104
all of it apparently
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
104 points (85.6% liked)
Memes
54576 readers
1347 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
If we agreed the market can't self regulate, why would the state be able to?
The market cant self regulate because it doesnt represent the interests of the prolotariat. The state in a socialist society by definition is govened by the people.
Well it is a representative democracy in most cases, so in reality it is governed by people's representatives. That is a big difference because the market also represents the interests of the people in the way of price setting and supply and demand. And we can see it is not working.
There is no such thing as a representive democracy in capitalism. Power is not spread equally amungst each voter, your power is based off how much wealth you have. The rich class own corporate media and can shape peoples views and opinions to be comfortable with their rule. Political parties are completely reliant on funding from the rich to drive there campaigns, elected candiates are always approved by the rich class.
The market does not represent the interests of the people. Capitalism results in unregulated monopolies or price fixing that cause companies to extract significantly more wealth from people than what is reasonable.
The an all powerful party would? How?
If by all powerful party you mean socialism then this is not correct.
No sane person should expect a single party with absolute rule to represent the people properly, which is exactly why current socialist states don't do this. Socialist states utilise policies that ensure the working class maintain power over the govenment. And the state must own the majority of companies instead of the capitalist class to ensure the capitalist class doesn't have power over the state.
Edit: Oh literally the meme states "dictatorship of the proletariat" and here I am explaining dictatorship of the proletariat. Do you understand what it means?
There is so much wrong with such a short comment it's genuinely quite impressive.
You should read:
Lenin’s What Is To Be Done?, The State and Revolution, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder
Stalin’s Foundations of Leninism, The Role of the Communist Party in the Proletarian Revolution
Chairman Mao's On Practice and On Contradiction, Serve the People, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, Combat Liberalism, Oppose Book Worship and 红宝书 (especially chapter 1).
You can also look at modern China and how nearly a billion people were lifted from abject poverty. How the party has over 80% support. How infrastructure and the people are invested in without the need to wring them for profit. The party is neither all powerful nor perfect it is simply the tool through which the people wield their power.
It isn’t, and it never was.
Dang I never thought the bbc would admit that.
Not sure I understand the point, states and markets are entirely different things, especially a state run by the working class whose goal is to collectivize all production and distribution, erasing the basis of class struggle and therefore the oppressive elements of government that make up the state.
They are both power structures.
IMO you will just create new class (the party) vs the workers. Why would the ruling class relinquish the power that they have?
Markets and states are entirely different things, it looks like you're identifying a partial overlap and using that to ignore that they are extremely diffrrent. Socialist states can be checked because the working class controls it, we see this in socialist states today.
Further, the communist party is not a class, it's the organized segment of the working classes. Administration isn't a class, either. The proletariat as a ruling class wishes not to perpetuate its existence as a class, but to abolish it by collectivizing all of production and distribution.
I hope you are right
Is there a part you disagree with, or are unsure of? Have you studied Marxism or socialist states before?
I have and also I am from a country with famously failed socialist experiment.
The part that I am most unsure of is the concentration of power within a small group of people. Yes they will be elected but elections can be rigged.
That concentration of power means the system is ripe for abuse. Maybe not in the beginning when the leaders are versed in Marxism or whatever socialism they believe in. But eventually this power going to someone with selfish intentions will not be good.
Ok. So capitalism observably doesn't work. And you have decided a proletarian state is impossible. So what is your solution? Is organising futile? Do we just wait for a magic spark of simultaneous global revolution? Do we wait for the world to end? Is it all just futile and we kill ourselves now?
You are very invested in idealist "human nature" metaphysics for someone who allegedly studied Marxism.
I think anarchism is a cool idea.
Also I haven't studied Marxism.
And a lot of the arguments I raise here are implemetational, so there is a very big difference from a socialist country to a socialist country.
Cowbee "have you studied marxism"
You "I have"
???
I have read a few books on it, take that as you like.
Ok so you haven't. You should. Also it's a bad habit to lie to act like you know more than you do.
It's a bad habit to act like a dick as well but it doesn't seem to stop you?
If you have some disagreement with what I am saying you can point it out. If you want to just nitpicking around my comments go for it, but there is no way to positively engaged with that.
I have been neutral at worst. Why should I go out of my way to grovel be extra nice to you who has done nothing but spout off arrogantly about things you clearly don't understand. Also I have pointed out issues and even recommended some reading across my other comments. Grow up.
The potential for corruption exists in all organizations, vut that doesn't mean you cannot account for this. Socialism, by necessity, has more distributed power than capitalism due to the working classes controlling the state.
I assume here you mean that this is because the party must fulfill the demands of the citizens and not only of the capitalists.
But if we go back to the beginning I am arguing that in case of thus structured power structures the party and the capitalists are one. So they can use the same ticks that capitalists use now to manipulate the public and answer only to themselves.
No, I'm saying that socialism requires worker participation in running the economy because that's what happems when you have a publicly run economy. The party cannot be considered the same as capitalists, because this is an entirely different economic structure. Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance helps explain how democracy works within socialism.
You're again looking at particular similarities, ie capitalists have power in capitalism and the communist party has some degree of power in socialism, while ignoring the economic foundations that each relies on and their innumerable qualitative differences. The communist party cannot "use the same ticks that capitalists use now to manipulate the public and answer only to themselves," because socialism and capitalism are entirely different modes of production. You haven't explained how, just equated both by virtue of having some degree of authority.
The PRC was founded and has been led by the CPC for over 70 years. Why hasn't it become just as bad as the capitalists? Why does anti corruption still reach the highest rungs of power?
It's almost like a socialist state led by a communist party is qualitatively different to a capitalist one under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Oh god, a repeat of the later half of the Spanish Civil War.
That makes no sense. Living conditions while losing a civil war are hardly indicative of what planned economies are capable of.
I was referring to the communists and anarchists working together at first then breaking apart
What a cursed set of flags