Communism as a stage on the way to capitalism

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

When you consider the transformations undergone by USSR & Mao’s China it’s clear Marx had it the wrong way about: capitalism isn’t a stage on the road to communism; rather communism, in the underdeveloped, semi-feudal regions where it arises, is a stage on the road to capitalism.

-https://twitter.com/SequiturAnon/status/1373955796036374531

Looked at this way, the historical function of communist ideology was to mobilize young elite malcontents to destroy the sclerotic hierarchies of ancient agrarian societies that had  resisted liberal revolution, thereby facilitating a Great Transformation into market societies.

-https://twitter.com/daily_barbarian/status/1374028286771204096

Seems to be the way it has played out, though not sure what it means if anything in terms of a broad historical narrative.

[PSOL]

Now if only they mentioned the Roundheads and Montagnards it could have been made more impactful in the irony

The communist movement has an odd track record of appearing in places that are both trying to modernize and so incredibly backwards at the same time. The richest economy in the Caribbean fell due to a weak state and awful tenant system, Nepal ironically has increased foreign investment through its revolution (possibly maybe ongoing), Haile Sellasie laid the foundation for revolution through increased education—but could not get jobs and would not take pointers well.

Honestly, all revolutions have a chance of dimming down over time and getting all establishment and being very much the “Man”. It happened to the bourgeois revolutions as well. Still, I think something could be said in how a revolution itself leads mostly to higher standards of living and stronger growth then expected gains if the revolution did not happen.

[TheReckoning]

This is something anyone with a high school education in world history should understand.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Capitalism might be a stage on the way to communism, if only
1. People weren't selfish, and we are all selfish, which is apparent in capitalism which basically a prisoner's dilemma for the entire worldwide population as well as elites and power grabbing politicians becoming corrupt and brutal dictators inside a communist system.
2. It requires the entire world to be communist at once, because nations compete too. And prisoner's dilemma on a nation scale will benefit capitalist nations.

Communism is of course a far better system, but it will never work as long humans are like this.

It's not the capital system that needs to evolve, it's us humans that need to evolve.

Eventually in a capitalist system, we will never be truly equal (although with individual differences) but more importantly, i doubt capitalism will be able to manage the environmental crisis, since if we were all communist, climate change wouldn't have been an issue, because it would have been dealt with, as the incentives are there in a communist system and it's not in a capitalist system where the short-term benefits for the economy outweigh the long-term risks of climate change. (although still quite short term on a geological scale).

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Communism will probably get more popular again when
1. the current social issues aren't relevant anymore, and people won't vote on social issues anymore (since that is likely to benefit conservatives instead of the left), so if migration and social progress gets stable and is actually "complete" (define complete as you wish).

2. when it will get clear that capitalism isn't able to response to the issues of today: mainly environmentalism and climate change. The only hope capitalism has is technological innovation or that green energy at a certain point will be more beneficial than fossil fuels for companies, similar to how Netflix destroyed Blockbuster (or how video on demand services destroyed video stores). Still that will probably stop or halt climate change a bit more, but it doesn't deal with other environmental issues, where more widespread global spatial planning will be needed. We need actually an environmental UN that will create tough new environmental Geneva conventions that other nations are bound to follow, or be kicked out of the international community and be excommunicated by everyone who has signed it. Problem is will nations be willing to enter new environmental Geneva conventions?

3. Capitalism is similar to like trust in a bubble of money speculation. There are good times and there are worse times. The fact capitalism survived this long is in part of because of government support, but in some occassions, there will be very rough times ahead in the future to a level of the Great Depression or more severe, and capitalism will have to find a way out or adapt, or it will get extinct in a short time. Imagine Venezuela on a global level (and ironically, it is capitalism that ruined it and not socialism), in part because Venezuela is also dealing with a shrinking economy, because half of it's GDP is reliant on oil, and because of an incompetent government that wasn't able to foresee this, and of course because austerity measures are not popular measures (if you lose half of your income, cut half of your expenses, is easier said than done).

The point is however, whenever there is a large financial / economical crisis, trust in capitalism will decrease, and the curiosity to try out communism will increase, partially because communism will start to fade out of people's memories, and people will want to try it out, similarly to how fascism will be tried out again out of curiosity and because the shared memories of WW2 are slowly but surely fading out.

I'm not sure if we will see it in our lifetime. I don't see a crisis becoming very imminent (and if it was, COVID-19 would've triggered it, and it did trigger a crisis, but not of the extent i expected too if a major crisis was imminent of the severity of the Great Depression). 2 is the biggest question mark out of the 3, since that will increase the risk of a capitalist collapse, but i don't think 2 is inevitable to happen, there are solutions to circumvent it, but i'm not sure if we will be able to do that. I think 2 has the biggest potential for collapse, but turn out to be nothing. 1 is not for the immediate future, and might actually take a full generation lifetime at least and 3 is unpredictable but probably not for anytime soon.

So i think it's not for our lifetimes, but perhaps for the 22st century. But by than what could be seen as communism is going to be entirely different, some kind of ideology we cannot foresee or turns out to be very different of communism and only merely reminescent of the communist ideology in the 20th century.

And perhaps it requires a united world (which will not happen soon, unless we are dealing with a threat that will unite us all like an alien invasion or something similar, but than we will have united to deal with the threat, not to install communism, but if we defeat the threat, than communism is more likely to happen soon, esp. if we're sure that the threat will not be recurrent, which I also doubt tbh).

[HisGrace]

This is pretty much what happened in Russia and China so good hypothesis.

Capitalism might be a stage on the way to communism, if only
1. People weren't selfish, and we are all selfish, which is apparent in capitalism which basically a prisoner's dilemma for the entire worldwide population as well as elites and power grabbing politicians becoming corrupt and brutal dictators inside a communist system.
2. It requires the entire world to be communist at once, because nations compete too. And prisoner's dilemma on a nation scale will benefit capitalist nations.

Communism is of course a far better system

Not sure how you can say that given the two things you noted above. The idea that you can create an all powerful state that controls a whole nation's economy and that it will organically "whither away" is one of the most blatantly stupid ideas to ever gain mass credence.

[The Mikado]

The only truly industrialized nations to end up Communist were East Germany and Czechoslovakia, and both were essentially imposed by foreign gunpoint (more directly in East Germany's case, and with a Soviet-backed coup in Czechoslovakia's case). As PSOL correctly noted, Cuba is the closest thing to a developed country to go communist on its own, and it was far from "developed" by Western standards, just way less undeveloped than the rest of the successful Communist revolution targets.

[PSOL]

The only truly industrialized nations to end up Communist were East Germany and Czechoslovakia, and both were essentially imposed by foreign gunpoint (more directly in East Germany's case, and with a Soviet-backed coup in Czechoslovakia's case). As PSOL correctly noted, Cuba is the closest thing to a developed country to go communist on its own, and it was far from "developed" by Western standards, just way less undeveloped than the rest of the successful Communist revolution targets.

Generally I’d compare Cuba to the nations in the Caribbean and Central America.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

When you consider the transformations undergone by USSR & Mao’s China it’s clear Marx had it the wrong way about: capitalism isn’t a stage on the road to communism; rather communism, in the underdeveloped, semi-feudal regions where it arises, is a stage on the road to capitalism.

-https://twitter.com/SequiturAnon/status/1373955796036374531

Looked at this way, the historical function of communist ideology was to mobilize young elite malcontents to destroy the sclerotic hierarchies of ancient agrarian societies that had  resisted liberal revolution, thereby facilitating a Great Transformation into market societies.

-https://twitter.com/daily_barbarian/status/1374028286771204096

Seems to be the way it has played out, though not sure what it means if anything in terms of a broad historical narrative.

My undergrad honors thesis had strikingly similar hints of this, though not entirely realized as such. The essence, contained in a concluding paragraph, was that essentially communism had realized itself in less-than-industrialized nations but had ironically laid the groundwork for the modern economies that--and results may vary--went on to outgrow communism or function in a capitalist society.

I would now oppose--or at least caution against--this conclusion insofar as most of the states I was studying at the time--the former SSRs--have in my opinion been impeded in their development by their Soviet experience. There is, however, a case to be made for China, Vietnam, and a few others (perhaps Tanzania, though I know very little of that country).

[If my soul was made of stone]

According to a strict Marxist reading, most societies that have undergone communist revolutions had not yet progressed to the final stage of capitalism, and so further development into later stages of capitalism after the fall of the revolutionary societies that in some ways displayed aspects of earlier stages may have been inevitable. In this sense, it does not negate the possibility for communism to develop later. Taken from what I assume your perspective and intention really is, it reads a bit like the arguments that Francis Fukuyama sets forth in The End of History and the Last Man, which are generally regarded as an outdated product of 90s optimism unaware of the pressures that neoliberal democracy has come to face since then unless you're an accelerationist.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

According to a strict Marxist reading, most societies that have undergone communist revolutions had not yet progressed to the final stage of capitalism, and so further development into later stages of capitalism after the fall of the revolutionary societies that in some ways displayed aspects of earlier stages may have been inevitable. In this sense, it does not negate the possibility for communism to develop later. Taken from what I assume your perspective and intention really is, it reads a bit like the arguments that Francis Fukuyama sets forth in The End of History and the Last Man, which are generally regarded as an outdated product of 90s optimism unaware of the pressures that neoliberal democracy has come to face since then unless you're an accelerationist.

I reread the original EoH article recently and (a) IMO it's far less ambitious than often made out to be; (2) its mournful ending is really written quite beautifully.

EDIT: I would go so far as to claim that EoH looks increasingly relevant today (as does its counterpart, Clash of Civilizations).

[Cassandra]

EDIT: I would go so far as to claim that EoH looks increasingly relevant today (as does its counterpart, Clash of Civilizations).

Would you be willing to expand?


Regarding the OP, that's certainly true, communist revolutions in agrarian countries ended up being vehicles for industrial modernization. Thems the breaks.

[The Mikado]

Taken from what I assume your perspective and intention really is, it reads a bit like the arguments that Francis Fukuyama sets forth in The End of History and the Last Man, which are generally regarded as an outdated product of 90s optimism unaware of the pressures that neoliberal democracy has come to face since then unless you're an accelerationist.

No offense, but this really sounds like the sort of thing someone who never actually read The End of History thinks it's arguing.

[PSOL]

Outside of the awful classifications themselves, CoC itself seems to have only found a sort of relevance with think-tank circles whom ignore the real realities of a given society at conflict within each other and within a given border of a country. It’s nothing but a shoehorned attempt to revive Cold War politics and jingoism at a time where interstate conflicts are basically at its quietest in human history.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

EDIT: I would go so far as to claim that EoH looks increasingly relevant today (as does its counterpart, Clash of Civilizations).

Would you be willing to expand?

While I admittedly was saying something intentionally provocative, let's have at it...

Regarding End of History, which, on its surface, is harder to defend in Current Era:
0) I've read the article multiple times but have only listened to about half of the book, that said...
1) Fukuyama I think lays out a fairly convincing foundational argument for the forward progression of history in light of the fact that, while humanity has previously experienced dark ages, barring nuclear catastrophe (or something correspondingly destructive) we are likely "locked-in" to the continued accumulation of knowledge and progression of science. Additionally, he is not quite so rosy-eyed as made out to be, anticipating (a) that conflict will continue, and (b) there will still be attractive challenges to liberal democracy. With all that in mind, if we are to regard him as having been wrong, I think we are left with an interesting challenge in regards to why he was wrong.  I don't think a  market crash or even a horribly destructive terrorist attack by themselves invalidate his claims, though the challenge posed by China is something different (to be discussed below).
2) "This does not by any means imply the end of international conflict per se. For the world at that point would be divided between a part that was historical and a part that was post-historical. Conflict between states still in history, and between those states and those at the end of history, would still be possible. There would still be a high and perhaps rising level of ethnic and nationalist violence, since those are impulses incompletely played out, even in parts of the post-historical world." Barring, again, the rise of China, I think this could itself (somewhat) adequately capture many of the international challenges "The West" has faced since the end of the Cold War.
3) Fukuyama actually anticipated the potential challenge that authoritarian capitalism might pose to the liberal world. He was not talking about the PRC, though, but rather Singapore and its development under Lee Kuan Yew. Note that in this case, the challenge was not one of conflict, but one of demonstration--providing an alternative image of prosperity and stability--which, to be honest, is probably the globally greater challenge China now poses to the United States.
4) As for weaknesses--probably the greatest indictment of End of History is not terrorism, nor stock market crashes, nor even the rise of threatening alternatives--but the conclusion that the developed world itself could be regarded as post-historical. I think the past few years have shown we are as in the grip of "history" as ever.

I had an effortpost typed up for Clash of Civilizations as well (and my initial post was as an under-handed plug for it), but going through it page by page would distract from the thread. My piece is essentially that: (1) Huntington presents us with an overall thesis that seems on its face true in the modern era, as the West confronts Russia and China; (2) That said, as many others have pointed out, the main sources of conflict in the modern era have been within "civilizations"--I would even label these clashes to be points of contention between hegemonic and defector states and peoples (Russia versus Ukraine and Georgia, China versus Taiwan, etc.); (3) However, we can actually disregard the headline for the piece and focus more on an overriding theme that emerges: the West, while dominant for now, faces a world where decisions made by people that matter are increasingly not made in places like London, DC, Moscow, or even Brussels, but rather in places like New Delhi and Beijing, and that this is a reality that the West (so-called) will have to learn to, if not accommodate, then at least navigate. "In the politics of civilizations, the peoples and governments of non-Western civilizations no longer remain the objects of history as targets of Western colonialism but join the West as movers and shapers of history." This is actually a far more powerful and resonant statement (packed as it is with a Eurocentric view of world history) than claiming that the Yugoslav wars foreshadowed future conflict or whatever.

[muon2]

Back to the OP, it reminded me of a statement from one of my professors in the 1970's. He pointed out to the class that if the metric of conversion to communism was the proletariat becoming the owner of the means of production, then the US was then the most communist country on earth. His conclusion was based on the fact that most workers were due pensions, and pension funds (including union funds) were the largest owners of corporate stocks. Thus the beneficiaries of those funds could indirectly use their voting majorities on corporate boards to direct policy. That tactic was not merely theoretical, but was used in efforts like the anti-apartheid movement.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

All that these examples tell me is that the kleptocrats who run communist governments eventually realize how to make market reforms work to their advantage.

...which is still notable in that kleptocrats elsewhere are still running poor countries.

I think there's an argument to be made that the relative pervasiveness and uniformity of control communist governments are able to exert makes this market transition easier;* that said, many governments in Africa were single-party states with developmentalist aims that failed to achieve prosperity--which is all to say that a history of statehood or national consciousness appears to be an advantage in the realm of political and economic development (which is not new news).

*The *very* notable exception of the entire Eastern bloc can probably be mostly accounted for in that (1) economic liberalization coincided with political liberalization; and (2) they had developed under communism to such an extent that opening them up to the West simply meant their entire economies were rendered obsolete.

[The Mikado]

I think there's an argument to be made that the relative pervasiveness and uniformity of control communist governments are able to exert makes this market transition easier;* that said, many governments in Africa were single-party states with developmentalist aims that failed to achieve prosperity--which is all to say that a history of statehood or national consciousness appears to be an advantage in the realm of political and economic development (which is not new news).

Ethiopia, which was A. not colonized (conquered for less than a decade, but with no time for Italian colonialism to take root), B. a naturally formed empire and not imposed from the outside, and C. had an aggressively modernizing Imperial government until 1974 followed by an aggressively modernizing Communist one until 1991, still...failed to develop. Both Imperial Ethiopia and Derg-run Communist Ethiopia were total basket cases. Ethiopia seems to be the strongest counterexample here.


Anyway, the argument above really reminds me of Barrington Moore's book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy which I had to read back in college. I think Moore, from half a century ago, would have agreed with much of this as his basic take about communism was that communism in practice as it actually emerged was not a movement of the developed world but of the periphery, much to the dismay of Marxist theorists. Moore argued that communism is what you get when very traditional land and rent based rural economic systems persist deep into modernity and the peasantry revolt seeking land redistribution, and that any communist model focusing on the urban proletarian workers missed that the peasantry almost always ended up the backbone of any actual Communist movement. (Moore pointed quite a bit as to how radically unlikely the rise of Mao Zedong would be to any person who took Marx's theory of revolution seriously)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I think there's an argument to be made that the relative pervasiveness and uniformity of control communist governments are able to exert makes this market transition easier;* that said, many governments in Africa were single-party states with developmentalist aims that failed to achieve prosperity--which is all to say that a history of statehood or national consciousness appears to be an advantage in the realm of political and economic development (which is not new news).

Ethiopia, which was A. not colonized (conquered for less than a decade, but with no time for Italian colonialism to take root), B. a naturally formed empire and not imposed from the outside, and C. had an aggressively modernizing Imperial government until 1974 followed by an aggressively modernizing Communist one until 1991, still...failed to develop. Both Imperial Ethiopia and Derg-run Communist Ethiopia were total basket cases. Ethiopia seems to be the strongest counterexample here.

I am humbled by your mention of Ethiopia. My only two responses are (1) So far as I am aware, Ethiopia seems like a fairly unique case; but (2) If I recall correctly, the Derg don't seem to have enjoyed very thorough control of Ethiopia after taking power. I don't know much about it, but the TPLF (which controlled the post-Derg government until 2018) seems to have been a thorn in their side (though I can't say when that began). Additionally, as hinted at by the very existence of the TPLF, Ethiopia so far as I know is diverse both ethnically and religiously. Now, both the USSR and the PRC faced or face this dilemma, but seem to have resolved it (at least temporarily). All this is to say that the political prerequisite of a government that is strong, wide, and deep in its control of the country may have been lacking.

Anyway, the argument above really reminds me of Barrington Moore's book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy which I had to read back in college. I think Moore, from half a century ago, would have agreed with much of this as his basic take about communism was that communism in practice as it actually emerged was not a movement of the developed world but of the periphery, much to the dismay of Marxist theorists.

I think at this point we're safe enough to address this as an established fact rather than a theory. I don't know where this viewpoint stood prior to Moore, but it seems that the sociologists and anthropologists in the 15 years after Origins was published very much absorbed this credo as they dissected peasant movements in Vietnam and elsewhere. The irony of the "Marxist peasant" is underscored by the fact that it was often some student intelligentsia linking what was essentially agrarian redistributionism to some wider theoretical construct that had been created with an entirely different class of people in mind, and in many ways strapping said peasants into a roller coaster ride they would otherwise have never signed up for.

[PSOL]

Ethiopia was embroiled in a prolonged civil war facing off proxy conflicts from the USSR and China unironically, while fending off a Somali invasion. Toppled off with a natural famine and there’s a reason why the Derg failed incredibly.

^^^In all instances of land redistribution where land was shared communally(ish), the peasantry’s life expectancy rose considerably, so I’d say it mostly worked out in the end with the caveat of the short time span of the reforms due to the Communist-ruled states expiring.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

All that these examples tell me is that the kleptocrats who run communist governments eventually realize how to make market reforms work to their advantage.

That makes me somewhat dubious about some of the comparisons made.

Also I have some issues with the presentation of the transformation in Russia including both before the revolution and of course the development of the situation since the fall of the USSR.

[Cassandra]

EDIT: I would go so far as to claim that EoH looks increasingly relevant today (as does its counterpart, Clash of Civilizations).

Would you be willing to expand?

While I admittedly was saying something intentionally provocative, let's have at it...

Regarding End of History, which, on its surface, is harder to defend in Current Era:
0) I've read the article multiple times but have only listened to about half of the book, that said...
1) Fukuyama I think lays out a fairly convincing foundational argument for the forward progression of history in light of the fact that, while humanity has previously experienced dark ages, barring nuclear catastrophe (or something correspondingly destructive) we are likely "locked-in" to the continued accumulation of knowledge and progression of science. Additionally, he is not quite so rosy-eyed as made out to be, anticipating (a) that conflict will continue, and (b) there will still be attractive challenges to liberal democracy. With all that in mind, if we are to regard him as having been wrong, I think we are left with an interesting challenge in regards to why he was wrong.  I don't think a  market crash or even a horribly destructive terrorist attack by themselves invalidate his claims, though the challenge posed by China is something different (to be discussed below).

-snip-

Thanks for responding, Cath. I have not read either of these articles, though you've rekindled my interest in reading Fukuyama. Your first point has captured my attention. Did Fukuyama take into account climate change in his analysis? That to me seems likely to become the main driver of history in this century.