"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Unless you want good consumer goods prole, haha heavy industry build up go brrrr.
Hot take:
I accept that the SU and countries like it were trying to build up to communism and were communist in that sense, but in that sense alone. If anything the SU proves that underdevelopment and communism don't mix.
In the eyes of western proles calling that real communism implies that you want to reduce their standard of living and thats a no go.
Many things the SU did were heroic and it's failing might be the biggest tragedy in history but any modern communist undertaking will not look like it at all and thats a good thing.
They need it, but can't do it on their own. my point is that Marx statement that a revolution must include the most developed countries or at least a lot of them still stands true.
I believe Imperialism is the primary global contradiction against the construction of socilism, so im inclined to agree with you here. Until the imperial core starts to crumble, it seems like the options are basically juche vs dengism, which is definately kinda problematic.
Sure it won’t look like that. Productive forces are already developed! Unless of course the state have shipped manufacturing abroad and subsists on vaporware and imperial might to trade for said useful goods 🤔
Edit: ohh nice site, it’s less bad than I thought tbh.
Yes but many people here still stan the asthetics of the SU hard and then call the SU (true) socialism and it's not to difficult to see how that turns people towards the liberal propaganda that says every socialism will look like the SU.
There is no reason why any country should completely pull off of any and all trade instantly, it's not a good idea and neither is it helpful for anyone.
I’m not saying pull off all trade, I’m saying sans military threats and desire for equitable world a lot of shit would get expensive really fast (rare earth materials, clothes, anything with a shitton of labor produced in global south) and a lot of shit conversely would become extremely cheap: software, medical patents, finance industry commissions, things that don’t have constant labor value or maintenance level of it
But fr usa can obviously produce enough food and concrete for itself, but can it produce enough clothes, other building materials, steel, nickel, cobalt with factories as they currently are?
I’ll have to refresh my memory on the import/export balances info and employment figures, maybe I was mistaken, but it was quite obscene disbalance without service exports
The means of production can be easily (re)placed in the US, or Europa and since a revolution would cancel all the bullshit jobs there would be plenty of manpower for them. Also stuff like textil or chemical industries can almost be fully automated today.
It is perfectly possible. Germany is a country that still exports a lot of high value consumer goods and machinery and otherwise it's a perfectly simple western country.
Textile as in bulk commodity of course, us produces a shitton of cotton, but I’m talking specifically clothes/shoes, shit like that, that have not been automated, labor intensive stuff.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
This comes up in Marx referring to the "higher stage of communism" or simply communism (with socialism being the "lower stage"), which the USSR was never supposed to have reached yet and in general it is something considered to be pretty distant even post revolution.
Marx talks briefly about higher and lower stages, but even the lower stage should in his view include for example the almost immediat abolishment of money. The SU system on the other hand grew more monetary over time.
I don't think Marx ever named the stages socialism and communism though, thats seems to come from a Leninist interpretation of Marx.
I argue that Marx used the terms scientific socialism and communism for the same thing.
include for example the almost immediat abolishment of money
I'm pretty sure I've never seen something like that in Marx, and it's also pretty obviously very difficult. Money arises from trade and since there will still be trade at first, there will be money. Didn't say he named them socialism and communism, although these terms gained their meaning before Lenin (but after Marx).
He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost.
Critique of the Gotha program.
He writes this about th ** lower** stage of communism, obviously the certificate is not money. And it makes sense, movement of goods is an economic neccessity in every form of economy, but only in an economy with private property goods will be produced as commodities for the markets and therefore neccessitate trade (=change of ownership).
But this says nothing about abolition of money, which is a different thing and generally a big no no when you still have to deal with imperialism and foreign trade.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Unless you want good consumer goods prole, haha heavy industry build up go brrrr.
Hot take: I accept that the SU and countries like it were trying to build up to communism and were communist in that sense, but in that sense alone. If anything the SU proves that underdevelopment and communism don't mix. In the eyes of western proles calling that real communism implies that you want to reduce their standard of living and thats a no go. Many things the SU did were heroic and it's failing might be the biggest tragedy in history but any modern communist undertaking will not look like it at all and thats a good thing.
deleted by creator
They need it, but can't do it on their own. my point is that Marx statement that a revolution must include the most developed countries or at least a lot of them still stands true.
Burkina Faso pretty much did it on their own
I believe Imperialism is the primary global contradiction against the construction of socilism, so im inclined to agree with you here. Until the imperial core starts to crumble, it seems like the options are basically juche vs dengism, which is definately kinda problematic.
Sure it won’t look like that. Productive forces are already developed! Unless of course the state have shipped manufacturing abroad and subsists on vaporware and imperial might to trade for said useful goods 🤔
Edit: ohh nice site, it’s less bad than I thought tbh.
Yes but many people here still stan the asthetics of the SU hard and then call the SU (true) socialism and it's not to difficult to see how that turns people towards the liberal propaganda that says every socialism will look like the SU.
There is no reason why any country should completely pull off of any and all trade instantly, it's not a good idea and neither is it helpful for anyone.
I’m not saying pull off all trade, I’m saying sans military threats and desire for equitable world a lot of shit would get expensive really fast (rare earth materials, clothes, anything with a shitton of labor produced in global south) and a lot of shit conversely would become extremely cheap: software, medical patents, finance industry commissions, things that don’t have constant labor value or maintenance level of it
deleted by creator
I’m too afraid to look if that sub is real tbh.
But fr usa can obviously produce enough food and concrete for itself, but can it produce enough clothes, other building materials, steel, nickel, cobalt with factories as they currently are?
deleted by creator
I’ll have to refresh my memory on the import/export balances info and employment figures, maybe I was mistaken, but it was quite obscene disbalance without service exports
The means of production can be easily (re)placed in the US, or Europa and since a revolution would cancel all the bullshit jobs there would be plenty of manpower for them. Also stuff like textil or chemical industries can almost be fully automated today. It is perfectly possible. Germany is a country that still exports a lot of high value consumer goods and machinery and otherwise it's a perfectly simple western country.
Textile as in bulk commodity of course, us produces a shitton of cotton, but I’m talking specifically clothes/shoes, shit like that, that have not been automated, labor intensive stuff.
This comes up in Marx referring to the "higher stage of communism" or simply communism (with socialism being the "lower stage"), which the USSR was never supposed to have reached yet and in general it is something considered to be pretty distant even post revolution.
Marx talks briefly about higher and lower stages, but even the lower stage should in his view include for example the almost immediat abolishment of money. The SU system on the other hand grew more monetary over time. I don't think Marx ever named the stages socialism and communism though, thats seems to come from a Leninist interpretation of Marx. I argue that Marx used the terms scientific socialism and communism for the same thing.
I'm pretty sure I've never seen something like that in Marx, and it's also pretty obviously very difficult. Money arises from trade and since there will still be trade at first, there will be money. Didn't say he named them socialism and communism, although these terms gained their meaning before Lenin (but after Marx).
Critique of the Gotha program.
He writes this about th ** lower** stage of communism, obviously the certificate is not money. And it makes sense, movement of goods is an economic neccessity in every form of economy, but only in an economy with private property goods will be produced as commodities for the markets and therefore neccessitate trade (=change of ownership).
But this says nothing about abolition of money, which is a different thing and generally a big no no when you still have to deal with imperialism and foreign trade.