That's rather the wrong question to have as it is a government designed to help and maintain a livable and fulfilling populace.
If you mean as to how it innovates, it does so with the aforementioned intention and goal above. That is through an education system with the motive of enriching the sciences and studies of the people.
The way this translates economically in the real world is its society focuses on anything it deems underdeveleoped. Cuba for example has extremely advanced cancer treatment. It does this not focusing on profitability like ours but for the sake of humanity.
I hope that gives somewhat an idea of how things are geared.
I think the real answer to this (that people will have preferences in which job they'd prefer to follow) is that a communist society would allocate educational resources along whatever paths will be expected to be in demand in the years to come. If possible, everyone's desired job would be accommodated, but I'm sure there'd be something like required conscription where you're assigned to a job site based on educational qualifications and other weighted metrics as necessary, at least for some time until a more ideal position for the individual opens up. The assurance that food, clothing, water, shelter, healthcare, etc. would be covered by society's broader productive apparatus would have to be enough for young people to settle for some shit jobs for some time. What this all looks like, in practice ... well, fuck if we all know. If nothing else, the goals of society (to produce what is needed, then desired) would make it such that the individual would have the personal time to cultivate their interests outside of whatever "shit" job they may have, which is more than capitalism can ever promise.
One saying I relate to is, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." In what ways does communism or it's adjacent philosophies violate this? and how would you resolve it?
I think this is a bit reductive of what socialism is as well as what it opposes. The problem with capitalist states isn't principally that they have markets, but that the rich control society. The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat -- the concrete goal of socialism -- is democracy, which includes being rid of that control. Perhaps China is compromised, perhaps it is not, but we shouldn't pin it on them dealing in trade like it cosmically taints them with anticommunist sin. It would be more like they played with fire to further their goals and failed to contain the fire, that being if we assume it is true they are compromised.
In that sense, if we accept "capitalism" to mean "using markets" (which I don't think is right but w/e) then it would be more appropriate to say that socialism opposes liberalism, the political-economic paradigm in which owning markets means owning everything else by extension.
I find this answer really refreshing. depressing, yes, but real yes. I'm afraid I cannot further the point in any meaningful way though. Other than perhaps ask the question, can alternate systems be successful with capitalism still on the map? Personally I am sure that capitalism will be the ruin of Western Society, though I am unsure what the next step is, toward freedom.
That's makes sense. Let me ask, and I don't mean to be difficult.. but- must the solution be communism? In other words, if the goal is economic liberation for the proletariat, is communism the only way to that end?
Would I be accused of opening a big ass can of worms (generally speaking) were I to mention the oligarchy? Are they the canary in the coal mine, so to speak? The evidencers of neofeudalism?
George Lucas does a good job answering the question when he compared being a film maker in the US vs being a film maker in the USSR, how he always envied Soviet filmmakers. Stalker, Solaris, etc were all originally Soviet films before the stories got later remade by US studios. Today everyone associates "avant-garde art" with bougie rich people and luxury brands but before 1990 the term referred to the work of Soviet artists.
Segment from Lucas interview in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWqvaMEFIdI
The point of communism is to use the advances in automation humanity has made up to that point to decrease the amount of labor required for society (instead of using automation to more efficiently accumulate vast riches for the private propertied class) so that humans are able to spend more of their lives enriching it through art and joy and community instead of having to sell apart your life body and soul for capital.
Sorry for repeating my same comment as to another member but I don't know how to share comment links yet:
One saying I relate to is, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." In what ways does communism or it's adjacent philosophies violate this? and how would you resolve it?
One saying I relate to is, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." In what ways does communism or it's adjacent philosophies violate this? and how would you resolve it?
It doesn't even apply. There is no perfection in scientific socialism and there is no good in liberal imperialism.
The great part is that Marxism as a result of materialism must deal with the grey lines between concepts. Don't know if you have read about dialectics, but in essence dialectics are the point where opposites turn into each other, and dialectical materialism is about applying dialectics to the best we can to material reality - which inherently means coming into constant conflict with the nature of the material world as impossibly complex and interconnected. Mao has some good poetic writings on dialectical materialism that take influence from daoism which are a great starting point.
"Critical support" is a term you'll see a lot which encapsulates everything we've mentioned here. Critical support is taking the bad with the good without ignoring either, and attempting to produce a position that benefits our purpose without having to focus on the more arbitrary qualities of good and bad and perfect and imperfect. Ultimately as a result of "not just theorizing about the world but changing it" we must interact with all the contradictions inherent to the world in order to definitively guide us towards our goals.
There have been many different offshoot ideologies that have in time mostly been proven wrong, although as time passes we see them continue to come back around in new forms. Particularly Engels has a writing socialism: scientific or utopian that goes into detail on what idealist tendencies that choose to be above the imperfection of struggle get wrong.
That's rather the wrong question to have as it is a government designed to help and maintain a livable and fulfilling populace. If you mean as to how it innovates, it does so with the aforementioned intention and goal above. That is through an education system with the motive of enriching the sciences and studies of the people. The way this translates economically in the real world is its society focuses on anything it deems underdeveleoped. Cuba for example has extremely advanced cancer treatment. It does this not focusing on profitability like ours but for the sake of humanity. I hope that gives somewhat an idea of how things are geared.
What if I don't care about science, choosing rather to pursue the arts?
The DPRK has a paintbrush in its flag for a reason
I think the real answer to this (that people will have preferences in which job they'd prefer to follow) is that a communist society would allocate educational resources along whatever paths will be expected to be in demand in the years to come. If possible, everyone's desired job would be accommodated, but I'm sure there'd be something like required conscription where you're assigned to a job site based on educational qualifications and other weighted metrics as necessary, at least for some time until a more ideal position for the individual opens up. The assurance that food, clothing, water, shelter, healthcare, etc. would be covered by society's broader productive apparatus would have to be enough for young people to settle for some shit jobs for some time. What this all looks like, in practice ... well, fuck if we all know. If nothing else, the goals of society (to produce what is needed, then desired) would make it such that the individual would have the personal time to cultivate their interests outside of whatever "shit" job they may have, which is more than capitalism can ever promise.
One saying I relate to is, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." In what ways does communism or it's adjacent philosophies violate this? and how would you resolve it?
deleted by creator
I think this is a bit reductive of what socialism is as well as what it opposes. The problem with capitalist states isn't principally that they have markets, but that the rich control society. The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat -- the concrete goal of socialism -- is democracy, which includes being rid of that control. Perhaps China is compromised, perhaps it is not, but we shouldn't pin it on them dealing in trade like it cosmically taints them with anticommunist sin. It would be more like they played with fire to further their goals and failed to contain the fire, that being if we assume it is true they are compromised.
In that sense, if we accept "capitalism" to mean "using markets" (which I don't think is right but w/e) then it would be more appropriate to say that socialism opposes liberalism, the political-economic paradigm in which owning markets means owning everything else by extension.
I find this answer really refreshing. depressing, yes, but real yes. I'm afraid I cannot further the point in any meaningful way though. Other than perhaps ask the question, can alternate systems be successful with capitalism still on the map? Personally I am sure that capitalism will be the ruin of Western Society, though I am unsure what the next step is, toward freedom.
deleted by creator
That's makes sense. Let me ask, and I don't mean to be difficult.. but- must the solution be communism? In other words, if the goal is economic liberation for the proletariat, is communism the only way to that end?
deleted by creator
Would I be accused of opening a big ass can of worms (generally speaking) were I to mention the oligarchy? Are they the canary in the coal mine, so to speak? The evidencers of neofeudalism?
deleted by creator
undefined> while a few thousand people have consolidated 90% of the wealth.
Infuriating
There are artists, musicians, writers, etc in socialist countries. The USSR had a really cool film industry.
George Lucas does a good job answering the question when he compared being a film maker in the US vs being a film maker in the USSR, how he always envied Soviet filmmakers. Stalker, Solaris, etc were all originally Soviet films before the stories got later remade by US studios. Today everyone associates "avant-garde art" with bougie rich people and luxury brands but before 1990 the term referred to the work of Soviet artists.
Segment from Lucas interview in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWqvaMEFIdI
The point of communism is to use the advances in automation humanity has made up to that point to decrease the amount of labor required for society (instead of using automation to more efficiently accumulate vast riches for the private propertied class) so that humans are able to spend more of their lives enriching it through art and joy and community instead of having to sell apart your life body and soul for capital.
Sorry for repeating my same comment as to another member but I don't know how to share comment links yet:
One saying I relate to is, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." In what ways does communism or it's adjacent philosophies violate this? and how would you resolve it?
It doesn't even apply. There is no perfection in scientific socialism and there is no good in liberal imperialism.
Exactly. Its a total Liberal expression that means nothing. No offense to the person asking questions, I'm just sick of that quote
The great part is that Marxism as a result of materialism must deal with the grey lines between concepts. Don't know if you have read about dialectics, but in essence dialectics are the point where opposites turn into each other, and dialectical materialism is about applying dialectics to the best we can to material reality - which inherently means coming into constant conflict with the nature of the material world as impossibly complex and interconnected. Mao has some good poetic writings on dialectical materialism that take influence from daoism which are a great starting point.
"Critical support" is a term you'll see a lot which encapsulates everything we've mentioned here. Critical support is taking the bad with the good without ignoring either, and attempting to produce a position that benefits our purpose without having to focus on the more arbitrary qualities of good and bad and perfect and imperfect. Ultimately as a result of "not just theorizing about the world but changing it" we must interact with all the contradictions inherent to the world in order to definitively guide us towards our goals.
There have been many different offshoot ideologies that have in time mostly been proven wrong, although as time passes we see them continue to come back around in new forms. Particularly Engels has a writing socialism: scientific or utopian that goes into detail on what idealist tendencies that choose to be above the imperfection of struggle get wrong.
Thank you, I appreciate the earnest honesty of your response. Much to think about for me here.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator