Among many who have not engaged with Marxist theory, there can be confusion regarding the determination of systems as Socialist, Capitalist, and so forth. Are markets Capitalism? Is public ownership Socialism? Is a worker cooperative in a Capitalist country a fragment of Socialism? These questions are answered by studying Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and I will attempt to help clarify those questions here.
The idea that Socialism means only and exclusively full ownership in public hands is wrong, and anti-Marxist. To take such a stance means either Capitalism and Feudalism have never existed either, the sort of “one-drop” rule, or that Socialism itself is a unique Mode of Production that needs to be judged based on “purity” while the rest do not, a conception that has roots in idealism rather than Materialism.
Modes of Production should be defined in a manner that is consistent. If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative, or it means an economy is only Socialist if all property has been collectivized. Neither actually allows us to usefully analyze the trajectory of a country and who actually has the power within it.
For the former, this definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.
For the latter, this “one drop” rule, if equally applied, means Feudalism and Capitalism have never existed either. There is no reason Socialism should be judged any differently from Capitalism or Feudalism. To do so is to add confusion, and the origin of such a desire is from idealists who believe Socialism to be a grand, almost mystical achievement of perfection. The truth is more mundane, and yet because it’s more mundane, it’s real, and achievable, as it already has been in many countries.
What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.
As for the purpose of Socialism, it is improving the lives of the working class in material and measurable ways. Public ownership is a tool, one especially effective at higher degrees of development. Markets and private ownership are a tool, one that can be utilized more effectively at lower stages in development. Like fire, private ownership presents real danger in giving Capitalists more power, but also like fire this does not mean we cannot harness it and should avoid it entirely, provided the proper precautions are taken.
Moreover, markets are destined to centralize. Markets erase their own foundations. The reason public ownership is a goal for Marxists is because of this centralizing factor, as industry gets more complex public ownership increasingly becomes more efficient and effective. Just because you can publicly own something doesn’t mean the act of ownership improves metrics like life expectancy and literacy, public ownership isn’t some holy experience that gives workers magic powers. Public ownership and Private ownership are tools that play a role in society, and we believe Public Ownership is undeniably the way to go at higher phases in development because it becomes necessary, not because it has mystical properties.
Ultimately, it boils down to mindsets of dogmatism or pragmatism. Concepts like “true Socialism” treat Marx as a religious prophet, while going against Marx’s analysis! This is why studying Historical and Dialectical Materialism is important, as it explains the why of Marxism and Socialism in a manner that can be used for real development of the Working Class and real liberation.
Marxism isn’t useful because Marx was prophetic, but because he synthesized the ideas built up by his predecessors and armed the working class with valuable tools for understanding their enemy and the methods with which to overcome said enemy.
Are we talking about Socialism, or far-future upper-stage Communism? Even in a fully publicly planned economy, you still must measure economic inputs and outputs so that you have enough to go around. Prices in a Planned Economy is a good article going over the process in practical terms. Again, this is from Marx, who stated that “deductions” must be made for such and such social services, you’re making the same error as the Lassalleans who thought workers could reasonably own the full value they create.
They failed what? To eliminate commodity production? How do you suggest they do so, what path should they have taken instead? This is why Ultras, in their quest to endlessly critique society yet never change it, end up supporting the Imperialist status quo.
For the working millions, a doubling of life expectancy, democratization of the economy, over tripling of literacy rates, massive expansions in rights for women, and robust social safety nets as yet unheard of in bourgeois republics were massive victories made possible through Proletarian supremacy, and pressured neighboring bourgeoisie into concessions. These are victories.
You’ll excuse me for ignoring a link to RationalWiki on an entirely unrelated comment string as a failed attempt at character assassination. If you have a problem with Parenti, debunk Parenti directly.
All in all, it’s telling that you ignored the vast bulk of my comment despite being polite, and then tagged on a random character jab.
Alright I got tilted. But I do want to continue this discussion. (will edit as this goes on).
Revolution must be international. Essentially: Germany’s revolution should have won, but it was crushed militarily. Oh well.
What path should they have taken instead? Essentially nothing. They were very close. But without an international, self sustaining supply chain, you end up trading commodities, and extracting surplus value from the workers, and recreating capitalism.
You could engage in imperialism as a socialist state (Trotskyism) but in order to do so, you need to either buy or make military equipment and infrastructure and buying means engaging in commodities and can very easily drag you back to capitalism. Making means getting resources to do so, which also is basically impossible to do without engaging in commodities.
Marxist analysis says that the communism is not just something that gets “brought about”, but rather an inevitable step in the phases of human societal development. Worker revolutions fail, for a variety of material reasons. But the workers only really need to win once and capitalism is over.
This right here, though admittedly ripped from context, is the entire problem with Ultraleftists. Endless critique for society that works against Socialist movements, and plays right into the hands of imperialists.
Indeed. Communism must be international, yes. How do you get there if you achieve a dictatorship of the proletariat, but are alone? You build up the productive forces, and help others that have successfully rebelled as well, even fostering revolution elsewhere. The battle against Capital cannot be won by sitting on your hands and waiting for it to happen, this struggle working itself out is a long, drawn out global revolution already under way.
Correct. Why does Marx say this? Because he’s prophetic? No. Read Marx, study Historical Materialism. Communism is made inevitable through historical advancement, and requires Working Class revolution. It does not mean sitting on your hands while Imperialists commit genocide. This is nihilism.
“The path that we are on worked but failed because we were unlucky” is not the same as “IT’S GENOCIDE TIME!!!”
And for the record, I am a nihilist. I do not believe in free will. I know nihilism is supposed to be some kind of insult, but it’s not.
The path didn’t fail, that’s a judgement you made, and Marxists disagree with that judgement. History has proven it much better for the global working class that the Bolsheviks continued building Socialism and assisting revolution worldwide, rather than giving up.
Nihilism isn’t an insult, but a practical failure if your goal is to liberate the working class.
I see no need to debunk a pseudohistorian who has already been debunked. You are free to read through rationalwiki’s references for the debunking, the same way I read through your theory. I agree with most of it. I just don’t think AES states are socialist. They have all the problems that capitalism causes, but this discussion frequently devolves into tankies citing redshirts and blacks or calling it “Natopedia” (to refer to wikipedia) to “refute” the idea that these states have problems.
RationalWiki’s “sources” consisted of links to Reddit threads, themselves unsourced. A single paragraph with scant few sources isn’t a debunk of Parenti.
Moreover, you haven’t actually explained why you don’t think AES states are Socialist except for the mere presence of commodity production. Again, such a stance is more of a Mechanical Materialist’s analysis, and ignores all of Marx’s writing on Dialectical Materialism, stating that contradictions are an inevitability to be worked out not by decree, but degree. Further, this does not translate to all of the problems Capitalism causes, I showed quite clearly how these societies resolved problems caused by Capitalism.
You end off on a neat little strawman, presuming Marxists are not capable of recognizing real struggles with AES. On the contrary, recognizing real issues and problems with AES countries begins with correct analysis. I could talk with you about genuine problems with the Soviet economy, or my critiques of the PRC, but if we can’t establish a proper baseline understanding it wouldn’t be very fruitful.