Wrong. Marx explains this and reality confirmes it all the time. What happens when the capital runs out of the roon for growth? It crashes in a crisis, simple as. Every decade or so, for the last 200 years. Crisis destroys some capital, leaving some room to grow in this place, but every time, countless human being suffer and the wealth gets even more concentrated. Also the profit margin is on average dropping.
That’s where capitalists work, they have to pick or make the winners.
And you say you don’t see the concentration of wealth as being inherent to capitalism? Someone wins, someone have to lose.
I wouldn’t give up on the majority maintaining a tax rate.
“Majority” don’t have power in capitalism. Capital has. For well known example, for how long majority of USA citizens wants public healthcare? Decades, and nothing happened. How long are people in most capitalist countries against austerity? Yet they are getting consecutive rounds of it, both in boom and in bust. Why are neoliberals in power almost everywhere in capitalist countries while being unpopular? Etc. etc.
Ignorance is paying off, so people don’t care but that can change. The question is how?
Yes, and we have ample historical proof people can take the power and use it in good way. Answer is socialism.
I don’t believe that socialists are inherently less corrupt.
They you believe wrong. Take out profit motive, that will took out most of it, by the definition.
My last paragraph was not about hardship but policy-altering threats. If socialism needs them then it’s as dependent on competition as capitalism.
Without profit motivation, you end up with the sovjet union not having enough grain.
I see the danger in accumulation of capital like there is danger in nuclear energy. It requires skills to manage it. The answer can involve socialism but I think it’s not entirely political. Why has the population not prevented the fall of the sovjet union?
Marx argues like capitalists during the banking crisis. Let even the critical businesses go bust. The means of production remain. The state takes ownership and production continues. Shares can be sold later on. Accumulation of capital doesn’t matter if you tax it.
The last paragraph. You mention Xi Jinping who cleared corruption. Is that something that can be expected in a world organized by socialism? Why would a corrupt socialist elite elect somebody like him as a leader without the threat of invasion?
I see the danger in accumulation of capital like there is danger in nuclear energy. It requires skills to manage it.
What? Seriously what one has to do with other? Go read some basic Marx, it’s all there.
The answer can involve socialism but I think it’s not entirely political.
It’s even called “political economy” Production mode is the base of politics and it’s the base of entire society.
Why has the population not prevented the fall of the sovjet union?
Faq above
Marx argues like capitalists during the banking crisis. Let even the critical businesses go bust
No, but you would know if you read. Marx argues to get rid of the cycle entirely by abolishing capitalism.
The state takes ownership and production continues. Shares can be sold later on.
As above, nationalistion in capitalist state matters very little, it is usually used to save either critical sectors fucked up by capitalist indolence or to bail out the influental capitalist. More of them than not which was nationalised is later reprivatised.
Accumulation of capital doesn’t matter if you tax it.
Please read that Lenin book and stop tiring me with something i answered multiple times. Capitalist state cannot meningfully tax capitalists, fucking Amazon does not even pay any taxes or barely any and there is many such cases, most tax income comes from indirect taxes like VAT which are regressive by nature.
Is that something that can be expected in a world organized by socialism?
Not always but yeah, as you can see by him being elected president, socialism have incentives to do so, because in socialism corruption is a fault and crime, while in capitalism its unavoidable feature (just look at lobbying).
Why would a corrupt socialist elite elect somebody like him as a leader without the threat of invasion?
You already assumed without any base the Chinese national assemby or maybe entire China is entirely corrupted. Corruption is not a binary state. Also excuse me but whose invasion? 80% wars after 1945 was caused or meddled in by USA, the country which has literally institutionalized corruption and which interventions usually support corrupt cliques and cause corruption to go rampant.
calling universal suffrage as well an instrument of bourgeois rule. Universal suffrage, is
“the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the present-day state.”
So, make them mature first. Why bother with a revolution?
Of course there are arguments for the revolution but it was luck that it was possible then. Today, there is no way that the masses get the means of production to stage a revolution.
About the book:
On which page does he explain that a socialist state is the tool to proceed? And why do ML not like anarchists and call them bourgeois when L wants to end statehood?
It’s very taxing to read because it sounds right but has subtle contradictions. E. g. calling it dictatorship of proletariat does either mean democracy or it is a paradox.
About the famines. My point is that the sovjet union started to rely on grain imports for oil money. When you are in a cold war, how can that happen? I haven’t seen that question in the faq.
in a world organized by socialism? Why would a corrupt socialist elite elect somebody like him as a leader without the threat of invasion?
You already assumed without any base the Chinese national assemby o
No, the context is a world organized by socialism, so any socialist country.
You wrote that socialism will make sure that the corrections will happen.
I am not convinced. I don’t think that capitalism is the sole reason that the masses are immature. If we had socialism, the masses would be equally complacit.
What would socialism do that would make the difference?
Related, in socialism, who would force people to work if they vote to be able to watch Tiktok all day?
Also excuse me but whose invasion?
That’s about China. As you assume, my point is that the threat of an US intervention drives the need to limit corruption.
Wrong. Marx explains this and reality confirmes it all the time. What happens when the capital runs out of the roon for growth? It crashes in a crisis, simple as. Every decade or so, for the last 200 years. Crisis destroys some capital, leaving some room to grow in this place, but every time, countless human being suffer and the wealth gets even more concentrated. Also the profit margin is on average dropping.
And you say you don’t see the concentration of wealth as being inherent to capitalism? Someone wins, someone have to lose.
“Majority” don’t have power in capitalism. Capital has. For well known example, for how long majority of USA citizens wants public healthcare? Decades, and nothing happened. How long are people in most capitalist countries against austerity? Yet they are getting consecutive rounds of it, both in boom and in bust. Why are neoliberals in power almost everywhere in capitalist countries while being unpopular? Etc. etc.
Yes, and we have ample historical proof people can take the power and use it in good way. Answer is socialism.
They you believe wrong. Take out profit motive, that will took out most of it, by the definition.
What kind of competition do you even mean here?
Without profit motivation, you end up with the sovjet union not having enough grain.
I see the danger in accumulation of capital like there is danger in nuclear energy. It requires skills to manage it. The answer can involve socialism but I think it’s not entirely political. Why has the population not prevented the fall of the sovjet union?
Marx argues like capitalists during the banking crisis. Let even the critical businesses go bust. The means of production remain. The state takes ownership and production continues. Shares can be sold later on. Accumulation of capital doesn’t matter if you tax it.
The last paragraph. You mention Xi Jinping who cleared corruption. Is that something that can be expected in a world organized by socialism? Why would a corrupt socialist elite elect somebody like him as a leader without the threat of invasion?
Sure as fuck it didn’t prevented all the hunger in capitalism.
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/socialism_faq.md
Here is the faq for such nonsenses and much more.
What? Seriously what one has to do with other? Go read some basic Marx, it’s all there.
It’s even called “political economy” Production mode is the base of politics and it’s the base of entire society.
Faq above
No, but you would know if you read. Marx argues to get rid of the cycle entirely by abolishing capitalism.
As above, nationalistion in capitalist state matters very little, it is usually used to save either critical sectors fucked up by capitalist indolence or to bail out the influental capitalist. More of them than not which was nationalised is later reprivatised.
Please read that Lenin book and stop tiring me with something i answered multiple times. Capitalist state cannot meningfully tax capitalists, fucking Amazon does not even pay any taxes or barely any and there is many such cases, most tax income comes from indirect taxes like VAT which are regressive by nature.
Not always but yeah, as you can see by him being elected president, socialism have incentives to do so, because in socialism corruption is a fault and crime, while in capitalism its unavoidable feature (just look at lobbying).
You already assumed without any base the Chinese national assemby or maybe entire China is entirely corrupted. Corruption is not a binary state. Also excuse me but whose invasion? 80% wars after 1945 was caused or meddled in by USA, the country which has literally institutionalized corruption and which interventions usually support corrupt cliques and cause corruption to go rampant.
This should be the core problem
So, make them mature first. Why bother with a revolution?
Of course there are arguments for the revolution but it was luck that it was possible then. Today, there is no way that the masses get the means of production to stage a revolution.
About the book:
On which page does he explain that a socialist state is the tool to proceed? And why do ML not like anarchists and call them bourgeois when L wants to end statehood?
It’s very taxing to read because it sounds right but has subtle contradictions. E. g. calling it dictatorship of proletariat does either mean democracy or it is a paradox.
About the famines. My point is that the sovjet union started to rely on grain imports for oil money. When you are in a cold war, how can that happen? I haven’t seen that question in the faq.
Yes, Marx argues against the cycle. I don’t buy that argument. There is no need to prevent it.
No, the context is a world organized by socialism, so any socialist country.
You wrote that socialism will make sure that the corrections will happen.
I am not convinced. I don’t think that capitalism is the sole reason that the masses are immature. If we had socialism, the masses would be equally complacit.
What would socialism do that would make the difference?
Related, in socialism, who would force people to work if they vote to be able to watch Tiktok all day?
That’s about China. As you assume, my point is that the threat of an US intervention drives the need to limit corruption.