![Cowbee [he/they]](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c18ce632-5fb5-4888-8226-3dc55a07acc4.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Just baffling
Gotcha, so some form of socialism at minimum. You should check out the link to how the PRC functions.
Wage labor itself is founded on unpaid surplus labor with the express purpose of valorizing capital. The increased intensity never works its way to your pockets.
Pretty much exactly what I am trying to say, even down to explaining that if the imperialist countries collapsed overnight, the remaining capitalist countries would try to re-assert themselves as the new imperialists. Very well said!
Social Democracy is just capitalism with welfare, and as such either funds itself via imperialism like the Nordic Countries, or is ultimately going to see capital use its political power to erase the gains of workers. Markets can play a useful role in spurring development of small and medium firms, but the larger firms and key industries should be publicly owned and planned, as market mechanics begin to lose all benefit towards higher development.
Really, it sounds like you just want Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
Not sure what you mean by "authoritarian," all governments are instruments of class oppression and socialist states oppress the bourgeoisie, but no socialist state has been imperialist before. Further, "state capitalism" refers to a system of heavily planned but ultimately dominated by private property, such as Singapore, South Korea, and Bismark's Germany, and as such I'm not sure what you're referencing here either.
This is wrong on several accounts.
- "Communism" the economic system has not been realized. Communist parties have led socialist countries, but communism as a mode of production is a product of the future.
- Socialism works, the largest economy on the planet is the PRC, which is seeing rapid and comprehensive improvements in the living standards of its people. Even the USSR, now no longer here, achieved impressive economic growth, provided free healthcare and education, and much more.
- Capitalism, by definition, requires that the capitalists be in charge and the workers exploited. It isn't just the US.
The part that has been pointed out over and over is that you are misreading my stating that all capitalist nations trend towards imperialism as all capitalist nations will become imperialist. The imperialized countries cannot develop to this end, and neither can the nationalist countries, though the impetus to search for more profits that drives imperialism is still to be found in the imperialized and nationalist countries.
What keeps them distinct is the finite quantity of capital, resulting in a division of the world amongst the greater capitalist powers. If all of the imperialist countries in the world fell overnight, the most developed of the nationalist countries would be first in line, and the imperialized countries would race to become the new imperialists, if they didn't already pivot to socialism.
This driving trend is universal to all capitalist nations, whether or not that trend can even be expressed in the first place, however, depends on the availability of capital to exploit. Capitalism necessarily works towards centralization and monopoly, and this drives towards internationalism, but just like a sea turtle with a plastic ring around its neck, it cannot outgrow the ring, it will choke and die, if it cannot expand and imperialize.
If you still don't understand the point after this, then you're deliberately ignorant, only in it for the masochistic desire to embarass yourself in online debate for an audience of a whopping 4ish people.
The argument you were making was based on a position you invented in your head and has never once been held hy me. You misread the original point, and when it has been explained to you over and over why you misread it, you double down. Is it impossible for you to admit that you're mistaken, or is argument for the sake of argument your point? Neither is good, of course. You're deeply unserious. Put the phone down and touch grass.
It's penance for my sins as a libbed up "Marxist" on Reddit years ago, before I actually started taking theory seriously. The pain is the price.
Socialism is not "decrease wealth inequality." Socialism is not "equalitarianism." Marxist socialism is a scientific outlook on the course of development, and how to best use that knowledge to uplift the great majority of people. Socialism in China has been by far the most successful in this regard, and it is thanks to the methodical approach to socialism founded in Marxist economics, relying on central planning and public ownership of the large and key industries. If it "seems like" they are abandoning socialism to you, it is because you don't actually know what socialists support, and why.
The US is not abandoning liberalism, lmao. The drives of private property are the dominant aspect of the economy and that won't change until the contradictions get too severe to continue.
The working class in China owns the large majority of the media through the state, which itself is proletarian in character. Simple.
"Kiddo" coming from a debatelord trying to "liberal-splain" socialism to me is comedy gold. There's no hypocrisy or uncomfortable facts I need to reconcile, you need to put the phone or keyboard down, take a breather, maybe touch some grass, and then try to understand what others have been telling you.
No, you're wrong about socialism. Marxism is precisely against the idea that you can eliminate all private property immediately. It is a gradual process of sublimation, as firms get large enough they become economically compelled to become centrally planned. Investors in the PRC is not a failure. Investors running the CPC and PRC would be, but that's not the case. Your understanding of socialism is incredibly off-base, and as such you're in no position to argue. Leftists aren't "ignoring reality," you're just making up claims to argue with.
And, again, I stated that the development of capitalism necessarily means those developed countries become imperialist. Those in the global south cannot become developed unless they become nationalist, and even then they don't become developed, they stay constrained, and those that are socialist do not have the same mechanisms at play that drive imperialism. The lack of available capital to imperialize for nationalist countries in the global south prevents them from reaching the same levels of development of the global north.
You are utterly incapable of making a coherent argument, you have to invent the positions of not just me, but other socialists, in order to maintain your fragile debatelord worldview.
When people speak of Democratic Socialism, they usually are referring to the ideological position, not just the USian party, for what it's worth. That's my point, I'm aware of Red Star caucus and whatnot.
Sure, and I'd say this fracturing and factionalism works against its effectiveness. Democratic Centralism works.
Liberalism isn't just a button that says "privatize." A fully liberal society isn't one that has 100% of production private, it's one where private property is the driving factor of the economy.
Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. Socialism isn't limited to a narrow conception of cooperative production, but large, centralized production, in the Marxist conception. Wealth inequality is under control, and is gradually being worked downwards as the economy becomes more and more centralized. You have a deep chauvanism about you, not only do you presume to know socialism better than the socialists, but you do so without actually engaging with socialist theory, otherwise you wouldn't make such an error.
Further, I absolutely know what "all" means. As others have pointed out, you've been arguing against a position you invented, not my own. You're just a debatelord, you have no desire to come to a greater understanding.
Those who can work, should. Those who cannot should be taken care of by those who can. Comprehensive training programs and free education helps both, as well as subsized or free necessities.
Anarchy and Scientific Communism, sorry!
What you just said isn't at odds with what I said. The state is a system that resolves class contradictions through class oppression, in socialism that state resolves them in favor of the proletariat. It isn't a distinct class. The "special bodies of armed men" Lenin speaks of, ie the millitant organizations, are there to protect from invaders and to keep the bourgeoisie, as long as it still exists, in check.
As the economy grows and develops, the class contradictions must be resolved. The job of the state in socialism is to keep the proletariat in power, and gradually sublimate private property until it's fully centralized, globally, at which point there is no bourgeosie nor proletariat. Administration doesn't cease to exist, but millitant policing and armies that retain state power have no reason to exist when there's no class conflict to be reconciled.
Bukharin explains the difference between the Marxist and anarchist position here, though do be warned, it's highly sectarian (as this matter inevitably becomes, as it's the core argument between Marxists and anarchists):
Communist society is stateless. But if true - and most certainly it is - what really is the difference between anarchists and Marxist communists? Does this difference no longer exist, at least on the question of the future society and the "ultimate goal"?
Of course it exists, but is altogether different. It can be briefly defined as the difference between large centralized production and small decentralized production.
We communists on the other hand believe that the future society must not only rid us of the exploitation of man by man, but also allow man more independence from nature by reducing "necessary working time" and maximizing socialized productive forces and the productivity of socialized labor. That is why our ideal is large-scale centralized, organized and planned production, tending towards the organization of the entire world economy. Anarchists, on the other hand, prefer a wholly different type of organization: their ideal is small communes - unsuited to large-scale production by the very nature of their structure - which conclude "agreements" between themselves and are connected in a network of voluntary contractual relationships. Clearly such a production scheme is reactionary from an economic standpoint. It will not and cannot give space to the development of productive forces; from an economic standpoint, it is more like the communes of the Middle Ages than the society that will replace capitalism. This scheme is not only reactionary but utopian par excellence. Future society will not be born of "nothing", will not be delivered from the sky by a stork. It grows within the old world and the relationships created by the giant machinery of financial capital. It is clear that the future development of productive forces (any future society is only viable and possible if it develops the productive forces of the already outdated society) can only be achieved by continuing the tendency towards the centralization of the production process, and the improved organization of the "direction of things" replacing the former "direction of men".
But anarchists will reply that the essence of the state is precisely centralization; "By maintaining centralization of production, you will thus maintain the state apparatus, its power, violence", and "authoritarian relations".
This fallacious argument is based on a purely childish and unscientific notion of the state. As with capital, the state is not "a thing", but a relationship between individuals - between classes to be more precise. It is a relationship of class, domination and oppression - that's the essence of the state. Otherwise the state does not exist. To consider centralization as the characteristic and main feature of the state is like considering capital as a means of production. The means of production becomes capital only when monopolized by one class and used for the wage exploitation of another, i.e. when these means of production express the social relations of class oppression and class economic exploitation. On the other hand, they are a good thing in themselves - the instrument of man's struggle against nature. That is why they will not disappear in future society and will have a deserved a place there.
So, in essence, the Marxist conception of communism is founded on centralization and organization, while the anarchist conception is based on decentralization and the elimination of any and all hierarchy. I am sympathetic to the anarchist position in that I used to be one, but over time have come to become a Marxist-Leninist. As a consequence, I find a lot of conflict between Marxists and anarchists is largely due to differences in analysis of what the state even consists of, and righting those misconceptions of the other helps productive dialogue on the left.
?
I think you're erasing the economic component of the Marxist position, as well as conflating the nature of the state, which Marxists and Anarchists somewhat disagree on. Marxist communism, in its stateless form, is still fully centralized and planned, but also classless. It isn't about "transferring to the workers," that basis is the means by which to bring about communism. The millitarization of the state is necessary until the world is socialist and all class contradictions have been resolved, but there will still be administrative positions well into communism.
Anarchism is indeed more decentralized, but this is a departure from the Marxist understanding of economic development. The real argument is not based on how to get to the final stage, but what that final stage even looks like to begin with. Full horizontalism a la anarchism, or a one world collectivized and planned a la Marxism.
I do support anarchists generally, certainly over capitalists, but I think a lot of confusion is drawn between anarchists and Marxists due to having different stances on terms and what they look like in practice.
China is still here, and still socialist, and it isn't leaving. This is because of Democratic Centralism, a fast and cohesive way to adapt to changing conditions while retaining democratic input. For less urgent decisions, the PRC has slower, more comprehensive, bottom-up systems, while it focuses more on a top-down approach for system-wide changes and direction. It's kinda like "top down, from the bottom up."
I agree with pragmatism over idealism, that's why I'm a communist and push for socialism. Socialism is immensely practical.