Communism, like Capitalism, should be highly modified to fit a country’s issues. Classical Communism as by Marx and Engels is almost impossible to implement thanks to human nature.
Would you mind giving just a quick explanation of what “classical communism” is?
highly modified to fit a country’s issues
Not “highly” but Marxism Leninism is the only version which had that build in, hence we have Socialism with Chinese Characterstics or Juche which are still both ML.
Classical Communism as by Marx and Engels is almost impossible to implement thanks to human nature.
You already responded to my main question, like someone who never read anything except Manifesto or probably not even manifesto, else you would know that Marx and Engels never given a ready blueprint for communism, they left that to the people who would implement it, because they weren’t dogmatics unlike the bunch of proudhons, lassales etc. and that even during the Marx life his political stance was being refined by revolutionary events - the biggest one would be formulation of the dictatorship of the proletariat doctrine after Paris Commune.
How about not ending capitalism, but trying as hard as possible to anticipate and balance the negative effects of wealth concentration with the overall beneficial effects of competative innovation?
Socialism sounds good to me…
Socialism is not communism-lite. Communism is socialism.
To be exact, socialism is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism where the working class holds power in society, but vestigial capitalist relations still exist.
Competitive innovation doesn’t require capitalism, while wealth concentration is literally the point of the system.
Can you point to an example of a socialist country (by your definition of socialist) that is superior in a certain industry innovation-wise compared to a capitalist (by your definition of capitalist) country?
Also, Idk what you define capitalism as, but I’m pretty sure meriam webster doesn’t call it “a system for concentrating wealth”. That might be a common result for many types of capitalism, but it is not the defining characteristic.
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.
I understand how capitalist competition often ends in monopoly, at least until the government steps in with anti-trust or there is significant innovation to undermine the monopoly. I wouldn’t say this is the defining characteristic of capitalism because I use the word to describe countries that aren’t total free markets because there aren’t any countries that have totally free markets.
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?
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?
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:
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:
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.
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.
I’d totally argue that having public healthcare, publicly-owned infrastructure, makes Canada or the US socialist lol. Technically the “workers” don’t directly own the particular publicly-owned means of production, but they definitely do have a say in how it is run through their vote.
Anyway…
Given that you say China is socialist (which seems insane given it is literally an authoritarian state: the workers don’t own the means of production, the state does!), my original question:
“Can you point to an example of a socialist country (by your definition of socialist) that is superior in a certain industry innovation-wise compared to a capitalist (by your definition of capitalist) country?”
Seems kind of stupid given that China is definitely leading in certain industries compared to more “capitalist” (US, EU, etc.) nations. (Mainly manufacturing industries).
So I’ll ask a different question.
Given all the pro-china arguments you’ve listed. Would you want to live there if you got the chance? And if so/if not, why?
If you’d argue that then you don’t understand what socialism is. Socialism is a transitional state between capitalism and communism where workers have taken power in society, but vestigial capitalist economic relations still remain. The working class does not hold power in Canada or even have any meaningful participation in politics. Canadians are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.
Given that you say China is socialist (which seems insane given it is literally an authoritarian state: the workers don’t own the means of production, the state does!), my original question:
It does seem insane when you just make things up that have nothing to do with reality.
Given all the pro-china arguments you’ve listed. Would you want to live there if you got the chance? And if so/if not, why?
I absolutely would live in China, and I’ve been learning Mandarin for the past year for the express purpose of moving there at some point. I’ve met plenty of people from China in university, many of whom moved back since. Knowing what people from China actually say about life in China compared to deranged fantasies people in the west appear to have, there’s little question regarding where I’d rather live given a choice.
