We know already. It’s Cuba and Venezuela. It isn’t as if there is no capital in a Marxist society. It’s that the capital that exists is appropriated by those with the guns. They spend it on consumption and so little ever gets invested.vision as to what a future society without capital would look like,
In the USSR, most industrial projects were financed with foreign capital, which the government obtained by selling things; first the gold and jewels of the rich and the churches, then the grain while people starved, then oil and other natural resources, and slave labor paid a big, big part in it. The big infrastructure projects that allowed for industrialization were all built with slave labor. There was “capital” of a sort in that. Naftaly Frenkel, the chief of a number of projects put it this way. “Use the prisoner up in the first three months. After that, we don’t need him anymore.” In other words, the 'capital" used in that instance was the stored fat and muscle of the slave laborer. Once that was used up, the prisoner could just die, and they did in their millions.in the USSR they so heavily invested in industrialization to the detriment of consumer goods
What is an “artificial closure”?due to artificial closures
I’m always unsure why Venezuela makes the cut in these arguments, because it still has a much larger private sector than public sector in the economy and always has under “socialism of the 21st century.” At any rate those countries are capitalist and, as you admit yourself, never abolished capital.We know already. It’s Cuba and Venezuela.
As RhodesianSon mentioned, most nominally communist countries prioritised heavy industries and capital goods over consumer goods. This was true for all of the Eastern bloc countries and the PRC, from what I am aware.They spend it on consumption and so little ever gets invested.
Oh no. It continued to the very end of the Soviet system. And the system never became truly productive. It’s production figures were bogus, based on “tufta”. (false reporting from top to bottom)The slave labour system that you mention was also mostly abolished in the USSR after the death of Stalin
I will agree that there was a huge expansion in the building of armaments. For other things, they sold commodities to get foreign capital to buy necessary items from the West. For example, the gigantic turbines in the huge Dneprestroi dam came from Sweden and were installed almost exclusively with slave labor.there was a huge expansion of industry and industrial output in the USSR,
I have read extensively on the Soviet Union, and I would agree with everything you say here. The problem is that you’re mostly just taking a few clichés about the Stalinist period and applying them to the whole of the country’s existence.I cordially invite any reader to thoroughly investigate the history of the Soviet Union. You will find that I am exactly correct. It was a parasitic society that lived off the misery of the great majority. A small minority, of course, did quite well, as is always the case in “Marxist” societies.
And pretty much all hard industries. You should read Alec Noves’s ‘An Economic History of the Soviet Union’, he details the specific outcomes of all of the Stalinist five year plans and what the limitations of the figures are. It’s pretty undeniable that there was a huge increase in the production of most capital goods, including lighter industries like textiles.I will agree that there was a huge expansion in the building of armaments.
Yes, and this was built during the first five year plan, when slave labour was still utilised for projects like that. Following the death of Stalin and the process of destalinisation, the GULAG system was disbanded and many, many political prisoners and petty criminals freed. The USSR basically no longer relied on mass slave labour by the late 1950s, and the USSR shifted to abusing psychology as a means for political repression.For example, the gigantic turbines in the huge Dneprestroi dam came from Sweden and were installed almost exclusively with slave labor.
The USSR never abolished private property, and always retained a market system, competition between firms, and an economy rooted on the exploitation of wage labour. It was a capitalist society. Even by the 1980s, half of its agricultural output was from the small allotment of land that the kolkhoz workers were allocated rather than from state farms or the kolkhoz itself, and these small allotments were totally integrated into a market system.It’s relevant for people to recognize that seizing the property of others does not lead to the development of needed resources in a society. Seize existing rental properties and nobody will build any more of them.
As compared to the brutal authoritarian oppression and poverty under socialism.Either way, the working class suffers, as they always do under capitalism.
the current USPS dilemma is a great example of this.You can see a toy model of this situation play out in government workers. It is practically impossible to fire (or promote) a government worker, and so the government is well known to be filled with shoddy, mediocre workers.
who will maintain the existing buildings, when you have no investment, you generally have no interest, your money is better spent on other things. look at some current examples in some of our cities.Seize existing rental properties and nobody will build any more of them.
leasing property isn’t easy and nobody should ever think it is. It’s a very tough way to build some equity.who will maintain the existing buildings, when you have no investment, you generally have no interest, your money is better spent on other things. look at some current examples in some of our cities.
Such people exists. Though, post September 11th I had a friend that had problems finding a job after she was laid off by a company owned by the airlines. One of the obstacles to her getting a job was that she was considered over-qualified and people would not want to hire her for some positions because they thought she would just leave. She tried not sharing all of her background to get into a position, but when they found out later she was let go because they considered that the same as telling a lie. Ultimately she just ended up going back to school to get a third degree and the student loan helped keep her afloat. Though there were job openings, those job openings were not necessarily available to her.There’s still a lot of jobs out there. I need 5 positions filled but too many people would rather sit at home and draw unemployment right now.
As someone who has had a number of landlords, I find that they will always be money grabbing, desperate to charge you for something or steal your deposit. Then you report some kind of damage and it takes them weeks to deal with it, and they rely on some cheap handyman. I have no sympathy for them. They are the natural enemy of any tenant.leasing property isn’t easy and nobody should ever think it is. It’s a very tough way to build some equity.
This does not negate your statement. One of these people only makes like 60,000 USD/year. Not quite at the level of rich. But she also has no children and is an extreme life-long penny pincher. She is debating over paying off her own house right now (As not to have a mortgage). But she could make more investing the money instead; the interest rate on her mortgage is really low and she sees opportunities to get greater returns on the same money than what she pays in interest on her mortgage.Poor people work for their money. Rich people have their money work for them.
Some are indeed terrible. Some are a long way from it.As someone who has had a number of landlords, I find that they will always be money grabbing, desperate to charge you for something or steal your deposit. Then you report some kind of damage and it takes them weeks to deal with it, and they rely on some cheap handyman. I have no sympathy for them. They are the natural enemy of any tenant.