I’ve heard it said before, though I can’t remember where, that Marx regarded capitalism as a necessary stage in social development. Does this imply that capitalism is inevitable, along with all its exploitation? Maybe I’m misinterpreting something, but I don’t really like the idea. I understand that communism refers to a post-capitalist society rather than a non-capitalist society, making capitalism “necessary” for the creation of socialism, but I don’t think it follows to argue that capitalism is something every society must move through. Thoughts?
That’s a useful way of looking at the problem. And that table is incredibly helpful. I have a question, though (I have a feeling that the answer will mainly involve a rewording of your comment): does it take a shift in the MoP (mode of production?) somewhere to allow somewhere else to ‘skip’ a stage of development?
For example, fossil power was initially developed within a system of industrial capitalism. Could e.g. the USSR have gone from feudal to socialist if coal power hadn’t been developed in Britain during a capitalist phase? Another way of phrasing the question is whether the USSR would’ve been able to develop so rapidly if it had to rely on muscle power?
Likewise – although this will again blur the distinction between production and energy – will e.g. Norway be able to go straight to communism one day because of advances in (1) the mode of production and (2) energy technology both coming out of China? (We could add a (3) production technology system, if one is developed in an advanced socialist state.)
My initial thought is that someone, somewhere has to make a new way of doing things ideologically and materially possible before other people can skip the torturous bit in the middle (capitalism, slavery, feudalism, etc, one and day socialism, when it’s seen as backwards to future communists). Or would you say that it could be possible to skip a stage even without e.g. another advance in energy production? Or is this a moot point, as there are already high tech energy systems in development that just need rolling out (if we can garner the political will).
Good question… its tough to say with these historical hypotheticals. We don’t know if the USSR or China would have been able to build their industrial socialisms if they didn’t have previous industrial capitalism from western europe to work and learn from. But really, did capitalism itself teach them anything, or was it industrialism itself: its technology, practices, and techniques that helped?
The key difference between the systems being, who controls the surplus, and who receives the benefits of the surplus. If anything, a parasitic private class informed the leaders of USSR of what to be wary of, and not do.
I also doubt the USSR would have been able to become a super-power based on muscle-power alone: industrialism and fossil fuel energy sources were necessary.
I see where you’re coming from, but the people who develop technology, and the people who control production, are usually two different groups. The latter group is parasitic and completely unecessary, while the former is vital. Its a matter of opinion of course, but I don’t think its historically inevitable or necessary that these parasites need to control production for advances to take place. Workers just want to work and make new things, and they do that regardless of the structures above them.
Norway and other bourgeios countries will still have to pass through the same steps that China or Cuba or the USSR did: a revolutionary struggle removing the capitalists from power. Energy tech isn’t going to solve the problem if the people in control of that tech, are private owners.