Do you agree any country who allows billionaires to exist is not a communist country? Or does this only apply to the systems you don’t like personally?
Communism, the classless, fully collectivized system of production and distribution, has not existed yet. It is a post-socialist mode of production. Socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and is the transition between capitalism and communism. Socialist countries exist that are run by communist parties, and some of these states do have billionaires as they have not fully collectivized production and distribution.
I think you’re misunderstanding the transition between capitalism and communism. Where did you get your understanding of what socialism and communism look like from?
If the transition was ever going to be complete it would have been by now. Billionaires in “communist” countries are a hypocritical joke. Certain countries just lead the people on, promising communism “soon,” while have no intention of giving up power.
Well, it is impossible to work toward communism while trying to appease imperialists who are constantly attacking you - through propaganda, economic embargoes that starve your country, and actual bombs. Revolutions need to continue to spread internationally, and capitalism needs to be defeated globally…only then will we have communism. Workers of the world will finally lose their chains when this happens.
Exactly this. This idea that any country could just will itself into communism is deeply anti-materialist. If that were possible, it would have been done already. The fact that these vibes-based “socialists” always reject actually existing socialist states makes me suspect that they’re actually just racist.
If the transition was ever going to be complete it would have been by now.
Why do you believe this?
What’s the date for transition?
There isn’t a set one that’s the point, you have to work through and synthesise the contradictions not only nationally but globally this is an entirely new path being blazed currently expecting exact dates so you can dismiss the whole project is infantile behaviour.
The transition between capitalism and communism is already ongoing. It isn’t marked by target dates or hard numbers, but instead is a gradual transformation that happens constantly. China has already made the qualitative leap to socialism.
No? What makes you think that China, for example, would need to collectivize all of the small and medium firms right this instant, before those even socialize? Being integrated with the global economy has brought tremendous growth and technology transfer that has helped with massive projects to uplift the working classes. Systems cannot remain static, as they develop they change. As production and development continues, these sovialize, become more interconnected and centralized. The path between capitalism and communism is lengthy.
Again, where did you get your understanding from? It looks like there’s some serious misconceptions going on.
There are no missing gaps. I got it from years of talking to you guys and reading your links—then disagreeing. Billionaires equal capitalism and capitalism and those who support any form of it are the problem.
Typical Anarkiddie’s understanding of Communism.
Karl and Vlad aren’t exactly known for their concern for the environment or animal welfare beyond recognizing that things like soil fatigue and over-farming would eventually render it unfit for production to feed the humans. Anthropomorphic pragmatism at the expense of the ecosystem is a hard pass for me.
aren’t exactly known for their concern for the environment or animal welfare beyond recognizing that things like soil fatigue and over-farming would eventually render it unfit for production to feed the humans.
lol… so in other words you mean recognizing environmental concern. Is this that materialism I keep hearing about?
Anti-communist environmentalism is just imperialism and commodity fetishization with green wrapping paper.
The ending of fossil fuel energy and factory farming cannot come about under capitalism. It is baked into Communism.
You’re telling me environmental sciences weren’t super advanced in the 1800s and 1910s I’m shocked. You people are so unserious. Socialism/Communism is the best shot we have at tackling these issues by removing the profit drive that necessitates exploitation at the very core of the current system. But sure let’s throw it all away because you don’t actually understand anything beyond vibes and idealist nonsense.
“The change is not good enough, better change nothing so the even worse status quo prevails”
Typical left unity.
I have no unity with people who oppose the Dictatorship of the Proletariate, and do not consider them part of the left. They are at best, misguided folks with their hearts in the right place, but far more often they are knowing Imperialist tools trying to suppress class consciousness.
LMAO you talked big game about knowing our arguments and your understanding of Marxism is surface level at best
Billionaires do not equal capitalism, though. The nature of a system is what is rising in it, not what is dying away. It’s through these logical leaps that you have to resort to in order to justify your own lack of support for a system where public ownership is the principal aspect, where as production socializes and centralizes it is folded into the public sector, and where the working classes maintain dominance over the state.
How do you get rid of private property? Is all private property the same? Is it all superfluous, or does it present a tradeoff? Since no system is static, what a system is working towards, its trajectory, is critical.
You can insist that there are no gaps, but from what I can tell there are plenty. You place your hatred for billionaires over your desire for a better world for the working classes. You take socialist countries as enemies for not placing retribution over material reality.
Agree to disagree. Billionaires are the definition of capitalism. Defending their existence is just SINO
Billionaires are bourgeoisie. The existence of the bourgeoisie does not mean a system is capitalist alone, what’s important is what is the principal aspect of the economy. You’re relying on the “one-drop” rule, which would imply that the existence of a public post office in the US means that the US is fully communist. That’s obviously ridiculous, private ownership is the principal aspect of the Statesian economy, but this is the limit of the “one-drop” rule.
Capitalism is a mode of production, not a class. I am not defending the permanent existence of the bourgeoisie, but instead defending a system where the bourgeoisie is waning and socialized production is rising. I am defending the transitional status as valid and moving, not a static, unmoving snapshot.
If you’re asking in good faith, read China has billionaires
I don’t click links. Any country that allows billionaires to exist is not a communist country.
So you’re not talking in good faith, thanks for confirming it
By good faith you mean believing in what you believe in otherwise it’s not good faith? Pathetic.
Anyone who simps for a country who allows billionaires to exist is not an actual communist. They are a capitalist in a red hat who just hates the west.
No, by good faith I meant willing to consider context, facts and understand the other side, even if you disagree at the end you’d end up sharpening your argumentation, instead you ask a rhetoric question and then refuse to engage with the answer we’d give you.
I already know what the link says. I already know your arguments. This isn’t my first time making that statement. There are zero things you can say that I haven’t already heard and there are zero things I can say to change your mind. I am as firm as you are.
That’s not bad faith. That’s just not agreeing with you.
Summarize the article then and refute it.
