What went wrong?

They were not liberals they were Marxist's who where more focused on peasants and reformism. And plus even if they were just liberals he could have just allied with the socialist revolutionary party.

...

...

...

They were reformists but not liberals.

Tbh I'd rather go liberal and have a shot a real socialism than go full tank.

Imagine being so butthurt.

USSR was real (siege) socialism, read Parenti.

...

Backing the actual revolutionary option? Count me in.
What book?

...

✔ Classless society
✔ Had a state
Yep, it was socialism.

...

...

By your logic having managers in factories means we can't have communism.
Keep breathing in those memes fam

...

That's true. No managers instead lets try a system that actually gives workers power. Workplace democracy.

Can your squatting communes stand up military intervention and develop the forces of production so we have communism?

Except managers under real socialism would be answerable to the workers. Party elites weren't answerable to jack shit, they ate caviar by the black sea while Ivan and his family shared turnips and a candle in Siberia.

Basically he believed that he was 100% right about everything ever.

They can at least not be red fascism.

Anyone could join the party and get involved in it. It didn't extract value from the people's labor. It wasn't a class.

He was tbh.

We actually have a book about this, user.

I expected to see washy stalinists itt, not fucking Menshevik apologists. Goddamn

They controlled the means of production. You could "get involved" just as easily as you can become bourgeois.

...

Stalin

It was wrong from the start. If you want to try again, Step 1 is hanging yourself.

What do you mean?

Lenin wasn't decisive enough. Reformers and moderates killed the USSR, not Stalinists.

No, since you need investors and you need to exploit proles to become a bourgeois. Way easier to get involved in the party, no material barrier.

...

You could become a member maybe but in order to become a high ranking member you needed to have some connections in the oligarchy.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? How about some more evidence based discussion here.

Notice how the high ranking group didn't change much unless there were purges?

Every other party was opposed to the revolution.

Classes still exist in the period of the workers state/dotp, read Marx, or Lenin, or Lukasc

...

The Mensheviks and the Right SRs advocated for bourgeois democracy and tried to destroy the Soviets, Kerensky - for instance - was an SR.

The Left SRs supported the revolution but then tried to coup the government after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk because they wanted to continue the first world war. After their suppression they returned to their old Narodnik tricks and became terrorists.

Both fores were duly suppressed - along with the bourgeois parties - because they worked to dismantle proletarian political power. Pure reaction.

Don't bother. anti-Bolshevik "Communists" never propose any real alternatives to the party. It's far more convenient for them to abstract away from the reality of party-politics at the time by setting up a Bolshevik-Soviet dichotomy, supposedly ending in the destruction of Soviets.

You could "get involved" in the Nazi party too, that didn't make it a democratic institution that genuinely represented the people. The party elite were totally alienated from the population at large, who had little control over the state and economy. Even if the party didn't extract value in the capitalist sense, that doesn't mean they weren't (at least in practice) a class apart from the average Soviet citizen.

The Nazi party ran a capitalist economy. Nazi Germany was capitalist and had privately owned businesses and property. The Bolshevik party ran a socialist economy. The USSR didn't have privately owned business or property. How is this hard to understand?

The party itself isn't the problem, it's structure and continued existence post revolution are. I would be fine with a vanguard that was simply a mass organization linking together all the workers councils before the revolution for the purposes of co-ordination, communication, and to ideally establish unity of action. The political wing shouldn't be separate from the workers themselves organizing on the factory floor, it should be the direct expression of the political will of those workers.

I didn't say that Nazi Germant and the USSR were the same, I said that just because you could get involved with a party doesn't make it democratic, and it doesn't mean political power is held by the population at large instead of the party elite.

Topd you

...

Maybe we should've killed all the Jews too eh old chap?

Nice, the marxists startd screeching autistically

Nice failed states

No, we should kill all mexicans and niggers, considering Marx's opinion on them, what, dont tell me you belive Marx was not extremely racist, Have you read the letters to Engels?

SAY IT WITH ME FOLKS!

C O U N T E R - E C O N O M I C S
O
U
N
T
E
R
-
E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C
S

Russia was a freaking wreck and just got off the World War. In order to keep shit together, Lenin had to centralize the state until things stabilize.

Problem was, he died before the transitional stage was over. Stalin took over. Stalin killed most of Lenin's friends. Stalin turned USSR into an oligarchy. Lenin did warn that the guy's methods were too harsh to represent the people, but that was only shortly before he died, so there was enough time to cover up the evidence from the majority of people.

TL:DR - Papa Lenin died too soon :(

Hmmm.

Ayy lmaoo!! Look how triggerd the marxists actually get!!

Say it with me now

F A I L E D S T A T E S

Stalin didn't magically do it all on his own. The economic and geopolitical situation necessitated that kind of socialism. Why else would literally ever other socialist revolution of the era behave in similar ways?

Failed states are better than no states.

Yeah umm like thats the whole point????

""Failed States"" vs nothing.

Say it with me, failed states pretending to not be states

Sorry cant hear you over countless workers co-ops and mutual banks where workers take part in the production process in a democratic and non-hierarchical way

Have fun overthrowing capital that way.

As opposed to overthrowing capitalism by doing nothing?

Bad theory combined with worse praxis.

Are you implying worker coops and mutual banks are more effective than doing nothing?

Well there is no capital accumulation, coercive property rights, or an authoritarian way of production in most workers coops

Find it difficult to call it capitalism

...

Buzzwords are not an argument

Pls tell me :), I'm just a stupid Marxist.

You're both wrong. Creating institutions to dominate society isn't the solution, nor is maintaining the marketplace as a means of resource distribution.

You're right, we should create a state but not call it that.

Not a voluntary exchange of labour embodied in commodities in which nomuse ofmforce in thenform of property rights were used to keep a portion of the value generated by the workers, basically what mutualism is

You are right, we should create production for exchange and a market but not call it like that

ZZTT- wrong. Try again.

At least you guys have creating terrible strawmen in common :^)
Institutions that empower society are not the same as institutions that dominate them.
Municipalization of production is in no way production for exchange.

Markets are not capitalism, no matter how hard you meme it

But that's not what anarcho-edgy is talking about, he means ANY form of state.

You don't know what "capital" is no matter how much theory you don't read.

Post-leftism is indeed cancer, but you shouldn't conflate any institution of power with that of a state

Irrelevant whether or not it's capitalism. Market exchange is still inherently inefficient and exploitative.

Just because you change your opinion of whatmcapitalism on a daily basis doesnt mean you are correct

Capitalism has defined characteristics, mutuqliwm only shares the use of banking and markets, it howevers does not utilizes state control nor private property

They are distinct moran, not that hard to understand

Absolutely, it is still desireable over planned production however

That's the anarchist definition of the state no?

Not at all. I define "capital" as the self expansion of value and the corresponding production relations, circuits of circulation and periods of turnover in accordance with the former two aspects I just mentioned. I've been very consistent on this definition, so I don't know why you think I've ever changed my mind.

Only when compared to the planned production found in states, or other institutions of domination. What is inherently bad about planned production? What is bad about planned production when it is done through Municipalization?

Some schools of anarchism, yes, but anarchists tend to ignore the reality that power will always exist. It can either be used towards libertarian end, which means the empowerment of the society to rule themselves. Or it can be used towards authoritarian ends, the domination of society by an institution put 'above' or 'outside' of society.

How do you think decentralized planned production can function without a central authority to at least set deadlines for agreements to be met?

The philosophy of poverty strikes again!

Including thenstruggle between the proprietor class and the exploied masses, there is no proprietor class in mutual economies, it appears that mutualism does not comform to yourmdefinition of capitalism

It is less effective than a market, we could probably plan certain commodities, but not all

Through effective cooperation and communication. You can have that without it being dictated.

Can you expand on this? Less effective in what way, and what commodities could not be "planned"?

Just because you have a meme-tier understanding of Capitalism doesn't mean I have to stoop to your level.

Not really. I consider cooperatives to be a part of the Capitalist system. Hey, maybe you should read Capital and stop opposing Capitalism on moralistic grounds Mr. Spook :). The "self expansion of value" is not being opposed for any ethical reason, that exact logic is why we see a boom and bust. It's why our system is precarious and why mutualism (with ""worker"" property rights) is a pipe dream.

What if a large swath of people decide not to cooperate? How do you real with that?

Economic planning implies strict adherence to it, I guess we could plan education, roads, transportation, but certain commodities, especifically those aimed at satisfying wishes, cannot be properly planned, how are we going to centrally plan oce cream, music, paintings, clothes, pets, skateboards?

This is not how it works fam

Also

Read "What is property" again, there is no such thing as "workers property"

In a society where the citizenry is suitably informed and empowered, and compose the institutions of power, why would such a situation come about? Such a lack of cooperation would ultimately be to the detriment of those not cooperating. In short, the scenario relies on completely irrational actors. However, if through some lovecraftian means they become insane creatures of irrational hatred, they would effectively cease to be apart of the society and instead form an institution outside of society with the intent to dominate it. The empowered society would deal with it through the use of said power, be it force or other means.

You plan it through the expression of public will, and the public will is constantly being expressed through the institutions of power i.e. popular assembly and it's multiple levels.

wow just wow

I know but I feel like it stems from not understanding the development of class consciousness and is something they can be convinced of.

The purpose of the vanguard is to lead the less class conscious strata of society. If consciousness was uniform across the entire class, then every prole would be in the party and the party wouldn't serve any purpose because workers would just instinctively be making revolution. So under the conditions of revolution and civil war the party is still very much necessary to push the more backward and cowardly strata forward.

Obviously after the world revolution is completed and the bourgeoisie are sent the way of Carthage, the dotp comes to an end so does the party's purpose and it dissolves.

problem friend?

Class consciousness doesn't exist.

The first time visiting here. It's so retarded

Are you following demand curves and engaging in production accordingly? This sounds exactly like a market, markets can engage in production by demand too

Economic planning implies stablishing production quotas and following them disregarding demand curves, otherwise there is no planned production, but a centralized market

Hot opinion.

Yeah, I guess the theory of Capitalism Marx spent the better part of his life developing rigorously is just "Muh special snowflake Capitalism". Unlike you, who attributes the sole logic of Capitalism to property rights, something that preceded Capitalism. Your definition of "Capital" which is completely divorced from the definition used in every other school of economics including the Marxian one Proudhon would be grouped into is the correct one. Marx's is just a special snowflake one lol wow!

I've heard you shouldn't argue with a stupid man because he will never argue in good faith. That is untrue, a stupid man may be willing to learn if you extend him the offer. On the contrary, you should never argue with an ignorant man because the absence of knowledge is what he takes pride in.

There are differing needs within a community. Natural disasters that can wipe off resources, ideologically motivated leaders etc. Really, this sounds a bit utopian but I'm open to hear your solution. I agree they are irrational actors - do you think we a rational race? Have you been on pol?

Oh so you're a marginalist? I thought we were using an LTV?

I wouldn't call it a market, no, because ultimately a market produces things for exchange. Things would be produced for use, but what is produced is decided through decentralized and directly democratic means

There are certainly different needs within a community, but ultimately the community will have an agreed upon social contract based on a humanist ethic. From each according to his ability, to each according to their need. Humans indeed have the potential to be irrational, but they have the potential to be rational as well. Society should be formed in such a way as to encourage the former and discourage the latter. Politics should be the means by which people become self actualized, rational beings capable of partaking in productive discourse. These things have all existed by themselves perhaps, but indeed it is true that the combination of them has not yet existed. Still, this does not mean that such a thing cannot be made and should not be strived for.

Again, it does not conform to the modus operandi of capitalism that you described, it is not capitalism, unless you want to point out where is the reppressive state enforcing private property right in favour of the priviledged proprietor

Unless you do, you dont have an argument

Marginalism is in no way in conflict with the LTV, marginalism explains the exchange value of a commodity, even Marx agrees on this, the exchange value is determined by the demand of a commodity, dont conflict value terms

cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/terms/usevalue.html

I understand how a farmer or a bakry can produce for use, but how would a teacher, a dctor, a welder and so on produce "for use"

If it means that it is used by someone else other than him, how is this other person obtaining the service or the commodity? Using some form of exchnage? Engaging in the usage of exchnage values?

But that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking in case what I'm saying does happen, what do you do? Even if this is a rare happening, you should be prepared with theory that can deal with it. I'm not trying to be one of those ad-hoc excuse types tha points out a billion different things that could theoretically go wrong. I'm leaving the issue as vague as possible, and consequently the solution can be extremely vague. But the solution also involves going beyond what the community has agreed upon, and building upon it. That's why I support decentralized production among the community but a central authority for efficiency.

Let me ask you this: in the mutualist economy, can me and my friends come down to your cooperative and use all your supplies to build a delux water park in my backyard? Or can my cooperative democratically agree to dump toxic waste in your workspace? I guess I'm done trying to explain what I mean by "Capital" to you, have a book.

Sorry I should be more clear. Are you a Walrasian now?

A power hungry shit who after the revolution didn't want to be in charge, but was pretty much pressured into it.

yeah, sounds power hungry all right

It is not your property, you do not have the right to cause harm, the proprietor causes harm to land because the state has given him the right and the legal protection to do so

As for the waterpark, if your project does not harm water supply in anyway, or even if you can support the water supply coop with the expenses, i dont see why you would not be able to supply the demand for waterparks

This model and barganing in general is still not in conflict with the LTV, as it explains the exchange value via the deamnd of it, the prices will be similar to those of the price of labour since labour power is also commodified

Producing for use does not simply mean producing for personal use, it means producing for that commodities "use value", not the value it can have when exchanged i.e. "exchange value". The services these people provide all serve a use and have a "use value" because of it.

I think I already answered that in this post.
The vagueness of the question makes it somewhat difficult to answer besides vaguely.

Why not?

Let me rephrase that:
There is nothing to prove the existence of class consciousness

The people's war was lost at Kronstadt.

I have no idea what you are trying to say but:
WEW. The entire conception of equilibrium in that theory is the in complete opposition to the one used by Marx or Proudon. Says Law is a myth, and you have no idea what you're talking about because an endogenous theory of money is opposed to Walras and his models in every way. youtube.com/watch?v=efQaGFZeLnU&t=1237s

I'm still confused. What system is used to uncover public will?

A system of libertarian municipalism. Essentially, popular assemblies with multiple levels.

I'm gonna sleep now. I don't think I'm necessarily in opposition to that, but would there not be a "highest level" that could vote to set deadlines?

There is the "confederal level", but ultimately the confederal level is merely an expression of the "lower levels".

So I don't see any reason why deadlines could not be a thing so long as they're self imposed

How can people be so stupid to fall for muh democracy aka "goodbye communism because nobody will agree on the transition chnages between capitalism and communism"

That is why you need an one party leadership, I think the best way to do that would be to make the government have an expiration date, for example after 5 years after the revolution the government seizes to have power or exist and is dissolved, any attempts to keep it in power should be met with force,
That way you will avoid power hungry people

Lenin was based, he wasn't power hungry you morons, that was stalin

they literally banned non-bolsheviks into the soviets

Note that literally no one except Lenin wanted to seize the moment and start a worker's revolution. Not even the Bolsheviks. Before Lenin arrived, Kamenev and Stalin, who were in charge in Petrograd, were happily working with the bourgeois democracy in the provisional government. When Lenin returned to Russia and urged for revolution, the other Bolsheviks and even his wife all thought he'd gone insane. He had to threaten to resign to get them on board with the idea. If he couldn't even trust his own party to get things right, why would he trust the other parties? Lenin was often noted to be a very forceful and determined personality. I imagine that by the time he managed to drag the others kicking and screaming towards actually doing what their supposed purpose was, his mentality was along the lines of, "It has to be me. The others will get it wrong."

...

...

Are you sure this isn't just an artificial or simulated market? Which is basically identical to a planned economy where the quota is set by popular demand. An ACTUAL market has sets of private property owners offering goods, and it is just left to hoping that market competition will set the prices of goods efficiently.

That's a lot of fucking writing for putting literally 0 arguments in.

The fact that Marxism will always result in failure. He should have tried to implement alternative forms of socialism.

this is why all the bourgeois countries were set up with constitutions with provisions making the revolution non-optional and also limiting state power to prevent bonapartism.