Can somebody give a good explanation as to why exactly Capitalism MUST develop productive forces in underdeveloped nations BEFORE a Socialist mode of production is possible? Surely Socialism is suitable enough to develop the productive forces as well, no? Why do we NEED Capitalism before Socialism is possible?
Capitalism in underdeveloped nations
Jayden Sanchez
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
marxists.org
twitter.com
Liam Butler
no embargorino, much trade
Adrian Howard
Capitalism is amazing at creating productive forces but at a price with diminishing returns.
It's not strictly necessary but it may as well be.
Josiah Rodriguez
I don't think socialism needs capitalism, it's just a historical necessity given the lack of information. It's not like there's some alien guide for civilization to follow to become the most optimally organized. Also factor in human nature and the 'bad' guys winning the important battles and how they've maintained their status throughout history. For example, capitalist funding universities around the industrial revolution and making it so labor theory moved out of the mainstream and into the fringe.
Lincoln Clark
Are you aquainted with a concept known as Historic Materialism? If no - what's the point talking about such topic?
Not only is it validated by historical development, we can obviously see that things like welfare, progressive taxation, labour rights and organized labour etc. require certain technological level, and in general, industrialization creates Leftist sentiment.
Noah Ortiz
Socialism isn't some kind of magical energy that spurs development. Socialism and capitalism develop the productive forces in the same way, namely by setting side part of the social labour to reproduce and expand the productive forces. In capitalism this is the extracted surplus value, minus the living expenses of the capitalist, while in socialism this is that part of social production set aside as per the arrangement envisioned in Critique of the Gotha Program. But if you start from an underdeveloped productive base, you might well have to set aside very large portions, and spend a long time developing. What is worse is that if you are socialist you will likely be shut out of the world market by capitalist encirclement, and will thus have a hard time developing productive forces through a strategy of exporting say raw materials in exchange for machine tools and the like. So no, you don't have to go through a capitalist phase per se, but given that the whole world is capitalist, you'll likely see your revolution strangled in the cradle.
Wyatt Phillips
The Bolsheviks and Mao proved that no bourgeois revolution needed, the workers' state could do both the job of capitalism rapidly industrializing country and building socialism at the same time.
Brandon Morgan
Brayden King
Both Mao and the Bolsheviks implemented NEP-style policies at one point or another. Stalin DID prove NEP-style policies weren't needed under certain conditions. However, under conditions of intense siege or retreat, NEP may be necessary. As well, communists support all national liberation struggles, bourgeois or not. So the development of national bourgeoisie in oppressed/colonized nations is a progressive development.
James Morales
Sorry, don't quite follow you there. How is it a progressive development? Capital always moves towards further centralisation - small firms are superseded by large firms. The development of a national bourgeoisie would counter this development, thus it can't be progressive.
Blake Powell
Sounds like class collaboration to me.
Adam Torres
Commodity production is needed, whether the mode of distribution is 'mutualism' 'neoliberalism' keynesianism' NEP or w/e doesn't matter. The important thing for a developing economy is to develop, and to develop as fast as possible. The system literally designed to do this is capital - ism. The reproduction of capital and labor cyclically, more more more valorisation, accumulation, reproduction, reinvestment chug chug chug chug chug etc
Camden Torres
If you mean USSR-ism or any other ML-ism, then that is technically state capitalism.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it the point that capitalism allowed the formation of socialism, because it created the material conditions for its conceiving? It is neccecary in a fuedal world, not neccecarily explicitly neccecary in an almost completely capitalist world. Only a few tribes are still feudal.
Jeremiah Bennett
The national bourgeoisie is 'more progressive' economically and culturally compared to comprador bourgeoisie or colonial procurators due to the fact that they are tied to local interests (infrastructure, education, etc. that could provide the bare minimum for capitalist development), while the latter two usually does rapid resource and capital extraction without much interest in the future of the economy. Yes, both are parasites, but the former's interest is to develop a proletariat, while the latter two are completely fine with tribal lords, slavery, sub-proletariat.
Capital's centralization of production up to a point is a necessary prerequisite for socialism. Without a network of firms doing streamlined resource extraction and processing, production and banking, without the state catering to their interests first, you simply have a feudal/colonial shithole.
Being able to grasp and utilize the materialist laws of economic development is not a form of class collaboration. It's not like the NEP (&co.) were aimed at creating a strata of billionaires, ffs.
Did summer start already?
Jack Reyes
...
Henry Stewart
If I call it socialism or communism I will get lynched by either the ☭TANKIE☭s, ultras or some other group that disagrees with that usage of the term. Using USSR-ism is the most precise, least derailing option.
Jayden Torres
(you)
it's a completely idiotic neologism invited by (you)
Tyler Harris
...
William Evans
Is there anything wrong with that? Given that every thread since the start of this fucking board has fucking derailed because of infighting over what does and does not constitute socialism, or about how people misunderstand each other by using either ultra or ☭TANKIE☭ terms or something inbetween, saying USSR-ism is more precise. I am referring to what they did in the USSR, I dont care what it is called, I am talking about the USSR. Saying USSR-ism is just a shorthand for "the policies employed in the ussr", which is way more precise than "socialism" or "communism", which can mean a hundred and one things depending on what sect and subsect you are in, not to mention that some people dont even consider the USSR to be socialist.
I have no idea what you are implying, that I am responding to you because you responded to me? Thats called a conversation, mr "everybody i disagree with their choice of words with is in highschool".
Angel Wood
not all development is equal. clearly in the case of the third world development is uneven or skewed in such a way that any development will never be in favor of natives. for example, any kind of country that relies on tourism and monoculture at the expense of other industries, and whose entire infrastructure was bent toward the will of capitalists of these industries, will have a country structured precisely against the will of the inhabitants even if they were to seize the means of productionr
Jayden Richardson
I think there is another aspect of capitalism that is not appreciated: It unifies culture.
Firstly starting by abolishing nobility and other castes, which was a -huge- development back then. People's destinies were no longer decided as soon as they were born. Without it, the enlightment and the industrial revolution couldn't have happened.
And then it trickles down from there: Urbanization, the universal suffrage, universal education to improve the skills of the population, the integration of women and national minorities (jews, blacks and immigrants in America's case) in the workplace, the acceptance of people with different sexual orientations and ideologies, and so on. As much as people complain how spooked people are today, it is NOTHING compared to how people were during feudalism's time. People in Africa believe the weirdest and dumbest shit, and you can read the German Ideology to see how much Marx hated the dumb shit many people believed in.
John Rodriguez
maybe because only capitalism rewards innovation? maybe because you dont feel like innovating and developing what isnt yours? maybe because the 'central bureau of innovation' is just too hard to work in and not worth it, because you dont know how to put the price on innovation, and pulling the lever over and over for 'work tickets' pays the bills?
socialist mode of production is impossible lmao
like, if i cant own my shit, why even work at all? who the fuck is central planner competing with? if he isnt even competing, why would he even be competent?
idk man i dont get any of it im here trying to figure it out but im just not seeing it
Justin James
Go back to your thread, fag
Xavier Sanders
just call it soviet socialism
Adam Cooper
muh innovation
Jaxson Harris
More trouble than its worth.
Hunter Martin
Don't buy into the meme that "capitalism is a necessary step towards socialism". Marx did not believe that. He made it clear that his stage theory of historical development was a descriptive analysis of European history, not a prescriptive universal truth for the whole world to follow. He even believed socialism in Russia could directly grow out directly from the local agrarian commune system.
I would also argue such a debate is irrelevant by now since the whole world is essentially capitalist anyway.
Bentley Young
"underdeveloped" capitalist nation = ripe for revolution
feudalist nation = not ready (with various exceptions)
Adrian Rogers
why tho?
Cooper Phillips
And yet revolution took place in those places were it wasn't supposed to, like Russia and China. Marx was wrong and Trotsky was right to correct him; get over it.
Jacob Wilson
Marx called Russia the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe.
Lincoln Smith
Because capitalism is designed to efficiently foster growth, which is necessary to deal with the issue of scarcity. A well-developed capitalist society rapidly makes its own economic policy obsolete.
Zachary Lewis
Connor Bennett
he actually considered them as savages, and wanted Poland to be independent so there's a buffer zone between their "hordes" and western europe. On this issue I'm not gonna defend Marx, he was completely wrong. Although, more developped=more ready for socialism is in my opinion a good general rule of thumb.
Joshua Richardson
smh
Isaac Russell
Were the Krupps "more progressive" than the people who signed the Treaty of Versailles…?
Benjamin Diaz
It's just good to have. Some of the worst issues the Soviet Union faced was do to shitty agriculture and a lack of industry. It would have been easier if they had been developed.
Capitalism as a prerequisite to Socialism also works well as Capitalism consolidates workers well.
Luis King
Yes, since they were industrial and not financial capital. The entente winning was a mistake.
Eli Barnes
They literally supported German imperialism and slave labor. Is that your idea of "progressive"…?
Elijah Ward
Relative to the brits? yes. Relative to any communist movement? no
Xavier Jenkins
an actually strong argument against capitalism
Parker Gutierrez
isn't that literally from the young karl marx lel
Landon Sanchez
Capitalism actually provides an incentive to work and create value. Socialism provides additional incentives to not work, once implemented. That's a broad generalization and oversimplification, but what it means is that, under capitalism, you have no choice but to work to earn money. While under socialism you will have some safety nets, so you can afford to take it easy.
Daniel Gutierrez
At least you admit it. Now kys, faggot
Kayden Ramirez
Its from 1882, a year before Marx's death