It’s more accurate to say that the systemic issues of Capitalism sharpen as it centralizes. Exploitation becomes more naked, competition dies out, barriers to entry become impossible hurdles, and the vast wealth of society is concentrated in the hands of the few. Centralization itself isn’t bad, rather, it’s the natural consequence of the advance of industry. Supply lines, raw material sourcing, trade routes, industrialization, all become closer linked and more sprawling to raise efficiency, and as a consequence markets cease to be competing powers but few large trusts. Socialism flips this on its head by democratizing and collectivizing, keeping the benefits of centralization and spreading them out.
As for Communism vs Capitalism, sort of. Capitalism is categorized by a Mode of Production where Private Ownership and Markets are primary, Socialism is categorized by Public Ownership and planning being primary, and Communism specifically is a Mode of Production where all property has been collectivized globally, and Class therefore erased, with the State alongside it, leaving a world republic. It isn’t a “one drop” rule or about which is more common, but which is primary. Fairness is indeed not the determining characteristic.
The thing about your hypothesis, the inflexion point on ownership, it does matter. If it’s privately owned, the profits go to the owner, if it’s publicly owned then the “profits” go to the whole of society, in the form of safety nets, industrialization, etc. This fundamentally cannot exist alongside Capitalism as dominant because under Capitalism, the Capitalists have control and power, and in Socialism the Working Class does. There would be no benefit for the Capitalists to allow ownership in name only, and the State in Capitalism cannot move in that direction as it is under the control of Capitalists.
If it’s privately owned, the profits go to the owner, if it’s publicly owned then the “profits” go to the whole of society, in the form of safety nets, industrialization, etc.
Is this really what “ownership” means? is it impossible to own something but not get all the profits from it? Even if a law enforces the redistribution of profits?
Also, is it possible that even when they are publicly owned, the “profits” benefit more a particular part of the society than other? how do you guarantee that the one who works the most gets the most? or do you simply don’t mind about that anymore?
It’s more accurate to say that the systemic issues of Capitalism sharpen as it centralizes
That’s essentially what I was saying. In general, centralizing power will always sharpen any unfairness within that power… that’s why the issue is not in the centralization, but in the unfairness. Focusing in the centralization does not address the point.
Most companies pay taxes, yes. The purpose of ownership is the profit, if you run an entity publicly like, say, USPS, profit no longer becomes the purpose. The inverse is true, administrators would likely get more money in Socialism, or labor vouchers in early Communism, than regular workers. Socialism isn’t about equal pay, nor is Communism. As for guaranteeing, that’s not really important. You can pay more for more skilled jobs, or pay the same for fewer hours for dangerous jobs. Look at how Socialist societies exist currently.
If you want to learn more, I have a Marxism-Leninism reading list linked on my profile. The first section is all you really need to get an understanding of terms and basics.
Most companies pay taxes, yes. The purpose of ownership is the profit
Ok, so if it’s only a purpose and not part of the definition, then it is possible to have ownership without profit.
I’d argue, the only reason why the purpose of ownership is profit is because it is profitable to have ownership, but having ownership does not necessarily imply you get all the profit.
From this it follows that if having ownership were to be no longer profitable (or say… still profitable but less than being a worker), then it would be possible to have private ownership (capitalism) where profit is not the purpose of having ownership.
Socialism isn’t about equal pay, nor is Communism. As for guaranteeing, that’s not really important. You can pay more for more skilled jobs, or pay the same for fewer hours for dangerous jobs. Look at how Socialist societies exist currently.
But who guarantees that you “pay more for more skilled jobs” or “pay the same for fewer hours for dangerous jobs”? And specifically, in communism, not in socialism. Let’s not argue on whether socialist societies running in social democratic capitalistic countries can be considered to be from one side or the other. “Common ownership” is not the same as “collective ownership”, and it can come with its very own set of unfair practices.
Also, my question was specifically about the redistribution of the profit. How do you guarantee that the profit goes to the one who works the hardest and not to the one who happens to be in a circumstance that places them in a position where they can reap the most rewards?
Private Ownership itself is not Capitalism. Capitalism and Socialism are labels for economies, not individual aspects of an economy. The USPS is not a “Socialist” section of the US economy while Amazon a “Capitalist” section, rather, the entire economy is designated as Capitalist with Amazon as part of the Private Sector and the USPS as part of the Public Sector. Socialist societies like the USSR had private ownership, see the NEP, or the modern Socialist Market Economy of the PRC. This is similar to what you describe as private ownership being directed by government for the purpose of achieving society’s ends, but not the same.
Social Democracies like the Nordic Countries are not Socialist. The public sectors service and support the private sector, not the other way around, and they fund their safety nets through Imperialism. No country has achieved Communism yet, when we talk about Socialism we talk about Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, the former USSR, etc. In Communism, there is no private ownership to begin with, no markets either, all of the economy is publicly owned and planned.
Private Ownership itself is not Capitalism. Capitalism and Socialism are labels for economies, not individual aspects of an economy
This is what I asked you before. What is capitalism? you agreed with the definition I gave. If you are gonna change the term then we are no longer talking about the same thing.
Like I said, I don’t want to talk about socialism because I feel it’s an in-between solution that would just make the topic more complex than it already is. Socialism is not Communism either, so please do not use Socialist examples.
Social Democracies like the Nordic Countries are not Socialist.
I know, that’s why the full term I used was “social democratic capitalistic countries”, I consider them capitalist States.
I explained it before, but I’ll explain it again. Capitalism is, at its simplest, a Mode of Production where private ownership and markets are primary. I’ll expand on what “primary” means this time, because I think this is what slipped by. When I say “primary,” I mean the driving force and trajectory of the economy, as well as which class controls the state. What does the state serve, the Capitalists or the Workers?
Socialism isn’t an “in-between solution,” towards Communism. It’s the process of building Communism. Humanity has never seen Communism, so I am not sure why you are trying to discuss it. What are you trying to talk about, the hypothetical future society of Communism?
But then I think that interpretation implies, in its very definition, oligarchy.
What do you call a society where private ownership is the main form of ownership and yet has a State designed to serve the Workers?
Socialism isn’t an “in-between solution,” towards Communism. It’s the process of building Communism.
And to build communism you don’t need an in-between solution?
Is it really only “a process”? or is it also a socioeconomic system?
Humanity has never seen Communism, so I am not sure why you are trying to discuss it. What are you trying to talk about, the hypothetical future society of Communism?
Yes. Humanity has never seen a fair society, period. Neither one with private ownership, nor one with common ownership. The aliens were not talking about Socialism, they were talking about a hypothetical future society where ownership wasn’t a thing at all (not even collective ownership in the socialist sense), nor contracts.
And I dared to try to talk as well about a hypothetical future society of (what I initially considered to be, under my previous definition) Capitalism too.
What do you mean by “main” form of ownership? The primary? Or the one most common? If the former, that doesn’t really exist, a state controlled by the workers where the Capitalists have power over the economy would collapse very quickly, perhaps like the Paris Commune in the mid 1800s. If the latter, it would be Socialism, like in the NEP in the USSR, or a more privatized version of the PRC’s economy (which is majority public).
I understand that the aliens are talking about a semi-Communist organization. I am not sure how you expect your form of society to come into existence except as a transitional society, like the NEP in the USSR.
It’s more accurate to say that the systemic issues of Capitalism sharpen as it centralizes. Exploitation becomes more naked, competition dies out, barriers to entry become impossible hurdles, and the vast wealth of society is concentrated in the hands of the few. Centralization itself isn’t bad, rather, it’s the natural consequence of the advance of industry. Supply lines, raw material sourcing, trade routes, industrialization, all become closer linked and more sprawling to raise efficiency, and as a consequence markets cease to be competing powers but few large trusts. Socialism flips this on its head by democratizing and collectivizing, keeping the benefits of centralization and spreading them out.
As for Communism vs Capitalism, sort of. Capitalism is categorized by a Mode of Production where Private Ownership and Markets are primary, Socialism is categorized by Public Ownership and planning being primary, and Communism specifically is a Mode of Production where all property has been collectivized globally, and Class therefore erased, with the State alongside it, leaving a world republic. It isn’t a “one drop” rule or about which is more common, but which is primary. Fairness is indeed not the determining characteristic.
The thing about your hypothesis, the inflexion point on ownership, it does matter. If it’s privately owned, the profits go to the owner, if it’s publicly owned then the “profits” go to the whole of society, in the form of safety nets, industrialization, etc. This fundamentally cannot exist alongside Capitalism as dominant because under Capitalism, the Capitalists have control and power, and in Socialism the Working Class does. There would be no benefit for the Capitalists to allow ownership in name only, and the State in Capitalism cannot move in that direction as it is under the control of Capitalists.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Is this really what “ownership” means? is it impossible to own something but not get all the profits from it? Even if a law enforces the redistribution of profits?
Also, is it possible that even when they are publicly owned, the “profits” benefit more a particular part of the society than other? how do you guarantee that the one who works the most gets the most? or do you simply don’t mind about that anymore?
That’s essentially what I was saying. In general, centralizing power will always sharpen any unfairness within that power… that’s why the issue is not in the centralization, but in the unfairness. Focusing in the centralization does not address the point.
Most companies pay taxes, yes. The purpose of ownership is the profit, if you run an entity publicly like, say, USPS, profit no longer becomes the purpose. The inverse is true, administrators would likely get more money in Socialism, or labor vouchers in early Communism, than regular workers. Socialism isn’t about equal pay, nor is Communism. As for guaranteeing, that’s not really important. You can pay more for more skilled jobs, or pay the same for fewer hours for dangerous jobs. Look at how Socialist societies exist currently.
If you want to learn more, I have a Marxism-Leninism reading list linked on my profile. The first section is all you really need to get an understanding of terms and basics.
Ok, so if it’s only a purpose and not part of the definition, then it is possible to have ownership without profit.
I’d argue, the only reason why the purpose of ownership is profit is because it is profitable to have ownership, but having ownership does not necessarily imply you get all the profit.
From this it follows that if having ownership were to be no longer profitable (or say… still profitable but less than being a worker), then it would be possible to have private ownership (capitalism) where profit is not the purpose of having ownership.
But who guarantees that you “pay more for more skilled jobs” or “pay the same for fewer hours for dangerous jobs”? And specifically, in communism, not in socialism. Let’s not argue on whether socialist societies running in social democratic capitalistic countries can be considered to be from one side or the other. “Common ownership” is not the same as “collective ownership”, and it can come with its very own set of unfair practices.
Also, my question was specifically about the redistribution of the profit. How do you guarantee that the profit goes to the one who works the hardest and not to the one who happens to be in a circumstance that places them in a position where they can reap the most rewards?
Private Ownership itself is not Capitalism. Capitalism and Socialism are labels for economies, not individual aspects of an economy. The USPS is not a “Socialist” section of the US economy while Amazon a “Capitalist” section, rather, the entire economy is designated as Capitalist with Amazon as part of the Private Sector and the USPS as part of the Public Sector. Socialist societies like the USSR had private ownership, see the NEP, or the modern Socialist Market Economy of the PRC. This is similar to what you describe as private ownership being directed by government for the purpose of achieving society’s ends, but not the same.
Social Democracies like the Nordic Countries are not Socialist. The public sectors service and support the private sector, not the other way around, and they fund their safety nets through Imperialism. No country has achieved Communism yet, when we talk about Socialism we talk about Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, the former USSR, etc. In Communism, there is no private ownership to begin with, no markets either, all of the economy is publicly owned and planned.
This is what I asked you before. What is capitalism? you agreed with the definition I gave. If you are gonna change the term then we are no longer talking about the same thing.
Like I said, I don’t want to talk about socialism because I feel it’s an in-between solution that would just make the topic more complex than it already is. Socialism is not Communism either, so please do not use Socialist examples.
I know, that’s why the full term I used was “social democratic capitalistic countries”, I consider them capitalist States.
I explained it before, but I’ll explain it again. Capitalism is, at its simplest, a Mode of Production where private ownership and markets are primary. I’ll expand on what “primary” means this time, because I think this is what slipped by. When I say “primary,” I mean the driving force and trajectory of the economy, as well as which class controls the state. What does the state serve, the Capitalists or the Workers?
Socialism isn’t an “in-between solution,” towards Communism. It’s the process of building Communism. Humanity has never seen Communism, so I am not sure why you are trying to discuss it. What are you trying to talk about, the hypothetical future society of Communism?
I see. Sorry I missed that.
But then I think that interpretation implies, in its very definition, oligarchy.
What do you call a society where private ownership is the main form of ownership and yet has a State designed to serve the Workers?
And to build communism you don’t need an in-between solution?
Is it really only “a process”? or is it also a socioeconomic system?
Yes. Humanity has never seen a fair society, period. Neither one with private ownership, nor one with common ownership. The aliens were not talking about Socialism, they were talking about a hypothetical future society where ownership wasn’t a thing at all (not even collective ownership in the socialist sense), nor contracts.
And I dared to try to talk as well about a hypothetical future society of (what I initially considered to be, under my previous definition) Capitalism too.
What do you mean by “main” form of ownership? The primary? Or the one most common? If the former, that doesn’t really exist, a state controlled by the workers where the Capitalists have power over the economy would collapse very quickly, perhaps like the Paris Commune in the mid 1800s. If the latter, it would be Socialism, like in the NEP in the USSR, or a more privatized version of the PRC’s economy (which is majority public).
I understand that the aliens are talking about a semi-Communist organization. I am not sure how you expect your form of society to come into existence except as a transitional society, like the NEP in the USSR.