CLICK CC FOR SUBTITLES IN PORTUGUESE.READ FULL TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW IN ENGLISH AND ESPAÑOL HERE ‣ http://qiaocollective.com/home/conversation-vijay-prashad....
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.
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.
Just to be clear, you are walking back your claim regarding historical determinism then. What Marx does say is that capitalism can be used to develop productive forces, and that for communism to flourish it is necessary to be able to guarantee a decent standard of living for everyone. How that’s accomplished is still an open question. What China is doing is an experiment, and their experiment appears to be doing a lot better than any other alternative that I’m aware of.
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.
Again, the only one being nonsensical here is you, and I’ve explained precisely the reasons for China’s approach. I can’t help but notice that you continue avoiding engaging my points, and just keep regurgitating the same claim over and over here.
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.
You mean the economic reality of productive forces being directed towards the needs of the majority?
China is certainly a different flavour of Capitalism than the US or Canada, but it hasn’t been socialist for quite some time.
In what way specifically has China not 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.
Not sure what any of this has to do with China to be honest.
No I am not walking back at all. There is a difference between what Marx actually wrote (mostly sensical, but partially historical assumptions that have been disproven by now) and how “marxist” theory about historical determinism is often interpreted by self-proclaimed marxists like Vijay.
Marx observed that a laissez-faire Capitalist society (similar to the one he faced in his contemporary Germany and England at that time) is likely to result in such bad conditions for the workers that he felt that they would have no choice but rise up and progress towards a more egalitarian socialist society (very much simplified and you can probably add some additional nuance to this description).
Despite the fact that this actually never happened and is also unlikely to happen, this is a totally different situation to a authoritarian socialist state (like China was under Mao) artificially introducing capitalist means of production while at least superficially ensuring that conditions would not get too bad for the workers (but they got pretty bad never the less). If anything, such a state-monopolist approach to Capitalism, stabilizes against the inherent self-destructive tendencies of Capitalism and does not further a society towards communism at all. Thus as a result China has been transformed into an authoritarian single-party run capitalist country, euphemistically called socialism with Chinese characteristics.
No I am not walking back at all. There is a difference between what Marx actually wrote (mostly sensical, but partially historical assumptions that have been disproven by now) and how “marxist” theory about historical determinism is often interpreted by self-proclaimed marxists like Vijay.
There is no marxist theory of historical determinism. That’s just a straw man you keep using.
Marx observed that a laissez-faire Capitalist society (similar to the one he faced in his contemporary Germany and England at that time) is likely to result in such bad conditions for the workers that he felt that they would have no choice but rise up and progress towards a more egalitarian socialist society (very much simplified and you can probably add some additional nuance to this description).
You conveniently omitted the part where Marx argues that worker organization along with the mode of production developed under capitalism is an important prerequisite for a successful socialist society. Marx recognizes that capitalism is able to develop productive forces, and that this development is valuable.
Despite the fact that this actually never happened and is also unlikely to happen, this is a totally different situation to a authoritarian socialist state (like China was under Mao) artificially introducing capitalist means of production while at least superficially ensuring that conditions would not get too bad for the workers (but they got pretty bad never the less).
Last I checked the Russian revolution did in fact happen. Meanwhile, it’s quite clear that introduction of capitalism did in fact allow China to leverage this aspects of this system to drastically improve both the standard of living and working conditions in the long run. Life in China today is drastically better for the vast majority of people than it was even a decade ago. This is an undeniable fact.
If anything, such a state-monopolist approach to Capitalism, stabilizes against the inherent self-destructive tendencies of Capitalism and does not further a society towards communism at all.
Another baseless claim.
Thus as a result China has been transformed into an authoritarian single-party run capitalist country, euphemistically called socialism with Chinese characteristics.
This is a demonstrably absurd statement. One only needs to compare China with any actual capitalist country to see how idiotic this claim is.
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.
Just to be clear, you are walking back your claim regarding historical determinism then. What Marx does say is that capitalism can be used to develop productive forces, and that for communism to flourish it is necessary to be able to guarantee a decent standard of living for everyone. How that’s accomplished is still an open question. What China is doing is an experiment, and their experiment appears to be doing a lot better than any other alternative that I’m aware of.
Again, the only one being nonsensical here is you, and I’ve explained precisely the reasons for China’s approach. I can’t help but notice that you continue avoiding engaging my points, and just keep regurgitating the same claim over and over here.
You mean the economic reality of productive forces being directed towards the needs of the majority?
In what way specifically has China not been socialist for quite some time?
Not sure what any of this has to do with China to be honest.
No I am not walking back at all. There is a difference between what Marx actually wrote (mostly sensical, but partially historical assumptions that have been disproven by now) and how “marxist” theory about historical determinism is often interpreted by self-proclaimed marxists like Vijay.
Marx observed that a laissez-faire Capitalist society (similar to the one he faced in his contemporary Germany and England at that time) is likely to result in such bad conditions for the workers that he felt that they would have no choice but rise up and progress towards a more egalitarian socialist society (very much simplified and you can probably add some additional nuance to this description).
Despite the fact that this actually never happened and is also unlikely to happen, this is a totally different situation to a authoritarian socialist state (like China was under Mao) artificially introducing capitalist means of production while at least superficially ensuring that conditions would not get too bad for the workers (but they got pretty bad never the less). If anything, such a state-monopolist approach to Capitalism, stabilizes against the inherent self-destructive tendencies of Capitalism and does not further a society towards communism at all. Thus as a result China has been transformed into an authoritarian single-party run capitalist country, euphemistically called socialism with Chinese characteristics.
There is no marxist theory of historical determinism. That’s just a straw man you keep using.
You conveniently omitted the part where Marx argues that worker organization along with the mode of production developed under capitalism is an important prerequisite for a successful socialist society. Marx recognizes that capitalism is able to develop productive forces, and that this development is valuable.
Last I checked the Russian revolution did in fact happen. Meanwhile, it’s quite clear that introduction of capitalism did in fact allow China to leverage this aspects of this system to drastically improve both the standard of living and working conditions in the long run. Life in China today is drastically better for the vast majority of people than it was even a decade ago. This is an undeniable fact.
Another baseless claim.
This is a demonstrably absurd statement. One only needs to compare China with any actual capitalist country to see how idiotic this claim is.