What is the root cause of the problems of the world, and what can I do about it?

Q: What is the root cause of the problems of the world?

A: Capitalism (that is, the political-economic system we currently live in, in which the infrastructure is owned by private individuals and groups instead of everyone in common, and therefore in which political-economic decisions are made according to what will bring the most profit to those individuals and private groups). From the first moment of capitalism’s existence up to the present moment it has sustained and exacerbated poverty, oppression, war, and ecological destruction. It cannot exist without these things, and if we want an end to them, we must move to a system of a democratically run planned economy.

Q: Can capitalism be reformed away peacefully, or through legal methods?

A: No. This has been attempted many times. All such attempts involve attempts to move people, resources, and infrastructure beyond the reach of the profit system. This invariably hurts the profits of the capitalists of the world, and every single time their profits are significantly reduced, they use their control of the political system to ensure that violent repression is used to smash the movement against the profit system, thereby returning the people, resources, and infrastructure back to the disposal of the profit system.

Q: If such a movement must invariably be confronted with violent attacks, how can it survive such violent attacks and still succeed?

A: Capitalism depends on the existence of a working class. Without a working class, there would be no one to prop up the capitalist class, and their entire system would fall apart. Therefore, the capitalist class cannot act to harm the entire working class. Thus, a movement to end capitalism that merges itself with the working class, and which is harbored and concealed within the working class, cannot be destroyed.

Q: How can a movement to end capitalism merge itself with the working class?

A: By carrying out a method of organizing called the mass line.

The essence of this method is “from the masses, to the masses.”

The mass line combines and acts upon two important truths: the masses are endlessly creative, and they are the true makers of history. We also believe that organizers are necessary for the victory of any mass movement. The mass line acknowledges both of these crucial facts.

The mass line has three steps:

1. Gather all the diverse and sometimes contradictory ideas and demands of the people.

2. Analyze them using an understanding of revolutionary theory, revolutionary history, and revolutionary experience in order to sharpen the people’s ideas and demands into programs, policies, and slogans that meet the immediate needs and demands of the people in a way that also (1) strengthens and deepens the people’s political understanding and (2) promotes the long-term interests of the entire global working class.

3. Go deeply among the people and spread these programs and ideas. Then, keep and improve the ideas that have been proven correct because the people have adopted them and made them their own—repeating this process over and over.

This process continuously grows and strengthens both the movement and its participants, deepens the connection between the organizers and the masses, attracts members of the masses to become organizers themselves, and raises the masses’ overall political consciousness.

Q: What does the practice of the mass line look like?

A: There are movements in India, such as the Communist Party of India (Maoist), and in the Philippines, such as the Communist Party of the Philippines, which have undertaken this method for many years and are now major forces for the end of capitalism in those respective countries, on track to end capitalism within a couple of decades.

Q: What about in the united states?

A: One of the most successful anticapitalist movements in recent history, the Black Panther Party, especially from 1966 to 1969, was very consciously practicing something much like the mass line, which was the source of both its community self-defense programs to meet the black community’s urgent need for security against a violent and racist police system, and their breakfast for children program, meeting people’s basic biological needs in order to allow them to focus on organizing their own lives rather than remaining at the mercy of a system that wants them desperate. This factor, this conscious practice of meeting the community’s needs while politicizing them and helping them take increasing self-directed control over their own destiny while defending themselves against capitalism’s and white supremacy’s attacks, was what led to the rapid growth of the BPP during this period of time. Their abandonment of this practice was what led to their disintegration.

Q: Is anyone carrying out the mass line in the united states today?

A: Organizations such as Serve the People – Los Angeles, and Serve the People – Austin are very consciously trying to undertake this strategy. STP-LA has been at it for longer and is steadily growing among the most oppressed and exploited section of the working class. STP-A has been going for a shorter time but is also showing promise.

Q: What can I do if I want to participate in this personally?

A: Study Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Probably the single best resource available for that is the MLM Basic Course.

If what you read there makes sense to you, either join, found, or support a Maoist collective in your area that intends to carry out the mass line.


A fatal criticism of the anarchist road to communism based on the necessity of the party in order for society to transform itself after the revolution

When we are discussing differences between Marxism and anarchism, we are talking about how to move from our current, incredibly crooked society, to one where the culture and material environment make it so that literally all humans are raised so that there is no major discrepancy between what will lead to their own personal flourishing and what will lead to the flourishing of the rest of humanity. that’s definitely a long-term project. nonetheless, i think what happened in China during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and the kinds of changes that we saw then, were the closest humanity had ever come to that fundamentally new type of society.

i think that the changes that have to take place require a party.

i think this because the changes that must happen to make this new world a reality cannot happen without an apparatus that the lowest and the deepest sections of the old society can make their own and use to push all of society through the material and ideological restructuring necessary to abolish the mechanisms that had formerly perpetuated their oppression. we need a coordinated way to do that, to collectively gather an understanding of our problems and then apply it to every part of society

no anarchist school of thought proposes a mechanism for this kind of holographic, top-to-bottom self-conscious alteration of society led by the most oppressed. all the anarchism i’ve ever heard of would de facto leave local variations in power among the people virtually unchanged. i believe these inequalities are the seeds of a return to capitalism, both in the way they do not challenge ideological and social hegemonies of some segments of the population over others (e.g., men over non-men, those who have been trained to do intellectual labor over those who were trained only to do manual labor) but also in the way they also disallow a coordinated and unified change of the physical, built environment.

additional verbiage:

without a party, the ongoing class struggle necessary even after the revolution cannot be systematically undertaken. A party is necessary to continuously collect the ideas of each and every part of the proletariat, especially the lowest and deepest sections, so that the proletariat has the best, fullest possible understanding of itself. Only with this comprehensive, all-around, full-spectrum, top-to-bottom picture of itself can the proletariat consciously remake itself and the world, both physically and culturally, to proceed ever more fully toward communism.

more verbiage:

in general there are two different conceptions of what it really means for the state to disappear going on in anarchist thinking vs. Marxist thinking.

anarchists imagine that the deal with wanting statelessness is “there’s somebody out there who wants to tell me what to do, and i’m not gonna do it.” this is in fact a capitalist/liberal notion of statelessness based on the idea of lone individuals getting hounded for scientifically inexplicable reasons and the idea that the masses out there are somehow prone to oppress.

the Marxist idea of statelessness recognizes that we have to take all the world as a global system and cure the whole thing of the patterns that lead to oppression, which–because the patterns of oppression prevailing in each part of the world are extremely historically entangled with the patterns of oppression prevailing in each other part of the world–requires gathering understandings from the whole world in order to transform each and every last part. we won’t get free by just little bits withdrawing here and there and them running their own show–we’ll get free by transforming everywhere into a well-functioning and cooperative and harmonious whole.

so, anarchism is like “let’s withdraw so no one oppresses me.” communism is like, “let’s dissolve the very root that leads to oppression to begin with, and we won’t need to “withdraw” because we will dissolve the distinction between withdrawer and withdrawee.

one of the most obvious examples of the necessity here is in coordinating reparations from imperialist “centers” to the previously most heavily exploited “peripheries.” such a complicated task will without a doubt require global coordination, but in fact the true eradication of white supremacy and patriarchy from every spot in the heart of every human being on earth will require even more subtle, complex, and elaborate coordination.

for a little bit more elaboration on this process, check out “The role of the people’s party under socialism in the masses’ conscious transformation of themselves: A metaphor with holograms”

for some brilliant discussion about what the economic transformations that must be undertaken in order to completely abolish structural inequality would look like, and what we have learned about how concretely to undertake them from the experience of socialism in China, check out “Capitalist and Maoist Economic Development”

for some equally brilliant discussion about the shortcomings of even the most thoughtful anarchist proposals for post-capitalist economics, check out the PCR-RCP’s “The Myth of Self-Management”

A not so terribly long and hopefully somewhat engaging story about how a libertarian became a communist

became a communist

You may have heard me summarize these events before, but this is *far and away* the best I’ve ever told the story. I feel re-inspired and reinvigorated just for having retold it like this, so I wanted to share it.

I used to be a libertarian. Like, a pro-capitalism, pro-market person who also wanted drugs and gay marriage to be legalized, and u.s. interventionism to be ended as much as possible. I started off as a Democrat when I was like thirteen because my parents were both Democrats, but then I read Ayn Rand when I was fifteen and then I also read this book “In Defense of Global Capitalism,” which is full of statistics that I found very convincing about why cutting regulations and lowering tariffs is best for everyone in every way. But I wasn’t *trying* to be an asshole or like a puritan Christian, and I believed in personal freedom, so I supported some “socially progressive” stuff. But I was also an outspoken advocate of “free markets” and such.

Virtually the only anticapitalists I would encounter for years were lifestylist anarchists on a college campus who, I don’t even remember what they said. I do know from time to time they would mention Chomsky or Howard Zinn, because I remembered those names when I started exploring on my own later. But they pointed out how this or that aspect of government policy was being corrupted by a corporation. For a while that just deepened my libertarianism, because the standard libertarian response is like, “Well, then if we just got rid of the government, then it couldn’t be corrupted.” The ideals of anarchism (“no gods, no masters”) made sense to me, but I wasn’t ready to abandon capitalism, so I became an anarchocapitalist.

But like, at the same time, the more I learned about the history of the time before government regulations, that seemed even *worse*. So on one hand I didn’t want government programs or regulations to stop, but I was also a quick advocate for removing tariffs and such, and believed that all arbitrary authorities should be destroyed.

It was a pretty contradictory position, and I didn’t see a solution, so I was pretty cynical for a while, even as the people around me continued to pour information about the greed of corporations on me. And I never stopped paying attention to electoral politics and geopolitics, even while I continued to not be able to draw any new conclusions about it, because I at least wanted to know what was going on in the world.

At a certain point, I also started to have the good fortune of the women around me starting to share their personal experiences of being oppressed as women, and I came to realize that patriarchy was real, and massive, and overwhelming. It made me incredibly sad once I realized that virtually every single woman on the planet had to go through the harassment and violence that my close friends were experiencing. I am a white nonbinary person who passes as male and as heterosexual from a mostly middle-class background–I had simply never encountered that knowledge before. I knew our society was unequal because–duh–how come there aren’t the same number of men and women senators and CEOs? But once I heard how violent and cruel the system was that created those effects, and from people I knew were not lying, how could I ignore it?

From there I got interested in feminism, and from there into what is called social justice in general. I learned about the history, gravity, depth, and brutality of white supremacy. Learning about white supremacy and the disparity of wealth between white and black people in the united states led me to believe that a huge part of a solution to the problem would simply have to be massive economic redistribution, regardless of my skepticism of government intervention. And I saw that the power structure DID seem to be racist and sexist. And I noticed that a lot of the people involved in social justice were interested in left-leaning politics, and sometimes even critical of capitalism itself–and meanwhile most of the libertarians I had bumped into over the years denied the reality or severity of patriarchy and white supremacy. I found myself consorting with people on the left end of the political spectrum more and more. And I liked them more, they were simply kinder and funnier.

And somewhere along this timeline, I graduated from college and had to take a job that did not pay well, and which I hated. I was poorer than I had ever been. I had to find ways of scraping by in every aspect of life, from living in bad housing to eating as cheap of food as I could find. I learned what it is to *constantly* worry about money. I learned how hard it is to find a job with any kind of security or personal enjoyment. And then the recession in 2008 hit, and they cut the pay at my job, and I got even poorer. To be poor is terrible, and I wasn’t even *close* to absolute poverty by global standards.

So then four things happened at roughly the same time:

First, I was lucky enough to have the internship that I’d had for two years help me land a salaried job, which paid quite well (at least for the area I was living in), plus it gave me benefits. I realized just how fucking stressed I had been about being poor, and realized that inevitably part of what keeps poor people poor is that existing in such deprivation is self-perpetuating. It’s like gravity–the closer you are to absolute poverty, the harder the forces pulling you down are. Meanwhile, with this new job, I had passed above an important economic line. I found it easy to keep saving more and more money, and saw how that could help me climb even higher if I wanted to. I saw on a personal level how, once you get above a certain amount of wealth, there’s a feedback loop that lets you keep getting wealthier.

Second, Occupy was going on. I started to hear lots of theories about what was going on in the world, including more anticapitalist stuff. Nothing too severe. A friend of mine happened to be reading “Debt: The First 5,000 Years.” Well, the concept of debt itself was being talked about a *lot* around that time, and I had heard people saying that book was interesting, so I decided to read it. More on that in a second.

Third, in fact while I was reading “Debt,” I went to what is called the Rainbow Gathering, a basically anarchist gathering in the forest where no money is exchanged, and anyone who shows up can eat for free. But they are asked to work, getting water, digging latrines, etc. in order to support the whole thing. There is a lot wrong with Rainbow, but it was an overall positive experience for me (probably because I am white and pass as a man). I met some incredibly kind and compassionate people there, and I saw an entirely different way of running society–one where people do things for each other because they love each other and they love the community and society that supports them. A society where each individual’s self-interest becomes expansive, and they recognize that their own personal flourishing will be fostered most by a society in which *ALL* people are flourishing.

The fourth thing is I watched the film “Malcolm X.” I’ll go more into that in a minute.

So, “Debt: The First 5,000 Years” is basically a history of class society. It tells again and again how the system of loans and interest crushed peasants and other laborers deeper and deeper into the ground with each passing generation, and how periodically they would rebel and force the debts to be erased, only for the cycle to start again. I started to grasp the structure of history, that ruling/owning classes and working/non-owning classes were very old indeed.

So at this point, I kind of already knew. I wasn’t quite ready to admit it, but I knew. I had basically already been chipped away at enough, but the “break” hadn’t happened yet. I had heard of “A People’s History of the United States” for forever. It’s mentioned in the movie “Good Will Hunting,” in fact. I kind of knew what I would find in that book after having read “Debt,” but I had never really had an interest in reading “A People’s History” up to that point in my life. So then I read it.

The heroes of “A People’s History” are anti-imperialists and anticapitalists from basically beginning to end. I would say now that the book has major shortcomings and problems, but for me at the time it really picked up right where “Debt” left off, and helped me see that the modern ruling class was really no different from the one that had emerged thousands of years ago. I saw (or came to believe, at least) that the root of the problem was that concentrated wealth is concentrated power, so if we want a free, non-oppressive, and truly democratic society, we simply have to disallow concentrated wealth.

Well, that basically meant I had become a communist, or at least that I believed communism would be good. I was pretty timid about it for a while, but after I finished reading “A People’s History,” I was ready to call myself a socialist, at least. And I was also ready to say that if nothing else, in order for the wealth to be sufficiently equalized, the political-economic system had to come under the power of the people, whether or not capitalism was entirely abolished. In short, I had come to believe in the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, though I had not yet realized that was the right term for it.

But once I knew I was a socialist, well, how convenient–there was a branch of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in my city. So I showed up to one of their meetings, and I met people who actually spoke respectfully and knowledgeably about Lenin and the Russian Revolution.

They also eased my transition by basically agreeing with all of my prejudices and stereotypes about the USSR under Stalin and the PRC under Mao that capitalist society had drilled into me.

And so although I have learned more, since then, and now uphold the USSR under Stalin and the PRC under Mao, I think it helped my transition into revolutionary socialism by having my first exposure to Leninist ideas come from people who didn’t also immediately try to tell me that the USSR and the PRC were overall good during those times instead of Very Very Bad (as I had always been told by basically everyone I had ever met in my life, and every TV program and movie I had ever watched, and every book I had ever read). So I was ready to listen.

As an aside, I think this is part of why there are so many Trotskyists in the First World, also–because they are willing to recognize that capitalism cannot be reformed and will have to be overthrown, but they can’t touch the third rail, they can’t break the taboo. Stalin is compared to Hitler, and Mao is even worse. No one wants to become a Hitler apologist, and upholding the contributions of Stalin and Mao feels like that’s how people will start to look at you. And many do, in fact. But it’s not as bad as I was worried it would be.

So it took me maybe a year, still, after showing up to that ISO meeting to accept, as they were telling me, that capitalism could not be reformed, and that a revolution was necessary. And what the folks at the ISO branch said about the necessity of the working class getting organized and powerful also made sense, so I recognized the need for some kind of hierarchical party, even if the end goal was a stateless society.

So about Malcolm X. Well, getting that salaried job gave me both the time and emotional reserves to try to focus on improving my mental health for, really, the first time in my life, instead of just scraping by. And a lot of my friends had gotten into practices like meditation, and also into some elements of wisdom traditions (the sort of stuff Ram Dass, Hazrat Inayat Khan, and Jiddu Krishnamurti talk about, for example) like trying to be present, and trying to be humble.

And I realized that there was tremendous validity in many of these practices–these practices worked, they helped me feel better. My whole life I had never understood why anyone would want to kill their ego–isn’t my ego me? Why would I want to kill me? But I realized that wasn’t what they were talking about. The ego is my bullshit delusions of grandeur, as well as my self-hate. I realized that I had been both aggrandizing myself and despising myself, when really I could let go of both, and it would be a lot better for me, emotionally. And I saw how addiction played into all of this–how people turn to addiction to treat their stress and pain. I saw how all the world was consumed with addiction to this or that. I myself was addicted to masturbating and watching porn, as well as to alcohol and cigarettes, as well as to looking at silly stuff on the internet. Even self-aggrandizement itself is an addiction, and I came to despise how arrogant I had been. I came to despise the whole of capitalist culture, and it was easy for me to see how capitalism REQUIRED us to all be addicted, consumed by these things. It was so insidious–capitalism poisons us spiritually. God, I want to cry just thinking about it. Capitalism rots our souls out, it seduces our well-intended desires into addictions, and then turns us against each other to achieve them.

In Rainbow Gathering, they refer to the outside world as Babylon. This comes to them via Rastafari, which calls the police and white supremacist, consumerist society Babylon. And the Rastas themselves got the term from the Bible. In the Old Testament, the Jewish people spend a while being a captive and oppressed people in the kingdom of Babylon. When Christianity came along it used this story as a metaphor–sin (which, to me, as a basically secular person, I was able to understand as being caught up in selfish, bullshit, addictive, egotistical desires) was Babylon, and Christ was the way out of Babylon.

I was also reading Dante’s “Divine Comedy” at the time and taking a course on it with a *really* good scholar of Dante. In Dante, there are some beautiful lines about freedom from sin, or what I took as freedom from addictive desire. At the beginning of “Purgatorio,” the second book in the “Comedy,” the protagonist has just crawled through the bottom of Hell. And Hell, in Dante, is a place where people are tortured by the sin they succumbed to in life. They are mocked and destroyed over and over again by the thing that caused them to turn from humility and expansive love to cold, narrow, inward-looking selfish love. And Hell is this dark, gray place, with no colors except for like blood colors and shit colors and pus colors.

And so the protagonist, at the beginning of Purgatory, he crawls through the center of the earth, out the bottom of Hell, and he’s on this island, and the sky is full of color, and it’s morning, and the sun is just rising, and the waters of the ocean are pure and he can wash himself clean of all the soot and shit and blood he’s gotten covered in going through Hell. And there’s this line,

“We were going along … like one seeking the lost path and, until he reaches it, feels he walks in vain.”

I felt like I had been looking for the right path my whole life, not even knowing if it was real or not, and oh my God, I had finally found it. I found it spiritually and politically all at once.

So watching “Malcolm X,” I saw this same story in him, in fact, even more intensified. Malcolm X had been involved in a lot of crime as a young man, and went to prison. And he was very addicted and self-serving, but then he meets members of the Nation of Islam in prison. And say what you will about them now, they helped Malcolm save himself. They helped him realize all the stuff I had been talking about. He, too, found spiritual meaning and political purpose all at once. Malcolm X was an incredibly inspiring figure for me. I had come to hate white supremacy, so when in the movie he writes, “Please tell Elijah [Muhammad] I have dedicated my life to telling the white devil the truth to his face.” I was like, “HELL yeah.”

So realizing that I had always heard that Malcolm X was this really bad person, when in fact he is one of the most amazing people ever to live, well, that was just about it for me and this society. I wanted to overthrow it. I realized it had destroyed all possibility of my having a genuinely good, decent life on this earth, because it had twisted and corrupted literally everyone and everything. I wanted to serve the people to work to help free us all from it, as Malcolm X had. Nothing else would do it for me.

I sobbed at the end of that movie when I realized what a great human being we had lost in Malcolm. Though I cannot relate as deeply, not being black nor living through those times, I feel like I really get it when Bobby Seale, one of the founders of the Black Panther Party, heard that Malcolm had been assassinated and in rage and anguish said, “Fuck it, I’ll make my own self into a motherfucking Malcolm X.”

Very few people will ever be as great as Malcolm X, but I want to serve the people with all my heart. All the various contradictory purposes and desires of my life up to that point became aligned at that time and all pointed in the same direction. I am going to give my life to the communist movement, and nothing could make me happier than the great luck I have had in being given the opportunity to do so.




Capitalism does not develop technology faster than socialism

Contrary to claims that are really common in the mainstream, the presence or absence of markets has basically nothing to do with whether meaningful and important technological research is done. Technological advance happens when curious and thoughtful people are given resources to do research–that can happen regardless of the type of economic system is in place. It happened in pre-capitalist economic systems (such as feudalism), as well, albeit at a slower pace than in capitalism.

For instance, one fact that flies in the face of the claim that capitalism is the best system for technological advance is that the Soviet Union beat the united states to every space race milestone except landing on the moon.

That fact is even more telling when one bears in mind the very different situations both countries were operating in at the time:

On the one hand, the fact that the united states was and is an empire means it had more wealth, more populations to draw scientists in from, and more resources to give those scientists. It had also industrialized about 90 years prior to the space race.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union wasn’t stealing resources from anyone, had a much smaller population to draw scientists from, and had industrialized only a couple of decades prior.

And *still* the USSR outran the united states in the space race for the majority of it.

That is a testament to the fact that with a planned economy, scientific research is directed toward exactly wherever it would be most helpful–for instance, things like cancer research (what does it say that tiny, poor Cuba’s planned economy can make medical science discoveries that the united states hasn’t? [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/cuba-lung-cancer-vaccine_n_7267518.html]).

Capitalism can’t help itself: It has to waste a certain amount of resources coming up with such sad inventions as Farmville, because under capitalism research can’t be fully directed where it would be most helpful–it has to follow profit. It can make a bigger profit by selling distractions and treating symptoms rather than by inventing cures and giving them out for free.

Meanwhile, socialism sees the real wealth of its society in making sure citizens flourish, which makes them creative, productive, and hard-working. So, in fact, socialist countries have every incentive to create cures and vaccines and give them to every citizen for free, rather than letting diseases spread while they try to profit off of treat-the-symptom medications.

If you examine the way science was done in the Soviet Union, it really wasn’t done in a dramatically different way from how most important research is done in capitalist countries; in every capitalist country on earth, pioneering research in all important technologies is always directed by the government and done mostly with government money.

The most telling fact about all of this is that, when it comes to scientific research in areas where the u.s. ruling class considers it absolutely important to be on cutting edge–for example, in military technology–the research is not trusted to the market but is instead researched through heavily funded government agencies like DARPA.

Here’s an article that goes into greater depth on all of this: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/socialism-innovation-capitalism-smith/

Why I think the people were genuinely in power in the socialist countries of the twentieth century, and why these examples reveal the route forward for humanity

If the challenges of constructing a socialist society and economy [in the early Soviet Union] were formidable, the achievements were truly remarkable. A new mode of production which neither rested on exploitation nor experienced the destructive economic crises of capitalist market forces was established. A modern socialist industrial base and a system of collectivized agriculture were created. A central planning mechanism was able to give overall direction to economic development. It was a system of planning that made it possible to rapidly expand aggregate industrial capacity, to promote the development of the more backward republics and regions, and to marshal resources and capabilities on a monumental scale as part of the heroic effort to defeat German imperialism (1500 major factories were relocated eastward in the span of a few weeks). The slogan of the First Five Year Plan was “we are building a new world,” and millions of workers and peasants, especially during the late 1920s and early 1930s, were fired with a spirit of “storming the heavens” and doing this for the cause of world revolution.

The collectivization drive ignited a genuine upheaval against centuries-old authority, tradition, and oppression in the countryside. The old educational system was overhauled and opened up to the masses, and young workers were mobilized as a social force to confront the old and hidebound. Artists, writers, and other cultural workers chronicled the great changes taking place in society, and an art to serve the revolution was struggled for and debated over. And the new workers’ state gave support to and helped to formulate the line for revolutionary struggles throughout the world. In all, these were real and historic accomplishments.

Lotta, “Introduction,” in Maoist Economics and the Revolutionary Road to Communism: The Shanghai Textbook.

A friend of mine asked me whether I think any socialist revolution ever achieved its intended goal. Below was my attempt to tell him why I think the answer is “yes.”

It’s a pretty good summary of why I think anyone looking for a way out of capitalism should look to the socialist countries of the twentieth century for answers. Comrades should feel encouraged to criticize or add to my response.

I can safely say that I think the answer is “yes” for the Soviet and Chinese revolutions–for the Soviet revolution from 1917 to 1956 or so, and for the Chinese revolution from 1949 to 1978 or so.

According to the Marxist understanding of history, ever since the emergence of class society around 15,000 years ago (in some places), society has been a dictatorship of one class over the rest of classes. “Dictatorship” here means that one class–as a class–gets what it wants, and no law or any other contrivance stands in it way. Marx and Engels theorized that in order to bring about an end to class society, the proletariat and its allies–the other toiling classes, mainly the peasantry-would have to seize power and, using all available tools, reconstruct society so that there was no class distinction anymore, and all economic decisions would be made not according to what profited some specific subset of individuals but truly by all of society collectively through a democratic process. The result would be communism, a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

The question then is whether or not these postrevolutionary societies were dictatorships of the proletariat moving in the direction of communism. I think the answer is yes for all of these countries. I think a fairly productive way to think about these questions is to pull out the metaphor of “motion toward” communism. In this metaphor, we could say that the initial revolutions were accelerating factors, imparting a good deal of momentum in the direction of communism, but that at a certain point for all of these countries, they slowed and then began sliding backward toward capitalism.

We know that these revolutions were more than just coups–they involved tens or hundreds of millions of people who were consciously changing their society, reorganizing almost every aspect of it, from the way the political system was structured, to the way production was undertaken (it became more collective and democratic), to the relations between men and nonmen and between adults and children.

In ascending order, these are the reasons I think it’s fair to say that a dictatorship of the proletariat was achieved:

1. On a very material level, the very broad masses began to receive the prerequisites for acting as a self-conscious political power–a high-quality, all-around education, as well as the universal guarantee of basic needs. (https://gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/) It seems unthinkable that every single individual in a society (besides self-declared enemies of the communist project) would be given these things if the intention was to continue subjugating some specific subsection of it.

2. There was a stark reduction in economic inequality, significantly undermining one of the main roots of class society: the ability for some subset of society to use its resources to bribe (or pay off, or “hire,” or whatever) others to help control the rest of society.

3. There were very deep social changes that came about, indicating that the radical participation of the broad masses was underway. Some big things I can think of are the abolition of beauty contests, mass participation in communal living arrangements, and worker self-management in workplaces. To some extent it’s hard to quantitatively measure “mass participation” and “trans-valuation of societal values,” but I think these things as symptoms speak volumes.

4. Speaking only of the Chinese revolution here, the fact that the cultural revolution was able to be launched at all, and in fact that it was carried through to a large degree. In my opinion, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is the high point in all of human history. Here’s the rundown on it: the Soviet Union had started to slide back toward capitalism. That became obvious to people in China. The USSR began to act like an imperialist power, and seemed to be prioritizing military and economic power on the international scene over the preservation of a thoroughgoing and deeply-rooted democratic character to their society. Seeing this, and seeing that the same bureaucratization and stagnation had also begun to take root in their own society, the Maoist wing of the Chinese leadership launched the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, whose most prominent motto was “bombard the [party] headquarters.”

The GPCR was a call for the Chinese people to take courage and call out party officials who had become corrupt, factory managers who had begun to usurp power to themselves, university administrators who had begun to act with interests contrary to the democratically controlled education of the students, and so on–and though it had many flaws in its execution, it was very successful in many places. I think the GPCR is proof that additional acceleration in the direction toward communism can (and must) be imparted after the initial revolutionary push.

That being the case, I think it is also proof that we can get there–that we can overcome capitalism once and for all and abolish class. This is a very insightful document on the GPCR, if you’re interested, including criticisms of its failures, shortcomings, excesses, etc.: http://www.mlmrsg.com/attachments/article/72/CRpaper-Final.pdf

That document also explains better than I could what went wrong in the Soviet Union and, ultimately, in China itself. The quickest way to put it is that the USSR never really had a cultural revolution, and the PRC had theirs too late to save their dictatorship of the proletariat.

For whatever it’s worth, the following is a list of books from a reddit comment, offered as sources for people looking for further evidence on this question.

Why the USSR was socialist under Stalin:
The Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR by Martin Nicolaus.
The Need for Planning by Joseph Ball.
An Introduction to Stalin by Bruce Franklin.
Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens.
Class Struggles in the USSR, First and Second Period by Charles Bettelheim.
Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR by Joseph Stalin.
Reassessing the History of Soviet Workers: Opportunities to Criticize and Participate in Decision-Making and Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia by Robert Thurston
State and Society under Stalin: Constitution and Elections in the 1930s and Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives by J. Arch Getty

Why China was socialist under Mao:
Fundamentals of Political Economy by FPE Working Group
China’s Industrial Revolution by Stephen Andors
Fanshen by William Hinton
The Chinese Road to Socialism by E. L. Wheelwright and Bruce McFarlane
China’s Economy and the Maoist Strategy by John Gurley
Chinese Economic Development by Chris Bramall
The Battle for China’s Past by Mobo Gao
Evaluating the Cultural Revolution in China and its Legacy for the Future by MLMRSG
Cultural Revolution and Industrial Organization in China by Charles Bettelheim

Why Albania was socialist under Hoxha:
Pickaxe and Rifle by William Ash

On the wastefulness and inefficiency of capitalism

A good friend of mine was questioning the pro-capitalist logic of “competition brings out more creativity” and asked (semi-rhetorically),

“I imagine that a LOT of resources are wasted on things like marketing, corporate espionage, lawsuits, duplication of efforts, etc. Does the ‘creativity boost’ of competition balance out the waste?”

I wanted to share what I commented to add to his point about the wastefulness of capitalism:

you kind of mention this, but there are also certain jobs like insurance-company actuary that would just totally disappear if we decided to just give everyone healthcare. no need to decide how much to charge someone for insurance if they just get the care no matter what.

and more deeply, it also depends on what we’re counting as a good return on resources invested. the standard claim is that the intrinsic value that businesses create can be precisely and directly measured by the amount of money the company receives.

but really, one could take relatively small amounts of resources and give them directly to the poor people of the world in the form of infrastructure and land, and one would have created so much more value than if one used that same amount of money to buy this year’s laptops and trucks and clothing etc. for the wealthy.

but of course, what is produced is what makes money, which depends not at all on how much value it adds to human life but on whether it can be sold to those who already have expendable money.

relatedly, there’s also the fact that if something that has already been produced and it would hurt profits to sell it, it is destroyed rather than given away.

there’s also planned obsolescence.

there’s also the incredibly environmentally destructive nature of capitalism, which collapses natural systems through overusing them that otherwise would have provided steady supplies of resources and “natural services” indefinitely (http://bit.ly/CapitalistEcocide).

there’s also war, which you do mention already in the form of competition, but it’s probably worth noting that capitalism makes war inevitable (http://bit.ly/capitalistmassmurder), and virtually all production of armaments and troop-shipping and troop-housing etc. is pure waste. along those lines, there’s also the cost of law enforcement, which would be so dramatically smaller in a world where everyone had what they needed.

and also the way so many are left to starve, and turn to drugs etc., and human potential is eaten up in addiction, distraction, fear, and trauma, etc. this is probably the single greatest inefficiency, given the power of even one all-around(-or-close-to-it) healthy human being.

and truthfully, we even have evidence that the very claim that capitalism is better than socialism at building up advanced economies efficiently is false, like how the ussr was the third-fastest growing economy in the the world for the span of time it existed, and in fact that it grew even faster during the years when (in my opinion) their planned economy was genuinely democratically planned (http://bit.ly/doplanned).