Comradeship // Freechat

1. Im not sure I agree with your definitions of communist and socialist sectors, since a socialist mode of production already means a focus on use value. So the definition of a communist sector is redundant.
2. “When looking at the USSR, it had basically no capitalist sector” - depends on time period!
3. “Denmark and the UK both had small communist sectors in things like their healthcare.” - is a regulated capitalist sector really equivalent to a socialist sector?
4. “We simply state that unless there is a DotP established, the capitalist sector will erode them away.” - I would also argue that without a DotP, the socialist sector is always subservient to (the booms and busts) of the capitalist one

Your apparent way of defining socialism and communism as "when the government kind of does stuff" and "when the government totally does stuff" are very bad and undermine the ability to describe either socialism or sectors of the economy. Markets and capitalism are not the same thing, just as public roads don't make the US "partly communist"

I mean, maybe, but what matters what has the most economic, if not official political dominance, by their ownership and thus control...

According to Principles of Communism

{Modern} Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

Note: In essence, the full realization of socialism, from its unshackling and total destruction of Das Kapital, via leadership of the wage laborers or "dictatorship of the proletariat"

Note: But this is more or less a theoretical assumption

And the main opposition to this liberation are the capitalists, especially in this context, the main western-dominating ones and its allied compradors who rely on unequal exchange, privatization and debt to do so ...

As long as there are capitalists as a, if not THE ruling class, there is, to me, no such thing as {modern communism} unless the capitalists are gone, and history...

I mean, there are such societies, which are primitive communist in its base, but so far, the capitalist powers can easily undo and expand their dictatorship or leadership upon them, by their productive forces

Thus, to me, I don't see anything communist within Britain or Denmark for that reason that, unless you're describing a political organization whose ideology is of such

I don't see it necessarily important to focus on exchange value, use-value, or commodity production, to define something as socialist, as they are mostly mediums to continue its activities.

It's most fruitful to rather focus on the conditions that make it so,

dominant economic ownership, organization, planning, and production (base)

thus resulting indirect control on things like culture, government, law, education and overall society (superstructure)

This indicates the ruling class, whether it be proletariat (wage labor) or bourgeois (capitalist)

From the base, the focus on concepts like use-value, exchange value, or commodity productions will come through, by which the ruling class can fulfill their interests...

That being said, I do agree that economic systems can co-exist with each other, but in a struggle for dominance that is,

Eg. as the new bourgeois ruling class before had to deal with pesky medieval landlords and kings who ask for their rent and medieval guilds, that limit their workforce...

Also the image is a wallpaper I made of Cuba. I hope you all enjoy.

So in the example of a "communist sector" such as healthcare in the UK, who produces the medicine and equipment, who funds the research and personnel, who builds the pharmacies and clinics/hospitals?

My perspective would be that a government providing services like healthcare which is funded via taxation is not communist in any way. It's just called government.

Maybe in a shithole where your government just taxes you and then you still fork out for healthcare, it might look like communism... But most people would just call it public services.