To be fair experimenting is good. It's still better than feudal system. I just wish we experimented with other models once in a while too.
I will read a sci-fi novel thousands of years into the future with fantasy-magic system, and economic model is still "21st century capitalism but we replaced the word money with credits so it's future now."
According to whom? I wonder what we would see if we were to compare the average amount of labour time feudal peasants had to put in to survive vs. that of the current global proletariat.
I'd agree that capitalism has been better for some - like, for instance, white ex-peasants who now gets to be members of the (so-called) "middle class" or gets to cosplay as pseudo-nobility in colonised spaces- but it has been an unmitigated disaster for lots of others.
The unmitigated disaster part existed under feudalism also. Capitalism is slowly turning back into feudalism, which is kinda why it sucks so much now. I hate capitalism, but feudalism was worse.
Fuedalism with a fuckload of democracy might work. But it always turns into a bloodline thing.
The unmitigated disaster part existed under feudalism also.
Perhaps, but I have to wonder how many feudal peasants would willingly exchange their existence for the precariat one we exist under.
Capitalism is slowly turning back into feudalism
If that is true, then it must mean that capitalism never replaced feudalism, but was instead built on top of feudalism - which is not that difficult to believe if you live in a 3rd-world extraction zone (like I do).
Its also not hard to believe if you ́look at the continuation of power across much of Europe. Its not a 1:1 comparison but lots of families of feudal lords are still wealthy and powerful today if they didn't completely fuck up. The power has spread out but has concentrated in other ways.
Do you think mining workers had it better under feodalism? Not sure things went worse for them because of capitalism, mining was always a dangerous and shitty job, often done by slaves or convicts because of how shit the conditions were.
Do you think mining workers had it better under feodalism?
In the pre-capitalist world mining practices were all over the place... it wasn't just chain-gangs and overseers. And the conditions for it isn't fundamentally any shittier than working a farm or a factory - I know because I can literally walk down the street and ask a zama-zama (an artisinal - "illegal", according to our bootlicking media - miner) and ask him who and what it is that actually makes their work conditions shitty and dangerous.
We all know what happens to miners under the capitalist mode of production, however - it's literally why some of the most vicious crackdowns on organised labour in history involved the mining industry.
Mining conditions are all over the place right now. Some workers have it good, with good compensation, perks and with a lot of attention paid to safety and others live in horrible deathly conditions and are practically slaves
Some workers have it good, with good compensation, perks
Only in places where labour organising have managed to win concessions in spite of the capitalist mode of production - a capitalist mode of production that is reproduced globally to this very day. If it wasn't for the need to stabilise the imperial core, coal miners in Germany would be treated no differently than cobalt miners in the DRC. There is nothing comparable to that in the pre-capitalist world - not even the brutal exploitation of the Americas by the Spanish was reproduced globally.
We're talking about how not all conditions are the same, you can't just discard some conditions because they differ from the point you're trying to make. Some miners have it really good inside a capitalist system, same as some might've had it good under feodalist system.
you can’t just discard some conditions because they differ
I am not discarding anything. There simply was no feudalist model of resource extraction analogous to the one that has been driving the mining industry in the capitalist era. The well-paid shift boss in a mine in Australia and the poorly-paid rock-drill-operator in South Africa is working under the same capitalist mode of production.
You're complaining about painting all feodalism era mining as brutal and hazardous while painting all mining under capitalism as brutal and hazardous. It just seems funny
According to Marx, Engels, Lenin and any other respectable communist.
Capitalism is a historical progression rather than something you adopt willy nilly, and it has expanded productive forces significantly allowing us to produce stuff far more efficiently in far higher quality and complexity. With feudalism, it's mode of production was far more individualized, with peasants essentially producing for their and their family's subsistence only, and artisans in guilds would only work in small groups, limiting to what they can produce.
Therefore, this expansion of productive powers in capitalism in theory leads to better life quality, less socially necessary labor time to provide for everyone, less mortality given how we can now produce things like insulin in complex labs, etc.
Keyword is in theory - in practice, everything else in the system goes against that, leads to overproduction and having us proletariat work for much higher hours than is socially necessary, it concentrates wealth to private owners giving them immen
... show more
According to whom?
According to Marx, Engels, Lenin and any other respectable communist.
Capitalism is a historical progression rather than something you adopt willy nilly, and it has expanded productive forces significantly allowing us to produce stuff far more efficiently in far higher quality and complexity. With feudalism, it's mode of production was far more individualized, with peasants essentially producing for their and their family's subsistence only, and artisans in guilds would only work in small groups, limiting to what they can produce.
Therefore, this expansion of productive powers in capitalism in theory leads to better life quality, less socially necessary labor time to provide for everyone, less mortality given how we can now produce things like insulin in complex labs, etc.
Keyword is in theory - in practice, everything else in the system goes against that, leads to overproduction and having us proletariat work for much higher hours than is socially necessary, it concentrates wealth to private owners giving them immense political power. That's what communists are trying to do - progress forward so we produce not for profit, but for use based on need which would solve these issues.
Btw, comparison between feudal peasantry and proletariat is flawed - peasants were based in countryside and essentially were the middle class of it, owning a small amount of land that they worked for themselves. Proletariat are urbanized, work in factories they don't own and produce for thousands of people. A more apt comparison in work hours would be proletariat vs guild apprentices - their exploitation and work hours were essentially the same and this system was precursor to capitalist wage labor.
Progressive =/= better. The Capitalist social relation inevitably reproduces itself across the globe because of the social forces. Not because it is an improvement.
Therefore, this expansion of productive powers in capitalism in theory leads to better life quality, less socially necessary labor time to provide for everyone, less mortality given how we can now produce things like insulin in complex labs, etc.
Regardless of the debate that these modern conceptions can be attributed entirely to a change in the mode of production rather then simply the inevitable progression of humanities technological knowledge, Marx actually argued Capitalism inevitably immiserates the proletariat rather than advancing quality of life.
You try to hedge this by saying "in theory", yet not even in theory. It is a lie of the bourgeoisie the proletarian slavery is an improvement over peasant slavery. In theory, Capitalism is simply the reproduction of the capitalist social relationship and the
... show more
Capitalism is a historical progression
Progressive =/= better. The Capitalist social relation inevitably reproduces itself across the globe because of the social forces. Not because it is an improvement.
Therefore, this expansion of productive powers in capitalism in theory leads to better life quality, less socially necessary labor time to provide for everyone, less mortality given how we can now produce things like insulin in complex labs, etc.
Regardless of the debate that these modern conceptions can be attributed entirely to a change in the mode of production rather then simply the inevitable progression of humanities technological knowledge, Marx actually argued Capitalism inevitably immiserates the proletariat rather than advancing quality of life.
You try to hedge this by saying "in theory", yet not even in theory. It is a lie of the bourgeoisie the proletarian slavery is an improvement over peasant slavery. In theory, Capitalism is simply the reproduction of the capitalist social relationship and the replacement of the nobility class with the new bourgeoisie class.
Btw, comparison between feudal peasantry and proletariat is flawed - peasants were based in countryside and essentially were the middle class of it
The comparison is not to equalize the proletariat and peasantry in their relationship to the means of production, but in the demographic comparison for who is the majority of the planet. In Feudal times, peasants, including serfs make up the majority of people. And serfs are decidedly not middle class. Peasants were an exploited class under feudalism, duped by the bourgeoisie to support the inevitable capitalist revolution that would "improve their quality of life", only to find themselves alienated industrial laborers and at the bottom of class society once again.
Capitalism exists to replace feudal systems. It’s easier to have kings, and to have a handful of them so they aren’t fighting as much for a single spot, when you convince the average idiot that now they can also be a king and its their own fault that they aren’t(or better yet, another person’s fault as you oppress them both).
When all the people who had gotten rich by being parasites because of who they were related got afraid they just changed the rules so that it wasn’t ahout blood relation anymore(on paper) but they still had all the money they’d stolen. Nothing functionally changed.
The entire system “the rich get everything they want and no one gets to stop them” does not have a good version. It’s fucked every single way.
No need to read the entire article. Just skim through it a bit.
Btw, I can attest that the 1964 regime change in Brazil was real because I live here and we study the military dictatorship period in middle/high school and the theme is still relevant to this day (hence why we jailed Bolsonaro). (Edit: I forgot to mention that the reveal that 1964 had a hand from operation condor is recent. it was just a "leftist hoax" before but, "today", the papers of US involvement in Brazil's coup made the "leftist hoax" not be a hoax anymore)
We will need to wait a a few more decades before going public that US also interfered with our politics on the impeachment of Dilma and raise of Bolsonaro to power.
But at least Obama government bugging Dilma's phone was true
No need to read the entire article. Just skim through it a bit.
Btw, I can attest that the 1964 regime change in Brazil was real because I live here and we study the military dictatorship period in middle/high school and the theme is still relevant to this day (hence why we jailed Bolsonaro). (Edit: I forgot to mention that the reveal that 1964 had a hand from operation condor is recent. it was just a "leftist hoax" before but, "today", the papers of US involvement in Brazil's coup made the "leftist hoax" not be a hoax anymore)
We will need to wait a a few more decades before going public that US also interfered with our politics on the impeachment of Dilma and raise of Bolsonaro to power.
But at least Obama government bugging Dilma's phone was true
Also, did anyone ever mentioned that the only country who used nukes in wars up to this day was US? the country that bombed 2 civilians cities for "research purposes"?
If Russia and France didn't got their bombs in time, I can almost assure you that history would be different a lot of other countries would receive radioactive democracy blessings from US intead of the "boring" democracy US employs in the world nowadays.
It just seems so US centric that it's always the US this the US that, there's like the whole rest of the world too but the discussion always is "socialist country do something bad" "well what about the US???". Like goddamn
Why do you think it’s the US specifically and none of all the other capitalist countries
then you go about
It just seems so US centric that it’s always the US this the US that, there’s like the whole rest of the world too but the discussion always is “socialist country do something bad” “well what about the US???”. Like goddamn
Can you first decide if you are talking about capitalist countries (as stated first) or socialist countries? Or are you going to be moving goalposts?
I wrote a direct and on the point answer on why do some people think it is US specifically.
As pointed out, US backed coups and regime changes (unless you want to argue that these facts are untrue).
Now, if you want to go about other capitalist countries, then France and UK have their hands on some regime changes as well over the years.
Although this wkipedia entry doesn't look as bad as the US' one, only a fool would think that France has good intention about the
... show more
Why do you think it’s the US specifically and none of all the other capitalist countries
then you go about
It just seems so US centric that it’s always the US this the US that, there’s like the whole rest of the world too but the discussion always is “socialist country do something bad” “well what about the US???”. Like goddamn
Can you first decide if you are talking about capitalist countries (as stated first) or socialist countries? Or are you going to be moving goalposts?
I wrote a direct and on the point answer on why do some people think it is US specifically.
As pointed out, US backed coups and regime changes (unless you want to argue that these facts are untrue).
Now, if you want to go about other capitalist countries, then France and UK have their hands on some regime changes as well over the years.
Although this wkipedia entry doesn't look as bad as the US' one, only a fool would think that France has good intention about their interference in the middle east:
Even my country, Brazil, has some dirt on it by being an economical powerhouse among Latin America.
We did try to make comercial relations that mixed both the style of EU (Mercosul) with our neighbors and also similar to China-african countries relation as we did with Cuba by bringing Cuban physicians to work here while we helped them economically (but I'm sure there was some strings attached. we aren't saints and nor do we pretend to be the savior of free democratic world).
But we do know that, if left unchecked, we could derail again into being imperialist or into being a dictatorship (again, we just jailed Jair Bolsonar for trying a coup d'etat to make another military dictatorship in the shape of the 1964 that happened).
Speaking of Bolsonaro, one of the first things he did was to cut out the deal Brazil had with Cuba because our Brazilian physicians don't want to work in the countryside (they claim the pay is low or that municipalities may freeze payment over months) but at the same time, they didn't wanted anybody else in that market-share (in this case, Cuban doctors).
So it is all shitty situations around and no one is a saint.
I hope it does satisfy your desire for a "nobody is a saint", but, keep in mind that in terms of actual harm, US and Russia are the greatest danger right now.
US and Russia together have around 90% of nuclear warheads of the world.
If they even (hypothetically) join political forces and "work as one country", then they could bomb whatever the fuck of whatever country with almost no pushback.
Though I still think that America is more trigger happy (pun intended) than Russia.
Not disagreeing with you any bit, but I want to clarify that by "Brazil being imperialistic" I meant how we expanded our territory during the 1800s and our "most recent war" at Paraguay around late 1800
(btw, I had to search the date and found that our last "recent" territorial war was probably the Acre war (1899), a few years after Paraguay war -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_… )
I don't disagree with you that we were and are exploited, but we surely expanded our territory by a lot of land-grabbing in those wars (even tho I recognize these were old times).
In that specific sense that I meant we once were imperialistic (Sem falar que Dom Pedro era imperador né?! hahahaha!)
Would be harder to explain it away if they weren’t brutal undemocratic regimes though
They aren't though.
Cuba passed a new constitution by referendum in 2019 with 90%+ in favor.
A common perspective I've heard here in Vietnam is "socialism means the government has to represent everyone". (Another common perspective is that the party is openly corrupt and not meaningfully democratic. Those typically aren't held by the same people)
Most every Chinese would tell you 1. Democracy is important. 2. The CPC represents my views via democracy.
Why do you tankies always say communism has never been tried? Power hungry people exist no matter the system, and so far...as much as the system is rigged, capitalism has brought a lot more people out of poverty than anything else. Communism has been tried countless times, it just ends up not working because power hungry people exist.
rofl you think I'm a tankie for shitting on capitalism!?
ahahaha way to broadcast how pitifully tiny your understanding is...
People being lifted out of poverty as an economic test COMPLETELY IGNORES the reality of technological advancement. Way to further demonstrate how you do not know even the major milestones of history, let alone economic history...
Communism was tried and is still tried just because it doesn't look like this perfect utopia you read about in a book doesn't mean it's not been tried/exists.
This isn't a friendly game of checkers and saying "that's not what I meant to do"...
The technological advancements were in large part due to the large scale growth of industry under capitalism. Although lots of bloodshed and suffering was involved in the process, and without leftists fighting for reforms, we wouldn't be able to enjoy its fruits today.
The mass availability of the internet, and many other pillars of infrastructure are a result of capitalism. And these developments definitely have increased living standards for the majority of humans, even ones in third world nations (The popular image of a destitute country with rampant poverty is extremely rare these days.)
So no alternative explanation? You should at least point me to some resources that say otherwise.
I fully acknowledge the wild ecological harm and rising inequality that capitalism has brought with it. However, even Marx had written about the system's capacity for the advancement of industrial technology and productivity.
Centrally planned economies like the ones of the USSR and similar 21st century socialist states do not work. They would never have enabled the vast distribution and rapid development of technology like we see today. Lemmy itself is a product of capitalism.
Planned economies do work. Using the USSR as an example, they achieved tremendous economic growth surpassing the vast majority of capitalist economies, all while under intense sanctions and invasion.
The USSR and other socialist economies have been some of the most rapidly developing countries in history.
Lemmy itself is not a product of capitalism, either, FOSS can be used by capitalism but largely sits outside that.
They do, to a certain extent. Once an economy begins to grow more and more complex, the intensity of calculations needed increases proportionally (edit: proportional may not be the right word here).
A large part of the USSR's workforce was dedicated to economic planning at the time of its collapse, and it was projected to reach 50% by the 2000s.
They intended to solve this with computers, but there's reasons this wouldn't have worked:
A: Economic calculation involves NP-Hard problems, where the complexity can increase out of nowhere.
If you needed to perform 1600 calculations one day, next week the number needed could jump to 36000. (NP-Hard problems are also common in route determination programs used by delivery apps to devise optimum routes. If you increase the number of locations from 10 to 11, the computations needed to calculate an optimum route increases staggeringly, and it keeps getting worse the more complex you make it.)
B: Making the economy more complex makes the calculations
... show more
Planned economies do work
They do, to a certain extent. Once an economy begins to grow more and more complex, the intensity of calculations needed increases proportionally (edit: proportional may not be the right word here).
A large part of the USSR's workforce was dedicated to economic planning at the time of its collapse, and it was projected to reach 50% by the 2000s.
They intended to solve this with computers, but there's reasons this wouldn't have worked:
A: Economic calculation involves NP-Hard problems, where the complexity can increase out of nowhere.
If you needed to perform 1600 calculations one day, next week the number needed could jump to 36000. (NP-Hard problems are also common in route determination programs used by delivery apps to devise optimum routes. If you increase the number of locations from 10 to 11, the computations needed to calculate an optimum route increases staggeringly, and it keeps getting worse the more complex you make it.)
B: Making the economy more complex makes the calculations needed more-than-exponentially extra intensive and numerous. If you introduce computers into the mix, more people are free to do other things and make the economy even more complex. It's a really fast vicious cycle that doesn't end well.
And in all of this, I haven't even mentioned the corruption involved in bureaucracy
This is generally not true, the Economic Calculation Problem is a made-up excuse, same with the idea that 50% of the USSR's economy would be dedicated to planning. Administration and planning is important, but it isn't the kind of thing that overwhelms the economy. Megacorporations like Walmart and Amazon already employ economic planning over price signals to great effect, and socialist economies are still rapidly advancing, especially China, even though it relies heavily on central planning.
Corruption happens in capitalism, too, it isn't something especially worse in socialism.
Propped up by the global hardware distribution of capitalists, Linux (capitalist companies have made major contributions to linux, and still do), and the internet (distributed under a capitalist model)
Capitalism was most responsible for underdeveloping the global south. Europeans genocided the indigenous Americans and needed a large supply of labor, so they used their (at the time) minor technological advantage to trade high-demand commodities exclusively for slaves in Africa. This depressed African development and skyrocketed European development, and this expanded in colonialism.
Capitalism was progressive as compared with feudalism, yes, but it's been socialist economies that have been most responsible of eradicating poverty. If you remove socialist countries, poverty has gone up in the last century.
I fully agree with the first part. Countries with already developed industry and trade got the boost, and that's the major reason for the large difference in development between Underdeveloped and Developed nations.
If you remove socialist countries, poverty has gone up in the last century
I don't get it. Remove in what way? Too vague to carry any meaning.
If you mean their political, economic, and ideological impact on surrounding nations then yeah, obviously. But the socialist countries themselves had to adopt some form of capitalism to continue to grow economically (see: china). The countries that didn't move away from central planning eventually collapsed (eg. USSR*).
*I understand how the cause of the USSR's collapse is not soley the inefficiency of central planning, but even if the country was allowed to continue unimpeded, it would have collapsed because of that one reason.
There's several misconceptions here, but I'll get to them after addressing the poverty point. When I said "when we remove socialist countries," I mean the absolute poverty worldwide has primarily gone down when you include socialist countries in that statistic, if you only include capitalist countries then poverty goes up as compared to the total number, because poverty isn't systematically targeted for alleviation in capitalism but instead is a requirement for it to function. That's not vague, it's clear-cut.
Onto the misconceptions. Markets and private property are not themselves capitalism. What distinguishes capitalism as a system from socialism as a system is whether private ownership or public ownership is principle, ie covers the large firms and key industries at a minimum. The USSR had some small degree of private property, and so did China even under Mao and later the Gang of Four. China opened up their capital markets to foreign investment while maintaining control of the large firms and key industries, and rely heavily on central planning to direct the economy. Th
... show more
There's several misconceptions here, but I'll get to them after addressing the poverty point. When I said "when we remove socialist countries," I mean the absolute poverty worldwide has primarily gone down when you include socialist countries in that statistic, if you only include capitalist countries then poverty goes up as compared to the total number, because poverty isn't systematically targeted for alleviation in capitalism but instead is a requirement for it to function. That's not vague, it's clear-cut.
Onto the misconceptions. Markets and private property are not themselves capitalism. What distinguishes capitalism as a system from socialism as a system is whether private ownership or public ownership is principle, ie covers the large firms and key industries at a minimum. The USSR had some small degree of private property, and so did China even under Mao and later the Gang of Four. China opened up their capital markets to foreign investment while maintaining control of the large firms and key industries, and rely heavily on central planning to direct the economy. They are in the earlier stages of socialism, as shown here:
The reason for adopting controlled markets for the smaller and medium firms is because that form of ownership better suited China's level of development. Public ownership works more effectively at higher levels of development, so it's like a controlled fire for heat before replacing with an electric system when the tech advances. Out of control, the fire can be destructive, but by maintaining control of the large firms and key industries you maintain control over the rest of production.
As for central planning, that's not why the USSR dissolved, and was actually one of its greatest strengths. The economy grew rapidly and consistently throughout the USSR's existence:
Instead, what happened is that reforms such as those under Gorbachev created economic and political division against central planning, as well as problems such as nationalism in some of the SSRs and SFSRs, as well as the fact that the USSR had to dedicate tons of resources and production to maintaining millitary parity with the US Empire despite also needing to recover from the devastation of World War II.
There's absolutely no basis for the idea that central planning induces collapse, China relies on it heavily as do other socialist countries like Cuba, and even megacorporations these days rely more on internal planning and minor cyberbetics than price signals as was traditional for earlier capitalism.
The history of the transition from one mode of production to the next has always been intrinsically tied to technological development. The transition from feudalism to capitalism could not have happened without the steam engine, as an example. That being said, socialism is most responsible for poverty eradication, if we cut out socialist economies poverty has gone up over the last century.
I'm by no means in support of communism but I think you're assuming that these systems have been tested in a vacuum. Specifically with regard to communism in the global south where Western capitalist entities act as agents of sabotage in order to secure the people of these nations as a perpetually destitute global underclass. So that their corporations can continue to have access to underpaid labor. Which you and I benefit from in some way shape or form.
Capitalism predates communism and has spent centuries chewing through human lives to get to it's position of influence today. I refer you to the entirety of the colonial era.
Modern communism (is the age of industrialization) is essentially Marxism which is younger than capitalistic models.
Hunter gatherer societies were egalitarian but its impossible to apply a pre-civilization framework to civilizational societies. So the fact that he referred to it as primitive communism is not an indictment on communism.
Communism as a political movement was introduced by Marx and Engles. Only since then has it been attempted on a nation state level. Prior to this nearly every political and economic system was an autocracy or monarchy where the state administered private land ownership rights to lords. There are very few exceptions to this in civilizational history.
So if we are looking at communism as a political and economic system as can be applied to modern civilizations ie. nation states, it is much younger than capitalism.
Technically utopian socialism, ie the socialism of Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, etc predates Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels created scientific socialism, which is where socialism began to really take off.
Early communalism isn't the same as future communism, Marx was only comparing the two modes of production as far as they both lack class, not beyond that. Communism is not a return to communalism, but an advancement beyond socialism, ie towards fully collectivized and interconnected production at a global scale.
Even though you're getting shit on with downvotes, you are half right. Communism hasn't been tried before, but it's also very difficult to achieve due to opportunism (or what you call power hunger).
For communism to be achieved, the working class has to take down the dominance, or dictatorship of the capitalist class (also called dictatorship of the proletariat), then productive forces have to be reorganized to produce to satisfy everyone's needs rather than for profit, and then abolish commodity production entirely and replace it with planned economy, distributing goods via labor vouchers or "according to their need" in later stages.
So far we got only to dictatorship of the proletariat (which manifests as state capitalism, not communism as many steps are missing) in USSR, and the Bolsheviks under Lenin were genuinely disciplined, but the country wasn't industrialized, with hundreds of millions of peasants. Can't provide for everyone when theres no factories to build enough stuff in!
However, capitalism and state capitalism breeds opportunism, meaning that if yo
... show more
Even though you're getting shit on with downvotes, you are half right. Communism hasn't been tried before, but it's also very difficult to achieve due to opportunism (or what you call power hunger).
For communism to be achieved, the working class has to take down the dominance, or dictatorship of the capitalist class (also called dictatorship of the proletariat), then productive forces have to be reorganized to produce to satisfy everyone's needs rather than for profit, and then abolish commodity production entirely and replace it with planned economy, distributing goods via labor vouchers or "according to their need" in later stages.
So far we got only to dictatorship of the proletariat (which manifests as state capitalism, not communism as many steps are missing) in USSR, and the Bolsheviks under Lenin were genuinely disciplined, but the country wasn't industrialized, with hundreds of millions of peasants. Can't provide for everyone when theres no factories to build enough stuff in!
However, capitalism and state capitalism breeds opportunism, meaning that if you don't replace it quickly then even under proletariat class control opportunism will rear it's ugly head, as seen in USSR. Of course there's also other factors, but for communism to have a chance to work, it has to happen in an already developed country with international spread so capitalism over and done with quickly.
For communism to work, we need each and every person to not be a greedy bastard under it all. It only takes one greedy bastard to ruin it all, as history has repeatedly shown.
We are but monkeys in trousers. Our survival instincts still rule our behaviours, and until that changes, communism will not work, simple as that.
Of course. What I'm curious about is why (only?) this particular idea requires that particular format. One can explain some pretty complicated ideas over Lemmy! I can be wrong about frogs, someone tells me how their spots work, but I don't have to read a book about frogs looking for an answer.
Do constituent parts of the idea not make sense individually?
Why bother transcribing the explanation when it already exists in digital format where you can easily access it? If you can read a comment explaining it then you can read a book explaining it. And no this is not the only subject that people on the internet are told to read a book about, it's just the #1 topic people like to play dumb about because there's no rational defense for capitalism
Personally I literally cannot finish an entire book until I'm already interested in the subject. I can look up one specific aspect at a time in the encyclopedia, which has worked really well for me in other fields - including other social sciences and philosophies. Then something sparks and the heavy reading doesn't feel heavy.
I'm interested in human progress in general, but keep being presented with what looks like an imposing wall.
I don't expect you to spend the time and energy explaining whatever part about communism to that dude right here and now. I just wish they were links to lines of a FAQ, or anything that requires less up-front investment. Capitalism defends itself by limiting our time to read volumes of books.
For what it's worth, I've tried to curate and tweak an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list over the last year or so. Section 0a is designed to pitch the case for Marxism-Leninism in as short and concise a manner as I think possible, the rest of the list is for those who actually wish to study in-depth and get a rock-solid understanding of the fundamentals. It isn't an exhaustive list, I'd add Capital and Anti-Dühring for sure as well as some others, but it's thorough and doesn't have any glaring holes.
... show more
For what it's worth, I've tried to curate and tweak an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list over the last year or so. Section 0a is designed to pitch the case for Marxism-Leninism in as short and concise a manner as I think possible, the rest of the list is for those who actually wish to study in-depth and get a rock-solid understanding of the fundamentals. It isn't an exhaustive list, I'd add Capital and Anti-Dühring for sure as well as some others, but it's thorough and doesn't have any glaring holes.
It's time to read theory, comrades! As Lenin says, "Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle." Reading theory helps us identify the core contradictions within modern society, analyze their trajectories, and gives us the tools to break free. Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components, as noted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism: | Audiobook
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx's Law of Value
Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
As such, I created the following list to take you from no knowledge whatsoever of Leftist theory, and leave you with a strong understanding of the critical fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in an order that builds up as you read. Let's get started!
Section I: Getting Started
What the heck is Communism, anyways? For that matter, what is fascism?
Breaks down fascism and its mortal enemy, Communism, as well as their antagonistic relationship. Understanding what fascism is, where and when it rises, why it does so, and how to banish it forever is critical. Parenti also helps debunk common anti-Communist myths, from both the "left" and the right, in a quick-witted writing style. This is also an excellent time to watch the famous speech.
Section II: Historical and Dialectical Materialism
By far my favorite primer on Marxist philosophy. By understanding Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism-Leninism. Don't be intimidated!
Further reading on Dialectical and Historical Materialism, but crucially introduces the why of Scientific Socialism, explaining how Capitalism itself prepares the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates. This is also where Engels talks about the failures of previous "Utopian" Socialists.
Section III: Political Economy
That's right, it's time for the Law of Value and a deep-dive into Imperialism. If we are to defeat Capitalism, we must learn it's mechanisms, tendencies, contradictions, and laws.
Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value. Marx is targetting those not trained in economics here, but you might want to keep a pen and some paper to follow along if you are a visual person.
Absolutely crucial and the most important work for understanding the modern era and its primary contradictions. Marxist-Leninists understand that Imperialism is the greatest contradiction in the modern era, which cascades downward into all manner of related contradictions. Knowing what dying Capitalism looks like, and how it behaves, means we can kill it.
Section IV: Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
Can we defeat Capitalism at the ballot box? What about just defeating fascism? What about the role of the state?
If Marxists believed reforming Capitalist society was possible, we would be the first in line for it. Sadly, it isn't possible, which Luxemburg proves in this monumental writing.
Excellent refutation of revisionists and Social Democrats who think the State can be reformed, without needing to be replaced with one that is run by the workers, in their own interests.
Section V: Intersectionality and Solidarity
The revolution will not be fought by atomized individuals, but by an intersectional, international working class movement. Intersectionality is critical, because it allows different marginalized groups to work together in collective interest, unifying into a broad movement.
Critical reading on understanding misogyny, transphobia, enbyphobia, pluralphobia, and homophobia, as well as how to move beyond the base subject of "gender." Uses the foundations built up in the previous works to analyze gender theory from a Historical Materialist perspective.
De-colonialism is essential to Marxism. Without having a strong, de-colonial, internationalist stance, we have no path to victory nor a path to justice. Fanon analyzes Colonialism's dehumanizing effects, and lays out how to form a de-colonial movement, as well as its necessity.
Solidarity and intersectionality are the key to any social movement. When different social groups fight for liberation together along intersectional lines, the movements are emboldened and empowered ever-further.
Section VI: Putting it into Practice!
It's not enough to endlessly read, you must put theory to practice. That is how you can improve yourself and the movements you support. Touch grass!
Mao wrote simply and directly, targeting peasant soldiers during the Revolutionary War in China. This pair of essays equip the reader with the ability to apply the analytical tools of Dialectical Materialism to their every day practice, and better understand problems.
Congratulations, you completed your introductory reading course!
With your new understanding and knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, here is a mini What is to be Done? of your own to follow, and take with you as practical advice.
Get organized. Join a Leftist org, find solidarity with fellow comrades, and protect each other. The Dems will not save you, it is up to us to protect ourselves. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization both organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle, not a single election. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one! Or, see if there's an org you like more near you and join it.
Read theory. Don't think that you are done now! Just because you have the basics, doesn't mean you know more than you do. If you have not investigated a subject, don't speak on it! Don't speak nonsense, but listen!
Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground, let nobody be forgotten or left behind. There is strength in numbers, when one marginalized group is targeted, many more are sure to follow.
Be industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your problem-solving capabilities. Not only will you improve your skill at one subject, but your general problem-solving muscles get strengthened as well.
Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others. Liberals will not save us, we must save each other.
Be persistent. If you feel like a single water droplet against a mountain, think of canyons and valleys. Oh, how our efforts pile up! With consistency, every rock, boulder, even mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but steady and persistent water droplets.
"Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent."
That's not true, though. Communism, ie a system where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan, doesn't care at all if someone is "greedy," and socialist economies that have begun building towards such a society have proven the opposite of your claims; they've been remarkably effective at achieving positive economic growth while delivering better metrics for the working class than capitalist systems.
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it...
That's not true, though. Communism, ie a system where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan, doesn't care at all if someone is "greedy," and socialist economies that have begun building towards such a society have proven the opposite of your claims; they've been remarkably effective at achieving positive economic growth while delivering better metrics for the working class than capitalist systems.
It's time to read theory, comrades! As Lenin says, "Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle." Reading theory helps us identify the core contradictions within modern society, analyze their trajectories, and gives us the tools to break free. Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components, as noted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism: | Audiobook
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx's Law of Value
Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
As such, I created the following list to take you from no knowledge whatsoever of Leftist theory, and leave you with a strong understanding of the critical fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in an order that builds up as you read. Let's get started!
Section I: Getting Started
What the heck is Communism, anyways? For that matter, what is fascism?
Breaks down fascism and its mortal enemy, Communism, as well as their antagonistic relationship. Understanding what fascism is, where and when it rises, why it does so, and how to banish it forever is critical. Parenti also helps debunk common anti-Communist myths, from both the "left" and the right, in a quick-witted writing style. This is also an excellent time to watch the famous speech.
Section II: Historical and Dialectical Materialism
By far my favorite primer on Marxist philosophy. By understanding Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism-Leninism. Don't be intimidated!
Further reading on Dialectical and Historical Materialism, but crucially introduces the why of Scientific Socialism, explaining how Capitalism itself prepares the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates. This is also where Engels talks about the failures of previous "Utopian" Socialists.
Section III: Political Economy
That's right, it's time for the Law of Value and a deep-dive into Imperialism. If we are to defeat Capitalism, we must learn it's mechanisms, tendencies, contradictions, and laws.
Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value. Marx is targetting those not trained in economics here, but you might want to keep a pen and some paper to follow along if you are a visual person.
Absolutely crucial and the most important work for understanding the modern era and its primary contradictions. Marxist-Leninists understand that Imperialism is the greatest contradiction in the modern era, which cascades downward into all manner of related contradictions. Knowing what dying Capitalism looks like, and how it behaves, means we can kill it.
Section IV: Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
Can we defeat Capitalism at the ballot box? What about just defeating fascism? What about the role of the state?
If Marxists believed reforming Capitalist society was possible, we would be the first in line for it. Sadly, it isn't possible, which Luxemburg proves in this monumental writing.
Excellent refutation of revisionists and Social Democrats who think the State can be reformed, without needing to be replaced with one that is run by the workers, in their own interests.
Section V: Intersectionality and Solidarity
The revolution will not be fought by atomized individuals, but by an intersectional, international working class movement. Intersectionality is critical, because it allows different marginalized groups to work together in collective interest, unifying into a broad movement.
Critical reading on understanding misogyny, transphobia, enbyphobia, pluralphobia, and homophobia, as well as how to move beyond the base subject of "gender." Uses the foundations built up in the previous works to analyze gender theory from a Historical Materialist perspective.
De-colonialism is essential to Marxism. Without having a strong, de-colonial, internationalist stance, we have no path to victory nor a path to justice. Fanon analyzes Colonialism's dehumanizing effects, and lays out how to form a de-colonial movement, as well as its necessity.
Solidarity and intersectionality are the key to any social movement. When different social groups fight for liberation together along intersectional lines, the movements are emboldened and empowered ever-further.
Section VI: Putting it into Practice!
It's not enough to endlessly read, you must put theory to practice. That is how you can improve yourself and the movements you support. Touch grass!
Mao wrote simply and directly, targeting peasant soldiers during the Revolutionary War in China. This pair of essays equip the reader with the ability to apply the analytical tools of Dialectical Materialism to their every day practice, and better understand problems.
Congratulations, you completed your introductory reading course!
With your new understanding and knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, here is a mini What is to be Done? of your own to follow, and take with you as practical advice.
Get organized. Join a Leftist org, find solidarity with fellow comrades, and protect each other. The Dems will not save you, it is up to us to protect ourselves. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization both organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle, not a single election. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one! Or, see if there's an org you like more near you and join it.
Read theory. Don't think that you are done now! Just because you have the basics, doesn't mean you know more than you do. If you have not investigated a subject, don't speak on it! Don't speak nonsense, but listen!
Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground, let nobody be forgotten or left behind. There is strength in numbers, when one marginalized group is targeted, many more are sure to follow.
Be industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your problem-solving capabilities. Not only will you improve your skill at one subject, but your general problem-solving muscles get strengthened as well.
Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others. Liberals will not save us, we must save each other.
Be persistent. If you feel like a single water droplet against a mountain, think of canyons and valleys. Oh, how our efforts pile up! With consistency, every rock, boulder, even mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but steady and persistent water droplets.
"Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent."
This is basically an intro course on ML, isn't it! I've been meaning to read leftist theory from different angles so your links are handy. There's a good (looking) anarchist reading list out there too that I've been meaning to dig into.
If it were true that communism was even resistant to the corruption of human greed, it wouldn't end in dictatorship or oligarchy as it does.
Don't misunderstand my position, I deeply wish we weren't such a young species and that we'd developed enough psychologically that we could get past our basic instincts, to see past the immediate short term as a whole, to work collectively for everyone's benefit, including those that will inherit this earth when we become raw materials once again.
However, this is not the case. Look at how easy we are as a species to manipulate, to make think and do what a small subset want us to, for their benefit.
That's because we're still very instinct driven, simple creatures for the most part. Yes, in some cases an individual stands above this definition, but they are categorically not the norm. Until they are, we're led around by our collective basic drives, and that includes making sure us and ours have "enough" , which means taking it, by hook or by crook.
To discount basic human nature when mulling political systems is pure folly.
Socialist countries have not been oligarchial nor dictatorial. They haven't been utopian wonderlands free from any problems either, but they've been dramatically more democratic for the working class than capitalist countries.
I understand your position very well, it's just wrong and based on critical misunderstandings of socialism in theory and in practice. Simple as that. Collectivized production and distribution works very well when it comes to economic growth and satisfying the needs of more people.
I'm not discounting "human nature," you're attributing it as a problem for socialism when that isn't the case. Again, socialism doesn't care if everyone is perfectly moral and upstanding, that has nothing to do with how we run collectivized production. You should familiarize yourself with what leftists are actually talking about before waxing poetic about how there's some fundamental flaw we haven't properly understood, as though we don't hear the same tired arguments day in and day out.
Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, there has never been a society that has reached that mode of production. There are socialist countries led by communist parties, which is why I answered like I did. Either you're talking about fictional communist societies, or you're referring to socialist countries run by communist parties, so I picked the better-faith option and answered your question with corrected terms.
I'd rather not just dismiss your point outright and take an easy victory by pointing out that you got terminology mixed up, but instead answer your point as you meant it. If that's what you consider "moving the goalpost," then I don't think you were ever interested in discussion to begin with.
The problems with the USSR were more nuanced than the idea that opportunism is inevitable rot. There are existing socialist countries today that are continuing to develop, and trying to depend on the west for socialism to succeed anywhere is a self-defeating analysis.
Yes, there were many issues with USSR, but inevitable opportunism that is bred by capitalist mode of production and the way of life it produces is, in my opinion, one of the biggest dangers for DOTP's, and it does encapsulate a lot of other issues USSR had such as its underdevelopment or failure at achieving (meaningful) internationalism. It obviously doesn't encapsulate everything, but I wrote the comment at work and I'm not really used to writing unreadable blocks of text from a phone.
The USSR did not have a capitalist mode of production, though. Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets. The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
The USSR was also extremely internationalist. It was itself a multi-national union, and sponsored revolutions the world over, dedicated itself to building up relations with other socialist countries like China and Cuba, etc, and aided even nationalist revolutions against imperialism, such as in Algeria.
The problems with the USSR were myriad, but its dissolution was not an inevitability as you claim. Gorbachev's reforms ultimately led to political and economic instability, and the USSR was forced into dedicating a large portion of their productive forces to keeping up with the US Empire millitarily in order to stave off invasion. The USSR, despite its flaws, was a tremendous first step for socialism globally, and managed to rapidly achieve huge gains in quality of life, scientific achi
... show more
Howdy.
The USSR did not have a capitalist mode of production, though. Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets. The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
The USSR was also extremely internationalist. It was itself a multi-national union, and sponsored revolutions the world over, dedicated itself to building up relations with other socialist countries like China and Cuba, etc, and aided even nationalist revolutions against imperialism, such as in Algeria.
The problems with the USSR were myriad, but its dissolution was not an inevitability as you claim. Gorbachev's reforms ultimately led to political and economic instability, and the USSR was forced into dedicating a large portion of their productive forces to keeping up with the US Empire millitarily in order to stave off invasion. The USSR, despite its flaws, was a tremendous first step for socialism globally, and managed to rapidly achieve huge gains in quality of life, scientific achievement, and industrialization in a planned manner in a socialist economy.
Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets
Public ownership doesn't make a mode of production, it's a falsifier belief (such as of Lassalle) Marx himself had to fight against that he called bourgeois socialism.
The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
This does make their mode of production not purely capitalistic though I agree, even though the system wasn't capital-free. Still, a lot of the social relations remained, enough for opportunism to still be heavily encouraged by the system especially when it came to the party and bureaucratic management of the capital.
That being said, it was still not socialist economy - a socialist economy comes after productive forces are sufficiently developed and commodity production has been completely abolished. Until then it hasn't changed the mode of production yet from capitalist, with it being mixed at best and it instead is a period of DOTP wh
... show more
Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets
Public ownership doesn't make a mode of production, it's a falsifier belief (such as of Lassalle) Marx himself had to fight against that he called bourgeois socialism.
The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
This does make their mode of production not purely capitalistic though I agree, even though the system wasn't capital-free. Still, a lot of the social relations remained, enough for opportunism to still be heavily encouraged by the system especially when it came to the party and bureaucratic management of the capital.
That being said, it was still not socialist economy - a socialist economy comes after productive forces are sufficiently developed and commodity production has been completely abolished. Until then it hasn't changed the mode of production yet from capitalist, with it being mixed at best and it instead is a period of DOTP where productive forces are developed or reorganized, which, don't get me wrong, is a massive step forward and a massive achievement, but one that can be reversed unlike historical transformation of mode of production.
Stalin redefined socialism, which was previously viewed as the abolishment of capitalism into something entirely different and pretty much one of the main major goals into "whatever USSR was at the time", which was quite a disgusting move in terms of opportunism, though may have had good intentions back when it was done. Now, it just serves to confuse people and as an excuse to call capitalism a different name.
Though, this is something we'll NEVER see eye to eye with lmao
Yes, public ownership within a capitalist economy, under a bourgeois state, isn't socialism, I agree. That's not what I said, though. Just like markets in a socialist economy are not capitalism, public ownership in capitalist economies aren't socialism. What ultimately matters is what is principle, not what exists period, otherwise all modes of production are the same as they all contain at minimum trace elements of others.
We've discussed this before, and I agree in that we will likely never agree, but I'll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on "one-drop" analysis. Capitalist economies are not defined by the absence of collectivized ownership, but by private ownership and the circulation of capital being principle. Socialism, as the transition between capitalism and communism, is no different in that it too is not defined by purity, but by principle aspects.
This doesn't come from Stalin, but is from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public owner
... show more
Yes, public ownership within a capitalist economy, under a bourgeois state, isn't socialism, I agree. That's not what I said, though. Just like markets in a socialist economy are not capitalism, public ownership in capitalist economies aren't socialism. What ultimately matters is what is principle, not what exists period, otherwise all modes of production are the same as they all contain at minimum trace elements of others.
We've discussed this before, and I agree in that we will likely never agree, but I'll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on "one-drop" analysis. Capitalist economies are not defined by the absence of collectivized ownership, but by private ownership and the circulation of capital being principle. Socialism, as the transition between capitalism and communism, is no different in that it too is not defined by purity, but by principle aspects.
This doesn't come from Stalin, but is from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public ownership is the most effective, I agree, but I disagree that that means that an underdeveloped country cannot retain ownership of the large firms and key industries, gradually appropriating capital with respect to its development. It's like using fire for heating, keeping it in check by controlling the environment and all inputs, fuel, etc, and gradually replacing it with electrified heating as time goes on and you get the tech for it.
I fundamentally cannot agree with treating socialism itself as some unique mode of production distinct from all previous in defining it by purity and not by the principle aspect.
but I’ll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on “one-drop” analysis.
All of the "socialist countries" that you defend, do not just have "one-drop" of capitalism. They inevitably reproduce and enfranchise the capitalist social relationship in all aspects of their production, and their populations are dependent on the market to survive. Whether that is done by state planners or private capitalists, the exploitation of the proletariat class continues, in fact following the laws of capitalism, like the continuous immiseration of the proletariat and the inevitable necessity of imperialism under Capitalism.
A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public ownership is the most effective, I agree, but I disagree that that means that an underdeveloped country cannot retain ownership of the large firms and key industries, gradually appropriating capital with respect to its development. It’s like using fire for heating, keeping it in check by controlling the e
... show more
but I’ll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on “one-drop” analysis.
All of the "socialist countries" that you defend, do not just have "one-drop" of capitalism. They inevitably reproduce and enfranchise the capitalist social relationship in all aspects of their production, and their populations are dependent on the market to survive. Whether that is done by state planners or private capitalists, the exploitation of the proletariat class continues, in fact following the laws of capitalism, like the continuous immiseration of the proletariat and the inevitable necessity of imperialism under Capitalism.
A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public ownership is the most effective, I agree, but I disagree that that means that an underdeveloped country cannot retain ownership of the large firms and key industries, gradually appropriating capital with respect to its development. It’s like using fire for heating, keeping it in check by controlling the environment and all inputs, fuel, etc, and gradually replacing it with electrified heating as time goes on and you get the tech for it.
Why do your "socialist countries" not appropriate capital then? Why do they inevitably concede to private ownership, or even under the "state run monopolies" continue the capitalist social relation?
I fundamentally cannot agree with treating socialism itself as some unique mode of production
Even if we concede that, Capitalist social relationships and Socialist social relationships will coexist under a Dictatorship of The Proletariat, your "socialist countries" do not even attempt this, bar the revision of defining "state ownership" as a socialist social relationship. Yet, a number of countries you would consider "capitalist" practice(d) state ownership.
Which reveals your ideology for what it truly is, Capitalism with red paint, essentially, social democracy. If socialism is not a mode of production, what is it? An ideology. Agitated for in bourgeoisie parliaments as ethical capitalism with red flag characteristics. What would be the end of a "Socialist State" to you? When they change the flag color? If the "Communist Party" changes its name to the "Capitalist Party"? You have no material conception of what Socialism and Capitalism is, which is why it collapses into idealism to the extent you even refuse to accept that Socialism is an independent mode of production in of itself.
No, this is a ridiculous misreading of my comment, and of Marxism in general. When I say "one drop," I mean of private property, not of capitalism itself. Capitalism is an overarching system, it isn't something you define as a quantum element. I already stated that capitalist systems have public ownership, and that that doesn't mean capitalist systems have socialist elements either.
Socialist countries are appropriating capital, yes. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies as well. You proceed from a false assumption and base your argument on that, but the premise itself is false. Socialism is a mode of production where public, collectivized ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Simple as that. It isn't the public sector of a capitalist state, nor is it exclusively a system that is fully collectivized.
Your entire comment is mired in the idealism you accuse me of. I have never once suggested that socialism isn't a mode of production, yet you are here affirming it as something unique, holy even, perfect
... show more
No, this is a ridiculous misreading of my comment, and of Marxism in general. When I say "one drop," I mean of private property, not of capitalism itself. Capitalism is an overarching system, it isn't something you define as a quantum element. I already stated that capitalist systems have public ownership, and that that doesn't mean capitalist systems have socialist elements either.
Socialist countries are appropriating capital, yes. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies as well. You proceed from a false assumption and base your argument on that, but the premise itself is false. Socialism is a mode of production where public, collectivized ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Simple as that. It isn't the public sector of a capitalist state, nor is it exclusively a system that is fully collectivized.
Your entire comment is mired in the idealism you accuse me of. I have never once suggested that socialism isn't a mode of production, yet you are here affirming it as something unique, holy even, perfect, ideal, devoid of contradictions. This is the very utopian idealism Marx railed against when correcting Hegel's idealist dialectics. All modes of production contain contradictions, all modes of production contain elements of other modes of production. If you erase dialectics and only look at systems by their purity, you'd find that all modes of production fail to be correctly analyzed, because none are pure.
The largest elimination of poverty in history was in China, in a socialist economy. If you remove China from the last century, then the idea that poverty is erasing everywhere is proven false immediately.
When economists point to global eradication of poverty, they rely on the dramatic and directed poverty eradication campaigns from China. In the total world, however, western imperialism has been responsible for devastation, underdevelopment of the global south, and stunted growth while the global north slowly decays.
Communism, in the sense of the future stateless, classless, moneyless society, hasn't been reached, but socialism absolutely has been and exists in several countries today. Communism is necessarily post-socialist.
To the contrary, socialism has already been proven good, and the foundations of socialism, ie public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, already work astoundingly well. Communism as the fully collectivized mode of production beyond that has been more affirmed by the existence of socialism.
Ehh... I wouldn't say socialism affirms communism. At least far less than it condemns capitalism.
Nobody currently alive is going to accept private property entering a gray area where if you produce with it, suddenly it's not your property any more.
That's not really how socialism or communism works, though. It isn't a legalistic moral code, but the adoption of collectivized production at a global scale.
I don't follow. Communism isn't when you ban all private property and punish anyone producing for themselves, but by collectivizing production at a global scale to the point that that's counter-intuitive and can't really be done for profit anyways.
Nobody currently alive is going to accept private property entering a gray area where if you produce with it, suddenly it’s not your property any more.
Speak for yourself, there are plenty of people alive that would be fine with there being no more private property. Personal property isn't the same thing, and it's fine producing something with it, there would be tools available to all to rent out or use, what's so wrong with that? In fact tool libraries already exist, as do worker owned co-ops.
Explain to those that don't already understand, and then get the rest of the communists to agree that it doesn't include private property used for work.
Only those strongly invested in capital. But in the end that won't matter, because they will be overthrown.
Edit: Most people will not care because it will not effect their lives in any meaningful way, they'll still be able to make and get things, they just won't be able to lord it over others.
Projection is when a socialist says it's bad to give a failed economic system another try.
The height of human prosperity was under Keynesian economic policy. If we're giving stuff another spin, why not something that actually worked? Maybe next time just not get suckered by grifters pushing trickle down supply side reaganomics voodoo economic policy. That shit is almost as bad a failure as communism. Almost.
https://inflationdata.com/articles/2022/08/10/u-s-cumulative-inflation-since-1913/ "I don't believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can't take it violently out of the hands of…
It is the fantasy that corporations can serve the interest all stakeholders (employees, customers etc.) rather than a minority of shareholders as is currently: investopedia.com/stakeholder-c…
Mfw Ezra Klein III is streaming holo-eds to my great grandkids excoriating the left for not supporting his new book "Mutualist Capitalism" after David Hogg failed to stop Barron Trump getting elected president for life
Sure. That can happen when all corporations have a legal duty to all ~~shareholders~~ stakeholders and they all have an equal right and access to influencing/suing them.
I wouldn’t say it’s a fantasy, it’s just a currently different cultural perspective that is being taught to the next generation of business leaders.
Some people are bought into the idea, but unless the actual laws change it’s not so easy to legally be able to prioritize the needs of all stakeholders equally.
I personally don’t see stakeholder theory as the “fix”, but it’s a good start to get more ethical capitalism that’s not actively hurting the planet, workers, and communities.
They got what they wanted, but will they like it and will it stick? On a technical note things can improve and the three branches could flip back within 15 years at the most. For that to actually happen though people need to start feeling progressive wins now.
For that reason, the focus should be on trying to implement all the progressive programs we’ve been wanting federally, to be at the state level instead. States will likely need to be willing to go into debt to fund these programs, but if they do then the people living in those states will be much better off than they are now. Many people living in purple and red states will be much more likely to want those progressive programs when they actually are seeing how successful they are in Blue states as well.
Hackworth
in reply to merdaverse • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Che Banana
in reply to Hackworth • • •like this
frustrated_phagocytosis likes this.
_cryptagion [he/him]
in reply to Che Banana • • •Jankatarch
in reply to merdaverse • • •To be fair experimenting is good. It's still better than feudal system. I just wish we experimented with other models once in a while too.
I will read a sci-fi novel thousands of years into the future with fantasy-magic system, and economic model is still "21st century capitalism but we replaced the word money with credits so it's future now."
masquenox
in reply to Jankatarch • • •According to whom? I wonder what we would see if we were to compare the average amount of labour time feudal peasants had to put in to survive vs. that of the current global proletariat.
I'd agree that capitalism has been better for some - like, for instance, white ex-peasants who now gets to be members of the (so-called) "middle class" or gets to cosplay as pseudo-nobility in colonised spaces- but it has been an unmitigated disaster for lots of others.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
pahlimur
in reply to masquenox • • •The unmitigated disaster part existed under feudalism also. Capitalism is slowly turning back into feudalism, which is kinda why it sucks so much now. I hate capitalism, but feudalism was worse.
Fuedalism with a fuckload of democracy might work. But it always turns into a bloodline thing.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
masquenox
in reply to pahlimur • • •Perhaps, but I have to wonder how many feudal peasants would willingly exchange their existence for the precariat one we exist under.
If that is true, then it must mean that capitalism never replaced feudalism, but was instead built on top of feudalism - which is not that difficult to believe if you live in a 3rd-world extraction zone (like I do).
loonsun
in reply to masquenox • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
RaivoKulli
in reply to masquenox • • •masquenox
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •I mean, just off the top of my head...
And, let's not forget, those conditions never ended - they were just exported.
Old-Miner-Photos
www.miningartifacts.orgRaivoKulli
in reply to masquenox • • •masquenox
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •In the pre-capitalist world mining practices were all over the place... it wasn't just chain-gangs and overseers. And the conditions for it isn't fundamentally any shittier than working a farm or a factory - I know because I can literally walk down the street and ask a zama-zama (an artisinal - "illegal", according to our bootlicking media - miner) and ask him who and what it is that actually makes their work conditions shitty and dangerous.
We all know what happens to miners under the capitalist mode of production, however - it's literally why some of the most vicious crackdowns on organised labour in history involved the mining industry.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
RaivoKulli
in reply to masquenox • • •masquenox
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •Only in places where labour organising have managed to win concessions in spite of the capitalist mode of production - a capitalist mode of production that is reproduced globally to this very day. If it wasn't for the need to stabilise the imperial core, coal miners in Germany would be treated no differently than cobalt miners in the DRC. There is nothing comparable to that in the pre-capitalist world - not even the brutal exploitation of the Americas by the Spanish was reproduced globally.
You are trying to compare apples with oranges.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
RaivoKulli
in reply to masquenox • • •masquenox
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •I am not discarding anything. There simply was no feudalist model of resource extraction analogous to the one that has been driving the mining industry in the capitalist era. The well-paid shift boss in a mine in Australia and the poorly-paid rock-drill-operator in South Africa is working under the same capitalist mode of production.
This was not the case under feudalism.
So again... you're comparing apples to oranges.
RaivoKulli
in reply to masquenox • • •Commiunism
in reply to masquenox • • •According to Marx, Engels, Lenin and any other respectable communist.
Capitalism is a historical progression rather than something you adopt willy nilly, and it has expanded productive forces significantly allowing us to produce stuff far more efficiently in far higher quality and complexity. With feudalism, it's mode of production was far more individualized, with peasants essentially producing for their and their family's subsistence only, and artisans in guilds would only work in small groups, limiting to what they can produce.
Therefore, this expansion of productive powers in capitalism in theory leads to better life quality, less socially necessary labor time to provide for everyone, less mortality given how we can now produce things like insulin in complex labs, etc.
Keyword is in theory - in practice, everything else in the system goes against that, leads to overproduction and having us proletariat work for much higher hours than is socially necessary, it concentrates wealth to private owners giving them immen
... show moreAccording to Marx, Engels, Lenin and any other respectable communist.
Capitalism is a historical progression rather than something you adopt willy nilly, and it has expanded productive forces significantly allowing us to produce stuff far more efficiently in far higher quality and complexity. With feudalism, it's mode of production was far more individualized, with peasants essentially producing for their and their family's subsistence only, and artisans in guilds would only work in small groups, limiting to what they can produce.
Therefore, this expansion of productive powers in capitalism in theory leads to better life quality, less socially necessary labor time to provide for everyone, less mortality given how we can now produce things like insulin in complex labs, etc.
Keyword is in theory - in practice, everything else in the system goes against that, leads to overproduction and having us proletariat work for much higher hours than is socially necessary, it concentrates wealth to private owners giving them immense political power. That's what communists are trying to do - progress forward so we produce not for profit, but for use based on need which would solve these issues.
Btw, comparison between feudal peasantry and proletariat is flawed - peasants were based in countryside and essentially were the middle class of it, owning a small amount of land that they worked for themselves. Proletariat are urbanized, work in factories they don't own and produce for thousands of people. A more apt comparison in work hours would be proletariat vs guild apprentices - their exploitation and work hours were essentially the same and this system was precursor to capitalist wage labor.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Danquebec
in reply to Commiunism • • •NotACIAPlant
in reply to Commiunism • • •Progressive =/= better. The Capitalist social relation inevitably reproduces itself across the globe because of the social forces. Not because it is an improvement.
Regardless of the debate that these modern conceptions can be attributed entirely to a change in the mode of production rather then simply the inevitable progression of humanities technological knowledge, Marx actually argued Capitalism inevitably immiserates the proletariat rather than advancing quality of life.
You try to hedge this by saying "in theory", yet not even in theory. It is a lie of the bourgeoisie the proletarian slavery is an improvement over peasant slavery. In theory, Capitalism is simply the reproduction of the capitalist social relationship and the
... show moreProgressive =/= better. The Capitalist social relation inevitably reproduces itself across the globe because of the social forces. Not because it is an improvement.
Regardless of the debate that these modern conceptions can be attributed entirely to a change in the mode of production rather then simply the inevitable progression of humanities technological knowledge, Marx actually argued Capitalism inevitably immiserates the proletariat rather than advancing quality of life.
You try to hedge this by saying "in theory", yet not even in theory. It is a lie of the bourgeoisie the proletarian slavery is an improvement over peasant slavery. In theory, Capitalism is simply the reproduction of the capitalist social relationship and the replacement of the nobility class with the new bourgeoisie class.
The comparison is not to equalize the proletariat and peasantry in their relationship to the means of production, but in the demographic comparison for who is the majority of the planet. In Feudal times, peasants, including serfs make up the majority of people. And serfs are decidedly not middle class. Peasants were an exploited class under feudalism, duped by the bourgeoisie to support the inevitable capitalist revolution that would "improve their quality of life", only to find themselves alienated industrial laborers and at the bottom of class society once again.
Soup
in reply to Jankatarch • • •Capitalism exists to replace feudal systems. It’s easier to have kings, and to have a handful of them so they aren’t fighting as much for a single spot, when you convince the average idiot that now they can also be a king and its their own fault that they aren’t(or better yet, another person’s fault as you oppress them both).
When all the people who had gotten rich by being parasites because of who they were related got afraid they just changed the rules so that it wasn’t ahout blood relation anymore(on paper) but they still had all the money they’d stolen. Nothing functionally changed.
The entire system “the rich get everything they want and no one gets to stop them” does not have a good version. It’s fucked every single way.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
☂️-
in reply to Jankatarch • • •RaivoKulli
in reply to ☂️- • • •☂️-
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •RaivoKulli
in reply to ☂️- • • •☂️-
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •RaivoKulli
in reply to ☂️- • • •nekbardrun
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •Maybe because of this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S…
No need to read the entire article. Just skim through it a bit.
Btw, I can attest that the 1964 regime change in Brazil was real because I live here and we study the military dictatorship period in middle/high school and the theme is still relevant to this day (hence why we jailed Bolsonaro). (Edit: I forgot to mention that the reveal that 1964 had a hand from operation condor is recent. it was just a "leftist hoax" before but, "today", the papers of US involvement in Brazil's coup made the "leftist hoax" not be a hoax anymore)
We will need to wait a a few more decades before going public that US also interfered with our politics on the impeachment of Dilma and raise of Bolsonaro to power.
But at least Obama government bugging Dilma's phone was true
... show moreMaybe because of this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S…
No need to read the entire article. Just skim through it a bit.
Btw, I can attest that the 1964 regime change in Brazil was real because I live here and we study the military dictatorship period in middle/high school and the theme is still relevant to this day (hence why we jailed Bolsonaro). (Edit: I forgot to mention that the reveal that 1964 had a hand from operation condor is recent. it was just a "leftist hoax" before but, "today", the papers of US involvement in Brazil's coup made the "leftist hoax" not be a hoax anymore)
We will need to wait a a few more decades before going public that US also interfered with our politics on the impeachment of Dilma and raise of Bolsonaro to power.
But at least Obama government bugging Dilma's phone was true
aljazeera.com/news/2015/7/5/us…
thehill.com/policy/national-se…
bbc.com/news/world-latin-ameri… (Angela Merkel was another target for spionage from NSA).
Also, did anyone ever mentioned that the only country who used nukes in wars up to this day was US? the country that bombed 2 civilians cities for "research purposes"?
If Russia and France didn't got their bombs in time, I can almost assure you that history would be different a lot of other countries would receive radioactive democracy blessings from US intead of the "boring" democracy US employs in the world nowadays.
The UN General Assembly adopts anti-spy resolution
BBC NewsRaivoKulli
in reply to nekbardrun • • •nekbardrun
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •then you go about
Can you first decide if you are talking about capitalist countries (as stated first) or socialist countries? Or are you going to be moving goalposts?
I wrote a direct and on the point answer on why do some people think it is US specifically.
As pointed out, US backed coups and regime changes (unless you want to argue that these facts are untrue).
Now, if you want to go about other capitalist countries, then France and UK have their hands on some regime changes as well over the years.
Although this wkipedia entry doesn't look as bad as the US' one, only a fool would think that France has good intention about the
... show morethen you go about
Can you first decide if you are talking about capitalist countries (as stated first) or socialist countries? Or are you going to be moving goalposts?
I wrote a direct and on the point answer on why do some people think it is US specifically.
As pointed out, US backed coups and regime changes (unless you want to argue that these facts are untrue).
Now, if you want to go about other capitalist countries, then France and UK have their hands on some regime changes as well over the years.
Although this wkipedia entry doesn't look as bad as the US' one, only a fool would think that France has good intention about their interference in the middle east:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_…
Even my country, Brazil, has some dirt on it by being an economical powerhouse among Latin America.
We did try to make comercial relations that mixed both the style of EU (Mercosul) with our neighbors and also similar to China-african countries relation as we did with Cuba by bringing Cuban physicians to work here while we helped them economically (but I'm sure there was some strings attached. we aren't saints and nor do we pretend to be the savior of free democratic world).
But we do know that, if left unchecked, we could derail again into being imperialist or into being a dictatorship (again, we just jailed Jair Bolsonar for trying a coup d'etat to make another military dictatorship in the shape of the 1964 that happened).
Speaking of Bolsonaro, one of the first things he did was to cut out the deal Brazil had with Cuba because our Brazilian physicians don't want to work in the countryside (they claim the pay is low or that municipalities may freeze payment over months) but at the same time, they didn't wanted anybody else in that market-share (in this case, Cuban doctors).
So it is all shitty situations around and no one is a saint.
I hope it does satisfy your desire for a "nobody is a saint", but, keep in mind that in terms of actual harm, US and Russia are the greatest danger right now.
US and Russia together have around 90% of nuclear warheads of the world.
If they even (hypothetically) join political forces and "work as one country", then they could bomb whatever the fuck of whatever country with almost no pushback.
Though I still think that America is more trigger happy (pun intended) than Russia.
overview of relations
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)☂️-
in reply to nekbardrun • • •nekbardrun
in reply to ☂️- • • •Not disagreeing with you any bit, but I want to clarify that by "Brazil being imperialistic" I meant how we expanded our territory during the 1800s and our "most recent war" at Paraguay around late 1800
(btw, I had to search the date and found that our last "recent" territorial war was probably the Acre war (1899), a few years after Paraguay war -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_… )
I don't disagree with you that we were and are exploited, but we surely expanded our territory by a lot of land-grabbing in those wars (even tho I recognize these were old times).
In that specific sense that I meant we once were imperialistic (Sem falar que Dom Pedro era imperador né?! hahahaha!)
Wikimedia list article
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)☂️-
in reply to nekbardrun • • •☂️-
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •WorldsDumbestMan
in reply to ☂️- • • •☂️-
in reply to WorldsDumbestMan • • •Alcoholicorn
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •They aren't though.
Cuba passed a new constitution by referendum in 2019 with 90%+ in favor.
A common perspective I've heard here in Vietnam is "socialism means the government has to represent everyone". (Another common perspective is that the party is openly corrupt and not meaningfully democratic. Those typically aren't held by the same people)
Most every Chinese would tell you 1. Democracy is important. 2. The CPC represents my views via democracy.
Amnesigenic
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •RaivoKulli
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •MotoAsh
in reply to merdaverse • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
SupraMario
in reply to MotoAsh • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
MotoAsh
in reply to SupraMario • • •rofl you think I'm a tankie for shitting on capitalism!?
ahahaha way to broadcast how pitifully tiny your understanding is...
People being lifted out of poverty as an economic test COMPLETELY IGNORES the reality of technological advancement. Way to further demonstrate how you do not know even the major milestones of history, let alone economic history...
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
SupraMario
in reply to MotoAsh • • •Says the guy who literally spouts tankie shit.
Communism was tried and is still tried just because it doesn't look like this perfect utopia you read about in a book doesn't mean it's not been tried/exists.
This isn't a friendly game of checkers and saying "that's not what I meant to do"...
Amnesigenic
in reply to SupraMario • • •minimum
in reply to MotoAsh • • •The technological advancements were in large part due to the large scale growth of industry under capitalism. Although lots of bloodshed and suffering was involved in the process, and without leftists fighting for reforms, we wouldn't be able to enjoy its fruits today.
The mass availability of the internet, and many other pillars of infrastructure are a result of capitalism. And these developments definitely have increased living standards for the majority of humans, even ones in third world nations (The popular image of a destitute country with rampant poverty is extremely rare these days.)
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
MotoAsh
in reply to minimum • • •minimum
in reply to MotoAsh • • •So no alternative explanation? You should at least point me to some resources that say otherwise.
I fully acknowledge the wild ecological harm and rising inequality that capitalism has brought with it. However, even Marx had written about the system's capacity for the advancement of industrial technology and productivity.
Centrally planned economies like the ones of the USSR and similar 21st century socialist states do not work. They would never have enabled the vast distribution and rapid development of technology like we see today. Lemmy itself is a product of capitalism.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to minimum • • •Planned economies do work. Using the USSR as an example, they achieved tremendous economic growth surpassing the vast majority of capitalist economies, all while under intense sanctions and invasion.
The USSR and other socialist economies have been some of the most rapidly developing countries in history.
Lemmy itself is not a product of capitalism, either, FOSS can be used by capitalism but largely sits outside that.
minimum
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •They do, to a certain extent. Once an economy begins to grow more and more complex, the intensity of calculations needed increases proportionally (edit: proportional may not be the right word here).
A large part of the USSR's workforce was dedicated to economic planning at the time of its collapse, and it was projected to reach 50% by the 2000s.
They intended to solve this with computers, but there's reasons this wouldn't have worked:
A: Economic calculation involves NP-Hard problems, where the complexity can increase out of nowhere.
If you needed to perform 1600 calculations one day, next week the number needed could jump to 36000. (NP-Hard problems are also common in route determination programs used by delivery apps to devise optimum routes. If you increase the number of locations from 10 to 11, the computations needed to calculate an optimum route increases staggeringly, and it keeps getting worse the more complex you make it.)
B: Making the economy more complex makes the calculations
... show moreThey do, to a certain extent. Once an economy begins to grow more and more complex, the intensity of calculations needed increases proportionally (edit: proportional may not be the right word here).
A large part of the USSR's workforce was dedicated to economic planning at the time of its collapse, and it was projected to reach 50% by the 2000s.
They intended to solve this with computers, but there's reasons this wouldn't have worked:
A: Economic calculation involves NP-Hard problems, where the complexity can increase out of nowhere.
If you needed to perform 1600 calculations one day, next week the number needed could jump to 36000. (NP-Hard problems are also common in route determination programs used by delivery apps to devise optimum routes. If you increase the number of locations from 10 to 11, the computations needed to calculate an optimum route increases staggeringly, and it keeps getting worse the more complex you make it.)
B: Making the economy more complex makes the calculations needed more-than-exponentially extra intensive and numerous. If you introduce computers into the mix, more people are free to do other things and make the economy even more complex. It's a really fast vicious cycle that doesn't end well.
And in all of this, I haven't even mentioned the corruption involved in bureaucracy
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to minimum • • •This is generally not true, the Economic Calculation Problem is a made-up excuse, same with the idea that 50% of the USSR's economy would be dedicated to planning. Administration and planning is important, but it isn't the kind of thing that overwhelms the economy. Megacorporations like Walmart and Amazon already employ economic planning over price signals to great effect, and socialist economies are still rapidly advancing, especially China, even though it relies heavily on central planning.
Corruption happens in capitalism, too, it isn't something especially worse in socialism.
irelephant [he/him]
in reply to minimum • • •minimum
in reply to irelephant [he/him] • • •Propped up by the global hardware distribution of capitalists, Linux (capitalist companies have made major contributions to linux, and still do), and the internet (distributed under a capitalist model)
The creator's ideology does not matter
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to minimum • • •Capitalism was most responsible for underdeveloping the global south. Europeans genocided the indigenous Americans and needed a large supply of labor, so they used their (at the time) minor technological advantage to trade high-demand commodities exclusively for slaves in Africa. This depressed African development and skyrocketed European development, and this expanded in colonialism.
Capitalism was progressive as compared with feudalism, yes, but it's been socialist economies that have been most responsible of eradicating poverty. If you remove socialist countries, poverty has gone up in the last century.
minimum
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I fully agree with the first part. Countries with already developed industry and trade got the boost, and that's the major reason for the large difference in development between Underdeveloped and Developed nations.
I don't get it. Remove in what way? Too vague to carry any meaning.
If you mean their political, economic, and ideological impact on surrounding nations then yeah, obviously. But the socialist countries themselves had to adopt some form of capitalism to continue to grow economically (see: china). The countries that didn't move away from central planning eventually collapsed (eg. USSR*).
*I understand how the cause of the USSR's collapse is not soley the inefficiency of central planning, but even if the country was allowed to continue unimpeded, it would have collapsed because of that one reason.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to minimum • • •There's several misconceptions here, but I'll get to them after addressing the poverty point. When I said "when we remove socialist countries," I mean the absolute poverty worldwide has primarily gone down when you include socialist countries in that statistic, if you only include capitalist countries then poverty goes up as compared to the total number, because poverty isn't systematically targeted for alleviation in capitalism but instead is a requirement for it to function. That's not vague, it's clear-cut.
Onto the misconceptions. Markets and private property are not themselves capitalism. What distinguishes capitalism as a system from socialism as a system is whether private ownership or public ownership is principle, ie covers the large firms and key industries at a minimum. The USSR had some small degree of private property, and so did China even under Mao and later the Gang of Four. China opened up their capital markets to foreign investment while maintaining control of the large firms and key industries, and rely heavily on central planning to direct the economy. Th
... show moreThere's several misconceptions here, but I'll get to them after addressing the poverty point. When I said "when we remove socialist countries," I mean the absolute poverty worldwide has primarily gone down when you include socialist countries in that statistic, if you only include capitalist countries then poverty goes up as compared to the total number, because poverty isn't systematically targeted for alleviation in capitalism but instead is a requirement for it to function. That's not vague, it's clear-cut.
Onto the misconceptions. Markets and private property are not themselves capitalism. What distinguishes capitalism as a system from socialism as a system is whether private ownership or public ownership is principle, ie covers the large firms and key industries at a minimum. The USSR had some small degree of private property, and so did China even under Mao and later the Gang of Four. China opened up their capital markets to foreign investment while maintaining control of the large firms and key industries, and rely heavily on central planning to direct the economy. They are in the earlier stages of socialism, as shown here:
The reason for adopting controlled markets for the smaller and medium firms is because that form of ownership better suited China's level of development. Public ownership works more effectively at higher levels of development, so it's like a controlled fire for heat before replacing with an electric system when the tech advances. Out of control, the fire can be destructive, but by maintaining control of the large firms and key industries you maintain control over the rest of production.
As for central planning, that's not why the USSR dissolved, and was actually one of its greatest strengths. The economy grew rapidly and consistently throughout the USSR's existence:
Instead, what happened is that reforms such as those under Gorbachev created economic and political division against central planning, as well as problems such as nationalism in some of the SSRs and SFSRs, as well as the fact that the USSR had to dedicate tons of resources and production to maintaining millitary parity with the US Empire despite also needing to recover from the devastation of World War II.
There's absolutely no basis for the idea that central planning induces collapse, China relies on it heavily as do other socialist countries like Cuba, and even megacorporations these days rely more on internal planning and minor cyberbetics than price signals as was traditional for earlier capitalism.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to MotoAsh • • •shawn1122
in reply to SupraMario • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
SupraMario
in reply to shawn1122 • • •shawn1122
in reply to SupraMario • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
SupraMario
in reply to shawn1122 • • •No...no it doesn't.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_…
Even marx suggested that it's pretty much the first tried system.
history of the ideologies based in Marxism
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)shawn1122
in reply to SupraMario • • •Modern communism (is the age of industrialization) is essentially Marxism which is younger than capitalistic models.
Hunter gatherer societies were egalitarian but its impossible to apply a pre-civilization framework to civilizational societies. So the fact that he referred to it as primitive communism is not an indictment on communism.
Communism as a political movement was introduced by Marx and Engles. Only since then has it been attempted on a nation state level. Prior to this nearly every political and economic system was an autocracy or monarchy where the state administered private land ownership rights to lords. There are very few exceptions to this in civilizational history.
So if we are looking at communism as a political and economic system as can be applied to modern civilizations ie. nation states, it is much younger than capitalism.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to shawn1122 • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to SupraMario • • •SupraMario
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to SupraMario • • •irelephant [he/him]
in reply to SupraMario • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
SupraMario
in reply to irelephant [he/him] • • •RaivoKulli
in reply to shawn1122 • • •shawn1122
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •ProfDrDr
in reply to SupraMario • • •Commiunism
in reply to SupraMario • • •Even though you're getting shit on with downvotes, you are half right. Communism hasn't been tried before, but it's also very difficult to achieve due to opportunism (or what you call power hunger).
For communism to be achieved, the working class has to take down the dominance, or dictatorship of the capitalist class (also called dictatorship of the proletariat), then productive forces have to be reorganized to produce to satisfy everyone's needs rather than for profit, and then abolish commodity production entirely and replace it with planned economy, distributing goods via labor vouchers or "according to their need" in later stages.
So far we got only to dictatorship of the proletariat (which manifests as state capitalism, not communism as many steps are missing) in USSR, and the Bolsheviks under Lenin were genuinely disciplined, but the country wasn't industrialized, with hundreds of millions of peasants. Can't provide for everyone when theres no factories to build enough stuff in!
However, capitalism and state capitalism breeds opportunism, meaning that if yo
... show moreEven though you're getting shit on with downvotes, you are half right. Communism hasn't been tried before, but it's also very difficult to achieve due to opportunism (or what you call power hunger).
For communism to be achieved, the working class has to take down the dominance, or dictatorship of the capitalist class (also called dictatorship of the proletariat), then productive forces have to be reorganized to produce to satisfy everyone's needs rather than for profit, and then abolish commodity production entirely and replace it with planned economy, distributing goods via labor vouchers or "according to their need" in later stages.
So far we got only to dictatorship of the proletariat (which manifests as state capitalism, not communism as many steps are missing) in USSR, and the Bolsheviks under Lenin were genuinely disciplined, but the country wasn't industrialized, with hundreds of millions of peasants. Can't provide for everyone when theres no factories to build enough stuff in!
However, capitalism and state capitalism breeds opportunism, meaning that if you don't replace it quickly then even under proletariat class control opportunism will rear it's ugly head, as seen in USSR. Of course there's also other factors, but for communism to have a chance to work, it has to happen in an already developed country with international spread so capitalism over and done with quickly.
Fluke
in reply to Commiunism • • •For communism to work, we need each and every person to not be a greedy bastard under it all. It only takes one greedy bastard to ruin it all, as history has repeatedly shown.
We are but monkeys in trousers. Our survival instincts still rule our behaviours, and until that changes, communism will not work, simple as that.
Amnesigenic
in reply to Fluke • • •explodicle
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to explodicle • • •explodicle
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Of course. What I'm curious about is why (only?) this particular idea requires that particular format. One can explain some pretty complicated ideas over Lemmy! I can be wrong about frogs, someone tells me how their spots work, but I don't have to read a book about frogs looking for an answer.
Do constituent parts of the idea not make sense individually?
Amnesigenic
in reply to explodicle • • •explodicle
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Personally I literally cannot finish an entire book until I'm already interested in the subject. I can look up one specific aspect at a time in the encyclopedia, which has worked really well for me in other fields - including other social sciences and philosophies. Then something sparks and the heavy reading doesn't feel heavy.
I'm interested in human progress in general, but keep being presented with what looks like an imposing wall.
I don't expect you to spend the time and energy explaining whatever part about communism to that dude right here and now. I just wish they were links to lines of a FAQ, or anything that requires less up-front investment. Capitalism defends itself by limiting our time to read volumes of books.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to explodicle • • •For what it's worth, I've tried to curate and tweak an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list over the last year or so. Section 0a is designed to pitch the case for Marxism-Leninism in as short and concise a manner as I think possible, the rest of the list is for those who actually wish to study in-depth and get a rock-solid understanding of the fundamentals. It isn't an exhaustive list, I'd add Capital and Anti-Dühring for sure as well as some others, but it's thorough and doesn't have any glaring holes.
For what it's worth, I've tried to curate and tweak an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list over the last year or so. Section 0a is designed to pitch the case for Marxism-Leninism in as short and concise a manner as I think possible, the rest of the list is for those who actually wish to study in-depth and get a rock-solid understanding of the fundamentals. It isn't an exhaustive list, I'd add Capital and Anti-Dühring for sure as well as some others, but it's thorough and doesn't have any glaring holes.
Cowbee [he/they]
2024-11-12 13:19:57
Fluke
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •But_my_mom_says_im_cool
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Fluke • • •That's not true, though. Communism, ie a system where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan, doesn't care at all if someone is "greedy," and socialist economies that have begun building towards such a society have proven the opposite of your claims; they've been remarkably effective at achieving positive economic growth while delivering better metrics for the working class than capitalist systems.
If you want, I made an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list, feel free to give it a look. Albert Einstein's Why Socialism? | Audiobook is a good intro!
Read Why Socialism?(Albert Einstein) on ProleWiki
ProleWikiThat's not true, though. Communism, ie a system where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan, doesn't care at all if someone is "greedy," and socialist economies that have begun building towards such a society have proven the opposite of your claims; they've been remarkably effective at achieving positive economic growth while delivering better metrics for the working class than capitalist systems.
If you want, I made an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list, feel free to give it a look. Albert Einstein's Why Socialism? | Audiobook is a good intro!
Cowbee [he/they]
2024-11-12 13:19:57
Clay_pidgin
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Clay_pidgin • • •Clay_pidgin
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Fluke
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •If it were true that communism was even resistant to the corruption of human greed, it wouldn't end in dictatorship or oligarchy as it does.
Don't misunderstand my position, I deeply wish we weren't such a young species and that we'd developed enough psychologically that we could get past our basic instincts, to see past the immediate short term as a whole, to work collectively for everyone's benefit, including those that will inherit this earth when we become raw materials once again.
However, this is not the case. Look at how easy we are as a species to manipulate, to make think and do what a small subset want us to, for their benefit.
That's because we're still very instinct driven, simple creatures for the most part. Yes, in some cases an individual stands above this definition, but they are categorically not the norm. Until they are, we're led around by our collective basic drives, and that includes making sure us and ours have "enough" , which means taking it, by hook or by crook.
To discount basic human nature when mulling political systems is pure folly.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Fluke • • •Socialist countries have not been oligarchial nor dictatorial. They haven't been utopian wonderlands free from any problems either, but they've been dramatically more democratic for the working class than capitalist countries.
I understand your position very well, it's just wrong and based on critical misunderstandings of socialism in theory and in practice. Simple as that. Collectivized production and distribution works very well when it comes to economic growth and satisfying the needs of more people.
I'm not discounting "human nature," you're attributing it as a problem for socialism when that isn't the case. Again, socialism doesn't care if everyone is perfectly moral and upstanding, that has nothing to do with how we run collectivized production. You should familiarize yourself with what leftists are actually talking about before waxing poetic about how there's some fundamental flaw we haven't properly understood, as though we don't hear the same tired arguments day in and day out.
Fluke
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I didn't say socialist, I said communist. You and I are both aware that you know the difference.
I've better things to do than argue with someone relying on such basic bullshit as shifting the goalposts so obviously.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Fluke • • •Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, there has never been a society that has reached that mode of production. There are socialist countries led by communist parties, which is why I answered like I did. Either you're talking about fictional communist societies, or you're referring to socialist countries run by communist parties, so I picked the better-faith option and answered your question with corrected terms.
I'd rather not just dismiss your point outright and take an easy victory by pointing out that you got terminology mixed up, but instead answer your point as you meant it. If that's what you consider "moving the goalpost," then I don't think you were ever interested in discussion to begin with.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Commiunism • • •Commiunism
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Oh hi Cowbee
Yes, there were many issues with USSR, but inevitable opportunism that is bred by capitalist mode of production and the way of life it produces is, in my opinion, one of the biggest dangers for DOTP's, and it does encapsulate a lot of other issues USSR had such as its underdevelopment or failure at achieving (meaningful) internationalism. It obviously doesn't encapsulate everything, but I wrote the comment at work and I'm not really used to writing unreadable blocks of text from a phone.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Commiunism • • •Howdy.
The USSR did not have a capitalist mode of production, though. Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets. The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
The USSR was also extremely internationalist. It was itself a multi-national union, and sponsored revolutions the world over, dedicated itself to building up relations with other socialist countries like China and Cuba, etc, and aided even nationalist revolutions against imperialism, such as in Algeria.
The problems with the USSR were myriad, but its dissolution was not an inevitability as you claim. Gorbachev's reforms ultimately led to political and economic instability, and the USSR was forced into dedicating a large portion of their productive forces to keeping up with the US Empire millitarily in order to stave off invasion. The USSR, despite its flaws, was a tremendous first step for socialism globally, and managed to rapidly achieve huge gains in quality of life, scientific achi
... show moreHowdy.
The USSR did not have a capitalist mode of production, though. Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets. The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
The USSR was also extremely internationalist. It was itself a multi-national union, and sponsored revolutions the world over, dedicated itself to building up relations with other socialist countries like China and Cuba, etc, and aided even nationalist revolutions against imperialism, such as in Algeria.
The problems with the USSR were myriad, but its dissolution was not an inevitability as you claim. Gorbachev's reforms ultimately led to political and economic instability, and the USSR was forced into dedicating a large portion of their productive forces to keeping up with the US Empire millitarily in order to stave off invasion. The USSR, despite its flaws, was a tremendous first step for socialism globally, and managed to rapidly achieve huge gains in quality of life, scientific achievement, and industrialization in a planned manner in a socialist economy.
Commiunism
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Public ownership doesn't make a mode of production, it's a falsifier belief (such as of Lassalle) Marx himself had to fight against that he called bourgeois socialism.
This does make their mode of production not purely capitalistic though I agree, even though the system wasn't capital-free. Still, a lot of the social relations remained, enough for opportunism to still be heavily encouraged by the system especially when it came to the party and bureaucratic management of the capital.
That being said, it was still not socialist economy - a socialist economy comes after productive forces are sufficiently developed and commodity production has been completely abolished. Until then it hasn't changed the mode of production yet from capitalist, with it being mixed at best and it instead is a period of DOTP wh
... show morePublic ownership doesn't make a mode of production, it's a falsifier belief (such as of Lassalle) Marx himself had to fight against that he called bourgeois socialism.
This does make their mode of production not purely capitalistic though I agree, even though the system wasn't capital-free. Still, a lot of the social relations remained, enough for opportunism to still be heavily encouraged by the system especially when it came to the party and bureaucratic management of the capital.
That being said, it was still not socialist economy - a socialist economy comes after productive forces are sufficiently developed and commodity production has been completely abolished. Until then it hasn't changed the mode of production yet from capitalist, with it being mixed at best and it instead is a period of DOTP where productive forces are developed or reorganized, which, don't get me wrong, is a massive step forward and a massive achievement, but one that can be reversed unlike historical transformation of mode of production.
Stalin redefined socialism, which was previously viewed as the abolishment of capitalism into something entirely different and pretty much one of the main major goals into "whatever USSR was at the time", which was quite a disgusting move in terms of opportunism, though may have had good intentions back when it was done. Now, it just serves to confuse people and as an excuse to call capitalism a different name.
Though, this is something we'll NEVER see eye to eye with lmao
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Commiunism • • •Yes, public ownership within a capitalist economy, under a bourgeois state, isn't socialism, I agree. That's not what I said, though. Just like markets in a socialist economy are not capitalism, public ownership in capitalist economies aren't socialism. What ultimately matters is what is principle, not what exists period, otherwise all modes of production are the same as they all contain at minimum trace elements of others.
We've discussed this before, and I agree in that we will likely never agree, but I'll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on "one-drop" analysis. Capitalist economies are not defined by the absence of collectivized ownership, but by private ownership and the circulation of capital being principle. Socialism, as the transition between capitalism and communism, is no different in that it too is not defined by purity, but by principle aspects.
This doesn't come from Stalin, but is from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public owner
... show moreYes, public ownership within a capitalist economy, under a bourgeois state, isn't socialism, I agree. That's not what I said, though. Just like markets in a socialist economy are not capitalism, public ownership in capitalist economies aren't socialism. What ultimately matters is what is principle, not what exists period, otherwise all modes of production are the same as they all contain at minimum trace elements of others.
We've discussed this before, and I agree in that we will likely never agree, but I'll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on "one-drop" analysis. Capitalist economies are not defined by the absence of collectivized ownership, but by private ownership and the circulation of capital being principle. Socialism, as the transition between capitalism and communism, is no different in that it too is not defined by purity, but by principle aspects.
This doesn't come from Stalin, but is from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public ownership is the most effective, I agree, but I disagree that that means that an underdeveloped country cannot retain ownership of the large firms and key industries, gradually appropriating capital with respect to its development. It's like using fire for heating, keeping it in check by controlling the environment and all inputs, fuel, etc, and gradually replacing it with electrified heating as time goes on and you get the tech for it.
I fundamentally cannot agree with treating socialism itself as some unique mode of production distinct from all previous in defining it by purity and not by the principle aspect.
NotACIAPlant
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •
... show moreAll of the "socialist countries" that you defend, do not just have "one-drop" of capitalism. They inevitably reproduce and enfranchise the capitalist social relationship in all aspects of their production, and their populations are dependent on the market to survive. Whether that is done by state planners or private capitalists, the exploitation of the proletariat class continues, in fact following the laws of capitalism, like the continuous immiseration of the proletariat and the inevitable necessity of imperialism under Capitalism.
All of the "socialist countries" that you defend, do not just have "one-drop" of capitalism. They inevitably reproduce and enfranchise the capitalist social relationship in all aspects of their production, and their populations are dependent on the market to survive. Whether that is done by state planners or private capitalists, the exploitation of the proletariat class continues, in fact following the laws of capitalism, like the continuous immiseration of the proletariat and the inevitable necessity of imperialism under Capitalism.
Why do your "socialist countries" not appropriate capital then? Why do they inevitably concede to private ownership, or even under the "state run monopolies" continue the capitalist social relation?
Even if we concede that, Capitalist social relationships and Socialist social relationships will coexist under a Dictatorship of The Proletariat, your "socialist countries" do not even attempt this, bar the revision of defining "state ownership" as a socialist social relationship. Yet, a number of countries you would consider "capitalist" practice(d) state ownership.
Which reveals your ideology for what it truly is, Capitalism with red paint, essentially, social democracy. If socialism is not a mode of production, what is it? An ideology. Agitated for in bourgeoisie parliaments as ethical capitalism with red flag characteristics. What would be the end of a "Socialist State" to you? When they change the flag color? If the "Communist Party" changes its name to the "Capitalist Party"? You have no material conception of what Socialism and Capitalism is, which is why it collapses into idealism to the extent you even refuse to accept that Socialism is an independent mode of production in of itself.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to NotACIAPlant • • •No, this is a ridiculous misreading of my comment, and of Marxism in general. When I say "one drop," I mean of private property, not of capitalism itself. Capitalism is an overarching system, it isn't something you define as a quantum element. I already stated that capitalist systems have public ownership, and that that doesn't mean capitalist systems have socialist elements either.
Socialist countries are appropriating capital, yes. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies as well. You proceed from a false assumption and base your argument on that, but the premise itself is false. Socialism is a mode of production where public, collectivized ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Simple as that. It isn't the public sector of a capitalist state, nor is it exclusively a system that is fully collectivized.
Your entire comment is mired in the idealism you accuse me of. I have never once suggested that socialism isn't a mode of production, yet you are here affirming it as something unique, holy even, perfect
... show moreNo, this is a ridiculous misreading of my comment, and of Marxism in general. When I say "one drop," I mean of private property, not of capitalism itself. Capitalism is an overarching system, it isn't something you define as a quantum element. I already stated that capitalist systems have public ownership, and that that doesn't mean capitalist systems have socialist elements either.
Socialist countries are appropriating capital, yes. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies as well. You proceed from a false assumption and base your argument on that, but the premise itself is false. Socialism is a mode of production where public, collectivized ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Simple as that. It isn't the public sector of a capitalist state, nor is it exclusively a system that is fully collectivized.
Your entire comment is mired in the idealism you accuse me of. I have never once suggested that socialism isn't a mode of production, yet you are here affirming it as something unique, holy even, perfect, ideal, devoid of contradictions. This is the very utopian idealism Marx railed against when correcting Hegel's idealist dialectics. All modes of production contain contradictions, all modes of production contain elements of other modes of production. If you erase dialectics and only look at systems by their purity, you'd find that all modes of production fail to be correctly analyzed, because none are pure.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to SupraMario • • •SupraMario
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to SupraMario • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to MotoAsh • • •MotoAsh
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to MotoAsh • • •MotoAsh
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Ehh... I wouldn't say socialism affirms communism. At least far less than it condemns capitalism.
Nobody currently alive is going to accept private property entering a gray area where if you produce with it, suddenly it's not your property any more.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to MotoAsh • • •MotoAsh
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to MotoAsh • • •Lime Buzz (fae/she)
in reply to MotoAsh • • •Speak for yourself, there are plenty of people alive that would be fine with there being no more private property. Personal property isn't the same thing, and it's fine producing something with it, there would be tools available to all to rent out or use, what's so wrong with that? In fact tool libraries already exist, as do worker owned co-ops.
MotoAsh
in reply to Lime Buzz (fae/she) • • •Lime Buzz (fae/she)
in reply to MotoAsh • • •MotoAsh
in reply to Lime Buzz (fae/she) • • •Lime Buzz (fae/she)
in reply to MotoAsh • • •Only those strongly invested in capital. But in the end that won't matter, because they will be overthrown.
Edit: Most people will not care because it will not effect their lives in any meaningful way, they'll still be able to make and get things, they just won't be able to lord it over others.
_cryptagion [he/him]
in reply to merdaverse • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness and Red Whacker like this.
SpaceCowboy
in reply to merdaverse • • •Projection is when a socialist says it's bad to give a failed economic system another try.
The height of human prosperity was under Keynesian economic policy. If we're giving stuff another spin, why not something that actually worked? Maybe next time just not get suckered by grifters pushing trickle down supply side reaganomics voodoo economic policy. That shit is almost as bad a failure as communism. Almost.
loonsun
in reply to SpaceCowboy • • •The height of human prosperity*
*If you are a white Christian man of European decent
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Chakravanti
in reply to loonsun • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
gndagreborn
in reply to SpaceCowboy • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
explodicle
in reply to SpaceCowboy • • •lol no
WTF Happened In 1971?
WTF Happened In 1971?like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Kairos
in reply to merdaverse • • •mistermodal
in reply to Kairos • • •Schmoo
in reply to Kairos • • •brax
in reply to Schmoo • • •Avid Amoeba
in reply to Schmoo • • •merdaverse
in reply to Kairos • • •Avid Amoeba
in reply to merdaverse • • •Overshoot2648
in reply to Avid Amoeba • • •Garbagio
in reply to Overshoot2648 • • •Avid Amoeba
in reply to Overshoot2648 • • •Kairos
in reply to merdaverse • • •Sure. That can happen when all corporations have a legal duty to all ~~shareholders~~ stakeholders and they all have an equal right and access to influencing/suing them.
It really just sounds like hand wavey bullshit.
frostedtrailblazer
in reply to merdaverse • • •I wouldn’t say it’s a fantasy, it’s just a currently different cultural perspective that is being taught to the next generation of business leaders.
Some people are bought into the idea, but unless the actual laws change it’s not so easy to legally be able to prioritize the needs of all stakeholders equally.
I personally don’t see stakeholder theory as the “fix”, but it’s a good start to get more ethical capitalism that’s not actively hurting the planet, workers, and communities.
zbyte64
in reply to frostedtrailblazer • • •frostedtrailblazer
in reply to zbyte64 • • •They got what they wanted, but will they like it and will it stick? On a technical note things can improve and the three branches could flip back within 15 years at the most. For that to actually happen though people need to start feeling progressive wins now.
For that reason, the focus should be on trying to implement all the progressive programs we’ve been wanting federally, to be at the state level instead. States will likely need to be willing to go into debt to fund these programs, but if they do then the people living in those states will be much better off than they are now. Many people living in purple and red states will be much more likely to want those progressive programs when they actually are seeing how successful they are in Blue states as well.
mathemachristian [he/him]
in reply to Kairos • • •Galactose
in reply to merdaverse • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Bloomcole
in reply to merdaverse • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
boogiebored
in reply to merdaverse • • •