Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:01:37 +0200
Subject: Quasi-feudal & advanced capitalist conditions


Chris S writes:

>I fully recognize, by the way, even in MARX, HAYEK, AND UTOPIA, that the
>modern statist socialist types are NOT what Marx necessarily envisioned,
>especially since every so-called contemporary socialist society did not
>emerge out of advanced capitalist material conditions, but, for the most
>part, out of quasi-feudal conditions.

No, Chris, this isn't so.

The conditions in these countries were what you get when advanced
imperialist conditions hit backward nations. Quasi-feudal is a very
misleading expression, even though it literally means almost-(but not
really)-feudal, seemingly-feudal. The forces of production and relations of
production were completely subordinated to capital there, but often the
subordination was more formal than real, giving the appearance of feudal
(or whatever) relations in large parts of the countries, contrasting with
the completely capitalist enterprises being run on ultra-modern lines in
the big cities.

In fact, then, the workers' states of this century emerged quite literally
out of advanced capitalist material conditions, as you well put it, but not
out of advanced capitalist countries in the sense of imperialist
metropolises.

By analogy, the horrors of Bosnia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabach, Rwanda and
so on, are representative of the most advanced capitalist material
conditions imperialism has to offer these countries. Imperialism left to
its own devices is so rotten it's liquifying -- and the barbarism it
generates is only a curtain-raiser compared with what will come if the
organized force of the working class fails to replace it with socialism.

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---