Both capitalism and feudalism are class societies, but the conditions of industrialization accelerated by capitalism have dramatically improved on feudal squalor. Life expectancy has dramatically improved the world over, and the conditions for collective ownership and planning are possible because capitalism paved the way for it.
Capitalism has come with its own atrocities, and in many ways workers are less obviously exploited but to an even greater degree, but is still a historical stepping stone as a progressive movement from feudalism, that which will be usurped by socialism.
You really can’t say that life expectancy has improved, just because you have created more customers. At the same time you have polluted every single part of the planet, and people are suffering because of this, and we are killing of species in record speed.
It’s sick, sorry to say, that you think that capitalism paved the way for anything good.
Oh, maybe you should read up on socialism, because that’s really what’s have made the world a better place.
Name one concrete example of capitalism bettering the world - and be careful not to confuse your example with that of socialism?!?
I think you’re deeply confused, here. I’m a communist, I support socialism and working our way to communism. Life expectancy has dramatically improved from feudalism, and it isn’t close. Socialist countries like Cuba, the PRC, and former USSR would never have existed had capitalism not come into existence yet, as industrialization is the base that allows for planned, collectivized production.
Life expectancy has dramatically improved from feudalism
To be fair, isn’t the reason life expectancy improved is largely attributed to China uplifting over 800 million people out of poverty?
While yes, the overthrow of feudalism, which prevented scientific progress as it had threatened the ruling class’s power, led to medical advancements, better food production and access, etc., capitalism negated a lot of improvements toward life expectancy because of deadly working conditions, genocide, wars, colonialism, etc.
I do agree with your point that capitalism is often a necessity to eventually enable a socialist revolution to be possible once it faces crises from its contradictions and did contribute, at least indirectly, to increased life expectancy, Russia/USSR and China, as mentioned above, are examples of nations that were able to achieve socialism earlier, and their impact towards humanity cannot be understated.
Capitalism certainly lowered life expectancy initially, Marx makes this abundantly clear in Capital - Volume 1. However, with industrialization came advancements in socialized production (not socialist, socialized, ie cooperative work on an expanded and industrial scale in capitalism), which allowed for an acceleration of the sciences. Feudalism was holding science back, which in turn held medical science back. Same with farming, industrial farming increased outputs dramatically.
The Soviet Union and PRC absolutely made more dramatic improvements on a far-shorter time scale thanks to socialism, and indeed they did not rely on a developed period of capitalism (though they still depended on market forces), but the proletarian ideology of Marxism could not have come to existence without the prevalence of capitalism somewhere, this case being western Europe, allowing Marx to make critical advancements and Lenin to analyze the impacts on imperialism to successfully lead a revolution.
Feudalism was more obviously exploitative, and to a lesser extent than capitalism’s theft of surplus value, but the sheer productive capacity of market forces ultimately provided the base for class struggle and development of proletarian ideology.
I might misunderstand you, but I’m not confused. And you should read up on history. The communist manifest was written mainly from experience from feudalism. Capitalism was a waste of time, killing millions, if not a billion people, and a lot of species on the way - while polluting the earth, air and water on the way…
We have always known how to work together. That’s what a tribe, a people, a town was for. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t have survived as a species.
The Communist Manifesto was written as an explicit response to capitalism. Marx’s most important work is Capital. Returning to early cooperative societies is not what the Marxist position is, it’s taking advantage of industrialization and instead collectivizing and planning society using what was created under conditions of capitalism as a base. Capitalism has indeed been monstrously damaging, but with the bad came the conditions for socialism.
You should read the Communist Manifesto, and history books as well.
No it was not. But bright as you are, and knowledgeable, then please do tell me, where did Marx go to find inspiration for the communist manifesto and Das Kapital? Please enlighten me? Where in the world, at that time, did communism start to blossom? And why did it stop?
I did not say that the Marxist position was to return to the past. I said that you are wrong, to say that capitalism brought this on. You have no proof, what so ever, that capitalism has done any real good… Socialism has, workers fight for rights has - capitalism is the cancer of the whole world.
Follow your own advice and start reading now - but first tell me, where did Marx go to find inspiration for his work on communism?
Capital, Volume 1 was first published in 1867, when capitalism was dominant in western Europe and it was both dramatically improving production while pushing down the quality of life of the proletariat. Capital is a critique of “Political Economy,” the common bourgeois justification for capitalism. Marx’s chief observation about capitalism that enables socialism is capitalism’s centralizing tendencies, which increases the ratio of proletarian to bourgeois, while also training the proletariat on how to run and administer a complex and centralized economy.
The old, tribal formations were not socialist, they had no socialized production. It was cooperative, but extremely small-scale. Feudalism did not pave the way for socialism, either, but instead gave birth to capitalism. Capitalism’s centralization and introduction of large, industrial production does give way to a large, single class that can collectively run and plan production, ie socialism. From Manifesto of the Communist Party:
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Communism has not stopped blooming. Or, rather, it hasn’t started, either. Communism is a future system of fully collectivized, classless production. Socialism is still thriving, of course, it’s the form of economy of the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.
Tell me, what should I read of Marx that goes against the theory of historical materialism and scientific socialism?
We shall, of course, not take the trouble to enlighten our wise philosophers by explaining to them that the “liberation” of man is not advanced a single step by reducing philosophy, theology, substance and all the trash to “self-consciousness” and by liberating man from the domination of these phrases, which have never held him in thrall. Nor will we explain to them that it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse…
Question 13: Then you do not believe that community of property has been possible at any time?
Answer: No. Communism has only arisen since machinery and other inventions made it possible to hold out the prospect of an all-sided development, a happy existence, for all members of society. Communism is the theory of a liberation which was not possible for the slaves, the serfs, or the handicraftsmen, but only for the proletarians and hence it belongs of necessity to the 19th century and was not possible in any earlier period.
On the other hand, it turns out that revolutions were possible in countries like Russia and China that haven’t yet made a full transition to industrial capitalism.
To be fair, it usurped feudalism, and it socialized & developed the productive forces, thus making industrial socialism possible.
Usurped feudalism? Nah, it really didn’t. It just changed it to something like it, but far worse.
Both capitalism and feudalism are class societies, but the conditions of industrialization accelerated by capitalism have dramatically improved on feudal squalor. Life expectancy has dramatically improved the world over, and the conditions for collective ownership and planning are possible because capitalism paved the way for it.
Capitalism has come with its own atrocities, and in many ways workers are less obviously exploited but to an even greater degree, but is still a historical stepping stone as a progressive movement from feudalism, that which will be usurped by socialism.
You really can’t say that life expectancy has improved, just because you have created more customers. At the same time you have polluted every single part of the planet, and people are suffering because of this, and we are killing of species in record speed.
It’s sick, sorry to say, that you think that capitalism paved the way for anything good.
Oh, maybe you should read up on socialism, because that’s really what’s have made the world a better place.
Name one concrete example of capitalism bettering the world - and be careful not to confuse your example with that of socialism?!?
I think you’re deeply confused, here. I’m a communist, I support socialism and working our way to communism. Life expectancy has dramatically improved from feudalism, and it isn’t close. Socialist countries like Cuba, the PRC, and former USSR would never have existed had capitalism not come into existence yet, as industrialization is the base that allows for planned, collectivized production.
To be fair, isn’t the reason life expectancy improved is largely attributed to China uplifting over 800 million people out of poverty?
While yes, the overthrow of feudalism, which prevented scientific progress as it had threatened the ruling class’s power, led to medical advancements, better food production and access, etc., capitalism negated a lot of improvements toward life expectancy because of deadly working conditions, genocide, wars, colonialism, etc.
I do agree with your point that capitalism is often a necessity to eventually enable a socialist revolution to be possible once it faces crises from its contradictions and did contribute, at least indirectly, to increased life expectancy, Russia/USSR and China, as mentioned above, are examples of nations that were able to achieve socialism earlier, and their impact towards humanity cannot be understated.
Capitalism certainly lowered life expectancy initially, Marx makes this abundantly clear in Capital - Volume 1. However, with industrialization came advancements in socialized production (not socialist, socialized, ie cooperative work on an expanded and industrial scale in capitalism), which allowed for an acceleration of the sciences. Feudalism was holding science back, which in turn held medical science back. Same with farming, industrial farming increased outputs dramatically.
The Soviet Union and PRC absolutely made more dramatic improvements on a far-shorter time scale thanks to socialism, and indeed they did not rely on a developed period of capitalism (though they still depended on market forces), but the proletarian ideology of Marxism could not have come to existence without the prevalence of capitalism somewhere, this case being western Europe, allowing Marx to make critical advancements and Lenin to analyze the impacts on imperialism to successfully lead a revolution.
Feudalism was more obviously exploitative, and to a lesser extent than capitalism’s theft of surplus value, but the sheer productive capacity of market forces ultimately provided the base for class struggle and development of proletarian ideology.
That’s fair
I might misunderstand you, but I’m not confused. And you should read up on history. The communist manifest was written mainly from experience from feudalism. Capitalism was a waste of time, killing millions, if not a billion people, and a lot of species on the way - while polluting the earth, air and water on the way…
We have always known how to work together. That’s what a tribe, a people, a town was for. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t have survived as a species.
The Communist Manifesto was written as an explicit response to capitalism. Marx’s most important work is Capital. Returning to early cooperative societies is not what the Marxist position is, it’s taking advantage of industrialization and instead collectivizing and planning society using what was created under conditions of capitalism as a base. Capitalism has indeed been monstrously damaging, but with the bad came the conditions for socialism.
You should read the Communist Manifesto, and history books as well.
No it was not. But bright as you are, and knowledgeable, then please do tell me, where did Marx go to find inspiration for the communist manifesto and Das Kapital? Please enlighten me? Where in the world, at that time, did communism start to blossom? And why did it stop?
I did not say that the Marxist position was to return to the past. I said that you are wrong, to say that capitalism brought this on. You have no proof, what so ever, that capitalism has done any real good… Socialism has, workers fight for rights has - capitalism is the cancer of the whole world.
Follow your own advice and start reading now - but first tell me, where did Marx go to find inspiration for his work on communism?
Capital, Volume 1 was first published in 1867, when capitalism was dominant in western Europe and it was both dramatically improving production while pushing down the quality of life of the proletariat. Capital is a critique of “Political Economy,” the common bourgeois justification for capitalism. Marx’s chief observation about capitalism that enables socialism is capitalism’s centralizing tendencies, which increases the ratio of proletarian to bourgeois, while also training the proletariat on how to run and administer a complex and centralized economy.
The old, tribal formations were not socialist, they had no socialized production. It was cooperative, but extremely small-scale. Feudalism did not pave the way for socialism, either, but instead gave birth to capitalism. Capitalism’s centralization and introduction of large, industrial production does give way to a large, single class that can collectively run and plan production, ie socialism. From Manifesto of the Communist Party:
Communism has not stopped blooming. Or, rather, it hasn’t started, either. Communism is a future system of fully collectivized, classless production. Socialism is still thriving, of course, it’s the form of economy of the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.
Tell me, what should I read of Marx that goes against the theory of historical materialism and scientific socialism?
One more, for good measure, from Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith:
On the other hand, it turns out that revolutions were possible in countries like Russia and China that haven’t yet made a full transition to industrial capitalism.
Good point. And China has taken advantage of capitalism’s better features than the USSR did, to good effect.
indeed