Socialism from Feudalism
I'm reading link related and it states that the basis for Socialism according to Marx there needs to be
-Highly developed productive forces
-A large class of workers (propertyless wage earners)
-Global capitalism
Are some of these necessary, was Marx dare i say wrong
Are highly developed productive forces and infrastructure necessary for Socialism. To me it sounds hypocritical, just let capitalism do all the work, let it create the productive forces and the infrastructure.
Say for example would it be possible to have grown out of feudalism during the 16th century? I know of course that the nobles and kings would have never allowed it, but still.

Attached: 00f99590e1f4a21d0ee9db6f46dcbe2a28fb16ef10bb7b21c7ec12d15decb2cb.jpeg (314x534, 30.02K)

Other urls found in this thread:

some industrialized countries have already gone back to feudalism given their home ownership rates and household debts

thanks for the feedback bro,
I understand entirely now

Attached: thumbs_up.gif (683x374, 3.89M)

Nothing is necessary for democratized production except coordination techniques. I've never understood the argument that you need a bunch of shitty capitalism first.

That's what I'm trying to understand, do you rally need a bunch of shitty capitalism first?

In what way is it hypocritical? It was feudalism which gave rise to capitalism in the first place through the further centralisation of the productive forces at the time, the emergence of various kinds of specialized labour, and the creation of conditions which gave rise to the merchant class who would eventually usurp the system.
Marxists are not absolutists. Even slavery was progressive at one time.

Well I don't think hypocritical was the right word to use, I meant it like is capitalism really better at socialism when it comes to creating developed productive forces and infrastructure

Depends on the context. In literal pre-capitalist feudalism? Yes. In 20th century mixed feudal-capitalist countries like Russia pre-revolution? Possibly no, simply because imperialist countries actually impeded development in those countries.

no, look at how all the feudal nations industrialized faster than any nation in human history, the USSR was a astounding success in regards to how socialist development can do vastly better when compared to capitalist development of similar industry.

Marx only wanted to use capitalism because he supported the idea of global trade and capitalist nations typically become protectionist against socialist ones. im assuming… please dont ass blast me…

Attached: USSR.jpg (950x751, 211.96K)

Attached: Do Socialist policies work.jpg (2267x8334, 1.44M)

No, USSR did not go from feudalism to socialism.

Attached: nyt-nep.png (645x488, 131.49K)

Yeah it's important to remember, as Lenin showed in great detail during in the 1890s, that capitalism *did* exist in Russia and was growing. This should be obvious by the fact that there was a sizable industrial working-class in Petrograd and other cities whose support for the Bolsheviks made possible the October Revolution.

As economically backward as Tsarist Russia was by the start of WWI, it was a very different place from Tibet, Hejaz or other examples where capitalist relations of production were basically nonexistent.

Marx's views on this were more complicated than generally acknowledged. He seems to have believed (or at least he literally wrote) that communist society wouldn't truly be viable until capitalism had not only created the possibility but also the necessity of a revolution. In short, he believed that capitalism needed to completely uproot the old ways of life like feudalism and patriarchal production and conquer the world by creating a global capitalist market. Once it had accomplished this, it would have nowhere else to expand and then revolution would be a necessity for the maintenance and growth of man's productive forces (upon which all of civilization would now depend.) A communist revolution would need to happen among the "dominant peoples", presumably the most developed countries, in order for communist society to be viable long-term.

No, it wouldn't have worked. Marx allowed for the possibility that certain societies that still retained peasant communes might have been able to use modern technology and trade to develop modern production along communal lines. But this, again, assumes that capitalism has already done its work by creating a level of development that can be utilized.

He talks about such a possibility (albeit a slim one) here:

More quotes from Marx/Engels with commentary:

I don't wanna be that person, but what about all the people that died was that part of the rapid industrialization or did they die from other causes?

Which people and when? I don't know the exact numbers but most of USSR's deaths were from civil war, famines and WW2. I guess you could see the famine being in part caused by industrialization.

Yeah that's what I mean the famines

Then yes, the colectivization did play a role in circumstances that caused the famine. But of course all of the other things like industrialization and growth of education didn't cause millions of deaths. A great number of construction was made through the gulag system but it wasn't an extermination camp like people want you to believe. The deaths from the gulags, which actually go into the area of 1.5 - 5 million, mostly come from war years which I think it's obvious why. It was hard to prevent those deaths and in no way were they intended, since they had problems even feeding regular citizens.


This thread needs some dengoid takes

How is Marx wrong? That's exactly what he said.


Capitalism developed from feudalism. The same way, socialism will develop from capitalism. Dialectic is a bitch I know.

It was the late 18th century and people call it the french revolution.

Attached: Historical materialism.PNG (527x566, 185.17K)

Capital development is necessary but it doesn't have to go through the form of individual private property. I think the socialist states of the 20th century showed that capital investment and development, the focus of capitalism, can be done in a much more organized and efficient manner.

The theory was that industrialization is a necessary precusor to socialism and that capitalism was what lead to industrialization.