Nazism is just a form of capitalism
Nazism is just a form of capitalism
You're viewing part of a thread.
so the only manifestations are actually socialism and have been a bit capitalisty?
Not sure what you mean, Communism isn't possible until the world is already Socialist. Communists have started that path towards Communism, first through Socialism, as was always the intention. Do you think Marxists are advocating for directly implementing full Communism right this second, with the push of a button?
As for being "a bit capitalisty," not sure what you mean there, either. All Socialist countries have had different forms of property ownership than public, though always in a manner that does not hold power over the economy. The PRC has its private sector dominated by small firms and cooperatives, as well as sole proprietorships, while the large firms and key industries are squarely in the public sector.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can't just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn't to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
i think we might be agreeing, a bit capitalisty is the same as, capitalist to a certain degree
or maybe you would say it the other way - they are communist to a certain degree
I think it's important to separate the notion that sectors of an economy can be "communist/socialist" and others "capitalist," as these are not static elements in a vacuum, but interrelated and moving parts of a whole. This is why Marx put so much of an emphasis on Dialectical Materialism, it is critical for understanding Political Economy in the Marxist sense.
yeah i was talking about the whole connected economy being capitalist to a certain degree
But what does that mean? Are you saying a single instance of private property is Capitalist? I think we are not really speaking with the same understanding of basic terms, which is driving confusion.
All Socialist countries have had different forms of property ownership than public, though always in a manner that does not hold power over the economy. The PRC has its private sector dominated by small firms and cooperatives, as well as sole proprietorships, while the large firms and key industries are squarely in the public sector.
that sounds very much like the UK in the 70s, which you could describe as a bit capitalisty?
It isn't the UK in the 70s. Having a public sector does not make a country Socialist. The PRC has very different property relations than the UK does and did, here's an example of what I am talking about:
In the UK, both in the 70s and today, the large firms and key industries are still under the big bourgeoisie, and the public sector is there to support the private. The UK is Capitalist, while the PRC is Socialist.
I think if you want to talk about Communism and Capitalism, you should probably do some more research on the subjects directly. For Communism, I do have an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List you can check out, though the first section alone should be enough to get you started.
yeah i said similar, not identical
it's just a meme anyway, eh
The US's hegemony is a result of decades of bombing, black ops, sanctions, and embargos on non-capitalist countries that refused to kneel and kiss the ring of US oligarchs...
So yeah, countries like Vietnam and China were forced to allow US capitalism in to avoid ending up like the USSR or Cuba.
If Capitalism is so great and socialism doomed to fail, why does the US continue to embargo Cuba??? Why does the US do everything it can to ensure communist countries fail?