What, if Anything, is "Capitalism"

... capitalism is not simply an economic system – it creates an entire culture that invades almost every aspect of life. It is a top-down culture where those on the bottom are virtually powerless and those on the top issue orders. It atomizes people by forcing them to compete against one another rather than join together in the pursuit of the common good. This is the culture that one confronts at work, whether in the private or public sector, in schools where students must compete against one another for grades, and it even infuses the union movement. Union members are rarely encouraged to engage in significant decision-making within their union (with the exception of unions like the Chicago Teachers Union) and hence for the most part do not bother to vote in union elections. Similarly, when unions call for mass demonstrations, few of their members bother to show up.

... Counterpunch 

As you move "leftward" in the political spectrum, capitalism is portrayed more and more like this. There is broad agreement that our current political system is "capitalism" and that is inherently evil. There are many problems with this idea ...

For starts, I think Chomsky makes a lot of sense by describing our current system as "Corporate Welfare". He also points out that the really big corporations utterly depend on government handouts. The point is that there is not enough connection between "capitalism" and our current system to call the system "capitalist". In particular, it makes no sense to talk about "capitalism" as an entire culture as we see above. To my mind, it makes more sense to describe the "philosophy" of our current culture as "consumerism". This shift of perspective puts the whole discussion beyond the reach of Marx who could not have imagined the lifestyle of even "poor" people in the 21st century developed world.

So, apart from an incorrect label for our current social model, what can "capitalism" possibly mean? I hope I don't betray my ignorance of Marx by saying it has a lot to do with the ownership of the means of production, which (in Marx's view, probably correct in the 19th century) creates the situation described in the quote above, including jobs going to the lowest bidder etc.

In Marx's day, this "system" was not very old. Formerly, giant corporations were created by royal fiat (such as the grant of the entire territory of what is now Canada to the Hudson's Bay Company or Virgina to Walter Ralley). There is an interesting parallel to those days when warfare was also a commercial enterprise, funded by some of the earliest joint stock companies, but don't let me get started on that.

Corporate "ownership" has gone through radical changes since the time of Queen Elizabeth and these changes continue to take place. Among many fundamental changes is the advent of "fiat currency", which makes money a kind of information. Such currency can be created and destroyed without references to physical laws like conservation of matter (applicable to, say, gold). Especially since World War II, the economy has shifted to being "information based". For example, most of the value in an iPad is the cost of licensing the technology, not the labor or materials. This would be "Science Fiction" to Marx. The money we pay for the iPad is also "information".

Divorcing "money" from the real physical world has lead to some bizarre situations. There is really no limit to how much "money" anyone can have (or print), especially if that person's wealth is based on production of valuable information (like a rock band) or the ability to print money (like all sovereign governments of the world). This creates a class structure that echoes the one that Marx complained about, but is so utterly different Marx can't really tell us much about it. The current class difference is between those who trade in information (including money) and those who must sell the the old fashioned "sweat of their brow" to the highest bidder. A third class is those who have nothing at all to sell.

I'm no economist, but my suspicion is that this has a lot to do with the lamented gap between the "1%" and the rest of us. In the face of such pessimism, I can only point out that information (which I hold is the new "money") is getting exponentially cheaper by the day, which is not surprising since information can be copied, cloned and combined without limit. Perhaps we need to define a fourth class - those who intensely value information. In the new economy, these people grow richer through their ability to access, interpret and apply information that is for all intents and purposes free.

But I digress ...

Old fashioned "money" still exists and we all need to eat. Most of us need "jobs". Just as we still have a Queen of Canada, the bones of the old economy underlie the new.

A new "capitalist" can create a "means of production" in the Marxist sense by:

• Existing in a framework of laws that protect "good will", the information value of the company - such things as patents and trademarks
• Conforming to the laws of the host State, including keeping records and paying taxes -- an expense that can easily exceed such things as rent. Directors of companies expose themselves personally to lawsuits. Shifting regulations can make the difference between survival and ruin.
• Finding, training and keeping skilled employees who, unlike the mill workers in the days of Marx, are free to pick up stakes at short notice and take their new skills with them to sell to the highest bidder.
• Finding capital. There are a dizzying number of ways to do this, all with "strings attached" that Marx could not have imagined. The existence of such a wide variety of sources of capital is, I suppose, what gives our system the legitimate name of "capitalism", but the vast majority of small businesses are funded the old fashioned way: out of the pocket of the founder.
• Finding customers. Of course, without customers, the enterprise will quickly die. It's astonishing how many people who have never started a business don't understand this.
• Successfully weighing risk. The vast majority of enterprises eventually fail, taking the fortunes of their founders with them. Employees are barely inconvenienced -- there are more jobs out there. Depending on how capital is raised, owners face ruin.
• In the case of success (much more rare and difficult than people think), owners and/or investors can become incredibly wealthy. But lets not forget that bond holders (such as all those boomers) get paid on time, taxes get paid and the corporation is usually (but not always) produces something of exceptional value for the consumer.

In a nutshell, this is the current "capitalist" system. The "capitalist" part of it has mainly to do with how easy it is to scrape up capital for a good idea with a promising market. The rest of it would seem to apply to any "means of production" in any political system. So what do the "anti-capitalists" propose to do? In Russia and China, we have the answer: hand over massive corporations to private individuals, skipping the need for them to raise more money than a few bribes to the "ex" communist leaders. In these cases, the risk is assumed by the public, the customers are handed over without the need to win them and usually without alternatives.

It is not surprising that the catastrophe also works in the opposite direction, when successful businesses are "privatized". Risk is assumed by the public. The new "business" has no need to justify its need for additional resources since it now has the ability to tax the general public to keep itself afloat. There is no more need for innovation. Such moves are usually made with the specific intent to remove all competition.

I'm not "pro" or "anti" "capitalism". I just think it's important to understand how the system actually works and what the alternatives really are. Dogma and all the -isms seldom point to rational policies.

Finally, I need to point out that many corporations succeed in producing value for the owners but produce no value (or negative value) for the consumer. This magic is usually pulled off by outright corruption of the political process (such as with the tobacco companies or "Obamacare") or by creating the false impression of a need (such as with weapons manufactures). Other companies succeed by leveraging massive public investment to patent discoveries made at public expense (drug companies), by "ownership" of resources that should be held in common (telecommunications companies) or by providing "services" that should really be provided to citizens by right (medical insurance companies).

Companies manage to break out of the ideal "capitalist" paradigm for by various means, but the core motivation is always the same: survival. Of course, massive profits don't hurt. In principal, such abuses of the "capitalist" system can be rolled back. Rolling them back is a perfectly legitimate goal of progressive politics. Rollback is resisted not (as generally imagined) to protect the fortunes of the rich, but to protect the survival of cancers masquerading as businesses. The "rich" are just as assimilated by the cancer as anybody else, but it is a comfortable assimilation. They just need to check their humanity and moral sense at the board room door.

ANTI-CAPITALISTS

If capitalism is meaningless, "anti-capitalism" borders on comic absurdity. Those who claim this attribute seem to be saying "I hate my job, can't get a better one and it's not my fault". It's a personal admission of failure to "fit in" to a society that they think is "capitalist". One suspects that the failure to understand how the society works may contribute to their lack of success fitting in. But it's easier to imagine that there is a conspiracy against morally pure folks. Such people have a tendency to identify in slightly insulting ways with people who are genuinely disadvantaged (but don't have time for philosophy), such as Hispanics, Aboriginals, African Americans ...

If they have an meaningful political program, Anti-capitalists seem to be outraged at the inequality in society (which, to them, is somehow new and a result of "Capitalism"). It's quite true that economic principals like the "law" of supply and demand tend to put little money in the hands of people whose labor is not in demand. But this is not a capitalist "law". It's an economic law. There are poor people all over the world in all kinds of political systems, even those without "money" or any kind of "system" apart from centuries-old tradition.

ECONOMIC THEOLOGY

For the true capitalist, there is no society, only the economy. While it is impossible to banish the role of capital from the economy, it should be possible to consider the welfare of society as something quite different from the health of the economy. At present, virtually all political parties, including the "socialists" see the way to improving the lot of the citizen is only through improving economic security (narrowing the income "gap", providing jobs etc).

Even the "Greens" tend to concede this point - for example, by touting the economic benefits of a clean environment. Few politicians will concede the necessity to pay a significant price (in GDP, for example) for a sustainable future. Support for education, health, safety and culture is grudging at best and always treated as a "line item" cost in the budget, which must be (for religious regions) be "balanced".  The true "balance sheet" of a society must recognize the value of a healthy, safe, well educated public.

Even in purely economic terms, resource depletion should be treated as a reduction in assets, not solely tax revenue for the government and GDP contribution from the extractive industries. "Externalities" such as pollution and climate change need to be accounted for.

So, you might say that the problem with "Capitalism" is that its proponents "cook the books" to show an illusionary "profit" for society, hiding the costs to society and the disappearance of common assets. This is *before* you consider the fact that the entire approach only considers things that can be priced by the market. If it can't be bought and sold, it's not worth considering.

"FINANCE CAPITALISM": PRIVATIZATION OF PROFIT, SOCIALIZATION OF DEBT

It is crucially important to distinguish between "industrial" capitalism and "finance" capitalism. At the very least, one must recognize that Marxist theory was born in the era of "industrial" capitalism. One may defend the benefits of "industrial" capitalism against the logic of Marxist socialism, but "finance" capitalism is an entirely different thing -- a system that directly benefits the owners of "capital" while socializing risk. The "capitalist" (imagined to be the mythical creative entrepreneur) disappears from this picture.

The conflict between "finance capitalism" and "socialism" became clear in the crash of 2008, where banks, "too big to fail", were saved at enormous public expense. A very informative documentary of the way this works is provided here in the case of Europe. "Bailing out" a bank involves paying off the bank's creditors. Following the money trail, you find that the creditors are other banks and bond holders. When these loans *don't* fail, such creditors make money. When the loans were made irresponsibly and eventually can't be paid back, the creditors still get paid, but out of the public pocket.

The official logic is that allowing one bank to fail will cause its creditor banks to fail and so on, bringing down the entire "system" in a collapse of a house of cards.

Modern Marxism

Wolff's presentation articulates the logic behind replacing "Capitalism" with worker-owned enterprises. I will call this "modern Marxism" since there are many ways to replace capitalism - worker-owned coops being one of them.

There is a profound misunderstanding about wage stagnation - the "basket of goods" radically changes over the years. This is the same fallacy as the idea that GDP "measures" something that can be compared between countries across decades.

He's right about the growth of debt, which seems to be baked into 21st-century capitalism. In fact, money, the most liquid form of capital, is always equal to the debt that created the money in the first place.

China is not capitalist. Wolff's idea of outsourcing is relevant but maybe not to China. He loves a "politically controlled workforce." Maybe not coherent with his praise of China and worker coops. Are there worker coops in China? Or is China inheriting all the evils of capitalism? See this post. Generally speaking, Wolff has the problem that no actual communist nation has ever existed. One must suspect that there is some inherent problem with Marxism since it always seems to be a theory that is tossed out right after the revolution.

Wolff is a great storyteller and an eloquent purveyor of motivated reasoning. Just like Marx, he always seems to think that the collapse of capitalism is right around the corner.

An interesting American hybrid of capitalism and worker co-ops is discussed here. Many others exist, such as co-ops of customers (grocery stores) and suppliers (agricultural products). The "capitalist" model is hardly inevitable, but for whatever reason, every country in the world sees 30% or more of its wealth in the hands of the top 1%. The story seems to be different for each country.

Wolff is an entertaining speaker, but I can't help feeling he is carried away with the idea that his problems with capitalism mean that capitalism is on the breach of collapse. This is wishful thinking - the same mistake Marx made. Wolff, as a modern Marxist, is preoccupied with the workplace. In 2022 we seem to have issues that move beyond tinkering with our political system. We also see the "control" fallacy in his reasoning. For the changes he proposes, the powers-that-be must be "onside," which raises the question of how this might happen. If the economy is (as he claims) owned and operated by the rich, how, exactly, does he propose to make fundamental changes that amount to unseating the 1% from their position of power? Bloody revolution seems to be the only course. Historically, this has never actually led to a Marxist society.

Capitalism Revisited

I have written a bit about capitalism in the past. In this post, I'd like to put the idea in the context of how it relates to other elements of our society, past, and present.

Here is a great Wikipedia article on capitalism. I love the way it puts capitalism in a historical context. The relatively modern view of capitalism seems to have emerged with Marx, who viewed it as an inherently evil and doomed system. These days, defenders of capitalism present it as the exact opposite of "socialism", which is seen to be evil in all its variations.

It helps to avoid all the moral outrage and take a look at what capitalism is and why some like it but others don't.

The issue is about ownership of the means of production, along with ownership of "profits" arising from that ownership. We are bothered by the fact that the "owners" are a tiny minority of society and the rest of us slave to make the rich even richer.

To me, this system seems to be built into virtually any historical society we can call "civilized". Civil societies are (literally) based in cities and have economies based (at least) on agriculture. The oldest civilizations we know of emerge fully formed complete with kings and armies defending the territory (which is necessary for agriculture - they are based on the ownership of land). So, along with civilization, we get the concept of land ownership. The land is the means of production - mainly food. Civilization produces enough food with labor capacity left over to make temples, trade with other nations, manufacture, etc. Thus, at the very beginning of history, we have all the elements in place for a "capitalist" structure. "Ownership" of land is always concentrated in a noble class or even the single person of the king. These societies also emerge into the light of history at war with each other. Accordingly, the "ruling class" has an additional responsibility: to organize citizens to defend the land. It's obvious that there is a high premium on "organized" defense (or offense), along with terrible consequences if you are defeated in this situation. On the "upside", the rewards of success are significant and we see little empires being built with the spoils of war right at the beginning of history. The rich are getting richer and the poor are being enslaved (if they are lucky).

My point is that this "top-down" way of organizing society is ancient and a natural - almost mathematical - consequence of the need to "own" territory to support agriculture. In the Americas, we see civilization following a similar path. As the crops go in, temples go up, so do the armies and so does the power of the elite.

To be sure, this "natural" system sucks for all but the "nobility". In all these civilizations we see slavery and human sacrifice alongside the benefits arising from a stable food source.

Forgive me if I take so long to arrive at my point, which is this: Those who chafe under "capitalism" are challenging the concentration of ownership and power in the hands of the elite. They are also complaining that their work and their very lives are sacrificed to make the rich richer. Welcome to the human race.

With this background, I'd like to ask if the modern version of this system represents progress for the average member of society. In its modern form, the system can be called "capitalism", which is defined as:

"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

I must register a minor refinement of this definition, since, in the actual modern capitalist systems, the state is indirectly controlled by the rich. They are, in effect, "one dollar one vote" societies. However, the definition lends built-in support for the "Libertarian" point of view that wants to explicitly subtract the "state" from the definition.

In practice, we find that "trade and industry" cannot be controlled entirely by private owners or the "state". To understand this, we need to introduce another concept, almost as old as history itself: the marketplace. This entity is implied by our definition, which mentions "trade". "Trade" is an advance on the old ideas of conquest and slavery. You can obtain what you want by mutual exchange rather than enslaving people to force them to work or killing them to take their land.

The problem with total "state" control of "trade" is that the "state" sits on both sides of the bargaining table, effectively destroying the concept of price and the marketplace itself. It is amusing to see Gorbachev, in his autobiography, waking up to the fact that the USSR had no concept of "cost". They just decided what was wanted, then micro-managed the entire society to produce it (this is called a "command economy"). The result was not pretty. We see this mistake being repeated over and over - most recently in Venezuela.

The problem with total control by "private owners" is that the majority of citizens don't like it and they have guns. Just as in the former case (state control), the system needs to be shoved down the throats of the citizens at the point of a gun. Pinochet's Chile is a good example, created explicitly by the "Chicago school" of "market fundamentalists".

So most modern national economies represent a compromise (I won't say "balance") between the two extremes. The fly in the ointment is that the essential component of the economy (the marketplace) is inherently unstable. There is no way to control wild swings in prices especially if the marketplace is dominated by speculation. A speculator buys not for any direct purpose but on the belief that what he buys will rise in cost and he will be able to sell at a profit. This belief actually causes the price to rise and the psychology works just as well in the opposite direction (crashing prices). With a lot of cash sloshing around in the economy and the rich having "savings" that they expect to "work for them", this instability is magnified and can cause regular booms and crashes. On a more subtle level, total state control is also "speculation" since prices are a figment of the imagination in some five-year plan, resulting in "trade" that ends in disaster.

You can't take human psychology out of the marketplace, but the market is real. Inserting a computer into the trading mechanism just makes things go wrong faster. It is not the computer who "decides" on a trade. It is the owner of the computer program who speculates that a certain mechanism will work out.

All this is rather "macro" from the point of view of the average citizen. To see how these systems could every survive beyond a few weeks, we need to dive down into the details.

For one thing the "state" steps in to keep the whole thing from running off the rails:

• It guarantees property rights, something that is more important than voting rights, which only pretend to grant the citizen some measure of control.
• Citizens whose protected ownership of capital can pool capital to create entities whose capital is also protected. Such enterprises are responsible for almost all of what we call "material progress". But such pools of capital are also responsible for the instability mentioned above. Any "investment" is "speculation".
• In spite of appearances, almost all of what the "State" spends is spent in the marketplace. Except for work done directly by employees of the State, all assets and services are purchased from the marketplace. Even employees must be hired from the competitive pool of labor created by the marketplace. In a modern economy, the "State" is the biggest single buyer in the marketplace, often accounting for as much as 50% of the GDP. We see that the alternative assumed in the definition of "capitalism" makes little sense, since, while the State may not "control" trade and industry, it is the gorilla in the marketplace that directly or indirectly controls what goods and services are created by the society. 
• Combining the above insights, the modern "capitalist" state is a combination of "one dollar one vote" representation and "one dollar one vote" economic control. 
• The participation of the "ordinary citizen" is restricted to ceremonial participation in elections and finding a job. 
• The citizen is also free to participate in marches and wave placards to express moral outrage at the injustice of the "system" as a whole. This can be seen as an ancient "emergent" phenomenon - a consequence of the "way things are". If you need to shoot or imprison too many people to keep things going, you are opting for the "Pinochet system". With modern technology, there is virtually no limit to how citizens' protest can be suppressed, as demonstrated by what might be called the "Chinese" system. The "Canadian" system is far preferable to either of these ways of suppressing the protest. My theory is that the "Canadian" system (liberal democracy) is preferable to the others. Canadian "anti-capitalists" need to concentrate on making the system work rather than futile "outrage".

Given this insight, it is difficult to see a clear alternative to "capitalism", but we can see ways to improve it. In my view, anything we do needs to take care to preserve the stability of the economic system, which has a tendency to blow up. Against the insight of the anti-capitalist school, the #1 task is to preserve the marketplace. To do this we need to preserve price stability, namely, protect the currency. This is unwelcome news to anti-capitalists who tend to assume that money is somehow imaginary and the "root of all evil". We also need to keep a close eye on "speculation", which is the root cause of market instability. Ug. Regulations!!

To preserve political stability we need the system to be perceived as "fair" - at least to the point where thousands are not picking up guns. The milder form of such mass displeasure is the support of ill-advised regulation (along with equally ill-advised opposition to all regulation). An example of a regulation that aims squarely at instability is a tax on financial transactions along with capital gains taxes, adding "friction" and pushing against outright speculation. An example of stupid regulation is income tax, which pisses off almost everyone (fueling political instability) and doing nothing to create economic stability. Income tax introduces "friction" in exactly the wrong place. We need currency to flow freely through the economy, like water through the tissues of a plant. But currency should flow freely in the marketplace for "real stuff" and "real services". Free-flow of currency in the financial industry (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) is pure speculation with no "upside" for the economy as a whole.

There are a lot of specific ideas that flow from this line of reasoning. I'd love to take them up, especially if my reader(s) have questions or comments.

Practical Marxism (Perplexity)

ho

Cuba and the Ideal Marxist Society: An Assessment

Defining an Ideal Marxist Society

According to Marxist theory, an ideal Marxist society would be characterized by:

• The abolition of private ownership of the means of production, replaced by collective or cooperative ownership.

• Production oriented toward meeting human needs rather than generating private profit.

• The withering away of the state as class antagonisms disappear.

• Genuine worker control over production and the state (dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional phase).

• The eventual achievement of a classless, stateless, and egalitarian society16.

Cuba’s Marxist-Leninist System in Practice

Cuba is constitutionally defined as a single-party Marxist–Leninist socialist republic, with the Communist Party as the leading force in society and the state. Since 1961, Cuba has pursued socialist policies, including:

• Nationalization of most industries and land.

• Central planning of the economy.

• Universal access to healthcare, education, and social services.

• Efforts to reduce socioeconomic inequality and promote social justice57.

Achievements:

• The Cuban Revolution overthrew the previous capitalist oligarchy, dramatically reduced inequality, and established universal access to key social services.

• The state has prioritized redistributive policies, anti-imperialism, and solidarity with developing nations.

• Marxism-Leninism is deeply integrated with Cuba’s national identity and revolutionary tradition, furthering its legitimacy and continuity.

Gaps Between Cuba and Marxist Ideals

Despite these achievements, several factors indicate that Cuba falls short of Marx’s ideal vision:

1. Persistent State Centralization and Bureaucracy

• Cuba’s socialism has been described as “socialism from above,” with strong central power, limited self-organization, and the supremacy of official ideology.

• The Communist Party monopolizes political power, and genuine pluralism or worker self-management is limited.

• Bureaucracy and lack of popular control over the state apparatus have been persistent issues, contradicting the Marxist ideal of workers’ direct control5.

2. Economic Scarcity and Market Elements

• Scarcity of resources and economic crises have forced Cuba to introduce market-oriented reforms and allow some private enterprise, especially in agriculture and small businesses4.

• According to Marxist theory, socialism presupposes a level of material abundance and technological development that Cuba has not yet achieved, largely due to its economic underdevelopment and external pressures, such as the US embargo.

• The state still dominates the economy, but the necessity of private markets and foreign investment reflects a departure from pure socialist principles.

3. Political and Civil Liberties

• Cuba is characterized as an authoritarian regime with limited political freedoms, censorship, and repression of independent journalism7.

• Marxism envisions the eventual withering away of the state and the flourishing of human freedom, but in Cuba, the state remains highly centralized and dissent is not tolerated7.

4. Social Contradictions and Crises

• In recent years, Cuba has faced severe economic collapse, shortages of basic goods, blackouts, and mass emigration, undermining the material basis for socialism2.

• Popular protests and social discontent have increased, indicating unresolved contradictions within Cuban society2.

Summary Table: Cuba vs. Ideal Marxist Society

Feature	Ideal Marxist Society	Cuba Today
Ownership of Production	Collective/cooperative	State-owned, with growing private sector
Political System	Worker democracy, withering state	Single-party, centralized, authoritarian
Economic Orientation	Production for use, abundance	Scarcity, partial market reforms
Social Equality	Classless society	Reduced inequality, but persistent issues
Civil Liberties	Expanding freedoms, self-organization	Limited political/civil liberties
Role of State	Transitional, then withers away	Strong, enduring central authority

Conclusion

Cuba has made significant strides toward some Marxist goals, such as reducing inequality, providing universal social services, and breaking with capitalist oligarchy53. However, it remains far from an ideal Marxist society due to persistent state centralization, economic scarcity, limited worker control, and ongoing political repression457. The current economic and social crises further distance Cuba from the Marxist vision of abundance, freedom, and classless society2. While Cuba’s system is rooted in Marxist-Leninist principles, it reflects the challenges and contradictions of building socialism in a materially constrained, geopolitically isolated context.

how close is china to an ideal marxist society

how close is china to an ideal marxist society

Investopedia

Marxism: What It Is and Comparison to Communism, Socialism, and ...

Dissent Magazine

Make China Marxist Again - Dissent Magazine

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics - Wikipedia

+49 sources

China's political and economic system, while officially rooted in Marxist-Leninist ideology, diverges significantly from Karl Marx’s theoretical vision of a communist society. Here’s an analysis of its alignment with Marxist ideals:

Key Marxist Principles vs. China’s Reality

1. Ownership of Production

   • Marxist Ideal: Collective ownership by workers, abolishing private property.

   • China: A "socialist market economy" with state-owned enterprises (SOEs) dominating strategic sectors (e.g., energy, finance) but coexisting with a large private sector. Private capitalists and billionaires operate under state oversight56.

2. Classless Society

   • Marxist Ideal: Elimination of class distinctions.

   • China: Significant wealth inequality persists, with a growing middle class and a billionaire elite. The Gini coefficient (income inequality measure) remains high (~0.47 in 2023)6.

3. Role of the State

   • Marxist Ideal: The state "withers away" as class antagonisms dissolve.

   • China: A centralized, authoritarian party-state with no tolerance for dissent. The CCP maintains a monopoly on power, blending Leninism with technocratic governance34.

4. Economic Priorities

   • Marxist Ideal: Production for human needs, not profit.

   • China: Market-driven growth prioritized since 1978, with profit-oriented reforms lifting 800 million out of poverty but creating environmental degradation and labor exploitation56.

5. Globalization

   • Marxist Ideal: International worker solidarity against capitalism.

   • China: Deep integration into capitalist globalization, becoming the world’s largest trading nation and a hub for multinational corporations45.

Ideological Adaptations

• "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics": Justified as a "primary stage" of socialism, blending Marxist-Leninist theory with pragmatic market reforms. Deng Xiaoping argued this was necessary to develop productive forces before achieving higher-stage socialism37.

• Xi Jinping Thought: Emphasizes party control, nationalism, and "common prosperity" initiatives (e.g., poverty alleviation) while rejecting Western-style welfare systems as "laziness-inducing"6.

Contradictions and Criticisms

• State Capitalism: Scholars describe China’s economy as state capitalism, where the CCP directs market activity to maintain power56.

• Repression of Labor: Independent unions and strikes are banned, contradicting Marx’s emphasis on proletarian agency6.

• Elite Consolidation: The CCP’s merger with corporate elites (e.g., Alibaba, Tencent) blurs class lines, creating a new "red capitalist" class6.

Comparative Analysis

Aspect	Marxist Ideal	China’s System
Economy	Classless, collectivized	Hybrid state-market model
Politics	Stateless democracy	Authoritarian party-state
Social Equality	Egalitarian	High inequality, elite dominance
Global Role	Anti-capitalist revolution	Capitalist globalization driver

Conclusion

China’s system is a pragmatic adaptation of Marxism-Leninism, prioritizing economic development and geopolitical power over ideological purity. While it retains socialist rhetoric and policies (e.g., poverty reduction, SOEs), its embrace of market mechanisms, class stratification, and authoritarian governance place it far from Marx’s stateless, egalitarian vision. The CCP frames this as a transitional phase, but critics argue it represents a fusion of Leninism and capitalism rather than a path to communism356.

how does russian society compare to marxist ideas

how does russian society compare to marxist ideas

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Marxism–Leninism - Wikipedia

reddit.com

What are the main differences between Marxism, Stalinism ... - Reddit

reddit

When you research Marx's View of Russians, it makes it more ironic ...

+36 sources

Russian Society and Marxist Ideals: A Comparative Analysis

Executive Summary

Russian society, both during the Soviet era and in the post-Soviet period, has exhibited significant deviations from classical Marxist principles. While the Soviet Union institutionalized Marxism-Leninism as its official ideology, its implementation prioritized centralized state control, authoritarian governance, and rapid industrialization over Marx’s vision of a classless, stateless society. Post-1991 Russia, under Vladimir Putin, has further distanced itself from Marxist ideals, embracing capitalist economics, nationalism, and a hybrid authoritarian model. This report examines the gaps between Marxist theory and Russian socio-political realities, analyzing historical and contemporary contradictions.

1. Marxist Foundations vs. Soviet Praxis

1.1 Core Tenets of Marxism

Marxist theory posits that capitalism inherently generates class conflict between the proletariat (workers) and bourgeoisie (capitalists). Revolution would establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a transitional phase toward communism, characterized by:

• Abolition of private property: Collective ownership of production means.

• Withering away of the state: A stateless, classless society emerges as class antagonisms dissolve.

• Worker self-governance: Direct democratic control over economic and political structures113.

1.2 Soviet Marxism-Leninism: A Divergent Path

The Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin adopted Marxism-Leninism, which reinterpreted Marx through a pragmatic lens:

• Vanguard party rule: Lenin’s concept of a centralized, elite party (the Bolsheviks) directing the proletariat contradicted Marx’s emphasis on grassroots worker agency113.

• State capitalism: The New Economic Policy (1921) reintroduced limited private enterprise, acknowledging Russia’s underdeveloped productive forces. Stalin later enforced forced collectivization and Five-Year Plans, creating a state-controlled economy that Marxists critiqued as "bureaucratic collectivism"16.

• Authoritarian governance: The Soviet state suppressed dissent, maintained a secret police apparatus, and centralized power—antithetical to Marx’s vision of proletarian democracy15.

Marx himself doubted Russia’s readiness for socialism, given its semi-feudal economy in the 19th century. His letter to Vera Zasulich (1881) suggested that peasant communes might bypass capitalism, but this required external support from industrialized European revolutions—a condition unmet in 19178.

2. Post-Soviet Russia: Rejection of Marxist Orthodoxy

2.1 Transition to Capitalism

The 1991 Soviet collapse marked a definitive break from Marxist-Leninist economics:

• Privatization: State assets were transferred to oligarchs, creating a capitalist class. By 2023, Russia’s Gini coefficient (~0.41) reflected significant inequality, contrasting Marx’s egalitarian aims1215.

• Integration into global capitalism: Russia became a resource-exporting economy reliant on foreign investment, contradicting Marxist anti-imperialist principles610.

2.2 Ideological Shift to Putinism

Vladimir Putin’s regime combines nationalism, authoritarianism, and selective historical nostalgia:

• Silovik dominance: Security service elites (FSB, National Guard) control political and economic levers, fostering a "state capitalist" system11.

• Rejection of Soviet legacy: Putin has criticized Lenin for destabilizing Russia’s imperial unity and creating a "time bomb" through ethno-territorial federalism15.

• Co-optation of Marxist symbols: The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) remains a nominal opposition force but avoids challenging capitalist structures, focusing instead on social welfare rhetoric12.

3. Contradictions Between Contemporary Russia and Marxist Theory

3.1 Economic Structures

• Oligarchic capitalism: Wealth is concentrated among Putin-aligned elites (e.g., Rotenberg brothers, Timchenko), resembling Marx’s critique of bourgeois dominance1112.

• State-directed markets: Strategic sectors (energy, defense) remain under state control, but profit motives drive decision-making, aligning with state capitalism rather than socialism511.

3.2 Political System

• Authoritarian centralization: The Kremlin suppresses dissent, manipulates elections, and restricts civil liberties, diverging from Marx’s democratic ideals511.

• Personality cult: Putin’s leadership cult echoes Stalinist practices, emphasizing nationalist unity over class consciousness1115.

3.3 Social Dynamics

• Depoliticization: Mass political engagement is discouraged, contravening Marx’s emphasis on proletarian activism1112.

• Nationalism over internationalism: Putin’s "Russian World" ideology prioritizes ethnic and cultural identity, rejecting Marxist class-based solidarity1114.

4. Case Study: The Russian Left’s Marginalization

4.1 The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF)

• Bourgeois alignment: The CPRF supports limited social reforms but avoids questioning private property, functioning as a "loyal opposition" within capitalist frameworks12.

• Nostalgic rhetoric: Party discourse emphasizes Soviet-era achievements (e.g., space program, victory in WWII) rather than revolutionary praxis912.

4.2 Independent Marxist Groups

• Intellectual isolation: Groups like the Russian Socialist Movement focus on theoretical education due to the absence of a strong labor movement12.

• State repression: Anti-war activists and leftist organizers face persecution, reflecting the regime’s intolerance of class-based dissent12.

5. Theoretical Implications: Why Russia Defies Marxist Predictions

5.1 Historical Materialism Revisited

Marx anticipated socialism emerging from advanced capitalism. Russia’s 1917 revolution occurred in a feudal-agrarian society, necessitating Stalin’s "socialism in one country"—a deviation that entrenched authoritarianism114.

5.2 The Role of Global Capitalism

Post-Soviet Russia’s dependency on oil/gas exports and Western capital illustrates Marx’s analysis of imperialism but negates his vision of proletarian internationalism610.

6. Conclusion: A Post-Marxist Landscape

Modern Russia embodies a capitalist-authoritarian model antithetical to Marxist ideals. While Soviet Marxism-Leninism preserved elements of state socialism, its authoritarianism and economic inefficiencies led to collapse. Today, Putinism synthesizes nationalism, oligarchy, and anti-Western rhetoric, leaving no space for class-based mobilization. The CPRF’s impotence and the left’s marginalization underscore the discrediting of Marxism in Russian society, which now associates it with Soviet stagnation rather than liberation101215.

Marx’s critique of capitalism remains relevant to analyzing Russian inequality and oligarchic power. However, the absence of a revolutionary proletariat and the hegemony of nationalist narratives suggest that any revival of Marxist politics would require reinvention beyond Leninist and Soviet frameworks.