Stalin

Like when they cucked soviets out of power? :^)

...

I'm not a left communist.

Lenin never lived to see what Stalin did to Russia, and Lenin's definition of socialism had always very consistently been the same as Marx's. There was nothing 'socialist' about post-'collectivization' Stalinist Russia.

Define socialism, because every Trot/Leftcon like to talk shit but don't even define their conseptions of socialism and communism in first place

Right

Wrong

The negation of capitalism in its every form: value form (money), wage labor, production for exchange and economic class.

There is production for exchange unless you achieve a)self-sustainability or b) full automation

If we look at the historical average, every fucking day.

That's the higher fase of communism, socialism is the lower fase that prep the base for the former, and that image didn't include the production for profit in the first part, wich is the main drive of capitalism your memeing mong.

How about you start by actually reading Marx?

no

Tell me the difference m8.

Why the fuck would there be production for exchange if there is no market? Do you even know what production for exchange is?

Here you go:

Here's some Quotes from Critique of the Gotha Programme, by Marx (in case you didn't know):
do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the
value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist
society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total
labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all
meaning.
but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect,
economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose
womb it emerges.
Thus even in the very first "phase" of communism (what Lenin called socialism) the value-form, i.e. commodity production and money has been abolished.

There is production for exchange in the consumer sphere in the lower fase of comunism(where Marx recomended the use of labor vouchers), but that production its not for profit, it's a mean for the workers socialize the products of their labor, but of course this is under the context of a planned economy.

If it's production for exchange and not for use value then it's socialism - but that wasn't the USSR. There were markets in the countryside with the Kolkhozi, and the State who owned the MOP was attempting to turn a profit on the international market.

Then it's capitalism, surplus-value can literally only be produced under the capitalist production process.
Holy fucking shit, please read Capital, production for exchange is production for profit!

Jesus Christ, this is literally exactly what Marx criticize in the Gotha Programme and you're regurgitating like the good little socdems you are.

Do you have anything by Dunayevskaya in pdf?

As in there is not production for profit, the society produces everything for itself
Money can be dissosiated from its value form and still be used in its acounting form i.e Labor vouchers, or the rubles that were used in the industries of the USSR.

i know production for exchange is a bad term for my explanation, what i mean is that under a planned economy you have products in a "market" or whatever you wanna call it, that were produced according to a plann( that was decided by the society) and there the workes can go and take the products using their labor vauchers/accounting currence.

And more, if its only in the production process that new value can be created in capitalism( and thus regulated by its laws), How can the law of value be present in a planned economy where the main objective isn't exchange for profit, but expanding the productivety(use values that workes can produce in determinated amount of time) of the society as a whole?

Your entire argument hinges on this which is outright false, the USSR had large scale trading with the rest of the world. It produced for exchange.

As for the whole implications of the USSR actually having any form of "democratic" planning, I won't even get into that since it's the event horizon for any serious possibility of educating you.

Hahaha. No it was decided by a bureaucracy, whether that be a mid ranking foreman party member who wanted to meet quotas (and only lie about them a little), or the upper echelons who set quotas in industry by linking them to "building socialism", or perhaps military generals who required an increase in nuclear warhead production to compete with the USA and so asked the party; it doesn't matter. It wasn't democratically decided by workers or consumers.

Take? Not buy? Using their labour vouchers..? Oh, you mean rubles, as in money. Buy with money.

That's why they had 2 diferent currencies

It's so easy to talk about the USSR and call it a bureocratic shithole without ever reading anything about it but trots and capitalist propaganda like said

what is accounting currence.

ok

Man it has too be pretty comfortable when everything that disagrees with you is trot/liberal/nazi propaganda that you can just dismiss.

It's almost like you're some sectarian religious nut who refuses to read any form of criticism because deep down you fucking know how idiotic the shit you spew is, how fragile your little bubble is.

In the wise words of: the energy to refute this bullshit is a far greater magnitude than what it takes to produce it. I'd recommend you read some of that trotskyist-leftcom-bukharite-liberal-nazi propaganda, like Aufheben's series of articles on the USSR and value-form. libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-aufheben

I can certainly speak for myself that I've read much in the ways of critisism of the Soviet system and I certainly do agree with some of it, I'm sure Mr. Stalinski here will agree with me in saying that the system was not ideal or perfect but it certainly not what a lot of you Trots and An-Coms say. I'd recommend reaidng the material I posted first off and actually get educated on the subject instead of just listening to bourgeois and red-scare proapaganda.

Yes

Top man.

...

Who seriously believes Stalin killed 60 million people? The number alone should be enough for someone to realize the absurdity of that claim.

No! He's a very bad man! He is literally ten Hitlers and he wants your toothbrush!

how can the same state that's a temporary thing to archive the anarcho-communism kill the anarchysts?