Inspired by that other posts asking how a socialist society would be, I wanted to make it even easier for you guys.

All I'm asking is how. Person goes from not having a house or food to having a house and food under Y-O-U-R ideal socialist world.

Not asking for you to describe the whole society as the other post, only two basic things.

Currently you can either build/cook/plant yourself, pay for someone else's labor and let them build/cook/plant while you provide tools and material or you can buy from someone (or a group or a business, whatever) that did either of those three things (building, paying to build or buying built).

The Overton Window does not equate to the actual political spectrum.

It is obvious to anyone looking at this from the outside that the Democrat Party at worst is a Centre Right party and barely in the centre at best, yet many Conservatives refer to them as some sort of "Far Left" threat to democracy.

This is done continously with many policies and ideas put forward by people in this sub and even political parties in the west.

So what exactly do Capitalists consider Left Wing policies to be? And by extension, is this more to do with the Overton Window within your current place of living?

So let's suppose the US for example (or some sort of hypothetical country) has just seen a socialist revolution. All land that isn't used for private use, all the means of production, factories, shops, raw materials, resources etc. etc. it's all in public hands now, or in the hands of a democratic government elected and run by the actual working class.

Ok, so in your hypothetical socialist country that has just seen a socialist revolution how will we go forward now? So would there be like a massive central planning agency like in the Soviet Union that would plan out the entire economy? No more private businesses, cafes, shops, restaurants etc., everyone is now a government employee and if you have an idea for a business that could be needed you'll have to go through the proper bureaucratic channels and hope that your idea for a new pharmacy that is urgently needed in your small town will get signed off by your local economic planning buerau. And if the local planning office doesn't have the funds available for the new pharmacy they're gonna have to apply for more funding from the regional planning office, hoping they'll recognize the need for extra funds for an extra pharmacy needed in your small town. And then if the regional planning office were to exceed their annual budgets for pharmacies in the counties they're overseeing they'd have to contact the state planning office and see if maybe maybe they can get some high-level bueraucrat to sign off on some extra funding. Or how exactly would things work?

And then what if that planning agency wouldn't do a particularly great job, would you have the option to elect different economic planners on a local, regional, state, federal level etc.? Or would those planners be unelected civil servants? And then say there's certain niche demands that are currently being overlooked, in the Soviet Union for example a lot of people went to the inofficial black market for a lot of more niche products like household goods, specialized medical equipment, sports equipment, music and media, electronics etc. because the central planners weren't doing a good job making sure those things were available... so then how could citizens get access to goods and services that are being overlooked by the planners or where quality is poor? Would you file a petition and hope that the economic planners do something about it, but if they don't you're out of luck?

So I'd like to hear your thoughts. What exactly will happen after the socialist revolution?

It's always the same: Some ancap or other capitalism loving apologist tries to argue against the LTV of Marx while having not understood basic concepts of Marx's economic model of capitalism. Maybe next time you should try to read and understand what Marx wrote. There are very good introduction books, why don't you educate yourself? Then we can argue.

The word capitalism was popularised by socialists, who mainly used it to denounce capitalism. As wikipedia states:

The initial use of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense is attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labor")

Capitalists have taken on this definition, which I think may have been a mistake. It is the reason why socialists hate capitalism based on one definition, while capitalists love it based on another definition. It's because the word "capitalism" doesn't actually capture the thing that capitalists love, it only captures that what socialists hate.

If you ask a capitalist to define capitalism, the word "capital" isn't even used that much, the words you hear a lot are "free markets" or "economic individualism/freedom" or "NAP", but never "appropriation of capital".

Capitalists have fallen for the trap and have taken on a negative word for their system. Being the most successful system on the planet, I'd argue it deserves a better word. Or perhaps we shouldn't have just one word, but mention the different subsets to show that it's much more nuanced than "just have capital bro". Subsets like libertarianism, classic liberalism, anarchism, corporatism, minarchism, feudalism, georgism etc. The term "capital" is so incredibly vague it could refer to 3/4 of the political compass.

So what do you think of the term "capitalism" and if you dislike it, what alternatives would you prefer?

Question was inspired by this post https://www.reddit.com/r/neofeudalism/comments/1gtfgkk/why_supporters_of_a_free_market_should_drop_the/

I was working in construction work and it’s just obvious that Marx's labour theory of value is correct. And many experienced workers know this too. Of course they don't know Marx, but it's just obvious that it works like he described. If you get a wage of 1.500$ per month, and as a construction worker you build a machine worth of 5.000$ and the boss sells it to one of his customers, most workers can put one and one together that the 3.500$ go into the pockets of the boss.

As soon as you know how much your work is worth as a construction worker, you know all of this. But only in construction work is it obvious like that. In other jobs like in the service industry it's more difficult to see your exploitation, but it still has to work like that, it's just hidden, and capitalism, as Marx said, is very good at hiding the real economic and social relations.

Economics itself is already a huge topic, but every once in a while, there's a socialist who wants to bring the geopolitics of the cold war into the conversation. I'm aware the USA did a lot of invasions and interventions around the world during this time, but I never really got more than a surface level understanding of what actually happened. So now I'm wondering if I should learn the details of what happened with each country..

You have probably seen the following said before: “Fascism is Capitalism in crisis”

People who love econ like us, from left to right, forget most people don’t care about economics (or sometimes even politics in general).

This is anecdotal, but for example, I actually have known a guy who is a self proclaimed fascist. He has 0 economic reasons for being ones. In fact, he said to me before “why is acceptable to be a socialist and not a fascist?” I explained to him why. My point being this guy could not tell you the difference between Capitalism and Socialism.

A better example: NazBols, or National Bolsheviks. They have pretty much the same views about capital as communists, but liked the Nazi’s social policies.

The point: Hyper racism, sexism, homophobia, etc are not simply products of poor people or capitalist systems. Thus, fascism can arise out of any system, and to say it’s a result of Capitalism is unfair and doesn’t see the whole issue

(For the record: The wealthy have historically sided with fascism when the alternative is socialism)

On November 17, 1989, the Velvet Revolution began in Czechoslovakia. This was a non-violent transition away from authoritarian single-party communist rule and a stagnant, decaying socialist economy into a thriving market economy under a parliamentary republic. Democracy, baby.

Prelude

The communists sized power in Czechoslovakia in 1948, and put their population in a state of constant persecution from authorities and secret police. As such, their people could not openly condemn their government or support progress. Reprisals included lost of work and educational opportunities, and artists who committed thought crimes were blacklisted by the communists, which wielded a heavy authoritarian hand over all art and culture through censorship. All schools, businesses, and media belonged to the communist state.

The Prague Spring

In the early 1960s, the Czechoslovakian economy underwent an economic depression. The Soviet model of industrialization, originally designed for less developed economies, was ill-suited for a nation like Czechoslovakia that was already quite industrialized before WW2. As such, the socialist model was a regression in their quality of life. The Czechs began to seek liberation of their political system from the ridiculous Soviet policies, their brutality only eclipsed by their inefficiency.

As censorship was relaxed, artists and writers began criticizing the tyrannical socialist regime. The people began crying for political freedom: true democracy, an end to the secret police, with a multi-party system, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of movement across borders, and an economic emphasis on consumer goods. Popular support grew rapidly, and while the original movement was cautious, the populist movement became increasingly anti-Soviet. With a relaxation of censorship came discussion of the real state of communism, as well as concepts of freedom and identity.

The Warsaw Pact Responds

The communist party of the Soviet Union were gravely concerned by what appeared to be an unravelling of socialist rule. The KGB began infiltrating pro-democratic organizations in Czechoslovakia. Attempts to intervene peacefully to suppress the freedom of the Czechs were to no avail. On August 20th, 1968, the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia with 165,000 troops and 4,600 tanks. This is where we get the expression “Tankie” from: people who think this is a great way to promote socioeconomic systems. It was the largest military engagement of the Warsaw Pact’s history, and an action aimed at one of its own member states, with ultimately 500,000 troops engaged. Following the invasion, over 300,000 Czechs fled the country.

Resistance began immediately. Protestors were suppressed with beatings and arrests, and were detained in psychiatric hospitals for “anti-Soviet” “mental health issues”. The leadership of Czechoslovakia was replaced, and a process of normalization began, rolling back progress. Censorship was emplaced once again. But the episode demonstrated the fragility of the Communist Bloc, with dissatisfied citizens looking for an escape.

Finally, Progress in the 1980s

By the late 1980s, the discontent of the people with the living standards and economic inadequacy of socialism led to growing calls for economic reform. Citizens began to challenge the system more openly express their discontent with the totalitarian communist regime. 

The Velvet Revolution began when communist riot police suppressed a student demonstration in Prague, arresting 1,200 students and killing 9. Instead of fleeing, the brave revolutionary students increased in numbers from 200,000 to 500,000 over the course of 3 days. The following day, the entire leadership of the communist party, including General Secretary Milos Jakes, resigned. However, this was not enough, and 3 days later, the brave revolutionary Czechs staged a general strike of all citizens against the tyrannical communist regime.

As the Warsaw Pact was unravelling, the writing was on the wall, and the Communist party announced they would relinquish their authoritarian suppression of political rights. Less than a month later, the first non-Communist government in Czechoslovakia since 1948 was formed, and the first democratic elections since 1946 were held within 6 months. The new government negotiated the removal of all Soviet invaders from Czechoslovakia within months.

Life Expectancy Improves

When key metrics like life expectancy increase after a people reject your economic system for a new one, then your economic system sucks. So, suck it, socialists. Not only did life expectancy improve markedly after the Velvet Revolution, but at an increasingly fast rate. Socialism is bad for your health.

Question for socialists: why should people die sooner to entertain your backwards economic and political beliefs?

On this day in socialist history: The Velvet Revolution began.

Humans are not usually inherently stupid, we're just extremely gullible. If our society focused on improving our public education, there would be far fewer problems. The caveat is that throwing more money at it is not sufficient.

If someone knows nothing of construction, we wouldn't ask them to build a house. If someone knows nothing about computer software, we wouldn't ask them to create software. So why is it that we expect humans to be smart when they know absolutely nothing about their own minds?

In order for democracy to work, behavioral and developmental cognitive science must become the foundation of our public education. Not only systematically, but as a core subject. It must be taught in conjunction with every subject at every level of education from k-12, and into university. The students must understand how and why their educational environment is arranged the way it is. They must engage with their learning environment at a practical and meta level.

The citizenry must develop a culture in which everyone has an empirical understanding of human behavior at every level of our conscious and unconscious worldview, and where everyone knows that everyone else shares that same understanding.

Currently, we're just leaving it up to dumb luck and hoping kids will figure out how to fly before they hit the ground. And so most of us hit the ground, never learning to fly. The wealthy get to start higher up, the smart just figure it out faster, and the unlucky might not drop more than a single step, never realizing they could have flown at all.

Basically title. As I see it, Libertarian 'small government' capitalist private property worshippers want to use the so-called 'monopoly of state violence' to steal working people's consensual-owned wealth. Taxes are fundamentally theft according to you, so basically no taxes should exist, but also you expect your property and your contracts and your borders to be fully and efficiently protected and enforced and you expect all squatters or trespassers or those campaigning for more rights in opposition to corporate hegemony to be fired or even imprisoned or have force used against them. But you're small government! So which is it? Do you support big gov or taxes or not?

And before you say "we only want a smaller government that only protects private property, and most government spending is social welfare/services that can be removed" - 'Big Government' is not just about literally how much the government spends, but about the reach and force and authority exerted by the government in favour of the landed elite. In other words, you can have a very authoritarian government that actually spends less than a less authoritarian government, but the former still has 'more government' in terms of overreach and authoritarian use of force that would rather put money into law enforcement than social services, if you understand me. Like in the US with their crazy police and military budgets.

And for ancaps, do you believe private militias and security should rule everything? If so, that would only benefit the richest and would only further monopolisation, as mercenaries are only loyal to the highest bidder. But I'll give you this, at least you are ideologically consistent.

Ok, so first of all let me preface that politically China has of course an extremely authoritarian government that is extremely oppressive towards its citizens and responsible for countless human rights violations. No doubt about that.

But speaking purely in economic terms there is no question that China has been a great success story in recent decades. By 1990 they had a lower GDP per capita than India with more than 60% of its population living below the international poverty line of $1.90 per day. 34 years later in 2024 they now have a GDP per capita more than 5 times that of India with hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens having escaped poverty, and having moved from lower class economic backgrounds towards solid middle or upper class. Over the course of a few decades China managed to transform from a very poor agrarian society into an economic and technological powerhouse with fairly high living standards and extremely advanced infrastructure.

So personally I think China has definitely both significant socialist aspects to its economy as well as significant capitalist aspects. Economically it's probably really one of the very few countries which are truly a hybrid of capitalism and socialism without being definitively either one.

But so who gets to claim China's great economic success in recent decades and their rise from a poor agrarian country into an economic powerhouse that has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty over a very short period of time? Was it capitalism or was it socialism? Or was it maybe a bit of both?

From the beginning to the mid-20th century was probably the last time culture had a serious grip on the modern world – until that point you had genius writers, painters, composers and not just artists but thinkers in general among the greatest ever. Before them in the 19th century you had guys like Nietzche and Marx himself and its own slew of writers and artists. Those were names that could be singled out for their genius (in the original sense before that word lost its meaning, probably not without reason) and made enormous contributions to progress. Yet people are not getting dumber (at least not by birth) so why does it seem like we've seen so few of those names if any comparable ones since the mid 20th century? Perhaps those guys didn't only exist but they lived in times in which the environment made it possible for their genius to be adequately fostered and the right forces existed for them to pursue what they did and end up where they dud. Is capitalism suffocating those environments once available to them in favor of dedicating our energy elsewhere? Take even Einstein: it seems unthinkable today in this modern capitalist consumerist world to spend so much effort on abstract theories which couldn't even be proven until years after your death; thinking or "genius" doesn't contribute to making yourself or anyone money so you've wasted your time on this planet. At least Einstein didn't starve because he revolutionized science, he made a living doing something else. But does the same environment really exist for something that to happen today? Or for Nietzsche to come up today, working off equal advancements of his time in music and literature? Would culture fare any better in a socialist system?

It’s time to get something straight: Fascism is intrinsic to capitalism. I know this isn’t a popular take in some circles, especially among groups like Antifa, but the reality is that fascism is not some external threat that can be defeated in isolation. Instead, it’s a direct consequence of the contradictions within the capitalist system. The ideologies that fascism promotes—god, family, and nationality—are not just incidental features. They are the very structures that capitalism needs to maintain its stability and order.

When organisations like Antifa treat fascism as a “greater evil” that is somehow separate from capitalism, they completely miss the point. They’re allowing revisionist ideologies like Anarchism, Social Democracy, and even liberalism to thrive in the vacuum they create. Let’s unpack this, shall we?

Capitalism is built on exploitation and inequality. It thrives by extracting value from the working class to benefit the capitalist class. But here’s the thing: capitalism is inherently unstable. Economic crises, overproduction, class struggle—these things can threaten the system. When the contradictions of capitalism become too glaring to ignore, fascism often emerges as the solution.

Fascism is capitalism's emergency response to its own contradictions. It is a tool for the capitalist class to maintain control when their traditional methods (like bourgeois democracy) are no longer enough to suppress the working class. It enforces authoritarian control, ramps up state violence, and strengthens social hierarchies—all in service of protecting capitalist relations of production. Fascism doesn’t exist outside of capitalism, it emerges from it as a necessary mechanism to defend the status quo.

So when organisations like Antifa call fascism the “greater evil,” they’re not seeing the big picture. Fascism isn’t an “outlier” to be stamped out; it’s part of the system. It’s capitalism showing its true face when the usual methods of ideological control and pacification no longer work.

Now let’s talk about the ideologies that fascism leans on to maintain social order: god, family, and nationality.

- God: Religion has always played a key role in supporting capitalist systems. Whether it’s the promise of rewards in the afterlife or the reinforcement of submission to authority, religion is a tool of social control. Fascism uses religion to ensure obedience to both the state and the economic system. It tells workers to endure their suffering, because a better life awaits them in heaven. The idea that God’s will is behind social hierarchies (like the domination of the wealthy over the poor) reinforces the naturalness of exploitation. In this sense, fascism and capitalism are deeply aligned.

- Family: Fascism’s obsession with the “traditional family” is no accident. The nuclear family mirrors capitalist relations in microcosm: a clear division of roles, the subordination of women (traditionally to bear and raise the next generation of workers), and the perpetuation of private property. The nuclear family supports the system by keeping the working class atomised—workers are isolated within their homes, distracted by personal and familial concerns, and less likely to organise collectively for revolutionary change.

- Nationality: Nationalism is another key ideological tool that fascism shares with capitalism. The capitalist system requires nation-states to organise the global economy, manage trade, and control resources. Nationalism divides the working class by emphasising borders and the supposed interests of national identity over common class interests. Nationalism encourages workers to focus on “patriotism” rather than realising that they share more in common with workers in other nations than they do with the wealthy elites within their own.

This isn’t just some random set of values fascism pulls out of thin air—these values reinforce the stability of capitalist society. They work to maintain the social order that allows capitalism to function smoothly. Fascism doesn’t reject these values; it elevates them to ensure that the masses are kept in line, focusing on religion, family, and national identity while the ruling class continues to exploit them. The most frustrating thing about the current wave of Antifa’s rhetoric is how they frame fascism as a “greater evil,” something outside of the capitalist system. They act as though defeating fascism will somehow solve the problem of capitalism—as if smashing the fascists means we’ll live in a just society. But that’s a dangerous oversimplification.

By portraying fascism as an isolated force separate from capitalism, Antifa is inadvertently letting capitalism off the hook. They’re fighting the symptoms of capitalism—the fascist outbreaks—but not the disease itself. What happens when fascism is defeated? Is capitalism going to magically stop exploiting workers? Will class inequality cease to exist? Of course not. Fascism is a product of capitalist crises, and unless we address the underlying system that causes those crises, fascism will keep returning. By focusing only on fascism as the “greater evil,” Antifa is creating an ideological vacuum that leaves room for revisionist ideologies to flourish. What’s worse is that by focusing on fascism as the primary threat, they allow revisionist ideologies like Anarchism, Social Democracy, and even liberalism to grow unchecked.

- Anarchism often talks about smashing the state, but too many anarchists ignore the fact that the capitalist system itself is the true problem rather than a central authority. A revolution that ignores the economic base of capitalism—the mode of production—will only ever result in fragmented, uncoordinated revolts that don’t fundamentally challenge the power dynamics of capitalism.

- Social Democracy is even more dangerous. By treating fascism as the greater evil, social democrats think they can reform capitalism and solve the problem through welfare programmes and “democratic” means. But fascism doesn’t just come from the extremes; it emerges when capitalism’s contradictions reach a breaking point, and the state’s democratic mechanisms fail. The solution isn’t to tweak the system; it’s to dismantle it entirely.

- Liberalism, of course, wants to maintain capitalism with just a few social policies here and there. But by focusing exclusively on the “fascist” threat, liberals ignore the fact that capitalism in its current form—whether it’s liberal, fascist, or social democratic—is still exploitative and unequal. A system that divides people by class, race, and wealth is always going to produce authoritarian outcomes, whether they come in the form of fascism or another flavour of bourgeois control.

We can’t keep falling into this trap of thinking that fascism is some separate evil that can be defeated on its own. Fascism is a tool of capitalism. It’s capitalism's emergency response when its contradictions threaten to unravel the system. If we want to end fascism, we must end capitalism.

The goal isn’t just to fight fascism. It’s to abolish the capitalist system that allows fascism to emerge in the first place. Until we recognise that fascism is intrinsic to capitalism, we’ll keep fighting symptoms instead of the root cause. Fighting capitalism means fighting fascism, nationalism, patriarchy, and every other tool that upholds the system of exploitation.

So, to all those pushing the “greater evil” narrative—stop falling for the illusion that fascism is some rogue ideology that can be isolated and defeated. It's time to recognise the deep, inseparable link between fascism and capitalism. Only when we destroy the capitalist mode of production can we truly be free of fascism and any of the other evils that it brings with it.

After the recent results of the 2024 election, the Republican Party won a pretty definite victory and Reddit has been having an absolute meltdown.

I have to say that I’ve been relishing being able to take a sip of leftist tears but this made me ponder, whatever happened to the people? The left is supposedly for the people, for the working class, yet the people have voted against them and many on the left seem to have turned against them. Granted, I know the Democratic Party isn't some sort of bastion for the left but I'm pretty sure it was the outcome most left-wing people wanted.

So I raise this question, are the people dumb? Do they not know better and actively fight against their interests? Should an entity be made to act in the best interest of the people without consulting the people themselves?

And if the people are dumb, what makes you know better than them? Are you more educated? More extensively into political science? Why should you be the one with the ideas?

I’ve discovered the only logical solution to the world's problems, Anarcho-Primitivism. Forget about civilization, technology and society because we’re about to embrace our true roots: no rules, no cities, no phones, and definitely no internet. I mean, who actually enjoys things like medicine or clean water? The real beauty is in the raw, untamed wilderness, where you can literally live like an animal. Why bother with electricity when you can just light a fire with flint? Who needs grocery stores when you can forage for berries, hunt squirrels, and wrestle a wild boar for your dinner? Anarcho-primitivism isn’t just about rejecting the state; it’s about rejecting civilization entirely. Taxes, social contracts, and credit cards? All completely unnecessary! Instead, we’ll revert to a more natural way of life: maybe sharing a communal cave with strangers or having heated debates over who gets to eat the last mushroom you found in the forest. Imagine no emails, no deadlines and no responsibilities. Time is a construct and you can just live in the moment which means literally just sitting on a rock and staring into the void. Anarcho-primitivism is the antidote to all that consumerist nonsense. You don’t need a $500 phone to be happy, you just need some rocks, some sticks, and absolute mental peace while you prepare to fend off predators. Why worry about a mortgage when you can just live in a tree and literally make your own rules? So, there you have it. All we really need is a return to nature, a basic understanding of how to survive without a single modern convenience, and a total rejection of everything that makes society “work.”

Much of the rhetoric from the far left make it sound like high income or wealth taxes are primarily punitive in nature. They would like to punish the rich by leveraging the power of the state.

Perhaps some of you would disagree with this and would characterize it as restorative justice for their ill-gotten wealth. Not revenge, but simply making the laborers they've exploited whole again.

My milquetoast capitalist view is that high taxes on the rich are useful insofar as the money go into funding social programs. Beyond that, I hold no ill will towards the ultra wealthy just because they have a lot of money, but it sounds like many of you do.

My understanding of this position is:

1. having an 8 figure+ net worth means you must have exploited others to achieve that wealth.
2. you've exploited others, so you are evil.
3. you are evil, therefore you must be punished.
4. high taxes for you are good because we can use them to punish you.

Am I off the mark?

I say he makes no mistakes in answering the question he poses.

Chapter 52 starts with:

The owners merely of labour-power, owners of capital, and land-owners, whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent, in other words, wage-labourers, capitalists and land-owners, constitute then three big classes of modern society based upon the capitalist mode of production.

Marx asks why are these three classes. Why, for example, are "physicians and officials" not classes? Why are "owners of vineyards, farm owners, owners of forests, mine owners and owners of fisheries" not each classes?

I find no mistakes in Marx's answer in the remainder of this chapter.

I'm not a capitalist, nor a socialist by the way. But I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on this since most socialist countries that have existed had some sort of exit visa in place, preventing people from leaving the country. To me it just seems extremely immoral to just keep people imprisoned in a country and prevent them from leaving.

Do most socialists think otherwise? Are most modern socialists still in favor of exit visas or against it?

Social mobility is defined as the ability to move social classes. The reason why I ask is that right-libertarians and the right in general often talk about how their ideology is individualistic. However, according to OECD and World Economic Forum, you need equality for social mobility. The countries that have the highest social mobility are the most equal. Social Democratic countries rank the highest. Social Democracy is a form of left-wing capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index#Global_Social_Mobility_Index_(2020)_results

This was brought up 4 years ago by a Chinese economist, Chen Ping, who has been holding pro China, anti America views.

Quote his words: The Biden administration will certainly promote one of the demands of the Color Revolution, which demand is to force China to increase its labor costs. Therefore, instead of emphasizing the pressure on China to recognize its market economy status, they will play the Marx card, the Engels card, and force China to adopt labor union laws similar to those in Western Europe, laws that allow for independent unions. Furthermore, they will demand that China accept the right of workers and employers to collectively negotiate wages, just like in the West. This would undoubtedly increase labor costs in China’s coastal regions and accelerate the outflow of China’s manufacturing industry. Flow to developing countries with unstable regimes, which pretend to have a parliamentary system but in reality cannot control unions. This would slow down China’s development speed, increase unemployment pressure in China, and then cause China to lose its economic competitiveness, especially the ability to challenge the competitiveness of industrial workers in developed Western countries.

Apparently this was not welcomed by some of his audiences. But as Yellen's warning that China has been producting excessive amount of goods, and Biden and Trump's rising tariffs on China, this has become more of the reality. Both Democrats and Republicans are holding similar views that's not so different from Leninism, which argues that the capital and goods exports is unjustified.

In my debates with socialists, the issue of the power that corporations have eventually comes up. The scenario is usually described as workers having unequal power to corporations, and that is why they need some countervailing power to offset that.

In such a debate, the socialist will argue that there is no point having the government come in and regulate the corporations because the corporations can just buy the government - through lobbying for example.

But this is where the socialists go wrong in describing the root cause of the issue: It is not that government is corrupted by corporations. The corporations and the government are ruled by the same managerial class.

What do I mean?

The government is obviously a large bureaucracy filled with unelected permanent staff which places it firmly in the managerial class.

The corporation is too large to be managed by capitalists and the "capitalists" are now thousands of shareholders scattered around the world. The capitalists/shareholders nominate managers to manage and steer the company in the direction that they want. In addition, large corporations have large bureaucracies of their own. This means that corporations are controlled by the managerial class as well.

This is why it SEEMS LIKE they are colluding, but actually they just belong to the same managerial class, with the same incentives and patterns of behaviour you can expect from them.

Therefore, if a countervailing power is needed to seem "fair", a union would qualify as that or the workers can pay for legal representation from a law firm that specialises in those types of disputes and the law firm would fight for the interest of their clients.

Somehow despite that libertarians come as carless about the poor , they are often more successful in improving the economy ... any explanation how Milei is doing good ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/1gq5nrb/argentinas_monthly_inflation_drops_to_27_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

A lot of Left WIng parties across Europe have attempted to parrot an almost Democrat-esque format of a Centrist party with Liberal Values.

In a sub called "CapitalismVSocalism" its understandable that these bozos will sometimes be forgotten about

This has been greatly detrimental to the Left and has arguably slowed down our momentum in terms of reform for quite some years. In some countries they have been detrimental to the Right, stealing votes and making it harder for where they can go in terms of policy.

What is the solution to dealing with these guys?

Well, so far the only thing that libertarians point out of what Milei did is lowering inflation, every other thing is being ignored.

The libertarian propaganda is constantly trying to make him look like hero or revolutionary even though he is pretty much just like another Hugo Chávez.

Paul Kengor has written a stupid and ignorant book, The Devil and Karl Marx: Communism's Long March of Death, Deception, and Infiltration. Here is what he has to say about Marx's master work, Capital:

"Marx had wasted over two decades writing Das Kapital, a long, ridiculous tome, a waste of money as well as time. He had initially received a three hundred dollar advance for the book, but extended over twenty-three years of drawn-out writing, it equated to a little over a dozen dollars a year."

Kengor somehow thinks selective details from the lives of Marxists or feminists or whatever invalidates their ideas.

I really don't think there will ever be something like a single system postdating the state-capitalist nexus we have today. Most likely it will be system I would call poly-anarchy. Some of it will be capitalist, some of it anarchist, some hierarchical, some none-hierarchical, maybe a state like structure will exist, and so on. In the spanisch revolution large parts of Barcelona were collectivized, some capitalist forms existed. If you look at history it's also true. There were always different forms of economic systems, some were more dominant some less. But there could be one problem: Capitalism has a tendency to colonize every other mode of production, and I'am not sure how to keep that from happening, maybe people will realize that it's a bad system. What's your opinion on poly-anarchy?

In discussions around socialism and capitalism, a common misconception is that the presence of welfare policies, government intervention, or state ownership of resources can transform the nature of commodities themselves. Some argue that under socialism, commodities can exist without the exploitative and alienating features inherent to capitalist systems. However, this view overlooks the defining characteristics of commodities and the underlying logic of commodity production, which is intrinsic to capitalism, regardless of the specific role the state plays in the economy. Here’s why there is no such thing as a "socialist commodity."

A commodity, at its core, is a good or service produced for exchange on the market. What makes something a commodity is not its physical characteristics but its social relation to other goods and people. In a capitalist society, commodities are produced for the purpose of exchange, not to satisfy direct human needs. This exchange is what transforms labour and resources into a commodity, with value expressed through the quantity of labour embodied in the product.

The key to understanding why commodities are intrinsically linked to capitalism is the role of labour. In capitalism, commodities are produced by wage labour, where workers sell their labour power in exchange for a wage. However, the value of the product produced exceeds the wages paid to the worker. This surplus value is extracted by the capitalist, who owns the means of production, and represents the exploitation of labour. The wage reflects only the cost of the worker’s subsistence, while the value the worker creates, over and above their wage, is taken as profit by the capitalist.

This fundamental structure remains the same whether the state controls the means of production or not. Even if the government intervenes to redistribute wealth, regulate industries, or control pricing, the exploitative relation of labour—where workers create value that they do not receive in return—remains intact. As long as commodities are produced for exchange, the social relations tied to their production are capitalist in nature.

In a capitalist system, the driving force behind production is the accumulation of exchange-value—the desire for profit. Profit arises not from the inherent utility or social need of a good, but from the exchange process itself. Capitalists seek to increase exchange-value by expanding markets, lowering costs, and increasing productivity, all in order to outcompete other capitalists in the global marketplace.

Under socialism, the state might control production or redistribute wealth, but if the system still revolves around the accumulation of exchange-value—where products are produced with an eye towards profit or exchange—it’s still operating within the logic of capitalism. A "socialist commodity" would still be a commodity because its value would still be determined by exchange relations, not by a non-market, need-based distribution system.

Another hallmark of capitalist commodity production is the tendency towards overproduction. This occurs when too many commodities are produced for the existing market, leading to economic crises. Overproduction arises because producers aim to sell their goods on the market, but in a capitalist economy, the amount of goods produced is not determined by social needs, but by profit motives. As a result, the production process becomes irrational and crises of overproduction are an inevitable consequence.

Under the USSR for example, even with state intervention or welfare programmes, the fundamental logic of market-based production would still lead to overproduction. Without a radical transformation of how production is organised—not just in terms of ownership but also in terms of the relations of production—commodity production will continue to be driven by exchange-value and the accumulation of profit.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "socialist commodity" because commodities are, by definition, a feature of capitalist systems of production. Even if the state manages the economy or redistributes wealth, the relationship between labour, value, and exchange-value remains the same. To move beyond commodity production, we would need a system where goods are produced directly for human needs, not for exchange, profit, or capital accumulation. This requires a fundamental shift not just in ownership or distribution, but in the very logic of production itself.

In short, welfare policies, government ownership, or regulation don’t change the underlying capitalist structure of production. The core issue is the purpose for which commodities are produced: exchange and profit. And as long as that remains the case, no commodity can be truly "socialist."

Capitalism, by its very nature, drives the creation of goods in greater quantities than a single market can ever absorb. This process of overproduction leads to inevitable economic contradictions that, over time, push capitalist economies toward global conflict.

At the heart of capitalism is the drive for profit maximization. To achieve this, businesses constantly expand production, optimize supply chains, and reduce costs, all in the name of increasing efficiency and competitiveness. However, there’s a critical flaw: local markets cannot sustain the vast quantities of goods produced. Once the domestic market becomes saturated, there’s nowhere left for the surplus goods to go. This creates economic stagnation, rising unemployment, and financial instability.

Faced with the threat of economic collapse from overproduction, capitalists are forced to look beyond their borders. They need to secure new markets, either by expanding trade or directly controlling foreign territories. This is the root of imperialism. Historically, capitalist nations have pursued colonialism, military intervention, and economic dominance to carve out new markets for their excess goods. Whether it's through corporate control, military force, or political manipulation, the goal remains the same: to find new consumers for their surplus production.

The scramble for global markets doesn’t just lead to economic exploitation; it sparks international tensions. Competing capitalist powers inevitably clash as they fight for control over resources, markets, and strategic territories. These tensions can lead to wars, whether through direct military action, proxy conflicts, or economic warfare. The cycle repeats itself as overproduction once again leads to saturation, forcing nations into conflict in the pursuit of new markets and the protection of existing ones.

Ultimately, capitalism's inherent need to expand and secure profit doesn’t stop at local borders; it demands global dominance. Every time a capitalist power looks to expand its reach, it risks escalating tensions with others who have the same goal. This results in a world where conflict is baked into the system—a constant fight not just for territory, but for market share. Overproduction doesn’t just lead to economic downturns; it drives geopolitical instability, fueling the cycle of war and empire-building that we see throughout history.

In conclusion, capitalism’s insatiable drive for profit leads to overproduction, which in turn leads to the saturation of local markets. To alleviate this, capitalists must seek new markets abroad—often resulting in conflict. This is why capitalism, by its very nature, tends to create conditions ripe for war, as nations compete for global dominance in an ever-shrinking world.

In discussions of socialism, especially in relation to the USSR, we often hear a lot of confusion surrounding the nature of labor, production, and exchange. One of the most glaring misconceptions comes from the revival of commodity production in the Soviet Union, which is often misinterpreted as a failure of socialism and an example of “idiocracy” or just another form of capitalism. In this post, I want to clarify how wage labor functions, what labor certificates are, and how these concepts differ in a socialist mode of production—especially as envisioned by Marx.

In the Soviet Union, despite its claims of socialism, commodity production (production for exchange) was still prevalent, especially during the period of the NEP (New Economic Policy) and later under Stalin’s industrialization efforts. Commodity production, at its core, is production for the market, where goods are created not for the direct use of the producers, but to be exchanged for money or other goods. This means that workers are often disconnected from the products of their labor—producing things they themselves do not consume and may not even need.

Under capitalism, this type of commodity production serves as the basis for wage labor. Capitalists own the means of production and hire workers to produce commodities that are then sold on the market. The value of these commodities is determined by the labor power required to produce them, but the wages workers receive are typically much lower than the value of what they produce. This “surplus value” is then appropriated by the capitalist as profits.

Wage labor emerges when products are created solely for exchange, not for the immediate use or needs of the producer. Workers do not have access to the full value of what they produce because they are paid a wage (often less than the value of their labor). The capitalist, who owns the means of production, extracts surplus value—the difference between the value of the labor power and the wages paid. This surplus value is the source of profit and the mechanism by which exploitation occurs.

In a capitalist economy, workers are alienated from their labor because they do not control the production process or the goods they produce. The commodity is produced only to be exchanged for money, and the worker’s needs or desires are secondary to the goal of profit maximization.

In contrast, Marx’s vision of socialism involves a complete reorganization of production. The means of production are owned collectively by the workers, and production is no longer driven by the need for profit or exchange value. Under socialism, production is planned and directed toward satisfying human needs and ensuring that everyone’s basic requirements are met, both in the present and for the future. This means that production would be determined by use value, not exchange value.

One of the key proposals in Marxist theory for how labor would be organized in a socialist economy is the concept of labor certificates. These certificates would not function like wages in a capitalist economy. Instead, they would serve as a means of rationing goods based on the labor contributions individuals have made. A labor certificate would entitle its holder to a portion of the social product—essentially a claim on the goods and services produced by society. The amount of rations that the certificate would issue to the producers will correspond to the amount of labor an individual has contributed to society, ensuring a more equitable distribution of goods based on human needs rather than market forces.

In a capitalist system, workers sell their labor power to capitalists in exchange for wages. The value of the wages is less than the value of the product produced, and the surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist. Labor is driven by exchange value—production is for sale, and workers are paid to produce goods that they often cannot afford.

Under socialism, labor certificates serve as a tool for distributing goods based on labor input, but not in the same way wages operate. The goal is not to extract surplus value for profit, but to ensure that everyone receives a fair share of society’s wealth based on their contribution. The emphasis is on use value—producing what is needed for society and ensuring that goods are allocated according to need, not according to the demands of the market.

Under socialism, economic planning replaces the chaos of the market. Instead of goods being produced for exchange, they are produced for immediate use and future needs. This shift from exchange value to use value is fundamental. Economic planning, carried out by a bureau or collective councils, would determine what is produced, how much is produced, and how it is distributed. Labor certificates would help facilitate this distribution, ensuring that those who contribute labor to society are compensated with the goods they need or want, based on the principle of equity rather than profit.

The revival of commodity production in the USSR does not equate to the socialist ideal, nor does it fully represent Marx’s vision of a society based on use value and labor certificates. Wage labor, rooted in the capitalist system, is based on exploitation and alienation, while labor certificates, as a socialist method of distribution, are based on a system where production is directed towards satisfying human needs and securing a just allocation of resources. Marx’s critique of capitalism and his alternative vision of socialism both offer a profound rethinking of how labor should be organized in a way that benefits society as a whole, rather than just a few capitalists at the top.

By understanding these concepts—wage labor, labor certificates, and the shift from exchange value to use value—we can better appreciate the differences between capitalist and socialist modes of production, and why the USSR’s approach still fell short of Marx’s ideal socialist economy.