How accurate is the Marxist interpretation of history? By that I mean the "feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism" line that people say all the time. I don't know if this is the main interpretation, but some of my communist friends have told me that a nation has and can only be successful if it goes from feudalism to capitalism and from capitalism to socialism. They say that there has never been and never will be a successful nation that goes from feudalism to socialism. They also say that there has and never been will a successful nation that goes backwards, as in from capitalism to feudalism, from socialism to capitalism, or from socialism to feudalism.
I guess what I'm looking for includes: 1. A successful feudalist nation that went straight to socialism or something other than capitalism and stayed successful. 2. A successful capitalist nation that went straight to feudalism or something other than socialism and stayed successful. 3. A successful socialist nation that went straight to capitalism/feudalism and stayed successful. 4. A successful capitalist nation that did not come straight from feudalism or a successful socialist nation that did not come straight from capitalism.
Those 4 examples seem to be the only examples of nations that would falsify that interpretation of history. However, I guess if a real example comes forth people will argue about whether or not it was "successful".
In my own mind I feel like interpretation of history is a clever way to dismiss the failings of socialism. However, that's just an intuition I have since I have not gone through history and seen if that interpretation checks out.
Cooper Reyes
It's funny because true, Marxist socialism is something that exclusively happened in poor, backwards countries.
Cameron Ortiz
I don't know if there's a single country that went from feudalism to socialism.
>inb4 dumdums saying "Russia" Russian feudalism wasn't a thing for 60 years by the time revolution happened.
Cameron Perry
The "marxist" interpretation of history is more of a stance taken by Marxist-Leninists.
Marx's theories are not deterministic, rather he was more focused on how the dynamics and dialectical nature of class struggle shapes and changes societies.
Oliver Smith
So you're ruling out feudalism to socialism. What about the other half of number 1 on my list: feudalism to something other than capitalism?
Also can I get a source on you saying that Russian feudalism wasn't a thing for 60 years by the time of the revolution? Because my communist friends claim that their socialist state failed because they went from feudalism to socialism. Also, if they weren't feudalist by the time of the revolution what were they?
One of my non Marxist-Leninist friends believes in this interpretation and they believe it is deterministic. So I don't think it's strictly a stance taken by Marxist-Leninists alone. But I suppose they may be in the minority. >Marx's theories are not deterministic, rather he was more focused on how the dynamics and dialectical nature of class struggle shapes and changes societies. Does this mean that many marxists accept that there will be exceptions to the "feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism" view of history?
Levi Collins
Its completely asinine, like all deterministic history charts. At best you could try and lay out a single, general process that often occurs, but history is too complicated to be summed up perfectly in a four or five stage chart. I mean lets just look at the basic facts
1. Primitive hunter-gatherer societies were not communistic. There was no general sharing of goods as a universal strategy. The strategies used varied from Might Makes Right, to a system based on social honor [best warrior, chief, and shaman get the best shit], to a system that resembles basic communism, varying from group to group. Not only that, but they defy the most basic premise of communism, in that they recognized the 'ownership' of land, something even animals recognize.
2. Tribal societies didn't progress into feudal societies. Feudalism didn't even emerge in Europe until after the fall of the Roman Empire.
3. Capitalist societies don't progress to socialism, because socialism is a cancerous economic policy that always fails.
If anything, the economic progression of Europe would be more accurately labeled as
With the key developments not revolving around social relations or labor, but instead developments like the importance of trade and its establishment, the development of coinage and later paper money backed by gold and ultimately by fiat, the discovery of capital as a concept, and ultimately the development of banking systems.
Marxist 'history' of economics is a laughable pile of nonsense. Its like someone who tries to describe disease in terms of spirits or chi imbalance. The proper response is laughter.
Dylan Flores
I'm not sure if you guys agree or disagree. user 2 seems to be tackling my own interpretation of what the theory is, while user 1 seems to be saying that our interpretation is only common among marxist-leninists and that it's not held by other marxists for the most part. user 2, what do you say to user 1's claim that it's not deterministic and so on?
Carson Lopez
Elements of capitalism have been around since the beginning of civilization.
Brandon Richardson
Even if Marx's theories are just taken as descriptions of a general process, that is, as a series of reactions to emerging conditions, the reality remains that they are an inaccurate description, the developments of society have little to do with social interactions concerning labor.
The degree of determination or absolutism in the supposed trend has little to do with the accuracy of the trend. Marx's theories of history are ridiculous.
Andrew Kelly
More specifically, commerce has been around since almost the beginning of civilization, and capitalism is just the logical extrapolation of commerce.
Hudson Moore
>I guess what I'm looking for includes: None of these questions have answers. In the Marxist tradition technological achievement spurs societal complexity and more egalitarian labor arrangements are a response to this social and technological progression.
You can't "go from feudalism to socialism" any more than you can go from fielding knights on horseback to fielding Apache attack helicopters. Ultimately the limitations on what our societies are capable of are a reflection of the technological resources available to them, and anyone thinking that they can accelerate this gradual process generally only results in the creation of a totalitarian state. The USSR did not succeed in creating a single-class society, they created a society where capital was concentrated in the hands of government bureaucrats instead of robber barons and class distinctions became even more pronounced.
For example, we will eventually reach the point where every form of labor, from residential construction to farming to line factory bitchwork to the roles currently preformed by engineers and senior executives will all eventually be preformed more efficiently by robots and A.I's, and the need for a capitalist-based labor arrangement will prove unnecessary for the same reason we no longer need to enslave people to run on a treadmill to pump water out of a mine, or to go break their backs in a rock quarry.
Modern Marxists aren't calling for the abolition of market-based economics but for Democratic Socialism: using the democratic process to make the transition from capitalism to socialism smooth rather than chaotic and disruptive by having the state manage markets rather than through outright nationalization and destruction of natural market forces. They favor skimming the cream off the top and redistributing it to the lower classes in order to alleviate their burdens and make it so that the socialist revolution will not be a violent one.
Xavier Wilson
I think I understand what you're saying. Why are people so sure that socialism is the thing that will come after capitalism?
Blake Hughes
Most Marxists would agree that there would be exceptions to the standard feudalism->capitalism->socialism
Blake Parker
China went from a fully communist system to a mixed market one and greatly benefitted from it. It's not fully capitalist obviously, but it did prosper from that 'regression'.
Henry Allen
I don't think people considered china communist in the marxist sense of what communist means.
Gavin Richardson
Materialist interpretation sucz, Overly reductive. As far as the evolution of emergent economic systems goes, This is how it really goes Taken from a study concerning agriculture in Sonora
Nolan Long
Forgot this is impossible to understand by itself >figure 6 rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1606/3158
Brandon Jones
The history of Marxism is irrelevant when it's going to be the future
Brody Mitchell
globalist capitalism is the future
Chase Lopez
>Marxism >the future
What did he mean by this?
Hudson Nguyen
Because class distinctions peaked early in antiquity, and since then have been gradually evaporating.
During the bronze age we had Royalty Warrior elite Aristocracy Landed gentry Government bureaucrats Yeomen artisans land owning farmers merchants working poor peasants slaves
As technology progressed class distinctions faded, but the remaining classes were more readily able to oppress the lower ones. For example, iron metallurgy made warrior elites obsolete, but now that you don't live in a society where every scrap of metal is precious you have enough metal to make shackles, cages, iron bars, and other instruments which make it easier for the aristocracy to round up huge numbers of slaves or military conscripts and coerce them into cooperative behavior.
flash forward a few thousand years and you have the modern day where only two classes remain Bourgeoisie -- the capital owning class Proletariat -- the working class
So although there are only two classes left, technology is such that the Bourgeoisie can exercise unprecedented control over the working class, oppressing them in ways that bronze age despots or medieval dukes could never fathom.
In the Marxist tradition this gradual dissolution of class distinctions will apply to the final two classes, resulting in a society where there is only a single class, where access to capital and labor ownership are fully equalized and the average person has been liberated from the tyranny of drudgery. This will be "socialism", and "communism" will result when this single class society becomes so efficient that a central governing apparatus no longer becomes necessary.
Ryder Garcia
>resulting in a society where there is only a single class, where access to capital and labor ownership are fully equalized and the average person has been liberated from the tyranny of drudgery. This will be "socialism".... I understand what you're saying but I don't think you've answered the "why" for me. Why is socialism seen as the next step? What about it makes people predict that?
Anthony Bailey
>whig history >marxist historiography Throw it on the trash, and burn the trash when you are done.
