The Long Transition Towards Socialism and the End of Capitalism
Added 2024-12-23 19:39:56 +0000 UTCTorkil Lauesen joins Breht to discuss his newest book "The Long Transition Towards Socialism and the End of Capitalism". Together they discuss the book, why capitalism is ripe for replacement, the importance of historical and dialectical materialism, the history of socialist movements and revolutions, each revolutions unique contributions to the historical process of socialism, the core and periphery and their connection to colonialism, the ongoing crisis of imperialism and how it relates to the end of the neoliberal era, the differences between capitalist and socialist modes of production, Torkil's vision of the next few decades, and much more!
Get the book or download the free PDF HERE
Check out previous Rev Left episodes with Torkil HERE
Check out Guerrilla History's latest James Connolly episode HERE
Comments
I loved this episode and am nearly done with Torkil's book. Overall, it's helped me better organize disparate streams of historical and analytical content in my head, and has made me think, which is fantastic! But it seems to me that both Torkil's, and many revolutionary leftists', analysis of China are getting something profoundly wrong. In a book full of historical materialist "realism," I see far too much idealism when looking at where China is today. The basic setup of Torkil's argument, as I understand it, goes like this: China, despite opening up massively to capitalism, creating a vast new bourgeoisie, hugely disciplining vast sections of its labor force to global markets, etc., is still a socialist state because a nominally communist party runs that state, thus making it a dictatorship of the proletariat. Isn't this circular reasoning? From other reading I've done, also by committed Marxists, on where China stands today, I see virtually no evidence that the proletariat is dictating anything in the Chinese political economy. Even brief evidence given in Torkil's own book contradicts that the working class is in charge, because he points out that 90% of all of the wealthy in China are highly connected to the Party, meaning (though he doesn't say this) that the new bourgeoisie is, in fact, running the state; has substantially merged with (or in many cases emerged out of) the Party. I know nothing is black and white, and there is clear evidence that China is not purely run for the interests of the bourgeoisie (see recent accomplishments in eliminating extreme poverty), but it's bewildering to me to see so many brilliant and committed Marxists calling China a dictatorship of the proletariat when I just don't see any credible evidence of this. Is there any? Because if we're going to call something a dictatorship of the proletariat when there is nationwide superexploitation of the working classes going on en masse, and scant evidence they have any meaningful input into directing either their own workplaces or the larger economy, then what does the term even mean?
Derek
2025-01-20 13:47:47 +0000 UTCGreat interview and I think I might have to buy a few copies of the book it sounds like the perfect way to introduce socialist-sympathetic libs to the idea that AES projects are not evil/mistakes but are part of a long lineage towards building a better world for all
Lesley Braver
2024-12-24 20:27:41 +0000 UTC
