Explaining capitalism to aliens
Explaining capitalism to aliens
You're viewing part of a thread.
I see. Sorry I missed that.
But then I think that interpretation implies, in its very definition, oligarchy.
What do you call a society where private ownership is the main form of ownership and yet has a State designed to serve the Workers?
Socialism isn’t an “in-between solution,” towards Communism. It’s the process of building Communism.
And to build communism you don't need an in-between solution?
Is it really only "a process"? or is it also a socioeconomic system?
Humanity has never seen Communism, so I am not sure why you are trying to discuss it. What are you trying to talk about, the hypothetical future society of Communism?
Yes. Humanity has never seen a fair society, period. Neither one with private ownership, nor one with common ownership. The aliens were not talking about Socialism, they were talking about a hypothetical future society where ownership wasn't a thing at all (not even collective ownership in the socialist sense), nor contracts.
And I dared to try to talk as well about a hypothetical future society of (what I initially considered to be, under my previous definition) Capitalism too.
What do you mean by "main" form of ownership? The primary? Or the one most common? If the former, that doesn't really exist, a state controlled by the workers where the Capitalists have power over the economy would collapse very quickly, perhaps like the Paris Commune in the mid 1800s. If the latter, it would be Socialism, like in the NEP in the USSR, or a more privatized version of the PRC's economy (which is majority public).
I understand that the aliens are talking about a semi-Communist organization. I am not sure how you expect your form of society to come into existence except as a transitional society, like the NEP in the USSR.
What do you mean by “main” form of ownership? The primary? Or the one most common?
I meant the most common. What do you call it?
Also, note that I did not ask you if it exists or not, Communism does not exist either but that does not invalidate the idea, right?
I am not sure how you expect your form of society to come into existence except as a transitional society, like the NEP in the USSR.
I agree. A transitional "in-between" solution. That's exactly what I meant, a system that still has not fully transitioned and still depends on some core elements from capitalist systems.
So then you mean Socialism a la the NEP. That would not be Capitalism, moreover it would necessarily trend towards Communism. In an instance where markets and private ownership were primary but workers gained control of the state, it would fall like the Paris Commune did.
I see.. well, that seems like a pretty nice idea to me, if it's the way I'm envisioning it.
Also, as a defender of the idea of division of powers, I honestly prefer when executive powers at all levels are distinct from planning/legislative. So if it does really "necessarily trend towards Communism" I'd hope whatever replaces the private owners does the same job of assuming responsibility if/when unfairness happens as it did before the fall. I'd hate if the same level of scrutiny and legal/social pressure wasn't placed against the ones replacing them.
You can dig into how the NEP functioned and how the current PRC functions (and is trending towards) to see such a system in action, or look at Vietnam and Laos.
Sorry, but I disagree China "has a State designed to serve the Workers" (my requirement). I'd say they are in an "in-between" state towards my ideal "private sector, workers state" society, but not really there...
For example, an important tool (probably necessary requirement) to ensure the Workers are being prioritized is transparency. At the moment, I think the CCP is more concerned about their own reputation than anything else. They are perfectly happy with letting big corpo expoit when it benefits the CCP... to the point that they would sooner acquire the company and become themselves the ones doing the explotaition than actually fixing the issues via policy.
The have a wimpy soft globe when it comes to defending the workers but a long tongue when it comes to licking boots of the powerful. They are definitely NOT what I was talking about.
I haven't cecked on Laos and Vietnam, but if you are mentioning China among them (and considering they are pretty close and likely friends of the CCP) I don't have high expectations.
About NEP.. I'm searching but I'm finding it hard to find any measures that were taken to control private owners and force them to redistribute profits. I also see that the Workers were unhappy and called it "New Exploitation of the Proletariat".. so again, it looks like an attempt at addressing the wrong problems. It still does not meet my requirement.
Where have you read about China where you get those impressions? Part of why Xi Jinping is so popular is because he ran an anti-corruption campaign. Moreover, I don't see what you mean by a "private sector, worker state" as an ideal. That doesn't really exist anywhere, the closest would be the NEP or the PRC's economy. There's no functional reason to have a worker owned and controlled state and maintain private ownership except as a method of development in the early stages of Socialism, which is why it existed in the NEP and exists in the PRC, Vietnam, and Laos.
The reason you aren't seeing much on forcing redistribution of profits of the NEP is because its purpose was to develop the Productive Forces to the point where they could be collectivized. The purpose wasn't to be private, the purpose was to use markets as a temporary tool for rapid industrialization before collectivizing.
I think you need to do more studying on why AES states function the way they do, rather than try to theorycraft an ideal society.
rather than try to theorycraft an ideal society
I was about to say, this person seems to be very idealist, combined with some wrong ideas (e.g. about private ownership for some reason being better?), it leads to some very wonky stuff
Yea, that's what I'm getting too. This is one of the cases where someone comes in with pre-existing notions about what should be, and allows that to drive the conversation more than learning why Marxists believe what we believe. You hit the nail on the head with private ownership, genuinely don't see why that would make any sense unless you're trying to remain linked to the global economy or develop underdeveloped sectors of the economy rapidly, in all other cases and sometimes even in these cases Public Ownership is just better.
I think the private ownership is coming from this:
Also, as a defender of the idea of division of powers, I honestly prefer when executive powers at all levels are distinct from planning/legislative. So if it does really “necessarily trend towards Communism” I’d hope whatever replaces the private owners does the same job of assuming responsibility if/when unfairness happens as it did before the fall. I’d hate if the same level of scrutiny and legal/social pressure wasn’t placed against the ones replacing them.
The liberal idea of... meritocracy, ah, not that's maybe part of it, but... I know what I want to say, but I forget what it is called, hopefully you can guess it.
Where have you read about China where you get those impressions?
My wife is chinese. My sister in law was working for Huawei (just this year she finally quit and came to the EU). I also had China chinese coworkers that were pretty unhappy about how chinese companies they were working for before treated them (eg. AliExpress).
Part of why Xi Jinping is so popular is because he ran an anti-corruption campaign
Do you actually believe it when you see a politician saying they ran an anti-corruption campaign with the goal of actually benefiting the Workers and not themselves? Again, I repeat the statement: "the CCP is more concerned about their own reputation than anything else".
Do you think being popular is proof of actually being honest / good politician?
Trump won the popular vote.... a politician having a lot of fans that make a lot of noise does not mean anything. Specially when you are openly banning people who are critic of you...
If Xi Jinping is so good, why does he need to use dirty methods to silence criticism? why is he, instead of searching for transparency, pushing to hide feedback from the Workers?
Transparency is THE ONE THING that can effectively fight corruption. Taking out leaders of big corpos is just a way to wash your hands so that you can then continue playing with the mud under your opaque curtain, protected by "yes men".
I don’t see what you mean by a “private sector, worker state” as an ideal. That doesn’t really exist anywhere, the closest would be the NEP or the PRC’s economy
I did not say that it exists. Communist states don't exist either, you already said that.
its purpose was to develop the Productive Forces to the point where they could be collectivized
So it did not set rules to make sure the workers are not being treated unfairly? Then I would not consider that any closer than any normal social democracy to what I was proposing. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Social Democracies were closer to it.
Having the purpose of collectivizing does not tell me anything about what rules are being set to ensure we “pay more for more skilled jobs” or “pay the same for fewer hours for dangerous jobs”. It looks like an "in-between" experiment towards something else entirely rather than actually trying to attack the root of the problem.
I think you need to do more studying on why AES states function the way they do, rather than try to theorycraft an ideal society.
Why can't you explain it? (this makes me feel a bit like this comment wasn't that far off)
Is theorycrafting only fun when it's about exploring solutions that reject private ownership?
Oh, didn't get the notification for this.
First of all, you have a very small sample size, but more correctly it's 100% correct to say that China has issues and problems. The idea that to call a system "Socialist" or to say that a party in power is genuinely working towards xyz aims means that the system doesn't have problems it needs to work on is flawed. You gave the example of Huawei and AliExpress, both companies run for profit. These companies are going to have similar issues to companies in a Capitalist economy, though the safety nets in China are nicer than in many other countries and there is more accountability from the Workers than most Capitalist countries.
Secondly, as for Xi. No, I don't blindly believe whatever a politician says, however your rant ended up just saying that being popular isn't necessarily indicative of someone representing the interests of the people. I'd counter that by saying Trump also lost the popular vote twice, while Xi has maintained much higher popularity levels consistently. This doesn't mean he's infallible, but we can look at massive campaigns like the Poverty Eradication Campaign or the resurgance of cooperative firms in China, or the campaigns to lower price of medicine through renegotiation, and more to see why he may enioy the support he does.
As for your system not existing in reality, I am specifically questioning why you want that. There is no benefit to Private Ownership at very high levels of development, there is no reason to maintain them. Communism doesn't exist yet because it is a predicted form of society based on analyzing trends in Mode of Production, specifically in Capitalism. What you are saying as "ideal" only seems possible as a step on the way there.
As for the NEP, there's a difference between funneling all of profits in an economy with a large private sector towards social safety nets like you seem to be wanting (at which point public ownership entirely is more efficient) and the NEP. The Soviets, for example, had free healthcare (the first of its kind in the modern world) as early as 1919. They used markets and private ownership purely to build up industry before collectivizing, yet still protected their workers and still collectivized.
I have no genuine idea what you mean by "what rules did they set" to ensure this. They literally codified in law higher pay for more skilled or intense labor, and codified in law lower working hours for more dangerous labor at the same pay. This was a part of the USSR's legal system, I genuinely don't know what else you want to "ensure" that.
I have been explaining, and I haven't thrown link after link at you or told you "you don't understand Communism" like that other commenter implied. I pointed you to studying AES because if you genuinely want to see how some of your ideas would pan out in society, they are your closest bet, and I think you'd rather do your own research rather than take it all from one person's words.
As for theorycrafting, it isn't about "fun." What you're doing is Utopianism, trying to imagine a better society to create outright, rather than analyzing where society is heading and how we can best steer that. I told you already, Communists don't really bother much with this, focusing instead on where we are heading based on what we have observed in reality.
The idea that to call a system “Socialist” or to say that a party in power is genuinely working towards xyz aims means that the system doesn’t have problems it needs to work on is flawed
Like capitalism, the problem is embedded in the way the system works, it is systemic. They definitely need to work on it, it needs more than a wash. even replacing the government would not work. Because the problem has never been who's the one in control, but what safeguards are in place to ensure the control isn't abused, the problem of capitalism isn't the mere existence of private owners, but that there are no forms of control being put in place that prevent abuse.. which is exactly the problem China has. If China finds a solution to solve this, I don't see why it would not be applicable to a private ownership system.
I’d counter that by saying Trump also lost the popular vote twice
He's popular now, though. Historically, most fascists have been overwhelmingly popular when they have won elections too. And they typically kept being popular thanks to their dirty manipulation tactics and unrestrained control over the state that places primary important on their own reputation..
Like I said, being popular is no proof of being honest / good.
As for your system not existing in reality, I am specifically questioning why you want that.
Ah, you should have asked that then.
There's more than one reason:
-
I want to test whether it's true that your ideal utopic Communism really works BECAUSE of the ban on private ownership, or does it only work (if it does, it has not been proven) regardless of it (or maybe even in spite of it). If it's true that banning primary ownership is a necessary piece to achieve freedom for the Workers, then it should be impossible to postulate a position where a strong government enforces extreme regulation against private owners that forces them to become (in essence) executors of the will of the State, not much different than a well regulated official that is forced to behave.
-
I said it before, I'm a defender of the separation of power. I think it would be much more difficult to ensure people responsible get punished by their bad acts if they are friends of the ones doing the punishing. I'd say that feel that removing the figure of the independent person responsible of distribution (responsible as in, the one who would be scrutinized) to replace it with a person who is no longer independent might actually make it harder to ensure the scrutiny is actually effectively carried out.
there’s a difference between funneling all of profits in an economy with a large private sector towards social safety nets like you seem to be wanting (at which point public ownership entirely is more efficient)
Can you explain how is it more efficient?
I have no genuine idea what you mean by “what rules did they set” to ensure this
I think I can respond that in the other thread, since that's the same question I was asking (over and over, in multiple parts of this thread), I hope this time you can understand what I mean.
What you’re doing is Utopianism, trying to imagine a better society to create outright, rather than analyzing where society is heading and how we can best steer that.
You are doing it backwards if you think you can steer without first having a goal/destination. Why do you want me to explain how would I steer the society if you don't even seem to agree with me on what is the root of the problem that needs to be fixed?
-