629
We'll get capitalism right! Just one more spin (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 1 year ago (13 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    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, unlike the other modes of production. That's what I meant by it not being unique among modes of production, not that it isn't a mode of production. This concept of socialism being pure when no other mode of production is 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    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!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent