this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
58 points (88.2% liked)
Ask Lemmy
380 readers
1 users here now
Ask Lemmy community on sh.itjust.works. Ask us anything you feel like asking, just make sure it's respectful of others and follows the instance rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because as of yet the means of production aren't public property. So the people who own them get to decide the structure of production and they decided we don't get a say in how they are used.
A mixture of both, with the public holding primary power. There's benefit to people having a better perspective on that which surrounds them immediately, but as industry gets more complex and advances ever more, that "immediate" shrinks more and more as a proportion of the overall production process.
Those are so similar to each other in comparison with capitalism that at this stage, we mostly use the same words to describe both.
All states oppress people, thats the point of a state. The goal of a socialist state is to oppress the bourgeois. While the workers of USSR and China did and do not have full control over means of production they had significantky more than we do
This isn't correct, @sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml had it closer to reality. Ultimately, the Soviet system was a dramatic expansion on democratic control, with the Soviets forming the basis of government structure. They functioned like the following infographic, and you can read more about the Soviet Democratic Structure in Soviet Democracy and about the economic structure in Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union.
As for China, I don't see your point. The PRC is in the early stages of Socialism, Marxist Socialism is a theory of societal progression, not a race for purity. Marx and Engels did not believe it would be possible to abolish Private Property outright, and certainly not completely in the context of a global economy until Socialism became the status quo.
You have read nothing on chinese socialism and it shows. No investigation, no right to speak. Dengism was a pragmatic solution that prevented the collapse of Chinese socialism after the USSR was dissolved. They are using capitalist forces to grow their productive capacity while maintaining a proletarian state. Unlike the US, China is actually willing to punish and reign in its bourgeois and this can be seen by how much western media flips its shit when they do. There is genuinely so much to unpack about your comment that I could not possible tackle every claim made without writing a dissertation. I encourage you to read about socialism with chinese characteristics from communists who have put in the time to understand it and I encourage you to question why such severe state power may have been necessary especially in the early years of the USSR. You will not get a pure communist society while capitalist control the world.
The idea that Socialism means only and exclusively full ownership in public hands is wrong, and anti-Marxist. To take such a stance means either Capitalism and Feudalism have never existed either, the sort of "one-drop" rule, or that Socialism itself is a unique Mode of Production that needs to be judged based on "purity" while the rest do not, a conception that has roots in idealism rather than Materialism.
Modes of Production should be defined in a manner that is consistent. If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative, or it means an economy is only Socialist if all property has been collectivized.
For the former, this definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.
For the latter, this "one drop" rule, if equally applied, means Feudalism and Capitalism have never existed either. There is no reason Socialism should be judged any differently from Capitalism or Feudalism.
What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.
As for the purpose of Socialism, it is improving the lives of the working class in material and measurable ways. Public ownership is a tool, one especially effective at higher degrees of development. Markets and private ownership are a tool, one that can be utilized more effectively at lower stages in development. Like fire, private ownership presents real danger in giving Capitalists more power, but also like fire this does not mean we cannot harness it and should avoid it entirely, provided the proper precautions are taken.
Moreover, markets are destined to centralize. Markets erase their own foundations. The reason public ownership is a goal for Marxists is because of this centralizing factor, as industry gets more complex public ownership increasingly becomes more efficient and effective. Just because you can publicly own something doesn't mean the act of ownership improves metrics like life expectancy and literacy, public ownership isn't some holy experience that gives workers magic powers. Public ownership and Private ownership are tools that play a role in society, and we believe Public Ownership is undeniably the way to go at higher phases in development because it becomes necessary, not because it has mystical properties.
Ultimately, it boils down to mindsets of dogmatism or pragmatism. Concepts like "true Socialism" treat Marx as a religious prophet, while going against Marx's analysis! This is why studying Historical and Dialectical Materialism is important, as it explains the why of Marxism and Socialism in a manner that can be used for real development of the Working Class and real liberation. When taken consistently, AES states do in fact fit into the categorization of "Socialist," even your original definition would categorize them as such.
Thanks comrade, I have not slept and didn't have the wherewithal to explain all this.
Haha, no worries comrade! Get some sleep. I wrote this comment a while ago and keep it on-hand whenever someone who clearly hasn't read Marx tries to act like they know Marxism better than those who have.
What? The PRC has had dramatic improvements in worker rights in the last decade or two. The peak of abuse was in the 90s. Where are you getting this idea? Your statement that China has abandoned it's goals is nonsense, just look at their successfully completed poverty eradication campaign.
Genuinely, what is your evidence to the contrary? They outright state their plans and usually do a good job of meeting them, and they still have a Socialist economy, albeit a Socialist Market Economy and not one that looks like the USSR's, for example. They are still Marxist.
Well, in theory is pretty different from in practice
Nah. State ownership is only public ownership in a robust democracy. Oligarchical states aren't public.
Many nations have been successful in creating communism. White people just tend to forget about tribal societies when they're discussing politics.
Tribal societies weren't "communism" in the Marxist sense, which is why when writing about them he classified their organization as a distinct Mode of Production. For Marx, Communism itself is a fully centralized economy that becomes necessary and inevitable as industry gets larger and more complex, and is triggered by class conflict. Tribal societies didn't have mass industry, and Marx never wanted to organize in such a fashion either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
You'd better go edit the Wikipedia article so people stop thinking communism is stateless.
Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
The "Administration of Things" refers to a fully centralized, publicly owned economy, but without "special bodies of armed men" to enforce class distinctions. Marx's predictions for Communism came from analyzing the trajectory of Capitalism and predicting forward, not engineering an ideal society and working backwards.
Well that's not how politics should work. That's fine for history and making logical predictions. But saying "I believe in pushing for whatever is already likely to happen" is... dumb. Marx is dumb. You should imagine a better future and push for that. Supporting what you already think will win is like buying all the merch for the sports team the experts say is likely to win the sportsbowl.
That's not entirely accurate to what Marx was doing. Marx was studying history and how changes in Modes of Production happen, and advocating for the Working Class to harness that knowledge to create a better future. Kinda like how electricity was some unknown phenomenon until humans studied it and could make it work in our favor, so too can the laws of societal development be studied and harnessed.
I'm not trying to convince you to not be an Anarchist, I'm just trying to make sure you represent Marx accurately. I used to be an Anarchist as well and used to hold similar misconceptions, seeing those misconceptions spread around delayed me actually taking Theory seriously.
Why didn't you just read The Conquest of Bread, Kayanerenko;wa, or Bullshit Jobs? Anarchists can read theory. In fact, anarchists have better theory. Seems like your unwillingness to read is a you problem.
I've read a good bit of The Conquest of Bread, haven't read the others, I may give them a look. I don't think you can make the claim that Anarchists have better theory when you were arguing against the idea that Marx wanted centralization and democratization over decentralization, you haven't seriously engaged with Marx to begin with, though. I think that's only something someone who has meaningfully engaged with both sides can claim.
I personally was an Anarcho-Syndicalist until the Marxist theory and history I read about made more sense to me. I have sympathies for Anarchists, as I was one myself, but personally I agree with Marx more because history has proven his ideas useful and correct.
But it hasn't. People trying to implement Marx keep getting their movements hijacked by capitalists like Stalin and Xi. Marxists can't defend their societies against capitalists.
Anarchists derive our ideas from 60,000 years of history. We have successful movements to draw our ideas from. We follow the example of actually existing communism.
Neither Stalin nor Xi were/are Capitalists, though. There are Anarchist critiques of AES that can be made, but when you start calling Socialists "Capitalist" because you don't agree with the form of Socialism in the USSR or PRC, or believe individuals within the USSR or PRC's leadership to be bad people, you aren't providing accurate analysis. Critique requires accurate analysis, otherwise it just becomes whining. Even the modern CPC considers Stalin to have been "70% good," as well as Mao, Marxism doesn't require blind dogmatic upholding nor demonization of Socialist leaders.
Anarchism doesn't have 60,000 years of history. Systems like the ones Anarchists want have existed for that long, but the desire to intentionally formulate society around such a concept through design and not circumstance is far younger. That doesn't invalidate Anarchism, but recognizing that the intention to orient around Anarchist ideas is a reaction to the increasing excesses of Class Society is an important part of Anarchist theory to begin with.
Moreover, my goal isn't to argue against Anarchism, I'd rather spend my time arguing against fascists and liberals, I just believe you were doing the work of the fascists and liberals by parroting their points about Marxism.
I don't have any critiques against AES. You're the one who wants to argue that ACKSHUALLY, all the socialist societies I mentioned aren't real communism. What's your problem with AES?
My point is that tribal societies had a different Mode of Production from what Socialists advocate for. People generally don't wish to return to tribal societal relations and production, but make current mass manufacturing and technological advancements more democratized and equitable, through public ownership and planning. This isn't a "not real Communism" thing, just an identification that while communal, they aren't what Socialists want to achieve in the modern day.
Do you like Iain M Banks? I love his fiction. Earlier we were talking about how Marx failed to imagine a better society and work back from it. So let's talk about imagination. Banks has a great one. His science fiction series The Culture is about an anarchist society in space, with a technology level far beyond even Star Trek.
I chose my name based on Dune. I think the Fremen are really interesting. In Dune, the Harkonens make the mistake of thinking tribal societies are simple. And then Muad'dib kicks their asses. Dune is about space anarchists struggling. But I actually like The Culture better, because it's about space anarchists succeeding.
You don't seem to want an anarchist society. You can't imagine one with advanced technology and manufacturing. Since your failure is imagination, I think you need fiction. Read Iain Banks. The Player Of Games is a good entry point to the series.
I am plenty good at imagination. I wouldn't say Marx failed to imagine a better world, Communism itself as Marx describes is definitely a better, more just world. The difference with Marx is that Marx focused on analyzing material reality and how we might take advantage of its existing mechanisms and trends to get to a better future for all, rather than try to build a "Utopia" in reality like other Socialists like Robert Owen had tried and failed to achieve.
If you like Anarchist Sci-Fi, Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossesed is a classic. A fun, extremely queer (as in gay) webnovel written by a Marxist would be Unjust Depths, about a group of Communists that managed to break away from an undersea empire and establish a small Socialist state that provides for its people, despite lacking the immense wealth of the Empire, and tries to take advantage of political unrest in the Empire to aid in revolution. It isn't a masterpiece but it's certainly very fun.
Then why can't you imagine a society that practices indigenous anarchism with advanced technology? It just kinda seems like you don't think tribespeople can be smart.
I can certainly imagine it, but that doesn't mean it will happen. It just kinda seems like you're a troll trying to paint me as racist for suggesting you look to the indigenous Americans in the Chiapas region practicing Zapatismo, a form of Anarchism.
You're right, of course. States are incompatible with communism. Marx said as much. Anarchism is the only way to a worker owned society.
Now, that. That is some bullshit. Tribespeople aren't savages. They think about politics and economics. You'd do well to read Kayanerenko;wa.
True but irrelevant