The state is the mechanism through which one class exerts its dominance over the others.
Bourgeois states are the enforcement arm of capital. When it offers improved conditions, it is merely a carrot to prevent you from taking actions that may jeopardize its power.
In a similar vein, proletarian controlled states can do the same, but the concessions go towards capital and the day-to-day ruling is on behalf of the workers.
If we want concessions that cannot be revoked, we must overthrow the bourgeois state and replace with a workers state. We cannot reform our way into a society where capital does not have near complete power.
That was George Orwell’s view, but it’s wrong. Historically, socialist states have been dramatically effective at raising up standards of living, and it’s because the working class is quite well aware of its own interests and how to run society. You don’t need everyone to specialize in everything, that’s why political education and education in general are so valued in socialist countries.
Yes, both the USSR and PRC are typical examples of socialism. Public ownership is the principle aspect of both the former USSR’s economy and the PRC’s economy, same with Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Not sure what you’re getting at.
Yes, both the USSR and PRC are typical examples of socialism
Both USSR and PRC are prime examples of bog-standard totalitarian dictatorships. I have no clue where you’re getting the “socialism” bits from. The fact that they said they are? Do you also believe that North Korea is a Democracy, because it’s in their name?
Public ownership is the principle aspect of both the former USSR’s economy and the PRC’s economy
There’s no public ownership in either. In USSR it was “friends of friends” (the people who we now call the Oligarchs) and in PRC you have a “dictator-approved capitalism” with companies being privately owned.
I’ll admit that I don’t know enough about Cuba or Vietnam to discuss them.
Democracy in the former USSR and modern PRC is solidly proletarian in character. In the USSR, they practiced soviet democracy, which was a form of council based democracy that laddered all the way up to the Politburo. It was through this method, along with the economy being publicly owned and planned, that led to immense leaps in quality of life. Life expectancy doubled, literacy rates tripled, women took huge steps into government positions, education was free and high quality as well as healthcare, working hours shortened, and inequality fell dramatically. There were privledges being high up in government, but not in any way comparable to those under the Tsarist system or under capitalism today.
As for the PRC, public ownership is the principle aspect of its economy. Socialism is not the absence of private property in total, but one where the working class is in control and the large firms and key industries are dominated by public ownership. China’s socialist market economy is permeated with strong democracy as well, with higher ratings than western countries:
The DPRK is democratic, but not because of the name. It’s because they have approval based voting, worker councils, and the working class is in charge. They are currently run by a coalition of 3 parties, the socialist WPK, as well as a social democratic party and a religious party. Cuba is about halfway between the soviet model and chinese model, and Vietnam is closer to the Chinese model of economy. Both are socialist and both are democratic.
None of these countries are perfect wonderlands, but they are all socialist and all democratic. I don’t know what you think socialism looks like, it sounds like it’s just whatever unachievable utopia exists in your head and is free from the sins associated with actually existing in real life.
The state is the mechanism through which one class exerts its dominance over the others.
Bourgeois states are the enforcement arm of capital. When it offers improved conditions, it is merely a carrot to prevent you from taking actions that may jeopardize its power.
In a similar vein, proletarian controlled states can do the same, but the concessions go towards capital and the day-to-day ruling is on behalf of the workers.
If we want concessions that cannot be revoked, we must overthrow the bourgeois state and replace with a workers state. We cannot reform our way into a society where capital does not have near complete power.
This is as much a utopia as capitalist “trickle down economy”. It cannot exist because proletariat, in the vast majority, is dumb as a sack of bricks.
That was George Orwell’s view, but it’s wrong. Historically, socialist states have been dramatically effective at raising up standards of living, and it’s because the working class is quite well aware of its own interests and how to run society. You don’t need everyone to specialize in everything, that’s why political education and education in general are so valued in socialist countries.
Such as?
USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.
You’re calling USSR or PRC “socialist”? WTF is this? A joke? I thought we’re having a serious conversation here.
Yes, both the USSR and PRC are typical examples of socialism. Public ownership is the principle aspect of both the former USSR’s economy and the PRC’s economy, same with Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Not sure what you’re getting at.
LOL, excellent jokes all around!
Both USSR and PRC are prime examples of bog-standard totalitarian dictatorships. I have no clue where you’re getting the “socialism” bits from. The fact that they said they are? Do you also believe that North Korea is a Democracy, because it’s in their name?
There’s no public ownership in either. In USSR it was “friends of friends” (the people who we now call the Oligarchs) and in PRC you have a “dictator-approved capitalism” with companies being privately owned.
I’ll admit that I don’t know enough about Cuba or Vietnam to discuss them.
Democracy in the former USSR and modern PRC is solidly proletarian in character. In the USSR, they practiced soviet democracy, which was a form of council based democracy that laddered all the way up to the Politburo. It was through this method, along with the economy being publicly owned and planned, that led to immense leaps in quality of life. Life expectancy doubled, literacy rates tripled, women took huge steps into government positions, education was free and high quality as well as healthcare, working hours shortened, and inequality fell dramatically. There were privledges being high up in government, but not in any way comparable to those under the Tsarist system or under capitalism today.
As for the PRC, public ownership is the principle aspect of its economy. Socialism is not the absence of private property in total, but one where the working class is in control and the large firms and key industries are dominated by public ownership. China’s socialist market economy is permeated with strong democracy as well, with higher ratings than western countries:
The DPRK is democratic, but not because of the name. It’s because they have approval based voting, worker councils, and the working class is in charge. They are currently run by a coalition of 3 parties, the socialist WPK, as well as a social democratic party and a religious party. Cuba is about halfway between the soviet model and chinese model, and Vietnam is closer to the Chinese model of economy. Both are socialist and both are democratic.
None of these countries are perfect wonderlands, but they are all socialist and all democratic. I don’t know what you think socialism looks like, it sounds like it’s just whatever unachievable utopia exists in your head and is free from the sins associated with actually existing in real life.