yogthos

I have no idea what country you're in, but it's literally the opposite situation in Canada where publicly owned SaskTel provides the best service in the country while private sector managed to create some of the most expensive and slowest infrastructure out of any G7 countries.

A common pattern that's observed is that initially there is a stage after privatization where there is competition between companies. However, eventually a few companies end up dominating the market and at that point you have all the same problems that the parent comment moans about being present under public ownership while having no actual control over the situation because the infrastructure is privately owned.

That’s the real lesson for y’all.

I welcome that you openly admit that Stalinism is fundamentally a state-capitalist ideology.

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I actually said was that state-capitalism is fundamentally a misnomer because capitalism is fundamentally a system of capital accumulation by capitalists through exploitation of the working class. This fundamental capitalist mechanic is not present in what you refer to as state-capitalism.

Nor did I ever agree with you that this somehow fundamental to Soviet style communism. Organization of industry by the state was done because of the need for rapid industrialization in face of adversity from western capitalist powers. The original model of organizing industry ad hoc proven itself to be inefficient for this task.

However the state under state-capitalism is still bound by the unalterable laws of capital- it must still accumulate capital above all else (even above “making useful things”), make a profit (profit comes from the exploitation of wage labor), and compete in a global market, just like ‘actual capitalism’ (you seem to be calling ‘free market’ capitalism ‘actual capitalism’ to distinguish it from state-capitalism even though Marxism doesn’t really make a distinction). Just because the state owns the means of production doesn’t mean ‘the people’ own it (what does that even mean? That’s a total abstraction from class) or that they are not exploited.

That's just a bunch of falsehoods. First of all, the state does not accumulate capital. The labour is directed towards productive activity such as building infrastructure, housing, food production, and so on. That's the core difference you seem to be missing.

Nor did USSR compete on the global market. In fact, the way USSR interacted with other countries shows another clear difference from capitalism. USSR made huge investments into countries such as Cuba and Vietnam by building out their infrastructure, providing their people with education, and food. Once USSR collapsed, the quality of life in these countries saw a sharp decline. This is literally the opposite of the extractive capitalist relations practiced by the west.

Finally, since the working class holds the power in the state the workers do in fact own the means of production by virtue of having the dictatorship of the proletariat that runs the state.

Meanwhile, your Engels quote conveniently avoids the context where both Marx and Engels recognized that some form of a worker state was necessary as a transitional entity between capitalism and communism. This is literally what withering of the state refers to. You cannot take a society that was shaped by capitalist relations and magically turn it communist because people develop their habits and sensibilities based on their environment. Only when socialist relations have become the norm can there be talk of the stat withering. And it's certainly not something that's possible while capitalism is the dominant global ideology.

Trying to claim that Engels did not recognize the role of the state is the height of intellectual dishonesty given that this is literally the core disagreement between Engels and the anarchists.

Thing is that there is legal guilt associated with US colonialism. The atrocities US commits against other countries are well documented, and US backed institutions such as the IMF are directly responsible for perpetuating the economic relations that have created the climate crisis. Acknowledging the role US has played in creating the crisis and holding US accountable is far from pointless.

Having grown up in USSR, I'll take state capitalism over actual capitalism any day. The fundamental difference between state owned enterprise and privately owned enterprise is the purpose of work. Under actual capitalism, the sole purpose of a business is to create profit for the owners of that business. On the other hand, the purpose of state enterprise is to create useful things for the people living in the country. Nobody is accumulating wealth and becoming rich of other people's labour when the means of production are publicly owned. It might not be perfect, but it's certainly a huge step forward from capitalist relations seen in the west.

Indeed, it's the typical colonial mindset where the rest of the world has to pay for American hubris.

The necessarily government represents the interests of the class that holds power. In a capitalist society that happens to be the capital owning class. This is why you see laws and regulations that inhibit monopolization erode over time. For example, US has very strong worker protections and laws ensuring fair competition after the New Deal was passed. All of that was then dismantled, and here's what a recent study analyzing many decades of US policy has to say about the state of things today:

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

You didn’t answer my question though, you just gave a list of countries (some of which, like China, I question are socialist at all). Are there any countries where “working class holds power, and the core economy of the country is either publicly or cooperatively owned” that have out-innovated countries that use capitalism?

I did answer your question though. All these countries, including China, are socialist because it's the working class that holds power. We can look at the tangible outcomes in China such as poverty reduction programs that simply aren't happening in countries where capitalists are in charge. So, we don't have to take their word for it, we can just look at the outcomes. Let's look at China in a bit more detail though.

First, it's worth noting that 87.6% of young Chinese identify with Marxism, and the party has 95 million members. I think it's reasonable to assume that people of a country where vast majority of young people identify as Marxist understand what sort of a political system their country has.

All the essential industry is state owned, and capitalism is only allowed to exist within special economic zones. However, even Marx argued that capitalism is likely a necessary stage for developing productive resources needed for socialism and communism to be possible. Arguing that capitalism being allowed in China makes it capitalist would be akin to arguing that having social services such as public healthcare makes Canada communist.

One simple test to consider is that China doesn't suffer from regular crashes seen under capitalism. An inherent contradiction within capitalism is that the capitalists always want to cut pay for their employees to minimize the costs, while they also require consumers with enough spending power to consume the commodities they produce. This is why capitalism results in regular economic crashes when wages fall below the point where consumption can keep up with the rate of commodity production. At that point you end up with overproduction and a crash. If China was capitalist then it should be experiencing these kinds of crashes regularly just like actual capitalist nations are in the Western world.

And a related point is that quality of life in China continues to steadily improve and the government is actively working on doing things like eliminating poverty, creating public infrastructure, providing healthcare, housing, food, and education for all citizens. Chinese government practically eliminated poverty, and in fact China is the only place in a world where any meaningful poverty reduction is happening. If we take China out of the equation poverty actually increased in real terms:

If we take just one country, China, out of the global poverty equation, then even under the $1.90 poverty standard we find that the extreme poverty headcount is the exact same as it was in 1981.

The $1.90/day (2011 PPP) line is not an adequate or in any way satisfactory level of consumption; it is explicitly an extreme measure. Some analysts suggest that around $7.40/day is the minimum necessary to achieve good nutrition and normal life expectancy, while others propose we use the US poverty line, which is $15.

Real wage (i.e. the wage adjusted for the prices you pay) has gone up 4x in the past 25 years, more than any other country. This is staggering considering it's the most populous country on the planet. Social mobility in China is actually higher than it is in US. The opposite is currently happening in capitalist countries. In particular, it's instructive to look at the differences in development between China and India with both having started roughly in the same place and having comparable population.

Another indicator is that China used more concrete in 3 years than US in all of 20th century, they built 27,000km of high speed rail in a decade. This is another thing we don't see happening under capitalism because capitalists don't see significant profit from infrastructure investments. This is the main reason US infrastructure is currently crumbling.

Finally, 90% of families in the country own their home giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. This sort of home ownership is not seen in capitalist countries where housing has become a commodity.

What is the primary force that spurs innovation in a socialist country and how does it compare to the force that spurs innovation in a capitalist country?

People wanting to do interesting things because they're curious and intelligent, The same force that has driven innovation throughout history. Are you seriously not to be able to imagine having any sort of hobby or interest that's not profit driven. Why do you think millions of people around the world create innovative open source projects without any profit motive. You're literally using an innovative federated platform built by volunteers to ask this inane question.

I provide sources for what I say all the time when I say something that's not necessarily obvious. In this particular case, I'm stating a well documented fact that anybody can google. The troll move here is to claim that I said something controversial, demand evidence, and then to make personal smear attacks against me. Which is what you and your buddy are doing.

That said, here are some materials that you will never bother reading, but might help other people reading the thread understand who the actual troll here is.

US Political Capture of Taiwan

• US National Endowment for Democracy - REMARKS PREPARED BY NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY PRESIDENT CARL GERSHMAN AND READ BY ANDREW NATHAN AT TECRO DINNER WITH TAIWAN PRESIDENT TSAI ING-WEN (2019): https://www.ned.org/remarks-prepared-by-national-endowment-for-democracy-president-carl-gershman-and-read-by-andrew-nathan-at-tecro-dinner-with-taiwan-president-tsai-ing-wen/
• US National Endowment for Democracy - TAIWAN PRESIDENT TSAI ING-WEN HONORS PRESIDENT OF NED CARL GERSHMAN ON HUMAN RIGHTS DAY (2019): https://www.ned.org/taiwan-president-tsai-ing-wen-honors-ned-human-rights-day/
• US National Endowment for Democracy - REMARKS BY CARL GERSHMAN UPON RECEIVING THE PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL IN TAIWAN: https://www.ned.org/taiwans-destiny/

Sunflower Movement Leader Lin Fei-fan’s Associations with the US NED

• Taipei Times - Beijing using free market to influence Taiwanese media, US symposium told (2013): https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/02/2003556088
• The Diplomat - Sunflowers End Occupation of Taiwan’s Legislature (archived, 2014): http://web.archive.org/web/20140411235449/https://thediplomat.com/2014/04/sunflowers-end-occupation-of-taiwans-legislature/
• Taiwan News - Former Sunflower Movement activists join DPP, Lin Fei-fan pledges to help DPP win election, prevent pro-Beijing forces from taking power (2019): https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3744833

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)’s regular Reporting to AIT

• Wikileaks - TSAI ING-WEN COMMENTS ON DPP TURMOIL (2005): https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/05TAIPEI4870_a.html
• Wikileaks - DPP CHAIRPERSON TSAI ING-WEN ON CHALLENGES FACING PARTY AND U.S. ARMS SALES (2008): https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08TAIPEI892_a.html
• Wikileaks - DIRECTOR'S FAREWELL CALL ON DPP CHAIR TSAI ING-WEN (2009): https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TAIPEI754_a.html

US interference in Taiwan politics and media is very well documented. US has poured countless millions into shaping the opinions of the people in Taiwan through orgs like NED, it directly grooms US politicians such as Tsai Ing-Wen, and that's literally what colonialism and cultural hegemony are.

It's pretty hilarious that you're telling me to learn what communism is while evidently having the most superficial understanding possible. All these countries are led by communist parties, and the working class is the class that's in charge in these countries.

You are correct that these countries are in the socialist phase of development where many of the vestigial relations from capitalist society are still present. However, anybody who actually understands communist theory knows that this is a necessary stage. You can't just take a capitalist society and turn it communist overnight. Especially not in a world that's dominated by global capitalism.

Might want to read some Marx to educate yourself on the subject.

You are following me and making vapid comments that are just personal attacks and contribute absolutely nothing. The fact that I live rent free in your head is kind of adorable, but all you do is just add noise to the conversation. You are noise.

Out of all the federation of Lemmy servers there are literally a handful of trolls, such as yourself, who follow me around and are very mad about my opinions. I have lots interesting and productive discussions with other people. You're not representative of the community. You're just a toxic individual with an agenda who can't stand seeing views you disagree with. Yet, you're not able to make any actual points of your own, so all you do is make personal attacks. It's kind of sad really.

China, Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam are all socialist countries. The definition is pretty simple. In a socialist country the working class holds power, and the core economy of the country is either publicly or cooperatively owned. This is the case for all of these countries.

Capitalism is a system where the class of people who own capital hold power in society and make it work in their own interest. The dynamics of capitalism necessitate capital concentration through competition. Companies compete with one another on the open market, and companies that succeed grow. As the companies grow, it takes increasingly higher initial investment in order to compete with these companies. A scrappy startup is not going to be able to take on Amazon which enjoys economies of scale, massive supply chains, and brand recognition. Over time, you end up with consolidation of all the capital in the hands of a few capitalists.

This is also illustrated mathematically in the game of monopoly. Everyone starts in a perfectly even position, and over time all the assets will end up being concentrated with a single player through the dynamics of the game. This is the defining characteristic of the system.

In the African high speed rail thread, I pointed out that the conjecture that the rail wouldn't be cost effective was made up. Nothing in the article I submitted suggested that would be the case. So, if the person was claiming that, I was asking on what basis they were claiming it.

What I'm stating about US interference in Taiwan i on the other hand a well documented fact.

Once again, the only agitator and a troll here is the one who's following me around and making personal attacks trying to smear me while adding nothing at all to the discussion. Do better.

Laos, China, Vietnam, and Cuba come to mind. It's kind of incredible that anyone would ask such an absurd question seriously.