@Neo-Tech Actually, capitalism cannot exist, not even as utopia. Because its not a systemically fleshes out social system or political though. It does not speak of metaphysics, morality, ethics, social structure, or any of critical aspects of functioning society. Communism tried to provide for this, but being utopian religion it failed to deliver on its promise, and remains still very much as social movement, usually underpinned by some derivative of Marxism,

If you actually read Karl Marx you would notice that he deliberately avoids the term capitalism. Capital. Yes. Capitalists. Yes. Means of Production yes. But not capitalism. Because as crazy as he was and as utopian and cynical as he was, he was perceptive enough to understand that word capitalism is nonsensical.

"Capitalism, on the other hand, requires consent from the owner. As a trade, you pay me this much for this product."

That's not true. Trade is trade. Capital is capital. Capitalism is owner of capital. Capitalism is nonsensical in the context you use it. Trade happens for all kinds of reasons and in many forms, and the way you describe it is way too simplistic and unrealistic.

Who coined the word capitalism and what did he/she mean by it?

"Despite popular misconception, the use of “capitalism” to refer to an economic system was originally coined by Louis Blanc, not Marx and Engels. The word “capitalism” was derived from “capital,” referring to productive property, and was used to refer to the emerging arrangement in which workers sell their labor to a capitalist (ie: one who owns capital) in exchange for wages. It does not refer to “free exchange” or “the free market,” and it never has. That is a recent politically-motivated redefinition by market fundamentalists."

Answer from Quora by Tyler Johns, BS in Software Development (college major), Western Governors University (Graduated 2021)

Louis Jean Joseph Charles Blanc (1811 – 1882) was a French politician and historian. A socialist who favored reforms, he called for the creation of cooperatives in order to guarantee employment for the urban poor. Although Blanc's ideas of the workers' cooperatives were never realized, his political and social ideas greatly contributed to the development of socialism in France. He wanted the government to encourage co-operatives and replace capitalist enterprises. These co-operatives were to be associations of people who produced together and divided the profit accordingly.

Following the Revolution of 1848, Blanc became a member of the provisional government and began advocating for cooperatives which would be initially aided by the government but ultimately controlled by the workers themselves. Blanc's advocacy failed and, caught between radical worker tendencies and the National Guard, he was forced into exile.

Blanc returned to France in 1870, shortly before the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war and served as a member of the National Assembly. While he did not support the Paris Commune, Blanc successfully proposed amnesty to the Communards.

As MP for Portarlington, he voted with the opposition in support of the liberal movements in Naples, 21 February, and Sicily, 21 June, and for inquiry into the administration of justice in Tobago, 6 June. He divided for repeal of the Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Act, 8 May, inquiry into the Peterloo massacre, 16 May, and abolition of the death penalty for forgery, 25 May 4 June 1821.

He adamantly supported the implementation of free trade. Free Trade here refers to import and export sand tariffs on country wide level.

Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports. In government, free trade is predominantly advocated by political parties that hold economically liberal positions, while economic nationalist and left-wing political parties generally support protectionism, the opposite of free trade.

He voted against renewal of the sugar duties, 9 Feb, and objected to the higher duty on East as opposed to West Indian produce, 4 May 1821. He opposed the timber duties. He voted silently for parliamentary reform, 25 Apr and 3 June, and spoke in its favour at the Westminster anniversary reform dinner, 23 May 1822. He again voted for criminal law reform, 4 June.

David Ricardo believed an increase in imports boosted the happiness of mankind through an increase in the number of goods available for consumption. Ricardo was said to have "possessed an extraordinary quickness in perceiving in the turns of the market any accidental difference which might arise between the relative price of different stocks" and Ricardo was able to grow his wealth dealing in securities during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.

As the Napoleonic Wars waged on, David Ricardo developed a disdain for the Corn Laws imposed by the British to encourage exports.

The Corn Laws were import tariffs designed to support domestic British corn (in Britain, the term "corn" means "grain" (the kernel), and implies the primary grain crop of a country, which in England was wheat) prices against competition from less expensive foreign-grain imports, between 1815 and 1846. These laws are often viewed as examples of British mercantilism and their abolition marked a significant step towards free trade. The Corn Laws enhanced the profits and political power associated with land ownership.

Government intervention on the grain trade can be witnessed as far back as the 1400s, and trade has been controlled, regulated, and taxed. England was an economy involving workers and landlords consuming entire incomes and capital accumulation that depended entirely on capitalists’ profits that were under perpetual pressure during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Political reform was necessary as agriculture output was struggling to keep the pace of the population growth. The Corn Laws created barriers to imports that increased the subsistence costs that created higher wages. The higher wages reduced the profits and a further effect of a reduction of capital investment and a stationary economy state.

Rising rents, attributed to the Corn Laws by Ricardo and came at the expense of the nations' economic profits. Free trade was the answer to the stationarity from David Ricardo, and he anticipated Britain would import agriculture products in exchange for manufactured goods. After Ricardo's death, the laws were eventually repealed, and his free-trade plan became public policy in Britain.

His friend John Louis Mallett commented: " … he meets you upon every subject that he has studied with a mind made up, and opinions in the nature of mathematical truths. He spoke of parliamentary reform and ballot as a man who would bring such things about, and destroy the existing system tomorrow, if it were in his power, and without the slightest doubt on the result … It is this very quality of the man’s mind, his entire disregard of experience and practice, which makes me doubtful of his opinions on political economy."

David Ricardo (1772 – 1823), was a British economist, a successful businessman, financier, and speculator, and amassed a considerable fortune. He is credited with systematizing economics in the nineteenth century, and was one of the most influential of the classical economists. Despite his relatively short career, Ricardo's work in economics was foundational to many later developments in the field. Both those who favored his laissez-faire capitalism, and those who opposed it, drew on his work despite their abstract formulation. As a politician, albeit briefly, Ricardo was able to present his opinions regarding various issues, and his stature in the newly emerging field of economics caused them to be received with respect and acted upon. His promotion of free trade supported the growth of British industry. While Ricardo's theories have been modified and superseded, his foundational role in the development of economics remains, as does much of Britain's economic success and influence in the world during the nineteenth century.

Mercantilism is an economic system that dominated the major European trading nations during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. This "mercantile system" was based on the premise that national wealth and power were best served by increasing exports and collecting precious metals in return. It superseded the medieval feudal organization in Western Europe, especially in the Netherlands, France, and England. Domestically, this led to some of the first instances of significant government intervention and control over the economy, and it was during this period that much of the modern capitalist system was established. Internationally, mercantilism encouraged the many European wars of the period and fueled European imperialism.

Mercantilism was finally challenged by advocates of "laissez-faire" who argued that international and domestic trade were both important, and that it was not the case that one country must grow wealthy at the expense of another. As this and other economic ideas arose throughout the nineteenth century, the mercantilist view was superseded. Nonetheless, many of the ideas and policies have not been forgotten, emerging again as circumstances changed. For example, the Great Depression of the early twentieth century created doubts about the efficacy and stability of free market economies, providing a new role for governments in the control of economic affairs.

...............................

Laissez-faire (LESS-ay-FAIR; from French: laissez faire, lit. 'let do' is an economic system in which transactions between private groups of people are free from any form of economic interventionism (such as subsidies) deriving from special interest groups.

As a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms: "the individual is the basic unit in society, i.e. the standard of measurement in social calculus; the individual has a natural right to freedom; and the physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system."

Another basic principle of laissez-faire holds that markets should naturally be competitive, a rule that the early advocates of laissez-faire always emphasized. With the aims of maximizing freedom by allowing markets to self-regulate, proponents of laissez-faire argue for a near complete separation of government regulation from the economic sector. The phrase laissez-faire is part of a larger French phrase and literally translates to "let [it/them] do", but in this context the phrase usually means to "let it be" and in expression "laid back." Although never practiced with full consistency, laissez-faire capitalism emerged in the mid-18th century and was further popularized by Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations.

...............................

Mercantilism was a political movement and an economic theory, dominant in Europe between 1600 and 1800. The term "mercantilism" was not in fact coined until 1763, by Victor de Riqueti, marquis de Mirabeau, and was popularized by Adam Smith in 1776. In fact, Adam Smith was the first person to organize formally most of the contributions of mercantilists in his book The Wealth of Nations (Niehaus 1990: 6).

No general definition of mercantilism is entirely satisfactory, since it was not as much a school of thought as a collection of policies intended to keep the state prosperous by economic regulation (Rempel 1998). Philipp von Hörnigk (1640-1712) laid out one of the clearest statements of mercantile policy in his 1684 Österreich Über Alles, Wenn Sie Nur Will (Austria Over All, If She Only Will). There, he listed nine principle rules:

To inspect the country's soil with the greatest care, and not to leave the agricultural possibilities of a single corner or clod of earth unconsidered… All commodities found in a country, which cannot be used in their natural state, should be worked up within the country… Attention should be given to the population, that it may be as large as the country can support… gold and silver once in the country are under no circumstances to be taken out for any purpose… The inhabitants should make every effort to get along with their domestic products… [Foreign commodities] should be obtained not for gold or silver, but in exchange for other domestic wares… and should be imported in unfinished form, and worked up within the country… Opportunities should be sought night and day for selling the country's superfluous goods to these foreigners in manufactured form… No importation should be allowed under any circumstances of which there is a sufficient supply of suitable quality at home (Ekelund and Hébert 1996).

The "mercantile system" developed logically from the changes inherent in the decline of feudalism, the rise of strong nation-states, and the development of a world market economy. Mercantilists advocated the use of the state's military power to ensure local markets and supply sources were protected.

Generally, mercantilism holds the prosperity of a nation dependent upon its supply of capital, and assumes that the global volume of trade is "unchangeable." In other words a positive balance of trade ought to be maintained, with a surplus of exports. The following ideas, and the underlying principles, may be called mercantilism:

1. The economic health or wealth of a nation can be measured by the amount of precious metal, gold, or silver, which it possessed.
2. A favorable balance of trade is essential.
3. Each nation should strive for economic self-sufficiency, increasing domestic production, and founding new home industries.
4. Agriculture should be encouraged, reducing the need to import food.
5. Tariffs should be high on imported manufactured goods and low on imported raw material.
6. A merchant fleet is of vital importance, avoiding the need for foreign assistance in transporting goods and raw materials.
7. Colonies should provide markets for manufactured goods and sources of raw material.
8. A large population is important to provide a domestic labor force and to people colonies.
9. The crown or state should be heavily involved in regulating the economy (Rempel 1998).

[newworldencyclopedia.org]

..................................

"Capital is derived from the Latin word ‘kaput’ meaning a head. ‘Capitale’ came to mean a head of livestock in later Latin, By the 12th to 13th centuries it had expanded its meaning to include sums of money, stock bonds etc. The term capitalist devolved from that in the 17th century. It’s found in French and soon afterwards in English in the later 18th century. It meant the owner of a stock of capital.

Capitalists are frequently mentioned in economic discourse in David Ricardo’s writings. Capitalism however seems to have been invented rather later as a word in French by the socialist Louis Blanc (1811-1882) in 1850 and was further used by the French socialist philosopher Proudhon a decade later. Karl Marx (1818-1883) only uses the word twice in the first volume of his Das Kapital also known as Capital: A Critique of Political Economy or sometimes simply Capital."

Answer from Quora by Dominique Dallemagne, I'm a university-trained historian who studied this period of European history

Did Marx use the word "capitalism"?

I'm finding contradictory accounts on this.

[skeptics.stackexchange.com]

..................................

Adam Smith (1723 – 1790) was a Scottish economist and philosopher who was a pioneer of political economy and key figure during the Scottish Enlightenment. Also known as "The Father of Economics" or "The Father of Capitalism", he wrote two classic works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, often abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. In his work, Smith introduced his theory of absolute advantage.
In modern times this is probably how after Adam Smith and Karl Marx works were reinvented into Capitalism/Free Markets vs Marxism/Socialism/Communism. While the authors themselves use far more nuinced terminology.

Less known in modern times than Adam Smith, David Ricardo was one of the most influential of the classical economists along with Robert Malthus, Adam Smith and James Mill. Ricardo was also a politician, and a member of the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland.

Like Adam Smith, Ricardo was an opponent of protectionism for national economies, especially for agriculture. He believed that the British "Corn Laws"—imposing tariffs on agricultural products—ensured that less-productive domestic land would be cultivated and rents would be driven up (Case & Fair 1999, pp. 812, 813). Thus, profits would be directed toward landlords and away from the emerging industrial capitalists. Ricardo believed landlords tended to squander their wealth on luxuries, rather than invest. He believed the Corn Laws were leading to the stagnation of the British economy. In 1846, his nephew John Lewis Ricardo, MP for Stoke-upon-Trent, advocated free trade and the repeal of the Corn Laws. Modern empirical analysis of the Corn Laws yields mixed results. Parliament repealed the Corn Laws in 1846.

Criticism of the Ricardian theory of trade

Ricardo himself was the first to recognize that comparative advantage is a domain-specific theory, meaning that it applies only when certain conditions are met. Ricardo noted that the theory applies only in situations where capital is immobile. Regarding his famous example, he wrote:
it would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists [and consumers] of England… [that] the wine and cloth should both be made in Portugal [and that] the capital and labour of England employed in making cloth should be removed to Portugal for that purpose.

Ricardo recognized that applying his theory in situations where capital was mobile would result in offshoring, and thereby economic decline and job loss. To correct for this, he argued that "most men of property [will be] satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek[ing] a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations", and (ii) capital was functionally immobile.

Ricardo's argument in favour of free trade has also been attacked by those who believe trade restriction can be necessary for the economic development of a nation. Utsa Patnaik claims that Ricardian theory of international trade contains a logical fallacy. Ricardo assumed that in both countries two goods are producible and actually are produced, but developed and underdeveloped countries often trade those goods which are not producible in their own country. In these cases, one cannot define which country has comparative advantage.

Critics also argue that Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage is flawed in that it assumes production is continuous and absolute. In the real world, events outside the realm of human control (e.g. natural disasters) can disrupt production. In this case, specialisation could cripple a country that depends on imports from foreign, naturally disrupted countries. For example, if an industrially based country trades its manufactured goods with an agrarian country in exchange for agricultural products, a natural disaster in the agricultural country (e.g. drought) may cause the industrially based country to starve.

As Joan Robinson pointed out, following the opening of free trade with England, Portugal endured centuries of economic underdevelopment: "the imposition of free trade on Portugal killed off a promising textile industry and left her with a slow-growing export market for wine, while for England, exports of cotton cloth led to accumulation, mechanisation and the whole spiralling growth of the industrial revolution". Robinson argued that Ricardo's example required that economies be in static equilibrium positions with full employment and that there could not be a trade deficit or a trade surplus. These conditions, she wrote, were not relevant to the real world. She also argued that Ricardo's math did not take into account that some countries may be at different levels of development and that this raised the prospect of 'unequal exchange' which might hamper a country's development, as we saw in the case of Portugal.

The development economist Ha-Joon Chang challenges the argument that free trade benefits every country:

Ricardo’s theory is absolutely right—within its narrow confines. His theory correctly says that, accepting their current levels of technology as given, it is better for countries to specialize in things that they are relatively better at. One cannot argue with that. His theory fails when a country wants to acquire more advanced technologies—that is, when it wants to develop its economy. It takes time and experience to absorb new technologies, so technologically backward producers need a period of protection from international competition during this period of learning. Such protection is costly, because the country is giving up the chance to import better and cheaper products. However, it is a price that has to be paid if it wants to develop advanced industries. Ricardo’s theory is, thus seen, for those who accept the status quo but not for those who want to change it.

David Ricardo's ideas had a tremendous influence on later developments in economics. US economists rank Ricardo as the second most influential economic thinker, behind Adam Smith, prior to the twentieth century.

Chris Edward includes Emmanuel's unequal exchange theory among variations of neo-Ricardian trade theory. Arghiri Emmanuel argued that the Third World is poor because of the international exploitation of labour.

The unequal exchange theory of trade has been influential to the (new) dependency theory.

...........................

Dependency theory is the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. A central contention of dependency theory is that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system". This theory was officially developed in the late 1960s following World War II, as scholars searched for the root issue in the lack of development in Latin America.[1]

The theory arose as a reaction to modernization theory, an earlier theory of development which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that today's underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today's developed areas at some time in the past, and that, therefore, the task of helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. Dependency theory rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market economy.[2]

Some writers have argued for its continuing relevance as a conceptual orientation to the global division of wealth.[3] Dependency theorists can typically be divided into two categories: liberal reformists and neo-Marxists. Liberal reformists typically advocate for targeted policy interventions, while the neo-Marxists believe in a command-centered economy.[4]

[en.wikipedia.org]

@Neo-Tech "Communism depends on initiating force against property as Karl Marx said to seize the property owned by the proletariat. Capitalism, on the other hand, requires consent from the owner. As a trade, you pay me this much for this product.

Communism depends on initiatory force. Governments initiate force through income tax, property tax, anti drug laws, immigration laws, seizing private property, laws against prostitution, forced vaccination, forced schooling etc etc."

I guess mergers, acquisitions, and myriad of financial tools that favor big capitalist enterprises is something you did not consider. Because if you have enough capital you can buy political power, you can outbid in predatory fashion the smaller capitalist etc.

Its a different method perhaps, but capitalists are no better than communists that is why there is a problem of communism and capitalism if such a system could exist. It is materialistic. It does not deal with metaphysics, ethics, and many other aspects of sociability you would like to have.

Free trade is pointless unless its also a fair trade, and if such as a system as capitalism were the working system, it would not account for fair trade, only open trade, soon to be very restrictive trade and very unfair trade.

“Interestingly, Marxism, Communism and its derivative, Socialism, when seen years later in practice, are nothing but state-capitalism and rule by a privileged minority, exercising despotic and total control over a majority which is left with virtually no property or legal rights.” ― Andrew Carrington Hitchcock, The Synagogue Of Satan - Updated, Expanded, And Uncensored

In other words, all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The nomenklatura (Russian: номенклату́ра, IPA: [nəmʲɪnklɐˈturə] (listen); from Latin: nomenclatura) were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy, running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region.

Virtually all members of the nomenklatura were members of a communist party. Critics of Stalin, such as Milovan Đilas, critically defined them as a "new class". Richard Pipes, a Harvard historian, claimed that the nomenklatura system mainly reflected a continuation of the old Tsarist regime, as many former Tsarist officials or "careerists" joined the Bolshevik government during and after the Russian Civil War of 1917–1922.

The nomenklatura formed a de facto elite of public powers in the former Eastern Bloc; one may compare them to the Western establishment holding or controlling both private and public powers (for example, in media, finance, trade, industry, the state and institutions).

Individuals with a nomenklatura background have continued to dominate economic and political life in Russia since the end of the Cold War. According to one 2022 estimate, 60% of elites in the Vladimir Putin regime had nomenklatura backgrounds.

"A clinical dissection of the Soviet system, in which a group of managers and bureaucrats (some 1.5 percent of the population) are engaged in ceaseless political maneuvering among themselves while maintaining total power, as a privileged class, over all the others. The author, who left the Soviet Union in 1977, follows his argument to its logical conclusion: the impossibility of basic change, either toward liberalization of the internal order or toward modification of an aggressive foreign policy. This study of Soviet experience since Lenin evokes Milovan Djilas's analysis of the "new class" published some 30 years ago; appropriately, Djilas contributes a brief preface to the book."

• Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class By Michael Voslensky, Doubleday, 1984, 455 pp, Reviewed by John C. Campbell - Winter 1984/85

The Russian term is derived from the Latin nomenclatura, meaning a system of names.
The term was popularized in the West by the Soviet dissident Michael Voslenski, who in 1970 wrote a book titled Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class (Russian: Номенклату́ра. Госпо́дствующий класс Сове́тского Сою́за, tr. Nomenklatúra. Gospódstvuyushchiy klass Sovétskovo Soyúza).
The nomenklatura referred to the Communist Party's governance to make appointments to key positions throughout the governmental system, as well as throughout the party's own hierarchy. Specifically, the nomenklatura consisted of two separate lists: one was for key positions, appointments to which were made by authorities within the party; the other was for persons who were potential candidates for appointment to those positions. The Politburo, as part of its nomenklatura authority, maintained a list of ministerial and ambassadorial positions that it had the power to fill, as well as a separate list of potential candidates to occupy those positions.
Coextensive with the nomenklatura were patron-client relations. Officials who had the authority to appoint individuals to certain positions cultivated loyalties among those whom they appointed. The patron (the official making the appointment) promoted the interests of clients in return for their support. Powerful patrons, such as the members of the Politburo, had many clients. Moreover, an official could be both a client (in relation to a higher-level patron) and a patron (to other, lower-level officials).

Because a client was beholden to his patron for his position, the client was eager to please his patron by carrying out his policies. The Soviet power structure essentially consisted (according to its critics) of groups of vassals (clients) who had an overlord (the patron). The higher the patron, the more clients the patron had. Patrons protected their clients and tried to promote their careers. In return for the patron's efforts to promote their careers, the clients remained loyal to their patron. Thus, by promoting his clients' careers, the patron could advance his own power.

Party's appointment authority

The nomenklatura system arose early in Soviet history. Vladimir Lenin wrote that appointments were to take the following criteria into account: reliability, political attitude, qualifications, and administrative ability. Joseph Stalin, who was the first general secretary of the party, was also known as "Comrade File Cabinet" (Tovarishch Kartotekov) for his assiduous attention to the details of the party's appointments. Seeking to make appointments in a more systematic fashion, Stalin built the party's patronage system and used it to distribute his clients throughout the party bureaucracy.
Under Stalin's direction in 1922, the party created departments of the Central Committee and other organs at lower levels that were responsible for the registration and appointment of party officials. Known as uchraspred, these organs supervised appointments to important party posts. According to American sovietologist Seweryn Bialer, after Leonid Brezhnev's accession to power in October 1964, the party considerably expanded its appointment authority. However, in the late 1980s, some official statements indicated that the party intended to reduce its appointment authority, particularly in the area of economic management, in line with Mikhail Gorbachev's reform efforts.

At the all-union level, the Party Building and Cadre Work Department supervised party nomenklatura appointments. This department maintained records on party members throughout the country, made appointments to positions on the all-union level, and approved nomenklatura appointments on the lower levels of the hierarchy. The head of this department sometimes was a member of the Secretariat and was often a protégé of the general secretary.

Every party committee and party organizational department, from the all-union level in Moscow to the district and city levels, prepared two lists according to their needs. The basic (osnovnoi) list detailed positions in the political, administrative, economic, military, cultural, and educational bureaucracies that the committee and its department had responsibility for filling. The registered (uchetnyi) list enumerated the persons suitable for these positions.

Patron–client relations

An official in the party or government bureaucracy could not advance in the nomenklatura without the assistance of a patron. In return for this assistance in promoting his career, the client carried out the policies of the patron. Patron–client relations thus help to explain the ability of party leaders to generate widespread support for their policies. The presence of patron–client relations between party officials and officials in other bureaucracies also helped to account for the large-scale control the party exercised over the Soviet society. All of the 2 million members of the nomenklatura system understood that they held their positions only as a result of a favor bestowed on them by a superior official in the party and that they could easily be replaced if they manifested disloyalty to their patron. Self-interest dictated that members of the nomenklatura submit to the control of their patrons in the party.

Clients sometimes could attempt to supplant their patron. For example, Nikita Khrushchev, one of Lazar M. Kaganovich's former protégés, helped to oust the latter in 1957. Seven years later, Leonid Brezhnev, a client of Khrushchev, helped to remove his boss from power. The power of the general secretary was consolidated to the extent that he placed his clients in positions of power and influence. The ideal for the general secretary, writes Soviet émigré observer Michael Voslensky, "is to be overlord of vassals selected by oneself."

Several factors explain the entrenchment of patron–client relations. Firstly, in a centralized government system, promotion in the bureaucratic-political hierarchy was the only path to power. Secondly, the most important criterion for promotion in this hierarchy was approval from one's supervisors, who evaluated their subordinates on the basis of political criteria and their ability to contribute to the fulfillment of the economic plan. Thirdly, political rivalries were present at all levels of the party and state bureaucracies but were especially prevalent at the top. Power and influence decided the outcomes of these struggles, and the number and positions of one's clients were critical components of that power and influence. Fourthly, because fulfillment of the economic plan was decisive, systemic pressures led officials to conspire together and use their ties to achieve that goal.
The faction led by Brezhnev provides a good case study of patron–client relations in the Soviet system. Many members of the Brezhnev faction came from Dnipropetrovsk, where Brezhnev had served as first secretary of the provincial party organization. Andrei P. Kirilenko, a Politburo member and Central Committee secretary under Brezhnev, was first secretary of the regional committee of Dnipropetrovsk. Volodymyr Shcherbytsky, named as first secretary of the Ukrainian apparatus under Brezhnev, succeeded Kirilenko in that position. Nikolai Alexandrovich Tikhonov, appointed by Brezhnev as first deputy chairman of the Soviet Union's Council of Ministers, graduated from the Dnipropetrovsk Metallurgical Institute, and presided over the economic council of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. Finally, Nikolai Shchelokov, minister of internal affairs under Brezhnev, was a former chairman of the Dnipropetrovsk soviet.

Patron–client relations had implications for policy making in the party and government bureaucracies. Promotion of trusted subordinates into influential positions facilitated policy formation and policy execution. A network of clients helped to ensure that a patron's policies could be carried out. In addition, patrons relied on their clients to provide an accurate flow of information on events throughout the country. This information assisted policymakers in ensuring that their programs were being implemented

The New Class

Milovan Đilas, a critic of Stalin, wrote of the nomenklatura as the "new class" in his book The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System, and he claimed that it was seen by ordinary citizens as a bureaucratic elite that enjoyed special privileges and had supplanted the earlier wealthy capitalist élites.

NOMENKLATURA

"The term nomenklatura was often used in the USSR throughout the Stalin and post-Stalin periods to designate members of Soviet officialdom. The term was not generally known in the West until the 1960s. Members of the nomenklatura included Communist Party officials (particularly Party secretaries at any level of the Party organization), government officials, and senior officers in the Soviet armed forces who were Party members. Almost all members were, in fact, Communist Party members. At a minimum, the Party controlled access to nomenklatura jobs. Most often the term was used to describe full-time professional Party officials, also known as apparatchiki, since mere rank-and-file Party members did not hold important executive posts.

No definite tally of the number of the nomenklatura was ever published officially. But Russian and Western scholars generally agree that their numbers exceeded 500,000. Yet the entire membership of the Communist Party amounted on average to only about 7 percent of the Soviet population.
Wherever they served throughout the multinational Soviet Union, most of the nomenklatura were Russians, Ukrainians, or Belorussians. Almost always, native nomenklatura members posted in any of the non-Slavic Republics among the fifteen constituent republics of the USSR were supervised ultimately by ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, or Belorussians."

See also: communist party of the soviet union

bibliography
Weeks, Albert L., ed. (1991). Soviet Nomenklatura: A Comprehensive Roster of Soviet Civilian and Military Officials, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Washington Institute Press.
Voslensky, Michael. (1984). Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class, tr. Eric Mosbacher. New York: Doubleday.

Albert L. Weeks

......................

An apparatchik (/ˌæpəˈrættʃɪk/; Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈrat͡ɕːɪk]) was a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or the Soviet government apparat (аппарат, apparatus), someone who held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called nomenklatura. James Billington describes an apparatchik as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details." The term is often considered derogatory, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.

Members of the apparat (apparatchiks or apparatchiki) were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation. Not all apparatchiks held lifelong positions. Many only entered such positions in middle age. They were known to receive various benefits including free holiday vouchers, free meals and accommodation.

Today apparatchik is also used in contexts other than that of the Soviet Union or communist countries. According to Collins English Dictionary the word can mean "an official or bureaucrat in any organization". According to Douglas Harper's Online Etymology Dictionary, the term was also used in the meaning "Communist agent or spy", originating in the writings of Arthur Koestler, c. 1941.

......................

Labour and social benefits

Soviet law recognized three distinct categories of employees: workers for state enterprises, employees of collective farms, and inmates in labour camps.

Under the Labour Codes, employees at state enterprises enjoyed protection against arbitrary discipline or discharge. Except during and immediately after World War II, state-enterprise employees also had the right to change jobs. Restrictions on residence permits, however, made it difficult for workers to move to major urban centres in search of employment. Employees in state enterprises were represented by weak, party-controlled “pseudounions,” and there was no legally recognized right to strike. Peasants on collective farms were long denied the identity documents they needed for moving to urban areas, were not protected by the labour code, and did not possess (until 1965) even the legal right to representation by pseudounions. The peasants thus reverted to a legal position akin to the serfdom that had existed in Russia until the mid-19th century. Labour-camp inmates, who numbered in the millions, had essentially no enforceable legal rights.

Under Soviet law, status, rather than wealth or cash income, determined living standards. A large proportion of most Soviet citizens’ real income consisted of benefits directly allocated by the state. Secret laws and regulations provided for lavish benefits for the nomenklatura—the ruling elite at the national and local level. These persons received comfortable apartments, the use of state vacation facilities, automobiles with drivers, medical care at secret high-quality clinics, preferred admission of family members to universities, access to generally unavailable food and consumer goods at low prices, possibilities for travel abroad, and generous retirement pensions. However, they could lose these privileges at any time if they were suspected of disloyalty to the regime. Ordinary urban residents received housing from the state, but it was of lower quality and often required many years on waiting lists; they received free medical care, but it was of inferior quality; their children could receive free higher education, but only by performing well on entrance examinations or by bribing examiners; and their pensions were at a subsistence level. Collective-farm workers received free medical care but for most of the Soviet period had no right to state pensions. Labour-camp inmates often died of starvation or disease; at most they received what was necessary to keep them healthy enough to enable the camps to meet the production quotas assigned under the national economic plan.

[britannica.com]

......................

It what you might think capitalist systems you use cash to buy your status. In communist system you trade service to the state for such status. But equality is and always will be utopian.

“No society has succeeded in abolishing the distinction between ruler and ruled... to be a ruler gives one special status and, usually, special privileges. During the Communist era, important officials in the Soviet Union had access to special shops selling delicacies unavailable to ordinary citizens; before China allowed capitalist enterprises in its economy, travelling by car was a luxury limited to tourists and those high in the party hierarchy Throughout the 'communist' nations, the abolition of the old ruling class was followed by the rise of a new class of party bosses and well-placed bureaucrats, whose behaviour and life-style came more and more to resemble that of their much-denounced predecessors. In the end, nobody believed in the system any more. That, couple with its inability to match the productivity of the less bureaucratically controlled, more egoistically driven capitalist economies, led to its downfall.” ― Peter Singer, Marx: A Very Short Introduction

134 Tell-All Book Reveals How Business Is REALLY Done in China

Desmond Shum, who was raised in Hong Kong, said he didn't understand how to play China's business game until he met his wife, Whitney Duan. They made a fortune together, and as a result she became China's wealthiest female entrepreneur. But when Xi Jinping came to power, Shum saw the writing on the wall for business in China. He and Duan divorced and Shum moved to the UK. In 2017, Duan disappeared. After she went missing, Shum wanted to leave their son his account of what had happened, which led to his tell-all book about doing business in China called "Red Roulette: An Insider's Story of Wealth, Power, Corruption, and Vengeance in Today's China".

You can buy Red Roulette at [amzn.to]

Inside Amazon A New Kind of Monopoly

Oct 27, 2020
Over the last two decades, Amazon has risen to become one of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world—and many have started to call into question the tactics that it has used and is using to get to and stay at the top.

On October 14, 2020, the Corporations and Society Initiative welcomed Stacy Mitchell, co-founder of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a staunch advocate for policies that help level the playing field for independent businesses and curb corporate power, for a conversation with MBA ’21 Susannah Shattuck about the risks that Amazon poses to consumers, workers, and the market if it continues to dominate unchecked.

@Neo-Tech To put it simply. Not all social problems have market solutions and not all market problems have social solutions. To use an appropriate remedy for the problem , other types thinking is required that goes beyond mere material realm or one with the power struggle. Communism attempted or capitalism if it could be attempted, miserably fail in this. Because they are not interested in solutions.