Not necessarily if the party had the ability to maintain its monopoly of political processes. It would have been terrible for heavy industry prior to WW2 though
@zachk.2125 i don't think the party would be able to maintain any political power with the flood of cheap commodities coming in from the world market. A new capitalist class would very quickly have acquired enough power to overthrow the bolsheviks
Great video! It’s really interesting that Deng Xiaoping read the ABCs of Communism (written jointly by Bukharin and Preobrazhansky) while in the USSR in his 20s during the implementation of the NEP. Deng said that his turn to opening up of China was partially influenced by Bukharin’s position as discussed in this video.
The internal developmental policy of the right opposition had a much more accurate characterization of the class motives of the various strata of peasantry as well as the necessary tasks of the smychka. “Trotsky himself, tied to the traditions of this struggle, devalued the “Right” even in his subsequent works, and he failed to understand the truth: that the Left and the Right were both on the ground of the Marxist principles, and that the “Center”, in each of its successive turning points in Russian as well as international politics, moved away a little more each time.“ (Bordiga, The Solution of Bukharin) The failures of the right opposition and left opposition, in my estimation, derive from the fundamental organizational failures of democratic centralism as it spreads factionalism in the pursuit of vote acquisition. "Socialism in one country" is obviously an utter impossibility to Marxists and a clear rightist opinion, though it would be incorrect in asserting Stalin and Bukharin saw it the same. Bukharin did not think socialist commodities could exist, for instance
“Orthodox economists” treat competition between capitalists located in different capitalist countries as though it is competition between capitalist nation states. This is a very important point. Economic competition between capitalist nation states is always in the final analysis economic competition between the capitalist enterprises that happen to be located in the different nation states. In the study of competition, however, it is extremely important to distinguish between the political and military -war-making-competition between capitalist nation states and economic competition between capitalists. An example of confusing these two types of competition is Bukharin’s concept, strongly colored by World War I, of capitalist nation-states in the age of imperialism as state-capitalist trusts. Within an economic trust, all enterprises that belong to the trust are controlled by a single capital, which eliminates economic competition within the trust. However, even in the imperialist epoch competition between capitalist enterprises continues within each individual capitalist nation state. On the other hand, the political and military competition that occurs between capitalist states, whose “highest” form is a shooting war, is by no means identical to economic competition among capitalist enterprises. Economic competition -the main subject of Shaikh’s “Capitalism”-is inherent in all commodity production. Capitalism is defined as the highest form of commodity production where labor power has become a commodity. Economic competition in a capitalist economy occurs on many different levels. There is the competition between individual capitalist enterprises. These range from individually owned enterprises-in this case the competition between individual enterprises is also competition between individual capitalists-as well as competition between the collective capitalists known as corporations. Even if individually owned capitalist enterprises disappeared-which is the historical trend-and only corporations existed, there would still be competition between individual capitalists on the stock exchange, where all traders aim to relieve their fellow traders of a portion-or all-of their capital.
There exist two forms of intersection between capitalist and nation-state competition. The first as you mentioned is imperialist competition, in which nation-states compete militarily to grant their capitalists privileges in the exploitation of colonial resources. The second form actually flows downstream from the orthodox view, which is not usually too relevant when it comes to competition between two industrial nations, but cannot be dismissed as it becomes far more significant when there's "free trade" competition between an industrial nation and an underdeveloped one, as the process essentially deindustrializes the underdeveloped nation. This is embodied in the idea of "comparative advantage", which is never explicitly acknowledged as an indirect tool of state competition, but for the underdeveloped nation it effectively means perpetual incapacity to build up its own forces of production outside of what they have a comparative advantage in, which ends up being raw materials they have a natural monopoly on.
@@sauerkrautlanguage The capitalist states just want to open markets to their exploitation. Colonialism was just a means to that, not an end in itself. It was necessary to create markets to exploit in the first place and to force the markets of countries like China an India to integrate to the world economy in terms advantageous to the imperialists. The long rivalry between the imperialists which led to the meat grinder of WWI were ultimately battles for the conquest of market shares. In other words the imperialists were going to war with each other for much the same reasons that Mexican cartels do. But the most powerful cartels are also known to lay their differences aside and gang up to destroy anybody who wants to establish a new independent gang. That's the whole point of the foreign policy of the US and its satellites (all erstwhile independent imperialists were reduced to US satellites after WWII). They want to prevent the establishment of a powerful rival that could slice market portions from them. Just as they Balkanized the Balkans by destroying Yugoslavia they are in the process of Balkanizing the Muslim world, a process that is underway for decades. The underdeveloped countries are not prevented from developing because of a supposed economic mechanism (the theory of comparative advantage is false for reasons we can dicuss elsewhere). They are actually prevented through various political mechanisms, namely the institutions of the imperialists (World Bank, IMF and so on) and the local capitalists in those places who profit from doing business with the imperialist core. Capitalism took many centuries to develop in the West. Why? Because of political factors, namely the social relations under feudalism and absolutism. Today the political factor preventing the development of the peripheral countries is capitalism itself, the social relations it imposes. These relations in turn prevent the imperialist countries from deploying their resources rationally and to the benefit of their own working people.
@@velvetcroc9827 We don't disagree at all on the first part, state competition doesn't really exist outside of economic competition, because conquest ultimately means conquest of land and labor resources. I think there's still worth in differentiating political motives, because for instance irredentist nationalist conquest can be quite irrational in its objectives when seen from a purely economic perspective. I know the marxist conception is that such justifications are just idelogical nonsense to mislead the people, but i'm afraid that more dangerous than an establishment that cynically lies about its objectives is one that actually believes its own propaganda. I agree the rise of new competitors is highly destabilizing to the powers that be, you could see the world wars through the lenses of the preestablished colonial powers defeating the challenge of emerging Japanese and German imperialisms, and the current geopolitical crisis due to the rise of China. As for the last part, i didn't mean to claim comparative advantage is the only mechanism through which the global south is kept underdeveloped, things like IP restrictions, brain drain or global financial arbitrage, also maintain the state of affairs. The simple fact remains that the forces of production under capitalism cannot and will not develop without the capacity to stay competitive, and if all competitive capacity is on one side of a border, it follows that the other side will not develop. No nation has ever industrialized without protecting its nascent industries from competition from more advanced economies, nor the Germans and Japanese in the 19th century, nor the taiwanese and south koreans in the 20th. Conversely it can be historically evidenced that free trade has harmed the autonomous development of the global south, for instance the indian textile industry was not destroyed by direct british colonial policy, but by forcing india into free trade with the much more productive british manufacturers, and in modern times the US creates xenophobic hatred against Mexico for a problem they created by destroying mexican peasant agriculture through NAFTA free trade, turning peasants into the reserve army of labor that has been crossing the border ever since.
Whilst Bukharin focus on commodities is good, but in hindsight the Industrialization under Stalin was needed, because of the Nazi invasion I think a commodity focused USSR could have probably not stop them as well as the Heavy Industry focused Historical USSR.
The same complex stamping technology used to make things like stamped toys and sowing machines in Germany were later used to make the very advanced StG 44 and reliable jerrycans. These industries that produce consumer goods can be flipped during wartime.
The industrialisation "under Stalin" Industrialisation was necessary, but Stalin's rule was catastrophic. Lenin acknowledged that something had to be done about agriculture, but he warned that it should be handled with care. Stalin purged the military elites and the war situation only improved when he backed off.
Though I am not a communist myself, very right wing in fact lol, I find your videos a well written and valuable perspective on these topics. Thank you!
![[ ออกกอง ] วัยหนุ่ม 2544 โลกหลังลูกกรง..ทัวร์กองถ่ายหนังใน "คุกของจริง" | JUSTดูIT.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vB--aOkZCpw/mqdefault.jpg)
The elimination of the monopoly on foreign trade would've probably meant a rapid return to capitalism
Not necessarily if the party had the ability to maintain its monopoly of political processes. It would have been terrible for heavy industry prior to WW2 though
@zachk.2125 i don't think the party would be able to maintain any political power with the flood of cheap commodities coming in from the world market. A new capitalist class would very quickly have acquired enough power to overthrow the bolsheviks
@@staticalelectric I'm not sure what you mean, the USSR never left capitalism
@staticalelectric I don't think the party "would have been able" to (past tense)
@@hazelwray4184 thanks captain grammar
Great video! It’s really interesting that Deng Xiaoping read the ABCs of Communism (written jointly by Bukharin and Preobrazhansky) while in the USSR in his 20s during the implementation of the NEP. Deng said that his turn to opening up of China was partially influenced by Bukharin’s position as discussed in this video.
The thumbnail is goated fr
This applies to all of his thumbnails.
The internal developmental policy of the right opposition had a much more accurate characterization of the class motives of the various strata of peasantry as well as the necessary tasks of the smychka.
“Trotsky himself, tied to the traditions of this struggle, devalued the “Right” even in his subsequent works, and he failed to understand the truth: that the Left and the Right were both on the ground of the Marxist principles, and that the “Center”, in each of its successive turning points in Russian as well as international politics, moved away a little more each time.“ (Bordiga, The Solution of Bukharin)
The failures of the right opposition and left opposition, in my estimation, derive from the fundamental organizational failures of democratic centralism as it spreads factionalism in the pursuit of vote acquisition.
"Socialism in one country" is obviously an utter impossibility to Marxists and a clear rightist opinion, though it would be incorrect in asserting Stalin and Bukharin saw it the same. Bukharin did not think socialist commodities could exist, for instance
“Orthodox economists” treat competition between capitalists located in different capitalist countries as though it is competition between capitalist nation states. This is a very important point. Economic competition between capitalist nation states is always in the final analysis economic competition between the capitalist enterprises that happen to be located in the different nation states.
In the study of competition, however, it is extremely important to distinguish between the political and military -war-making-competition between capitalist nation states and economic competition between capitalists. An example of confusing these two types of competition is Bukharin’s concept, strongly colored by World War I, of capitalist nation-states in the age of imperialism as state-capitalist trusts.
Within an economic trust, all enterprises that belong to the trust are controlled by a single capital, which eliminates economic competition within the trust. However, even in the imperialist epoch competition between capitalist enterprises continues within each individual capitalist nation state. On the other hand, the political and military competition that occurs between capitalist states, whose “highest” form is a shooting war, is by no means identical to economic competition among capitalist enterprises.
Economic competition -the main subject of Shaikh’s “Capitalism”-is inherent in all commodity production. Capitalism is defined as the highest form of commodity production where labor power has become a commodity. Economic competition in a capitalist economy occurs on many different levels.
There is the competition between individual capitalist enterprises. These range from individually owned enterprises-in this case the competition between individual enterprises is also competition between individual capitalists-as well as competition between the collective capitalists known as corporations. Even if individually owned capitalist enterprises disappeared-which is the historical trend-and only corporations existed, there would still be competition between individual capitalists on the stock exchange, where all traders aim to relieve their fellow traders of a portion-or all-of their capital.
There exist two forms of intersection between capitalist and nation-state competition. The first as you mentioned is imperialist competition, in which nation-states compete militarily to grant their capitalists privileges in the exploitation of colonial resources. The second form actually flows downstream from the orthodox view, which is not usually too relevant when it comes to competition between two industrial nations, but cannot be dismissed as it becomes far more significant when there's "free trade" competition between an industrial nation and an underdeveloped one, as the process essentially deindustrializes the underdeveloped nation. This is embodied in the idea of "comparative advantage", which is never explicitly acknowledged as an indirect tool of state competition, but for the underdeveloped nation it effectively means perpetual incapacity to build up its own forces of production outside of what they have a comparative advantage in, which ends up being raw materials they have a natural monopoly on.
@@sauerkrautlanguage The capitalist states just want to open markets to their exploitation. Colonialism was just a means to that, not an end in itself. It was necessary to create markets to exploit in the first place and to force the markets of countries like China an India to integrate to the world economy in terms advantageous to the imperialists. The long rivalry between the imperialists which led to the meat grinder of WWI were ultimately battles for the conquest of market shares. In other words the imperialists were going to war with each other for much the same reasons that Mexican cartels do.
But the most powerful cartels are also known to lay their differences aside and gang up to destroy anybody who wants to establish a new independent gang. That's the whole point of the foreign policy of the US and its satellites (all erstwhile independent imperialists were reduced to US satellites after WWII). They want to prevent the establishment of a powerful rival that could slice market portions from them. Just as they Balkanized the Balkans by destroying Yugoslavia they are in the process of Balkanizing the Muslim world, a process that is underway for decades.
The underdeveloped countries are not prevented from developing because of a supposed economic mechanism (the theory of comparative advantage is false for reasons we can dicuss elsewhere). They are actually prevented through various political mechanisms, namely the institutions of the imperialists (World Bank, IMF and so on) and the local capitalists in those places who profit from doing business with the imperialist core. Capitalism took many centuries to develop in the West. Why? Because of political factors, namely the social relations under feudalism and absolutism. Today the political factor preventing the development of the peripheral countries is capitalism itself, the social relations it imposes. These relations in turn prevent the imperialist countries from deploying their resources rationally and to the benefit of their own working people.
@@velvetcroc9827 We don't disagree at all on the first part, state competition doesn't really exist outside of economic competition, because conquest ultimately means conquest of land and labor resources. I think there's still worth in differentiating political motives, because for instance irredentist nationalist conquest can be quite irrational in its objectives when seen from a purely economic perspective. I know the marxist conception is that such justifications are just idelogical nonsense to mislead the people, but i'm afraid that more dangerous than an establishment that cynically lies about its objectives is one that actually believes its own propaganda.
I agree the rise of new competitors is highly destabilizing to the powers that be, you could see the world wars through the lenses of the preestablished colonial powers defeating the challenge of emerging Japanese and German imperialisms, and the current geopolitical crisis due to the rise of China.
As for the last part, i didn't mean to claim comparative advantage is the only mechanism through which the global south is kept underdeveloped, things like IP restrictions, brain drain or global financial arbitrage, also maintain the state of affairs. The simple fact remains that the forces of production under capitalism cannot and will not develop without the capacity to stay competitive, and if all competitive capacity is on one side of a border, it follows that the other side will not develop. No nation has ever industrialized without protecting its nascent industries from competition from more advanced economies, nor the Germans and Japanese in the 19th century, nor the taiwanese and south koreans in the 20th. Conversely it can be historically evidenced that free trade has harmed the autonomous development of the global south, for instance the indian textile industry was not destroyed by direct british colonial policy, but by forcing india into free trade with the much more productive british manufacturers, and in modern times the US creates xenophobic hatred against Mexico for a problem they created by destroying mexican peasant agriculture through NAFTA free trade, turning peasants into the reserve army of labor that has been crossing the border ever since.
great work as always
Banger!
Whilst Bukharin focus on commodities is good, but in hindsight the Industrialization under Stalin was needed, because of the Nazi invasion I think a commodity focused USSR could have probably not stop them as well as the Heavy Industry focused Historical USSR.
The same complex stamping technology used to make things like stamped toys and sowing machines in Germany were later used to make the very advanced StG 44 and reliable jerrycans. These industries that produce consumer goods can be flipped during wartime.
The industrialisation "under Stalin"
Industrialisation was necessary, but Stalin's rule was catastrophic.
Lenin acknowledged that something had to be done about agriculture, but he warned that it should be handled with care.
Stalin purged the military elites and the war situation only improved when he backed off.
damn thats disappointing… great video!!!
Was Bukharin peak or cringe who can say
He always went between the two
Though I am not a communist myself, very right wing in fact lol, I find your videos a well written and valuable perspective on these topics. Thank you!
Comment for the algo
hooray
Peak