You're viewing a single thread.
Because as of yet the means of production aren't public property. So the people who own them get to decide the structure of production and they decided we don't get a say in how they are used.
Do they need to be public property or do they need to be in the hands of those working there? I’d be more inclined towards the latter as in most cases the public as a whole is not going to have an informed or educated perspective on how specific jobs/roles/companies should behave.
A mixture of both, with the public holding primary power. There's benefit to people having a better perspective on that which surrounds them immediately, but as industry gets more complex and advances ever more, that "immediate" shrinks more and more as a proportion of the overall production process.
Those are so similar to each other in comparison with capitalism that at this stage, we mostly use the same words to describe both.
No, they are not. The USSR and China (only in theory) had/has public ownership and it is quite different than the workers comtrooling their business.
When the public owns the means of production you open up the likelihood of the state directly oppressing the workers as happened in the USSR and China.
All states oppress people, thats the point of a state. The goal of a socialist state is to oppress the bourgeois. While the workers of USSR and China did and do not have full control over means of production they had significantky more than we do
No, they did not. They had less. It turns out the totalitarian police state isn't a freeing experience. The only people who controlled the means of production were the bosses of the factories and the state that set the production schedules. The workers had no involvement. It was just the state lying to workers.
China has billionaires, an investor class and a stock market. There is no version of a modern Chinese state that hasn't completely abandoned any attempt at socialism in anything other than name only. I have no idea why anyone who would claim to back any form of leftism would support China since they obviously abandoned leftist principles. You average Chinese worker has fewer rights than most.
This isn't correct, @[email protected] had it closer to reality. Ultimately, the Soviet system was a dramatic expansion on democratic control, with the Soviets forming the basis of government structure. They functioned like the following infographic, and you can read more about the Soviet Democratic Structure in Soviet Democracy and about the economic structure in Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union.
As for China, I don't see your point. The PRC is in the early stages of Socialism, Marxist Socialism is a theory of societal progression, not a race for purity. Marx and Engels did not believe it would be possible to abolish Private Property outright, and certainly not completely in the context of a global economy until Socialism became the status quo.
You have read nothing on chinese socialism and it shows. No investigation, no right to speak. Dengism was a pragmatic solution that prevented the collapse of Chinese socialism after the USSR was dissolved. They are using capitalist forces to grow their productive capacity while maintaining a proletarian state. Unlike the US, China is actually willing to punish and reign in its bourgeois and this can be seen by how much western media flips its shit when they do. There is genuinely so much to unpack about your comment that I could not possible tackle every claim made without writing a dissertation. I encourage you to read about socialism with chinese characteristics from communists who have put in the time to understand it and I encourage you to question why such severe state power may have been necessary especially in the early years of the USSR. You will not get a pure communist society while capitalist control the world.
First don't tell people what they have and have not read. You are not telepathic and in this case you are completely incorrect. What you are reacting to is that I fundamentally disagree with the Chinese state propaganda on this subject you have seemingly decided is correct.
"Socialism with Chinese Principles" is insanely hypocritical when applied to real life. They have people who make money off investments. They have a bourgeoisie. They have a stock market. The wealthy control their society just like any other capitalist society. They have the same abuses of the workers that you find in pre-WWII American factories. The pursuit of socialism is in name only. They are literally the capitalist state Marxists warn you about.
Black Cat/White Cat theory just lead China into becoming Mouseland.
The idea that Socialism means only and exclusively full ownership in public hands is wrong, and anti-Marxist. To take such a stance means either Capitalism and Feudalism have never existed either, the sort of "one-drop" rule, or that Socialism itself is a unique Mode of Production that needs to be judged based on "purity" while the rest do not, a conception that has roots in idealism rather than Materialism.
Modes of Production should be defined in a manner that is consistent. If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative, or it means an economy is only Socialist if all property has been collectivized.
For the former, this definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.
For the latter, this "one drop" rule, if equally applied, means Feudalism and Capitalism have never existed either. There is no reason Socialism should be judged any differently from Capitalism or Feudalism.
What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.
As for the purpose of Socialism, it is improving the lives of the working class in material and measurable ways. Public ownership is a tool, one especially effective at higher degrees of development. Markets and private ownership are a tool, one that can be utilized more effectively at lower stages in development. Like fire, private ownership presents real danger in giving Capitalists more power, but also like fire this does not mean we cannot harness it and should avoid it entirely, provided the proper precautions are taken.
Moreover, markets are destined to centralize. Markets erase their own foundations. The reason public ownership is a goal for Marxists is because of this centralizing factor, as industry gets more complex public ownership increasingly becomes more efficient and effective. Just because you can publicly own something doesn't mean the act of ownership improves metrics like life expectancy and literacy, public ownership isn't some holy experience that gives workers magic powers. Public ownership and Private ownership are tools that play a role in society, and we believe Public Ownership is undeniably the way to go at higher phases in development because it becomes necessary, not because it has mystical properties.
Ultimately, it boils down to mindsets of dogmatism or pragmatism. Concepts like "true Socialism" treat Marx as a religious prophet, while going against Marx's analysis! This is why studying Historical and Dialectical Materialism is important, as it explains the why of Marxism and Socialism in a manner that can be used for real development of the Working Class and real liberation. When taken consistently, AES states do in fact fit into the categorization of "Socialist," even your original definition would categorize them as such.
Cool, China has gone towards a state that is more exploitative and abusive to its workers than it had been 10-20 years ago.
Im not claiming that China never putsued these goals I am outright statibg that it is a lie to suggest they are pursuing them now. They have goven up and are more nei-mercantilist/capitalist than anything resembling what Marx advocates.
What? The PRC has had dramatic improvements in worker rights in the last decade or two. The peak of abuse was in the 90s. Where are you getting this idea? Your statement that China has abandoned it's goals is nonsense, just look at their successfully completed poverty eradication campaign.
Genuinely, what is your evidence to the contrary? They outright state their plans and usually do a good job of meeting them, and they still have a Socialist economy, albeit a Socialist Market Economy and not one that looks like the USSR's, for example. They are still Marxist.
Thanks comrade, I have not slept and didn't have the wherewithal to explain all this.
Haha, no worries comrade! Get some sleep. I wrote this comment a while ago and keep it on-hand whenever someone who clearly hasn't read Marx tries to act like they know Marxism better than those who have.
Well, in theory is pretty different from in practice
Yes and in practice public ownership isn't any different than private ownership you just have a different boot on your neck. In the case of public ownership stopping work means going against the state so there's even a greater incentive for oppression of the workers in some cases.
Nah. State ownership is only public ownership in a robust democracy. Oligarchical states aren't public.
And thus far no state pursuing Marxist principles as been anything other than totalitarian. There is no democracy among those that seek that path only claims of it as a goal.
Many nations have been successful in creating communism. White people just tend to forget about tribal societies when they're discussing politics.
Tribal societies weren't "communism" in the Marxist sense, which is why when writing about them he classified their organization as a distinct Mode of Production. For Marx, Communism itself is a fully centralized economy that becomes necessary and inevitable as industry gets larger and more complex, and is triggered by class conflict. Tribal societies didn't have mass industry, and Marx never wanted to organize in such a fashion either.
Marx and Engels maintained that a communist society would have no need for the state as it exists in contemporary capitalist society. The capitalist state mainly exists to enforce hierarchical economic relations, to enforce the exclusive control of property, and to regulate capitalistic economic activities—all of which would be non-applicable to a communist system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
You'd better go edit the Wikipedia article so people stop thinking communism is stateless.
First I said "state" not "nation" as those are in no way the same thing please do not substitute one for the other just because it is more expedient for your argument. It is a false equivalence as a state is a hierarchically organized polity and a nation need not have a polity at all.
No state has achieved communism in their attempt to pursue Marxust principles. They either decline into totalitarianism or abandon the pursuit of socialism and adopt a hybrid system like China has which comes with very mixed results for the working class.
Are you trying to argue that pre-agricultural societies were making an intentional choice to pursue the ideologies of Marx? That would be an odd position to take given most did not intentionally create an economic system nor would they have heard of Marx.
Finally, why are you bringing race into this at all? It isn't relevant and frankly it is inappropriate to highlight race when race isn't a factor in this.
You're right, of course. States are incompatible with communism. Marx said as much. Anarchism is the only way to a worker owned society.
That would be an odd position to take given most did not intentionally create an economic system
Now, that. That is some bullshit. Tribespeople aren't savages. They think about politics and economics. You'd do well to read Kayanerenko;wa.