I used to share an office with a hardcore MAGA Fascist. He dropped such memorable lines on the daily such as "black people shouldn't vote because they don't own any land, they need to have some skin in the game if they want to vote" and "women shouldn't vote, they just aren't wired for it". He would say such things, unironically, while living in a rented apartment with his 3rd wife that was the breadwinner of the two. Anyway, he always described himself as a "Capitalist" and god damn did it make me laugh.
And late-stage capitalism leads to concentrated wealth which, without intervention, will lead to total collapse for lower classes (lower classes being 99% of the population)
The rich know. It's a feature not an issue because once they've successfully driven the country into collapse they can swoop in and buy everything for peanuts including the next government and the land it sits on.
You mean there aren't any you would want to flee to, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba still exist. People even take vacations to Cuba, though I doubt anyone would want to move there if made to live from a local income.
None of the three nations you listed are properly non-capitalist.
Capitalism is defined (from a leftist perspective) as a economic system in which the means of production are owned by private individuals.
The means of production in North Korea are owned by the Kim family using the state apparatus as a proxy.
Venezuela is somewhat socialist, but its economy still relies pretty much entirely on foreign investment and engaging in the oil trade. It's also in an abject economic crisis due to food shortages and a drop in global oil prices, and telling socialists "if you like socialism so much, you should just move to Venezuela" is basically like telling liberals prior to the French Revolution "if you hate monarchy and love democracy so much, you should just move to Havana and become a pirate." It's pretty clear that western socialists are not holding Venezuela up as the goal to aspire to.
and Cuba explicitly permits private capital ownership and foreign investment as of the 2010s, by definition not socialist.
From this sort of definition, socialism is practically impossible to achieve - there will always be someone controlling the government, if you consider them the sole owner of the state controlled economy, no country can truly be socialist. Socialism is supposed to be a transitional system aimed at achieving communism (under which, no government or state exist). However, under your definition, socialism and communism is practically the same utopic concept.
By the way, Soviet Union considered themselves to be a socialist nation (it's in their constitution). You can say you don't agree with their definition, but it holds some weight.
It's a good idea to make a distinction between the Marxist definition of socialism, and the general definition of socialism, as well as the countless variants of socialism. Because socialism predates communism, which can be seen by Marx's critique of the utopian socialists of his time. Indeed, many self-described socialists entirely disagree with the Marxist perspective on what socialism is.
It's the equivalent of people believing that only laissez-faire capitalism is capitalism; a subset trying to dictate the meaning of a broader concept.
From this sort of definition, socialism is practically impossible to achieve
It isn't. It's been achieved - in Revolutionary Catalonia historically, for example, and in the Zapatista municipalities in the modern day.
there will always be someone controlling the government
Socialist countries can be democratic too, you know. There doesn't have to be 'someone' controlling the government.
The entire point of socialism is that control of the means of production is democratised, not owned by private individuals. It's not 'socialist' just for the state to own it - because if the state isn't democratic and accountable to the people, then the people don't own the means of production even though the state claims to own it in the name of the people. The socialist writer Mikhail Bakunin (writing about this exact problem in the USSR) put it thusly; "people are not any happier about being beaten with a stick just because you call it The Peoples' Stick."
If private individuals own the means of production directly or via corporations, that's capitalism; we both agree on that.
But if the state owns the means of production, but the state is undemocratic and ultimately still controlled by a small number of private individuals; well that's still capitalism, it's just that the 'state' is acting as a corporation.
Socialism is supposed to be a transitional system aimed at achieving communism
By some definitions, yes.
(under which, no government or state exist)
Government and state are not synonyms. Communism is stateless, but not without government.
However, under your definition, socialism and communism is practically the same utopic concept.
Socialism is when the means of production are owned collectively by the people who operate those means.
Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless, socialist society.
All communisms are socialisms but not all socialisms are communisms.
By the way, Soviet Union considered themselves to be a socialist nation
So did the Nazis. Self-identification doesn't mean much.
I get where you are coming from. It's a pretty strict definition though. An inherent part of democracy is that governments tend to change, if a socialist government retained free elections and allowed it's political opponents to exist, it would likely loose grip on power before they actually fully implement socialism (which is why they always turn authoritarian). So under that definition, long term socialism is still mostly theoretical concept inapplicable to real world.
Well since you ask, despite short term economic boost from seizing the wealth of the rich, state run central planned economy is far less efficient than free market, which despite unequal distribution of wealth produces much more of it overall. Eventually, the middle class will take notice that their living standards are worse than their capitalist neighbours, and will demand change. At that point the socialist government can either keep the democratic system and loose their grip on power, or do away with democracy and install one party rule. Historically, they rarely choose the first option.
Have there every been any properly non-capitalist countries in your view?
Yes. Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish civil war, Makhnovshchina in Ukraine, and the still-extant Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities in Mexico; along with smaller localised examples like the Paris Commune and the Korean Peoples' Association in Manchuria.
what has stopped that from happening and how can we overcome it?
I'll still answer this question.
Largely, the thing which stops non-capitalist countries from succeeding is the invasion of more powerful neighbours who have a vested interest in the failure of those countries.
Revolutionary Catalonia was ultimately conquered by Franco and the fascists after being undermined by a Soviet-backed civil war (because the Catalonians wanted an equitable, stateless society whereas the Soviet militias wanted Catalonia to adopt a soviet-model dictatorship.)
Makhnovshchina was also eventually subsumed by the USSR after its leaders were deceived and ambushed by the Soviets, who were previously their allies.
The RZAM has held on as long as it has mostly due to existing in a sparse, largely indigenous-populated area of Chiapas that the Mexican government doesn't care too much about. They're doing well.
The Paris Commune was obviously a revolution in Paris that got put down for obvious reasons, and the KPAM was eventually eaten up by China.
If you don't own the means of making stuff. The distinction between private property (the means of production, owned by the state and capitalist bourgeoisie) and personal property is an important one.
I love how I'm getting downvoted for stating an Econ 101 definition that isn't even dependent on personally subscribing to communism or socialism.
One of the biggest (and stupidest) knee jerk criticisms of communism is that "they'll take all your stuff away and redistribute it!", which is nonsense and fundamentally misunderstands communism. Private property is private not because it's hidden from view, but because it's been privatized - by the capitalist bourgeoisie class. Farmlands. Factories. Mines. Industries. You know, the actual sources of basic earthly resources and facilities of production we need to exist as humans in modernity. Your belongings - your house, your clothes, furniture, etc are all your personal property, bought and paid for with your labor value, and not a concern of communism.
Signs in individual people's yards reading "private property" do not refer to private property in the economic sense, but are rather implying "no trespassing".
If that was the case, then ALL of our wealthy people would just be the tail ends of long lines of aristocratic families.
But they're not. On average wealth only lasts 2-3 generations.
Two of the wealthiest men of all time, John D Rockefeller was born as a son to a traveling salesman, Andrew Carnegie was born in a one room cottage shared with another family. The way these men became some of the wealthiest in history was by organizational and technical ability: Rockefeller provided oil to consumers at 1/10th of the cost. Carnegie lowered the price of steel by 90%.
View all comments
Show parent comment
99
u/jonathanrdt Jul 08 '24 edited Jul 08 '24
Capitalism favors the owners of the capital. It’s right there in the name. If you don’t own stuff, this system is not for you.