I apologize for taking up your time if this is the wrong place to ask any of these questions. Please redirect me if this post is not appropriate for this forum.
I recall from high school history lessons that after Russia became the Soviet Union there was criticism saying that it wasn't appropriate that Karl Marx's economic theories be applied to Russia. The criticism was that Marx, roughly a contemporary of Charles Dickens, theorised that a nation had to evolve an abusive capitalistic economy before it could have a workers' revolution. Russia was still in the midst of having an agrarian economy at the time. Is this still a subject of criticism among historians? Was it ever a consensus among historians? For all I know it was a pet subject of my teacher.
Another part of my question involves Maoist China. It seems to me that China's economy has evolved similarily but after it's Communistic stage China's economy, especially Taiwan, is now well on it's way to becoming capitalistic in nature even as it's government is ostensibly Maoist. Is this a subject of historians' writings either as a comparison with Soviet Russia or on it's own?
Since the fall of the Soviet Union happened as recently as Ronald Reagan's administration, it may be too soon to qualify as history. Even so I would be interested to hear your thoughts about this as well. If that question is too general please feel free to ignore it.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
the criticism was that Marx, roughly a contemporary of Charles Dickens, theorised that a nation had to evolve an abusive capitalistic economy before it could have a workers' revolution. Russia was still in the midst of having an agrarian economy at the time. Is this still a subject of criticism among historians?
It seems pretty undeniable that Marx had conceived of his Revolution occurring in countries where Capitalism had already triumphed and not those, such as Imperial Russia, which were still going through industrialization.
Marx's analysis of Capitalism was that it was a revolutionary system which would overthrow the older system of feudalism. It had the merit, in his eyes, to break down the feudal social order and was capable of rapid economic advance in short order. For a summary of this and how it relates to Russia, you can read Perry Anderson's Lineages of the Absolutist State, published by Verso in the 70s. Specifically, the introductory chapter, the chapter on Eastern Absolutism, and the chapter on Russia.
With that said, towards the ends of their lives Engels and Marx became more aware of the possibility of revolution occurring in Russia, where Das Kapital had been surprisingly well received (I believe that Anderson also mentions this, however I also recall Jonathan Sperber mentioning this in his recent biography Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life).
But no, the classic texts by Marx had not initially planned for the Revolution to have its epicenter on the expanding borders of the Capitalist system, where it would have to both upend Capitalism, Feudalism, and take upon itself the burden of building the infrastructure of capitalist societies (as opposed to simply taking them over).
A fair bit of ink was spilled by Russian Marxists explaining why, in the end, it made sense. Lenin, for example, tried to explain this as Russia merely being the 'weakest link' in the capitalist system (ie. the one where its institutions were most brutal but also least entrenched and therefore vulnerable). You can find that article here.
It seems to me that China's economy has evolved similarily but after it's Communistic stage China's economy, especially Taiwan, is now well on it's way to becoming capitalistic in nature even as it's government is ostensibly Maoist
I'm far less familiar with the economic history of Taiwan, but as someone else has already pointed out, Taiwan is only nominally controlled by the government of mainland China. In addition, I'm not even sure if you could call the current Chinese government 'Maoist'. The reforms in China under Deng Xiaoping and his successors have upended most of Mao's economic policies, creating a sort of Capitalist-Socialist hybrid state. While veneration for Mao continues, it is doubtful he would recognize his successors.
What are you asking re: fall of the USSR?
I will let another more knowledgeable person handle the bulk of your question, but I do want to clear up one thing. Taiwan is not Maoist, and its government is different than the mainland’s. Taiwan is governed as The Republic of China, the mainland is governed as The People’s Republic of China. The former is not communist, the latter is. The confusion can arise from both governments agreeing they are part of one China, but that’s definitely not how they’re run.