why do those types of liberals ALWAYS say “checks and balances”
like what is it with that f***ing phrasing

i think ima just drop this class and take my humanities req when i go back to uni

i mean, it doesn’t have to be full-blown marxism but i kinda think that you should know a bit more of what you’re talking about as a prof, it just sounded like one of those conservative boomer rants instead of a substantial critique of marxism

I've had some pretty bad political science community college professors tbh like

one did her dissertation on f***ing WMD's (yuck) and someone asked why the U.S. still has territories like Guam American Samoa and she f***ing said (verbatim):

"they just haven't made a big enough stink about it! :p"

The one sociology / cultural studies class i had was great it turned me on to marxism and I learned a lot about gramsci and s***

i’m rly liking my philosophy class tbh, they do have a political/social one but it hasn’t been available and apparently it’s not that popular, but i would love to take it

1) Marx's traditional theory of historical materialism (or w/e this is called) stated that the natural course of society is feudalism > capitalism > socialism right? basically that capitalism is a pre-req of socialism

2) but the USSR went straight from feudalism to socialism; is this why Lenin introduced the NEP, as a way to compensate for this? Does this mean that Lenin agreed with Marx's theory that society must first pass through a capitalist phase in order to reach a socialist one, or did he reject this and implement the NEP for different reasons? Did Stalin agree or disagree with Lenin on this front? And what about Mao; I'm guessing he rejected Marx's theory?

3) China never had a proper Capitalist period of development prior to the Communist Party's victory either - is this why Deng wanted to liberalize the market, since he believed Marx's theory that socialism was only possible if China first experienced a sort of "capitalist" mode of development in order to increase China's wealth and productive capacity? And Maoists dislike Deng because they disagree with Marx's theory and believe that China didn't need a capitalist phase of development in order to reach socialism, right?

4) side note, what could China's mode of production under the KMT be categorized as? was China still mainly feudalist during these unstable times of warlords, foreign invasions, and civil wars? Since China had a ton of peasants, I'm wondering how there lives changed (if at all) following the collapse of the Qing dynasty

basically, I'm just wondering if contemporary socialists agree with Marx's theory of development saying that a society must pass through feudalism > capitalism > socialism, or if this theory has become less popular/debunked. ik Marx's theory has also been critiqued for being too Eurocentric and ignoring other societies which didn't subscribe to feudalism, like Indigenous societies of the Americas which were egalitarian and democratic

would appreciate any books on this topic, thanks

just so you know there isn't a complete widespread consensus on this topic in general and it can be a bit of a heated debate topic, even Marx & Engels themselves were not entirely decisive on this topic, especially in context of asiatic modes of productions and the like. there's been attempts at discussing it (even within this thread) and many economists and theorists have tackled the question to different results and a***yses; there isn't a singular contemporary consensus even among those within the same ideological umbrella.

I think it would be better for Marxists to abandon the "stages of development"/historical determinism because it's been disproven at this point by anthropologists and other ancient historians in the current-day. Societies do not develop on a straight line and aren't generally templates.

It's mainly codified within "orthodox Marxism" (which I honestly don't believe exists) due to Engels and Lenin/his contemporaries.

IIRC Marx himself was skeptical of the theory's usefulness outside of Europe.

You are asking many complex questions here.

To point 1: Historical materialism is a bit more complicated than that formula "feudalism - capitalism - socialism". It basically means:

a. Class struggle is the most important force that drives history, like slavemasters versus slaves, feudal lords versus serfs, capitalists versus workers

b. History is not driven solely by great men and women but also by the masses, by the change of science and technology, by changes in the nature and the climate, and also by random chance.

c. Capitalism is a natural-historic process, a force bigger than any individual capitalist, which is why Marx doesn't moralize about capitalists - he recognizes they are a cog in the wheel of history as anybody else, although they currently benefit from it more.

Furthermore, there were modes before feudalism. Hunter & gatherers were the first economy, later you had barter and trade, later you had ancient slavery, and only then did you get feudalism. There were also planned palace economies and gift economies, you could argue that modern slavery (Confederate states) was also a distinct mode of production and so on.

Marx and Engels realized that the progress of these modes of production were different outside Europe, which is why they abandoned the idea of the "Asiatic mode of production" and admitted they simply don't know enough about it and left that research to others.

Especially Dengists love to say that Marx claimed capitalism can only grow out of socialism. We should qualify this statement:

You should consider the context of Marx's time. When Marx was a young man, Germany still had many remnants of feudalism and hadn't fully industrialized yet, especially outside the Ruhr Area. Germany as a state didn't even exist yet but was a collection of different kingdoms, fiefdoms and free cities. England, France and to a certain extent the northern part of the USA were the most industrialized countries, but large parts of Europe were still stuck in various forms of (late) feudalism, let alone other parts of the world.

Since Marx and Engels were from a country that had both late feudalism and early capitalism, it was easy for them to compare the two. While they recognized that capitalism was superior in many ways, they also noticed regressions. Workers under capitalism worked far more hours than peasants under feudalism did, regularly working 12 to 14 hours a day. Peasants often (sort of) owned the land on which they worked on, while workers owned practically nothing. Workers died under harsh factory conditions while such accidents were much rarer for peasants. Capitalism forced both women and children to extreme physical work, which wasn't the case on any peasant farm. Peasants basically took large parts of the winter off, since they couldn't work the fields, and also didn't work at night, while proletarians worked year-round and also at night.

It was apparent to Engels and Marx that despite the technological growth and the multiplication of labor-power by machinery, the workers being employed in these factories only sparsely benefitted from the fruits of this progress.

It was Engels who, due to his work in his father's factory in Manchester, first encountered the potential of the new working class that had formed under capitalism. He noted that England is the most advanced and richest country in the world, yet its new class of workers were poorer and more desolate than even the feudal peasants of Germany. Engels was especially inspired by the Chartists of England (a worker group), and the 1830s and 1840s featured the first strikes and protests by workers in England and France, which showed that this new class of people had serious potential of changing society if they unite. Engels concluded that the revolutionary potential for changing society would ultimately stem from the wage-workers. Marx was inspired by these ideas and adopted them as well, which pushed him towards communism.

At the same time, Engels and Marx were not advocating for a return to feudalism. It was apparent for any German progressive that feudalism caused many ills of society, like the unification of state and church, feudal lords using the peasants as their personal army for the petty wars and disputes with other lords, and the small aristocracy ruling over the masses of the people. Hence they opposed the "feudal socialism" that some suggested (this is mentioned in the Communist Manifesto).

They also opposed the "bourgeois socialism" (also mentioned in the Manifesto) that basically depends on the goodwill of the bourgeoisie to take care of the workers more. Just as the bourgeoisie defeated the aristocrats in the American and French revolutions, they concluded that in the future, the proletarians will have to do the same to the bourgeoisie.

A lot of Marx and Engels is basically an elaborate response to the American and French Revolutions. These revolutions promised civil rights, liberty, equality and brotherhood, yet a lot of what was promised was not kept. It was Engels who early on said that civil rights are held back by private property, and that only with the abolition of private property true emancipation and enlightenment can be reached.

This is the context. Now you might understand why they said capitalism was needed first. Capitalism allowed certain technological advancements in societies, it divorced people from the lands they owned for generations and pushed them into the cities, it dispensed the might of the aristocrats onto the might of the bourgeoisie, it allowed for heavy division of labor, it allowed for more trade and more complex market mechanisms, it allowed for more competition. These are all advancements in comparison to feudalism, but they all contain the seeds of capitalism's downfall as well. The same things that will make capitalism work will also lead to its downfall, it will be a victim of its own success, such as competition turning into monopoly. The advanced aspects of capitalist society can then birth a new society in which now the workers rule instead.

Marx towards the end of his life admitted that perhaps it would be possible to jump from feudalism straight to socialism in Russia if they could use the peasant communes that were appearing there at that time as a basis. This shows us that the formula "capitalism to socialism" was not strict in his mind.

"Not reading that paragraph. Communism doensn't work though, because of the profit model."

@Come_to_BR To No. 2.) Regarding USSR's transition to capitalism.

The Russian Empire was semi-feudal, not fully feudal. The other half was capitalist. The last tsars actually abolished some aspects of serfdom and wanted to move onto capitalism faster. The workers were quite a small minority when Lenin started to say they will carry the revolution (which makes it even crazier in hindsight that he was right). Most Russians were peasants, but not all.

Furthermore, there were peasant communes and there were already worker councils (Soviets) before the October Revolution. These aided the transition as well.

World War 1 happened, two revolutions happened, and then Soviet Russia had a big civil war that tore the country apart. Lenin needed to rebuild the country desperately. For this, he allowed some temporary concessions to the capitalists and landowners (kulaks) who haven't disappeared overnight. This was the NEP. Lenin however was extremely careful in doing this and always stated that they should remain vigilant, so that the NEP isn't a backdoor for the previous capitalism re-entering. Lenin himself considered the economy of his time to be state capitalist working towards socialism.

Lenin died and Stalin took over. Stalin expanded on the NEP, but had to draw back and collectivized much land because the kulaks and the rural population were getting into conflicts. He also feared that the NEPmen would become too powerful. This ended the NEP, but the Kulaks resisted a lot. Both sides made errors and many people starved (the natural droughts occurring at that time didn't help). The Kulaks burned a lot of crops rather than letting the state redistribute them.

The NEP ended within 7 years.

Mao saw the revolutionary potential in the peasants, not in the workers. The Republic of China was even more feudalistic than Tsarist Russia, had an even bigger rural population and had less industrialization. This made sense in the context of China, although like I said, Tsarist Russia didn't have that many proletarians either when Lenin started the Bolsheviks.

The different stars of the Chinese flag show different classes. One is for the bourgeoisie (lol), one is for the peasants, one is for the workers and I forgot the other two.

@Come_to_BR 3.) Regarding China's capitalism

The Republic of China did have some capitalism. Especially the north of China had factories (because of the vast coal deposits), and of course the port cities that were previously leased (by force) to different European nations (Hong Kong being the most famous, but not only example).

The Cultural Revolution caused much upheaval in China and Mao basically lost control of his people. You can see Deng's reforms as an answer to this.

It should also be considered that China and the USA were buddies back then, whereas China and the USSR were enemies. By co-operating with the capitalist world, China also pursued geopolitical goals within the Sino-Soviet split. China profited heavily from being the work-bank of the world, the Western capitalists profited from de-industrializing and outsourcing to China.

Furthermore, neoliberalism was becoming extremely en vogue at this time (even poisoned the Soviet intelligentsia into killing their own state), so Deng was just following the ideas of his time. The Club of Rome report ("Limits of Growth") impacted Deng's people as well and encouraged them to do market reforms and implement the one-child policy.

Officially, the Dengist stance is that the "productive forces" must be advanced enough for capitalism to form into socialism.

Maoists do not negate Marx on this. Like I said, China already had some capitalism. Besides, it would be possible to have a more state-oriented capitalism (such as the early USSR) rather than what China is currently doing. Even the NEP of the USSR was much stricter than Deng's opening up reforms. For example, no NEPmen were allowed into the party, and no billionaires existed. In contrast, the CPC has allowed capitalist into their party for over 20 years now, and China has 600 billionaires, of which 100 are known to be in the party.

Also, Marx was talking about the "productive forces" of 1800s England, not some future Star-Trek-society. China has reached the GDP per capita of the 1870s UK by the year 2000. Even if Dengism had some viability in the 80s and 90s, you could argue that since 2000, China has already had sufficient "productive forces" to switch to socialism.

@Come_to_BR 4.) Regarding the Republic of China: The ROC was both capitalist and feudalist.

An interesting theory by Cockshott is the model of "aleatoric materialism" or also "stochastical materialism". Basically saying that the transitions from one mode of production to the other are not laws, but tendencies. For example, Mongolia was able to go from a clan-economy similar to feudalism straight to socialism and then back to capitalism. Some societies didn't have ancient slave labor and so on.

Marx never claimed to describe the entire economic history of the world. Marx and Engels tried to study Russia and China towards the end of their lives because they saw revolutionary potential there (earlier on they believed socialist revolutions would first happen in industrialized capitalist nations, later they relativized this stance a lot).

I reject the view that feudalism is merely a European phenomenon. Historians debate over this. For me, any system where land ownership is the key factor, where farmers are bound to land and have to pay some tribute to the land owner is feudal. The Ottoman Empire for example also had feudalism, but the feudal-lords were not hereditary and instead merit-based via the bureaucracy. China also had feudalism.

The Incas had a palace economy, which is a planned economy based on a powerful centralized state (represented by the palace or the capital).

As for books, I recommend Cockshott's How the World Works that explains the transitions from each economy mode quite well, although you can skim through the STEMlord parts: leftypol.org/leftypol/src/1642563373522.pdf (PDF link)

To finish off this massive post:

Considered reading it but learned the author is an unhinged transphobe does it color the book?

Book has zero to do with identity politics etc and was written in the late 80s as a response to Gorby's market reforms

I can't wait for USA's Balkanization and demise

Marx failed to recognize that s***posting is praxis

Or "automation"

When this is a process that has been going on since the dawn of man and is an explicit part of Marx's Capital

can you provide a source/text that can help quantify how "feudal" the Russian Empire was? I frequently read how it was a backwards wasteland very scarce in industry (like how Russian soldiers were severely under armed in WW1) so I'm wondering how true this is

is there a specific period when the Empire started moving away from feudalism and towards capitalism? peeped "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" by Lenin but its 500+ pages

so the NEP had two purposes: 1) a temporary concession granted to the kulaks/reactionaries and 2) to increase economic growth which was much needed after a devastating civil war. would also appreciate recs for further reading on this topic if you got any

in the years leading up to Deng becoming general secretory, China saw its worst famine in history, a cultural revolution which spiralled out of control, and pressure from the hegemonic West to liberalize - I think the justification behind Dengs reforms makes it comparable to the NEP, at least at first. to appease reactionary forces and increase China's wealth; in the 70's China had roughly the same GDP per capita as India

however like you mentioned, unlike the NEP which went on for 8 years, Deng's reforms have gone on for decades and have yet to be rescinded. but China also has a substantially larger population than the 20's USSR (1 billion in China by the early 80s vs ~120 million in USSR during NEP era) and countries need significantly more wealth now compared to the early 20th century, so China's period of capitalist development will naturally take longer

China had already had a real taste of socialism prior to Dengs reforms, unlike USSRites during the NEP era where socialism was still a fresh prospect and its cultural effects had yet to be realized on society

Culturally, its gotta be a super confusing juxtaposition for people going from the Mao era/Cultural Revolution to embracing capitalist elements just 10 years later. like Jack Ma grew up during the Cultural Revolution learning to reject capitalism but is now one of the richest business tycoons on Earth peddling consumerism to the masses

Modern Chinese society seems to be largely detached from socialism - I know Chinese people learn about Marxism in school and that the Communist Party follows "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" - I wonder how much of this is goalpost moving mumbo jumbo theory and how much of it is actually reflected in praxis.

Xi is trying to steer China back on the right road, but is this achievable through reform alone, or does China need another mass movement/revolution ala the Cultural Revolution + purging of anti-revolutionary CCP members? Need another party purge fr

cockshott is next on my reading list just off the strength of ur posts