4 ms·

> And capitalism is organized around making it tougher for the vast majority so that it can be easier for an elite minority. How easy is it to start a business

> And capitalism is organized around making it tougher for the vast majority so that it can be easier for an elite minority. How easy is it to start a business in America (or pick another capitalist economy like Denmark or the UK or Japan or something) versus any communist state that has existed? We could compare over any given time period the number of businesses started in a capitalist country and compare that with Communist or Socialist states that have existed. To better drive the point home we could compare first-time business owners. > Socialism means that the workers (which is equivalent to the people at large, since without private ownership of the means of production, the capitalist classes do not exist) owning the means of production and exercising control democratically. There are a large numbers of particular ways that this can be structured. Ok but since you also live in a democracy you have to live with people like, say, me who prefer a different arrangement. Right? Democracy and even capitalism allows you without any additional barriers to create the business ownership model that you want. Today, you and 50 people can start a new business and you can all share in the ownership of the means of production. You can grow that business and hire 50 more people and give them an equal share too. 100 people, 1% each. In fact, we've seen co-ops, public benefit corporations, and other models come into existence and thrive! > What you are describing as “Communism” is, ideally, state socialism, wherein the people at large control the means of production through robustly democratic state institutions. In practice, though, attempts to implement an economic system around it have actually ended up being, and mostly getting stuck in state capitalism [0], wherein a narrow and self-perpetuating elite controls both the state and, through the state, the means of production and society more generally. Seems to me that it's possible that "getting stuck in state capitalism" is just the actual end result of the implementation of Communist ideology within the nation state framework. Empirically that's what we've seen so far, and Communists seem to recognize this too and they break down the existing nation state (regardless of form, monarchy or democracy), but people don't want to get rid of all of their stuff (airlines, nice watches, whiskey, you name it) and we just wind up with wars and millions dead. And in the case of most of the Communist nations that have existed that has been what we have seen. You'd have to forgive one for reading a bit about history, and then looking around a country like Sweden or Australia and saying you know this capitalism and free markets thing isn't so bad. Sent from my iPhone

dragonwriter 1y ago
> Seems to me that it's possible that "getting stuck in state capitalism" is just the actual end result of the implementation of Communist ideology within the nation state framework. Its possibly (and my opinion is that this is likely the case) the unavoidable result of attempting to implement nearly pure state socialism. There is no real reason to think that other approaches to socialism have this problem, and, again, “Communist” denotes a distinction within socialism that is orthogonal to the form of socialism sought but related to utopian end-goal past socialism, and there's even less reason to think that has any bearing on the outcome being discussed. > And in the case of most of the Communist nations that have existed that has been what we have seen. Every “Communist” nation has been an attempt to implement Leninism or one of its derivatives (e.g., Maoism) in a state without developed capitalism, notionally attempting to implement state socialism and often overtly accepting state capitalism as an interim measure (the name “state capitalism” literally comes from the USSR’s own description of what it presented as a temporary measure.) > You'd have to forgive one for reading a bit about history Yeah, a lot of ignorance is grounded in reading only a little bit of history and mistaking modern mixed economies (an actual application of a mix of market and state socialist ideas to a mature capitalist starting point, largely through the efforts of socialists including Communists, and which has largely displaced the system originally named “capitalism" by its socialist critics) as defining “capitalism" and the failure mode of state capitalism in Lenninist-derived regimes as the sole form of “socialism" or “Communism”, and drawing conclusions about the relative merit of socialism and capitalism from that mistaken set of premises. The solution to that problem is to read more than a little bit of history.
- ericmay 1y ago
  > Its possibly (and my opinion is that this is likely the case) the unavoidable result of attempting to implement nearly pure state socialism. > There is no real reason to think that other approaches to socialism have this problem, and, again, “Communist” denotes a distinction within socialism that is orthogonal to the form of socialism sought but related to utopian end-goal past socialism, and there's even less reason to think that has any bearing on the outcome being discussed. But we also have to deal with the world as-is for any ideology being implemented or tried. I'm not sure how you move away from state socialism as you have defined it without destroying the state and existing government first. As you noted already, attempts to implement Communist ideology or Socialist offshoots regardless of flavor have resulted in the state continuing to exist but a narrow and self-perpetuating elite continues to control both the state and, through the state, the means of production and society more generally. We've already seen this play out. Equally there's no reason to think that other approaches to socialism, regardless of flavor, will play out any differently unless you're also going to advocate for overthrowing the government and destroying the nation state first. Nobody is going to give up their airlines and watches and whatever other things, so you're going to have to seize those. > mistaking modern mixed economies... mature capitalist starting point, largely through the efforts of socialists including Communists, You're just doing the same thing so it's only fair. > The solution to that problem is to read more than a little bit of history. Back at you.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> Seems to me that it's possible that "getting stuck in state capitalism" is just the actual end result of the implementation of Communist ideology within the nation state framework. Its possibly (and my opinion is that this is likely the case) the unavoidable result of attempting to implement nearly pure state socialism. There is no real reason to think that other approaches to socialism have this problem, and, again, “Communist” denotes a distinction within socialism that is orthogonal to the form of socialism sought but related to utopian end-goal past socialism, and there's even less reason to think that has any bearing on the outcome being discussed. > And in the case of most of the Communist nations that have existed that has been what we have seen. Every “Communist” nation has been an attempt to implement Leninism or one of its derivatives (e.g., Maoism) in a state without developed capitalism, notionally attempting to implement state socialism and often overtly accepting state capitalism as an interim measure (the name “state capitalism” literally comes from the USSR’s own description of what it presented as a temporary measure.) > You'd have to forgive one for reading a bit about history Yeah, a lot of ignorance is grounded in reading only a little bit of history and mistaking modern mixed economies (an actual application of a mix of market and state socialist ideas to a mature capitalist starting point, largely through the efforts of socialists including Communists, and which has largely displaced the system originally named “capitalism" by its socialist critics) as defining “capitalism" and the failure mode of state capitalism in Lenninist-derived regimes as the sole form of “socialism" or “Communism”, and drawing conclusions about the relative merit of socialism and capitalism from that mistaken set of premises. The solution to that problem is to read more than a little bit of history.

ericmay 1y ago
> Its possibly (and my opinion is that this is likely the case) the unavoidable result of attempting to implement nearly pure state socialism. > There is no real reason to think that other approaches to socialism have this problem, and, again, “Communist” denotes a distinction within socialism that is orthogonal to the form of socialism sought but related to utopian end-goal past socialism, and there's even less reason to think that has any bearing on the outcome being discussed. But we also have to deal with the world as-is for any ideology being implemented or tried. I'm not sure how you move away from state socialism as you have defined it without destroying the state and existing government first. As you noted already, attempts to implement Communist ideology or Socialist offshoots regardless of flavor have resulted in the state continuing to exist but a narrow and self-perpetuating elite continues to control both the state and, through the state, the means of production and society more generally. We've already seen this play out. Equally there's no reason to think that other approaches to socialism, regardless of flavor, will play out any differently unless you're also going to advocate for overthrowing the government and destroying the nation state first. Nobody is going to give up their airlines and watches and whatever other things, so you're going to have to seize those. > mistaking modern mixed economies... mature capitalist starting point, largely through the efforts of socialists including Communists, You're just doing the same thing so it's only fair. > The solution to that problem is to read more than a little bit of history. Back at you.