If Communism can only emerge from advanced 1st world capitalist societies, why did Lenin and Stalin try to force it to emerge from a backwards 3rd world agrarian society?
If Communism can only emerge from advanced 1st world capitalist societies...
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
twitter.com
Because they were funded by Wall Street bankers, the Rothschilds, etc. to permanently discredit and subvert Marx's work and the project of socialism as a whole.
Because at the time they wernt the only revolution taking place. In Germany and other areas, people were trying to overthrow their goverments. The Russian revolution was meant to inspire workers of other countries the rise up, and it did, it's just they wernt successful in overthrowing the capitalists, leaving russia on their own.
Leninism specifically argues for a vanguard party to industrialise countries like Russia to prepare it for communism. Mao adopted a similar line of thought and applied it to China, specifically agrarian peasants, hence Maoism.
The reason why many are critical of using the USSR or China as examples of "failed" communism is because they are so far removed from Marx's theory in the first place.
Industrial capitalism would have emerged out of Russia on its own without the help of a vanguard party. The results of attempting to jump epochs were brutal, both in Russia and China, and it permanently scarred the name of Marx and communism.
I agree.
However I would argue that it may have taken longer to industrialise without such strict economic control. Not that I am advocating this.
Also Russia's involvement in WW2 was pivotal, I dread to think how it would have gone with the incompetency of the Tsars.
they tried to turn a third world country rapidly into a first by state capitalist means, transforming an agrarian economy into an industrial one has always created a mess along the way
there's parallels between the collectivisation of agriculture in the ussr and the enclosure acts in britain, everything just happened a lot lot faster instead of over hundreds of years
industrialization would have naturally taken a lot longer to happen
they were autistic
This tbh. The world wasn't ready for socialism. The average person has to understand the problem with capitalism. You can't just force it or they'll yearn for a return to muh freedom the way people today have nostalgia for feudalism.
Lenin was hoping for a revolution in the West; his whole strategy depended on it. Besides, all he ever pretended to make emerge in Russia was… state capitalism.
As for Stalin, he pursued the goal of building capitalism in Russia, but wrongfully called it socialism (for obvious reasons).
After reading Sutton and Quigley this is the conclusion I've come to (though it's not their conclusions).
Cuz only the dumb illiterate peasants buy into the Marxist game.
But now they reverse their games, the dumb illiterate peasants hate communism now so Marxists move to appeal to the spoiled middle class kids.
The idea you need to progress through capitalism to get to socialism is stupid tbh, but it's a moot point for the 21st century
Well, how the fuck would you get infrastructure to socialism then?
the workers would build it
Under whose orders/vision?
the workers…
Who would lead the workers to do that shit?
The workers can't fucking lead themselves.
They can though. If they need a manager, they'll democratically vote on one
What if they need a manager but doesn't like having one?
The workers are intelligent enough to self-manage
But their egos prevent them from working until someone puts them to work.
Lenin didn't live long enough to implement state capitalism, which in his time meant the kind of industrialization in Imperial Germany. Stalin threw out the NEP in favor of collectivization and economic centralization under the Soviet state, which he molded to serve him and him alone via the purges.
It's actually pretty sensible, seeing as attempts to bring economically backward or dynastic agrarian societies forward via elite programs of modernization tends to result in dictatorships and fascism (Japan in the latter case). Especially so when you consider the lack of capitalist development in Marx's time, and even up to the 1970s, where industrialization was a fairly isolated affair geographically (even if it was nonetheless revolutionary). Post-1970s saw industrialization spread into the third world, which changed everything.
These days it's probably more viable in a general sense because technology has advanced so much, provided, and this is a big issue, it's not subject to immediate intervention and economic sanction by the powers that be. But of course the elite element is one that should be done away with. Determined, educated workers in charge of their own life conditions, and globally linked in a common program of development could bring the entire world into a new productive epoch.
Holla Forums: left-com Holla Forums. You guys seriously sound more and more insane with every post.
fuck off liberal
Does Holla Forums actually read anything before it spouts its shit opinions?
Capitalist social relations and not material, "modern" industrial factory production are what characterize capital in its essentially. The process whereby laborers are subsumed into a monetary relation of surplus-value extraction mediated by the purchase and use of labour-power by those holding the means of production makes capital Capital, not simply the presence of industrial labor or other such materially existing aspects of developed capitalist production.
Lenin's main task in the 1890s was expanding on Plekhanov's analysis to show that while industrial production comprised a small part of the total Russian economy, capitalist social relations had already penetrated agricultural production and were transforming Russia beyond its previous agrarian base. Even in the 1890s, there was no sense in which Russia could be viewed as an agrarian society if that's simply supposed to mean a non-capitalist social formation or "feudal" society.
Its obvious you don't know shit about Lenin. The guy spent his early years in Samara immersing himself in Marx and coming to prominence among the scattered orthodox Marxist groups in Russia on the basis of his understanding of Marxism.
Rude.
Yes, capitalism is not industrialization, but it's a useful yardstick for gauging its penetration globally as its acceleration also marks the acceleration of capitalist social relations. Factories are useless without wage labor.
Russia was economically backward as noted by Lenin himself. No, it wasn't an agrarian society; I was thinking of Japan pre-Meiji Restoration, hence why I mentioned it, though China would be another example.
upboat for this comment
But they didn't.
First step (after taking over) was to turn agrarian society into industrial. Only then Communism could be considered as a possibility.
Also, "First World" didn't even exist at the time.
Nope. It's because if you don't call them "failed" even more Marxists will be around. And capitalists don't want that to happen.
In four or five centuries.
If you don't jump, you'll get much more victims, just stretched across time. Jumping is better.
Dream on.
Is this what people call "spooky"?
Your definition of "agrarian" is too narrow. For the purpose of understanding technological development of economy, it is acceptable to identify Imperial Russia as agrarian (even if it is running on Capitalism, rather then Feudalism). But OP's First/Third world does trigger me.
Citation needed.
I am conceding the point that industrial capitalism would've emerged in Russia eventually.
If you want to be anal, then let's begin by proving (and defining) this eventual emergence of industrial capitalism, before we start putting time frame on it.
Seriously, this positing of shit without having the first clue about what Lenin or "Leninism" is or was is bugging me out.
marxists.org
Already in 1899, Lenin made it quite clear that manufacturing had made inevitable the transition to a fully industrialized economy. The question was simply whether such a transition would take place with or without proletarian leadership within the democratic revolution it would entail.
Because it's a myth that it can only emerge from a 1st world capitalist society and it's a myth that Marx said it could only happen that way.
Does this seem likely to you in the ME or Africa, even though
read lenin on imperialism and the uneven development, he laid out the plan for socialism being created in the soviet union to move ahead
It wasn't 'brutal'. Soviet Union had always rising population and always rising life expectancy. Soviet Union was second largest economy in the world and first country into space.
Propagandizing leftcoms
That is all absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand.
Screencap this
Where the hell did you get that in Quigley?
And Sutton sucks.
Part of this is the natural accentuation of selfishness that occurs under capitalism.
How do you know people will not work unless threatened with poverty or violence?
Lenini tried to do it, failed and then "one step back, 2 forward!".
"First we state capitalism!"
He wanted to have Germany revolt. But SocDems said "No Rosa, no revolution!".
..
Stalin never made 2 steps forward.
Why is this aggressive incompetence so prolific?
Factories could easily be operated without wage labor. In fact, they could be used under any variety of socioeconomic relationships.