Do underdeveloped countries need capitalism to become 1st world or can they go straight into socialism and still...

Do underdeveloped countries need capitalism to become 1st world or can they go straight into socialism and still develop?

That's what Pol Pot believed and look at what happened.

They need more books

Fuck sending food to Africa, send them Marx, Hegel and Lenin

I wish they sent me Marx, Hegel and Lenin ;)

Why does the working class need capitalists in order to own the means of production?

can't the working class produce means of production themselves? do we really need to "inherit" the means of production left by the bourgeoisie?

Theres no reason why private and state corporations shouldnt be collectivized ASAP. Agriculture should also be collectivized to boost efficiency, albeit in a voluntary democratic fashion with state incentives.

We dont need to condemn developing countries to current forms of capitalism. Syndicalism is also a very good alternative .

Any sort of development, especially high-tech development, is going to take resources and expertise any developing country on its own simply won't have or won't have in enough abundance to take advantage of.

The necessity of capitalism as a developmental avenue thus depends on the circumstances of the country that is developing and its relationship to sufficiently developed countries and their economic systems. If capitalism was supplanted as the de facto economic system of the planet, then it would theoretically be possible for a country to go from industrializing to socialism, assuming some sort of "investment" from sympathetic (or simply interested) nations.

China and Vietnam both tried to go directly into socialism post-revolution, and both encountered unique problems that prevented them from doing so. For China, their break with the SU cut them off from an ideologically inclined power, not to mention the two centuries of political instability previous to the communist revolution. For Vietnam, almost their entire country was in ruins due to all the bombs and chemicals dropped on them.

If you look at Russia, they progressed pretty quickly between the revolution and Stalin's death in the 50s. They were never able to provide for all the needs of their citizens, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that, had things gone differently, they might have been able to go "straight to socialism" without using capitalism as a shortcut

China today has made dramatic progress as well and has come a long way in providing for the needs of its citizens, and the CCP describes their current circumstances as the "primary stage of socialism," but I don't buy it. It's state capitalism with tolerance for private enterprise, but it's nothing close to socialism, much less communism. Let's just pray that when the compounding contradictions lead to its collapse, it doesn't lapse into Fascism.

Underdeveloped countries ARE capitalist already.

Workers built the means of production, it belongs to them.

the delusion of leftypol at it again…

You dummies still don't get that you need to create incentives for people to act. How will you get someone to work if he can sit on his ass ? Especially high-time preferrence third worlders.

Except for semi-feudalism which is why Afghanistan was against both socialism and capitalism as their ruling class are landed aristocracy trying their best to defend what is left of their feudal order.

...

They are all already in a process of real subsumption, this is an outdated issue.


Pol Pot had more in common with Varg Vikernes and called himself a "revolutionary liberal". It was Mao without Marx, and armed with US guns.

...

...

...

Why even bother asking this question in the 21st century? We already now know that peasants showed real revolutionary potential in China and the USSR.

Did you forget about the Soviet Union?

Probably not possible to seize the means of production when the capitalists haven't built them yet.

Why can't the same thing the capitalists would do be accomplished through mutualist banks.

How does a mutualist bank function?

"Incentives" are a euphemism for the gamification of the workplace that has people endlessly striving to produce more for the same pay and a very slight chance to be another useless manager.

Owning your work is the real incentive.

Democratically, with its only function to sustain itself and provide loans to expand the economy rather than profit.

That doesn't sound too bad

Exactly. Which is why "we need capitalism first" is a meme based almost only in Marxist dogma.

That's sound logic and all but you forgot people are stupid.

Muh property rights.