• 100 Posts
  • 1.03K Comments
Joined 7 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 17th, 2019

help-circle


  • Dessalines@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlCrazy Idea
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I agree that the “principle aspect” as you say, or which class is holding power and ultimately controls both the economy and the political system, is most important. I’d argue though that the primary difference in these sectors is who is in control of the surplus, and whose benefit it goes to. In the PRC and even in Cuba, there are still private capitalists who effectively control the surplus generated within those companies, and use it as they see fit. They’re severely limited of course, but they still function differently from the socialist sector whose surplus is worker-controlled via 5 year plans.

    The only “socialist industry” I can think of in western countries, outside of tiny examples like coops, are things like state-run natural resource and energy companies. The US military is just the enforcement arm of capital, planned and controlled by capital. Even state-run social services shouldn’t really be thought of as socialist, since they produce no surplus value, and are funded via other ways, and are overall capitalist-planned.












  • One other thing I wanted to add: Bourgeios democracy / parliamentarism as a form of government is historically far more brutal than even fascist regimes. The UK and US genocided entire continents and killed millions of people under this form of “democracy”.

    The empire of the rising sun, the nazis, and Italian fascists only tried and failed to do what the UK and US had already acheived, under a far more stable form of government for capitalist-imperialism.





  • Slower is not a good thing here. US democrats have been in general more competent managers of the US empire, care more about its image internationally, and think more long term.

    The fall of the US empire (especially the closing of its 900+ military bases internationally) would bring the greatest benefit to the world, and help resolve one of the greatest contradictions in the world today: inequality between rich and poor countries.



  • Not really true. Since voting in a capitalist dictatorship makes people have faith in their current system, threatening (and trying) to take it away lets people retreat to a position that capitalists also ultimately approve of and control. Its similar to candidate stacking: if both choices are pro-capitalist, then its strategically beneficial.

    Would they rather eliminate voting entirely? Not really, because voting as a rigged game has proven its usefulness historically by giving people the illusion of choice, being a useful spectacle / popularity contest, and building faith in the system. Its really useful in preventing the alternative: which is worker’s taking power, and its why all working class states aim to overthrow bourgeios democracy.

    Bourgeois democracy is a completely rigged game, and has proven the safest and most reliable shell for capitalist rule, regardless of voting methods or form, whether its in the US, UK, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Australia, etc.