>reading about the Industrial Revolution and its consequences in the contemporary world<mfw when I realize that Marx believed Communism would be possible because he mistakenly believed that industries would generate infinite resources, which would make the division of labor, the origin of social stratification, meaningless since there would be resources for everyone, unlike the systems of servitude prior to Capitalism where the division of labor had to exist to organize/maximize the production of resources since there were no industries and producing alone would not generate enough resources for a larger population to sustain itself<mfw Marx did not realize that it is the very dynamics of the organization of the division of labor/classes and not the industries that generate infinite resources because equality of production produces absence of competition. Absence of competition produces absence of incentive for innovation. Absence of innovation produces absence of productivity. Absence of productivity produces nothing and is the reason why socialist regimes simply stagnate and need external intervention to maintain themselves
I originally created this thread on lefty/pol/ because, since they're tankies, I thought they'd know more about the Marxist answer to this question than /his/, but I was wrong.https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/2835456.html
>>18537959>Absence of competition produces absence of incentive for innovation.Hol up... you don't understand that the problem of the Soviet Union was the utter lack of a free market rather than a lack of competition?><mfw when I realize that Marx believed Communism would be possible because he mistakenly believed that industries would generate infinite resourcesHe believed that the industry would advance until it could actually meet the needs of the people, if properly controlled to do so. He also - correctly, as it turned out - believed that control of that industry would wholly fall into the hands of the working class while the Capitalists would become parasites that are so bad at video games that the LAN party would rise up and take the controller away from them.
>>18537959>that industries would generate infinite resourcesWell he is from a generation of economists that did treat all resources like free resources. Conservation, at any level, was not a leftist ideal yet. This is still the period when Straya imported rabbits and toads and cacti and China killed all the birds.
>>18537959>mfw Marx did not realize that it is the very dynamics of the organization of the division of labor/classes and not the industries that generate infinite resources because equality of production produces absence of competition.I don't think division of social classes is very good at producing competition because you reduce the ability of people to change professions. I'm talking about a more traditional European kind of class system. Like aw yeah let's create an economy where basket weavers can only be basket weavers, it'll be really innovative. Maybe even make it illegal to change jobs. (Ironically it was apparently difficult to do this in the USSR.)
>>18538069Marx did write about soil depletion under capitalism so environmental limits did cross his mind.
>>18538080>(Ironically it was apparently difficult to do this in the USSR.)Right-to-work did end up with people being assigned to their place of work, yes, and freedom of travel and residence were limited too, I understand.
>>18538061>you don't understand that the problem of the Soviet Union was the utter lack of a free market rather than a lack of competition?But they are part of the same thing.The free market is defined by the absence of state interventions that distort the allocation of resources, allowing the interests of producers and consumers to interact freely in the market. This freedom generates competition as an inevitable consequence, companies compete for customers by offering better prices, quality, and innovation, as consumers reward the most efficient and punish the inefficient with bankruptcy. Without competition, there is no free market, and without a free market (that is, with barriers, subsidies, state monopolies, or prohibitions), real competition is stifled.Since Marx derived his theory of surplus value from the Ricardian socialists' interpretation of David Ricardo's labor theory of value, he also believed that labor is the source of all exchange value and therefore workers are entitled to everything they produce, and that rent, profit, and interest were not natural consequences of the free market, but were instead distortions. Lenin's vision of Imperialism was essentially a logical conclusion of Socialist Ricardian/Marxist logics, the British Empire was ruthlessly protectionist at home and ruthless in imposing free trade on its vassals. Free trade was a weapon of economic imperialism. Any nation state that wants to develop, has to protect its own internal market for it to develop its own middle class, or bigger nations will dump their wares on your economy and you'll never develop.
>>18537959>Marx believedincorrect>industries would generateindustries consume, not generate>division of labor, the origin of social stratificationincorrect. ownership of capital. bourgeoise do not labor, they rent
>>18537963>leftypolcointelpro.any socialist/communist group that calls itself left, or has anything to do with lgbt is a psyop.
>>18538682The Soviet Union, during Lenin's NEP, did not adopt a fully free market precisely for this reason, allowing the unrestricted entry of more advanced and cheaper foreign products would crush Soviet industries and producers, still immature and inefficient after years of wars and initial collectivism. The NEP was a controlled and partial opening, with implicit protectionism, to avoid the immediate collapse of the Soviet economy in the face of Western competitive superiority. The great irony is that if Stalin hadn't abandoned it, because the USSR would have likely continued down the pattern of repeated self-induced starvation, in favor of ruthless industrialization and overdevelopment of heavy industry, the Soviet Union would have been crushed by the Third Reich in World War 2.Stalin admitted to Eric Johnston of the US Chamber of Commerce that two-thirds of Russia's industrial capability both during and prior to the war was due to the assistance of the United States (the remaining third being largely a Western European import). Fred Koch built or designed the majority of the Soviet oil refineries; oil and related products account for something like 60% of Russia's current day exports and 20-30% of their entire current day economy. An informal economy, the "Second Economy" existed throughout the USSR's existence and is estimated to represent between 15-30% of the USSR's economic activity.
>>18538080I am referring to modes of production prior to capitalism, in which class division did not primarily arise to foster market competition, but rather to maximize material production through the specialization of labor. Before the specialization of labor, hunter-gatherers performed similar tasks in an undifferentiated way and with low productivity. Agriculture and sedentarization allowed groups to specialize in cultivation, animal husbandry, crafts, or defense, generating food surpluses far superior to those obtained through general hunting and gathering. This specialization, however, had the direct consequence of social stratification, those who controlled the surplus (priests, warriors, or administrators) concentrated power and resources, giving rise to the first class hierarchies. This dynamic evolved from the Neolithic period to civilizations with an Asiatic mode of production.The Asiatic Mode of Production is a historical and economic concept created by Marx and Engels that describes the first civilizations of Antiquity (such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China). It is based on collective servitude, where the State (controlled by kings/emperors seen as gods or their representatives) is the absolute owner of all land. Since they depended on irrigation agriculture in arid regions, these civilizations relied on the flooding of large rivers (such as the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates). The State organized large public works (irrigation canals, dikes, and temples) and controlled the economy.
>>18538757The land belonged to the State. Peasants worked these lands and paid high taxes (in goods or labor) to the government. The workforce came from the peasant community. During periods of river flooding (when they could not plant), peasants were summoned by the State for mandatory labor on public works. It was a highly hierarchical society with no social mobility. The base was formed by peasants and slaves (on a smaller scale), while the top was occupied by kings, priests, and warriors.For Marx, what caused the evolution of production systems (a concept he took from Lewis Henry Morgan's The Ancient Society) were the internal contradictions (dialectical materialism, of the Left Hegelians) generated by the development of productive forces (technology, new forms of work) and class conflicts. Going through the Ancient Mode of production (slavery, of Ancient Greece and Rome), Feudalism and Capitalism, always with the division of labor serving as a mechanism for increasing total production, even at the cost of inequalities. Only with the Industrial Revolution, for Marx, did industries achieve the capacity for mass and potentially abundant production (almost infinite in scale), making obsolete the need for that rigid division of labor/classes as a tool for maximizing productivity.
>>18538682>The free market is defined by the absence of state interventions that distort the allocation of resources, allowing the interests of producers and consumers to interact freely in the market.Bull. You're plain wrong. Since Adam Smith, it is known that markets require intervention to remain level for all participants, which is what allows them to operate at maximum efficiency. Freedom ain't free, as they say in the US, where the 13th Amendment enshrined the State's right to enslave people.
>>18538682There was competition between the bureaus and companies were rated and rewarded based on their efficiency.The problem was that they entered the terminal capitalist phase without having ever been Capitalist, where being more efficient just got more work thrown your way until you died and you had no way to profit from innovation as capital control had been centralized and the market capture of the State was 100%.
>>18537959You attribute too much to ideology. The Soviet planned economy wasn't completely hopeless, it adapted in the Khrushchev era and there was actual decent economic growth up to the 1970s. However it did so by shedding the top-heavy command and control of the politburo and allowing lower level oblasts, cities and factories more autonomy.Russia's position in the global economy also meant that even ifs system was more efficient than the US, it could not outproduce them, it would need to be like twice as efficient making miraculous scientific breakthroughs that the US has difficult keeping up with or something.
>>18537963Marx is treated dogmatically like a deity by /leftypol/. If you want to delve deep into Marxist screed then I guess /leftypol/ is superior, however if you want to read between the lines and place it in wider context you have come to the right place.Marxist theory is one thing, but it is rooted in the labor unions, strikes and riots of the 19th century, which had been going on since the French revolution mind. Marx's fame is due to these groups and his writing is less a scientific examination and more to appeal to them while giving it a scientific gloss. For example the tendency of the rate of profit to fall assumes workers provides the only form of "variable capital", in reality investment opportunities tend to be very profitable to begin with then drop for natural reasons. Like the first Starbucks being built where they are anticipated to yield the most profit and only later do they build a Starbucks on every corner.
>>18538682>>18538695Protectionism is a meme but there is some truth to it. Autarky is useful to authoritarian regimes as it reduces dependence on foreign powers that want them out of power. It is why North Korea and Zimbabwe are so closed off.Also Russia's natural place in the global economy was always secondary. The brain drain after the USSR collapsed represented this perfectly, they had invested so much into science with ideological zeal, then all these experts immediately fled to the west where they could earn 6 figure incomes. Why would the centers of technology and industry be located in Russia? You'd want to live in California (in the 90s).If the Bolsheviks never came to power and the provisional government came to rule, highly influenced by western democracies and free trade, Russia's economy would develop a fraction faster and avoid the holodomor and other calamities, but they and their economy would become dependent on western trade and in turn western interests would influence their elections. Rather like how the Ukraine wanted to get rid of its Russian oligarchs. Of course they became dependent on lend lease anyway.
>>18537959Don't ruin my waifu with ai slop
>>18539085>Since Adam Smith, it is known that markets require intervention to remain level for all participants, which is what allows them to operate at maximum efficiencyHow can you say that when we live in an era where markets have become international, operate so much without state intervention that companies are richer than entire countries and the nation from which they originate needs to ask them for support, not the other way around?The very dominant economic theory prior to Adam Smith was Mercantilism, which wealth generated went mostly to private companies than the state. Private companies received a state-granted monopoly on the exploitation of routes and colonies. They carried out the extraction trade of commodities and enslaved people and importation trade of manufactured goods, generating very high profits that allowed for the primitive accumulation of capital. The state controlled trade through heavy customs duties and the minting of coins, using this wealth to finance the government, maintain armies, and consolidate central power. The state retained a significant portion through these taxes and tributes, but the majority of the accumulated profit remained with the bourgeoisie. It was this accumulated taxed wealth that created/kept Absolutism working, as it funded the public machine, the centralized/permanent professional armies, and the luxurious court of the absolutist monarch.At the end of the Middle Ages, most Western European kingdoms were still relatively decentralized. A Western European king had far fewer administrative resources than a modern state. Revenue was limited, the bureaucracy was small, and communication was slow. At the same time, economic opportunities were exploding, routes to Asia, America, Africa required gigantic investments in ships, crews, ports, insurance, and trade. But a leet could disappear in a storm or be captured by enemies.1/?
>>18540253No single king had enough money to finance these global operations, and monarchies couldn't take on all the risks either since needed to balance dozens of interests like nobles, mercenaries/army, the Church, regional courts, bureaucrats, and rival dynasties. That's where a revolutionary innovation came from, the joint-stock company. Instead of a single person financing an expedition, hundreds of investors bought small parts of the venture. If the trip was profitable, everyone won. If it failed, the loss was distributed. Since company had only one main objective, to generate profit, while a king needed to spend money on wars, palaces, aristocratic pensions, and diplomatic disputes, a company could concentrate resources almost exclusively on commercial expansion and this allowed for the accumulation of unprecedented amounts of capital.As a consequence, the growth of trade, finance, and privileged companies did not immediately weaken the monarchs, on the contrary, it was one of the factors that allowed the rise of Absolutism. Kings began to collect more through customs duties, taxes on trade, monopolies granted by the Crown, and loans obtained from bankers and merchants. This new monetary wealth allowed them to reduce dependence on traditional feudal obligations and finance permanent bureaucracies, armies, navies, and increasingly luxurious courts. In other words, the economic growth driven by the commercial bourgeoisie provided monarchs with the resources necessary to centralize power and weaken the autonomy of the feudal nobility. 2/?
>>18540255However, the same process that strengthened Absolutism also created social and economic forces that would eventually surpass it. Throughout the 17th century, the growth of international trade created a powerful class of merchants, bankers, and entrepreneurs. In places like the north Italian city-states, the German free imperial cities, the Netherlands, and later the United Kingdom, governments gradually allowed greater economic freedom. Banks, stock exchanges, insurance companies, and financial markets expanded, allowing capital to circulate more efficiently.As merchants, bankers, shipowners, and investors accumulated wealth, they began to demand greater political influence, legal protection for their investments, and limitations on the arbitrary power of the Crown. Private capital became increasingly essential to the functioning of the State, so that governments came to depend on financial markets as much as markets depended on state protection.England was the first major example of this transformation. The conflicts between the monarchy and Parliament during the 17th century culminated in the English Civil War and, subsequently, the Glorious Revolution, culminating in the Declaration of Rights, Habeas Corpus, Act of Toleration, Navigation Acts, Settlement Act, and Confiscation of Lands, consolidating the legal, religious, and economic interests of the English bourgeoisie.This allowed the bourgeoisie, for centuries, to acquire land from the nobility and, primarily, the usufruct of that land, since it was the bourgeoisie who sought to modernize production methods to increase their profits against other European products. This is how some of the most vital reforms in the production structure for the emergence of the Industrial Revolution were implemented, such as the Enclosure Acts, the Norfolk System, Agricultural Mechanization, the Rotherham plow, etc.3/?
>>18540260James Watt (steam engine and rotary motor), Richard Arkwright (water-powered spinning jenny and mechanized textile factory), George Stephenson (steam locomotive and modern railroad), Henry Bessemer (Bessemer process and modern steel production), etc... were some of the most important figures of the Industrial Revolution, and all belonged to the bourgeoisie.The result was not the destruction of the monarchy, but its subordination to representative institutions and the rule of law. Private property, contracts, and public credit came to be protected by a more predictable political system, creating an extremely favorable environment for the expansion of Capitalism during the Industrial era. This is what Adam Smith and the classical liberal economists realized.In much of continental Europe, however, absolutist monarchies remained dominant for longer. In France, Spain, Austria, and other kingdoms, economic growth continued to strengthen centralized states, but also amplified tensions between a political structure based on hereditary privileges and an increasingly dynamic and capitalized economy. These contradictions reached their breaking point with the French Revolution. By abolishing feudal privileges, corporate restrictions, and much of the estate system of the Old Regime, the Revolution paved the way for a society in which wealth, property, investment, and economic activity would play a far more important role than birth and legal status.Thus, capitalism (private initiatives) did not emerge as the initial enemy of absolutism (state), for centuries, both grew together during Mercantilism. But as private capital accumulated its own superior wealth and power, the political institutions of the Old Regime became increasingly insufficient to accommodate the new economic reality, being reformed first in England and overthrown more dramatically in France.4/4
>>18539220The Soviet Union's industrial base began to decay after Stalin kicked the bucket because it was inefficiently planned and focused on heavy/armament industries to the detriment of consumer goods. Exporting energy and natural resources was more profitable than producing badly made cars so by the time the Soviet Union collapsed, their industrial output was a joke.The only thing Stalinist industry was good for was mass producing a small selection of military goods en mass. Much is made of "Soviet efficiency" during WWII but the truth is the only reason they got away with autistically focusing tank production is America was working overtime to provide the reds with canned food, trucks, and all manner of goods that you can't produce in "glorious people's tractor factory".
>>18540253>>18540255>How can you say that when we live in an era where markets have become international, operate so much without state intervention that companies are richer than entire countries and the nation from which they originate needs to ask them for support, not the other way around?It's probably a good a time as any to remind people that Elon Musk's virtual fortune is based on investor's conviction that the Feds will pick up the bill.
>>18540488>The Soviet Union's industrial base began to decay after Stalin kicked the bucketGDP grew under Khrushchev.The USSR's economy wasn't exceptional. It was just a run of the mill dictatorship where the state sometimes intervened and did something embarrassing, like producing massive quantities of low grade steel to boost steel production statistics. The communists quickly abandoned most of their experiments, the only lasting effect was for the "means of production" to end up under the control of the party elite, but then this is little different from a system of patronage in a banana republic.
>>18540619>GDP grew under KhrushchevBecause he was the first Soviet leader to give more attention to light industry and the consumer goods to improve living standards.>There was a clear emphasis on heavy industry goods, capital goods, and weapons. Stalin writes that “the national economy [of the USSR] cannot keep expanding without giving priority to the production of capital goods”. In 1928, consumer goods comprised 60.5% of Soviet industrial output, and capital goods only 39.5%. In contrast, by 1950, the proportion had reversed, and consumer goods now made up only 31.2% of industrial output, compared to 68.8% for capital goods. By 1966 it became absurd, with capital goods comprising 74.4% of Soviet industrial output, compared to 25.6% for consumer goods>This did not last long, when Khrushchev came to power, he declared that "now that we possess a powerful, developed heavy industry, we are in a position to promote the production of both consumer goods and capital goods" (DOBB, 1968). Soon after, we see that the production of consumer goods in the Soviet Union began to increase>During the period of rapid economic growth, investment rose substantially, from 14% in 1950 to almost 30% in 1973. Therefore, investment growth was greater than GDP growth during that periodIn 5 years of the first 5 year plan total grain exports amounted to 20 million tons of grain for a 4 million/year average, while in 1913 the Russian Empire exported 9 million tons of grain. Light industrial growth rates were lower during Stalin's industrialization drive than during the previous NEP pseudo-free market era and much lower than during tsarist "feudal" years.
>>18537959>produce infinite goods/overcome scarcity Not true, he thought that property rights in enterprise were meaningless because production was de facto collective and that said-rights had only been historically necessary for medieval trade>dynamic of organisation of production creates innovationOn the contrary, he recognized that competition had created innovation but believed that he was now in a time were monopolies, patent laws, aggressive competition etc stiffled science more than it enabled it. This is somewhat true : the people who produce innovation work in a lab and are funded by R&D, they very rarely invent something by themselves and market it. There is no reason for R&D to disappear in a socialist society Also you haven’t read Marx>>18538682There was competition amongst the ministries in the soviet union for resources allocation. >workers are entitled their laborNo he didn’t, in fact he opposes this on the ground of requiring coordination and this being a moralistic attitude
>>18540825>There is no reason for R&D to disappear in a socialist societyThe innovation in question:
>>18537959>taking Marx seriously
