CLICK CC FOR SUBTITLES IN PORTUGUESE.READ FULL TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW IN ENGLISH AND ESPAÑOL HERE ‣ http://qiaocollective.com/home/conversation-vijay-prashad....
If you ever bother reading Marx then you’ll see that Marx plainly states that he believe capitalism is likely a necessary stage for society to pass through in order to develop productive forces. My favorite part about anarchists is having unlimited smugness coupled with consistent ignorance.
That was my point when mentioning “historical determinism”. I happen to know Marx’s writing quite well. But that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he wrote. Specifically the historical determinism stuff is pretty absurd ;)
If you actually read Marx and think that Marx advocates for “historical determinism”, then you clearly have not understood what Marx was saying.
Marx believed that the productive forces have a tendency to develop as history unfolds. This is not the same as claiming that they progress linearly towards some predetermined state. Meanwhile, the agent of this development is whatever social class is in command of material production. Productive forces and those who control them act as selection pressure for how society develops.
There comes a point when the prevailing social relations, far from promoting the growth of the productive forces, begin to act as an obstacle to them. This creates a contradiction and sets the stage for a political revolution. The class struggle sharpens, and a social class capable of taking the forces of production forward assumes power.
Capitalism staggers from one crisis to another by virtue of the social relations it involves. At a certain point in its decline the conditions become such that the working class is in the position to take over the ownership and control of production.
Claiming this view is absurd would be akin to claiming that evolution through natural selection pressure is absurd.
You are making up a straw man argument. I know that Marx did not “advocate” for it, but claimed (as you write) that it is some sort of likely natural progression. This might have seemed logical to a certain extend when (and where) he wrote it, but in hindsight it is pretty absurd. Edit: If there is any natural progression it is that Capitalism leads to societal collapse and/or regression to feudalism. It is highly unlikely to lead to communism as Marx speculated.
And even if we would agree that it isn’t absurd by itself, what Vijay Prashad seems to claim here is that the CPC intentionally introduced a form of Capitalism in China to bring about Communism, which is even more absurd.
Please quote the specific passage from Marx that makes claims regarding historical determinism. Meanwhile, there is nothing absurd about the idea that contradictions of capitalism set the stage for socialism to be possible.
There’s also absolutely nothing absurd about what Vijay claims. The fact of the matter is that we live in a world where capitalism is the dominant ideology, and capitalism is overtly hostile towards communism.
The only things that’s absurd here is to claim that there were obviously better options available. USSR tried to create its own independent economy and it was crushed by capitalists. USSR was forced to spend incredible amount of resources on its military in order to counter NATO, and that came directly at the cost of improving the material conditions for its citizens.
China learned from USSR and chose a different approach. They created special economic zones where capitalism is allowed, and by doing so they removed the threat of war and economic sanctions. This allowed them to develop in relative peace, and to have rapid technological advancement by learning from the technological experience of the west. China was able to focus their productive power on improving lives of their citizens and the results we see today speak for themselves. Incidentally, the approach that China took is precisely what Lenin advocates here. I guess Lenin just didn’t understand communism enough though.
Again, you seem to not understand what I write and argue against some sort of strawman. I don’t need to quote some passage from Marx as I am not even disputing what you wrote.
Even by Marx’s own assumptions and exactly as you write yourself further up, artificially introducing Capitalism with the intention that it will somehow through a misunderstood historical determinism lead to Communism is totally absurd. Even Marx himself would say so. It might be that I totally misunderstood what Vijay was saying, but this kind of absurd thinking seems to be part of it.
So yes, I guess we agree then that China is capitalist today? At least that is what you seem to write? And sure it improved the living conditions of a lot of people, no doubt about that.
But thinking that by introducing Capitalism you somehow bring about Communism in the future is absurd.
P.S.: yes Lenin was a highly misguided counter-revolutionary that pretty much had no idea what he was talking about.
I happen to know Marx’s writing quite well. But that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he wrote. Specifically the historical determinism stuff is pretty absurd
I simply asked you to show a quote from Marx substantiating this claim. Seems like you’re the one making a straw man with it.
Even by Marx’s own assumptions and exactly as you write yourself further up, artificially introducing Capitalism with the intention that it will somehow through a misunderstood historical determinism lead to Communism is totally absurd.
I’ve explained to you precisely the conditions that led to capitalism being introduced as well as how the alternative turned out. I notice that you haven’t actually bothered addressing my point.
It might be that I totally misunderstood what Vijay was saying, but this kind of absurd thinking seems to be part of it.
What specifically are you claiming is absurd and why?
So yes, I guess we agree then that China is capitalist today?
China is capitalist exactly the same way Canada is communist because Canada has some social services like free healthcare. Again, you’re simply showing your shallow understanding of the subject you’re debating. China is a socialist country with a communist party in power that is in the process of working towards becoming a communist society.
I notice that anarchists often struggle with the idea that you can’t just flip a switch and create a communist society.
P.S.: yes Lenin was a highly misguided counter-revolutionary that pretty much had no idea what he was talking about.
Why should I address Marx’s understanding of a likely natural progression when I don’t actually disagree with you? Marx never claimed that by artificially introducing Capitalism you advance a society towards Communism as that would be pretty absurd indeed.
But Vijay (in his typical rapid dropping of random and mostly non-sense talking-points) seems to claim that that is what the CPC had planned to do when introducing their capitalist reforms a few decades ago. He has a point though that there are different opinions within the CPC and those implementing the reforms were probably less misguided about this than Vijay seems to be.
If a country is Capitalist or not, is not decided by some official party declarations, but by the economic reality of the people living in that country. China is certainly a different flavour of Capitalism than the US or Canada, but it hasn’t been socialist for quite some time. Capitalism is perfectly compatible with an authoritarian single-party state, in fact as fascism shows it can thrive under such conditions.
So tl;dr (and of course in best Marxist historical determinism /s):
He is saying China introduced Capitalism as a means to reach Communism…
If you ever bother reading Marx then you’ll see that Marx plainly states that he believe capitalism is likely a necessary stage for society to pass through in order to develop productive forces. My favorite part about anarchists is having unlimited smugness coupled with consistent ignorance.
That was my point when mentioning “historical determinism”. I happen to know Marx’s writing quite well. But that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he wrote. Specifically the historical determinism stuff is pretty absurd ;)
If you actually read Marx and think that Marx advocates for “historical determinism”, then you clearly have not understood what Marx was saying.
Marx believed that the productive forces have a tendency to develop as history unfolds. This is not the same as claiming that they progress linearly towards some predetermined state. Meanwhile, the agent of this development is whatever social class is in command of material production. Productive forces and those who control them act as selection pressure for how society develops.
There comes a point when the prevailing social relations, far from promoting the growth of the productive forces, begin to act as an obstacle to them. This creates a contradiction and sets the stage for a political revolution. The class struggle sharpens, and a social class capable of taking the forces of production forward assumes power.
Capitalism staggers from one crisis to another by virtue of the social relations it involves. At a certain point in its decline the conditions become such that the working class is in the position to take over the ownership and control of production.
Claiming this view is absurd would be akin to claiming that evolution through natural selection pressure is absurd.
You are making up a straw man argument. I know that Marx did not “advocate” for it, but claimed (as you write) that it is some sort of likely natural progression. This might have seemed logical to a certain extend when (and where) he wrote it, but in hindsight it is pretty absurd. Edit: If there is any natural progression it is that Capitalism leads to societal collapse and/or regression to feudalism. It is highly unlikely to lead to communism as Marx speculated.
And even if we would agree that it isn’t absurd by itself, what Vijay Prashad seems to claim here is that the CPC intentionally introduced a form of Capitalism in China to bring about Communism, which is even more absurd.
Please quote the specific passage from Marx that makes claims regarding historical determinism. Meanwhile, there is nothing absurd about the idea that contradictions of capitalism set the stage for socialism to be possible.
There’s also absolutely nothing absurd about what Vijay claims. The fact of the matter is that we live in a world where capitalism is the dominant ideology, and capitalism is overtly hostile towards communism.
The only things that’s absurd here is to claim that there were obviously better options available. USSR tried to create its own independent economy and it was crushed by capitalists. USSR was forced to spend incredible amount of resources on its military in order to counter NATO, and that came directly at the cost of improving the material conditions for its citizens.
China learned from USSR and chose a different approach. They created special economic zones where capitalism is allowed, and by doing so they removed the threat of war and economic sanctions. This allowed them to develop in relative peace, and to have rapid technological advancement by learning from the technological experience of the west. China was able to focus their productive power on improving lives of their citizens and the results we see today speak for themselves. Incidentally, the approach that China took is precisely what Lenin advocates here. I guess Lenin just didn’t understand communism enough though.
Again, you seem to not understand what I write and argue against some sort of strawman. I don’t need to quote some passage from Marx as I am not even disputing what you wrote.
Even by Marx’s own assumptions and exactly as you write yourself further up, artificially introducing Capitalism with the intention that it will somehow through a misunderstood historical determinism lead to Communism is totally absurd. Even Marx himself would say so. It might be that I totally misunderstood what Vijay was saying, but this kind of absurd thinking seems to be part of it.
So yes, I guess we agree then that China is capitalist today? At least that is what you seem to write? And sure it improved the living conditions of a lot of people, no doubt about that. But thinking that by introducing Capitalism you somehow bring about Communism in the future is absurd.
P.S.: yes Lenin was a highly misguided counter-revolutionary that pretty much had no idea what he was talking about.
I simply asked you to show a quote from Marx substantiating this claim. Seems like you’re the one making a straw man with it.
I’ve explained to you precisely the conditions that led to capitalism being introduced as well as how the alternative turned out. I notice that you haven’t actually bothered addressing my point.
What specifically are you claiming is absurd and why?
China is capitalist exactly the same way Canada is communist because Canada has some social services like free healthcare. Again, you’re simply showing your shallow understanding of the subject you’re debating. China is a socialist country with a communist party in power that is in the process of working towards becoming a communist society.
I notice that anarchists often struggle with the idea that you can’t just flip a switch and create a communist society.
Anarchist galaxy brain moment here. 😂
Why should I address Marx’s understanding of a likely natural progression when I don’t actually disagree with you? Marx never claimed that by artificially introducing Capitalism you advance a society towards Communism as that would be pretty absurd indeed.
But Vijay (in his typical rapid dropping of random and mostly non-sense talking-points) seems to claim that that is what the CPC had planned to do when introducing their capitalist reforms a few decades ago. He has a point though that there are different opinions within the CPC and those implementing the reforms were probably less misguided about this than Vijay seems to be.
If a country is Capitalist or not, is not decided by some official party declarations, but by the economic reality of the people living in that country. China is certainly a different flavour of Capitalism than the US or Canada, but it hasn’t been socialist for quite some time. Capitalism is perfectly compatible with an authoritarian single-party state, in fact as fascism shows it can thrive under such conditions.