Was the U.S.S.R Socialist or state capitalist?

Not worker controlled though. They just got a new boss.

Have you ever actually read anything from Lenin on this question ?

Do enlighten me. Is what I said not the case?

But that's wrong… there were workers controlled commitees in factories and communal farming

This is just insane nitpicking and it drives me mad

Even under anarcho-communism or whatever system you envisage, we'd still have specialists, supervisors, experts, the division of labour and so on

So in that sense we'd still have bosses no matter what system we have.

If the party is made up of workers that rule in the workers interest, if society and its production is coordinated to favour the workers interest, if private property is abolished and equality achieved, how is that not socialism?

Where does state capitalism end and socialism begin? Because to me it just seems like "state capitalism" is used by anti-Leninist/Stalinist leftists who don't like the icky aspects of the Soviet Union.

It's because most Anarchists are just pissed off at any form of authority for no reason, and they hide behind a communist ideology because it offers empirical critique on flawed hierarchies in capitalism but in the end they just don't want to being told what to do.

Well, depends on your understanding of socialism and the nature of the soviet state.

If you understand socialism to be the transfer of ownership of the means of production to the workers, then NEP era USSR absolutely was not socialist even by Lenin's evalutation who declared it state capitalist. It was a specific kind of state capitalism though, where limited amounts of explicitly capitalist enterprise and market economy were permitted to operate essentially on the behalf of the state.
If we're talking post-NEP USSR, that's going to depend on your attitudes about the state in question. If you believe the Soviet state to be a 100% infallible representative of the working class (thus living up to its title as a "workers state"), then it would not be logically unfounded to say that the workers did own the means of production through an indirect route of state collectivization. If it understood however that much of the Soviet state acted independently and at least partially segregated from its proletarian constituents and frequently took actions that were not explicitly in the workers benefit, then this argument falls apart. Here we have an evolution then of the NEP state capitalism, where the state effectively steps in and directly takes over the role of the capitalists who had been previously allowed to operate semi-independently under the NEP.

If you understand socialism to be the abolition of value-form, then the the USSR absolutely and undeniably failed to achieve socialism.

That's like saying our modern capitalist system is socialist simply because it permits these organizations to exist. Exist as they may, they did not constitute all or even a majority (given some allotment for state control on the most basic industries if that suits you) of the control over production.

Only nominally so. They still had virtually no control as to how they produced, any say in the distribution of their produce, or any rights (even collective rights) to the land they worked. Functionally the average farmer did not experience that much difference between the system of tenant farming that had been dominant pre-collectivization and post-collectivization. They still held very little in terms of rights to their production post-collectivization, as the state ultimately was the final say for any decision that might take place.

Ion paper, perhaps. In reality the economy as a whole and with it the working class was entirely subjugated to the will of the Party. And since the Party was not made up of the members of the working class, it was not a proper Dictatorship of the Proletariat. And since the worker's didn't control the means of production, the USSR wasn't Socialist.

OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM

Even a baby could figure this one out

So no?

pick one

dustbin of history

You forgot one critical thing. Market Socialism is fucking awful.

i'd be willing to say it was a socialist country, albeit with many problems. IMHO, it was as socialist as the rest of the world was willing to let it get away with, if that makes any sense. people seem to complain about 'red fascism' and too me this is just fucking nuts. calling the ussr fascist is a disservice to all those that gave their lives fighting actual fascists, and dare i say, peak liberalism. there was far too much pressure from the outside imperialist nations that made it so socialism never would develop as it may have been intended by those assuming leadership. I'm of the opinion that you could have had a pure anarchist "no state" at the helm and they wouldn't have fared any better. Anarchists love to claim they would have done better but I'm not convinced of this. I have never found any convincing alternatives as to how they'd have been better off – and even then, its all BS speculation and "what ifs" with 20/20 hindsight.The shitting on the USSR is very opportunistic given how many right wingers in burger country already shit on it relentlessly. I side with Parenti's analysis that the Soviets were on the path toward communism and were socialist in the fact that they certainly prioritized the needs of the populace first. They were in sharp contrast to American and provided a serious counterweight or "threat" against what dominates now. If the US were encouraging of their socialist path, I think things would be a hell of a lot different and you wouldn't have seen so much repression.

Absolutely this.

Didn't Lenin himself call it State-Capitalist? Or was I mislead?

State Capitalism

...

Absolutely concur. However, I'd make the argument that when talking about worker controlled means of production, those same means of productions needs to be controlled directly and not indirectly through a fascist state. Tankies are actully fucking retarded if they think the USSR is an accurate representation of socialism
pic related

He did. Marx and Engels thought of implementing radical leftist theory in nations where the industry was the most developed, like Germany for an example. However, at the time of unrest in Germany the manifesto wasn't ready yet so large-scale leftist revolutions didn't happen.
Russia on the other hand was basically feudal at the time. Knowing that Russia was bydlo af, Lenin implemented state-capitalism as a transition-period until they could implement socialism. This implementation of marxist theory in the Russian agricultural and feudal framework was called "marxism-leninism". He even wrote a book about that state-capitalist shit with the same title, calling it a great victory for the proletariat. But surprise, surprise, a fucking tankie piece of shit, like the ones on this board, went full on fascist and never moved on from state-capitalism.

Capitalism/Fascism with the bureaucrats instead of the bourgeois as the ruling class.

Production for use, not production for exchange.

You got misled. Lenin called NEP State Capitalist, not Centrally Planned economy - as Wolff claimed.

Well, this is the correct part.

Anarchist concept of Socialism is low-level democracy, that need not extend beyond your immediate surroundings to be called Socialist. It is also a "final stage", that should not bend to circumstances or be compromised for some future. Therefore, worker influence on their workplace must be very high, co-op independence is also high, and there are no excuses for not having it.

Marxism, on the other hand, requires you to democratically control the entirety of industrial economy to be able to call it Socialist. Otherwise, exploitation is not abolished, since you will be producing for exchange. I.e. your life will still be controlled by laws of market. Therefore, Means of Production has to be owned not by individual co-ops, but socially - by the whole society. This, obviously, means that not only your fellow workers get to say how your co-op is run, but all workers (unless, of course, we are talking about mostly independent production - farming, for example; kolkhozs had much more freedom).

Additionally, this Marxist Socialism is a transitional Socialism. The one that is still flawed due to imperfect circumstances and has to be improved upon - both technologically and politically - until true Socialism (Communism) is reached. Therefore, it could be compromised for the sake of the future - at this stage democracy is a tool, not a goal.

Hence, worker direct influence on their workplace is inherently expected to be lower (in exchange for influence on other workplaces and, consequently, increased indirect influence on their own) and it is permissible to reduce it even more.

The rest is bullshit.

Strawman. Marxism does not have "100% infallible", nor belief. And calling Soviet state "representative" is simply wrong. It implies that workers were not involved directly in it.

Collectivization refers to one specific event: collectivization of farms. I.e. creation of farming co-ops - kolkhozs. And kolkhozs were not owned by state. They were owned by the peasants - even if state regulated things quite a bit due to importance of food production at the time.

The word you should've used is "nationalization".

And so far I've yet to see any proof of sufficient segregation to be able to agree with this. Soviets attempted to "deheroize" government to an insane (for West) degree. Being congressmen was a part-time job.

Source, please. x2

Source, please.

For fucks sake, this is one of the arguments that Soviets did not have Socialism that gets paraded every time: farmers were literally selling their produce on a market. To regular people. For money.

Which is why LeftCom Revisionists are foaming out of the mouth: Not Real Socialism. But now you say that it didn't happen - which is retarded - but also claim that it is proof of Soviets not having Socialism?

Can you retards duke it out somewhere among yourselves?

Source, please.

No it wasn't. When Lenin advocated for the NEP, he specifically said that State capitalism in Russia would have been a huge step forward to socialism.

see >>1341546

Let me give you the link to the whole text: marxists.catbull.com/archive/bookchin/1950/state-capitalism.htm

I did read it. How isn't the essay relevant?

Then you did not read my post. Did I or did I not specifically point out that there are two concepts of Socialism?

Or are you telling me that Bookchin argues from the position of Marxist?

I think you'll find that his critique is consistent with what a Marxist would make, yes.

"supervisors" aren't the problem, it's unaccountable owners. I always dislike it when people say that "Bosses" are the problem, when they in turn are commanded by the owners.

I'd say the workers would have to have some official way to influence who the "bosses" (not owners!) are, and what will be done.

This "workers interest" is the important part. It isn't just themselves "declaring" to be doing everything in the interest of the workers, but them actually confirming that.

If the owners aren't the workers, and they don't get to decide what is done with the surplus value of production, I'd be somewhat skeptical.

I had problems with this one myself, but know i am bretty confident that yes, USSR was socialist

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm

I love you Xjin,you are the only tripfag actually worth reading.

Except the state in the USSR was largely divorced and alienated from the actual workers themselves. In theory it was democratic but in practice all meaningful decision making was done by the party elite and bureaucrats.

Stalinist states can best be described as Marxist-inspired brands of Welfare Capitalism all incorporating varying degrees of exchange-economy. The USSR under Stalin was probably "peak Marxism" with Yugoslavia, DPRK, and Cambodia having almost nothing to do with any kind of Communistic theory at all.

For-profit production and the accumulation of Capital unquestionably dominated all the old self-styled Socialist states but I've never had any real problem with describing Soviet Capitalism as "Communism" when necessary. The S.U. should always be seen as, first and foremost, a bourgeois society. But it too should be recognized as something radically different from Western liberalism, a real threat to private interests. Totally associating ourselves with the failures of (Stalinized) Capitalism is of course nonsensical, but denying Communism's role in creating it would be hurtful and dishonest.

Sadly, Communists have proven pathetically incapable of providing any real criticism of the USSR outside of the standard Westerm imperialist apologetics. Unironic use of "Totalitarianism" and "Dictatorship" as pejoratives are not uncommon here.

I have a higher opinion of Marxists.

lad be less stupid

a tripfag has shat on this thread. but no it was 100% state capitalist.

Russian marxist Alexander Tarasov thinks that it was neither
greanvillepost.com/2012/11/30/opeds-super-etatism-and-socialism-towards-a-statement-of-the-problem/

"It is obvious that “real socialism” did not correspond with these primary characteristics of socialism. Under “real socialism” we had:

a) a state (that, compared to capitalism, even expanded its authority – instead of “withering away”);

b) commodity-money relations, which inevitably, according to Engels, had to generate capitalism;

c) the institutions of bourgeois representative democracy (in addition, it was reduced, in essence, to oligarchy);

d) exploitation and alienation, which in their intensity and totality equaled the exploitation and alienation in the capitalist countries;

e) state (and not communal) ownership of the means of production

f) social classes

and finally

g) the same mode of production as under capitalism – large-scale commodity machine production or, in other words, the industrial mode of production.

At the same time, it can be proven that “real socialism” was not also capitalism: the market mechanism was absent (even since the “Libermanian” reform only some elements of the market economy have appeared, but not the market itself; in particular, the market of capital was completely absent, without which the market mechanism cannot work in principle); the state did not act as a private owner and an aggregate capitalist (as it should be under state capitalism), i. e. as one (even the main one) of the subjects of the economy, but absorbed the economy and tried to absorb society, i. e. the state acted rather as an aggregate feudal lord in relation to its citizens, at the same time not having the capacity to act in the same way in relation to other means of production (because of the absence of private property and other “feudal lords”); market competition was completely absent.

I propose that in the USSR (as in the other “real socialist” countries) we were dealing with a special socio-economic system – super-etatism, a system which developed parallel to capitalism within the framework of a single mode of production – the industrial mode of production.

In the Marxist tradition the system is named after of the most progressive owner (“slave-holding system”, and not “slave system” – after the slaveholder; “feudalism” – after the feudal lord, and not after the serf; “capitalism” – after the capitalist, and not after the worker). In this sense it would be more correct to call super-etatism simply etatism, but, unfortunately, this term is—as it is usually said in similar cases—a matter of debate in the social sciences."

MUH REAL SOCIALISM™
get over it.
It fucking worked for over 50 years.

Who is this "state"?

I can't even begin to explain how wrong this is.

Marxism with Russian characteristics, eh?

I might try giving a review of this monstrosity on /marx/, but no promises.