-
take away your surplus labor value accrued in a democratically run workplace to build schools and infrastructure and ultimately move beyond capitalism
-
take away your surplus labor value accrued in a workplace run like an absolute monarchy to finance your boss's collection of rare Pepe NFTs and perpetuate that system forever
These are clearly the same thing :very-intelligent:
Don't you know if you don't hit the socialism button immediately after you :owned: the :porky-scared-flipped: then you're no better than :porky-happy: everybody knows that since that's what the fairy tale Animal Farm tells us will happen.
You see according to animal farm if we do a communism then things might get better or we could be exactly where we are now. I don't know about you but I can't accept that risk so I say we just leave everything as it is now
There is literally no difference between bad things and things that are less bad and working to become good, harm reduction isnt real... except if its the monarchy in that case they are harm reduction lmao I'm George Orwell I stand for nothing.
-
Capitalism needs more than just the extraction of surplus value, like private property and some market mechanisms. While the USSR did basically exploit the peasants for their surplus value in order to fund industrialization, so did every other country. it's how economic development works. And I'd say collectivization (which was the program this guy refers to) was distinct enough from capitalist projects for it not to be capitalist even though there is still exploitation.
im just going to say it - capitalism looks A LOT LIKE SOCIALISM if you dont know what youre looking for, and even MORE IMPORTANT [FOLKS REAL IMPORTANCE HERE YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND] Socialism is based on your social relations to property and how that affects your relation to work and other people or your government or EVEN YOUR NEIGHBOR AND ROMANTIC INTERESTS... like bro that is not something you can communicate without actually experiencing it.
also the soviet union needed to do what china did, but was too stuck in dogmatism or the party elites no longer "believed in communism" without understanding that post industrialization... heavy industry is in large part not going to serve your people. it NEEDS to develop into what sort of looks like capitalism.
like the entire point of the cold war was that communism shaped american capitalism, and vice versa. we ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT NOT MAKING STUFF OR NO WORK ITS ABOUT HOW YOU PERSONALLY RELATE TO THESE MODERN INDUSTRIES AND INSTITUTIONS. CAUSE IN AMERICA I THINK EVERYONE IS SCHIZO AND DOESNT TRUST A THING. THAT DOESNT EXIST IN CHINA, THIS IS BECAUSE OF HONESTY AND SOCIALISM FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
also the soviet union needed to do what china did, but was too stuck in dogmatism or the party elites no longer “believed in communism” without understanding that post industrialization… heavy industry is in large part not going to serve your people. it NEEDS to develop into what sort of looks like capitalism.
What? That was a big part of Khrushchev's reforms, trying to shift from building productive capital to making consumer goods and shifting from purely centralized planning to a mixed economy of centrally-planned important industry and agriculture with a tolerated private market for services, extra produce, etc.
It was defined by huge failures like the attempted privatization of tractors, the private sector become a persistent drain on the Soviet economy that encouraged stealing from supply chains to sell or trade in the so-called "second economy," and the shift away from focusing on building up more productive capital led to the USSR's economic growth slowing and eventually stagnating when its previous trajectory had it reaching parity with the US economy in the 70s.
Clearly a shift from making machines that make machines that make more machines was something that had to happen eventually, but the USSR's problem was that it did so far too early and then in the face of stagnation doubled down on it until it suffered complete economic collapse from the destruction of central planning systems and the privatization of state assets.
What China did was open itself up as a market for western capital and a labor pool to produce consumer goods for the west (in a similar fashion to how earlier Japan and South Korea were made to open up as markets and labor pools by the US occupation and experienced rapid industrialization as a result and with the obvious cost of becoming sources of cheap labor for the US), because the CPC leadership determined that that was the only way to get past the problem of just how far behind in industrial capital they were as a result of the conditions China was in when the revolution succeeded: for example, in 1950 China's entire steel production was less than that of Russia in 1917, and most of China's heavy industry was concentrated in Manchuria. They did receive a fair amount of aid from the USSR early on in the form of both industrial capital and skilled technicians coming to train people, but the USSR itself only had so much to spare for that project and this slowed or stopped as relations between the USSR and China cooled in the Khrushchev era.
I think what sets China apart is that their reforms were completely illiberal. Jack Ma is allowed to exist but ultimately he is a slave to the party
They didn't read Das Kapital and don't know about PA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_socialist_accumulation
Is it even possible, that in some kind of perfect economy that takes into account all externalities and costs, that there is no need for surplus value to be produced at all - that is, infrastructure and common works are run with costs embedded into the system?
I can't really see that happening without getting rid of money all together.
So yeah, surplus value can be accrued under leftwing governments and used for the public good, but it's not capitalism if it doesn't go to private individuals. Is it considered exploitation if the surplus value goes to providing necessary infrastructure and support for - and under the direction of - the people who created it through direct Soviet style democracy, for example.
I love that I can post idealistic gibberish, and it's being implemented in DPRK
Seems like their argument is capitalism = accumulation and is necessary to industrialize, so if you industrialized you did a capitalism. Seems like a messy argument and not what Marxists meant when they said that socialism works best in industrialized societies. Are they quoting someone in particular?
why are we dunking on a 61 follower account lol
Also they're obviously a left anti-communist so ofc they don't understand accumulation
They got 25k followers on Instagram where I saw this so they might be doing all the accumulation there lol
