And you’re entire response was denying this by suggesting Marx only thought this could happen in western, capitalist societies, which is flatly wrong. You aren’t even understanding the contention, nor responding to it.
Ah, I see the problem. I never said Marx said socialism could only begin in western, capitalist societies. Here’s what I actually said:
To be annoyingly accurate, Marx still held the belief that the west would be the first to revolt and establish socialism
Notice how I didn’t say he thought it was only possible in western, capitalist countries. I specifically said that he thought that they would be the first. In the case of the commune movement in Russia, he said they were essentially squandering a very real chance to avoid that same path of development, not that he believed Russia would be first.
In short, the strawman you made of my point is indeed flatly wrong, and if I had said what you thought I said I would agree that it was indeed wrong. But I didn’t make that point.
“The very existence of the Russian commune is now threatened by a conspiracy of powerful interests,” he noted—but if that threat is defeated, it “may become the direct starting-point of the economic system towards which modern society is tending; it may open a new chapter that does not begin with its own suicide.”14
Marx and Engels repeated that argument the next year in their preface to the second Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto.
In Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.
Marx and Engels did not study Russian conditions out of academic curiosity. On the contrary, they believed that Russia, once the heartland of backwardness and reaction, had become “the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe,” so understanding it was a political necessity. This understanding fueled their consistent support for radical populists who took action against the Tsarist regime, and caused them to distance themselves from people who were limited to analysis and commentary. Their approach was motivated, as Marx wrote in another context, by the conviction that “every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programs.”
I don’t know why you’re continuing to double and triple-down. We agree that Marx believed Russia could have sidestepped capitalist development and gone straight from feudalism to the communalist movement to socialism to communism. However, he did not think this was more likely than revolution in western Europe. He simply saw it as it was, a great but likely squandered opportinity.
In other words, if Marx believed there was a 75% chance the revolution would first come to western Europe, and a 25% chance it would come to Russia, it is correct to say that he believed it would most likely come first to western Europe. It is, therefore, equally incorrect to say that he believed it could only happen in western Europe, as you allege I say (but I have disproven this), as it would be to say that Marx believed it would happen in Russia first (as you appear to be saying).
I don’t know why you’re continuing to double and triple-down.
Because you keep repeating something which is not true.
However, he did not think this was more likely than revolution in western Europe.
This is directly contradicted by his letters and actions. He and Engels were directly corresponding with Russian revolutionaries, and literally surmised a Russian revolution could in fact be the first to set off a world revolution and was actively interested in aiding it. You’re just refusing to take in new information.
If Russia continues to pursue the path she has followed since 1861, she will lose the finest chance ever offered by history to a nation, in order to undergo all the fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist regime.
Marx thought Russia had a unique opportunity to sidestep capitalist development, and kick off revolution in the west. He made it clear that if conditions continued as they had, however, that this opportunity would never materialize. I’ve read Capital and its post-scripts, I’ve read his letters to Russian revolutionaries. I used to be an anarchist, and these get thrown around all the time to make it seem like Marx was supportive of anarchism at the end of his life (which he wasn’t). This isn’t new information to me, you’re just confusing Marx saying Russia had a great opportunity to skip capitalism with Marx saying he thought Russia would in fact do so.
Marx did not merely say they had an opportunity in the abstract, he was directly involved with them and actively seeking to aid them. That is not the action of someone who merely once on the side referenced it as a vague possibility then effectively rejected it, which is what you now have to claim to deny the actual history and Marx’s own words on the topic to maintain the idea that Marx effectively only thought a revolution would happen in the west. Just stop going in circles.
Marx also aided and worked with western revolutionaries. He didn’t make a complete pivot, he saw new opportunity where he previously thought there was none. I have never said that Marx only thought a revolution would happen in the west, this is nonsense. Touch grass, comrade.
Dawg I feel like I need to let you know that you’re allowed to say you made a simple misunderstanding instead of getting stuck in to a pedantic debate on the internet. Seems like maybe you don’t know this or something. Like, you can just say “ah yeah, my bad” and walk away from your keyboard and everything will be chill as hell afterwards.
Y’all, as a baby leftist who still has All The Reading still to do. This whole back and forth has been fascinating to read. Also, kind of disheartening.
A billion offshoots of Christianity killing each other over how/whether they dunk their babies. Liberals/Lefties in the US pissing each other off and leaving a nice opening for the fascists.
What is with us as a species that we almost seem to prefer arguing fine points with people who we largely agree with while the actual enemies of a common cause laugh and win.
Like I said, fascinating read. Just… “more unites us than divides us” and all that?
And you’re entire response was denying this by suggesting Marx only thought this could happen in western, capitalist societies, which is flatly wrong. You aren’t even understanding the contention, nor responding to it.
Ah, I see the problem. I never said Marx said socialism could only begin in western, capitalist societies. Here’s what I actually said:
Notice how I didn’t say he thought it was only possible in western, capitalist countries. I specifically said that he thought that they would be the first. In the case of the commune movement in Russia, he said they were essentially squandering a very real chance to avoid that same path of development, not that he believed Russia would be first.
In short, the strawman you made of my point is indeed flatly wrong, and if I had said what you thought I said I would agree that it was indeed wrong. But I didn’t make that point.
And he literally contradicts this, not just in this but his other research and letters, and even later editions of the communist manifesto.
https://monthlyreview.org/articles/marx-and-engels-and-russias-peasant-communes/
I don’t know why you’re continuing to double and triple-down. We agree that Marx believed Russia could have sidestepped capitalist development and gone straight from feudalism to the communalist movement to socialism to communism. However, he did not think this was more likely than revolution in western Europe. He simply saw it as it was, a great but likely squandered opportinity.
In other words, if Marx believed there was a 75% chance the revolution would first come to western Europe, and a 25% chance it would come to Russia, it is correct to say that he believed it would most likely come first to western Europe. It is, therefore, equally incorrect to say that he believed it could only happen in western Europe, as you allege I say (but I have disproven this), as it would be to say that Marx believed it would happen in Russia first (as you appear to be saying).
Because you keep repeating something which is not true.
This is directly contradicted by his letters and actions. He and Engels were directly corresponding with Russian revolutionaries, and literally surmised a Russian revolution could in fact be the first to set off a world revolution and was actively interested in aiding it. You’re just refusing to take in new information.
Marx thought Russia had a unique opportunity to sidestep capitalist development, and kick off revolution in the west. He made it clear that if conditions continued as they had, however, that this opportunity would never materialize. I’ve read Capital and its post-scripts, I’ve read his letters to Russian revolutionaries. I used to be an anarchist, and these get thrown around all the time to make it seem like Marx was supportive of anarchism at the end of his life (which he wasn’t). This isn’t new information to me, you’re just confusing Marx saying Russia had a great opportunity to skip capitalism with Marx saying he thought Russia would in fact do so.
Marx did not merely say they had an opportunity in the abstract, he was directly involved with them and actively seeking to aid them. That is not the action of someone who merely once on the side referenced it as a vague possibility then effectively rejected it, which is what you now have to claim to deny the actual history and Marx’s own words on the topic to maintain the idea that Marx effectively only thought a revolution would happen in the west. Just stop going in circles.
Marx also aided and worked with western revolutionaries. He didn’t make a complete pivot, he saw new opportunity where he previously thought there was none. I have never said that Marx only thought a revolution would happen in the west, this is nonsense. Touch grass, comrade.
Dawg I feel like I need to let you know that you’re allowed to say you made a simple misunderstanding instead of getting stuck in to a pedantic debate on the internet. Seems like maybe you don’t know this or something. Like, you can just say “ah yeah, my bad” and walk away from your keyboard and everything will be chill as hell afterwards.
deleted by creator
There was no misunderstanding, thanks.
Y’all, as a baby leftist who still has All The Reading still to do. This whole back and forth has been fascinating to read. Also, kind of disheartening.
A billion offshoots of Christianity killing each other over how/whether they dunk their babies. Liberals/Lefties in the US pissing each other off and leaving a nice opening for the fascists.
What is with us as a species that we almost seem to prefer arguing fine points with people who we largely agree with while the actual enemies of a common cause laugh and win.
Like I said, fascinating read. Just… “more unites us than divides us” and all that?
This kind of behavior really isn’t common, especially not in real-life organizing. Don’t be disheartened! Also, if you want a place to start with reading theory, I made an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list you can check out!