Not being /comcap/

kekle

No one's answered my question about ancap being the purest acceleration if collapse-then-communism is inevitable, provided we don't destroy the planet, human existence or industrial civilization first, which kinda is a hard limit on that theory anyway.

Because hundreds of millions of people will die first.

And how do you think it works?

also
discarded

It's a joke you stupid faggot

That kinda looks like a robotic thumb.

watch out for the ageism

Why not become a mutualist?

Dude what about nuclear fucking holocaust

Kill yourself

It's the only way towards communism

Please be shitposting

Lurk more and more importantly read more.

...

Workers and capitalist around the world unite!

I'm a Marxist-Capitalist, am I welcomed here?

Isn't that basically fascism?

I lurk and read all the time, I know what Posadism is, I just also know it's beyond retarded. Communism is not a fucking goal in itself and there's no reason to believe bombing the shit out of ourselves wouldn't also destroy all our technology and progress.

Isn't it basically democracy?

Of course it is, it's just a meme.

That's where you are wrong kiddo

I guarantee you there's a handful of actual posadists on here

le-mao, Me likey, 4pt+Dirigism when, im still waiting for something that isnt autistically dogmatic

What?

I wouldn't take what people say here all that seriously.

Well, you have to agree that there is something beautiful and sublime about nuclear explosions

youtube.com/watch?v=INf4YSJV-9Y

we should probably all get together and kill you instead tbh familam

no u first faget. also, good riddance with motorola, hope givi will be next

but that tendency already exists and has its own name: marxism-leninism

What's common with leftcoms, ancoms and christian commies? They are a meme and have achieved absolutely nothing of worth.

wow. muke is angry. what's common of capitalism and tankism? both are opposed to workers' empowerment and communism. NEP and NAP 4eva my dude.

me first what you lunatic? im not calling for global thermonuclear war, I enjoy living for the most part, you on the other hand are a deranged liability if you are sincere

UKROP LIESSSS, MOTOR CAN NOT DIEthey sure couldnt kill him in combat, they had to go the assassination route

so, market socialism?

I posted a posadist meme you dolt, how fucking dense can one get?

Not muke. Let us hear of just one example of a socialist country/commune/whatever with more workers' empowerment than under Marxism-Leninism.

Leninism should be discarded for better systems, ones which will actually lead to socialism instead of the horrible mess which you always end up with under Leninist thought.

...

ah of course because ML states are known for their achievements… millions and millions of achievements.

was meant for

top kek

...

Even capitalists nations with a mixed economy delivered more worker's empowerment than marxism-leninism. The state capitalist system is so trash that even a western mixed economy is better for people to live under which is down right pathetic.

How state capitalism apologists can even consider themselves socialists and their horrible ideology socialism is far beyond my understanding.

Forced labor was and still is a valid form of punishment for crimes. At least in USSR, reactionaries and fascists were sent to gulag for the better of the whole society, as opposed to, say in US, it's just the poor and the blacks sent to forced labor camps because of possession of weed, for the purpose of profit. Labor camps existed in Free Territory and in CNT-FAI controlled Catalonia. Or are you implying that in your imaginary bullshit ultraliberal commune, there won't be any dissidents because you'll just hug every problem out or something?

Again, are you assuming that famines don't happen in your idealist utopias?

[citation needed]

I agree. Fortunately, planned economy =! state capitalism

There are few photos of conditions for most of the workers that aren't "flattering" for obvious reasons. Are you seriously suggesting that most people in the GULAG were there due to being a fascist? Hahaha. I suppose all the people under psychiatric treatment legitimately had the sluggish schizophrenia, and the victims of Zertezsung had it coming. ML is retarded, it didn't work and won't work. Congratulations on somehow managing to become a subverted by a regime that doesn't even exist any more.

Y'all have a long history of creating states in which workers' have little to no control and are starved by incredibly inefficient collectivization programs. MLs and maoists served an important historical role as the groups which brought much of the pre-capitalist developing world kicking and screaming into capitalism. That is your function.

On the subject of Catalonia, as I understand it, their collectivized farming practices actually resulted in extraordinarily large harvests in the region.

Aside from that, saying that fascists were the only ones forced into GULAGs is just disingenuous. Even if somehow the occupants of GULAGs being solely fascist justified such a measure, you must realize that calling all dissenters of the regime and all threats to the centralized, alienated power fascist is just inaccurate.

There is nothing empowering about a system in which workers have no control but are rather appeased and suppressed. The party was not an expression of the will of the workers, but rather a group which lived in constant fear of the public developing consciousness of its situation. Kronstadt, the NEP, mass disappearings of dissenters among other things can all be understood according to this conception of the central regime.

also to be clear I do not defend all the actions of the Catalonians. I am not an anarchist, and even if I were, I do find the forced-labor camps objectionable. However, to me there is much more which can be salvaged from the legacy of the catalonians than from the legacy of all tankie autocracies combined

We should outright ban all form of bolshevikism due to the fact that they are fucking autistic

You keep sprouting this bullshit of how workers had no 'control', define what you mean by worker control and give proofs that in USSR workers did not have this so called control.

As for starvation, of course the food is going to be scarce and agriculture will suffer because of it when you are in a civil war, that is inevitable. What is possible is recovery from the damages of the war. Look for the agrarian and industrial production of USSR after War Communism and after NEP, the growth rate is order of magnitude more than most of the capitalist states of the time. Considering that Russian Empire was largely agricultural society and had incredibly poor infrastructure and industry, the industrialization after civil war and after WW II is nothing short of miracle compared to inefficient market economies and anarkiddie communes, same goes for China under Mao.

Much better results achieved in USSR.

So how would you or any other armchair leftcom would deal with dissent? If you think that there comes a time when everyone in society somehow magically becomes class conscious, or that there is some sort of a 'consciousness threshold' after which you have spontaneous communism, you are delusional. The question is what to do, instead of whining and bitching about ML's please give your ideas on how to achieve communism.

Kronstadt sailors were opportunists who were blocking a crucial port in times of hardship because they wanted to have all the comforts and riches while the country was suffering due to famines and damage done by civil war. It was a shame that they had to be removed by force but what would you do if a bunch of people selfishly demanded more while the people are starving?

Watch this pls
youtube.com/watch?v=e4YDkWzQZAw

It's called Anarcho-Wolffism and we have a flag for this already.

No. It was State Capitalism and State was Proletarian.

That's not how it works.

You can continue collapses ad infinitum and it will not change anything. The point is that you need a collapse as an opportunity for Vanguard to seize the power, not just a collapse.

Why not become a Communist? You are closet Marxists anyway (unless you are closet AnCap).

Comcap flag when?

Why are ML's such outright revisionists? Communism is the historical stage when the contradictions resolve, the final collapse.

They are some of the most dogmatic revisionist out there who refuses to acknowledge themselves as revisionist and accuses everyone else as being one.

Just because your Capitalism fails, you do not get free pass to Communism. You need productive forces for Communism.

What is revisionist there?

Please stop trying to force your bad maymay, it is downright pathetic at this time especially after you were claiming that only anarchists, tankies and socdems existed.

Revisionism is but a tankie artform, it is hardly surprising that they engage heavily in it.

It's a reality, Einstein.

Both Wolff and guy from OP share the same paradigm: Lenin's NEP was (literally) True Communism and Stalin fucked it up with Planned Economy.

And it contradicts what exactly? Are you capable of enunciating your malformed thoughts?

...

Stop.

But Wolff never stated that….

Why tankies have to rely on falsehoods to push their world view is something I will never be able to understand. Do they intentionally try to mislead people? Or are they functionally illiterate?

He did. Read his fucking book.

His definition of Communism (or Socialism - he doesn't find much of a difference between either - like all Anarchists, btw) is that people manage their enterprise. Period. He even called kolkhoz Communist (provided they weren't secretly controlled by KGB/NKVD).

This fits NEP to the letter: independent worker-managed co-ops.

Why the fuck do I need to repeat this all over again?

Your denial of reality is not going to change anything.

Where in the book are you talking about? post proof to back up your claims, I don't remember him ever stating such a thing and I am sorry to say this but without sufficient proof nobody is going to accept your claims as true.

I'm more of a fan of Anarcho- Monarchism

...

Nigga, he understood that Lenin proposed NEP as a solution to help mainly with the USSRs agriculture problems at the time, and explains how it helped in someways but also harmed in many other ways like engendering the way for Stalin's late 1920s agricultural changes.

He does not think NEP is literally communism you retard.

> I NEVER READ ANYTHING BUT I WILL BELIEVE WOLFF BECAUSE HE LOOKS RESPECTABLE AND SOUNDS CONVINCING
Kill yourself.

Literally, first pages:
> We differ with all these writers from whom we have learned much. Because we understand Marx’s social theory—and especially his class analytics—differently, we produce a different notion of socialism and communism. The notion of class we glean from Marx is neither defined as nor derived from unequal distributions of property or power. Such factors, although interactive with any society’s class structure, are nonetheless fundamentally different from it.
> By class we mean, in the first place, a process in society where individuals perform labor above and beyond (“surplus” to) that which society deems necessary for their reproduction as laborers (Resnick and Wolff 1987, ch. 3). In simplest terms, one part of the population does such necessary and surplus labor and receives back the fruits of the necessary labor for their own reproduction. These laborers deliver the fruits of their surplus labor—the “surplus”—to another part of the population that then distributes it to still another part.
> A class analysis in this sense classifies individuals in a society in terms of their relationship to this surplus. It asks who performs the necessary plus surplus labor, how is this socially organized, and how does the organization of the surplus impact the larger society? Secondly, a class analysis asks who first receives the surplus from the laborers, to whom do these receivers then distribute it, for what purposes, and how do these distributions affect the larger society? The analysis is particularly concerned with whether it is the same or different groups of people who respectively perform, appropriate, and/or receive distributions of the surplus. It is likewise interested in exploring the interdependence among these groups and how multiple, different organizations of the surplus may coexist within a society.
> Finally, after specifying a society’s arrangements for producing, appropriating, and distributing surplus—i.e., its class structures—this kind of analysis explores how nonclass processes of society (political, cultural, and so on) interact with the class processes in a mutually constitutive way.

the leninists brought this upon themselves

For Wolff, if economy is run by co-ops - it's Communism.

Yes or No?

Nothing in what you quoted just now supports your original claim that Wolff thinks that "Lenin's NEP was (literally) True Communism", trying to put words into the mouths of people you don't like due to personal dogmatic reasons reflects badly on your character and really does no good favours for the positions you support.

Can you add two and two together, you retard?

If co-op => Communism, then MarkSoc co-op economy (NEP) => Communism.

As for kolkhozs (which were organized the same way as industrial enterprises during NEP were, except with less state oversight):
> Likely for the first time in history, collectivization freed masses of farmers from exploitation and bare subsistence and organized them instead to participate in a communist class structure: to receive as a collectivity the fruits of their collective efforts.

Top kek, nothing like seeing central planners struggle to come up with a critique of left-wing markets other than >"its not comemeism"

Specially this dumb tripcuck

Go back to your AnCap thread. You still have to defend your Invisible Hand miracles there.

X-D!!

But NEP was not a system of only worker cooperatives (in which all the workers of the cooperative own the business collectively) a surprisingly large amount of smaller private enterprises run by private entrepreneurs were also able to conduct business. Additionally I believe that some larger enterprises were also leased to private entrepreneurs and they ended up conducting business in a vastly different way than a coop does, they hired people and exploited their labour in typical capitalist style.

This shows that NEP was not an economy based around coops but instead just plain old capitalism and as such you really can't just add two and two together, retard.

when is your winter break over?

Coops are not even a end all for even a socialist economy for Wolff, stop making shit up already.

I like how you are skipping around the issue and not providing evidence of Wolff saying that NEP is true communism, can you even provide evidence that he thinks coops alone are communism? What I also think is funny is that you barely have any understanding of what NEP actually is.
You really need to stop talking about shit you know nothing about, you are borderline shitposting at this point.

Since you haven't providing anything about Wolff saying anything about NEP then I will provide it for you. Seriously, does it even look like he thinks NEP is even socialism?

> But NEP was not a system of only worker cooperatives (in which all the workers of the cooperative own the business collectively) a surprisingly large amount of smaller private enterprises run by private entrepreneurs were also able to conduct business.
What do you mean "private enterprises"? Hiring people was illegal (theoretically, at least; Bolsheviks didn't actually control countryside during NEP, hence kulaks running amok there and necessity of collectivisation).

So - yes. It was a system of worker co-ops (some co-ops were state-owned, but Wolff doesn't believe in ownership and worker control was a thing).

Your personal beliefs (unsupported by historical evidence, to say the least) cannot "show" anything. See above: hiring people was illegal during NEP. The "Capitalist" part (as defined by Lenin) was market exchange, not wage-slavery.

Kek, tripfag pseudo-intellectuals get btfo again. First A.W., not Stalintrip. Hopefully someone can do this with Rebel, but his convictions aren't strong enough to provide substance for an argument.

Also this more prove that were lying when you said you had read his work. What a retarded piece shit you need to fuck off.

Such as central planning being a ffucking failure everywhere it was imposed XD??

ancaps are insufferable

Holy fuck are you serious? You are going full fucking revisionism, its so bad that its almost alternative history.

Quotes, please. I'm not reading 6 pages to ascertain that you are talking out of your ass - AGAIN.

Stop strawmanning. I said that he shares this paradigm - it follows from his works.

I repeat:.
Answer the damn question.

I already quoted him twice:
General concept:
Specific example:
What else do you need?

Was it you who posted you belief about Capitalist managing things during NEP?

You should start posting evidence:

lying to support your own argument is not exactly an honest thing to do.

see the second image in this post

That is not cooperative farms at all, they could hire labour and participated in ordinary capitalism.

Did you even read this very same book you claimed to read, it is okay if you didn't just in the future don't feign knowledge as it really only hurts your own reputation.

I really wonder why tankies have to be so disingenuous all the time.

You should follow your flag's advice

read luxembourg

...

Lol

read a fucking book

Rojava is nice but it is communalism

ha

so do ancaps

Wtf it didnt upload the pdf

waiting to see an example of functioning market anarchism

Anything which is not approved by the grand commissar's ministry of truth is questionable at best and can't be trusted in the eyes of a tanky :^)

...

...

You still didn't provide any proof of me lying.

What happened to "larger enterprises" going Capitalist?

What you are talking about is a strictly rural thing. And I mentioned it already. See above
> Bolsheviks didn't actually control countryside during NEP, hence kulaks running amok there and necessity of collectivisation

The question is about factories being operated by Capitalists in a Capitalist fashion. I say that it was thoroughly illegal thing and factories were operated like co-ops (worker control).

You several times said that it was not so, claimed that I lie, but did not provide a shred of evidence.

Lol

yarr it be another larper

arrrr matey!

...

Lol imagine being such a cuck that gets btfo and immediately replies with adhoms X-D

No wonder all planners end up starving, they cant even read a book!

lol literally stoopid!!

I'm not going to give you evidence when you won't read it in the fucking first you lying piece of shit if you can't even read 3 pages, so what would be the point of posting historical evidence? Do you think you can understand history with just a small fucking quote?

Plus quote mining can be misleading which is why I provided a bit more. I was nice enough to give you the benefit of the doubt that you would be at least be serious about this(it takes 2 minutes to get the idea of what Wolff thinks of NEP, which is also in line with most socialist think of the matter). This also proves that you didn't even read the book like you said you have because its exactly from THE SAME FUCKING BOOK.

sorry, Pirate-Mises-Market-Stirner-Anarchism.

Obviously I'm completely in the wrong by comparing this to anarcho-capitalism and autism.

tbh you can be a marxist, to say you hold dialectic materialism as your line of thought and be a porkie at the same time.

goddamn i thought i was autistic

being a COMCAHP is a total FRUHD and a SAG of SHEET.

Source: A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 47–48.

Fuck it, I'll post one source ffs.

What evidence would that be?

So you don't have a single quote to support your bullshit claims.

And it's 6 pages, in case you have problems calculating things.

That doesn't change the fact of you not having anything to support your statements.

It takes even less to see that Wolff is talking about agrarian economy during NEP - which was not Socialist in the least and has no relation to the topic - unlike industrial.

Where are industrial Capitalists you were touting as a proof?

The allowance of private enterprises and private entrepreneurs during the NEP is well known and information about their existence is widely known and as such is even on the Wikipedia article.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

Additionally here is some more stuff from a different resource.
acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/communistnationssince1917/ch3.html

However I am not sure if you would accept this information as valid as it was not from a red army propaganda leaflet.

And marxists have the audacity of claiming anarchists have no theory X-}

>The complete nationalization of industry, established during the period of War Communism, was partially revoked and a system of mixed economy was introduced, which allowed private individuals to own small enterprises, while the state continued to control banks, foreign trade, and large industries
Did this make you believe that there were Capitalists around?

It either refers to non-state co-ops, individuals (craftsmen), or to kulaks (i.e. agrarian economy).

Finally. One source.

Except I have no idea what this is about and it doesn't elaborate. Concessions to foreign Capitalists?

No one even mentioned that, plus you're putting words into peoples mouths, and are too autistic to even notice that you're talking to multiple people(this entire chain is just me), so there isn't any need to even really continue anymore, plus anyone could see that you're being a hardheaded backpedaling asshole now anyways.

Since the very first post I requested you to elaborate stuff you are talking about and clarified that I was not talking about rural economy:

You did not elaborate, nor did you react in any way to my clarification.

Let me quote you:

> I believe that some larger enterprises were also leased to private entrepreneurs and they ended up conducting business in a vastly different way than a coop does, they hired people and exploited their labour in typical capitalist style.

What were those "larger enterprises" if not industrial capital?

Yes. I don't really see there is any need for you to continue anymore.

However, someone else is backpedaling.

You are no longer interested in refuting my initial statement about "comcap" from OP sharing the same paradigm with RDWolff, are you?

Estoy todos aquí, estás respondiendo a los fantasmas otra vez, chiflado adolescente.

Wait no, the entire chain is not me.

I thought the point which was being argued was the false claim that Richard Wolff was claiming "Lenin's NEP was (literally) True Communism" which has by now has surely been sufficiently disproved.

Hey it is not the entire chain, the earlier posts were actually mine.

Read my post again:

I never said that Wolff actually said that NEP was True Communism. NEP was a big thing.

But if you take NEP "comcap guy" from OP is talking about (industrial, because agrarian part of NEP is not Communist/Socialist, was not developed by Lenin in any way beyond "let them do it", and makes zero sense in 21st century - it was literally medieval, sometimes even with human-drawn wooden ploughs) - that's the stuff RDWolff is always talking about and is calling True Communism.

No, it wasn't.

1) Wolff's definition of Communism as co-op economy - was not disproved
2) Lenin's NEP (industrial part) being co-op economy - was not disproved

Those are not even my post, what is wrong with you?

We all see what you are doing here :^)

...

This bait is weak.

Except you are deliberately ignoring the part where I clarified meaning of "Lenin's NEP" - right after the first response.

And where are the "larger enterprises" I was promised?

Lets not forget that a industrial part of the economy is not a equivalent to a whole economy.

its literally false equivalence

I'd like to hear by what definition workers did have any sort of control in the USSR. You keep asserting that the workers were empowered under Stalin's USSR. Please explain how.

On the point of famines, once again my point with Catalonia is that even during the civil war, they managed to greatly increase output while collectivizing the farms. No famines involved. But of course much better results were achieved in the USSR right? How could I forget all your "accomplishments?"

their demands were fairly reasonable. and as I understand it, they revolted pretty late in the civil war when the reds were pretty firmly in charge.

kek

that flag would make a good market socialism flag on here

get it added yo

(and Cuba pls)

No it wouldnt

Guys, stop bullying Stalintrip. Guy actually reads, even though he can be smug sometimes.

And Richard D. Wolff is really narrow-minded and just provides a politically correct review of the USSR so he can be this saloon Marxist for socially liberal normies.

it is impossible to create a socialist movement without denouncing the failed ones of the past

No need to denounce anything because the USSR doesn't exist anymore.

By just pandering to the liberal narrative about it you engage in defeatism. If you have any sort of self-respect about your own ideology left, you don't give a shit about someone's feels.
Makes you the laughingstock in a debate. Be intellectually honest point out the strengths of the socialist movements of the 20th century, and then add what could have been done better. Why the fuck would you start a debate with "I'm a socialist, but let me first point out how terrible socialist movements have been".

Americans don't think like that. The only reason wolff is successful is because he can distance himself from what Americans think were evil totalitarian dictatorships and talk about (market) socialism as an EXTENSION of le freedumz and democracy

I don't have a special love for him, but we need to emulate that model

(btw he has praised cuba for its accomplishments)

But setting up worker-run cooperatives is useless as long as you have a capitalist economy. Wasn't there recently an example of a sandwich coop that horribly failed? If you seriously were to engage in Market Socialism (with the endgoal of Mutualism) you'd still have to dismantle the entire capitalist structure with a strong interventionist welfare state, and that would be bloody and authoritarian by nature.

This thread shows otherwise ;^)

The thread shows that if you cherry-pick bits of sufficiently big posts, you can get any statement out of them.

Either way, my point stands: RDWolff and comcap guy from the OP want the same thing.

Notice that you did not even attempt to argue otherwise.

The USSR, and CCP did pretty well considering where they came from

The sandwich co-op was a one off thing that was exploited by the media for propaganda purposes.

No, you're talking about the vanguard party which surpasses democracy and then the proletariat when they revolt against it.

it's called "fascist corporativism"

...

Why not just mutualism? It takes the only good part of capitalism (competition/markets) while simultaneously placing the means of production into the hands of the workers.

This tbh