Red Front
Gold Member
- Jul 7, 2022
- 5,253
- 1,463
- 138
- Banned
- #561
As explained earlier, capitalism refers to the process by which the means of production are used to manufactured. If the means are owned by private individuals who aren't workers, then it's bourgeois capitalism.
Not just workers, but waged workers. Because there are a few members of the bourgeoisie i.e. capitalist class, who work, alongside their waged workers. They're not afraid of getting their hands dirty and breaking a sweat with their employees. My grandfather was a working-class person who started a yacht repair shop in Miami, Florida, in the late 60s and he had around 20 employees. He was right there spraying fiberglass on boat hulls, and doing other labor-intensive tasks, alongside his workers (he wasn't a parasite leech). Was he a capitalist? Technically he was because he was earning a profit off the surplus value of other's labor. Was he a dictator? Kind of, but his workers loved him. He was a noble, hard-working man.
There are some capitalists (small business owners), who are like my grandfather, who worked hard all of his life, even when he had a business, grossing over a million dollars yearly. He could've just visited his business a couple of times a week, to see how his ATM-Machine i.e. his workshop, is running and then go spend the day at the Yacht Club with his friends, fishing..etc. He didn't do that. He worked until he died at 74 years old. Until his last week on earth, he worked like a mule. He loved drinking beer with his workers after work and that's what killed him.
If it's owned by workers, then it's a cooperative. If it's owned by the public, then it's state capitalism consisting of public corporations.
If it's run by the worker-state then it's state socialism, not state capitalism. Calling it "State capitalism" is a bourgeois-capitalist definition/rhetoric against socialism and the Soviet Union. If the state is under the authority of worker councils or "soviets", with the power to elect and recall delegates (elected government officials), then production is owned by the workers and centrally planned and coordinated by their democratic, socialist government.
The central planning is in collaboration with the legally incorporated, worker-run cooperatives (productive enterprises: mines, processing plants, factories..etc), that coordinate with the state to follow the general production plan and specific "projects" of the state, to meet the consumer's needs and "demands" (whatever the public needs and wants in the area of goods and services).
If production isn't centrally planned by the government then regardless of whether the business enterprise is privately owned or not, it's still capitalism (a for-profit system of production under many of the same endemic flaws and limitations of privately owned capitalism).
A capitalism that is comprised of worker-owned cooperatives is more democratic than privately owned capitalism but nonetheless, it's still a for-profit system of production, subject to cronyism and monopolies, due to the profit motive and market competition (the pursuit of market share dominance). The chaos of the market or supply and demand, a.k.a. the "invisible hand", is still in force, with all of its problems. There will be less inequality and better conditions for workers will exist under such a system, but it's still for-profit capitalism. Yes, it's a better form of capitalism, with a bit of "socialism", but it's still mostly capitalism.
Actual socialist production is non-profit and centrally planned by the worker state.
In socialism, until the individual consumer has the technology and ability to personally produce all of the products that he or she consumes, there has to be a collective or societal apparatus that rationally and centrally plans the production and delivery of goods and services to the consumer (to the public). The so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker's democratic state, under the authority of soviets (worker councils). is actual, true socialism and worker-owned production. Following that is high communism, which leads to the withering away of the state:
Withering away of the state - Wikipedia
A stateless society (or a society with a small state), without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Not having classes or the need for money can be achieved in socialism, way before the state becomes superfluous and withers away.
Advanced robotics and artificial intelligence can make production efficient enough to eliminate socioeconomic classes and the need for money and markets. The withering away of the state can only occur with extremely advanced technology, that places all of the power of production in the consumer's hands.
The level of technology required to truly eliminate the need for centrally planned, state production, is at the level of Star Trek:
Sci-Fi "Replicator Technology"
You can't really have an oppressive state or a large, imposing government, when the consumer has the ability to produce everything he or she consumes, without anyone else's help. If the state becomes too big and overbearing, the consumer leaves. Hops on his RV, ocean vessel, or spaceship and says "ciao" and goes somewhere else.
"Bye-bye, see you later, alligator"
(land ownership will be considered a personal impediment and pain in the ass. People will become mobile when technology becomes advanced enough. They will live here and then there, and will settle wherever they want to live until they decide to move somewhere else. Such people can't be subjugated under the oppressive whims of a despotic regime or tyrant. If you oppress them, they leave. Hello?)
What technology will facilitate the consumer to do that? It's Star Trek-like, advanced nano-tech.
States can't become totalitarian or oppressive, and maintain power over anyone, when people can personally produce all of the goods they need to live and thrive on, without anyone else's assistance or input. All relations between human adults become 100% voluntary when production becomes completely personal and efficient. That's high communism, according to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
We want what the Libertarians and Anarchists want, but they're going about actualizing their desire for freedom, the wrong way (their way is a dead end that leads to slavery and death). Capitalism isn't going to do that for you, you need to graduate to socialism, then develop the technology to empower consumers to produce everything they need for themselves, without anyone else's help (without capitalist for-profit enterprises or the central planning of the state). That is high-communism.
This is primitive communism, according to Marx and Engels:
And this is High-Communism or high-Tech Communism:
High communism is freedom. We are social animals, so we will choose, most likely to live in a society of fully-empowered and sovereign consumers. A society of the "gods". The gods (tongue and cheek, of course, we're not actually "gods" but we can be "godlike"), choose to live with each other, they're not forced to by being in a condition of scarcity.
High-tech, godlike consumers, have the ability to produce the goods and "services" themselves (personally). That's high-communism. For all intents and purposes, stateless. No state or perhaps a small state that is always under the heel of its citizens, never doing anything that is not agreed upon by the people who live under its governance. That is true Marxist high-communism.
This isn't going to be available anytime soon. It might be in 100 or 300 years, but it's not here now or in the foreseeable future. We can now have highly automated production with robotics, and artificial intelligence.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
....which is the best next thing to "Star Trek". That still requires a central planning apparatus and authority, a.k.a. the state, to carry out the logistics and accounting, using the latest technology (powerful computers and sensors).
Communism refers to the use of only state capitalism, with cooperatives if that's lacking. I think the only two countries that are doing that are Cuba and North Korea.
No sir, communism is stateless or has a little tiny weeny state, is classless and without the need for money.
Cuba and North Korea have huge, oppressive governments, due mostly to being isolated and sanctioned by a capitalist world led by the United States, forced into a war footing and into a state of scarcity. That's not communism, that's socialists trying to avoid losing their revolutionary projects, and returning to capitalism.
My parents are Cuban. I know a lot about Cuba and what has happened there is a catastrophe, due to the hubris and stupidity of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, thinking they could establish a socialist society and economy in the shadow of a capitalist empire, in the middle of a cold war between Western capitalism and the Soviet Union. Fidel Castro and Che were sponsored by the United States, until they chose to pledge their allegiance to the USSR. They should've remained friendly with their POWERFUL sponsor while incorporating a few socialist policies, similar to how Western Europe has done.
If Castro and Che would've been smart communist revolutionaries, they would've weened Cuba, into socialism, implementing a mixed economy, without pissing off the 800-pound capitalist gorilla 90 miles away and with a naval base on their island. I admire their commitment to socialism and courage, but they created a living hell for the Cubans on the Island. I'm Cuban American and It hurts me to see the devastation that exists in Cuba. The Cuban government is foolish and evil. If socialism can't provide a better solution than the capitalism that existed before the socialist Cuban revolution, then return to capitalism.
A well-managed capitalism with a few socialist elements, is much better, than a poorly, rashly executed socialist revolution that results in starvation and political and economic isolation, under a perpetual state of war. I say the same to North Korea. If you can't establish a state-socialist system successfully, due to the circumstances, whatever that might be, then don't. Opt instead for the "reformist" route until you can fully implement socialism. Establish a mixed economy, with a bit of capitalism with some socialism.
The per capita GDP of Cuba is around $9,000, or more than twice that of the Philippines, which follows U.S. neoliberalism, while that of North Korea is similar to those of African countries, many of which are not Communist. Meanwhile, from what I remember, the ave. GDP growth rate per annum of North Korea is similar to that of the U.S.
The reality of Cuba on the ground is utter misery. I've been there, you have no idea how bad it is. Capitalist polemicists, as much as I dislike them, are correct when they point at Cuba as a disaster zone. It's a catastrophe and embarrassment, due to the stupidity and hubris of the Cuban government. Rather than invading Iraq, the US should've invaded Cuba. Cubans would be better off as a territory of the US similar to Puerto Rico, than under the current system. Miseria/Missery. You don't try to establish a Marxist-Leninist economy 90 miles away from the CAPITALIST EMPIRE.
Marx believed that the first socialist nations would be the UK and the USA. Industrialized nations, are ideal for socialism, not agrarian, underdeveloped countries like Russia was in 1917 or China in the 1940s (or Cuba). If the US adopts socialist production it will have no gorillas to fight with to survive, because it is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Economically it would put China to shame. It would turn the US economy into an even greater giant. A gorilla on steroids.
What about China? It shifted to bourgeois capitalism, but with the Communist Party being a major partner, and with restrictions on importation, etc., following what Japan, South Korea, and others did as part of the East Asian Miracle and nationalist economics.
How about Russia? When it followed U.S. advice for shock therapy, i.e., free markets, it fell apart. It recovered only after Putin contained the oligarchs and its economy took off four times faster than that of Ukraine, which was still being manipulated by foreigners and different factions (ultranationalists, U.S.-backed neoliberals, and pro-Russians).
Finally, what about the U.S.? It did very well from the end of WW2 until the 1960s, its so-called "golden age," after which economic growth started to slow down, and then during the 1970s conventional oil production peaked together with real wages, and trade deficits began. "Recovery" took place through Reagan and subsequent Presidents who deregulated the economy, leading to increasing debt needed to cover increasing spending.
Last point: all of these countries follow at least five of the ten planks given by Marx, including public education and graduated income tax. Also, if socialism refers to a wide range of regulations involving social ownership, then all of these countries are also partly socialist, as they need, for example, fiat currencies for more efficient transactions, things like limited liability and private property backed by courts, and public corporations for practical purposes, e.g., for utilities, road networks, and security.
As technology advances the need for socialism will become more apparent due to mass unemployment. Without wage labor, there's no capitalism. Markets crumble without paying consumers who purchase everything with their wages.
Last edited:
