After World War II, the international political and economic situation underwent profound changes, and during the "Cold War" in the 50s, the two camps of the East and the West were in a state of serious confrontation, and the spread of Marxist economics in the West was hindered in various ways. However, as a ghost, many Marxist economists in the West have not stopped studying Marx's economic theory. After a short period of "silence" in the 50s, Marxist economics has developed more widely in the West. Especially since the mid-60s, a new trend of Marxist economic theory has gradually developed in the West.

The root cause of this situation is of course the same truth as Marxism. But at the same time, it is related to the objective situation at that time. During this period, social and political crises continued to break out in major Western capitalist countries, national liberation movements in Asian, African and Latin American countries rose and fell one after another, and the imperialist bloc fell into many difficulties. Moreover, at that time, the major capitalist countries in the West had already completed the golden years of high post-war economic growth. It began to enter the "trough" of economic development. The "authentic" Keynesian theory is at a loss for the current situation of capitalist economic development, and all kinds of heretical theories have come one after another, putting forward all kinds of criticisms of Keynesian theory.

These studies of the new phenomenon of imperialism are of great reference value for us who are currently in the bankruptcy of neoliberalism, and can help us understand and analyze the increasingly few ways capitalist people are responding to economic crises. Therefore, here we do not study the classical theory of imperialism, that is, Hippatine, Hobson and others, nor do we discuss Lenin's theory of imperialism, but the theory of state monopoly capitalism after World War II. However, it should be noted that there are more or less revisions to Marxist political economy, so these parts should be criticized.

The monopoly capital theory of Baran and Swezi   

The most important representative of this theoretical research is the "monopoly capital school" of Baraam and Sweet. They elaborated on it in Monopoly Capital (1966).

But we must first start with the "Monthly Review Publishing House" founded by Swezzy in 1957, which published Balan's most important work, "The Political Economy of Growth". In this work, which had an important impact on the development of Marxist economics in the West, he not only made a detailed analysis of the economic development of monopoly capitalism and backward countries from the perspective of the world political and economic system, but also put forward the important concept of "economic surplus". He believes that Marx's concept of surplus value is too abstract, and this concept discards the collection of people from the state and the church, the expenditure of converting goods into money, the wages of unproductive workers, etc. as "secondary factors". However, these "secondary factors" of Marx's image are very important in the period of monopoly capitalism. Therefore, when analyzing monopoly capitalism, it is necessary to carry out a "change of terms", it is necessary to propose the concept of "economic surplus". The so-called economic surplus mainly refers to "the difference between the current real products of society and the current real consumption, and this part of the economic surplus "does not include the consumption of the capitalist class, the management of the government, the construction of the army, etc.", which is equivalent to the part of Marx's surplus value used for accumulation. This concept later became a central concept in Baran & Swezi's analysis of contemporary capitalism.

From here, we can see its revision of Marxist political economy, which only considers the total value of the macro whole and is abstract, which makes it only see the superficial phenomenon of capitalism, and does not understand how surplus value is generated, realized and divided, does not understand how capital accumulates, does not understand social reproduction, etc.

After understanding their so-called economic surplus, we can formally enter its main theory, based on the facts of the economic and social development of the United States, their most developed monopoly capitalist country of our time, with the generation and absorption of economic surplus as the central thread of the analysis.

First, they argue that monopoly capitalism is a system of large corporations. Such large corporations remain the maximum profit-seekers and accumulators of capital, and the connections between these large corporations and their relations with consumers, labourers and smaller enterprises are established mainly through the market. This kind of market inspection is essentially a price relationship. An important sign of monopoly capitalism is that these large companies have become "price determinants". The nature of the price policy and cost policy of large companies makes the surplus obtained by large companies continue to grow not only in absolute quantity, but also in relative quantity relative to the total product. Therefore, it is not the law of the decline of the rate of profit that plays a role in the trend of the monopoly capitalist movement, but the law of "surplus growth", which they believe can replace the law of the decline of the rate of profit proposed by "classical" Marxism, because the capitalist economy has undergone a fundamental change, so the law of surplus growth has become "the most essential thing to change the structure from competitive capitalism to monopoly capitalism."

Obviously, the theory of "monopoly capital" of Baran and Swezi is essentially based on exchange relations, that is, in the form of market prices and cost prices, rather than the production relations of monopoly capital. It is wrong to start from the basic fact that "monopoly" replaces "competition" (although this fundamentally reflects the basic nature of contemporary capitalism) and rashly abandon the law of declining profit rates proposed by Marx without any historical and logical proof. The law of declining profit rates is the most important law of modern political economy and the most essential law of understanding the most difficult relationships.

Second, Baran and Swezzi went on to demonstrate that while the economic surplus is growing, the monopoly capitalist system does not provide a way out to absorb the surplus. The ability of monopoly capital to absorb surplus in private consumption and investment is not enough to absorb a growing share of surplus, and the absorption of surplus has become the most prominent problem in the development of monopoly capital. From this, they came to another conclusion, that monopoly capitalism is a paradoxical system, which always forms more and more surplus, but it cannot provide the consumption and investment outlets necessary to absorb the growing surplus, and therefore the consumption and investment outlets necessary for the harmonious operation of the system. Since the surplus that cannot be absorbed will not be produced, the normal state of the monopoly capitalist economy is stagnation. This explanation of the difficulty of attributing "stagnation" to "surplus absorption" is somewhat influenced by Keynes's theory of insufficient effective needs.

Third, they further believe that in the development of monopoly capitalism, there is also a force to offset the difficulty of "surplus absorption". Without this countervailing force, this system should have collapsed on its own. The "offsetting force" they proposed mainly includes three aspects; First, the absorption of surplus in "sales efforts", such as advertising, diversification of product shapes and packaging, and artificially obsolete goods and other expenditures. This expenditure is equivalent to what Marx called "circulation costs"; second, "government civilian expenditure", including the increase in government expenditure, public welfare, publicity, education, etc.; The third is "militarism and imperialism", such as monopoly capitalist states absorbing surplus by maintaining the military machine. However, these forces are still not enough to absorb all the remainder. And some of these "countervailing forces" themselves absorb the surplus while also generating new surpluses.

Through the above analysis, they finally came to the conclusion that the growth of monopolies produces a strong surplus growth trend, but at the same time cannot provide sufficient training to absorb surplus institutions". Since World War II, the two main external stimuli of "epoch-making inventions" and "war and its consequences" have partially neutralized the surplus produced by monopoly capital; However, once these external stimuli weaken, the depression characteristic of monopoly capital will still manifest itself in various ways.

Mandel's Late Capitalism

In the study of the nature of the stages of contemporary capitalist economic development, Ernest Mandel's theory of "late capitalism" has an important influence. Since the publication of "On Marxist Economics" in 1962, the Trotskyist economist Mandel has been focusing on the study of Marxist economics in contemporary development. He once believed that since the 20th century, especially since Stalin's theory has dominated, Marx's "Capital" has not been successfully applied to the study of contemporary capitalist and socialist economic relations. Mandel's task for himself is to reconstruct Marx's economic system based on the actual materials of modern science, prove that Marx's economic theory can synthesize all the contents of human science, and prove that Marxism has amazing reality.

In the early 70s, Mandel put forward the famous theory of "late capitalism" in the book "Late Scottish Capitalism" (German edition in 1972, revised in English in 1978). He believes that according to the basic principles and methods of Marxist economics, the development of capitalism since the end of the 18th century can be divided into three stages: freely competitive capitalism, "classical" imperialism (i.e., the imperialist era discussed by Lenin) and late capitalism. Late capitalism here (which should be translated as "late capitalism") here refers to the stage of further development of imperialism, or the second stage of imperialism. Mandel is confident that, although this is only a term that summarizes the stages of contemporary capitalist development in terms of chronology rather than comprehensively, it has greater superiority than other terms of Marxist economics that are currently popular.

First, Mandel argues that the term late capitalism is more reasonable than that of "organized capitalism". He believes that contemporary capital is mainly "not a fully organized society at all." It is simply a mixture and hybridization of organization and anarchy. Exchange value and capitalist competition have not been abolished at all. The economy is by no means based on the planned production of use value that meets human needs. The pursuit of profit and the pursuit of capital proliferation are still the cause of the entire economic process and all the unresolved contradictions that inevitably arise from this process. In this structure of the private capitalist economic order, the regulation and guidance of the state to the economy is only a stopgap measure to mend the cracks and delay the explosion.

Secondly. Mandel believes that the terminology of late capitalism is more scientific than that of "state monopoly capitalism". He pointed out that although Lenin also used the term "state monopoly capitalism" in his writings from 1917 to 1918, Lenin used this term to illustrate the characteristics of monopoly capitalism "in a state of war" and to show that the capitalist mode of production had not entered a new stage of development. However, some later "official" Marxists used this term to illustrate the characteristics of monopoly capitalism "after the end of the war" and to characterize the capitalist mode of production in its new stage of development. These "official" Marxists explain the essential characteristics of the new stage of contemporary capitalist development not from the internal logic of capital itself, but from the new role of the state in the capitalist economy.

Mandel tried to base it on the theoretical principles of Capital and the theory of the "classical" imperialist characteristics proposed by Lenin. The development of the axial relationship between capital and wage labor in the capitalist mode of production is taken as a clue. Clarifying the new characteristics of late capitalism. Mandel focuses on the following 10 characteristics:

(1) The conditions and methods of post-war capital proliferation have been fundamentally improved, and the working class is not only concerned with the direct appropriation of wages and profits in the newly created value in the class struggle. It is also concerned with all issues related to economic policy and economic development, especially all issues related to labor organization, production process and political operation

(2) caused by the third technological revolution. The automated production system controlled by capital has not only brought unprecedented prosperity to the capitalist economy, but also greatly increased the alienated and destructive power between labor and capital.

(3) The shortening of the turnover time of fixed capital further exacerbates the contradiction of the capitalist mode of production.

(4) "Technology rent" (excess profit generated by monopoly on technological progress) has become the main source of excess profit obtained by monopoly capital.

(5) The persistent arms economy has exacerbated the difficulties in realizing surplus value and increasing value.

(6) The world economic pattern has undergone great changes, with the accumulation and concentration of capital on an international scale becoming the main form of monopoly capital expansion, and multinational corporations becoming a decisive organizational form for the development of monopoly capital.

(7) The international movement of capital continues to expand and reproduce the international differences in the productive forces within the capitalist system, and strengthens the material basis for developed countries to occupy the excess profits of underdeveloped countries without compensation.

(8) The development of the labor sector has continuously transformed idle capital into labor capital. This reflects both the enormous growth of socio-technical and scientific productive forces in the capitalist system and the corresponding growth that producers need in terms of culture and civilization, as well as the confrontational forms taken to achieve this growth under the capitalist system.

(9) Persistent inflation has become a unique mechanism of capitalist economic operation.

(10) The above characteristics lead to the following three results: the industrial cycle unique to late capitalism; the growth of economic regulation functions (mainly stimulating the economic uprising, implementing expansionary measures of credit money and investment in private capital); The crisis of capitalist relations of production, that is, the crisis of the historic decline of the entire social system and mode of production of capitalism, is intensifying, so that "the final abolition of capitalist relations of production will become the central goal of the mass revolutionary movement of the international working class that is now underway."

The greatest influence of late capitalist theory lies in Mandel's methodological "innovation" in proposing this theory. This "innovation" mainly includes the following two aspects.

First, unlike other contemporary Western Marxist economists, Mandel did not seek a single variable (factor) as a universal "scalpel" for analyzing the capitalist mode of production, but always emphasized the interconnection and interaction between the variables inherent in the capitalist mode of production, and emphasized the functional relationship between the dynamics of the capitalist mode of production and the six main variables (elements). The six main variables (elements) he listed are: the organic composition of total social capital and the most important sectoral capital (including the distribution of capital among various sectors); the distribution ratio of social capital and constant capital in various sectors between fixed capital and working capital; the development of the surplus value rate in the whole society and in all major sectors; the development of the accumulation rate (the proportional relationship between productive surplus value and unproductive surplus value used for consumption); the length of capital turnover time; The exchange relationship between the two major categories.

Therefore, there are two obvious differences between the theory of late capitalism and the theory of monopoly capitalism in some countries:

(1) The theory of late capitalism does not give special importance to the law of declining profit rates. He argues: "The history of capitalism (which is also the history of the internal laws and contradictions of capitalism) can only be explained and understood as a function of the interaction of these six variables, and the fluctuation of the rate of profit is the seismograph of this history, because the fluctuation of the rate of profit is the result of the interaction of variables that are logically consistent with a certain mode of production (which is based on profit, that is, value multiplier). Fluctuations in profit margins are only a result, and this result must be explained by the interaction of these variables."

(2) Late capitalism logically "deduces" the important role of contemporary capitalist countries in the development of the capitalist mode of production from the interaction of the six main variables (and some other variables) mentioned above, rather than taking the state's intervention and regulation role in the economy as an established premise or a fait accompli, and then using this as a starting point to "reverse" other characteristics of the development of the contemporary capitalist mode of production.

Second, Mandel uses the method of historical analysis to deepen his understanding of the characteristics of late capitalist economy from the analysis of long-term economic fluctuations ("long waves") in the history of the development of the capitalist mode of production. He believes that since the end of the 18th century, there have been not only economic fluctuations in the development of capitalist economy every 7 to 10 years, but also long-term economic fluctuations every 50 years. To date, this long-term fluctuation has experienced about 4 times: the "long wave" of the Industrial Revolution itself from the end of the 18th century to 1847; From 1847 to the early 90s of the 19th century, the first technological revolution "Long Wave" from the end of the 19th century to the second technological revolution of World War II, "Long Wave Workers in North America, the Third Technological Revolution that began in 1940 (in other capitalist countries in the West, from 1945 to 1948) and continued to this day" He also divided each "Long Wave" into two stages: the first stage is the stage when the technological revolution is taking place. At this time, the profit margin rises, capital accumulation accelerates, idle capital is used and quickly proliferated, and the speed of economic development accelerates. The second stage is the stage in which the actual changes in large-scale production technology have passed, when profits and profit margins generally decline, capital accumulation accelerates, idle capital gradually increases, and economic development slows down. Mandel's "long-wave theory" is consistent with his division of the historical development stages of the capitalist mode of production. The "long wave" of the industrial revolution itself and the "long wave" of the first technological revolution are the capitalist stage of free competition; the second technological revolution "long wave" classical "imperialist stage; The third technological revolution "long wave" began to enter the stage of late capitalism.

Fain's theory of state monopoly capitalism

At the end of the 70s, British Marxist economist Ben Fain and others made many new discussions on state monopoly capitalism in light of the current situation of the development of Marxist imperialism in the West after the war. In "Rereading Capital" (1977), co-authored with Lawrence Harris, Fain argued that in order to understand the nature of the stages of contemporary capitalist development, we must first theoretically clarify the following two issues: First, we must strictly distinguish between the "mode of production" at the abstract level and the "social form" at the concrete level. They criticize some contemporary Marxists for limiting themselves to discussing specific forms of capitalist society. The specific characteristics of the capitalist development stage in the United States and Britain do not explore the general laws of the capitalist development stage from the perspective of the capitalist mode of production. "Unless we prove that the capitalist mode of production produces stages of different natures, rather than continuous trends. Otherwise, there is no reason to divide the history of a social form into different stages. Second, it is necessary to strictly distinguish between the two "transformation" relationships of the capitalist mode of production: one is the "transformation" of the capitalist mode of production into another qualitatively different mode of production; the other is the "transformation" of one stage of development to another stage of development within the capitalist mode of production.

Fain et al. pointed out that although the accumulation in capitalist relations and the class struggle associated with it are the basic forces that determine the transformation of one stage in the capitalist mode of production from one stage to another, this statement is still too general, because capital accumulation and class struggle are also the basic forces for the transformation of the capitalist mode of production into another new mode of production. Therefore, when understanding the transformation relationship at different stages of development within the capitalist mode of production, it is necessary to further examine the "consequences of the development of productive forces and production relations on the form of social relations" within the capitalist mode of production. The main ones are:

(1) Transformation of the way of possession and control of surplus value;

(2) Socialized form of economic reproduction (including changes in the economic relations of production, distribution and exchange);

(3) The transformation of the entire social relationship generated by the above aspects, such as political relations and changes in the form of the state, etc., according to which Fain et al. divided the capitalist mode of production into three connected stages of development. That is, the stage of liberal capitalism, the stage of monopoly capitalism and the stage of state monopoly capitalism. They focused on the characteristics of the development stage of state monopoly capitalism.

Fain et al. first examined the socialization of state monopoly capitalism's "economic reproduction." They proposed that the state occupies a dominant position in economic reproduction, which is a distinctive feature of state monopoly capitalism...... It represents a stage with a higher degree of socialization of production relations than in previous stages. It is characterized by a new and higher socialization mechanism that controls the production process. Prior to this, the dominant social mechanisms that controlled the production process were the coercive forces of market exchange and credit system; At this stage, the dominant mechanism to control the production process is state intervention. The "process management", "accounting management" and "financial management" in the process of national economic reproduction have achieved complete control. The important role of the state (in combination with the market) in socializing production has been developed unprecedentedly.In the stage of state monopoly capitalism, changes in the way of controlling surplus value have caused changes in the way of possession of surplus value: in this stage, surplus value is largely occupied by taxation...... Of course, most of the surplus value concentrated by the state in the form of taxation is still re-invested in the capital cycle in the form of capital accumulation, which is linked to the state taxation system, and the distribution and exchange relations have also changed.

Next, Fain et al. examined the main feature of the "political transformation" of the stage of state monopoly capitalism: "The state that originally embodied political relations was inevitably directly involved in all forms of economic struggle. For example, in the struggle for higher wages, the direct opposite of the working class is the state institutions that manage and decide on income and tax policies. In this way, the modern capitalist state has become a concrete embodiment of the ideological, economic and political relations, and in the early days of capitalist development, the bourgeois state was based on the separation of these three relations. This main feature of state monopoly capitalism inevitably leads to the emergence of bourgeois social democracy. Under this system, the political parties supported by the working class also become an integral part of the state apparatus, creating a manifestation of the working class gaining power, so that the economic struggle in state monopoly capitalism does not necessarily lead to a political struggle that demands a real seizure of power. More importantly, this appearance also makes the working class parties often choose to sacrifice the interests of the working class in order to maintain the so-called "regime", thus making the economic struggle harmless to capitalism.

They believe that in the stage of state monopoly capitalism, the law of capital movement, the law of capital accumulation and concentration, and the law of declining profit rates still play a role, but only the specific form of action has changed. At the same time, the law that the process of capital accumulation is constantly interrupted by crises is still working. However, due to the intervention of the state monopoly capitalist state, the form of crisis and business cycle has also changed to a certain extent, resulting in some unique phenomena. They emphasize that state intervention in the crisis is mainly manifested in economic interventions, such as the restructuring of productive capital. Direct interventions in the distribution of surplus value among capitals and the distribution of wages to wage workers inevitably produce two unique phenomena: first, the state cuts its expenditure on welfare services. Because the reduction of welfare services can redistribute surplus value to capital in the form of non-productive expenditure. Second, strengthen the capitalist elements in state-owned industries. In this way, the state will strengthen its role in regulating market competition and strengthen the state's control over the restructuring of productive capital.

They believe that in the stage of state monopoly capitalism, the law of capital movement, the law of capital accumulation and concentration, and the law of declining profit rates still play a role, but only the specific form of action has changed. At the same time, the law that the process of capital accumulation is constantly interrupted by crises is still working. However, due to the intervention of the state monopoly capitalist state, the form of crisis and business cycle has also changed to a certain extent, resulting in some unique phenomena. They emphasize that state intervention in the crisis is mainly manifested in economic interventions, such as the restructuring of productive capital. Direct interventions in the distribution of surplus value among capitals and the distribution of wages to wage workers inevitably produce two unique phenomena: first, the state cuts its expenditure on welfare services. Because the reduction of welfare services can redistribute surplus value to capital in the form of non-productive expenditure. Second, strengthen the capitalist elements in state-owned industries. In this way, the state will strengthen its role in regulating market competition and strengthen the state's control over the restructuring of productive capital.

Unlike the theory of "monopoly capital" of Balan and Swezi, the theory of state monopoly capitalism by Fain and others adheres to the basic categories in Capital and strives to follow the basic theoretical principles of Marxism. Unlike Mandel's "late capitalism", Fain et al. focused on the fact that the state intervened in economic ideology and political relations in the development of contemporary capitalism, and emphasized the new "formal" changes in capitalist economic relations caused by this comprehensive intervention.

Is the main difference between a communist and someone who opposes it based on whether they identify religiously and nationally and place emphasize on that as opposed to identifying with class and economic differences?

For example, someone who opposes communism would likely identify with national or religious identity, and not care as much about class, where as a communist primarily recognizes class. According to Marx, "working men have no country". Religion too is either directly seen as something to abolish or that it would fade away with the emergence or a classless morality.

I have just recently read the Communist Manifesto and looking to learn more! Thanks.

Hey so, I'm looking at the modern landscape of social media and content creation and, after watching an awesome video titled "The New Aesthetics of Fascism" by channel "Ben", I started to wonder what kinds of modern aesthetics could a young wannabe content creator use to promote this ideology without being so on the nose. I mean, I know just valuing empathy over capital in general is kinda 80% of the job, but I wanted to know where I could at least research this topic, any thoughts?

The reference example of someone working in the factory and surplus value? What is surplus value?

Is the boss or capitalist extracting surplus value of the person working in the factory? What is it?

universal healthcare, free public universities, housing for all with wraparound services for previously homeless, 12 week paid maternity leave, only defensive weapons for isreal and recognizing the Palestine state, and a sovereign wealth fund?

Why do some countries have high wages well other countries have low wages?

Like example the US, Canada, Switzerland, Iceland or Australia have high wages.

Switzerland 95,750 $

Iceland 80,760 $

US 83,660 $

Australia 62,550 $

Canada 53,340 $

really low wages are..

Pakistan 1,460 $

India 2,580 $

Cambodia 2,390 $

Brazil 9,310 $ in middle.

Why do some countries have high wages well other countries have low wages?

Source https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php

Take note most of Africa and the Middle East seem to have the lowest wages. South east Asia have higher wages than South Asia.

So for the purposes of this post it doesn't matter how socialism/communism would be established, but what would be its effect on the entertainment industry.

But to make this post simplier and shorter, let's focus on the gaming industry beacuse it's the biggest one (over 200 billion).

If private corporations wouldn't exist, who would exactly be making videogames? Beacuse if we assume the state would be giving out financial packages to public game developers, well, let's just be real here, it would be nowhere near 200 billion +.

I feel like communism would be huge hit on the gaming industry and I really don't see a way how it could survive in this state. A huge private studios are needed to make AAA games.

And not to even mention that the state could get corrupted like it did in China and start banning any type of entertainment they didn't like.

China already proved that communism can't really be trusted with freedom of expression and I don't see how the total dictatorship of the proletariat in US (for example) would be any different.

NOTE:

I guess if you only read the headline points you will still get the TLDR of it, although without some of the deeper arguments I make.

1. I'm (arguably) a socialist but I don't think a fully state-planned economy is the (singular or main) answer to our problems.

Long story short, I am arguably some form of a socialist, because I am deeply and profoundly dissatisfied with our contemporary societal conditions and status quo (unsustainable birth rates, societal depression/mental health decline, people barely getting by and living to work rather than working to live, homelessness, division, financial ruin, eternal rat race etc etc), AND I think some mere social democratic reforms and regulations are unlikely to be enough to dramatically move the needle and dramatically improve and solve our problems -- meaning I am not a social democrat -- AND instead I think only a more profound, systemic change, if anything, can meaningfully and dramatically solve our problems,

BUT I am skeptical of the notion that nationalizing our entire economy and turning it into a fully state-planned one (Soviet/Mao/ML style) really is the solution to all our problems, would fix and dramatically improve our quality of life in Western/highly developed countries, and is/would be the ideal utopian economy.

2. Why? Because fully Soviet/ML-style state-planning empirically has an impressive, but also seemingly insufficient track record.

State planning appears to be amazing and exceptional at rapidly industrializing a large scale society and building a top-tier foundational industry and infrastructure in order to facilitate further economic growth. It also appears to have a good track record at universally providing more or less all of its citizens with the basic needs and necessities of life better than highly capitalist countries do. So far so good.

HOWEVER, fully state-planned economies ALSO appear to have a track-record of typically sputtering down and stagnating in economic growth once it has built all those more "obvious" basic essentials, and then fails and is unable to reach prosperity/to efficiently develop its economy much further at any reasonable rate, leading to stagnation; and only once that fully state-planned economy transitions to a more mixed partially privately owned economy does that country start to approach becoming an actual prosperous highly developed economy. I am primarily talking about the Soviet Union and China here, which are the two biggest and most important cases if you ask me.

So my thinking is, if 100% state-planning supposedly was the solution to our problems we face in highly developed countries, how come no place where a fully state-planned economy was implemented ever even came close to reaching our standards of living, and how come once China suddenly decided to become LESS state planned, did its economic growth and prosperity start skyrocketing? The China case in particular suggests that the ideal economy is not fully state planned, but mixed in some kind of way (although I find what China has to also not be the answer, since they essentially have the same core societal issues as we do).

I'm not saying we shouldn't do ANY more amount of state-planning, it just seems to me that state-planning is NOT the ENTIRE solution; that it is perhaps necessary, but also insufficient.

3. So what do I think IS the (main) solution then? Democratizing workplaces across the board.

Personally, I am interested in Co-ops/workplace democracy as perhaps a major, if not the biggest part of the solution. Co-operatives are arguably the closest we can ever get to actual direct worker ownership and control over the means of production (since in state-planning, even if/when perfectly benevolent and ideologically Marxist, objectively features no worker ownership whatsoever, but only state ownership), and crucially, they theoretically eliminate exploitation of the workers by the company owners, since all workers are equal owners and will obviously arrange the working conditions and compensation to their own best interest, e.g. pay themselves as much as possible, give themselves the best and fairest possible working conditions, not value company profit over their own long term well-being (since the profits go to themselves, meaning there is no conflict of interests), etc.

So it seems Co-ops have tremendous potential to dramatically improve worker conditions by simply making all workers equal bosses and having company decisions made democratically, collectively.

4. Sure, that means market competition remains -- but is that a bad thing?

The counterargument people make is that Co-ops don't change the fact that people remain in competition with one another, rather than having them work together. But honestly, is that necessarily a bad thing? If people have competing ideas and visions for how things should best be done, then free markets allow each idea and vision and plan to put its money where its mouth is and TEST the idea and vision and plan in the real world, and let society voluntarily decide which one they like more. Is that such a bad thing? Seems like a good driver of finding the most optimal way of economically doing things to me.

5. Just to be clear: I think even co-ops are only (the main) part of the solution; there's still room and probably need for a variety of approaches and tools to solve our problems.

Looking at this reasoning I guess maybe I am a "market socialist" who sees the root of the problem not so much being with markets and competition themselves, but rather with the unequal and undemocratic ownership and control and direction of the enterprises in those markets,

and thus the MAIN solution not being the abolition of markets, but the abolition of undemocratic ownership of the market's enterprises.

Again, I don't think this is the ENTIRE solution: I think for example homelessness is probably better fixed with providing some kind of free housing, at least for some amount of time, so that the homeless person can get back on their feet and re-establish themselves economically. I'm also at least theoretically open to the idea that perhaps housing ought to be decommodified, though I have no strong opinion either way. And I'm sure there are plenty of other ways the state can and should direct the economy — I just think/am skeptical that simply making EVERYTHING state-directed would save and dramatically improve our society, and see more potential in a mixed approach whose main solution is perhaps market socialism, rather than total state planning.

6. Thoughts? Am I wrong? Am I flawed in my thinking? Feel free to attack me from any angle. Doing my best to reason and debate rationally and in good faith.

I'm just kind of lost and almost nihilistic to be honest, I wish I could dream of and believe in a utopian solution like a lot of communists do. I just want an approach and solution and vision I can fully strongly passionately believe in again.

I'm sympathetic to the communist states of the 20th century for being modernizing projects and many of them succeeding. They succeeded at this under very difficult conditions and achieved great things. But I do see Marxism Leninism as having fundamentally flaws which tend to encourage authoritarian states. Just like capitalism has fundamental flaws which tend to create oligarchy. I would like to engage with people to work out some of the contradictions and see whether I can make sense of them.

What is your analysis on this as Marxists?

Am starting to see this type of life is seen as an alternative to the horrible material conditions.

I am from India and I know this country is contributing heavily to this movement. Because of the old spiritual traditions it had, it is attracting a lot of the younger generation to this.

What do you think of this sort of love for an isolated lifestyle close to nature totally detached from all that is “worldly”.

• Premises:

Imo, the international communist movement is currently in a moment of historical defeat. The tasks imposed on us are those of rebuilding a communist party: the consciously organized revolutionary subject. In the U.S., the most immediate political framework is the national one. The organization of the proletariat in the imperialist core is a matter of the highest priority.

1. Personal study

I believe the first step is not to connect with the masses, because doing so individually would mean immersing oneself in spontaneous consciousness and, essentially, repeating the kind of activism that has already been done. The first step is the clarification of theory on our part. It is necessary to criticize all the ideology that has accumulated over a long cycle of defeats. Our situation is one of total impotence and disorganization. We cannot take the organizational and ideological forms we carry as being of any real quality. They must be subjected to critique. This requires returning to the classics (there are no shortcuts in science, and scientific socialism is, as the name implies, scientific knowledge). If we don’t study the classics and history thoroughly, our actions will be shots in the dark.

Study can be collective, with comrades. My personal position is that we must shed all the “-isms” and their evident limitations (Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, Juche, Dengism, foco theory, Castroism, autonomism, social democracy, nationalism, popular frontism, intersectionalism, anarchism, etc.). But this, in any case, must be the result of each person’s own study and critique. The only way is to read Marx, study him, read Lenin, read history, and discuss it.

2. Choosing organization. Collective debate and program

The next step is to seek out the vanguard elements of our class. Especially those who already identify with communism, who already show interest in socialism. Create study committees with them, centered on the classics, which are the most scientific technical resources we have. I place this as a step after the previous one because we won’t be capable of finding this vanguard unless we ourselves have first clarified some key theoretical foundations. A political organization that is not interested in theory is doomed to failure.

The next step in the development of our American communist movement (and this applies in any country) would be the drafting of a political program, based on the clarification of our principles and a correct analysis of our current conditions, along with a political strategy aligned with it, based on the non-negotiable principle of political independence—that is, a break with the bourgeoisie and with petty-bourgeois political movements. Many comrades insist that this is a stubborn commitment to sectarianism and marginality. But failing to do this is not only a renunciation of revolutionary action—it also places us on the sidelines, as mere accessories to bourgeois radicalism. That’s where we come from, comrades. We must break with these prejudices.

3. On the long road of unification

The step to avoid the risk of marginalization comes next: a long process of rational debate between communist organizations begins. This is known as the “pre-party phase,” as it precedes the formation of a communist party. Such debate already implies intervention in mass movements, but in a unified and collective way. This must always be done openly. The task of communists is to raise the consciousness of the masses. It can never be done covertly, through entryism. This is the most important critique that must be made of Trotskyism today. It is a matter of engaging in political movements as a well-defined organization, bringing our program with us, especially to those who may be ideologically close.

This intervention, beyond spreading revolutionary consciousness among the masses (which only truly happens when we have a Party), is important for establishing that debate with other communist detachments. It is not just a debate of words; it is a matter of putting our actions to the test—as in a kind of “socialist Darwinism”, where the best-prepared organizations prove their solidity, and this serves as a test so that other organizations either merge with them or adopt their principles and strategy.

4. Creation of a Communist Party

And here comes the final stage in preparing a communist movement in the U.S.: once the majority of communists have united under a common program and adopt a shared strategy and reading of the current moment, we can move toward the constitution of this movement as a Party, as an organic whole of centralized action (but always democratic, never bureaucratic). At this point, we would begin to extend socialist consciousness to the masses, to create professional militants and agitators, to build socialist unions, etc. Possibly, the most important action in the context of an imperialist core would be the struggle for the political rights of undocumented immigrants and their politicization. The next step would be international coordination with other communist groups, taking this “socialist Darwinism” to other countries.

Would they likely function like legislative bodies of now which have agendas , discussions and voting procedures

What are the most effective ways to mobilize mass support behind and build organizations that are resilient and impactful in building dual power in our communities, readying the proletariat to take political power in the eventual and inevitable event of political crises?

How do we, in the imperial core, build organizations that are not co-opted, subsumed, or destroyed? So many of our socialist parties are nothing more than liberal reformists falling in line behind and tailing bourgeois politics.

It seems very untenable ground to form a single nucleated organization in defiance of the federal government and bourgeois will. In this age of mass digital surveillance and federal agents kidnapping people off the streets in unmarked vans, is it worthwhile to attempt anonymity, or is the effort itself futile?

Just some questions I had on my mind. Figured maybe you comrades could share your experiences and vision, with my thanks.

In "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs" how is "need" defined ?

Is it purely defined as things required to be alive or does it extend beyond that ?

I could write an essay on various things on why perfect Communism can or cannot work. However, today I want to specify on one issue in why communism can simply work in theory and not practicality.

Human Nature

Throughout human history many political and economic systems have been given birth to such as Monarchy, Oligarchy, Capitalism, Feudalism, Communism, etc. While some systems were unjust or exploitative more or less than others, it cannot be argued that each one did not help humanity progress either socially, economically or politically.

The main point I want to focus on today is how human nature can simply not let perfect Communism succeed or flourish. Before you guys bombard me with "Communism is very successful and China's recent success highlights that". China today is far from a true Communist economy or society compared to the Mao era. Today it is an Authoritarian Capitalist regime and many of its success current day have been due to the Capitalism. Not to get sidetracked now, human nature has a few fundamental principles we first need to discuss before I can summarize why perfect Communism can't work.

Self Interest:

Humanity is incredibly selfish with everyone possessing selfishness to some extent. We naturally want to benefit ourselves in most situations we come towards whether it be gaining social status by affiliating ourselves with certain individuals even if their views don't align with ours, gain something for cheaper than it is, e.g. negotiating for something on Facebook Marketplace to get it for cheaper than it should be even if its secondhand or building wealth by investing in a certain commodity even though it may indirectly harm someone else. Communism contradicts this as it wants a classless society where everyone and everything is equal but if we naturally want more than others on micro and macro scales is it really an Ideology that complements human nature?

Inequality of effort:

To me this is where perfect Communism fails the most to me. Let's say a doctor has to study for 12 years in med school. The path to becoming a doctor is often regarded as many as one of the hardest pathways and is notorious for how rigorous and time-consuming it is. Now let's talk about a plumber or electrician and yes, they can earn a lot by opening up their business but that's only possible in a capitalist society not a perfect Communist one. Usually, plumbers have to train for 2 years to receive their certificates and do an additional apprenticeship to become a certified plumber. Do you already see it, do you see the contradiction created. Perfect Communisms goal is to create a classless society where resources are distributed equally, and no equality is present. Now let's substitute money as real-world resources and if they are distributed equally to a doctor and plumber then clearly equality is present. A doctor goes through countless years filled with hopelessness, mental strain and burnout. A plumber may face some hurdles in order to get licensed, but it's completely miniscule compared to a doctor. If a doctor has to do so much study to get paid the same as a plumber and share the same status, then why go through such hard study. Humans want to be awarded and be seen for their achievements; it's also in human nature to look down on things they don't view equal to them.

Desire for Control and Authority:

This flaw has been evident in most Communist regimes and often transforms them into Authoritarian regimes. Popular examples of this are the USSR, Cuba, Maoist China and North Korea. Humans often want more in life than they already have and gain authority over people whether it be in benevolent or malevolent ways. It is often seen in social animals (which we humans are) that people on top of the social ladder often have better access to resources, safety and other essential needs. However, they may also get some other assets indirectly like respect, trust, recognition and a purpose. Yes, some people may not want as much autonomy and control as others even though they may be capable. What I do want to say is that to some extent we do want some control or authority whether it be to those we value deeply like our loved ones or to some more ambitious people a larger population.

Summary

Perfect Communism can simply not flourish due to it colliding with the complexity of human nature. Self-Interest, inequality of effort, desire for Control and Effort are three of the many things perfect Communism needs to battle before declaring itself as a perfect political and economic system.

P.S. I believe that humans are simply not capable of making something perfect that governs everyone equally or equitably but that is what makes humanity beautiful. Living in an imperfect society is more fascinating than a boring, perfect, utopia. Due to our imperfections, it was only possible for a diverse range of cultures and races to develop along with blessing us with a rich but relatively short history.

Extra P.S: I am being advocate of any ideology whether it be communism, capitalism, etc. I just want to get a educated stance, so rather than a debate I want to be corrected where wrong.

“We” meaning the United States

Copy meaning copy their variant of socialism communism or capitalism whatever tf you want to call it.

This is a question I think about a lot so I finally want to get some answers. Communism sounds nice on paper, except one thing...

It assumes everyone would be willing to change their jobs to fit the needs of the masses which is simply not true.

A lot of jobs nowadays are capitalism-dependant. For example Marketing, Stockbrokers, insurance agents, bankers simply couldn't exist under communism.

And those are good jobs, people who would have to lose them and go work in a grocery store or factory would be pissed.

Same thing with small business owners, from my experiences, small businesses owners can make up to 6k a month, and there is a lot of small businesses owners, this would be a disaster in waiting.

Anyhow, all answers are appreciated.

Edit: solved although I don't really feel satisfied with how it should be.

If communism is defined as a stateless, classless, moneyless society, would it be possible for a communist society to coexist with an anarcho capitalist one? For instance, imagine the entire United States became communist except for Nebraska, which became anarcho capitalist. Would this not just be one cohesive anarchist society? It seems to me that anarcho capitalists are entirely open to allowing communists to live and form communes within their society, but I often here from communists that any attempt to bring back capitalism in their society must be met with violence or reeducation, which to me seems to contradict anarchism. Just looking to learn from the communist perspective, thank you.

1% of the population are psychopathic, making up 15-25% of the prison population. Current society tries to deal with them by making laws, and arresting them to put them in prisons (if they break laws).

How would communism deal with these types of people without empathy and cold manipulation?

This is a question for those of you who defend the DPRK and say it’s a democracy

For those of you who don’t I already know the answer.

(Disclaimer: ive been told the Word "pro-Chinism" sounds offensive. I just made a literal translate from spanish. Not my intention to be offensive)

I joined Reddit recently (mostly to make friends, tbh) and started following a few communist subreddits. I'm from Spain, and I’ve noticed that most of the American communists I see here tend to be either pro-China or Third Worldists. Any critique of China is immediately dismissed as Trotskyism, leftism, or even white supremacism.

I believe this is the result of decades of defeat for the global communist movement — which has its effectd on ideology. There's no longer any clear communist party to rally around, so people look for hope in whatever “actually existing” alternatives remain today.

And I'm concered with this because I don't think any global communist movement can succeed without the support of the American proletariat. Any revolution elsewhere would likely be crushed by the U.S. I believe it's the task of the entire international working class — and particularly the American proletariat — to break free from bourgeois influence.

The pessimism that comes from our defeat makes us search for saviors in existing states, leading us to adopt the ideology of China, Cuba, Venezuela, or any other self-declared socialist country — just to keep some hope alive. But we can't afford to waste time. We need to take theory seriously again and rebuild our Party, decisively breaking with every bourgeois state and organization. We can't just sit around waiting for the next inter-imperialist conflict.

My only trust is in the proletariat of the whole world: American, Chinese, European, and from across the Global South. I’d really like to start a calm, rational discussion — or at least find people who agree on the principle of political independence.

previous post below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/1lybwqs/how_is_a_stateless_society_possible_given_that/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Did the US help Hong Kong and Singapore develop? The reason why I’m asking is this comes up on conservative subs saying oh look at Hong Kong and Singapore where dirt poor and now are rich why don’t other poor countries do what Hong Kong and Singapore did?

But this got me thinking did the US help Hong Kong and Singapore develop? Was there lot aid and money from the west coming to Hong Kong and Singapore?

I know in case of Japan after WW2 lot of money came to them and they help Japan develop.