how the fuck are they gonna solve that without another revolution
edit: this is a genuine question btw, not supposed to be a "gotcha"
The issue is not one of whether or not private businesses will, or need to exist, but rather one of who has the actual power; the state, or capital? In the former case, the state retains ultimate authority over capital, and can allow it to exist as long as it plays by its rules. Capital will not magically wither away, but the state does have the ability to seize apital as and when it is necessary to do so.
Also, have you got a source for those numbers, seems pretty nuts either way.
The issue is not one of whether or not private businesses will, or need to exist, but rather one of who has the actual power; the state, or capital?
i think the problem is a bit more complex than that when it comes to the petty bourgeoisie, because they can't be seen on an individual basis
it's one thing to point a gun at jack ma and nationalize the alibaba group; no one will care but him and a few investors, you create a mere political event which would actually be pretty easy to steer propaganda wise
but expropriating the equivalent wealth from petty bourgeois elements? that's a political nightmare
think stalin and the kulaks; yes, the bolsheviks had the weapons, the actual power, and as such they did manage to collectivize agriculture in the end, but it was a horrible process - most likely far worse than if he only had to expropriate a handful of landlords
Also, have you got a source for those numbers, seems pretty nuts either way.
it's from the oecd
Not sure how the Kulak thing applies here; the kulaks were more than welcome to continue existing as a class right up until they refused to play their role as had been defined by the state by not only resisting collectivization, but by actively sabotaging that effort by deliberately destroying their harvests in the midst of a national emergency. Had the famine not occurred or had they cooperated during said famine, the kulaks would still have existed as a class. Thus, I feel, is what China is doing right now; their own kulaks are perfectly allowed to run as-is, but if a national emergency takes place that needs their productive forces, those means of production are getting the fuck seized, and god help you if you resist.
Thus, I feel, is what China is doing right now; their own kulaks are perfectly allowed to run as-is
i agree
i'm just saying they've created so many "kulaks" in the process that this part:
if a national emergency takes place that needs their productive forces, those means of production are getting the fuck seized, and god help you if you resist.
would be disastrous, just due to the sheer number of reactionaries they have now
The Communist Party alone has almost 100 million members. I think they can handle 10 million or so business owners.
How many of those are coops or literally just a single person who owns their own capital, though?
if you're thinking about stopping at capitalism, then yes, family ownership is better
if you're thinking about moving towards socialism, it's the opposite, at least for marx
which is why he said in the manifesto, and then repeated 27 years later in the critique of the gotha program, that the concentration of property was actually a good thing for a scientific socialist, as it moved people from an inherently reactionary class (petty bourgeoisie) to a revolutionary one (wage worker) - meaning that the more heightened the contradictions, the closer we are to socialism
if the class struggle isn't over after the revolution, then how is the class composition of the country not relevant? how is that not gonna get in the way of socializing the means of production? how are we going to abolish the commodity form of any sector without taking into account millions of people whose bills are paid by profiting from that sector instead of receiving wages?
You overcome it by having a Communist Party that is laser-focused on bringing about socialism and will stop at nothing to make it happen. I know that sounds trite, but hear me out. As I read more about formerly existing AES states like those of eastern Europe, the more I understand how even in a society broadly committed to socialism, you have factions that could benefit from a turn towards capitalism. Professionals like doctors. Those running black markets. Small business owners or even just your basic strivers who think they're destined to run a business empire someday. They may not be a majority but they can develop a lot of power. And they have to be dealt with. We have to recognize that socialism only promises to be better for the material conditions of the working class, not everyone in society.
The CPC seems to handle this issue well, but I can't say that for sure. I would think if and when these 10 million business owners decide to really act like kulaks the CPC will deal with them, but that remains an open question I suppose. I think the CPC plans to make the transition to socialism so gradual that it would be hard for these business owners to pick a point at which they say the line has been crossed and they revolt.
As long as the CPC doesn't get co-opted by revisionists, neoliberals, and capitalists I'm not too worried.
A) By providing better working conditions in state enterprises
B) introducing labor-time accounting (lol)
But for real, how many of those are trinket makers for Guangzhou market (I think), where they make random stuff for foreigners to buy in bulk, and employ either no-one or 1-2 people?
They can literally call up a political officer to investigate any crimes against the people
