Socialism

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/26475319

Among many who have not engaged with Marxist theory, there can be confusion regarding the determination of systems as Socialist, Capitalist, and so forth. Are markets Capitalism? Is public ownership Socialism? Is a worker cooperative in a Capitalist country a fragment of Socialism? These questions are answered by studying Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and I will attempt to help clarify those questions here.

The idea that Socialism means only and exclusively full ownership in public hands is wrong, and anti-Marxist. To take such a stance means either Capitalism and Feudalism have never existed either, the sort of “one-drop” rule, or that Socialism itself is a unique Mode of Production that needs to be judged based on “purity” while the rest do not, a conception that has roots in idealism rather than Materialism.

Modes of Production should be defined in a manner that is consistent. If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative, or it means an economy is only Socialist if all property has been collectivized. Neither actually allows us to usefully analyze the trajectory of a country and who actually has the power within it.

For the former, this definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.

For the latter, this “one drop” rule, if equally applied, means Feudalism and Capitalism have never existed either. There is no reason Socialism should be judged any differently from Capitalism or Feudalism. To do so is to add confusion, and the origin of such a desire is from idealists who believe Socialism to be a grand, almost mystical achievement of perfection. The truth is more mundane, and yet because it's more mundane, it's real, and achievable, as it already has been in many countries.

What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.

As for the purpose of Socialism, it is improving the lives of the working class in material and measurable ways. Public ownership is a tool, one especially effective at higher degrees of development. Markets and private ownership are a tool, one that can be utilized more effectively at lower stages in development. Like fire, private ownership presents real danger in giving Capitalists more power, but also like fire this does not mean we cannot harness it and should avoid it entirely, provided the proper precautions are taken.

Moreover, markets are destined to centralize. Markets erase their own foundations. The reason public ownership is a goal for Marxists is because of this centralizing factor, as industry gets more complex public ownership increasingly becomes more efficient and effective. Just because you can publicly own something doesn’t mean the act of ownership improves metrics like life expectancy and literacy, public ownership isn’t some holy experience that gives workers magic powers. Public ownership and Private ownership are tools that play a role in society, and we believe Public Ownership is undeniably the way to go at higher phases in development because it becomes necessary, not because it has mystical properties.

Ultimately, it boils down to mindsets of dogmatism or pragmatism. Concepts like “true Socialism” treat Marx as a religious prophet, while going against Marx’s analysis! This is why studying Historical and Dialectical Materialism is important, as it explains the why of Marxism and Socialism in a manner that can be used for real development of the Working Class and real liberation.

Marxism isn't useful because Marx was prophetic, but because he synthesized the ideas built up by his predecessors and armed the working class with valuable tools for understanding their enemy and the methods with which to overcome said enemy.

We can look at the question from the following perspective. If we accept the premise that China operates under state capitalism, what implications does that hold? At its core, capitalism is defined by private ownership of capital, where individuals or entities control labor’s objectives and structure. Enterprises under this system exist primarily to expand their owners’ wealth, with any societal benefits emerging only as incidental byproducts.

State-owned industries, however, serve a fundamentally different purpose, even if their organizational structure superficially mirrors private enterprises. Their primary aim is to mobilize labor toward socially beneficial objectives such as constructing infrastructure, expanding housing, ensuring food security, and similar public goods. Crucially, capital accumulation by private individuals is absent in this model. Profits generated by state industries are reinvested directly into public services, infrastructure, and long-term national development.

While valid critiques can be made about organization of SOEs or potential worker alienation within their hierarchies, the system’s focus on collective welfare, rather than private profit, makes it fundamentally different from actual capitalism. When evaluated by its capacity to prioritize societal needs over individual wealth extraction, this framework is clearly superior.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7086573

CPUSA was fine but suffered from acute management issues on the lower, middle, and upper levels of the organization, imho

I loved learning the history and I highly recommend others learn more about their history and politics (beyond just Settlers and Black Bolshevik, which everyone seems to read before calling it a day, and which are biased against the org, not that bias is necessarily a strike against either; but do get the other side of the story sometime). Honestly, I've never seen an org quite like it. It's so... different, but in a very interesting and fascinating way.

We were also the prime target, or one of the prime targets, of the PatSoc / MAGA communist threat that started around 2019 - 2020, around the time of the pandemic, and incurred a big wave of proto-ACP freaks trying to do mass entryism and sabotage the org. We combated them. I don't regret that. Feds get the wall and I don't mind fending them off, even from a controversial org like CPUSA. The threat lasted until, say, 2024. As the ACP came into being, the entryists seemed to abate and disappear, but not before harassing and attacking trans members, stealing items, and being all-around racist and doing wrecker behavior all the while.

I would highly recommend joining, though I would warn of certain things before you join. Also, whatever one thinks of Nat'l Committee, they are the last of the old guard, and once they're gone, they're gone. So learn what you can from them about the history and tactics and victories gained through them. So yeah, I've seen the obituaries in People's World and cpusa.org and it isn't pretty. Despite disagreements here and there, I do wish them the best, and hope an exchange of ideas between the Nat'l Committee and the new rank-and-file can continue. I'm not sure what to think about their recent comments of self-criticism castigating themselves as "tailist" regarding the Democratic Party as, in general, I've seen how things can get topsy-turvy with people like Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin in charge (compared to the previous Dems). Joe Sims' recent comments also gave me pause, though Joe Sims was ever the leftist of the organization (compared to, say, John Bachtell, who is more right deviationist, I feel).

We grew a lot in the last 5 years, though whether we can maintain that growth, and retain the new members (however many we retain) is another matter.

I'm thinking of starting a club for Southern Workers Assembly here in upper region of Virginia (I'm just above the central area of Virginia, or maybe I should consider myself to be in the central area, from the looks of things, but often have access and go around NoVa, or northern Virginia).

If anyone lives in NoVa, the DMV area, or the metro area of D.C., please, PLEASE tell me so we can maybe meet-up and jumpstart the club or Southern Workers Assembly (SWA) org here in NoVa (we already have one in Richmond and I believe other places in Virginia).

Lastly, I have a YouTube/TikTok video about the CPC (the one in China, that is) coming up soon. Does anyone want to be pinged for when I upload it? It's been a while since I posted one. The TikTok version will, of course, be broken into several parts.

Also, I'm in a book club for the AFL-CIO in this state, but it's open to other people outside of Virginia.

Let me know if you want to join and I'll send you the link.

If anyone has recommendations on which org to join next, please tell me, but also, I'm practicing "self-care" and that means not going back to the same activism that gave me stress all the while, even if I encountered good things as well. FRSO seems interesting. But I'm not interested in another political party org. What else is there?

Cheers, everyone! Just had to get some of this off my chest and reflect on what has happened these past 5 years since the start of the pandemic. I hope nobody was offended by some of the negative comments about CPUSA. There were a... lot of internal issues, it seemed to me. And my mental health took a toll in the last year. I don't think I'm going back. But I wish to maintain my friendships with several CPUSA members in the org as I really respected them.

Anyway, I was noticeably vague about my time in there and so I'll leave it at that.

Oh yeah, and join the Southern Workers Assembly if you're in the South or Mid-west! Let me know if you're around central or northern Virginia and hit me up through DM.

An interesting article describing the experience of YDSA organisers running an introductory course into socialism and Marxism.

Excerpt:

At the start of this class I was confused about socialism. As most of American society is. I was conflicted between what I had learned about Marx and Marxism in my past classes and all of the times I had been told it failed. I was not aware that in actuality the examples we’ve been told about the cautionary tales of socialism were not examples of true or pure socialism. I’d been told that Cuba was a poor, struggling, tyrannical state where the people were suffering. I had no idea that none of this was true and Cuba was strides beyond American society in many ways. I didn’t understand what unions did or their cultural and historic significance, and I was unaware of the capitalist greed going on within our campus affecting my own teachers. In my position statement I don’t think I was fully aware that so many of the causes I’m passionate about are tied to socialism, universal education, universal healthcare, equality, climate justice, etc. Embarrassingly I did not even understand the concept of private property and what it would mean if the government banned it. I had pictured a dystopian image of a neighborhood with every house identical to the next. All of these mental images that I was indoctrinated to believe around socialism were hard to shake, it took me a while to ditch that mindset and see it for what it is.

Taking this course opened my eyes to the reality of socialism and made me question why it had been censored so much. Although I knew that news was manipulative and every side has their own agenda, I don’t think I fully understood that sources I considered reputable, like the New York Times for example, to be untrustworthy. I didn’t realize this until I used a New York Times article in my first essay that was misrepresenting socialism. Being raised in a liberal place I always associated Fox News, and other conservative sources with manipulation and untrustworthiness. I didn’t really consider the fact that liberal sources also were guilty of this. So many of the changes I want to see in the world are inherently socialist.[1]

Above is the first section of a final reflection letter written by one of the students who took the course “The Rhetoric & Writing of Socialism” at the University of Colorado Boulder in Fall 2023. This was written by a student with no previous experience with activism, social movements, or socialist organizations. Apart from several YDSA comrades who also took the class, most of the students in the course were similarly bereft of these experiences. But, this student’s response was by no means unique. In fact, this response was standard from several of the students in the class: a turn from vitriolic mainstream liberal or conservative positions on socialism to positive associations if not outright affinity for our ideological commitments. Clearly, something positive took place in this course and it's worth exploring why and how it happened.

[....]

One of the major concerns I expressed in my last article for Cosmonaut was that overt propagandizing could potentially alienate students; or worse, have them actively work against me or the YDSA comrades in the class. Instead, multiple students wrote positively about the course content and classroom environment. To quote one student directly, our class provided “a classroom environment where every student felt comfortable to share their thoughts and opinions.”[2] Reading through these qualitative comments, which were submitted by 16 of the 19 students in the class, it quickly becomes apparent that perception of the course was overwhelmingly positive.

Thus, it appears that overt propagandizing does not bother students, and the qualitative comments offer another reason for why this was. First is the importance of creating a positive, laid back classroom environment. This kind of environment was necessary given the contentious topics we covered. In a class where I took seriously the now dated but still applicable call from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1962 to create a culture of “controversy” and lean into difficult political conversations, we were no strangers to sensitive topics.[3] As can be clearly seen in the syllabus, we covered anarchism, the history of socialism in the United States, the efficacy of electoralism, the intersection of feminism and the civil rights movement with socialism, as well as other related topics.[4] Students were asked to write a manifesto where they clearly articulated what they thought about the controversial topics we covered in class. I even had an anarchist organizer come to class who talked openly about their confrontations with the police.

However, despite all this controversy, students took everything in stride because we treated one another like human beings. We joked around. We goofed off. I did everything I could to counter the idea of the “professional” college professor who must be detached from their students. Instead, I showed them pictures and videos of my daughter. We took a day to toss a frisbee back-and-forth. We talked about our lives outside the classroom. This created buy-in for the students who weren’t already socialists.

The very nature of private ownership of the means of production creates incredible amounts of stress for people living under capitalist regimes. Everyone lives in daily terror of losing their job. Losing your source of income means that you are no longer able to meet your basic needs such as housing, food, and healthcare. The anxiety about job security and debt accumulation is something that's constantly at the back of everyone's minds. Additionally, many capitalist nations do not have guaranteed retirement, shifting the burden of retirement savings onto individuals, leading to worries about financial security in old age.

These are the kinds of worries that people living in socialist societies, such as the USSR, could not even begin to comprehend. USSR implemented policies of guaranteed employment, universal healthcare, free housing, and comprehensive social welfare programs. These measures provided citizens with a sense of security and dignity, removing a whole class of anxieties associated with meeting basic needs. It's also worth noting that historical examples such as Hungary and contemporary models like China demonstrate that socialist principles can be combined with market economics addressing the main criticism of USSR style economy.

To sum up, capitalist relations introduce unique stressors related to meeting basic needs, which socialist societies address through systemic guarantees, thereby ensuring true freedoms for the people. These guarantees liberate the working class from the constant worry of survival, creating a society where human dignity and well-being are prioritized.