestly, it isn't necessary. Giving peasants an education is dangerous, it's easier to keep them ignorant. Superstitious? To varying extents, however no more so than most of the world, particularly going by your standards. Sexist? To varing extents, but once again- this isn't that different to the rest of the world. The difference is, the peasanst are willing to stand up and fight- the workers of the 'first world' get pissed while watching football.

<<I know there is a pronounced tendency among some western "lefties" to romanticize peasant life in distant and very backward countries -- perhaps stemming from our understandable alienation from the urban class society in which we live.>>
The difference being I have had extensive contact with rural people (about half my family in fact), have spent time in rural areas and live in a semi-rural area. I do not have any illusions about the base peasant. They are uneducated, they are ignorant, they are backward, they are sexist and they are superstitious. However all of this can be said about the much glorified workers of the 'first world'. The peasants have repeatedly proved that if they are given education, if they are taught about Marxism etc, they will rise up against their exploiters.

<<But I think if any one of us ever found ourselves in a peasant environment, we'd quickly realize the enormous magnitude of our error.>>
In the 'first world' the closest thing to 'traditional' peasants are the unskilled landless workers, employed by other farmers. Generally called 'farm hands' (if they work all year round) or people who are employed only part of the year (fruit pickers etc). I have spent time with said people. As for 'traditional' peasants, I have read various anthropological studies of peasants and villiages as well as looking at what peasants have managed to achive in the past and I believe that they are a far more revolutionary class than the industrial proletariat (at this point in time).

<<There's nothing "romantic" about it; it's a hellish existence.>>
Life is extremely hard by urbanite standards in any rural setting. My great uncle is a small land owner (farms by himself with no labour, has minimal capital and has a fairly small holding. He actually owns it though, the bank doesn't) works 4am-9pm in the high season, 5am-6pm in the low 7 days a week. If he was an urbanite working in a factory this would be illegal (119 hours a week). Howver things would be worse if he did not own his own land, instead having most of the money earned go to a neglectful landlord.

<<It's a thorny problem, but in my view communist cities will grow or manufacture most or nearly all of their own food. The technology to grow meat "in vats" is already under development. Fruits and vegetables could be grown in enormous greenhouses built where the suburbs are now. Urbanites would "commute" to those workplaces just as they would commute to any other workplace.>>
In order for a large city, say New York, to grow enough food and enough variety of food plus to have space for all the animals required (not just for meat, but for milk, cheese, cream, yoghurt etc) at teh highest density possible (which is bad as it causes soil degregation) you'd be using so much land that you'd have a rural hinterland- you just wouldn't call it a rural hinterland. In addition to this there are reasons why agriculture is done how it is, most counter proposals put forward from the left are put forward by urbanites utterly ignorant of how agriculture works. For instance, dairy products are important- we need calcium and dairy products are the best way to get it. Plus think how much of our cooking involves atleast some dairy products- most of it. Now, in order to produce the amount of milk needed to feed a large city in the way you're talking about you're going to need to have a productive dairy industry in the surrounding, which means that you'll be wanting the ideal conditions for dairy production i.e. flat, fertile land and lots there of, a moderate climate and light, but year round, rainfall. If I remember correctly, Las Vegas is in the middle of a desert- how exactly do you propose that you'll produce millions of litres of milk every day? And don't start with the 'we'll do it indoors!' thing. Cows need grass. They particularly need grass when you're trying to get good milk from them. You cannot do it indoors with the whole grainfed thing, indoor grain feeding is the reason that American produced meat is horrible (in the US marbled meat is a delicacy. Everywhere else it's considered bad meat).

<<In the "post-modern" ideological climate, we're all supposed to pretend that "every way of life" is "worthy of respect". Nothing is really "better" than anything else. Blah, blah, blah.>>
No, I am fundementally opposed to post modernism. However every city, every 'first world' country, every factory, every shop- every urbanite is utterly dependent on the labour of peasants, farmers, miner and other rural folk. One should not bite the hand that feeds.

<<In North America, that's largely true. In western Europe, it's not as true.>>
Not as true, but true never the less. I will admit that I do have Francophile tendencies and I think that within a bourgeois context the unionist movement etc in France is very good. But they squander this power, instead of holding a general strike where millions don't turn up for work in order to get some real results they hold a general strike to get some more money, or to stop them losing it.

<<Sure you can. All you need is a sufficient span of time to make the Marxist hypothesis of proletarian revolution and communism so improbable as to be probably false.>>
That's not falsifying it, that's it not happening. You haven't PROVED it to be incorrect, in fact what you're saying is that it is largely improbable to the extent that it is probably false. You haven't proved it to be false, because you can't, you've just said that if it doesn't work out by a certain date then chances are it ain't gonna work out at all, which is true.
Marxism is not a science.

<<But the trend towards urbanization continues unabated. Indeed, I've read that we are now "on the edge" of the establishment of a world-wide urban majority...and that within a few decades, the absolute number of rural dwellers will begin to decline on the whole planet.>>
That has nothing to do with a desire to become urbanised, it has to do with a desire not to starve. As you've said, I imagine that under communism many people may well return to rural areas- or even choose to go live in rural communities. We shall see.

Hello,

This is my first serious post on a forum like this one so please excuse any lack of ‘posting etiquette’. Please also excuse the rather long post. It is an attempt to stimulate discussion rather than stifle it.

Anyway, excuses out of the way, I thought Jaycee’s original post, although short asked a rather fundamental question: “I believe capitalism has been decadent on a world scale since the early 20th century, what are other peoples views on decadence because I know most 'marxists' disregard this central theme of marxism in regard to present day capitalism”. Unfortunately, his initial question seems to have disappeared from many of the replies. Therefore, to try and re focus the discussion………

For the ICC, of which I am a member, an understanding of the theory of decadence is central to all of our political positions. Rather than being a moral question, which has been suggested by some posters here, decadence is a product of the workers movement and in particular the movement’s ability to understand the fundamental changes that occurred to the capitalist system at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Changes, which caused capitalism, a vital and dynamic force throughout much of the Nineteenth Century, to become a decadent social system, to use a phrase of Marx’s, it became a fetter on development. Marx noted that one of his key contributions to the workers movement was “to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production” (Marx to J. Weydemeyer, March 5th, 1852, Collected Works, vol.39, p.62-5 cited in: The theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism: from Marx to the communist left IR 118). These phases, ascendancy and decadence, lie at the heart of marxism and historical materialism.

Capitalism like all the other modes of production that preceded it (slavery, the Asiatic mode of production and feudalism) had a period of ascendancy during which the means of production were developed. Capitalism played a “vital role in the expansion of societies productive forces” (The theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism: from Marx to the communist left IR 118). The ‘old world’ was replaced by the new. This expansion saw unprecedented growth in productivity and giant leaps forward in the areas of science and technology undreamt of previously, and led importantly to the bringing together of the entire globe, with few undiscovered areas of the world at the end of the Nineteenth Century. The “long Nineteenth Century [was] a period of almost uninterrupted moral, intellectual and material progress” (The theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism: from Marx to the communist left IR 118), which unfortunately for the working class, given the blood drenched years of the 20th century, couldn’t last.

The ‘success’ of capitalism in the Nineteenth Century led many socialists to believe that the revolution was no longer necessary. The revisionist wing, its most notable member being Bernstein of the German Social Democratic Party, argued that there was “the possibility of a gradual and peaceful transformation of capitalism into socialism” (ICC, The Decadence of Capitalism). But those on the left wing of the Second International, for example, the Bolsheviks, Rosa Luxemburg & the Dutch Tribune Group, fought against this opportunism aware that the ‘real’ struggle was for the destruction of capitalism. The “clearest statement of this defence was Luxemburg’s, Social Reform or Revolution (1898) which, while recognising that capitalism was still ascending by means of ‘brusque expansionist thrusts’ (i.e. imperialism), insisted that the system would inevitability undergo a saturation of the world market impelling a ‘crisis of senility’ and producing an immediate need for the revolutionary conquest of power by the proletariat” (ICC, The Decadence of Capitalism).

In 1913 Luxemburg published her book, The Accumulation of Capital, “which attempted to analyse the real economic roots of [capitalism’s] historic crisis” (ICC, The Decadence of Capitalism). She based her work “on Marx’s own insistence that the very nature of the wage labour relationship made it impossible for capitalism to realise all the surplus value it extracted within its own social boundaries, Luxemburg concluded that capitalism’s historic decline [i.e. its decadence] must commence at the point where there is an exhaustion of the extra capitalist markets in relation to the amount of surplus value generated by global capitalist production” (ICC, The Decadence of Capitalism). Essentially, “at the point at which it dominated the globe, capitalism plunged into a permanent crisis of over production” (ICC, The Decadence of Capitalism).

This point came in the early years of the Twentieth Century with the first imperialist war signalling, definitively, the onset of capitalism’s decadence. A new epoch had begun, one of war and revolution where the working class were faced with a stark choice between, as Rosa Luxemburg (and others, it seems) so famously stated, socialism or barbarism. The ‘boom’ years of capitalism’s ascendancy were over. Reforms were no longer possible. Capitalism was no longer in any way a progressive force; it had fulfilled its historic role! As the Communist International (CI) stated “capitalism having completed its mission of developing the productive forces, has fallen into the most implacable contradiction with the needs not only of the present historical evolution but also with the most elementary requirements of human existence” (cited in: The theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism: from Marx to the communist left IR 118). To repeat what was stated earlier, capitalism had become a ‘fetter’ on development in all areas of social life. It now acted as a barrier to the development of productive forces “and a threat to the very survival of humanity” (The theory of decadence lies at the heart of historical materialism: from Marx to the communist left IR 118) as a never-ending series of imperialist wars was launched.

Even this brief explanation of the theory of decadence shows how, with the onset of capitalism’s decadence in 1914 the conditions of the class struggle fundamentally changed. With decadent capitalism dominating the globe the proletariat internationally, regardless of the level of individual national development, were faced with the same choice and the same struggle: socialism or barbarism. Class lines were now drawn between the old revisionists of the Second International and the internationalist left fractions that were, on one hand, struggling against these ‘recruiting sergeants’ for the bourgeoisie, while on the other, calling on the working class to ‘turn the imperialist war into a civil war’. It was these currents (with the Bolsheviks at the forefront) that understood the importance of the historic period and the need to break with the ‘gradual road to socialism’ and the old forms of reformist struggle (parliament, the unions, etc) so favoured by social democracy and fight for the world revolution. With the founding of the CI in 1919 there was now an international rallying point for those organisations explicitly calling for the destruction of capitalism and the seizure of state power by the proletariat.

However, by the third congress in 1921 the CI had begun to degenerate with concessions being made to the old tactics of struggle and to revolutionary principles (support for national liberation movements, parliament, the unions, etc), which reflected the failure of the revolutionary wave (1917 – 1923) and the degeneration of the Russian revolution. These compromised positions continue to be defended today by a variety of groups (Maoists, Stalinists & Trotskyists) who constitute the left wing of the bourgeoisie. Today’s groups of the communist left (e.g. ICC & IBRP) have their origins in those left fractions which split from the degenerating CI in order to continue to defend the communist programme, in particular the Dutch, German and Italian lefts.

So, any thoughts?

For communism!

Morven

NB: All the cited articles are available on the ICC's website.