…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.
Most companies pay taxes, yes. The purpose of ownership is the profit
Ok, so if it’s only a purpose and not part of the definition, then it is possible to have ownership without profit.
I’d argue, the only reason why the purpose of ownership is profit is because it is profitable to have ownership, but having ownership does not necessarily imply you get all the profit.
From this it follows that if having ownership were to be no longer profitable (or say… still profitable but less than being a worker), then it would be possible to have private ownership (capitalism) where profit is not the purpose of having ownership.
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.
But who guarantees that you “pay more for more skilled jobs” or “pay the same for fewer hours for dangerous jobs”? And specifically, in communism, not in socialism. Let’s not argue on whether socialist societies running in social democratic capitalistic countries can be considered to be from one side or the other. “Common ownership” is not the same as “collective ownership”, and it can come with its very own set of unfair practices.
Also, my question was specifically about the redistribution of the profit. How do you guarantee that the profit goes to the one who works the hardest and not to the one who happens to be in a circumstance that places them in a position where they can reap the most rewards?
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.
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.
Ok, so if it’s only a purpose and not part of the definition, then it is possible to have ownership without profit.
I’d argue, the only reason why the purpose of ownership is profit is because it is profitable to have ownership, but having ownership does not necessarily imply you get all the profit.
From this it follows that if having ownership were to be no longer profitable (or say… still profitable but less than being a worker), then it would be possible to have private ownership (capitalism) where profit is not the purpose of having ownership.
But who guarantees that you “pay more for more skilled jobs” or “pay the same for fewer hours for dangerous jobs”? And specifically, in communism, not in socialism. Let’s not argue on whether socialist societies running in social democratic capitalistic countries can be considered to be from one side or the other. “Common ownership” is not the same as “collective ownership”, and it can come with its very own set of unfair practices.
Also, my question was specifically about the redistribution of the profit. How do you guarantee that the profit goes to the one who works the hardest and not to the one who happens to be in a circumstance that places them in a position where they can reap the most rewards?
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.