• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    Not sure I understand the point, states and markets are entirely different things, especially a state run by the working class whose goal is to collectivize all production and distribution, erasing the basis of class struggle and therefore the oppressive elements of government that make up the state.

    • Jack@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      states and markets are entirely different things,

      They are both power structures.

      erasing the basis of class struggle and therefore the oppressive elements of government that make up the state.

      IMO you will just create new class (the party) vs the workers. Why would the ruling class relinquish the power that they have?

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Markets and states are entirely different things, it looks like you’re identifying a partial overlap and using that to ignore that they are extremely diffrrent. Socialist states can be checked because the working class controls it, we see this in socialist states today.

        Further, the communist party is not a class, it’s the organized segment of the working classes. Administration isn’t a class, either. The proletariat as a ruling class wishes not to perpetuate its existence as a class, but to abolish it by collectivizing all of production and distribution.

            • Jack@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              I have and also I am from a country with famously failed socialist experiment.

              The part that I am most unsure of is the concentration of power within a small group of people. Yes they will be elected but elections can be rigged.

              That concentration of power means the system is ripe for abuse. Maybe not in the beginning when the leaders are versed in Marxism or whatever socialism they believe in. But eventually this power going to someone with selfish intentions will not be good.

              • QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                13 hours ago

                Ok. So capitalism observably doesn’t work. And you have decided a proletarian state is impossible. So what is your solution? Is organising futile? Do we just wait for a magic spark of simultaneous global revolution? Do we wait for the world to end? Is it all just futile and we kill ourselves now?

                You are very invested in idealist “human nature” metaphysics for someone who allegedly studied Marxism.

                • Jack@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  13 hours ago

                  I think anarchism is a cool idea.

                  Also I haven’t studied Marxism.

                  And a lot of the arguments I raise here are implemetational, so there is a very big difference from a socialist country to a socialist country.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                13 hours ago

                The potential for corruption exists in all organizations, vut that doesn’t mean you cannot account for this. Socialism, by necessity, has more distributed power than capitalism due to the working classes controlling the state.

                • Jack@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  13 hours ago

                  Socialism, by necessity, has more distributed power than capitalism

                  I assume here you mean that this is because the party must fulfill the demands of the citizens and not only of the capitalists.

                  But if we go back to the beginning I am arguing that in case of thus structured power structures the party and the capitalists are one. So they can use the same ticks that capitalists use now to manipulate the public and answer only to themselves.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    12 hours ago

                    No, I’m saying that socialism requires worker participation in running the economy because that’s what happems when you have a publicly run economy. The party cannot be considered the same as capitalists, because this is an entirely different economic structure. Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance helps explain how democracy works within socialism.

                    You’re again looking at particular similarities, ie capitalists have power in capitalism and the communist party has some degree of power in socialism, while ignoring the economic foundations that each relies on and their innumerable qualitative differences. The communist party cannot “use the same ticks that capitalists use now to manipulate the public and answer only to themselves,” because socialism and capitalism are entirely different modes of production. You haven’t explained how, just equated both by virtue of having some degree of authority.

                  • QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    12 hours ago

                    The PRC was founded and has been led by the CPC for over 70 years. Why hasn’t it become just as bad as the capitalists? Why does anti corruption still reach the highest rungs of power?

                    It’s almost like a socialist state led by a communist party is qualitatively different to a capitalist one under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.