I want to point out that Marxists don’t believe Marxism is “inherently correct” or “unable to be challenged.” Marxists tend to be confident in the usefulness of Marxism as a tool for analysis because it has proven its handiness. If parts of Marxism were to be proven incorrect, those would be dropped and the new theory adapted. That’s the strength of the Dialectical Materialist method of learning, which is similar to the scientific method but built-in to Marxism as a concept. Either way, on to your main comment.
For point 1, you talk about why the concept of ownership of, say, a factory is foreign. Your point misunderstands theirs. The belief in a societal concept of “ownership” is separate from the actual, real world mechanisms at play. What is “morally correct” doesn’t guide society, starving people don’t refuse to steal bread because of morals. The reasoning behind ownership is punishment by the state for not respecting it.
For your second, it’s pretty clear that these contracts heavily benefit the owners of the contracts at the expense of those who don’t. You are correct in saying that without the State, the workers would simply take the factories, but this wasn’t because “society” decided it, but the owners of Capital in the first place.
Your point on Marxism is a strawman. Marxists believe administration, laws, and government are necessary, but that over time as the economy is publicly owned and planned there will cease to be real class distinctions, and thus the “State,” the elements of government that exist purely for class oppression, would wither. Laws would still exist along with public service workers, but would play different roles to how society is run today with heavily millitarized police forces and massive armies between hard borders.
Your next point, the third outlined, is nihilism (and chauvanism towards the end). When presented with the case that holders of Capital have far more power than those without, you sidestep that equation and say any labor is slavery. Instead of grappling with the presented idea of equal ownership and thus more even power dynamics, you choose to not engage at all or even consider it. This is nihilism.
The second part of your third point, the ability to choose where you work, is already a part of Marxist thinking and is in place in Vietnam and the PRC, which you allude isn’t possible. Moreover, you make an appeal to democracy while avoiding tackling the imbalance of power between factory owners and workers, a society with equal ownership is inherently more democratic as the voices of the people are more equalized.
Your final point, the “reliance on violence” rather than “hearts and minds” applies more to liberalism than Marxism. In an inherently violent, imbalanced system like Capitalism, the violence is systemic and daily. The appeal to “hearts and minds” is to quell opposition to this daily violence. No Marxist wants violence, but Marxists accept that revolution is necessary to move beyond this industrialized system of violence.
The reality of Liberalism is violence and Imperialism, from murdering 1 million Iraqis for the pursuit of profits to dropping napalm and Agent Orange on the Vietnamese for daring to go against the US-dominated world marketplace to dropping more tons of bombs on Korea than the entire pacific front of World War 2, Liberalism dons the mask of “winning hearts and minds” for its public while slaughtering without care innocents to the tune of millions.
You don’t have to reply, but you can feel free to. I have my own criticisms of the comic, the Aliens certainly would have gone through similar economic systems before reaching their current, likely Communist Mode of Production and therefore would understand the Capitalist (unless they failed to write down their history, which is unlikely as well), but I don’t think your critique is good either.
…as a tool for analysis because it has proven its handiness
If you mean, China then most would agree that their success is a natural consequence of intense competition, and not necessarily of their economic system of choice. When you run a country like an army, then it’s very likely to get good results. Yes, the people their have recourse via law (against each other, not the state), and freedom to decide where to work, but that freedom is limited when there are no natural mechanisms to create sources to direct productivity. Many new grads are jobless or underemployed.
you talk about why the concept of ownership of, say, a factory is foreign. Your point misunderstands theirs. The belief in a societal concept of “ownership” is separate from the actual, real world mechanisms at play. What is “morally correct” doesn’t guide society, starving people don’t refuse to steal bread because of morals. The reasoning behind ownership is punishment by the state for not respecting it.
So you say Marxist don’t believe moral superiority and then come out with this lol? Why isn’t owning moral good? If you give resources to acquire something, then why shouldn’t it be yours? The reason why Marxists insist on state ownership of means of production is because they fear losing control and power. The people don’t and wont own anything, just as they don’t in China or Vietnam.
In an inherently violent, imbalanced system like Capitalism, the violence is systemic and daily.
The problems are due to centralization of power and control. That’s why regulations protect everyone, including the wealthy and powerful. That’s why monopolies are dangerous to freedom.
The reality of Liberalism is violence and Imperialism, from murdering 1 million Iraqis for the pursuit of profits to dropping napalm and Agent Orange on the Vietnamese for daring to go against the US-dominated world marketplace to dropping more tons of bombs on Korea than the entire pacific front of World War 2, Liberalism dons the mask of “winning hearts and minds” for its public while slaughtering without care innocents to the tune of millions
You cant seriously say that Marxist nations won’t do asshole things to each other. This is magical thinking again. The problem is greedy people will always preserve themselves and their power, that’s what Stalin did. That’s what Lenin did. That’s what Marx would have done, if he had gotten the chance.
I am not saying the world is perfect right now. I am saying I don’t want to fool myself into thinking that creating a different hell is better than trying to make the current place less hellish.
I mean a variety of AES states, which have weathered sanctions, provided dramatic increases in measurable quality of life metrics like life expectancy, employment rates, literacy rates, home ownership, and more. China is just one of those. I don’t know what you mean by “running a country like an army.” Moreover, it’s fairly well documented that the economic success of China lies in its focus on increasing the productive forces, and relying on central planning and limited competition for efficiency within SOEs, allowing the Private Sector to develop lighter and less critical industries.
As for the pivot to moralistic arguments, that really isn’t the point. “Moralism” isn’t what drives material reality, just our interpretation of it. The clear fact is that in order to profit, Capitalists must pay workers less than the value they create. This is unnecessary and inefficient, moreso as markets monopolize and competition wanes in favor of large cartels and syndicates.
Centralization of markets is a necessary consequence of development. The more industry advances, the further the barrier to entry into a given sector raises, and the lower the rate of profit falls. You can’t stop this process, you can’t remain in a static state of motion without moving. If centralization is a fact, then it is better to democratize and publicly own and plan, rather than leaving it to the wealthy few.
Your point on “Marxist nations doing asshole things to each other” is a non-sequitor. I never claimed that in the first place, moreover it’s important to analyze why countries behave in “asshole ways” to begin with. The US Empire murdered 1 million Iraqis for profit, and tried to brutally crush Korea and Vietnam for refusing to go along with US-dominated world markets. Same with Cuba. The difference with Socialism is that the profit motive is superceded by human control and planning, and the economy can be directed for the good of the people. This doesn’t prevent all conflict, but fundamentally shrinks the causes for conflict.
You aren’t trying to make the current system less hellish, really, you’re arguing non-sequitors and potentially deliberate misinterpretations of the claims of Marxists to argue against a better world.
You keep saying things are non sequitors because you are essentially this meme
While I don’t like Turning Point USA, I think that’s the crux of the issue in all these contentious points. Can a group of a well-meaning individuals tell the PRC how to do anything?
Capitalism “works” up to a point, in a sense. The issues with Capitalism don’t arise from “selfishness.” Rather, Capitalism necessarily monopolizes and centralizes over time, and competition lowers the rate of profit through automation and raises the barrier to entry. Earlier on, markets can be a useful tool for rapid development, especially when accompanied by a central government carefully pruning and directing them to avoid exploitation where possible, but as markets coalesce into syndicates and large monopolies the benefits of competition disappear gradually. At this point, it makes clear sense to publicly own and plan.
Further, Marxists don’t believe people will “work for the common good.” At almost all phases of Socialism and Communism, people will almost certainly be paid for their labor, be it through traditional currencies in the earlier stages of Socialism to Labour Vouchers, distributed centrally and destroyed upon first use, in the earlier stages of Communism. This is how all Socialist societies have functioned.
When you have to rely on strawmen and, again, non-sequitors in order to feign a point, all you do is feed Marxists with cheap rhetorical wins. I genuinely question your motives here, if you don’t present points in good-faith you only make Marxism look better. This is only compounded by loud declarations of “resistance” towards a mysterious “downvote brigade,” it’s like you enjoy going against the grain for the sake of it.
As for the PRC, yes. There are 8 political parties other than the CPC that work together to form the governing body of the PRC, and there are democratic practices at play from the local to the national level.
I feel the issues with capitalism don’t necessarily arise from the centralization per se (if that were the case, then centralizing the power in the State would be bad too), but from the consequences of that centralization when the decisions of that private entity are entirely “free”. That’s why freedom ends where someone else’s begins.
Please do correct me if I’m wrong (and I say this with complete honesty), but my interpretation is that communism is whenever there’s common (public/communal) ownership of the means of production, while capitalism is whenever there’s private ownership of the means of production.
Under this interpretation (which could be wrong, again, correct me), ALL forms of common ownership are forms of communism (regardless of how fair/unfair are their laws), and ALL forms of private ownership are forms of capitalism (regardless of how fair/unfair are their laws).
I believe that there’s a point where the factories could be so heavily regulated by laws and rules set up by the State that whether they are privately owned or not would be little more than a piece of paper that is used to determine who’s the one who will be executed/imprisoned if the resources are found to not have been distributed fairly.
Of course, no state in the world has reached that point of utopic social democratic capitalistic harmony… but also no state in the world has reached the utopic communist ideal either, right?
It’s more accurate to say that the systemic issues of Capitalism sharpen as it centralizes. Exploitation becomes more naked, competition dies out, barriers to entry become impossible hurdles, and the vast wealth of society is concentrated in the hands of the few. Centralization itself isn’t bad, rather, it’s the natural consequence of the advance of industry. Supply lines, raw material sourcing, trade routes, industrialization, all become closer linked and more sprawling to raise efficiency, and as a consequence markets cease to be competing powers but few large trusts. Socialism flips this on its head by democratizing and collectivizing, keeping the benefits of centralization and spreading them out.
As for Communism vs Capitalism, sort of. Capitalism is categorized by a Mode of Production where Private Ownership and Markets are primary, Socialism is categorized by Public Ownership and planning being primary, and Communism specifically is a Mode of Production where all property has been collectivized globally, and Class therefore erased, with the State alongside it, leaving a world republic. It isn’t a “one drop” rule or about which is more common, but which is primary. Fairness is indeed not the determining characteristic.
The thing about your hypothesis, the inflexion point on ownership, it does matter. If it’s privately owned, the profits go to the owner, if it’s publicly owned then the “profits” go to the whole of society, in the form of safety nets, industrialization, etc. This fundamentally cannot exist alongside Capitalism as dominant because under Capitalism, the Capitalists have control and power, and in Socialism the Working Class does. There would be no benefit for the Capitalists to allow ownership in name only, and the State in Capitalism cannot move in that direction as it is under the control of Capitalists.
If it’s privately owned, the profits go to the owner, if it’s publicly owned then the “profits” go to the whole of society, in the form of safety nets, industrialization, etc.
Is this really what “ownership” means? is it impossible to own something but not get all the profits from it? Even if a law enforces the redistribution of profits?
Also, is it possible that even when they are publicly owned, the “profits” benefit more a particular part of the society than other? how do you guarantee that the one who works the most gets the most? or do you simply don’t mind about that anymore?
It’s more accurate to say that the systemic issues of Capitalism sharpen as it centralizes
That’s essentially what I was saying. In general, centralizing power will always sharpen any unfairness within that power… that’s why the issue is not in the centralization, but in the unfairness. Focusing in the centralization does not address the point.
Most companies pay taxes, yes. The purpose of ownership is the profit, if you run an entity publicly like, say, USPS, profit no longer becomes the purpose. The inverse is true, administrators would likely get more money in Socialism, or labor vouchers in early Communism, than regular workers. Socialism isn’t about equal pay, nor is Communism. As for guaranteeing, that’s not really important. You can pay more for more skilled jobs, or pay the same for fewer hours for dangerous jobs. Look at how Socialist societies exist currently.
If you want to learn more, I have a Marxism-Leninism reading list linked on my profile. The first section is all you really need to get an understanding of terms and basics.
Capitalism “works” up to a point, in a sense. The issues with Capitalism don’t arise from “selfishness.” Rather, Capitalism necessarily monopolizes and centralizes over time, and competition lowers the rate of profit through automation and raises the barrier to entry.
Those issues are related to corruption, as mentioned. Corruption exists in all forms of economic systems. The problem with a system which relies on central planning is that corruption is harder to root out or beat via democratic means.
Further, Marxists don’t believe people will “work for the common good.” At almost all phases of Socialism and Communism, people will almost certainly be paid for their labor, be it through traditional currencies in the earlier stages of Socialism to Labour Vouchers, distributed centrally and destroyed upon first use, in the earlier stages of Communism. This is how all Socialist societies have functioned.
I am saying that Marxists believe that people don’t want to own properties or the means of production in favor of central planning. Why shouldn’t they? Because they’re so altruistic and want to favor those who will never be able to achieve such means?
The fact is that some people will have better resources to become capitalists, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to do away with capitalism. What makes sense then is to make it easier for those who cannot or do not want to become capitalists to have a life free from being abused or harmed.
There are a number of errors with your first paragraph, so I’ll split it up.
First, centralization is not caused by “corruption.” Throughout the M-C-M’ circuit, where money is used to produce and sell commodities for higher quantities of money, drives expansion. Competition accelerates this. Even without any corruption whatsoever, this process will continue, it’s a consequence of markets in general. Those that outcompete absorb or kill off those who undercompete until few large syndicates remain.
Second, claiming that because corruption exists in all Modes of Production doesn’t mean it exists to equal degrees and scales in all Modes of Production. This is, again, more of a point of nihilism, by refusing to analyze the causes and mechanisms of corruption and just applying it in blanket terms, your analysis is not very useful for addressing it.
Third, you never justify why a system based on public ownership and planning is harder to root out corruption, you just leave it as a hanging thesis. What democratic means are more effective when you have a handful of unaccountable individuals in charge of firms, instead of Socialist organization along democratic lines?
As for your second point, I legitimately have no idea what you’re trying to get at. Shifting to public ownership and planning would dramatically increase the level of influence the average individual has over the economy and how it runs, as opposed to Capitalism where that privledge is in the hands of the wealthy Capitalists. Most people would give up their ability to form a business if it meant greater quality of life, because the vast majority can’t start businesses, a rule that becomes increasingly true as barriers to entry increase due to monopolization and increased costs of industrial equipment as it further specializes.
Your last paragraph isn’t really a point against Marxism, or much of a point at all. Safety nets are band-aids given as concessions from the Capitalists, and erode when first available. Capitalist countries are controlled by the wealthy few, there isn’t a genuine democracy in place. For that to occur, ownership needs to be more equal, which requires Working Class supremacy.
I would like to offer a few counter-counterpoints.
Property rights are indeed enforced by the state under a threat of violence, but I would say that someone needs to own the factory: workers, the state, or the capitalists, so if the state(or a different institution) did not ensure stable ownership, people would just use violence to take what they can: the economy can not work under such chaotic conditions, as meaningful decisions needs stable expectations.
I would not say that capitalism benefits capitalists at the expense of the workers. Just because capitalists are profiting from the labour of workers, does not mean that this state of things is undesirable for workers, since the profits are then reinvested and so used to improve the economy. I would say this is a sensible arrangement: the economic power is wielded by the people that are relatively competent and driven and have incentives to do well. It has proven it’s efficiency.
For your first point, I already addressed that. Marxists seek full public ownership and planning, think USPS but the entire economy. That doesn’t mean we don’t believe that public service workers aren’t necessary. Further, you have to understand that in a fully publicly owned and planned economy, any private ownership would immediately fail to compete with the large public trusts, there isn’t an incentive to take by violence ownership of a factory in the first place.
As for your second, this is the more interesting paragraph from a Marxian perspective. I’ll address it in parts, as each deserves its own emphasis.
Capitalism is progressive in comparison to feudalism. With the influx of Capitalism has come a dramatic increase in development of the Productive Forces, themselves the driving factor of material conditions. This has come with numerous benefits and many drawbacks, but overall has been positive with respect to feudalism. At least, until Capitalism grew to Imperialism around the turn of the 20th century.
Profits in Capitalism are at the discretion of the owners. This does not mean profits are correctly distributed to improve the economy, but to improve profitability. Marketing, Advertisements, the concept of “enshittification” all drives from this. Further, these owners are not necessarily the competent, but the lucky. Profits are rewarded to those with the Capital to invest, not the skill to manage. Money is used to purchase commodities (through production) which is sold for higher quantities of money, and this cycle repeats. Competition lowers rates of profit through incentivizing automation, which lowers cost of production and increases barrier to entry. This results in monopoly and centralization, Capitalism chokes itself.
Ultimately, markets are useful up until a certain point, at which point Public Ownership and Planning makes far more economic sense. We are well-beyond that point in most developed Capitalist economies that haven’t yet de-industrialized in favor of full Imperialism. Competition kills itself and becomes unaccountable monopoly, at which point the means of public ownership and planning become far more efficient as planning infrastructure is well-developed and rather than extracting monopoly profits, the benefits of automation can keep costs low and redirected towards further improvement.
Thank you for the detailed response. I will try to address your points.
Overall, however, the first paragraph hardly matters. I agree with you that the latter half of my original comment is more substantial. I will look at the last two paragraphs of your comment.
Regarding the competency of capitalists, I did not claim that the most competent people in society own capital, this is clearly not true. However, the capitalist system provides strong incentives for correct decisionmaking, and also, to an extent, rewards innovative and generally smart investments and decisions with capital. Also, in practice people who own the capital are not necessarily the same as people who manage it, and those are certainly competent.
You also made a point I do not agree with: while I do not deny that capitalism has a tendency towards monopoly and centralisation, I do not agree with the idea that it negates itself dialectically. I believe that in the 20th century many of the flaws of the previously existing capitalist system were suppressed by a change in policy. It seems to me that it is not necessarily the case that capitalism will destroy itself, as it is concievable that markets will be used in a way that will avoid these pitfalls. I see the argument you are making(at the end of your comment), and it is compelling, but I still am not convinced that markets should be abandoned.
I do not believe that markets are just automatically lead everyone to good outcomes and are just good by themselves. This is very naive. I do understand that what is profitable in a market system is not necessarily good for society. Overall, however, the positive aspects of markets, in my opinion, outweigh the negatives and those negative aspects can be accounted for since markets can be utilised in different ways.
Finally, I would like to ask you about your response to accusations of marxist dogmatism. While it seems like Marxists are indeed ready to concede that Marxism as it exists currently is not perfect, and are ready to criticise and change their theory, since said theory exists as a part of a dialectical process that is believed to asymptotically approach truth(if I understand dialectical materialism correctly), it would not be incorrect to say that Marxism, not as it exists now but as a dialectical process is, according to Marxists, approaching truth, and that is why, I suppose, Marxists do not doubt that Marxism as a whole is true, but rather only expect it to change.
Also, historical materialism is, in my opinion, not proven at all, which is not necessarily a bad thing, it can still be useful as a conceptual instrument, yet it is seemingly accepted as scientific fact by many Marxists.
No problem, I’ll address the points you raise here.
I think it’s important to identify what “correct” decisions are, to begin with. In a profit-driven market-based system, the “correct” solution is the profitable one. What’s profitable is not necessarily what’s good for society, see the oil and gas industry destroying the planet, and the car industry lobbying against efficient public transit. Further, innovation is, where possible, publicly funded for Private profits, the myth of Capitalist “risk taking” is just that, a myth. The risks are public, the profits are private. Why not make both public?
Your next paragraph, I believe you are referring to Social Safety Nets as they appeared. I think you would be making an error in analysis if you didn’t see why they arose: increased revolutionary pressure, and the Soviet Union providing massively expanded safety nets like free education and healthcare. The decline in Safety Nets after the dissolution of the USSR isn’t a coincidence. Further, the Global North has evolved into Imperialism, it offloads its industry to the Global South to super-exploit for domestic super-profits. For more on that, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
The thing with markets is that they are a tool. They don’t make sense in tribal societies, nor will they make sense in future, highly developed societies, but they serve a purpose in certain levels of development. The points and duration of their usefulness depends on the industry. You can see this in practice in the PRC, actually, who hold in public heavy industry like Steel, Energy, banking, as well as critical industries, etc and use markets more to develop light industry.
As for Marxist dogmatism, it’s a known process. Those dogmatists are referred to as"Ultraleft" or perhaps “Left-Communists.” These are more common in areas without successful revolution or organization, mainly Western countries. If you want to learn more, I recommend Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism. Marxism is an analytical tool more than anything, and in all AES states that have seen successful revolution, theory has been adjusted and modified based on their conditions and times. If an aspect of theory becomes useless or wrong, correct Marxist analysis is to re-evaluate it and toss it or adjust it. This is the concept of “Criticism and Self-Criticism.”
As for Historical Materialism, it has largely been proven as a useful analysis of class dynamics and the motion of history. I am not sure what you disagree with, so there isn’t much to address here or defend beyond saying “I think it’s good.”
(Side note: I upvoted you here, you’re engaging in good-faith, didn’t want you to see the downvote and think that was me)
Hmm, I feel like I did say that what is profitable is not necessarily what is good, I am not sure why you felt the need to restate thas as if I disagree with that. Also, I believe that markets make resource allocation and general management of the economy more efficient and also drive growth. I never claimed that they drive technological progress. I would say I am not convinced they will become obsolete in the future as you describe it(I do not expect them to be eternal, however).
I should say, regarding your second paragraph, that it does not matter why these policies were inplemented since they might as well be implemented again for a similar or a different reason, and if there is a mode of existence of capitalism which you admit is not self destructive that disputes your point regardless of why it can come to be.
I would say that Marxism is a great conceptual tool, but I do think that it should not pretend to be scientific. It relies on unfalsifiable claims(like historical materialism) and as I said, the dialectical process of Marxism is never dismissed by changes in theory, only affirmed.
I would also say that the most dogmatic Marxism is not in the west but in Marxist countries. At least here in the former USSR it is absurd how dogmatic everyone was in academia and everywhere else really.
Personally, while I understand that it can be a useful conceptual tool, I do not like historical materialism. You can make causal claims in retrospect, saying that this or that had, by necessity, to come after something else. But I would say this is only true now, and it might not have been true then.
History is a capricious lady. I wonder what Marxists think about why the communist revolution started here, in the most backwards country in Europe, and not in the developed western Europe, with later stage capitalism and a more conscious proletariat.
I stressed the purpose of markets being profit to stress that while initially they are good for industrialization, eventually they become less efficient at doing so. We are in agreement that initially they are helpful at developing, that’s actually why Marx believed Capitalism to pave the way for Socialism.
For your second, it absolutely matters why social safety nets appeared. Moreover, it matters why they are disappearing. Capitalism’s death clock, so to speak, is that it erodes competition as it reaches monopoly and the Rate of Profit falls. Absolute profits are raised through combination of industry and linking of the supply chain, but this has a limit. That’s why it extends outward, towards Imperialism. Capitalism will always head towards centralization, and will always head towards decreased rates of profit and increases in barriers to competition.
Marxism is scientific in that it is a working framework for analysis. I don’t know what you mean by Historical Materialism being impossible to falsify.
As for dogmatism, it isn’t impossible to find in AES states, but as a ratio of the overall population of Marxists, dogmatism is higher in the West, where Marxism is uncommon and has seen no revolution. It follows that those that haven’t tested theory to practice may have an idealistic and dogmatic interpretation of it.
As for why Marxists believe the revolution happened in Tsarist Russia first, the answer is Imperialism, as outlined by Lenin in the previous comment. Marx was not alive to see the existence of Monopoly Capitalism, and while he predicted aspects of Imperialism, it was Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism as it materialized that expanded on Marx. Imperialized countries form the weakest link in the chain of Capitalism, while developed Imperialist countries go through a process of temporary (and it must be temporary as long as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to fall exists) creates a “labor aristocracy” thay is “bribed” by the fruits of this process that de-proletarianizes the populace. We will actually potentially see the US seeing a “re-proletarianization” due to an emphasis on restarting industry as a response to decaying Imperialism, as more nations turn away from the US Empire, and potentially a revolution (though not immediately).
Honestly, it all comes down to historical materialism. You see in everything historical necessity, it was never possible for safety nets to remain in place, capitalism has to negate itself, etc. You can just point to any event, see in that the unalterable course of history and use it as an argument, but why would I accept it?
Hegelian dialectics is a perfectly working framework for analysis(I like Hegel more than Marx), but it is not scientific, is it? It is philosophical.
The point about imperial Russia is interesting. I think you lost a part of the paragraph somewhere, but I think I got it. So if re-proletarisation is necessary for revolution why is imperialism the last stage of capitalism, do we not have a sort of backwards motion here?
I think that’s a misinterpretation of Historical Materialism. The course of development isn’t rigid, nor are stages divided by hard lines but blurred. Safety Nets could remain temporarily, but you can’t expand Imperialism beyond the limits of Earth and you can’t stop the mechanisms of competition from necessitating larger trusts, only slow that rate down. As industry advances, it is required to expand, and when said expansion suffocates competition by killing off its chance of opposition, there ceases to be any benefit to Capitalism.
As for Hegel vs Marx, I would say the Idealist nature of Hegelian Dialectics negates its practicality for analyzing the real world. It’s certainly an interesting framework, but Materialism will inherently be more grounded in scientific analysis and thus practicality.
Your last paragraph is the most interesting. For starters, we have not seen a revolution in an Imperialist country, only victims of Imperialism. The reason Marxists believe it to be the last is because it chokes itself, causing Imperialized countries to revolt or decouple and cripple the profits of the Imperialist countries, which takes away from the “bribes” for the labor aristocracy. The Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall exists regardless (and if you want me to go over that I can, I think you’ve been glossing over this one but it’s actually critical for analysis of Capitalism as self-defeating as rates of profit approach zero).
This process of “re-proletarianization” is a hypothesis, not a real observation yet. We will have to watch the US working class and how it organizes (or doesn’t) in the face of tariffs and an attempt at restarting industrialization. By Imperialism’s weakening, monopoly Capitalism remains in place but without the super-profits for bribery, which means you have an increasingly socialized Proletariat in the Imperial Core and decaying Material Conditions.
I want to point out that Marxists don’t believe Marxism is “inherently correct” or “unable to be challenged.” Marxists tend to be confident in the usefulness of Marxism as a tool for analysis because it has proven its handiness. If parts of Marxism were to be proven incorrect, those would be dropped and the new theory adapted. That’s the strength of the Dialectical Materialist method of learning, which is similar to the scientific method but built-in to Marxism as a concept. Either way, on to your main comment.
For point 1, you talk about why the concept of ownership of, say, a factory is foreign. Your point misunderstands theirs. The belief in a societal concept of “ownership” is separate from the actual, real world mechanisms at play. What is “morally correct” doesn’t guide society, starving people don’t refuse to steal bread because of morals. The reasoning behind ownership is punishment by the state for not respecting it.
For your second, it’s pretty clear that these contracts heavily benefit the owners of the contracts at the expense of those who don’t. You are correct in saying that without the State, the workers would simply take the factories, but this wasn’t because “society” decided it, but the owners of Capital in the first place.
Your point on Marxism is a strawman. Marxists believe administration, laws, and government are necessary, but that over time as the economy is publicly owned and planned there will cease to be real class distinctions, and thus the “State,” the elements of government that exist purely for class oppression, would wither. Laws would still exist along with public service workers, but would play different roles to how society is run today with heavily millitarized police forces and massive armies between hard borders.
Your next point, the third outlined, is nihilism (and chauvanism towards the end). When presented with the case that holders of Capital have far more power than those without, you sidestep that equation and say any labor is slavery. Instead of grappling with the presented idea of equal ownership and thus more even power dynamics, you choose to not engage at all or even consider it. This is nihilism.
The second part of your third point, the ability to choose where you work, is already a part of Marxist thinking and is in place in Vietnam and the PRC, which you allude isn’t possible. Moreover, you make an appeal to democracy while avoiding tackling the imbalance of power between factory owners and workers, a society with equal ownership is inherently more democratic as the voices of the people are more equalized.
Your final point, the “reliance on violence” rather than “hearts and minds” applies more to liberalism than Marxism. In an inherently violent, imbalanced system like Capitalism, the violence is systemic and daily. The appeal to “hearts and minds” is to quell opposition to this daily violence. No Marxist wants violence, but Marxists accept that revolution is necessary to move beyond this industrialized system of violence.
The reality of Liberalism is violence and Imperialism, from murdering 1 million Iraqis for the pursuit of profits to dropping napalm and Agent Orange on the Vietnamese for daring to go against the US-dominated world marketplace to dropping more tons of bombs on Korea than the entire pacific front of World War 2, Liberalism dons the mask of “winning hearts and minds” for its public while slaughtering without care innocents to the tune of millions.
You don’t have to reply, but you can feel free to. I have my own criticisms of the comic, the Aliens certainly would have gone through similar economic systems before reaching their current, likely Communist Mode of Production and therefore would understand the Capitalist (unless they failed to write down their history, which is unlikely as well), but I don’t think your critique is good either.
If you mean, China then most would agree that their success is a natural consequence of intense competition, and not necessarily of their economic system of choice. When you run a country like an army, then it’s very likely to get good results. Yes, the people their have recourse via law (against each other, not the state), and freedom to decide where to work, but that freedom is limited when there are no natural mechanisms to create sources to direct productivity. Many new grads are jobless or underemployed.
So you say Marxist don’t believe moral superiority and then come out with this lol? Why isn’t owning moral good? If you give resources to acquire something, then why shouldn’t it be yours? The reason why Marxists insist on state ownership of means of production is because they fear losing control and power. The people don’t and wont own anything, just as they don’t in China or Vietnam.
The problems are due to centralization of power and control. That’s why regulations protect everyone, including the wealthy and powerful. That’s why monopolies are dangerous to freedom.
You cant seriously say that Marxist nations won’t do asshole things to each other. This is magical thinking again. The problem is greedy people will always preserve themselves and their power, that’s what Stalin did. That’s what Lenin did. That’s what Marx would have done, if he had gotten the chance.
I am not saying the world is perfect right now. I am saying I don’t want to fool myself into thinking that creating a different hell is better than trying to make the current place less hellish.
I mean a variety of AES states, which have weathered sanctions, provided dramatic increases in measurable quality of life metrics like life expectancy, employment rates, literacy rates, home ownership, and more. China is just one of those. I don’t know what you mean by “running a country like an army.” Moreover, it’s fairly well documented that the economic success of China lies in its focus on increasing the productive forces, and relying on central planning and limited competition for efficiency within SOEs, allowing the Private Sector to develop lighter and less critical industries.
As for the pivot to moralistic arguments, that really isn’t the point. “Moralism” isn’t what drives material reality, just our interpretation of it. The clear fact is that in order to profit, Capitalists must pay workers less than the value they create. This is unnecessary and inefficient, moreso as markets monopolize and competition wanes in favor of large cartels and syndicates.
Centralization of markets is a necessary consequence of development. The more industry advances, the further the barrier to entry into a given sector raises, and the lower the rate of profit falls. You can’t stop this process, you can’t remain in a static state of motion without moving. If centralization is a fact, then it is better to democratize and publicly own and plan, rather than leaving it to the wealthy few.
Your point on “Marxist nations doing asshole things to each other” is a non-sequitor. I never claimed that in the first place, moreover it’s important to analyze why countries behave in “asshole ways” to begin with. The US Empire murdered 1 million Iraqis for profit, and tried to brutally crush Korea and Vietnam for refusing to go along with US-dominated world markets. Same with Cuba. The difference with Socialism is that the profit motive is superceded by human control and planning, and the economy can be directed for the good of the people. This doesn’t prevent all conflict, but fundamentally shrinks the causes for conflict.
You aren’t trying to make the current system less hellish, really, you’re arguing non-sequitors and potentially deliberate misinterpretations of the claims of Marxists to argue against a better world.
You keep saying things are non sequitors because you are essentially this meme
While I don’t like Turning Point USA, I think that’s the crux of the issue in all these contentious points. Can a group of a well-meaning individuals tell the PRC how to do anything?
Capitalism “works” up to a point, in a sense. The issues with Capitalism don’t arise from “selfishness.” Rather, Capitalism necessarily monopolizes and centralizes over time, and competition lowers the rate of profit through automation and raises the barrier to entry. Earlier on, markets can be a useful tool for rapid development, especially when accompanied by a central government carefully pruning and directing them to avoid exploitation where possible, but as markets coalesce into syndicates and large monopolies the benefits of competition disappear gradually. At this point, it makes clear sense to publicly own and plan.
Further, Marxists don’t believe people will “work for the common good.” At almost all phases of Socialism and Communism, people will almost certainly be paid for their labor, be it through traditional currencies in the earlier stages of Socialism to Labour Vouchers, distributed centrally and destroyed upon first use, in the earlier stages of Communism. This is how all Socialist societies have functioned.
When you have to rely on strawmen and, again, non-sequitors in order to feign a point, all you do is feed Marxists with cheap rhetorical wins. I genuinely question your motives here, if you don’t present points in good-faith you only make Marxism look better. This is only compounded by loud declarations of “resistance” towards a mysterious “downvote brigade,” it’s like you enjoy going against the grain for the sake of it.
As for the PRC, yes. There are 8 political parties other than the CPC that work together to form the governing body of the PRC, and there are democratic practices at play from the local to the national level.
I feel the issues with capitalism don’t necessarily arise from the centralization per se (if that were the case, then centralizing the power in the State would be bad too), but from the consequences of that centralization when the decisions of that private entity are entirely “free”. That’s why freedom ends where someone else’s begins.
Please do correct me if I’m wrong (and I say this with complete honesty), but my interpretation is that communism is whenever there’s common (public/communal) ownership of the means of production, while capitalism is whenever there’s private ownership of the means of production.
Under this interpretation (which could be wrong, again, correct me), ALL forms of common ownership are forms of communism (regardless of how fair/unfair are their laws), and ALL forms of private ownership are forms of capitalism (regardless of how fair/unfair are their laws).
I believe that there’s a point where the factories could be so heavily regulated by laws and rules set up by the State that whether they are privately owned or not would be little more than a piece of paper that is used to determine who’s the one who will be executed/imprisoned if the resources are found to not have been distributed fairly.
Of course, no state in the world has reached that point of utopic social democratic capitalistic harmony… but also no state in the world has reached the utopic communist ideal either, right?
It’s more accurate to say that the systemic issues of Capitalism sharpen as it centralizes. Exploitation becomes more naked, competition dies out, barriers to entry become impossible hurdles, and the vast wealth of society is concentrated in the hands of the few. Centralization itself isn’t bad, rather, it’s the natural consequence of the advance of industry. Supply lines, raw material sourcing, trade routes, industrialization, all become closer linked and more sprawling to raise efficiency, and as a consequence markets cease to be competing powers but few large trusts. Socialism flips this on its head by democratizing and collectivizing, keeping the benefits of centralization and spreading them out.
As for Communism vs Capitalism, sort of. Capitalism is categorized by a Mode of Production where Private Ownership and Markets are primary, Socialism is categorized by Public Ownership and planning being primary, and Communism specifically is a Mode of Production where all property has been collectivized globally, and Class therefore erased, with the State alongside it, leaving a world republic. It isn’t a “one drop” rule or about which is more common, but which is primary. Fairness is indeed not the determining characteristic.
The thing about your hypothesis, the inflexion point on ownership, it does matter. If it’s privately owned, the profits go to the owner, if it’s publicly owned then the “profits” go to the whole of society, in the form of safety nets, industrialization, etc. This fundamentally cannot exist alongside Capitalism as dominant because under Capitalism, the Capitalists have control and power, and in Socialism the Working Class does. There would be no benefit for the Capitalists to allow ownership in name only, and the State in Capitalism cannot move in that direction as it is under the control of Capitalists.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Is this really what “ownership” means? is it impossible to own something but not get all the profits from it? Even if a law enforces the redistribution of profits?
Also, is it possible that even when they are publicly owned, the “profits” benefit more a particular part of the society than other? how do you guarantee that the one who works the most gets the most? or do you simply don’t mind about that anymore?
That’s essentially what I was saying. In general, centralizing power will always sharpen any unfairness within that power… that’s why the issue is not in the centralization, but in the unfairness. Focusing in the centralization does not address the point.
Most companies pay taxes, yes. The purpose of ownership is the profit, if you run an entity publicly like, say, USPS, profit no longer becomes the purpose. The inverse is true, administrators would likely get more money in Socialism, or labor vouchers in early Communism, than regular workers. Socialism isn’t about equal pay, nor is Communism. As for guaranteeing, that’s not really important. You can pay more for more skilled jobs, or pay the same for fewer hours for dangerous jobs. Look at how Socialist societies exist currently.
If you want to learn more, I have a Marxism-Leninism reading list linked on my profile. The first section is all you really need to get an understanding of terms and basics.
Those issues are related to corruption, as mentioned. Corruption exists in all forms of economic systems. The problem with a system which relies on central planning is that corruption is harder to root out or beat via democratic means.
I am saying that Marxists believe that people don’t want to own properties or the means of production in favor of central planning. Why shouldn’t they? Because they’re so altruistic and want to favor those who will never be able to achieve such means?
The fact is that some people will have better resources to become capitalists, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to do away with capitalism. What makes sense then is to make it easier for those who cannot or do not want to become capitalists to have a life free from being abused or harmed.
There are a number of errors with your first paragraph, so I’ll split it up.
First, centralization is not caused by “corruption.” Throughout the M-C-M’ circuit, where money is used to produce and sell commodities for higher quantities of money, drives expansion. Competition accelerates this. Even without any corruption whatsoever, this process will continue, it’s a consequence of markets in general. Those that outcompete absorb or kill off those who undercompete until few large syndicates remain.
Second, claiming that because corruption exists in all Modes of Production doesn’t mean it exists to equal degrees and scales in all Modes of Production. This is, again, more of a point of nihilism, by refusing to analyze the causes and mechanisms of corruption and just applying it in blanket terms, your analysis is not very useful for addressing it.
Third, you never justify why a system based on public ownership and planning is harder to root out corruption, you just leave it as a hanging thesis. What democratic means are more effective when you have a handful of unaccountable individuals in charge of firms, instead of Socialist organization along democratic lines?
As for your second point, I legitimately have no idea what you’re trying to get at. Shifting to public ownership and planning would dramatically increase the level of influence the average individual has over the economy and how it runs, as opposed to Capitalism where that privledge is in the hands of the wealthy Capitalists. Most people would give up their ability to form a business if it meant greater quality of life, because the vast majority can’t start businesses, a rule that becomes increasingly true as barriers to entry increase due to monopolization and increased costs of industrial equipment as it further specializes.
Your last paragraph isn’t really a point against Marxism, or much of a point at all. Safety nets are band-aids given as concessions from the Capitalists, and erode when first available. Capitalist countries are controlled by the wealthy few, there isn’t a genuine democracy in place. For that to occur, ownership needs to be more equal, which requires Working Class supremacy.
I would like to offer a few counter-counterpoints.
Property rights are indeed enforced by the state under a threat of violence, but I would say that someone needs to own the factory: workers, the state, or the capitalists, so if the state(or a different institution) did not ensure stable ownership, people would just use violence to take what they can: the economy can not work under such chaotic conditions, as meaningful decisions needs stable expectations.
I would not say that capitalism benefits capitalists at the expense of the workers. Just because capitalists are profiting from the labour of workers, does not mean that this state of things is undesirable for workers, since the profits are then reinvested and so used to improve the economy. I would say this is a sensible arrangement: the economic power is wielded by the people that are relatively competent and driven and have incentives to do well. It has proven it’s efficiency.
For your first point, I already addressed that. Marxists seek full public ownership and planning, think USPS but the entire economy. That doesn’t mean we don’t believe that public service workers aren’t necessary. Further, you have to understand that in a fully publicly owned and planned economy, any private ownership would immediately fail to compete with the large public trusts, there isn’t an incentive to take by violence ownership of a factory in the first place.
As for your second, this is the more interesting paragraph from a Marxian perspective. I’ll address it in parts, as each deserves its own emphasis.
Capitalism is progressive in comparison to feudalism. With the influx of Capitalism has come a dramatic increase in development of the Productive Forces, themselves the driving factor of material conditions. This has come with numerous benefits and many drawbacks, but overall has been positive with respect to feudalism. At least, until Capitalism grew to Imperialism around the turn of the 20th century.
Profits in Capitalism are at the discretion of the owners. This does not mean profits are correctly distributed to improve the economy, but to improve profitability. Marketing, Advertisements, the concept of “enshittification” all drives from this. Further, these owners are not necessarily the competent, but the lucky. Profits are rewarded to those with the Capital to invest, not the skill to manage. Money is used to purchase commodities (through production) which is sold for higher quantities of money, and this cycle repeats. Competition lowers rates of profit through incentivizing automation, which lowers cost of production and increases barrier to entry. This results in monopoly and centralization, Capitalism chokes itself.
Ultimately, markets are useful up until a certain point, at which point Public Ownership and Planning makes far more economic sense. We are well-beyond that point in most developed Capitalist economies that haven’t yet de-industrialized in favor of full Imperialism. Competition kills itself and becomes unaccountable monopoly, at which point the means of public ownership and planning become far more efficient as planning infrastructure is well-developed and rather than extracting monopoly profits, the benefits of automation can keep costs low and redirected towards further improvement.
Thank you for the detailed response. I will try to address your points.
Overall, however, the first paragraph hardly matters. I agree with you that the latter half of my original comment is more substantial. I will look at the last two paragraphs of your comment.
Regarding the competency of capitalists, I did not claim that the most competent people in society own capital, this is clearly not true. However, the capitalist system provides strong incentives for correct decisionmaking, and also, to an extent, rewards innovative and generally smart investments and decisions with capital. Also, in practice people who own the capital are not necessarily the same as people who manage it, and those are certainly competent.
You also made a point I do not agree with: while I do not deny that capitalism has a tendency towards monopoly and centralisation, I do not agree with the idea that it negates itself dialectically. I believe that in the 20th century many of the flaws of the previously existing capitalist system were suppressed by a change in policy. It seems to me that it is not necessarily the case that capitalism will destroy itself, as it is concievable that markets will be used in a way that will avoid these pitfalls. I see the argument you are making(at the end of your comment), and it is compelling, but I still am not convinced that markets should be abandoned.
I do not believe that markets are just automatically lead everyone to good outcomes and are just good by themselves. This is very naive. I do understand that what is profitable in a market system is not necessarily good for society. Overall, however, the positive aspects of markets, in my opinion, outweigh the negatives and those negative aspects can be accounted for since markets can be utilised in different ways.
Finally, I would like to ask you about your response to accusations of marxist dogmatism. While it seems like Marxists are indeed ready to concede that Marxism as it exists currently is not perfect, and are ready to criticise and change their theory, since said theory exists as a part of a dialectical process that is believed to asymptotically approach truth(if I understand dialectical materialism correctly), it would not be incorrect to say that Marxism, not as it exists now but as a dialectical process is, according to Marxists, approaching truth, and that is why, I suppose, Marxists do not doubt that Marxism as a whole is true, but rather only expect it to change.
Also, historical materialism is, in my opinion, not proven at all, which is not necessarily a bad thing, it can still be useful as a conceptual instrument, yet it is seemingly accepted as scientific fact by many Marxists.
No problem, I’ll address the points you raise here.
I think it’s important to identify what “correct” decisions are, to begin with. In a profit-driven market-based system, the “correct” solution is the profitable one. What’s profitable is not necessarily what’s good for society, see the oil and gas industry destroying the planet, and the car industry lobbying against efficient public transit. Further, innovation is, where possible, publicly funded for Private profits, the myth of Capitalist “risk taking” is just that, a myth. The risks are public, the profits are private. Why not make both public?
Your next paragraph, I believe you are referring to Social Safety Nets as they appeared. I think you would be making an error in analysis if you didn’t see why they arose: increased revolutionary pressure, and the Soviet Union providing massively expanded safety nets like free education and healthcare. The decline in Safety Nets after the dissolution of the USSR isn’t a coincidence. Further, the Global North has evolved into Imperialism, it offloads its industry to the Global South to super-exploit for domestic super-profits. For more on that, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
The thing with markets is that they are a tool. They don’t make sense in tribal societies, nor will they make sense in future, highly developed societies, but they serve a purpose in certain levels of development. The points and duration of their usefulness depends on the industry. You can see this in practice in the PRC, actually, who hold in public heavy industry like Steel, Energy, banking, as well as critical industries, etc and use markets more to develop light industry.
As for Marxist dogmatism, it’s a known process. Those dogmatists are referred to as"Ultraleft" or perhaps “Left-Communists.” These are more common in areas without successful revolution or organization, mainly Western countries. If you want to learn more, I recommend Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism. Marxism is an analytical tool more than anything, and in all AES states that have seen successful revolution, theory has been adjusted and modified based on their conditions and times. If an aspect of theory becomes useless or wrong, correct Marxist analysis is to re-evaluate it and toss it or adjust it. This is the concept of “Criticism and Self-Criticism.”
As for Historical Materialism, it has largely been proven as a useful analysis of class dynamics and the motion of history. I am not sure what you disagree with, so there isn’t much to address here or defend beyond saying “I think it’s good.”
(Side note: I upvoted you here, you’re engaging in good-faith, didn’t want you to see the downvote and think that was me)
Hmm, I feel like I did say that what is profitable is not necessarily what is good, I am not sure why you felt the need to restate thas as if I disagree with that. Also, I believe that markets make resource allocation and general management of the economy more efficient and also drive growth. I never claimed that they drive technological progress. I would say I am not convinced they will become obsolete in the future as you describe it(I do not expect them to be eternal, however).
I should say, regarding your second paragraph, that it does not matter why these policies were inplemented since they might as well be implemented again for a similar or a different reason, and if there is a mode of existence of capitalism which you admit is not self destructive that disputes your point regardless of why it can come to be.
I would say that Marxism is a great conceptual tool, but I do think that it should not pretend to be scientific. It relies on unfalsifiable claims(like historical materialism) and as I said, the dialectical process of Marxism is never dismissed by changes in theory, only affirmed.
I would also say that the most dogmatic Marxism is not in the west but in Marxist countries. At least here in the former USSR it is absurd how dogmatic everyone was in academia and everywhere else really.
Personally, while I understand that it can be a useful conceptual tool, I do not like historical materialism. You can make causal claims in retrospect, saying that this or that had, by necessity, to come after something else. But I would say this is only true now, and it might not have been true then.
History is a capricious lady. I wonder what Marxists think about why the communist revolution started here, in the most backwards country in Europe, and not in the developed western Europe, with later stage capitalism and a more conscious proletariat.
I stressed the purpose of markets being profit to stress that while initially they are good for industrialization, eventually they become less efficient at doing so. We are in agreement that initially they are helpful at developing, that’s actually why Marx believed Capitalism to pave the way for Socialism.
For your second, it absolutely matters why social safety nets appeared. Moreover, it matters why they are disappearing. Capitalism’s death clock, so to speak, is that it erodes competition as it reaches monopoly and the Rate of Profit falls. Absolute profits are raised through combination of industry and linking of the supply chain, but this has a limit. That’s why it extends outward, towards Imperialism. Capitalism will always head towards centralization, and will always head towards decreased rates of profit and increases in barriers to competition.
Marxism is scientific in that it is a working framework for analysis. I don’t know what you mean by Historical Materialism being impossible to falsify.
As for dogmatism, it isn’t impossible to find in AES states, but as a ratio of the overall population of Marxists, dogmatism is higher in the West, where Marxism is uncommon and has seen no revolution. It follows that those that haven’t tested theory to practice may have an idealistic and dogmatic interpretation of it.
As for why Marxists believe the revolution happened in Tsarist Russia first, the answer is Imperialism, as outlined by Lenin in the previous comment. Marx was not alive to see the existence of Monopoly Capitalism, and while he predicted aspects of Imperialism, it was Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism as it materialized that expanded on Marx. Imperialized countries form the weakest link in the chain of Capitalism, while developed Imperialist countries go through a process of temporary (and it must be temporary as long as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to fall exists) creates a “labor aristocracy” thay is “bribed” by the fruits of this process that de-proletarianizes the populace. We will actually potentially see the US seeing a “re-proletarianization” due to an emphasis on restarting industry as a response to decaying Imperialism, as more nations turn away from the US Empire, and potentially a revolution (though not immediately).
Honestly, it all comes down to historical materialism. You see in everything historical necessity, it was never possible for safety nets to remain in place, capitalism has to negate itself, etc. You can just point to any event, see in that the unalterable course of history and use it as an argument, but why would I accept it?
Hegelian dialectics is a perfectly working framework for analysis(I like Hegel more than Marx), but it is not scientific, is it? It is philosophical.
The point about imperial Russia is interesting. I think you lost a part of the paragraph somewhere, but I think I got it. So if re-proletarisation is necessary for revolution why is imperialism the last stage of capitalism, do we not have a sort of backwards motion here?
I think that’s a misinterpretation of Historical Materialism. The course of development isn’t rigid, nor are stages divided by hard lines but blurred. Safety Nets could remain temporarily, but you can’t expand Imperialism beyond the limits of Earth and you can’t stop the mechanisms of competition from necessitating larger trusts, only slow that rate down. As industry advances, it is required to expand, and when said expansion suffocates competition by killing off its chance of opposition, there ceases to be any benefit to Capitalism.
As for Hegel vs Marx, I would say the Idealist nature of Hegelian Dialectics negates its practicality for analyzing the real world. It’s certainly an interesting framework, but Materialism will inherently be more grounded in scientific analysis and thus practicality.
Your last paragraph is the most interesting. For starters, we have not seen a revolution in an Imperialist country, only victims of Imperialism. The reason Marxists believe it to be the last is because it chokes itself, causing Imperialized countries to revolt or decouple and cripple the profits of the Imperialist countries, which takes away from the “bribes” for the labor aristocracy. The Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall exists regardless (and if you want me to go over that I can, I think you’ve been glossing over this one but it’s actually critical for analysis of Capitalism as self-defeating as rates of profit approach zero).
This process of “re-proletarianization” is a hypothesis, not a real observation yet. We will have to watch the US working class and how it organizes (or doesn’t) in the face of tariffs and an attempt at restarting industrialization. By Imperialism’s weakening, monopoly Capitalism remains in place but without the super-profits for bribery, which means you have an increasingly socialized Proletariat in the Imperial Core and decaying Material Conditions.