Politics Communism - One More Try From Utopia?

[Todman]

Marx predicts that Capitalism - great as it is - and Marx readily acknowledges its amazing transformative power - finally marches inexorably towards monopoly oligopoly and widespread income / wealth inequality.
Are we in fact seeing Marx’s predictions coming true right now?

No , all empires rise and fall and companies are the same, U.S Steel was the largest company in the world when it as created thru mergers in 1901. It's no where near it today.

Amazon.com is worth $630 Billion whereas in 1994 it was worth $0. (founded in 1994). Some analysts and predicting it will be worth $1.6 Trillion in a decade time. U.S. antitrust laws could force it to break up.

THE Chinese have a saying, “Fu bu guo san dai,” or “Wealth never survives three generations.” America has its own version of this saying: “From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

You have to be quite specific here when you say, what did not work about, for example, Soviet Communism. Even after the tragedy of the reform era there are less people in absolute poverty in modern Russia today than the US, as an example. What is your benchmark for success? The Soviet system realised it's base capital capacity quicker than any state to that point, while recovering from the loss of 20 million civilians and soldiers and most of the Western side of the country being razed to the ground during the Nazi retreat.

Full literacy, full employment, industrialisation, great scientific achievements and eventually a middle class existence for all Russians within 50 odd years. It was only 50 years before the revolution that most of the Russian population were agricultural slaves. That's some achievement that many people fail to comprehend. Nowadays people use the CIA's freakout about economic growth in the Soviet Union as case study in understanding the middle income trap and the differences between developing states versus mature states but there was a reason they were worried. At one stage the best analysts in US intelligence genuinely thought that the Soviet Union would outgrow the US economically.

This is an interesting point.

The soviets practised what many academics refer to as state capitalism, or authoritarian communism. Not even a traditional view of Marxist-Leninism in the end.

The drop in living standard was enormous when they transitioned to rugged free market capitalism.

EDIT: I know the edgier/more assholishly satirical stuff has come under fire from that period, but have you ever read any of Taibbi's stuff from the eXile period? I honestly think this muscular vision, of radical disrepair and gangster capitalist chaos is what most internet Libertarians and AnCaps want, on their way to being the new Oligarch's. Not the more traditionalist pioneer wild west vision, of your standard AR buying, bunker building rugged individualist.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

View attachment 451638 South Korea chose Capitalism
Venezuela chose Socialism
In 1970 S. Korea's GDP Per Capita was just 25% of Venezuelas By 2014 the S. Koreans were 88% richer! Despite S. Korea having no natural resources & Venezuela having the worlds largest oil reserves.

South Korea doesn't practice traditional free market capitalism, at least from a certain POV. Venezuela is not a socialist state. Large portion of capital is still privately owned and administered. BTW socialism doesn't mean greater state intervention, it means ownership of labour and the products of labour by workers.

Pretty much no country has actually attempted a socialist system. Catalunia briefly before the civil war iirc.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Right so the baby Bells offer less diversity and competition than one state owned telco? Dozens of competing water co's in the UK offer less competition than one state owned water co? Ditto gas and electricity?

In any event see Adam Smith re markets and monopolies.

And slowly or rapidly, the market will concentrate. Even in traditionally hyper competitive markets like entertainment and financial services in the US, consolidation and mergers are strangling diversity.

Also, why bring up utilities. The perfect example of how privatisation raises prices and lessens service.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

I think that's exceptionally unlikely to be honest. Garry Kasparov is a famous Russian, who speaks English and hates Putin, which is fair enough, he's a useful propaganda asset for making it seem like Russians are in revolt against Putin but the reality is not that simple. His geopolitical ideas that I've come across leave a bit to be desired, although to be fair to him he's not alone in those views, they're the opinion of his friend Bill Kristol and most of the liberal/neo-conservative foreign policy blob at the Council on Foreign Relations. They've been predicting the collapse of his regime every year for a decade, while at the same time saying he's an all powerful tyrant trying to create a new Soviet Union through trickery. When you create a demon in your head, it allows you to create an enemy that is simultaneously all powerful, and everywhere, and ready to collapse at any moment.

It appears Russia's strategy in Central Asia is ride the coattails of China's OBOR expansion, possibly getting a cut of the action by doing security work while the Chinese do the infrastructure, and to be honest that's about as good as they can hope for. They don't have the capacity to offer anything else. It's a country of 122 million people with an economy the size of Australia's.

It's unlikely Russians will ever revolt under Putin. The real danger comes if he falls ill/infirm or dies. There are genuine fears the country will Balkanise or at least socially and politically fragment, with cities like Moscow primed for violent unrest.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Will history record the communist revolutions of the 20 th century in the USSR, China, Cuba as artificial political experiments doomed to failure precisely - as you say - because they were agricultural societies which had not passed and exhausted the industrial stage Marx predicted was necessary for communism?

Are we headed headlong towards something akin to communism?

I think Richard Wolff's critique on this is pretty pertinent. The USSR and China opted for two versions of what is commonly reffered to as either Authoritarian Communism (Stalinism and Maoism), or more accurately state capitalism. This is supposed to be a transitory period based on the revolutionary socialist view of Marxism. However, ownership of the means of production and thus the product of ones labour, was never returned to workers, as in socialism. Workers cooperatives and agrarian (and some industrial) communes, tend to be the closest we have gotten to Marx's original vision, think Kibutz. Apart from some brief experiments, like in Catalunia.

Finally, that transition to state capitalism was a politically expedient one, which tended to be an effort at consolidation post extremely damaging civil and inter-state strife. In particular, the ease of transition from a state capitalist nation, to a what has been argued to be a mature fascists state in the case of China, puts to bed any alleged tangential relationship between actual practical Marxism and the Chinese communist experiment.

 

[smokingjacket]

This is an interesting point.

The soviets practised what many academics refer to as state capitalism, or authoritarian communism. Not even a traditional view of Marxist-Leninism in the end.

The drop in living standard was enormous when they transitioned to rugged free market capitalism.

Resulted in a lot of DEATHS as well, but we know that only state planning can cause starvation, not idealistic liberalism.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Resulted in a lot of DEATHS as well, but we know that only state planning can cause starvation, not idealistic liberalism.

It's why Putin is so beloved. That and his performative displays, which appeal to the national psych.

He may have solidified his version of the oligarchy, but he in a way brought order to the cutthroat Friedmanesque vision which obliterated social wellbeing and security. Russia may be impoverished and have a low standard of living now, but nothing compared to the hyper-deregulated days following the collapse of the USSR.

 

[smokingjacket]

It's unlikely Russians will ever revolt under Putin. The real danger comes if he falls ill/infirm or dies. There are genuine fears the country will Balkanise or at least socially and politically fragment, with cities like Moscow primed for violent unrest.

I still find it pretty unlikely to be honest. I can't see any of these anti-corruption movements taking power with or without Navalny. Anti-corruption as an organising platform is too easily broken by exposure to power even before they're elected.

 

[smokingjacket]

It's why Putin is so beloved. That and his performative displays, which appeal to the national psych.

He may have solidified his version of the oligarchy, but he in a way brought order to the cutthroat Friedmanesque vision which obliterated social wellbeing and security. Russia may be impoverished and have a low standard of living now, but nothing compared to the hyper-deregulated days following the collapse of the USSR.

It's difficult to explain to people that Putin was the Western choice. His first year was a frenzy of "economic liberalisation" and theft, organised by a lot of true believers in Putins cabinet. Trying the remember the names rn

 

[DivideandMultiply]

I still find it pretty unlikely to be honest. I can't see any of these anti-corruption movements taking power with or without Navalny. Anti-corruption as an organising platform is too easily broken by exposure to power even before they're elected.

More a case of will they lose Chechnya, will there be rioting in Moscow (due to resentment over displacement), will the generals try and assert power in the regions etc. will Ukranian territories split (Crimea) and so on.

There are so many points of tension, like the size of the FSB and it's inability to be sustained post a collapse, to extreme resentment over housing prices and displacement of the working classes from state housing, to abject poverty in rural areas that things may be pretty wild.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

It's difficult to explain to people that Putin was the Western choice. His first year was a frenzy of "economic liberalisation" and theft, organised by a lot of true believers in Putins cabinet. Trying the remember the names rn

Also, the US has back stabbed Russia so many times, the souring of the relationship during the Bush years and inversion of blame is easy to understand.

This coming from someone who deeply dislikes Putin, believes he does pose an existential threat to international order and whose natural sympathies lie with the US/West. Not in the sense of blanket approval, more that we can reform, or the hope that we can reform. Basically, I am probably super naive. But you know, proximity and all that.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

EDIT: I know the edgier/more assholishly satirical stuff has come under fire from that period, but have you ever read any of Taibbi's stuff from the eXile period? I honestly think this muscular vision, of radical disrepair and gangster capitalist chaos is what most internet Libertarians and AnCaps want, on their way to being the new Oligarch's. Not the more traditionalist pioneer wild west vision, of your standard AR buying, bunker building rugged individualist.

Can you recommend something? I'm looking for something to read for when I get home from work this afternoon.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Can you recommend something? I'm looking for something to read for when I get home from work this afternoon.

http://www.exile.ru/

http://exiledonline.com/

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/307165.The_Exile

Though they have paywalled their archive. Likely due to scandal. If you want more rigorous sources on the period I will have a think and post something later. If you just like the general vibe, but aren't specifically interested in post USSR collapse Russia, check out Radio War Nerd and listen to the TARFU report. Sadly the latter wrapped up due to the Taibbi shitstorm.

For a book on Putin's Russia, I am about to read Red Notice by Bill Browder. It revolves around a particular story, but addresses some specific issues about the oligarchy.

Personally, if you want a podcast with an angry, ironic and unfiltered style, have a listen to Chapo Trap House. It's largely political and media criticism, dunking on the liberal centre as well as the Trumpian right and fairly online in it's comedy, as well as theory and literature aware.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

http://www.exile.ru/

http://exiledonline.com/

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/307165.The_Exile

Though they have paywalled their archive. Likely due to scandal. If you want more rigorous sources on the period I will have a think and post something later. If you just like the general vibe, but aren't specifically interested in post USSR collapse Russia, check out Radio War Nerd and listen to the TARFU report. Sadly the latter wrapped up due to the Taibbi shitstorm.

For a book on Putin's Russia, I am about to read Red Notice by Bill Browder. It revolves around a particular story, but addresses some specific issues about the oligarchy.

Personally, if you want a podcast with an angry, ironic and unfiltered style, have a listen to Chapo Trap House. It's largely political and media criticism, dunking on the liberal centre as well as the Trumpian right and fairly online in it's comedy, as well as theory and literature aware.

Thank you!

I have been listening to Chapo Trap House lately. They can be pretty hilarious at times.

 

[Bombermania]

South Korea doesn't practice traditional free market capitalism, at least from a certain POV. Venezuela is not a socialist state. Large portion of capital is still privately owned and administered. BTW socialism doesn't mean greater state intervention, it means ownership of labour and the products of labour by workers.

Pretty much no country has actually attempted a socialist system. Catalunia briefly before the civil war iirc.

On that bold definition Australia is a socialist country as every worker is legally suppose to have a super fund and therefore they own capital and own the labour employed by that capital.

 

[medusala]

He may have solidified his version of the oligarchy, but he in a way brought order to the cutthroat Friedmanesque vision which obliterated social wellbeing and security. Russia may be impoverished and have a low standard of living now, but nothing compared to the hyper-deregulated days following the collapse of the USSR.

Hyper deregulation or hyper theft? You do realise how much Putin is worth and how he earned it do you not?

 

[medusala]

And slowly or rapidly, the market will concentrate.

Yes agree to an extent, the internet is a huge part of that. Cant remember article (Economist?) but it explained how everyone thought that the internet would be great for competition but had led to monopolies think Google, Ebay, Amazon etc

Not being able to tax Amazon etc is becoming a massive issue. Its doing real damage to govt budgets.

Australia will have to work out a way to tax them otherwise its just going to kill retail and further erode the tax base (youth vote will HATE that)

For a book on Putin's Russia, I am about to read Red Notice by Bill Browder. It revolves around a particular story, but addresses some specific issues about the oligarchy.

I just read that. Starts slowly and he comes across as a knob but is a decent read.

You read the below? I enjoyed that

Amazon product ASIN 1441199683

 

[King Brown]

http://www.exile.ru/

http://exiledonline.com/

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/307165.The_Exile

Though they have paywalled their archive. Likely due to scandal. If you want more rigorous sources on the period I will have a think and post something later. If you just like the general vibe, but aren't specifically interested in post USSR collapse Russia, check out Radio War Nerd and listen to the TARFU report. Sadly the latter wrapped up due to the Taibbi shitstorm.

For a book on Putin's Russia, I am about to read Red Notice by Bill Browder. It revolves around a particular story, but addresses some specific issues about the oligarchy.

Personally, if you want a podcast with an angry, ironic and unfiltered style, have a listen to Chapo Trap House. It's largely political and media criticism, dunking on the liberal centre as well as the Trumpian right and fairly online in it's comedy, as well as theory and literature aware.

Exiled has been paywalled for years. Not sure why.

 

[ShanDog]

On that bold definition Australia is a socialist country as every worker is legally suppose to have a super fund and therefore they own capital and own the labour employed by that capital.

Yes it's a pretty rubbish definition, but to be fair, you can't describe it in one sentence. Everyone owns their labour. You get paid for rendering it. And if you produce something with your own labour (not on behalf of someone who purchases your labour), you can own the s**t out of it.

 

[smokingjacket]

Exiled has been paywalled for years. Not sure why.

Reading between the lines, not sure how well Ames was doing financially until he had some success with his War Nerd podcast with John Dolan.

Pretty common for expats who move abroad for a while. The exchange rate is great at first but if you need to move home and buy a house in Western currency, you're ****ed.

 

[Bombermania]

Yes it's a pretty rubbish definition, but to be fair, you can't describe it in one sentence. Everyone owns their labour. You get paid for rendering it. And if you produce something with your own labour (not on behalf of someone who purchases your labour), you can own the s**t out of it.

Yeah, its one of the problems with internet forums because often things are more complex so to simplify something is often meet with someone dishing the comment for being simplistic.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

On that bold definition Australia is a socialist country as every worker is legally suppose to have a super fund and therefore they own capital and own the labour employed by that capital.

Actually, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Super is a very slyly socialistic initiative.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Yes it's a pretty rubbish definition, but to be fair, you can't describe it in one sentence. Everyone owns their labour. You get paid for rendering it. And if you produce something with your own labour (not on behalf of someone who purchases your labour), you can own the s**t out of it.

It is hard to render a pithy answer, considering the bajillion words written trying to define the parameters of and explain socialism. However, workers no longer own their labour once it has been leased to an intermediary, who then dolls out a proportion of the productive consequence of said labour. Capitalism runs on businesses stealing that surplus labour. A proper definition is vastly more complex, but a reductive definition boils down to who owns the benefit of workers labour and the communal distribution of the levers of capital (means of production etc.). What differentiates various left systems is means of achievement and organization/distribution of ownership.

It absolutely isn't size of government.

 

[ShanDog]

It is hard to render a pithy answer, considering the bajillion words written trying to define the parameters of and explain socialism. However, workers no longer own their labour once it has been leased to an intermediary, who then dolls out a proportion of the productive consequence of said labour. Capitalism runs on businesses stealing that surplus labour. A proper definition is vastly more complex, but a reductive definition boils down to who owns the benefit of workers labour and the communal distribution of the levers of capital (means of production etc.). What differentiates various left systems is means of achievement and organization/distribution of ownership.

It absolutely isn't size of government.

When does the worker not benefit from their own labour in a capitalist society? If you work for someone, you own the pay you receive which is simply currency to trade your labour for whatever good or service you need or choose. The product you created or service you rendered in the employ of someone else is theirs which they have purchased from you.

I've never really understood the arguments about ownership of labour in capitalist systems. Help me out.