It’s a joke - sort of. After all you have people there who support China which has a stock market and an investor class and is the opposite of what leftists should support.
This is a common talking point among non-Marxists, hence why the other user implied you haven’t read theory. The thing is, Marx didn’t think abolition of Private Property was the goal of Communism, but one of the essential means of getting there. However, this does not mean it should be dogmatically over-applied at all stages in development, to the contrary, Marx’s entire prediction for Communism (and prediction it was, he didn’t design Communism and work backwards, but analyzed Capitalism and predicted what comes next) is based on how markets centralize over time into large trusts.
The goal of Communism is real improvements for the Working Class, the tools we should apply depends on what we are working with. Private Property and competition is a great way to quickly develop productive forces at lower stages of development, while Public Ownership and planning becomes more efficient once competition begins to die out. It’s like growing a vegetable and harvesting it, you watch over it and fold it into the public sector as it grows.
Private Property, like fire, is dangerous if not contained. This doesn’t mean we cannot contain it. If we understand how it functions, we can learn how to use it to better pave the way for eliminating it altogether. As an example, whoever controls the rubber ball factories has far less power than those who control the rubber factory. In the PRC, the overwhelming majority of large industry is in the hands of the government, as well as heavy industry like steel, banking, energy, and more. This is how the government holds Capitalists in line.
Overall, Marxists don’t apply a magical property to public ownership where being poor working in the public sector is better than bring well-off in the private. The fact is, systems must adapt to their present conditions, and change as those conditions change. The PRC, as an example, is seeing a dramatic rise in the cooperative sector of the economy from the Private, and while this isn’t the same as the Public Sector, it is a decrease in the power of Capitalists.
If you want, I can recommend some theory you can read to understand the why of Communism according to Marx and Engels.
What no theory does to a mfer
It’s a joke - sort of. After all you have people there who support China which has a stock market and an investor class and is the opposite of what leftists should support.
This is a common talking point among non-Marxists, hence why the other user implied you haven’t read theory. The thing is, Marx didn’t think abolition of Private Property was the goal of Communism, but one of the essential means of getting there. However, this does not mean it should be dogmatically over-applied at all stages in development, to the contrary, Marx’s entire prediction for Communism (and prediction it was, he didn’t design Communism and work backwards, but analyzed Capitalism and predicted what comes next) is based on how markets centralize over time into large trusts.
The goal of Communism is real improvements for the Working Class, the tools we should apply depends on what we are working with. Private Property and competition is a great way to quickly develop productive forces at lower stages of development, while Public Ownership and planning becomes more efficient once competition begins to die out. It’s like growing a vegetable and harvesting it, you watch over it and fold it into the public sector as it grows.
Private Property, like fire, is dangerous if not contained. This doesn’t mean we cannot contain it. If we understand how it functions, we can learn how to use it to better pave the way for eliminating it altogether. As an example, whoever controls the rubber ball factories has far less power than those who control the rubber factory. In the PRC, the overwhelming majority of large industry is in the hands of the government, as well as heavy industry like steel, banking, energy, and more. This is how the government holds Capitalists in line.
Overall, Marxists don’t apply a magical property to public ownership where being poor working in the public sector is better than bring well-off in the private. The fact is, systems must adapt to their present conditions, and change as those conditions change. The PRC, as an example, is seeing a dramatic rise in the cooperative sector of the economy from the Private, and while this isn’t the same as the Public Sector, it is a decrease in the power of Capitalists.
If you want, I can recommend some theory you can read to understand the why of Communism according to Marx and Engels.
Why did China decide to do those reforms? Any ideas?
What no theory does to a mfer