The PRC is Socialist, large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector, while the private sector is largely cooperatives, sole proprietorships, and small firms. This is classically Marxist. I elaborate more on this here.
The USA has one party: the capitalist party. They do not represent you, they represent corporate interests. Your vote doesn’t even really matter because of the electoral college, and other racist relics such as the Senate, giving ridiculous power to to just a handful of “swing voters”.
Voting once every 4 years for either the capitalist war monger or the other capitalist war monger, while they both ban 3rd party candidates from the ballot, does not make the USA “democratic”.
Edit: also who cares if it’s one party? In each of these cases the party has brought the entire population out of abject poverty (usually the result of capitalism exploiting them), increased education surpassing the USA, brought healthcare to all, have higher home ownership rates than the USA, etc.
Objective quality of life measurements all surpass the USA.
Having one party doesn’t mean you aren’t democratic. Democracy is about fulfilling the needs of the people based on their input, ie it’s more important that the people be able to impact policy than party. In the US, you can change parties, but not the policy, in countries like the PRC, you can change the policy, but not the party.
Yes, The PRC, DPRK, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and former USSR all are examples of Communist parties over Socialist systems. Communism, the post-Socialist, global fully publicly owned economy hasn’t been achieved yet, but thus far Communists have been able to successfully build Socialism, its necessary prerequisite.
Capitalism is a global system, it is based on exchange value and things being produced and sold for a profit, not for use (which is known as commodity production), and if you want to trade internationally, you have to follow this capitalist mode of production. Communism, on the other hand, aims to abolish the production of commodities (money included) and instead produce goods for use. Notice how these two systems differ so much, international trade between actual communist and capitalist countries becomes impossible given how differently they value things.
Now consider how today’s capitalist nations are so dependent on trade, and it’s because trade allows nations to prosper, to grow, to have increased standards of living and gives the nations access to materials they otherwise couldn’t have produced within their local borders. If a nation goes full isolationist, it loses access to all of that and the nation becomes crippled.
So there’s three ways for communist countries to go about the global capitalist system:
Go full isolationist, which would cripple a country substantially.
Participate in the capitalist market, meaning the country would be forced to produce commodities and participate in capital exchange which would make them, in one definition or another, capitalist. This also heavily risks the country to fall into full capitalism with time (as seen historically).
Support worker movements internationally en masse and hope they succeed with achieving their revolutions. If they succeed, only then can exchange value be safely abolished, goods be produced for use instead of profit, and international socialist/communist trade can actually happen with people having their needs met.
It’s clear that international communist revolution is pretty much the only viable way forward, and the only opportunity to do so failed (with Spartacist uprising, Hungrarian Soviet Republic, etc being crushed, leaving USSR standing pretty much alone).
So to answer your question with all this nonsensical wall of text in mind, no. Actual communist/socialist mode of production has never existed (therefore whether communist ideology works hasn’t been proven), as any experiments so far had essentially been capitalist.
This isn’t quite accurate. If you maintain public control over the large firms and industries, and the proletariat controls the state, you remain on the Socialist road. Markets themselves are not necessarily Capitalism.
Communism must be global, but we can’t make a fully publicly owned economy simply by declaring private property illegal, the USSR didn’t even manage to do that.
If you maintain public control over the large firms and industries, and the proletariat controls the state, you remain on the Socialist road.
Agree, there has to be DOTP directly after the revolution which has to retain some capitalist features, mostly for economic survival purposes.
However, once the military struggle against capitalists are over and economy is sufficiently reorganized, a country has to quickly abolish the value form and actually turn to a socialist mode of production, else it risks either backpedaling to capitalism and/or turning revisionist. This is precisely what happened to USSR, given how they couldn’t transition to socialist mode of production due to their peasant problem + Stalin’s delusions of “Socialism in one state”.
If there’s an active maintenance in post-revolutionary period of capitalist mode of production, then the country is capitalist even if the production is nationalized or owned by workers.
Markets themselves are not necessarily Capitalism.
Historically markets predate Capitalism, so yes, but they’re never socialist or communist given how socialist mode of production does away with commodity production. If commodity production is abolished, then commodity exchange (markets) can no longer exist. This does mean that market socialism is capitalist as commodity production remains, the law of value remains, all that’s different when compared to Capitalism is that the state regulates it which doesn’t magically make it socialist.
I think there’s a problem in analysis of time scales, and the fundamental role contradictions play, dialectically.
If, by “millitary struggle against Capitalists” you mean the immediate revolution and establishment of the DotP, there is then a long and protracted process of building up to a fully publicly owned economy. You cannot achieve this through fiat, it must be developed towards, and markets remain the most effective method of moving from low to high levels of development. You cannot simply abolish the value form with a stroke of a pen, black markets emerge for that which is not provided. Erasing the commodity form is a material and historical process, not a legalistic one.
Socialism in one country is undeniably correct. Had Trotsky’s permanent revolution been adopted, ie abandoning the buildup of Socialism domestically in favor of exporting revolution abroad, we would have had more failed revolutions and the USSR would have been crushed due to a lack of development. The very foundation of Permanent Revolution is on the assumption that the peasantry can only temporarily align with the Proletariat, which ended up being proven false when the Soviet system solidified, rather than fell apart in the first few years.
The biggest issue here, however, is your adoption of the “One Drop Rule.” I wrote a post on the subject, but to simplify, the concept that if some degree of Private Property exists the entire system is Capitalist goes against all notions of Dialectical Materialism and throws away the entire Materialist basis for Socialism in the first place. Just as Public Property in the US is not Socialist, Private Property in a Socialist system does not mean the system is Capitalist.
All systems have contradictions. What matters most is which class is resolving the contradictions via the State, the Proletariat, or the Bourgeoisie. If the large firms, key industries, and State are firmly in the hands of the Proletariat, the system is on the Socialist road. We cannot abolish the small manufacturer or firms, we must develop out of them. The process of building towards Communism through Socialism is through the continuous resolution of these contradictions, as by necessary laws of physics they cannot be resolved legalistically, or with the stroke of a pen.
The idea that the Socialist Mode of Production is unique among all in that it is the only Mode of Production judged by purity, rather than the principle aspect, is an error in classification that ignores the real trajectories we observe in Socialist states like the PRC, which are increasing in Socialization of the economy over time. Rather, we can look all the way back to Marx for evidence to why this is true:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
I also recommend What is Socialism? as its an excellent essay that goes more in-depth on the topics I went over.
Serious question: has communism ever been proved to work at scale? (not communist regimes, the communist ideology)
No, it gets destroyed by a CIA-funded coup every time. (Read Jakarta Method)
But look at Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Kerala, China, Burkino Faso for modern attempts at Socialism/Communism
China, seriously?
The PRC is Socialist, large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector, while the private sector is largely cooperatives, sole proprietorships, and small firms. This is classically Marxist. I elaborate more on this here.
Yes?
They’re all ‘one-party states’ aren’t they?
Opposite of democracy… so whether they work well economically is irrelevant, since you’re relying on the party not to become totalitarian. 😬
The USA has one party: the capitalist party. They do not represent you, they represent corporate interests. Your vote doesn’t even really matter because of the electoral college, and other racist relics such as the Senate, giving ridiculous power to to just a handful of “swing voters”.
Voting once every 4 years for either the capitalist war monger or the other capitalist war monger, while they both ban 3rd party candidates from the ballot, does not make the USA “democratic”.
Edit: also who cares if it’s one party? In each of these cases the party has brought the entire population out of abject poverty (usually the result of capitalism exploiting them), increased education surpassing the USA, brought healthcare to all, have higher home ownership rates than the USA, etc.
Objective quality of life measurements all surpass the USA.
https://youtu.be/FEHYeeRCtVI
Having one party doesn’t mean you aren’t democratic. Democracy is about fulfilling the needs of the people based on their input, ie it’s more important that the people be able to impact policy than party. In the US, you can change parties, but not the policy, in countries like the PRC, you can change the policy, but not the party.
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/capitalism_doesnt_work.html
Yes, The PRC, DPRK, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and former USSR all are examples of Communist parties over Socialist systems. Communism, the post-Socialist, global fully publicly owned economy hasn’t been achieved yet, but thus far Communists have been able to successfully build Socialism, its necessary prerequisite.
Capitalism is a global system, it is based on exchange value and things being produced and sold for a profit, not for use (which is known as commodity production), and if you want to trade internationally, you have to follow this capitalist mode of production. Communism, on the other hand, aims to abolish the production of commodities (money included) and instead produce goods for use. Notice how these two systems differ so much, international trade between actual communist and capitalist countries becomes impossible given how differently they value things.
Now consider how today’s capitalist nations are so dependent on trade, and it’s because trade allows nations to prosper, to grow, to have increased standards of living and gives the nations access to materials they otherwise couldn’t have produced within their local borders. If a nation goes full isolationist, it loses access to all of that and the nation becomes crippled.
So there’s three ways for communist countries to go about the global capitalist system:
Go full isolationist, which would cripple a country substantially.
Participate in the capitalist market, meaning the country would be forced to produce commodities and participate in capital exchange which would make them, in one definition or another, capitalist. This also heavily risks the country to fall into full capitalism with time (as seen historically).
Support worker movements internationally en masse and hope they succeed with achieving their revolutions. If they succeed, only then can exchange value be safely abolished, goods be produced for use instead of profit, and international socialist/communist trade can actually happen with people having their needs met.
It’s clear that international communist revolution is pretty much the only viable way forward, and the only opportunity to do so failed (with Spartacist uprising, Hungrarian Soviet Republic, etc being crushed, leaving USSR standing pretty much alone).
So to answer your question with all this nonsensical wall of text in mind, no. Actual communist/socialist mode of production has never existed (therefore whether communist ideology works hasn’t been proven), as any experiments so far had essentially been capitalist.
This isn’t quite accurate. If you maintain public control over the large firms and industries, and the proletariat controls the state, you remain on the Socialist road. Markets themselves are not necessarily Capitalism.
Communism must be global, but we can’t make a fully publicly owned economy simply by declaring private property illegal, the USSR didn’t even manage to do that.
Agree, there has to be DOTP directly after the revolution which has to retain some capitalist features, mostly for economic survival purposes.
However, once the military struggle against capitalists are over and economy is sufficiently reorganized, a country has to quickly abolish the value form and actually turn to a socialist mode of production, else it risks either backpedaling to capitalism and/or turning revisionist. This is precisely what happened to USSR, given how they couldn’t transition to socialist mode of production due to their peasant problem + Stalin’s delusions of “Socialism in one state”.
If there’s an active maintenance in post-revolutionary period of capitalist mode of production, then the country is capitalist even if the production is nationalized or owned by workers.
Historically markets predate Capitalism, so yes, but they’re never socialist or communist given how socialist mode of production does away with commodity production. If commodity production is abolished, then commodity exchange (markets) can no longer exist. This does mean that market socialism is capitalist as commodity production remains, the law of value remains, all that’s different when compared to Capitalism is that the state regulates it which doesn’t magically make it socialist.
I think there’s a problem in analysis of time scales, and the fundamental role contradictions play, dialectically.
If, by “millitary struggle against Capitalists” you mean the immediate revolution and establishment of the DotP, there is then a long and protracted process of building up to a fully publicly owned economy. You cannot achieve this through fiat, it must be developed towards, and markets remain the most effective method of moving from low to high levels of development. You cannot simply abolish the value form with a stroke of a pen, black markets emerge for that which is not provided. Erasing the commodity form is a material and historical process, not a legalistic one.
Socialism in one country is undeniably correct. Had Trotsky’s permanent revolution been adopted, ie abandoning the buildup of Socialism domestically in favor of exporting revolution abroad, we would have had more failed revolutions and the USSR would have been crushed due to a lack of development. The very foundation of Permanent Revolution is on the assumption that the peasantry can only temporarily align with the Proletariat, which ended up being proven false when the Soviet system solidified, rather than fell apart in the first few years.
The biggest issue here, however, is your adoption of the “One Drop Rule.” I wrote a post on the subject, but to simplify, the concept that if some degree of Private Property exists the entire system is Capitalist goes against all notions of Dialectical Materialism and throws away the entire Materialist basis for Socialism in the first place. Just as Public Property in the US is not Socialist, Private Property in a Socialist system does not mean the system is Capitalist.
All systems have contradictions. What matters most is which class is resolving the contradictions via the State, the Proletariat, or the Bourgeoisie. If the large firms, key industries, and State are firmly in the hands of the Proletariat, the system is on the Socialist road. We cannot abolish the small manufacturer or firms, we must develop out of them. The process of building towards Communism through Socialism is through the continuous resolution of these contradictions, as by necessary laws of physics they cannot be resolved legalistically, or with the stroke of a pen.
The idea that the Socialist Mode of Production is unique among all in that it is the only Mode of Production judged by purity, rather than the principle aspect, is an error in classification that ignores the real trajectories we observe in Socialist states like the PRC, which are increasing in Socialization of the economy over time. Rather, we can look all the way back to Marx for evidence to why this is true:
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
I also recommend What is Socialism? as its an excellent essay that goes more in-depth on the topics I went over.
this.
adendum: in some “primitive” societies, there was no private property of the means of production. marx and engels studied that extensively.