I think the important thing to point out is that with Agriculture/Peasants and Industry/Proles, these represent a dialectic contradiction: within a mode of production there is an oppressing class and an oppressed class.
A "Finance Socialist" state would not be run by the oppressors within the Financial system - it would be run by the oppressed. Just as the PRC is not ruled by landlords and the USSR was not ruled by Capitalists.
Who exactly the oppressed class under the Public Finance mode of production (if it can even be considered a distinct mode of production) would be is the important question. I think as we transition deeper into a "Gig Economy" world, the answer is the Lumpenproletariat.
Who exactly the oppressed class under the Public Finance mode of production (if it can even be considered a distinct mode of production) would be is the important question.
Huh, I never really thought of that (it's not a mode of production; it's just another way of surplus value sucking, like landholding and industry with rent and profit, though it does finance capitalist and state projects)
I think as we transition deeper into a "Gig Economy" world, the answer is the Lumpenproletariat.
Lumpenprole?
I think I'm kinda biased in that lumpenprole aren't exactly proles but a marginalized and totally disenfranchised chaotic wildcard class without much relation to the productive forces, that may ally randomly with proletarian or bourgeois forces, so I have my doubts...
I don't trust a mixed bag for something relating to the commanding heights of the economy
Personally, I'd rather go the Lenin route and fully restructure the financial sector to be more suited for conventional working class ranks; from peasants and proletariat, as a tool towards state-allocated credit and funding
Capitalist culture has created large-scale production, factories, railways, the postal service, telephones, etc., and on this basis {that socialism seizes, if not creates} the great majority of the functions of the old "state power" have become so simplified and can be reduced to such exceedingly simple operations of registration, filing, and checking that they can be easily performed by every literate person, can quite easily be performed for ordinary "workmen's wages", and that these functions can (and must) be stripped of every shadow of privilege, of every semblance of "official grandeur".
I guess I did an error by not investigating more into lumpenprole (something something Mao quote). If you can explain your side, maybe I'll understand, but if you're just here to win an argument, then I forsake it, due to my ignorance...
I think the important thing to point out is that with Agriculture/Peasants and Industry/Proles, these represent a dialectic contradiction: within a mode of production there is an oppressing class and an oppressed class.
A "Finance Socialist" state would not be run by the oppressors within the Financial system - it would be run by the oppressed. Just as the PRC is not ruled by landlords and the USSR was not ruled by Capitalists.
Who exactly the oppressed class under the Public Finance mode of production (if it can even be considered a distinct mode of production) would be is the important question. I think as we transition deeper into a "Gig Economy" world, the answer is the Lumpenproletariat.
Removed by mod
Huh, I never really thought of that (it's not a mode of production; it's just another way of surplus value sucking, like landholding and industry with rent and profit, though it does finance capitalist and state projects)
Lumpenprole?
I think I'm kinda biased in that lumpenprole aren't exactly proles but a marginalized and totally disenfranchised chaotic wildcard class without much relation to the productive forces, that may ally randomly with proletarian or bourgeois forces, so I have my doubts...
I don't trust a mixed bag for something relating to the commanding heights of the economy
Personally, I'd rather go the Lenin route and fully restructure the financial sector to be more suited for conventional working class ranks; from peasants and proletariat, as a tool towards state-allocated credit and funding
Removed by mod
Well, that presupposes there may be peasants in this world, such as Southeast Asia or South America
Removed by mod
I guess I did an error by not investigating more into lumpenprole (something something Mao quote). If you can explain your side, maybe I'll understand, but if you're just here to win an argument, then I forsake it, due to my ignorance...
Removed by mod