Hi comrades. I was in a discussion last week about socialism (like I usually am) and I think we can do some self crit.

I think it's important to remember that multiple modes of production can (and almost always do) exist in a single soceity at once. There is a dialectic between the systems along with within them.

So when we discuss the social democracies, the soviet states, and modern communist projects like China, we should keep that in mind. There are capitalist, socialist, and communist sectors in many countries now. One of them will dominate, however (Marx says this in the first sentence of Capital).

When looking at the USSR, is had basically no capitalist sector, a very large socialist sector, and a big communist sector. But communist sectors are not unique to the USSR or a DotP. Denmark and the UK both had small communist sectors in things like their healthcare. The period before Thatcher actually saw a UK mix quite similar to post-Deng China--a large capitalist sector, a big socialist sector, and a sizable communit one. (This is likely why the economic performance and worker gains were so high during this time comared to other waning empires like France).

Modern China is very similar. And we should not be ultra leftists and ignore that these are all states in transition. We as communists, and Marxist Leninists do not deny that socialist sectors and communist sectors can appear in other societies. We simply state that unless there is a DotP established, the capitalist sector will erode them away.

Note: The definition of sectors here is whether production is governed by exchange value or use value. Capitalist ones have commodity production i.e. their productive forces are guided by exchange value. Communist sectors are governed by use value (to each according to their need and from each according to their ability). This means Communist sectos don't have commodities. Socialist sectors are ones where commodity production does exist but exchange value takes a secondary role in governing production.
UPDATE: Two comrades said they did not agree with how I defined socialist here. I don't think the definition of what true socialism is effects this argument. Feel free to replace "socialism" with whatever word you would describe for a sector where production is not entirely governed by exchange value but still is to some degree.

I hope you all gain something from this. Everyone in our discussion did. I look forward to any other perspectives. I'm originally a USonian so I know I may be narrow sighted.

  • deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    4 months ago

    I mean, maybe, but what matters what has the most economic, if not official political dominance, by their ownership and thus control...

    According to Principles of Communism

    {Modern} Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

    Note: In essence, the full realization of socialism, from its unshackling and total destruction of Das Kapital, via leadership of the wage laborers or "dictatorship of the proletariat"

    Note: But this is more or less a theoretical assumption

    And the main opposition to this liberation are the capitalists, especially in this context, the main western-dominating ones and its allied compradors who rely on unequal exchange, privatization and debt to do so ...

    As long as there are capitalists as a, if not THE ruling class, there is, to me, no such thing as {modern communism} unless the capitalists are gone, and history...

    I mean, there are such societies, which are primitive communist in its base, but so far, the capitalist powers can easily undo and expand their dictatorship or leadership upon them, by their productive forces

    Thus, to me, I don't see anything communist within Britain or Denmark for that reason that, unless you're describing a political organization whose ideology is of such

    I don't see it necessarily important to focus on exchange value, use-value, or commodity production, to define something as socialist, as they are mostly mediums to continue its activities.

    It's most fruitful to rather focus on the conditions that make it so,

    dominant economic ownership, organization, planning, and production (base)

    thus resulting indirect control on things like culture, government, law, education and overall society (superstructure)

    Show

    This indicates the ruling class, whether it be proletariat (wage labor) or bourgeois (capitalist)

    From the base, the focus on concepts like use-value, exchange value, or commodity productions will come through, by which the ruling class can fulfill their interests...

    That being said, I do agree that economic systems can co-exist with each other, but in a struggle for dominance that is,

    Eg. as the new bourgeois ruling class before had to deal with pesky medieval landlords and kings who ask for their rent and medieval guilds, that limit their workforce...

    • Soviet Entropy@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      4 months ago

      That being said, I do agree that economic systems can co-exist with each other, but in a struggle for dominance that is

      That's what I'm saying and what Marx is saying in the first volume of Capital. Societies can have one mode that predominates but they still have multiple modes.

      Regarding the UK, the NHS was almost fully de-commodified at its height. Public schools in many countries operate entirely de-commodified as well (with obvious expections). In modern Cuba the healthcare still works this way, as does the entire education system. This is a sector of the economy that is communist. Many FLOSS software projects are also part of the communist sector as well. Almost no society has a single mode of production. They are, for clear reasons as you pointed out, under attack. The dialectic will be in motion until its resolved. And I call that period of transition "socialism". I know some take issue with this term.

      Thanks for your reply.

      • deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        4 months ago

        The reason I give such long response is because of this small text over here

        Denmark and the UK both had small communist sectors in things like their healthcare. The period before Thatcher actually saw a UK mix quite similar to post-Deng China–a large capitalist sector, a big socialist sector, and a sizable communit one.

        Uh no, I don't think public housing and healthcare was necessarily communist, let alone even socialist

        If I had to simplify it more down, {Modern} Communism is more or less the total complete result of {scientific} socialism, in dissolving fully any capitalist remnants that oppose it

        Thus, I think describing anything as Communist outside of the context of ideological alignment or as the final goal, WHEN THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN PROLE AND CAPITALIST ISN'T DONE, is inaccurate...