I copy/pasted an old comment that partially addressed this subject but ended up "revising" it to be like 4x as long and changing

most of it. Sorry it got so long (I even cut out several paragraphs about arx!s vie"s on #ussia and "stagism" but still it!s a horrible text "all$. %%&'(# is at the bottom%%

)eginning "ith a bit of a side note* democracy is actually not an %inherent% aspect of capitalism+ and "e could point to many examples of capitalist nations that didn!t even have a facade of democracy+ but in others it is still just a facade ,, basically a democracy for the bourgeoisie. So I think the need of "going through a democracy" can be outright discarded. -our .uestion about "skipping capitalism" deserves more attention though.

&he historical "stagist" (primitive communism,,/slave,,/feudal,,/capitalism,,/socialism,, /communism$ vie" isn!t really a very good arxist perspective. I kno" it!s taught like that in schools but this is really an oversimplification and kind of distortion of arx and 0ngels! vie"s "hich themselves have been elaborated on and seen as in some "ays incorrect/incomplete since. 1or one thing they (and "e no"$ recogni2e(d$ that one "stage" "ill contain both vestiges of the previous ones+ and seeds of the "next"+ and so the seeds of its o"n demise. 3ne reason you couldn!t simply "jump" from+ say+ a society just like 4455!s 1rance to socialism is that there simply isn!t an economic/productive base for it. 1or instance+ the speciali2ation of the means of production under capitalism leads to the exploited class being increasingly socially dependent. It is only the capitalist relations of production that create a massive completely propertyless class "ith only their labor to sell. 6s opposed to serfs "ho might reali2e they could just live on their farm "ithout a landlord and sustain their life+ proletarians see that they are deprived of means of production all together ,, it is only through the development of these specific classes that an exploited class arises that has the class interest of building socialism. 7ithout the class struggle of the proletariat socialism is impossible.

1urthermore+ "hat the above mentioned "stagist" vie" describes is basically closest to describing the 0uropean development specifically ,, it is incorrect to try to shove this on the rest of the "orld completely. &he "slave society" especially is something that "as pretty uni.ue to the editerranean area (not really a "stage" any"here else$ and there are other problems that arise "hen you try to give the past "stages" like these (and others you might have to add$ to every society. arx and 0ngels "ere "orking "ith very limited and highly eurocentric resources "hen developing their theories of the past. &hey basically "ere right+ ho"ever+ that by examining economic relations "e!d see certain common "stages" develop in all of the "orld ,, they "ere just "rong on the details and ho" they manifested (leading them to erroneous vie"s such as an "asiatic mode of production" ,, I "on!t get into to too much history stuff right no" though+ this "ould be a good topic for another .uestion$. I talk about a %some% of the problems of the

undialectical vie" stagism that has plagued all branches of arxism in part of 8this comment9 (http*//""".reddit.com/r/communism454/comments/4ekyxr/legitimate:failures:of:stalin/ ca4gy;<$.

6lso+ "e must not see "society" as on some uninterrupted march to"ard a predetermined goal. =umans can have a goal and "e can observe general past trends to learn from them ,, "ithin this reverses+ stalls+ etc are to be expected and "ithout human action there is no change on its o"n (to paraphrase arx* =istory does nothing+ "ages no "ars+ makes no changes+ it is humans "ho do this ,, history is the activity of humans pursuing their goals$

arx and 0ngels "ere examining societies that had ,, "hen compared to later "back"ard" societies that ended up having revolutions ,, developed in relative isolation. &he development of capitalism/imperialism on a global scale very much changed this. #ussia+ >hina et al "ere not developing in isolation+ coming to capitalism "on their o"n". 6ckno"ledging the role that the capitalist+ imperialist nations of the 7est had on developing countries brought up the .uestion of %uneven development% and brought about a .uestioning of this "stagist" vie" (in various different "ays by the likes of )ukharin+ 'enin+ 'uxemburg+ &rotsky and =ilferding$ "here it "as thought by some that imperialism played a "progressive" role by industriali2ing/developing these nations that "ere dominant in the ?nd International (representatives of this such as @autsky and Alekhanov believed that #ussia+ for instance+ had to have a "bourgeois" revolution "hich "ould then create the economic conditions for a later socialist one$. &he most coherent and concise explanation of the development and nature of modern imperialism "as put forth in 'enin!s "Imperialism* &he =ighest Stage of >apitalism".

6ny"ay+ basically though there %does% need to be a material basis for socialism for a socialist revolution (si2eable capitalist development ,, 0ven though it had large numbers of peasants "ho "ere important for food production+ the basic economy of #ussia (and >hina+ afaik$ "as capitalist ,, they did not have feudal economies$ this development in the "periphery" (#ussia+ >hina etc$ "as at once accelerated and %aggravated% by the already developed capitalist nations. Bot only did they develop some"hat faster due to certain tactics/techni.ues already being kno"n to them (and the pressure of trying to keep up "ith the "est$ but also their position "as %aggravated% by the fact that "estern interests o"ned a large portion of their mines/plants/stocks/etc. &he strain on "orkers "as much more severe+ conditions much "orse+ and the bourgeoisie of #ussia found themselves allying "ith the aristocracy and "ere too "eak to be a driving force of a revolution. )asically though capitalism "as less developed+ conditions "ere better for socialist revolution in the periphery thanks to the existence of highly developed

imperialist nations.

&he basic idea of the "radical periphery" "as correct+ and there "as a revolution in #ussia. &hey then had to face the specific problems of not just facing reaction etc+ but also dealing "ith a "less developed" economy+ a peasant class+ and recovering from "ar. >hina had a very similar situation. #ather than "skipping a stage" they simply had different "stages" blending into each other and developing differently at once (and I think the theories of 'enin/ ao reflect this vie" as opposed to the mechanistic "stagist" vie" "e!ve talked about$. So+ the conditions that some claim made them "doomed to fail" (I assume this means leading to their collapse many decades later$ "ere the very conditions that enabled them to have a socialist revolution at all ,, in the "est the socialist revolutions "ere "doomed to fail" in a short time or to not happen at all.

>ommunism+ the mode of production+ can!t be "skipped" to for many of the same reasons ,, it needs an economic base+ completely different relations of production that "ould take time to establish+ and basically "ould need to be global to exist since hostile nations and other problems of coming out of capitalism necessitate a state. I talk more about this and link to other relevant discussions on it 8here9 (http*//""".reddit.com/r/communism454/comments/4kgunh/response:to:image:saying :true:communism:has:been/cbouaC"$.

%%&'(#%%* -ou can!t really entirely "skip" development because the economic/material conditions necessary to create a class struggle to build socialism can only come out of capitalism. =o"ever+ #ussia and other periphery nations that had revolutions %did% have capitalist development. &his development "as some"hat sped up and the class struggle aggravated by imperialism+ leading them to have socialist revolutions that+ rather than "skipping" a step+ simply had .uite different conditions than some arxists+ adhering to a strict "stagist vie"" had "ished/expected. Instead of "skipping a stage" they simply had different "stages" blending into each other and developing differently at once.