I find this idea dubious. I think that state control of the economy could lead to communism if that state is managed democratically by a majority underclass that does not own property, because such a class might develop a system of governance that abolishes class and private property and distributes political power. I do not see communism as an inevitable outcome of any given state run economy.
Workers in socialism collectively own the commanding heights of the economy, sometimes much more as in the DPRK. They are not an underclass, they are the ruling class. Communism isn’t inevitable, much can go wrong as was seen with the dissolution of the once great USSR. However, it remains that socialism is a process, and that process involves developing towards communism as is economically compelled.
I think that the process of an underclass becoming a ruling class is important in the development toward communism. It seems like you’re suggesting that there is only one metric with which a communist should evaluate a country and that is whether or not they have a socialized economy. Is that right?
No, socialization of the economy is not the only metric. It is not even the key metric. The class character of the state is primary. Socialization is a single, highly important factor within that determination, but it remains derivative. A nationalized industry under bourgeois state command functions as state monopoly capital.
Evaluation proceeds from the principal contradiction to its secondary aspects. The principal question: which class holds monopoly over political power and the means of coercion? This determines the direction of all other processes. Secondary metrics, the rate and depth of socialization, the trajectory of productive forces, the composition of administrative personnel, the character of ideological struggle, these are not irrelevant. They are conditional. They either consolidate proletarian state power or undermine it. There is no neutral technical criterion. The same policy, e.g. grain procurement or industrial planning, produces opposite class effects depending on which class commands the state apparatus.
The state is not a passive vessel for economic measures. It is the organized expression of class rule. Transitionary societies contain multiple modes of production in contradiction. The state resolves which mode dominates. Empirical assessment must therefore begin with the class basis of political power.
No, it’s not right. Socialization is a process that happens in socialism (and even capitalism) that forms the economic basis for capitalism. It’s crucial for the working classes to have siezed and gained state power, ie political power and supremacy to develop society in their interest. Public ownership being the principal aspect of the economy goes along with that.
I find this idea dubious. I think that state control of the economy could lead to communism if that state is managed democratically by a majority underclass that does not own property, because such a class might develop a system of governance that abolishes class and private property and distributes political power. I do not see communism as an inevitable outcome of any given state run economy.
Workers in socialism collectively own the commanding heights of the economy, sometimes much more as in the DPRK. They are not an underclass, they are the ruling class. Communism isn’t inevitable, much can go wrong as was seen with the dissolution of the once great USSR. However, it remains that socialism is a process, and that process involves developing towards communism as is economically compelled.
I think that the process of an underclass becoming a ruling class is important in the development toward communism. It seems like you’re suggesting that there is only one metric with which a communist should evaluate a country and that is whether or not they have a socialized economy. Is that right?
No, socialization of the economy is not the only metric. It is not even the key metric. The class character of the state is primary. Socialization is a single, highly important factor within that determination, but it remains derivative. A nationalized industry under bourgeois state command functions as state monopoly capital.
Evaluation proceeds from the principal contradiction to its secondary aspects. The principal question: which class holds monopoly over political power and the means of coercion? This determines the direction of all other processes. Secondary metrics, the rate and depth of socialization, the trajectory of productive forces, the composition of administrative personnel, the character of ideological struggle, these are not irrelevant. They are conditional. They either consolidate proletarian state power or undermine it. There is no neutral technical criterion. The same policy, e.g. grain procurement or industrial planning, produces opposite class effects depending on which class commands the state apparatus.
The state is not a passive vessel for economic measures. It is the organized expression of class rule. Transitionary societies contain multiple modes of production in contradiction. The state resolves which mode dominates. Empirical assessment must therefore begin with the class basis of political power.
No, it’s not right. Socialization is a process that happens in socialism (and even capitalism) that forms the economic basis for capitalism. It’s crucial for the working classes to have siezed and gained state power, ie political power and supremacy to develop society in their interest. Public ownership being the principal aspect of the economy goes along with that.