Is the ultimate conclusion of any capitalist state communism?

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

I was discussing this over dinner the other day and I thought i'd run it by some of you guys. I understand communism to be a political system where the government has complete ownership and control of property and in effect labout. A totalitarian type state. Capitalism is the opposite of this, where individuals have total ownership of their own labour and property. Problem is that eventually in any capitalist system all property will end up in the hands of a single entity.


This would occur through a progression of mergers over hundreds of years which will result in a single governmental totalitarian entity. By way of illustration:

Education becomes privatised
20 different companies selling syllabi to schools a la edexcel or AQA in the UK
company x buys company y.
Company x2 buys both x and y
And so on and so forth

Eventually the entire educational system is owned by one company. This company might then be bought up by yert another agent. The logical conclusion has to be a sort of communist state.

I also want to state that any anti-semetic sentiments will be instantly reported.I know this thread is going to attract the anti-semites. The only reason why Jews have garnered such power is the fact that they were charged with handling the money for Christendom. At the time it was an unenvied industry but the Jews made the banking sector into what it is today. AS a result the Jewish community always being very tightly knit had vast reserves of money at its disposal which allowed them to propel their own into positions of influence. Hollywood was a Jewish venture which required real expense for instance.

So there's no need to go on a trip about how Jews are conspiring to buy everything up and sell the goyim into servitude.

 

[DeathDomokun]

Capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive. Capitalist Democracy is an oxymoron.

I think capitalism has already produced a plutocracy, and will eventually lead to a totalitarian state (like boiling the water a frog is sitting in)
The state is a company, and it owns public education. There is also private education, and although different schools and teachers teach the subject differently, the tests and standards are tantamount (within the state)
Even if the state were to loose all regulation over the education system (assuming they somehow lost the power to sustain a separate foundation of schools) and one company owned all of the privatised schooling, the teachers within those schools will be individual.
I think school was a bad example, really.
Here 2 companies own >80% of the food market, as an example of what you've already described.
Anyway, yada yada yada more bullshit talk yada yada jews are bad yada yada
As far as the economy goes, banks and the state currency is fucked affairs, not to forget the debts people are unaware of
yada yada god is upon us yada yada reptillians yada yada genocide and slavery yada yada feminism and black rights yada yada

 

[P A]

I understand communism...[to be a] totalitarian type state...Capitalism is the opposite of this

No.

 

[paranoid android]

You certainly don't have a great understanding of communism. The goal of communism is a stateless and classless society based upon the principle of to each according to their need and to each according to their ability. That is the ultimate goal of all communists whether they are Marxist, Marxist-Leninist or Anarchist Communists. They only differ in how to achieve full communism. The Anarcho-Communists believe that communism should begin immediately upon the abolition of Capitalism and oppose the idea of a transitional stage or a vanguard party. People who subscribe to the Marxist or Marxist-Leninist theory of communism believe that a transitional stage known as socialism (which is what many people who do not understand communism or socialism call communism think communism is) is necessary in order to achieve communism.

Your thinking of places that people call communist states (communist state is a oxymoron) where the government nationalized all the industries and essentially just ended up creating a new ruling class except it was called the communist party. Such examples as the USSR, China, Cuba and others are more or less just state capitalist countries.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

Hmm that was what I learnt at school haha. Communism was always "the government owns all labour and propoerty" I might adjust the thread to capitalism ends and a state of corporate government begins with all propert in the hands of a totalitarian regime. If the state that I posited isnt a communist one then I change my position. However I would say that the end result I described is close to a communist state. It would at least be a vague approximation of one.Effectively an ideal communist state could be reached if this one corporation of the world were publicly owned. With a small population all or most of the world could effectively have shares in the corporation which could lead eventually ro a communist statre.

If this global corporation truly owns everything 2 scenarios would be possible. The first would be a capitalist dictatorships and the other would be a Global Corp. PLC which eventually one would hope* would be owned by 100% of the population. In that sense I imagine the state would be communist.

 

[P A]

Effectively an ideal communist state could be reached if this one corporation of the world were publicly owned.

You're clearly still stuck in the quagmire of North American propaganda. Communism has jack shit to do with 'global corporations,' 'ownership,' and 'shares.' These sorts of things simply do not exist in (real or imagined) societies in which private property and fiat currency exert little or no influence upon human behavior.

 

[xxsicknessxx]

that's what laws against monopoly are meant for to stop one company from owning everything... not that it might not change..

However it doesn't stop a group of people from owning vast company's that in turn own everything... I think that's what the future holds for us. You say jews... I just say there is a group of people with ties, that own company's that build off each other and are working towards as much possible power as they can get, would they ever stop if they don't have to? Would you?

If you could own it all wouldn't you... its just human nature
This would occur through a progression of mergers over hundreds of years which will result in a single governmental totalitarian entity. By way of illustration:

 

[P A]

If you could own it all wouldn't you... its just human nature

No, I wouldn't. And no, it isn't.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

You're clearly still stuck in the quagmire of North American propaganda. Communism has jack shit to do with 'global corporations,' 'ownership,' and 'shares.' These sorts of things simply do not exist in (real or imagined) societies in which private property and fiat currency exert little or no influence upon human behavior.

I disagree. Youre not seeing beyond the corporation to what it represents. The global corporation owns everything. It consists of all infrastructure all production etc. However it is owned (through shareholding) by the public. In a communist system the shareholding would be accomplished through labour.

This corporation being to all intents the government is run by the people. Such a system would not be a democracy since in a democratic system there is an iron curtain between the unwashed masses and their overlords. In this system the corporation/government's administration would be dictated by public consensus.


There would be no class system since the objective of capitalism would be fulfilled. Of course the "board of directors" would need to enforce this somewhat, but the fact tht the state owns all means of production and steers the infrastructure means that the working classes need only work to support this movement.

I understand that this isnt a pure marxist state. Im proposing a proto communistic state. For it to be marxist in every sense of the word the corporation (gov.) would need to have totalitarian control and the proleteriat would be consigned to labour as currency. he main point I am making is that once the series of mergers is complete as our good man x kindly restated, you will have a classless state which replaces:

private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

This is currently my working definition. Im doing some actual reading on the topic now and im realising that I do have some misconceptions not having read the manifesto. Apparently this idea of a totalitarian state is the false definition. That appears to be the popular conception.

My questions would be:
*If there is no central dictatorial authority how is the administration run?
*How are resources distributed?
*How is ability measured? That is how is work allocated?
*In a non fiscal society how do people purchase luxury items?

 

[P A]

Youre not seeing beyond the corporation to what it represents. The global corporation owns everything....However it is owned...by the public

cf. Syndicalism

You're clearly a smart guy, Rudy, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about here. You're using terminology that applies principally to one particular mode of production (capitalism) within the context of another, mutually exclusive mode (socialism/communism), and conflating that politic with another, distantly related variant (syndicalism).

 

[P A]

Also, I think one of the most challenging and recurrent conceptual difficulties one encounters with hardline Marxism as such, both in academic and political contexts alike, is the supreme reluctance and/or inability of Marx/Engels to describe their glorious new society in a sufficient amount of detail to make their sweeping, quasi-utopian claims comprehensible (i.e., internally consistent, lacking the gaping holes so prevalent in sociopolitical theories, etc.) or politically actionable in any humanly meaningful way. As a result, what "we" as a diverse community of left-wing thinkers and readers have been left with is a handful of incendiary pamphlets (Manifesto, WITBD) and a lamentably dry, hopelessly abstruse tome (Capital) on the one hand; and a century of brutal political flirtation and, in a few cases, full-on state 'experimentation' with Marxism on the other; and what, in the end, does the left have to show for it, other than dismal failure and absolutely unprecedented, unpardonable quantities of human misery, much of which still has yet to be fully accounted for?

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

Also, I think one of the most challenging and recurrent conceptual difficulties one encounters with hardline Marxism as such, both in academic and political contexts alike, is the supreme reluctance and/or inability of Marx/Engels to describe their glorious new society in a sufficient amount of detail to make their sweeping, quasi-utopian claims comprehensible (i.e., internally consistent, lacking the gaping holes so prevalent in sociopolitical theories, etc.) or politically actionable in any humanly meaningful way. As a result, what "we" as a diverse community of left-wing thinkers and readers have been left with is a handful of incendiary pamphlets (Manifesto, WITBD) and a lamentably dry, hopelessly abstruse tome (Capital) on the one hand; and a century of brutal political flirtation and, in a few cases, full-on state 'experimentation' with Marxism on the other; and what, in the end, does the left have to show for it, other than dismal failure and absolutely unprecedented, unpardonable quantities of human misery, much of which still has yet to be fully accounted for?

There is no directly actionable description of communism anywhere and the ones ive found are weighty tomes that require the strength of ten men to wade through. I have however started to get to grips with it. My only remaining question is how the transition from capitalism to marxism is made. I know that anarcho communism advocates a seamless transition to a true marxist statre and other forms reccomend some sort of makeshift government to condition the people to their new system. Im not convinced that iany government would offer up power to the proles willingly. Another revolution would have to take place which would leave a power vacuum.
I do believe that an ideal communist state could actually work given a few problems inherent to the human condition are resolved:
How do you prevent the shadowy cabal of conspiracy fame rising up and assuming power? In fact would it not be possible for this to happen without the knowledge of the people i.e. could the mentioned cabal not place men in elevated offices (such as they would be). With a single faction occupying most of the higher functions of the "state" would not that faction eventually have government status?

This assumes that higher offices are stationary but corruption itself is practically a fringe benefit. Its written between each line in a contract. A classless system isnt really possible insofar as yes you can eliminate financial class but not a hierarchical system. There will always be a divisoin betweenn the manual labourers and the scientists and doctors. Not only that but at least at that grassroots level you have to have people to administrate various functions: team leaders etc.


In times of crisis i.e. famine disease etc how would you prevent political oppurtunists seizing upon the vulnerability of the population and offering ordo ab chao?

Im not necessarily asking these questions, just posing them as issues that I believe would require resolution.

 

[P A]

some sort of makeshift government

Vanguard

In times of crisis i.e. famine disease etc how would you prevent political oppurtunists seizing upon the vulnerability of the population and offering ordo ab chao?

Joseph Stalin

No offense, man, but to most people who are familiar with even a smidgen of left-wing ideology, the issues that you're raising as a 'newcomer' are banal to the point of redundancy. To all but the mindless legions of the initiated, these questions virtually ask themselves. Anyway, if you want to debate the relative merits of Marxist political theories, I recommend that you start another thread, or at least allow me to rename this one.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

Vanguard



Joseph Stalin

No offense, man, but to most people who are familiar with even a smidgen of left-wing ideology, the issues that you're raising as a 'newcomer' are banal to the point of redundancy. To all but the mindless legions of the initiated, these questions virtually ask themselves. Anyway, if you want to debate the relative merits of Marxist political theories, I recommend that you start another thread, or at least allow me to rename this one.

Banal? How could questions on a movement which has been studied to within an inch of its life be anything but banal. Virtually every angle has been covered with millions of people asking from a million different ideaological perspectives.

Communism is the one political movement which is an absolute dead end. The original manifesto being so vague sociologists and researchers have contemplated it from an infinite number of sides to try and find some workable marxist state. There is an entire politcial "vbloc" devotred to it. Look through the literature there are no new questions, only restatements of old ones.

Having read around a little more it does seem that Marx addressed the original question in part. It was his belief that after Capitalism falls away communism picks up. Of course its not quite the same, but it is somewhat reevant.

 

[P A]

Because the questions are fundamental in nature. In the context of sociopolitical theory, wondering aloud whether it would be wise, given the likelihood of despotic/fascistic outcomes, to establish a vanguard party and a temporary state apparatus to maintain order following a successful revolution is about as poignant as proposing to a room full of Biblical scholars your hypothesis that the four Gospels might be internally inconsistent (gasp!).

This is not to say that your questions are stupid or misdirected; but if you want to discuss ancillary 'side-topics' such as "Is the ultimate conclusion of any capitalist state communism?" you'd better be passingly familiar with at least the introductory concepts and difficulties latent in such big ideas. You're talking about all this as though it's something fresh and speculatively fruitful - most likely because to you, this really does constitute new material. This brings me back to the issue of whether you want me to rename this thread "Why Marx was Wrong: The Trouble with Communism Thread," "On Your Marx," or something to that effect.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

Communists think Capitalism leads to Communism when people wise up. Capitalists think Communism leads to Capitalism when people wise up. Reality points to the former.

Its important to understand that Communism as it was originally postulated is a state of existence based on mutual want or compromise, while Capitalism is an institution based on Social Darwinism.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

This is all - im sshamed to say - new material. Im glad that ive had a crash course though and now I have the very basics under my belt. I would however like to ask whether a thread has been created which debates theold human nature question. Ive searched and theere dont seem to be tooo many marxist threads. I personally have alot in common with the Darwinists despite deploring their cynicism.

 

[DeathDomokun]

What's wrong with cynicism?

 

[ebola?]

I think that the majority of points raised in this thread are well construed and expressed, but we have to establish why one particular definition of socialism or communism is better than another. An easy way to do this is to take as given that Marx's analytical framework is valid or at least valuable (this is a view I hold personally). I think that this might be a cheap shortcut though.

I contend that it is useful to define socialism and communism through Marx's lens because it is useful to differentiate between not only levels of magnitude of politicization of production and distribution, but also the ends toward which such politicization is directed, and also the domain through which this politicization is implemented (eg, the state). Conflating state-direction of the economy with socialism or communism obliterates these distinctions (and indeed, creates oft empirically false conceptual marriages).

I think that it is useful to adopt Marx's analytical take on capitalism because an understanding of class-dynamics is key to understanding the core of what capitalism is and what its consequences are. One can also explain the emergence of marketized social relations as another lens through which one may view class-relations.

ebola

 

[ebola?]

Capitalism is the opposite of this, where individuals have total ownership of their own labour and property.

Marx argues instead that capitalism is a system where one class of individuals, the proletariat, is compelled to sell their capacity to labor on the market, another class (capitalists) assuming ownership and control of said capacity to labor. While you may be formally free in terms of your capacity to make market-transactions, some people are compelled to give up particular capacities while others are not.

However I would say that the end result I described is close to a communist state. It would at least be a vague approximation of one.Effectively an ideal communist state could be reached if this one corporation of the world were publicly owned. With a small population all or most of the world could effectively have shares in the corporation which could lead eventually ro a communist statre.

Two points:
1. Marx (well, Engels, really) made a related argument, but one distinct from yours, and
2. This dynamic doesn't point to development toward a communist state.

1. Engels argued that oligopolic capitalism will entail the type of inter-industrial coordination that would be necessary under communism, to coordinate production and allocation of goods for satisfying widespread human needs rather than contributing to individual profit. So in this way, capitalism produces some of the preconditions of society's ability to supersede capitalist social relations. However...
2. Marx and Lenin maintained that this coordination in itself would not lead to the emergence of communism. Despite politicized and centralized direction of production and distribution, they still saw a central oligarchy directing these under capitalism. They still advocated revolution for these reasons.

There would be no class system since the objective of capitalism would be fulfilled.

The 'objective' of capitalism is class-exploitation itself (for this is the conceptually distilled central consequence of the profit motive).

ebola