…that is yet another explanation of why they are not yet socialist, what do you not agree with what i’m saying here?
No society has ever achieved fully developed socialism. But different societies have gone down the path of developing towards it. In China’s case, with the weakening and dissolution of the USSR and almost the whole socialist bloc, they realised that the developmental strategy they had been using was fatally flawed, which is why they had to make a temporary retreat so they could go down a different path. That doesn’t mean that the political dominance of the proletariat was removed. Nor did the economy stop being directed.
Now, you may feel as if a state-managed economy, or state ownership is not socialism, but nobody cares. You literally say “this is meaningless to me”. What are you, the fucking arbiter of socialism? Even Marx himself does not get this privilege. You say that the state is not the workers, and yet, any organization that the workers use to control the economy will not be the same thing as them. This is obvious. it doesn’t matter whether or not the workers control the economy through the state, through unions, through cooperatives, because none of those entities is equivalent to the workers themselves.
This has nothing to do with whether or not they are socialist.
On the contrary, it is extremely important. As materialists, we recognise that the technological base is as important to determining the mode of production as are the social relations. Capitalism is not wage labor, as wage labor existed throughout most of history. Capitalism only becomes fully developed capitalism when wage labor becomes socialised and is combined with machine production and fossil energy. When the capitalist class becomes politically dominant.
Much in the same way, a fully developed socialism requires the political dominance of the proletariat class, a fully command and automated economy and clean energy. These aren’t arbitrary or optional requirements. A command economy is necessary to overcome the anarchy of production, automation is necessary to abolish the law of value, and clean energy is necessary to ensure the sustainable perpetuation of the system.
Norway does this. They are not socialists.
It does not. Show me an example of Norway literally letting a sector constituting 20% of its GDP die a painful death because its not useful anymore.
That doesn’t mean that the political dominance of the proletariat was removed
It was never there, the workers have no democratic control over anything, they have no way to force the state to do anything, they have literally no power whatsoever over the state. They can’t strike, they aren’t even legally allowed to complain since there’s no freedom of speech.
Nor did the economy stop being directed.
The economy being directed by someone other than the workers is the very problem.
Now, you may feel as if a state-managed economy, or state ownership is not socialism, but nobody cares. You literally say “this is meaningless to me”. What are you, the fucking arbiter of socialism? Even Marx himself does not get this privilege.
It doesn’t matter if nobody cares, the definition of socialism is worker ownership over the means of production, and china doesn’t have that, therefore they are not socialist, it’s really that unbelievably simple. Do you not actually believe in socialism?
You say that the state is not the workers, and yet, any organization that the workers use to control the economy will not be the same thing as them. This is obvious. it doesn’t matter whether or not the workers control the economy through the state, through unions, through cooperatives, because none of those entities is equivalent to the workers themselves
What makes them equivalent is democratic control over those things, if the workers can control those things democratically, then they control them. In china, the workers have literally no say whatsoever. They don’t even have the right to strike. The state is not equivalent to the workers because they are wholly separate entities, if it was a union, that would be the workers, because the workers can democratically control a union. Cooperatives would also be socialism, because yet again, that would be the workers controlling things.
If the workers have no agency whatsoever, then they are not in control. The state is not even comprised of workers.
It does not. Show me an example of Norway literally letting a sector constituting 20% of its GDP die a painful death because its not useful anymore.
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about with this, but it’s not really relevant anyway, socialism is when the workers control the means of production, not when the state does nice things.
No society has ever achieved fully developed socialism. But different societies have gone down the path of developing towards it. In China’s case, with the weakening and dissolution of the USSR and almost the whole socialist bloc, they realised that the developmental strategy they had been using was fatally flawed, which is why they had to make a temporary retreat so they could go down a different path. That doesn’t mean that the political dominance of the proletariat was removed. Nor did the economy stop being directed.
Now, you may feel as if a state-managed economy, or state ownership is not socialism, but nobody cares. You literally say “this is meaningless to me”. What are you, the fucking arbiter of socialism? Even Marx himself does not get this privilege. You say that the state is not the workers, and yet, any organization that the workers use to control the economy will not be the same thing as them. This is obvious. it doesn’t matter whether or not the workers control the economy through the state, through unions, through cooperatives, because none of those entities is equivalent to the workers themselves.
On the contrary, it is extremely important. As materialists, we recognise that the technological base is as important to determining the mode of production as are the social relations. Capitalism is not wage labor, as wage labor existed throughout most of history. Capitalism only becomes fully developed capitalism when wage labor becomes socialised and is combined with machine production and fossil energy. When the capitalist class becomes politically dominant.
Much in the same way, a fully developed socialism requires the political dominance of the proletariat class, a fully command and automated economy and clean energy. These aren’t arbitrary or optional requirements. A command economy is necessary to overcome the anarchy of production, automation is necessary to abolish the law of value, and clean energy is necessary to ensure the sustainable perpetuation of the system.
It does not. Show me an example of Norway literally letting a sector constituting 20% of its GDP die a painful death because its not useful anymore.
It was never there, the workers have no democratic control over anything, they have no way to force the state to do anything, they have literally no power whatsoever over the state. They can’t strike, they aren’t even legally allowed to complain since there’s no freedom of speech.
The economy being directed by someone other than the workers is the very problem.
It doesn’t matter if nobody cares, the definition of socialism is worker ownership over the means of production, and china doesn’t have that, therefore they are not socialist, it’s really that unbelievably simple. Do you not actually believe in socialism?
What makes them equivalent is democratic control over those things, if the workers can control those things democratically, then they control them. In china, the workers have literally no say whatsoever. They don’t even have the right to strike. The state is not equivalent to the workers because they are wholly separate entities, if it was a union, that would be the workers, because the workers can democratically control a union. Cooperatives would also be socialism, because yet again, that would be the workers controlling things.
If the workers have no agency whatsoever, then they are not in control. The state is not even comprised of workers.
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about with this, but it’s not really relevant anyway, socialism is when the workers control the means of production, not when the state does nice things.