Again, what determines what is capital or not is its social role. It isn’t purely money within capitalism, there’s money capital, commodity capital, etc.
Further, you’re deeply misunderstood on the rest of this comment.
Central planning in a fully collectivized economy does not certify “skimming off the top.” You’re thinking of socialist production and distribution as the same as capitalist, but with the government. On the contrary, socialist production makes it far less likely, compared to capitalism where that is the sole aim.
All companies being worker controlled cooperatives is not a better model, it’s much worse. Cooperatives can be a part of a broader, developing socialist economy, but cannot form the basis, as competition will result in some cooperatives flourishing and others dying, resulting in class striation.
Having public ownership for part of the economy and private for the rest is either social democracy, ie capitalism with safety nets, or the primary stage of socialism, before more development and collectivizing. If the large firms and key industries are privately.owned it’s capitalist, if they are publicly owned it’s some kind of socialism.
a. Social democracy, as its still capitalism, still has far more “skimming off the top” as that’s the purpose of capitalism to begin with. You’re still under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the workers still have no power, and in the global north you still rely on imperialism.
b. The socialist market economy is just what the PRC is doing now, and it’s extremely effective. They are still pursuing a fully collectivized economy, but are working with diverse forms of ownership of medium and small firms as they are only in the primary stage of socialism.
The state withers away when class withers away. Communism in the Marxist sense is a global, fully collectivized economy run along a common plan. The state is merely the extension of the class in power, ie the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, it isn’t a class in itself. Once all property has been collectivized by the state, it ceases to function as a “state,” but planning still takes an active role. Over time, formal structures are replaced by habit, but you still have a huge, interconnected, planned economy.
Ultimately, you are fundamentally confused about what Marx was advocating for, and are mixing it up with anarchism, when these are fundamentally different concepts. Reading theory would be a good idea for you.
Again, what determines what is capital or not is its social role. It isn’t purely money within capitalism, there’s money capital, commodity capital, etc.
Further, you’re deeply misunderstood on the rest of this comment.
Central planning in a fully collectivized economy does not certify “skimming off the top.” You’re thinking of socialist production and distribution as the same as capitalist, but with the government. On the contrary, socialist production makes it far less likely, compared to capitalism where that is the sole aim.
All companies being worker controlled cooperatives is not a better model, it’s much worse. Cooperatives can be a part of a broader, developing socialist economy, but cannot form the basis, as competition will result in some cooperatives flourishing and others dying, resulting in class striation.
Having public ownership for part of the economy and private for the rest is either social democracy, ie capitalism with safety nets, or the primary stage of socialism, before more development and collectivizing. If the large firms and key industries are privately.owned it’s capitalist, if they are publicly owned it’s some kind of socialism.
a. Social democracy, as its still capitalism, still has far more “skimming off the top” as that’s the purpose of capitalism to begin with. You’re still under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the workers still have no power, and in the global north you still rely on imperialism.
b. The socialist market economy is just what the PRC is doing now, and it’s extremely effective. They are still pursuing a fully collectivized economy, but are working with diverse forms of ownership of medium and small firms as they are only in the primary stage of socialism.
Ultimately, you are fundamentally confused about what Marx was advocating for, and are mixing it up with anarchism, when these are fundamentally different concepts. Reading theory would be a good idea for you.
Private
Oof, thank you! I need to stop replying to comments before I’ve had my first coffee, lmao 🫠