this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
286 points (84.5% liked)
Memes
49655 readers
775 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Both, though I think there might be some confusion here. Communism the Mode of Production is a global, fully publicly owned economy, the "Communist" states that exist today and historically are better described as Socialist countries led by Communist Parties attempting to build towards Communism. Socialism is still based on Public Ownership as the principle aspect of the economy.
These "Communist" states are frequently referred to as "AES," or "Actually Existing Socialism," and include Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, DPRK, Laos, the former USSR, etc.
PRC is capitalism with some controls. USSR attempted socialism but failed with varying degrees. Cuba is a dictatorship of Castro family. Vietnam was socialist but moved to a PRC model. DPRK is dictatorship.
Communist states require capitalism to some extent as they need the modes of production to exist before the modes of production can be democratized. In the real world this strongly implies that communism would be post capitalist. The problem almost all communist states suffered is via creation of a vanguard party which oversees the transition from the existing structures to actual communism. In many cases vanguard never relinquishes power and becomes the very entity that they set to destroy. Revolution is continous and requires context to succeed. In this case, any structure must be opposed to make sure that power do not get concentrated. This implies that absolute systems cannot exist. Only decentralized systems which cooperate on some principles with each other can solve the issue of power concentration.
Who is the current president of Cuba?
The CPC’s controls on capitalism are enormous, and the bourgeoisie are largely excluded from the political sphere. Previously.
China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos, and Vietnam all have a form of Marxist-Leninist democratic centralism, as every communist country so far has, AFAIK. Cuba’s current president isn’t related to Castro.
This certainly isn't a Marxist take, at the very least.
Calling the PRC "Capitalist with controls" implies that private ownership is the principle aspect of its economy, when in reality the overwhelming majority of its large firms and key industries are in the public sector as the private is made up of small firms, sole proprietorships, and cooperatives. Here's a handy infographic:
The PRC's economy is classically Marxist, as Marx didn't think you could abolish private property by making it illegal, but by developing out of it. Socialism and Communism, for Marx, were about analyzing and harnessing the natural laws of economics moving towards centralization, so as to democratize it and produce in the interests of all. This wasn't about decentralization, but centralization.
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:
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.
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.
The USSR was Socialist, and it was dissolved for a variety of reasons. It would take volumes to discuss, but I recommend Blackshirts and Reds.
The current democratically elected President of Cuba is Miguel Díaz-Canel, so not sure where you got your Cuba talking point from. We aren't in the 90s anymore, and even if we were, the Cuban people still supported the Castro family and the Socialist system regardless.
Vietnam is Socialist, and has a similarly classical Marxist understanding of economics as the PRC. You're correct that it has a very similar structure, but wrong in thinking it's a betrayal of Socialism. Rather, I recommend reading Marx, I'll include a reading list at the end.
The DPRK is less of a dictatorship than the US, its governed by 3 parties overall and has more of a participatory election system. I recommend reading this article on the DPRK.
Your second paragraph starts off fairly strong! You're correct in the idea that full socialization of the economy requires vast development of the productive forces, but you quickly derail. You acknowledge that no system is pure, a key principle in Dialectical Materialism, but make the error of assuming contradictions, which are in all systems, are the defining aspects, rather than the principle elements. I went over this above.
Further, you make the error in stating that a vanguard is to "relinquish power." This is wrong. First, it implies Vanguards as distinct from the Working Class, and not its most advanced elements, and further it implies that Vanguards are meant to disappear before Communism, a global, fully publicly owned economy, is achieved. On the contrary, a vanguard can only disappear when there no longer are advanced, backwards, and general sections of the working class, and class in general has been abolished, which requires Communism to be achieved to begin with.
Moreover, you answer this with the distinctly Anti-Marxist notion that decentralization is the answer. Perhaps if you are an Anarchist, I can understand your critique, but if you're attempting to uphold Marx, he would disagree firmly. The advancement of industry requires the management and administration of industry. Government will remain even when the state has whithered, in fact we will only ever get more centralized. This does not go against democracy, however, it extends it by extending the reach of the voice of the workers.
I recommed checking out this introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List I made, and if you have specific questions, I'll do my best to help answer!
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:
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.
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.
It's the drop rule but for capitalism
It's always the one drop rule... haven't seen it flipped before, though
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
"Similar" seems to have quite a large range by your definition, one that I would say does not apply to the PRC and UK's economies.
fair enough
i would say this is a bit oversimplificationy
As with all things, we can delve deeper or keep things straightforward. In the comparison to Capitalism, they function with much the same underlying basis, and in Nazi Germany there was a string of pro-Communist organization, such as the KPD, that the Nazis rose to power by millitantly opposing and murdering. The Bourgeoisie of Germany pre-Nazi had a fruitful partnership with the rising Nazis who were very helpful in killing off unions and other forms of labor organization.
The Nazis also had great ties to the US, UK, Italy, and other Capitalist countries. They even cooperated with Zionists in settling Palestine, which is why modern Israel has roots in fascism, continued to this day. The Nazis supported the formation of Israel because the Zionists were anti-yiddish and anti-communist, and because Israel would help serve as a bulwark against the Middle East. Theodore Herzl, one of the founding Zionists, once wrote "It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of [Jewish] property. To the people they would vouch for the fact that we do not want to bring about the impoverishment of the countries we leave. The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”
you might say they're similar (my definition)
except the jews'. anyway i know it's just a meme
somehow the nazi's have connections with both sides of the arab/jew conflict
The Nazis were deeply anticommunist, and tried to shift advancing hatred of the Bourgeoisie towards Jewish people. This is where the idea of "Judeo-Bolshevism" came from, the idea that Jewish peoples were heavily Communist, and why the Nazis depicted Jewish people as "greedy merchants and bankers," somehow both Communist and significant portions of the Bourgeoisie. Deep irrationality is the core of Nazism.
Make no mistake, the Nazis were never pro-Palestinian. The Nazis have been always anti-Jewish and anti-Palestinian, as well as anti-Slav, anti-LGBT, anti-Black, etc. The Nazis have no connections to Palestinian liberation, only to its subjugation. Read To Stop Marx, they made Zion.
so we agree that saying Nazism emerged as a means to protect private property and its holders was an oversimplification
Over or under simplification depends on context. Even what I just described is the method by which they protected the big business owners and private property, and siezed the property of Jewish people and other targets of the Holocaust.
What do you think I'm leaving out? Simply saying it's an oversimplification doesn't really give me much to address, you have to tell me what I'm missing in saying it.
in fact for meme purposes we could say that socialism is just a form of capitalism
In what manner? Again, what do you think Capitalism is, and why do you say Socialism could be considered a form of it? You've never answered that.
in the same way that this meme compares nazism and capitalism, one can do a similarly amusing one with socialism
How? Please explain, I have asked you to elaborate several times. Nazism is a form of Capitalism, it isn't distinct from it but merely the same underlying system in different circumstances. Socialism is entirely different, ergo you can't make the same comparison.
in the same way that nazis worked with capitalists, socialists have worked with capitalists to achieve their goals
you haven't proved nazism is a form of capitalism just because certain capitalists were supporting their politics. nazism is not an economic system
The Nazis were Capitalists. The Nazi party was largely made up of big business owners and other such people, the Nazis gained power that way. Nazism is a Politcal-Economic system, you cannot sepparate Politics from Economics.
I think you need to do more research on what we are talking about, especially because you haven't explained why we can make the same meme about Socialism.
you can easily make the same meme because this meme is just "here's a bunch of shitty things people that happen to be capitalists have done", find a bunch of nice things capitalists have done for the whole of society and your done, there's a bunch
the nazis were not inspired by capitalism to do what they did, they had lots of other motivations. ironically enough they were finally put down by capitalists
You're being extremely cagey. Why do you think the Nazis gained power? For what purpose? Moreover, they were overwhelmingly stopped by the Communists, 80% of the combat in World War II was on the Eastern Front. I don't think you have a good grasp of what we are talking about, here.
nicholas cagey? shucks
i've noticed discussing things with you guys you attempt to attack the other person rather than the arguments, they teach you that in socialism 101?
it would actually be more appropriate to say socialism is a form of capitalism because it is an attempt at an economic system and it came from an accurate analysis of capitalism, so it's actually derived from capitalism
you'll probably give me highlights of how russia won WWII
You don"t have arguments, though. I have tried to get you to make some, but you haven't, except for the times where you say things that are false, like the idea that Capitalists were the ones who beat the Nazis when it was the Red Army that killed 90% of the Nazis that were killed and took Berlin. I haven't attacked you, I pointed out that, repeatedly, you make unbacked assertions that aren't in line with reality, so I gently suggested you do more research.
Secondly, suggesting that Socialism is a form of Capitalism is the same as saying Capitalism is a form of Feudalism, and that Feudalism is a form of tribal society, just because these systems came before the other. That's entitely incorrect, though it would be correct to say that Capitalism's development drives Socialism to emerge, just as Feudalism's development drove Capitalism to emerge.
As for highlights, I don't really need to, the Eastern Front entirely eclipsed the rest of the combat combined, and the Soviets were the ones to take Berlin. No highlights are necessary, the Red Army gave by far the most and did by far the most in putting down the Nazis.
In a ~~shouting match~~ debate with Norman Finkelstein, Rabbi Shmuley said the Winston Churchill defeated the Third Reich, which is funny because Churchill hisself said that the Red Army ‘t[ore] the guts out of the’ Wehrmacht.
Absolutely! The historical revisionism over time is especially bad because people used to give credit where credit was due.
just weighing up what i'm allowed to say without getting banned on ml
while we're waiting do you know how i can tell your friend down there doesn't have any chinese friends?
No idea what you're getting at, to be honest.
which part?
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?