You cannot separate economics from politics, they are infinitely intertwined. The only way to actually control political economy by humans, rather than the capitalist control system, is through socialism. Collectivizing production and distribution and running it on a common plan, rather than profit, is the path to overcoming the way the profit motive shapes society and the state.
The fundamental problem is scarcity. If someone has to choose between themselves experiencing scarcity or someone else, people will almost always choose someone else. In that sense profit will always exist.
Personally I see capitalism and socialism as tools which can each be used when appropriate. Capitalism is great for getting 30 flavors of breakfast cereal (innovation with failure being acceptable). Socialism is great for things like healthcare or firefighting (failure is not acceptable, innovation not essential).
With the fire department , the government owns the means of production (fire houses, trucks, etc) and sets the prices instead of the free market (paid for by taxes). That is socialism. Public healthcare may or may not be depending on what system it is.
Because this isn’t what socialism is. State ownership/price regulation by itself isn’t necessarily socialist or capitalist. It can be used to expand/reinforce market freedom or to undermine it.
The dictionary can be wrong about what a concept is (see: God). Regardless of any formal definition (and there isn’t just one formal definition of socialism), capitalism (capital-ism) requires state ownership and market administration to some degree in order to be what it is.
That isn’t capitalism or socialism. Both are modes of production dependent on which aspect of the economy is principal, ie rising and dominant, and which class controls the state. You’re horribly mixing up welfare for socialism.
Both are modes of production dependent on which aspect of the economy is principal,
which class controls the state
This is an interesting element. The USSR under Stalin was controlled by a few elites. That doesn’t make it capitalist. The US is a democracy, so it is controlled by the people . That doesn’t make it socialist. An economic system is not a political system and vice versa.
Welfare can be a part of a capitalist or socialist system, but is not those systems itself. You are trying to slice up parts of a cohesive system and treat those constituent parts as though they form an independent system themselves, but this is incorrect. The consequences of this error result in confused understandings of bodies like the US military as “socialism,” despite being a tool of monopoly finance capital. This is why the identity of an overall system is in its principal aspect, as this principal aspect determines how the rest of the system functions.
As for the USSR, it was run by the working classes. Classes are relations to ownership of production and distribution, not simply income levels or levels of administrative authority. You are referring to workers in the central committee and CPSU as “elites,” yet they were paid wages and did not own any capital. Just like a principal is the same class as a teacher, so too are administrators in socialist economies the same class as factory workers. The USSR had a form of democracy that began at the local level, and laddered upwards through councils called Soviets.
The US Empire is not democratic. The only viable political parties are those run and owned by capitalists, so candidates are representatives of that class. The media is owned by the capitalist class as well. The majority does not run society, they pick between outcomes already decided as okay by the capitalist class.
In trying to slice up systems and pretend there is no meaningful interaction between these, and that instead these systems are functionally independent, you are making metaphysical errors in analysis.
You are trying to slice up parts of a cohesive system and treat those constituent parts as though they form an independent system themselves, but this is incorrect.
Ah, I see the issue here. I am not arguing that the system is entirely capitalist or socialist. I am arguing that a system can contain sectors that operate under one system while other sectors operate under the other. The “principal aspect” certainly applies as a general description of the whole, but that doesn’t change the nature of individual elements.
Classes are relations to ownership of production and distribution, not simply income levels or levels of administrative authority
I would argue classes are determined by power. In the USSR, the power was held by the government and organized crime, not workers.
The US is a democratic republic. No matter how much capital you have, you can’t gain power without convincing people to vote for you. Granted money makes this easier, but it is not sure thing. Look at Elon Musk. He tried to use his money to force his way into government with that DOGE thing, but it failed miserably and he was pushed back.
The majority does not run society, they pick between outcomes already decided as okay by the capitalist class.
Was it any different in the USSR with the party making all the choices? Power always sets up the game board we all play on.
The principal aspect of the economy is the driving force of the economy, and determines the direction in which it develops. It does not change whether private property is private or not, but it does determine what that private property is submitted to, either it’s dominant over the economy or it’s submissive to it. To see this in practice, you can look at the FDA, and how it’s in bed with big pharma to secure drug patents and help profits over the people. This is not socialism and capitalism working together, but public property helping the dominant private property in the context of a capitalist system.
Classes are not something as vague as “power.” The reason classes are directly related to ownership of the means of production is because classes have shared class interests. The USSR was governed by the working classes, with the most energetic among them elected to become members of the Communist Party, upon which they were subjected to criticism if they did not perform well. The party regularly purged those the working classes did not support, and replenished its ranks from the rest of the working classes.
The US is a dictatorship of capital, and is far less democratic than the USSR was. Even your example of Elon Musk is horribly flawed, he was not kicked out by workers, but by rival capitalists. The class dictatorship of the US always supports that class, not necessarily any and all individuals belonging to that class. This is why class analysis is important.
And to answer your question, yes, it was very different in the USSR. Factory councils, village committees, and more were run democratically. Administration was highly veted and came from the best among the working classes, and the members of the party were subject to open criticism. Corruption often came, as it does in any society, but the CPSU made a deliberate effort to kick out lazy and corrupt officials, and replenish their ranks from the working classes. This is why the Soviet Union was run by engineers, professors, miners, factory workers, and more, not capitalists like the US.
This is not socialism and capitalism working together, but public property helping the dominant private property in the context of a capitalist system.
Corruption is a problem with any system. Capitalism or communism is irrelevant. Marx would probably argue that greed is a social construct, but I think psychology has conclusively shown that while elements of greed are social, it is fundamentally an evolutionary adaptation (as is altruism).
The reason classes are directly related to ownership of the means of production is because classes have shared class interests.
Ownership of the means of production is just a type of power. It is the power to grant or deprive others of resources. Shared interests by class is another falsehood bred from lack of psychological understanding by Marx. A black woman who works at a grocery store in a city and a white male farmer from a rural area are the same class to Marx. However their interests are vastly different because of intersectionality (which Marx had no way to know about).
The US is a dictatorship of capital, and is far less democratic than the USSR was.
The USSR was on no way democratic. It was an authoritarian state with one party who regularly presented voters with one single party-approved candidate to vote for. The public was not allows fundamental democratic principles like freedom of speech or independent political opposition. Stalin literally won 100% of the vote because of uncontested elections.
The US political system is heavily impacted by capital, but capital isn’t a single entity. It is a wide range of groups with a wide range of conflicting interests. Beyond limiting government regulation of capital and taxation, they rarely agree. Capital spends heavily influencing voters opinions, BUT the voters do still vote and those votes are counted honestly. We absolutely need to get money out of politics and we need to get rid of first past the post style voting. That being said, we are a democracy. And imperfect democracy, but a democracy.
It’s not that greed or altruism are social constructs, but that the way we think and see the world is based on how we produce and distribute. This is more affirming Marxism as correct, and psychological advancements marrying perfectly with Marxism already. Again, more misunderstandings of Marxism on your part.
Same with class. When you identify the differences between different nationalities among the proletariat, you are correctly identifying different interests, but incorrectly erasing class. Both the woman and the man have the same class interests in collectivizing the means of production and distribution. You’re, again, misunderstanding the Marxist position, and arguing against a strawman version of Marxism.
As for the USSR, it was comprehensively democratic and run by the working classes. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
Meanwhile, the US is a dictatorship of capital. You are confusing the ability to vote for the presence of democracy, but the truth is that the only allowable choices are already preselected by the capitalist class. It’s like forcing someone to pick between having their foot or hand cut off, and claiming their decision was democratic and desirable.
You cannot separate economics from politics, they are infinitely intertwined. The only way to actually control political economy by humans, rather than the capitalist control system, is through socialism. Collectivizing production and distribution and running it on a common plan, rather than profit, is the path to overcoming the way the profit motive shapes society and the state.
The fundamental problem is scarcity. If someone has to choose between themselves experiencing scarcity or someone else, people will almost always choose someone else. In that sense profit will always exist.
Personally I see capitalism and socialism as tools which can each be used when appropriate. Capitalism is great for getting 30 flavors of breakfast cereal (innovation with failure being acceptable). Socialism is great for things like healthcare or firefighting (failure is not acceptable, innovation not essential).
Socialism is not when the state owns or regulates some things. There is nothing inherently socialist about public healthcare or firefighters.
With the fire department , the government owns the means of production (fire houses, trucks, etc) and sets the prices instead of the free market (paid for by taxes). That is socialism. Public healthcare may or may not be depending on what system it is.
No, it isn’t.
Why?
Because this isn’t what socialism is. State ownership/price regulation by itself isn’t necessarily socialist or capitalist. It can be used to expand/reinforce market freedom or to undermine it.
The definition of socialism is literally state ownership of means of production and state administration of the market.
Are you saying this is capitalist state ownership and market administration?
The dictionary can be wrong about what a concept is (see: God). Regardless of any formal definition (and there isn’t just one formal definition of socialism), capitalism (capital-ism) requires state ownership and market administration to some degree in order to be what it is.
That isn’t capitalism or socialism. Both are modes of production dependent on which aspect of the economy is principal, ie rising and dominant, and which class controls the state. You’re horribly mixing up welfare for socialism.
Welfare can be and often is socialism.
This is an interesting element. The USSR under Stalin was controlled by a few elites. That doesn’t make it capitalist. The US is a democracy, so it is controlled by the people . That doesn’t make it socialist. An economic system is not a political system and vice versa.
Welfare can be a part of a capitalist or socialist system, but is not those systems itself. You are trying to slice up parts of a cohesive system and treat those constituent parts as though they form an independent system themselves, but this is incorrect. The consequences of this error result in confused understandings of bodies like the US military as “socialism,” despite being a tool of monopoly finance capital. This is why the identity of an overall system is in its principal aspect, as this principal aspect determines how the rest of the system functions.
As for the USSR, it was run by the working classes. Classes are relations to ownership of production and distribution, not simply income levels or levels of administrative authority. You are referring to workers in the central committee and CPSU as “elites,” yet they were paid wages and did not own any capital. Just like a principal is the same class as a teacher, so too are administrators in socialist economies the same class as factory workers. The USSR had a form of democracy that began at the local level, and laddered upwards through councils called Soviets.
The US Empire is not democratic. The only viable political parties are those run and owned by capitalists, so candidates are representatives of that class. The media is owned by the capitalist class as well. The majority does not run society, they pick between outcomes already decided as okay by the capitalist class.
In trying to slice up systems and pretend there is no meaningful interaction between these, and that instead these systems are functionally independent, you are making metaphysical errors in analysis.
Ah, I see the issue here. I am not arguing that the system is entirely capitalist or socialist. I am arguing that a system can contain sectors that operate under one system while other sectors operate under the other. The “principal aspect” certainly applies as a general description of the whole, but that doesn’t change the nature of individual elements.
I would argue classes are determined by power. In the USSR, the power was held by the government and organized crime, not workers.
The US is a democratic republic. No matter how much capital you have, you can’t gain power without convincing people to vote for you. Granted money makes this easier, but it is not sure thing. Look at Elon Musk. He tried to use his money to force his way into government with that DOGE thing, but it failed miserably and he was pushed back.
Was it any different in the USSR with the party making all the choices? Power always sets up the game board we all play on.
The principal aspect of the economy is the driving force of the economy, and determines the direction in which it develops. It does not change whether private property is private or not, but it does determine what that private property is submitted to, either it’s dominant over the economy or it’s submissive to it. To see this in practice, you can look at the FDA, and how it’s in bed with big pharma to secure drug patents and help profits over the people. This is not socialism and capitalism working together, but public property helping the dominant private property in the context of a capitalist system.
Classes are not something as vague as “power.” The reason classes are directly related to ownership of the means of production is because classes have shared class interests. The USSR was governed by the working classes, with the most energetic among them elected to become members of the Communist Party, upon which they were subjected to criticism if they did not perform well. The party regularly purged those the working classes did not support, and replenished its ranks from the rest of the working classes.
The US is a dictatorship of capital, and is far less democratic than the USSR was. Even your example of Elon Musk is horribly flawed, he was not kicked out by workers, but by rival capitalists. The class dictatorship of the US always supports that class, not necessarily any and all individuals belonging to that class. This is why class analysis is important.
And to answer your question, yes, it was very different in the USSR. Factory councils, village committees, and more were run democratically. Administration was highly veted and came from the best among the working classes, and the members of the party were subject to open criticism. Corruption often came, as it does in any society, but the CPSU made a deliberate effort to kick out lazy and corrupt officials, and replenish their ranks from the working classes. This is why the Soviet Union was run by engineers, professors, miners, factory workers, and more, not capitalists like the US.
Corruption is a problem with any system. Capitalism or communism is irrelevant. Marx would probably argue that greed is a social construct, but I think psychology has conclusively shown that while elements of greed are social, it is fundamentally an evolutionary adaptation (as is altruism).
Ownership of the means of production is just a type of power. It is the power to grant or deprive others of resources. Shared interests by class is another falsehood bred from lack of psychological understanding by Marx. A black woman who works at a grocery store in a city and a white male farmer from a rural area are the same class to Marx. However their interests are vastly different because of intersectionality (which Marx had no way to know about).
The USSR was on no way democratic. It was an authoritarian state with one party who regularly presented voters with one single party-approved candidate to vote for. The public was not allows fundamental democratic principles like freedom of speech or independent political opposition. Stalin literally won 100% of the vote because of uncontested elections.
https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/14/archives/stalin-wins-poll-by-a-vote-of-100-no-opposition-is-shown-in-count.html
The US political system is heavily impacted by capital, but capital isn’t a single entity. It is a wide range of groups with a wide range of conflicting interests. Beyond limiting government regulation of capital and taxation, they rarely agree. Capital spends heavily influencing voters opinions, BUT the voters do still vote and those votes are counted honestly. We absolutely need to get money out of politics and we need to get rid of first past the post style voting. That being said, we are a democracy. And imperfect democracy, but a democracy.
It’s not that greed or altruism are social constructs, but that the way we think and see the world is based on how we produce and distribute. This is more affirming Marxism as correct, and psychological advancements marrying perfectly with Marxism already. Again, more misunderstandings of Marxism on your part.
Same with class. When you identify the differences between different nationalities among the proletariat, you are correctly identifying different interests, but incorrectly erasing class. Both the woman and the man have the same class interests in collectivizing the means of production and distribution. You’re, again, misunderstanding the Marxist position, and arguing against a strawman version of Marxism.
As for the USSR, it was comprehensively democratic and run by the working classes. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
Meanwhile, the US is a dictatorship of capital. You are confusing the ability to vote for the presence of democracy, but the truth is that the only allowable choices are already preselected by the capitalist class. It’s like forcing someone to pick between having their foot or hand cut off, and claiming their decision was democratic and desirable.
Screwing your fellow person isn’t what profit is.