But what I meant by they married the power of the state to capital is that as an agent of the state, you had the authority over capital.
In capitalism if you want a factory, you need money (and/or investors). In the USSR, you needed an agent of the state to make it happen.
In theory, that works. In practice, the agent of the state often becomes an investor - they profit off the factory, either through bribes up front or skimming off the top to sell the products on the black market
It’s a system that invites corruption at all levels. No amount of policing can regulate a system when the individuals are incentived to skim off the top… This works at a smaller scale, but when you scale it up to county size ideology and policing will never tamp down the temptation. And the more people do it, the more normalized it becomes
You will always have people trying to exploit any system, the system has to have an answer that doesn’t assume the individuals will act in good faith
You have to align incentives between actors and the system as a whole. I don’t think you can do that top down, but you could do it bottom up. No individual should be allowed to have much power, and centralized planning concentrates power
You’ll never approach communism top down. You can only do it by empowering the workers, from the bottom up
This is a pretty big misunderstanding of both what capital even is, and how socialist economies, the USSR included, function.
First, capital. Capital isn’t a synonym for “means of production.” Capital is a social function. Money, commodities, means of production, etc can all function as capital. What makes something capital is its use to generate more wealth in the form of profits. A worker that owns their own hammer is not an owner of capital, but an owner of a tool.
Secondly, socialism. Socialist economies, where production is generally planned for use rather than profits (depending on the stage), does not have the system of “skimming” like you imagine. In the USSR, the difference between the top and the bottom of society was about ten times, as compared to thousands to billions in capitalism.
Communism, in the Marxist sense, can only come about through full collectivization of production and distribution, it can’t happen from the bottom-up. I just posted an updated Marxist-Leninist reading list, maybe give it a try!
Capital is what allows you to obtain the means of production. Before capitalism, capital required a title of nobility. It is not the same as money… Capitalism is the system where capital is just money. Just money can buy the mine, can buy the land, can buy the tools for the factory, can employ the workers.
These are things that require authority under both feudalism and a Marxist-Leninist system
Socialism does not require skimming off the top. That’s obviously the opposite of what it aims to do
But going all in on central planning basically guarantees a system of skimming off the top.
There are other, better models for socialism. What if all companies became worker controlled, direct democracy style? What if the state controlled everything considered utilities, from food to healthcare to power and electricity to education, and you let capitalism compete in the background?
Communism is where the state withers away, because it’s not needed. Where we grow beyond needing rulers.
You’ll never get there by concentrating all the power and capital in the state. You could get there by using the state only as a check to make sure everything remains bottom up
Again, what determines what is capital or not is its social role. It isn’t purely money within capitalism, there’s money capital, commodity capital, etc.
Further, you’re deeply misunderstood on the rest of this comment.
Central planning in a fully collectivized economy does not certify “skimming off the top.” You’re thinking of socialist production and distribution as the same as capitalist, but with the government. On the contrary, socialist production makes it far less likely, compared to capitalism where that is the sole aim.
All companies being worker controlled cooperatives is not a better model, it’s much worse. Cooperatives can be a part of a broader, developing socialist economy, but cannot form the basis, as competition will result in some cooperatives flourishing and others dying, resulting in class striation.
Having public ownership for part of the economy and private for the rest is either social democracy, ie capitalism with safety nets, or the primary stage of socialism, before more development and collectivizing. If the large firms and key industries are publicly owned it’s capitalist, if they are publicly owned it’s some kind of socialism.
a. Social democracy, as its still capitalism, still has far more “skimming off the top” as that’s the purpose of capitalism to begin with. You’re still under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the workers still have no power, and in the global north you still rely on imperialism.
b. The socialist market economy is just what the PRC is doing now, and it’s extremely effective. They are still pursuing a fully collectivized economy, but are working with diverse forms of ownership of medium and small firms as they are only in the primary stage of socialism.
The state withers away when class withers away. Communism in the Marxist sense is a global, fully collectivized economy run along a common plan. The state is merely the extension of the class in power, ie the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, it isn’t a class in itself. Once all property has been collectivized by the state, it ceases to function as a “state,” but planning still takes an active role. Over time, formal structures are replaced by habit, but you still have a huge, interconnected, planned economy.
Ultimately, you are fundamentally confused about what Marx was advocating for, and are mixing it up with anarchism, when these are fundamentally different concepts. Reading theory would be a good idea for you.
You’re right, I meant lifetime.
But what I meant by they married the power of the state to capital is that as an agent of the state, you had the authority over capital.
In capitalism if you want a factory, you need money (and/or investors). In the USSR, you needed an agent of the state to make it happen.
In theory, that works. In practice, the agent of the state often becomes an investor - they profit off the factory, either through bribes up front or skimming off the top to sell the products on the black market
It’s a system that invites corruption at all levels. No amount of policing can regulate a system when the individuals are incentived to skim off the top… This works at a smaller scale, but when you scale it up to county size ideology and policing will never tamp down the temptation. And the more people do it, the more normalized it becomes
You will always have people trying to exploit any system, the system has to have an answer that doesn’t assume the individuals will act in good faith
You have to align incentives between actors and the system as a whole. I don’t think you can do that top down, but you could do it bottom up. No individual should be allowed to have much power, and centralized planning concentrates power
You’ll never approach communism top down. You can only do it by empowering the workers, from the bottom up
This is a pretty big misunderstanding of both what capital even is, and how socialist economies, the USSR included, function.
First, capital. Capital isn’t a synonym for “means of production.” Capital is a social function. Money, commodities, means of production, etc can all function as capital. What makes something capital is its use to generate more wealth in the form of profits. A worker that owns their own hammer is not an owner of capital, but an owner of a tool.
Secondly, socialism. Socialist economies, where production is generally planned for use rather than profits (depending on the stage), does not have the system of “skimming” like you imagine. In the USSR, the difference between the top and the bottom of society was about ten times, as compared to thousands to billions in capitalism.
Communism, in the Marxist sense, can only come about through full collectivization of production and distribution, it can’t happen from the bottom-up. I just posted an updated Marxist-Leninist reading list, maybe give it a try!
Capital is what allows you to obtain the means of production. Before capitalism, capital required a title of nobility. It is not the same as money… Capitalism is the system where capital is just money. Just money can buy the mine, can buy the land, can buy the tools for the factory, can employ the workers.
These are things that require authority under both feudalism and a Marxist-Leninist system
Socialism does not require skimming off the top. That’s obviously the opposite of what it aims to do
But going all in on central planning basically guarantees a system of skimming off the top.
There are other, better models for socialism. What if all companies became worker controlled, direct democracy style? What if the state controlled everything considered utilities, from food to healthcare to power and electricity to education, and you let capitalism compete in the background?
Communism is where the state withers away, because it’s not needed. Where we grow beyond needing rulers.
You’ll never get there by concentrating all the power and capital in the state. You could get there by using the state only as a check to make sure everything remains bottom up
Again, what determines what is capital or not is its social role. It isn’t purely money within capitalism, there’s money capital, commodity capital, etc.
Further, you’re deeply misunderstood on the rest of this comment.
Central planning in a fully collectivized economy does not certify “skimming off the top.” You’re thinking of socialist production and distribution as the same as capitalist, but with the government. On the contrary, socialist production makes it far less likely, compared to capitalism where that is the sole aim.
All companies being worker controlled cooperatives is not a better model, it’s much worse. Cooperatives can be a part of a broader, developing socialist economy, but cannot form the basis, as competition will result in some cooperatives flourishing and others dying, resulting in class striation.
Having public ownership for part of the economy and private for the rest is either social democracy, ie capitalism with safety nets, or the primary stage of socialism, before more development and collectivizing. If the large firms and key industries are publicly owned it’s capitalist, if they are publicly owned it’s some kind of socialism.
a. Social democracy, as its still capitalism, still has far more “skimming off the top” as that’s the purpose of capitalism to begin with. You’re still under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the workers still have no power, and in the global north you still rely on imperialism.
b. The socialist market economy is just what the PRC is doing now, and it’s extremely effective. They are still pursuing a fully collectivized economy, but are working with diverse forms of ownership of medium and small firms as they are only in the primary stage of socialism.
Ultimately, you are fundamentally confused about what Marx was advocating for, and are mixing it up with anarchism, when these are fundamentally different concepts. Reading theory would be a good idea for you.
Private
Oof, thank you! I need to stop replying to comments before I’ve had my first coffee, lmao 🫠