The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities — such a socialism is unknown to Marxism.
All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society.
Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
It is quite clear that people’s needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian “communists.” [48]
The one, the only, GOATED entry in the Final Fantasy series, Final Fantasy Tactics.
(okay most of the FF games are GOATED).
Seems like this is an edit of (spoilers? idk I've never played this game) a Final Fantasy Tactics screenshot. I guess the unlikely alternative is that there's an entire Portguese communist romhack or something, but the only hit I got for the line is this reddit post from today.
At the risk of showing just how woefully ignorant I am, I have to ask the question, how does a system like communism compete against other economic systems? I keep hearing that it is the superb choice, but I don't see how, and I'm honestly not trying to be obtuse.
Communists have different priorities than liberals, so it's always going to seem like socialism produces the incorrect results from a liberal point of view. Communist movements also have the disadvantage of living in a world dominated by capital, meaning our only choices are either to somehow wrestle control of capital, or abandon it entirely. Neither is a satisfying choice and neither is without their own issues.
In any case, socialist countries, including very poor ones, consistently outrank countries of similar income and geography in metrics like housing, healthcare, infant mortality, literacy, and educational attainment.
Liberal economists don't value these factors, instead favoring a focus on things like total GDP, or access to markets, or even completely abstract concepts like freedom, happiness, or liberty. Communist movements are intended to liberate the working class. Other systems, like feudalism or capitalism, don't value a liberated working class, because that upends the entire production apparatus.
I don't know how relevant it is anymore, but I always point to this 1986 study compiled from World Bank information that shows quality of life in socialist countries exceeding similar capitalist countries in 30 out of 36 comparisons.
or even completely abstract concepts like freedom, happiness, or liberty.
these are all important to communists it's just that the bourgeoisie have something completely different in mind when they say these words. When they use curated metrics like the "freedom index," they're measuring freedom of the bourgeoisie, happiness of the bourgeoisie, and liberty of the bourgeoisie, as a class, to do whatever they want with their property, which includes of course the means of production, the land, and the labor power they have purchased from the nominally free proletariat who only have their labor power to sell.
Communism does not occur until capitalism is abolished and socialism develops the nation into one of material over-abundance.
Until that point, it is socialism that competes with capitalism. And socialism will win through being a planned top down economy making it more efficient than the mess of profit chasing the market, not just at being better at producing but by making the decision to place resources where it will be of highest advancement to society.
Even without the efficiency of a planned economy consider this: Who has more resources? The society with a class of people who are cutting away huge amounts of surplus to fill their bank accounts like hoarding dragons, or the society without that class of people where all of that surplus goes towards the further development and improvement of that society?
Who has more resources?
Your points are intriguing (sorry for generalising my feedback) and reasonable in terms of the possibilities offered. The question of resource seems to be more akin to corruption than economic approach IMO. Perhaps its true that certain economic systems are more tolerant, permissive, even inviting of corruption, than others. (I really don't know the answer to that) But we know for a fact that corruption can exist in any economic model, I happen to live a few hundred km from the border with Venezuela, and things are not well there, which I see with both eyes having witnessed personally just a small portion of the mass exodus from Venezuela to surrounding countries, and the associated suffering. I happen to believe though that the USA is every bit as corrupt, they just do a better job of hiding it, and managing around it, and letting certain classes play the game.
Socialism is an interesting game from the point of view of the USA. Am I correct in surmising that the closest we've come on a national level is in electing players like "Bernie" and "AOC" and such? Or am I completely off base?
Venezuela is not, as much noise as their politicians like to talk, strictly socialist in either a Marxist-Leninist or even really Marxist sense. It is much closer to what a social democratic state would look like if it didn't have the benefits of global trade and support from the imperial core.
Even at the height of Bolivarian socialism, the state only controlled 40% of the means of production, I believe it is closer to 33% these days. At no point in time did Venezuela ever participate in land-redistribution, nor take over most of the major industries. What Venezuela did do, is after overthrowing their American backed coup government is create an actually well-organized and popular electoral process that of whom the politicians that come out of it are extremely anti-American (for obvious reasons), and then bank their social welfare state on oil revenues. The problem is that banking on oil revenues without a global power size military OR direct support of the U.S. government is a bad idea, because the U.S. has control over the petrol-dollar and can very effectively make your economy scream. Not only has the U.S. illegally seized Venezuela's gold and foreign currency reserves, but they have also effectively sanctioned them in such a way that completely reduces their ability to produce oil, through not only sanctions on parts for refinery machinery, but also from buying the lighter oil that is used to 'cut' Venezuelan oil for refinement. As well, basing your entire social welfare scheme on a consumer market product is generally speaking a bad idea, because the more you produce, the further the price can drop due to lack of demand. It works well if you are a part of an oil cartel, but if you are an independent producer it is easy to be pushed out of the market place.
The current crisis in Venezuela that is occurring now is happening because of those factors alongside the fact that Venezuela has been privatizing. opening up to the U.S. and foreign investment, and cutting down on these social welfare programs in an attempt to consolidate finances and keep the state and military apparatus afloat. In essence, neoliberal austerity for nationalist reasons. Imo, it's a rational response to crisis, but also very short-sighted, in the same way that backing their social welfare state on oil revenues was. They have not effectively mobilized the masses in a way that re-makes the relations of society, only in a way that creates a democratic electoral process, which economic capitalist imperium could give less than two shits about.
The 'closest' that the U.S. ever came to socialism electorally was when Eugene Debs ran for president in 1912 and achieved 6% of the popular vote. Not only was Debs an integral member in the American Rail Union and helped organize workers in the aftermath of the Pullman Strike, but he also served multiple jail sentences for speaking out against both the government and the war effort in WWI, during one (1916) of which he still ran for president and received 3.4% of the vote, the highest ever achieved by a presidential candidate in jail. As for American communism, the heights of American communism was during the 1930's, but all of their party gains were not only stymied by fallout around the Molotov-Ribbentov pact and support of WWII, but also by the Red Scare, which effectively kicked communists off of the boards of all major American unions, even unions that they themselves were fundamental in creating. Without access to real power, American communism backslid into academic in-fighting and aesthetic sign-waving, with notable exceptions being organizations such as the Black Panthers. However, any time any communist organization achieved even a whiff of coherency prior to the 90's, it would be either broken up by the feds, killed or arrested, particularly if it was led by people of color.
These days, it's a bit different. The feds have a difficult time even recognizing communism or communist leanings, as they are not specifically trained in it, and all politicians around communism and socialism are anti-imperialist social democrats at best. Even AOC and Bernie are not strictly speaking anti-imperialist, and neither have actually done things to help with union drives or support labor causes, instead placing all of their money and expertise into the electoral basket. During the NY Amazon unionization push, AOC only showed up after the vote was already won and just took a couple of photos and then left, having spent more time schmoozing with the likely pedophiles at the Met. At least Bernie has been arrested a couple of times.
neither have actually done things to help with union drives or support labor causes
That's sad. Really. I would have expected more.
They are closer in the sense that a burning candle is closer to being a star than a puddle of spit is to being a star. A candle is nonetheless much closer to the puddle of spit and they are much closer to Republicans than Communists if you look at anything other than what they have said.
Some of the mass-organizing tactics from the Bernie campaign were pretty interesting, but in general neither of them are remotely close and have largely served to muddle the definition of socialism. The closest similarity they have is in their rhetoric, as virtually all of the policy that they talk a big game about has been smothered in the crib by their fellow legislators.
That's rather the wrong question to have as it is a government designed to help and maintain a livable and fulfilling populace. If you mean as to how it innovates, it does so with the aforementioned intention and goal above. That is through an education system with the motive of enriching the sciences and studies of the people. The way this translates economically in the real world is its society focuses on anything it deems underdeveleoped. Cuba for example has extremely advanced cancer treatment. It does this not focusing on profitability like ours but for the sake of humanity. I hope that gives somewhat an idea of how things are geared.
What if I don't care about science, choosing rather to pursue the arts?
I think the real answer to this (that people will have preferences in which job they'd prefer to follow) is that a communist society would allocate educational resources along whatever paths will be expected to be in demand in the years to come. If possible, everyone's desired job would be accommodated, but I'm sure there'd be something like required conscription where you're assigned to a job site based on educational qualifications and other weighted metrics as necessary, at least for some time until a more ideal position for the individual opens up. The assurance that food, clothing, water, shelter, healthcare, etc. would be covered by society's broader productive apparatus would have to be enough for young people to settle for some shit jobs for some time. What this all looks like, in practice ... well, fuck if we all know. If nothing else, the goals of society (to produce what is needed, then desired) would make it such that the individual would have the personal time to cultivate their interests outside of whatever "shit" job they may have, which is more than capitalism can ever promise.
One saying I relate to is, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." In what ways does communism or it's adjacent philosophies violate this? and how would you resolve it?
I think this is a bit reductive of what socialism is as well as what it opposes. The problem with capitalist states isn't principally that they have markets, but that the rich control society. The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat -- the concrete goal of socialism -- is democracy, which includes being rid of that control. Perhaps China is compromised, perhaps it is not, but we shouldn't pin it on them dealing in trade like it cosmically taints them with anticommunist sin. It would be more like they played with fire to further their goals and failed to contain the fire, that being if we assume it is true they are compromised.
In that sense, if we accept "capitalism" to mean "using markets" (which I don't think is right but w/e) then it would be more appropriate to say that socialism opposes liberalism, the political-economic paradigm in which owning markets means owning everything else by extension.
they still engage heavily in capitalism
I find this answer really refreshing. depressing, yes, but real yes. I'm afraid I cannot further the point in any meaningful way though. Other than perhaps ask the question, can alternate systems be successful with capitalism still on the map? Personally I am sure that capitalism will be the ruin of Western Society, though I am unsure what the next step is, toward freedom.
That's makes sense. Let me ask, and I don't mean to be difficult.. but- must the solution be communism? In other words, if the goal is economic liberation for the proletariat, is communism the only way to that end?
Would I be accused of opening a big ass can of worms (generally speaking) were I to mention the oligarchy? Are they the canary in the coal mine, so to speak? The evidencers of neofeudalism?
undefined> while a few thousand people have consolidated 90% of the wealth.
Infuriating
There are artists, musicians, writers, etc in socialist countries. The USSR had a really cool film industry.
George Lucas does a good job answering the question when he compared being a film maker in the US vs being a film maker in the USSR, how he always envied Soviet filmmakers. Stalker, Solaris, etc were all originally Soviet films before the stories got later remade by US studios. Today everyone associates "avant-garde art" with bougie rich people and luxury brands but before 1990 the term referred to the work of Soviet artists.
Segment from Lucas interview in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWqvaMEFIdI
The point of communism is to use the advances in automation humanity has made up to that point to decrease the amount of labor required for society (instead of using automation to more efficiently accumulate vast riches for the private propertied class) so that humans are able to spend more of their lives enriching it through art and joy and community instead of having to sell apart your life body and soul for capital.
Sorry for repeating my same comment as to another member but I don't know how to share comment links yet:
One saying I relate to is, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." In what ways does communism or it's adjacent philosophies violate this? and how would you resolve it?
One saying I relate to is, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." In what ways does communism or it's adjacent philosophies violate this? and how would you resolve it?
It doesn't even apply. There is no perfection in scientific socialism and there is no good in liberal imperialism.
Exactly. Its a total Liberal expression that means nothing. No offense to the person asking questions, I'm just sick of that quote
The great part is that Marxism as a result of materialism must deal with the grey lines between concepts. Don't know if you have read about dialectics, but in essence dialectics are the point where opposites turn into each other, and dialectical materialism is about applying dialectics to the best we can to material reality - which inherently means coming into constant conflict with the nature of the material world as impossibly complex and interconnected. Mao has some good poetic writings on dialectical materialism that take influence from daoism which are a great starting point.
"Critical support" is a term you'll see a lot which encapsulates everything we've mentioned here. Critical support is taking the bad with the good without ignoring either, and attempting to produce a position that benefits our purpose without having to focus on the more arbitrary qualities of good and bad and perfect and imperfect. Ultimately as a result of "not just theorizing about the world but changing it" we must interact with all the contradictions inherent to the world in order to definitively guide us towards our goals.
There have been many different offshoot ideologies that have in time mostly been proven wrong, although as time passes we see them continue to come back around in new forms. Particularly Engels has a writing socialism: scientific or utopian that goes into detail on what idealist tendencies that choose to be above the imperfection of struggle get wrong.
Thank you, I appreciate the earnest honesty of your response. Much to think about for me here.
Communism is about the liberation of the workers of the world from the ruling capitalist class. First and foremost its about liberation. In terms of economics the general idea is that workers create all wealth in a capitalist society, therefore they should own the wealth they create, instead of being exploited by owners who extract their wealth from other peoples work.
I lost the video but there was a good YouTube essay about just this. I will try to find it later but in every case it is examined capitlaism is inefficient. That stands to reason from first principles. Competition wastes resources. The Bourgeois pulling resources out of systems prevents their natural growth and development. Any time we have tried a system the less capitlaist it is the better it functions. That is why 3/4s of our tax money goes to sabotaging socialist projects. We have this idea thar capitlaism works because it is the first rational system we tried. It is more efficient than monarchy but it is only by accident of history those are the two to compare.
Thanks, I would be interested to view that video if you find it. I really hate capitalism, I have for many years. My only angst is: does communism make sense as the answer? Or are there other answers that should be considered.
Well, no. Through history economists have sat down and figured out what the best system would be and it isn't really complicated. Comunism has a scientific basis. So we have chosen thr best data. If there was a better system we would advocate for that instead.
Are you more interested in stock prices or literacy rates? Do you prefer the imperial subjugation of most of the world for treats for the few or do you prefer national sovereignty? Do you prefer the "right" of land speculators to profit or housing for the homeless? Even in the poorest socialist states, the superiority of socialism in achieving the latter is obvious.
I personally don't believe that human choice can be reduced to a series of binary decisions. Maybe that's my fatal flaw, I don't know.
Ah, so you would like just a little imperialism? Yes, forgive me for not realizing the value of only subjugating a couple countries instead of dozens. Maybe I have a bias, I don't know.
Ask a more specific question if you want a less abstract answer.
I'm actually getting really great, thoughtful answers at the moment. Thanks anyways.
You'd probably get more if you didn't immediately get smarmy like you did in your first reply to me (the second is fair game since I responded in kind).
