5 ms·

Ha, I’ve never read Marx myself but that’s a great viewpoint. And it’s on my list.

vorpalhex 3y ago
Marx actually says the opposite. People form a dictatorship (dictatorship of the proletariat) to engage in a transition period away from Capitalism. Saying "the people own" is just a way of saying the state owns something. The state owns all the things under Communism. Every business is a state business.
- FpUser 3y ago
  >"The state owns all the things under Communism." The state owns nothing under Communism as Communism assumes no state, social classes, private property and money. I do not think Communism can be achieved though, maybe in prehistoric society of docile gatherers of which we are not.
  - mordae 3y ago
    Perhaps eventually, after we learn to live better. But that's no reason to give up and make greed mandatory.
    - FpUser 3y ago
      People are greedy to a various degree by nature. Same for violence and desire to control other people. This is in our genes. I have no idea how you could suppress it without The State (comprised of control freaks willing to use violence) being on top
      - rambojohnson 3y ago
        are you a geneticist? got an sources to back up that claim, that we are all inherently selfish? take a critical look at the society you were raised in.
        FpUser 3y ago
        I am not and I do not have to be. One can see it plain all around. I am very critical of the society but it does not change a fucking thing.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    The group exercising their monopoly on force to implement the laws of communism is the state, unless you plan on making participation voluntary. Calling it “the people” makes absolutely no difference.
    - FpUser 3y ago
      I am not calling it anything. This is how Communism is defined. It never happened and what we have instead is anything but. Under original doctrine there is no State because "the people" will have evolved enough to do without it.
      - alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Capitalism is a stateless society where individuals are free to associate how they wish. Any problems with this definition?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Capitalism is a stateless society where individuals are free to associate how they wish. Any problems with this definition? Well, yes, since “capitalism” was literally coined to describe a particular then-existing system in which the instrumentality of the state not only exists but also, most particularly through a specific structure of property rights, directly serves the interests of the capital-owning class to the relative disadvantage of other segments of society, and has consistently since then referred to that system (or ones sharing some of its salient features) both for those who have advocated moving farther from it and for those advocating its adoption or a return to it in places which have moved on, in whole or in part, from it.
        alphanullmeric 3y ago
        I'm glad we agree that defining a state to be stateless does not make it stateless. So back to what I was saying, when "the people" come together to enforce laws onto others, they form a state.
  - whitemary 3y ago
    Communism and private property are not at odds. Communism and private capital are.
- xtian 3y ago
  The kolkhozes were not owned by the state in the Soviet Union. State-owned enterprises represent about 20% of total employment in China. Ownership is simply contingent and limited according to determinate social ends (as opposed to the total anarchy of the market in classical capitalism), but the same is true of every modern economy in the world. As you say, the difference is whose interests dictate these ends: those of ordinary citizens or those of the monopolies and international finance.
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    92% of China's top 500 companies have major CCP board ownership. https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/influence-without-ownership-chinese-communist-party-targets-private-sector https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/influence-w...
    - xtian 3y ago
      What percent of boards in the US are staffed by Democrats and Republicans (our one party with two names)?
      - vorpalhex 3y ago
        CCP party membership is 6.7% of the population. It is restricted and a point of honor and power to be a party member. 6.7% of the country runs 92% of the boardrooms.
        xtian 3y ago
        So no answer to my question. In the US can anyone be a corporate board member? Or is it gated by myriad social factors such as having attended an elite B school and proving yourself as a loyal servant of Wall Street bankers?
      - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
        > our one party with two names ... If you're not a woman, gay, trans, black, poor, ...
- amw 3y ago
  In Marx's usage (the common usage of the time), dictatorship just means "leadership", and doesn't have the same connotation of "ruling over others without their consent". Which is his point, really: socialism exists to take the reins of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (whose contradictions are propped up by a force-monopoly in the form of "a state") into a dictatorship of the workers so society can be transitioned over time into one where a state no longer needs to exist ("communism"). So, yes, in the meantime, the state takes control over some amount of enterprise and manages it for its own goals rather than to generate profits for a small number of owners. Is that a bad thing? In a world where for-profit healthcare in the US is famously more expensive and less effective than nationalized healthcare in any other OECD country, where the (unionized!) USPS is one of this country's most-popular and most-reliable services even despite years of meddling from capitalists in government pushing to gut it, in a world where famously most of our R&D is publicly funded, is it really so hard to imagine that it might be an effective way to manage production?
  - whitemary 3y ago
    Pinching myself as I witness actual Marxist analysis on HN of all places.
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    > socialism exists to take the reins of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie > doesn't have the same connotation of "ruling over others without their consent". Usually taking things by force requires violating consent. That is a very basic tenant of Commmunism. The bourgeoisie are forcibly removed from power, with arms, usually killed, and their property taken. > whose contradictions are propped up by a force-monopoly in the form of "a state" And how is the dictatorship of the proletariat preserved against the minority who disagrees? Hint, it involves rifles and usually firing squads. > society can be transitioned over time into one where a state no longer needs to exist Yes, that's gone so well up to date. Dictators with extreme powers over entire states are well known for quietly surrendering their power and moving to a form of utopic anarchy. Even Marx couldn't answer how the utopic Communist post-state society actually continued it's existence without a state. "The vanguard" who at best are stateless secret police? > in the meantime, the state takes control over some amount of enterprise and manages it for its own goals Correct > Is that a bad thing? DMV, VA, Census Bureau, the IRS. > USPS is one of this country's most-popular and most-reliable services and is private but government directed > In a world where for-profit healthcare in the US is famously more expensive and has no waiting lists compared to 14.5 weeks in the UK at the moment and 20.9 weeks in Canada > and less effective than nationalized healthcare The US is in the top 10 for survival rates for most diseases/conditions (eg cancer) and we beat out the UK and Canada significantly. We have a lower life expectancy because we are too fat.

Marx actually says the opposite. People form a dictatorship (dictatorship of the proletariat) to engage in a transition period away from Capitalism. Saying "the people own" is just a way of saying the state owns something. The state owns all the things under Communism. Every business is a state business.

FpUser 3y ago
>"The state owns all the things under Communism." The state owns nothing under Communism as Communism assumes no state, social classes, private property and money. I do not think Communism can be achieved though, maybe in prehistoric society of docile gatherers of which we are not.
- mordae 3y ago
  Perhaps eventually, after we learn to live better. But that's no reason to give up and make greed mandatory.
  - FpUser 3y ago
    People are greedy to a various degree by nature. Same for violence and desire to control other people. This is in our genes. I have no idea how you could suppress it without The State (comprised of control freaks willing to use violence) being on top
    - rambojohnson 3y ago
      are you a geneticist? got an sources to back up that claim, that we are all inherently selfish? take a critical look at the society you were raised in.
      - FpUser 3y ago
        I am not and I do not have to be. One can see it plain all around. I am very critical of the society but it does not change a fucking thing.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  The group exercising their monopoly on force to implement the laws of communism is the state, unless you plan on making participation voluntary. Calling it “the people” makes absolutely no difference.
  - FpUser 3y ago
    I am not calling it anything. This is how Communism is defined. It never happened and what we have instead is anything but. Under original doctrine there is no State because "the people" will have evolved enough to do without it.
    - alphanullmeric 3y ago
      Capitalism is a stateless society where individuals are free to associate how they wish. Any problems with this definition?
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Capitalism is a stateless society where individuals are free to associate how they wish. Any problems with this definition? Well, yes, since “capitalism” was literally coined to describe a particular then-existing system in which the instrumentality of the state not only exists but also, most particularly through a specific structure of property rights, directly serves the interests of the capital-owning class to the relative disadvantage of other segments of society, and has consistently since then referred to that system (or ones sharing some of its salient features) both for those who have advocated moving farther from it and for those advocating its adoption or a return to it in places which have moved on, in whole or in part, from it.
        alphanullmeric 3y ago
        I'm glad we agree that defining a state to be stateless does not make it stateless. So back to what I was saying, when "the people" come together to enforce laws onto others, they form a state.
- whitemary 3y ago
  Communism and private property are not at odds. Communism and private capital are.
xtian 3y ago
The kolkhozes were not owned by the state in the Soviet Union. State-owned enterprises represent about 20% of total employment in China. Ownership is simply contingent and limited according to determinate social ends (as opposed to the total anarchy of the market in classical capitalism), but the same is true of every modern economy in the world. As you say, the difference is whose interests dictate these ends: those of ordinary citizens or those of the monopolies and international finance.
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  92% of China's top 500 companies have major CCP board ownership. https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/influence-without-ownership-chinese-communist-party-targets-private-sector https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/influence-w...
  - xtian 3y ago
    What percent of boards in the US are staffed by Democrats and Republicans (our one party with two names)?
    - vorpalhex 3y ago
      CCP party membership is 6.7% of the population. It is restricted and a point of honor and power to be a party member. 6.7% of the country runs 92% of the boardrooms.
      - xtian 3y ago
        So no answer to my question. In the US can anyone be a corporate board member? Or is it gated by myriad social factors such as having attended an elite B school and proving yourself as a loyal servant of Wall Street bankers?
    - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
      > our one party with two names ... If you're not a woman, gay, trans, black, poor, ...
amw 3y ago
In Marx's usage (the common usage of the time), dictatorship just means "leadership", and doesn't have the same connotation of "ruling over others without their consent". Which is his point, really: socialism exists to take the reins of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (whose contradictions are propped up by a force-monopoly in the form of "a state") into a dictatorship of the workers so society can be transitioned over time into one where a state no longer needs to exist ("communism"). So, yes, in the meantime, the state takes control over some amount of enterprise and manages it for its own goals rather than to generate profits for a small number of owners. Is that a bad thing? In a world where for-profit healthcare in the US is famously more expensive and less effective than nationalized healthcare in any other OECD country, where the (unionized!) USPS is one of this country's most-popular and most-reliable services even despite years of meddling from capitalists in government pushing to gut it, in a world where famously most of our R&D is publicly funded, is it really so hard to imagine that it might be an effective way to manage production?
- whitemary 3y ago
  Pinching myself as I witness actual Marxist analysis on HN of all places.
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  > socialism exists to take the reins of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie > doesn't have the same connotation of "ruling over others without their consent". Usually taking things by force requires violating consent. That is a very basic tenant of Commmunism. The bourgeoisie are forcibly removed from power, with arms, usually killed, and their property taken. > whose contradictions are propped up by a force-monopoly in the form of "a state" And how is the dictatorship of the proletariat preserved against the minority who disagrees? Hint, it involves rifles and usually firing squads. > society can be transitioned over time into one where a state no longer needs to exist Yes, that's gone so well up to date. Dictators with extreme powers over entire states are well known for quietly surrendering their power and moving to a form of utopic anarchy. Even Marx couldn't answer how the utopic Communist post-state society actually continued it's existence without a state. "The vanguard" who at best are stateless secret police? > in the meantime, the state takes control over some amount of enterprise and manages it for its own goals Correct > Is that a bad thing? DMV, VA, Census Bureau, the IRS. > USPS is one of this country's most-popular and most-reliable services and is private but government directed > In a world where for-profit healthcare in the US is famously more expensive and has no waiting lists compared to 14.5 weeks in the UK at the moment and 20.9 weeks in Canada > and less effective than nationalized healthcare The US is in the top 10 for survival rates for most diseases/conditions (eg cancer) and we beat out the UK and Canada significantly. We have a lower life expectancy because we are too fat.