"Forces of production" are objectifications of ideas; they are, as Marx puts it, "the power of knowledge objectified."
So their development objectifies the development of mind.
^^^^ CB: The forces of production include the means/instruments of production and the relations of production. The relations of production are part of infrastructure/base.
In capitalism, the means of production or instruments of production have developed as objectifications of the minds of individual modern _scientists_, not the development of the individual minds of masses of peasants or workers. In general, these scientists focus their research to the demands of the capitalist ruling class.
The characteristic _relations_ of production in capitalism are "wage-labor" / capital " relations . Capital is not a thing but a relation between people regarding things, regarding means of production. Capitalists own basic means of production. Wage-laborers own only their own labor power and no means of production.
In the Preface to a Contrib to the Critique of PoliEcon, Marx is saying that relations of production are _infrastructrue_ or base. Economic class contradictions or contradictions in the base structure are the cause of revolutionary changes in the whole of society, base and superstructure. Social being determines social consciousness. Determining something is changing it. Social being changes/determines social consciousness. Social consciousness determines individual consciousness.
The written history of all hitherto existing societies is a history of class (base/infrastructure) struggles, contradictions, not of the development of the instruments of production. That is the major changes in history are rooted in class/base contradictions.
^^^^^
Ted: Relations of production both condition and express this development.
^^^^^ CB: The wage-labor/capital relationship, the relations of production (which are , of course, class contradictory ) in capitalism, are the objective conditions that potentially contribute to developing _working class and socialist consciousness_ in the working class masses of individual minds. Lenin argues that working class and socialist consciousness can only be fully developed by "an injection from outside" by a Party, working class partisans. He proved his theory in practice, the only way to prove a theory ( See Second Thesis of Feuerbach)
^^^^^
Thus, according to Marx, the relations constitutive of the Indian peasant commune "restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies." The political expression of this was "Oriental despotism."
Marx's 1881 examination of the possibility of Russia moving directly to "socialism" without passing through capitalism is explicitly an examination of the consistency of relations in the Russian peasant commune with the development of individual minds such a move, on Marx's understanding of it, requires.
The main obstacle in the way of such development to which he points is "isolation." This follows from the role his understanding of the development of individual minds gives to the "wealth" of the individual's "real connections," i.e. "the real intellectual wealth of the individual depends entirely on the wealth of his real connections."
^^^^^^ CB: Here "real connections" are base/infrastructure or economic relations of production.
^^^^^^^
As he had done in the Indian case and in making the "isolation" of masses of mid-19th century French peasants responsible for the Bonaparte dynasty, he again connects this to despotism.
"There is one characteristic of the 'agricultural commune' in Russia which afflicts it with weakness, hostile in every sense. That is its isolation, the lack of connexion between the life of one commune and that of the others, this localised microcosm which is not encountered everywhere as an immanent characteristic of this type but which, wherever it is found, has caused a more or less centralised despotism to arise on top of the communes."
The reason the creation of "socialism" requires the development of individual minds is that it requires the "appropriation" of the ideas objectified in developed forces of production.
^^^^^ CB: The only way to develop the mass of individual oppressed class minds to be ready to make socialism and avoid despotism is to have them under the wage-labor/capital relations of production, i.e. in a capitalist society class struggle.
^^^^^^^
In the German Ideology, "revolutionary practice" is itself tied to this requirement by making it developmental of the "powers" "appropriation" in this sense requires since it is an appropriation of the "powers" objectified in these forces.
^^^^^ CB: The class struggle _relations_ of production, not the means or instruments of production. The "powers" are not objectified in the means/instruments of production , but rather the wagelabor/capital relations of production.
^^^^^
In the Russian case, the "powers" Russian peasants must be able to appropriate are those objectified in the forces of production
^^^^^ CB: More precisely, the relations of production aspect of forces of production
^^^^
developed by capitalism outside Russia so the move to "socialism" in that context is not prevented by a lack of development of the productive forces, i.e. Russia "is the contemporary of Western capitalist production and is thus able to appropriate its fruits without subjecting itself to its modus operandi." http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm
^^^^^ CB: Turns out Russia was not able to build socialism in one country. The Western, Great Power Nations used their superior forces of destruction ( a byproduct of industrial strength forces of production) to supress the Russian and Chinese revolutions.
It wasn't superstition in Russia or China that prevented the Leaps to Socialism or caused the despotism of Stalinism, militarization of the whole structure of Russian and Chinese socieity. It was Imperialist superior military forces of destruction and the need to militarize in defense against imperialist war and threat of nuclear attack.
^^^^^^^
This was also true of China.
So in the cases of both Russia and China, an explanation of the resulting despotism consistent with Marx's "materialism" can't point to a lack of developed forces of production.
^^^^^ CB: Yes it can.Superior imperialist forces of destruction which are an inherent byproduct of superior forces of production.
You can look at Russian or Chinese forces of production in isolation from the whole world, as imperialism is a global system. You must compare Russian and Chinese forces of production/destruction with those of the imperialist countries. Britain, Germany, US, France, et al. A multinational imperialist force invaded in 1919, German fascism invaded in WWII, the US (Britain, France) threatened nuclear attack against the SU and waged war against Korea, Viet Nam and threatened China with nuclear attack in the Cold War
^^^^^^^^
What it can point to is the "superstition" and "prejudice" of Russian and Chinese peasants, i.e. to the same "cause" pointed to by Marx to explain "Oriental despotism" and mid-19th century Prussian and French despotism, to conditions inconsistent with those required for the development of "the real intellectual wealth" of individuals.
Ted
^^^^^^^ CB: No, it was the wars and threats of nuclear war waged by imperialism ,not superstition and prejudice that caused Stalinist despotism.