Marxism-Leninism: Vehicle of Capitalism

libcom.org/library/marxism-leninism-vehicle-capitalism

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_internationalism
youtube.com/watch?v=dBZxth7SMmM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Now let's see the tankies defend this.

Tankies BTFO how will they ever recover?

Lol fucking what?

Dude is hard right, a merger of state and corporate power. He's the closest thing Russia will ever see to a fascist.

thatsthepoint.jpg

muh horseshoe

tankies cant defend anything

they just destroy any semblance of discussion and claim victory once their opposition gives up

the scorched earth of discourse, appropriately

tankies were never and never will be socialists
they are fascists with red aesthetics

Eternally mad

I already came here mad from rocket league

lez do this fgt

Let's deal first with the argument put forward by liberals, anarchists, and left-coms that state-ownership/nationalization is merely capitalism getting bigger and badder in a new form. We're often told that Soviet socialism was just a more extreme form of capitalism, something even more advanced then the monopoly-capitalism present in the West and thus something which we can only take a bad example away from.

Did inequality in the Soviet Union grow far beyond the bounds of what existed in the West? Were there Soviet billionaires that had greater personal wealth and stocks of private capital then existed in the West? No evidence for that exists so we can't conclude that the primary purpose of Soviet "state-capitalism" was personal enrichment or that it was in anyway more extreme then in this respect then the West.

The Soviet Union was the number two super-power at best, the number one was the United States which raised its capital and bolstered its imperialist aims mainly through private means. Other imperialist states that depended mainly on private capital such as the UK, Japan, France and Germany certainly gave the Soviets and even the US to a certain extent a run for their money.

So we can't conclude that the predominance of state-based "capital" in an economy makes it more imperialist then one that uses private capital merely because the state has the power to create legal monopolies. The monopolies form whatever the policy taken under modern capitalism.

Now that the Soviet Union and the East bloc has collapsed and capitalist economies have generally regressed back towards private capital and private capital based solutions can we say the world is more equitable?

Considering that in 1982 there were 13 billionaires in the world officially and now there are 2,043 billionaires it seems unlikely that the passage away of "state-capitalism" and the movement back towards private capital typical of the neoliberal era has not produced more equitable results. Nor is the world more peaceful and the leading powers less imperialist.

Nor was the world anymore egalitarian before the Soviet "state-capitalism"

This is always the fallback of anarchists, leftcoms and others when their claim that the Soviet Union was somehow a "worse" or more "extreme" capitalist power is shown to be false.

The problem is that based on the available evidence even bourgeois scholars have concluded that the Soviet Union was more equitable then any comparable social democracy. Mid-50s Japan national income Gini of .3 is still higher then that of the Soviet Union to say nothing of the fact that the favorable comparisons between socialism and social democracy are often made by simply looking at the income between groups rather then the wealth of ruling groups, which is almost always higher in traditional capitalist countries where it can be retained in private and open form without much interference from the law. It is true that the war had wiped out much of the wealth of Japanese elites (that we know of) but Soviet elites were largely not allowed to openly keep any mop or other types of wealth in broad daylight for fear of confiscation.

Then some might wonder which society came closer to the ideal concept of socialism one where the economy was planned and most peasants were organized into cooperatives or one where there was a free market, private financial capital etc, etc.

Maybe that was the reason why the world bourgeoisie by and large did not adopt the Soviet model as the ideal method of oppressing workers and accumulating wealth? But if that's the case then it would be hard to say that proletarian revolutions of the 20th century were nothing but a vehicle for capitalism that never represented any kind of threat to the system?

Hell, if bourgeois scholars are to be believed there were primitive tribes more unequal (but certainly not richer) then the Soviet Union…
It definitely shows that this is a dated text but by this time most modern MLs argue that the Soviet Union had passed into a revisionist stage and was moving backwards towards open capitalism


This is nothing but blatant anti-communism and fascist apologism. Even the revisionist USSR was better then genocidal Nazi Germany, sorry. In some ways, you could say that Soviet workers were better off then in the West, they certainly were closer to them on the world scale then the Third World nations.

...

there is literally nothing in here proving that the ussr was in any way socialist


not arguments and dont imply socialism at all you fucking worthless mongoloid


i dont like the colour blue therefore everything else is red

you are Holla Forums tier retarded

>not arguments and dont imply socialism at all you fucking worthless mongoloid
That's rich tbh people like you just repeat "worker ownsfership of the means of productions" like a holy mantra and hype whatever co-op movement or union strike effort that comes along under capitalism. Yet you can't even explain how a country where the peasantry (which made up 90% of the population in 1917) were organized into cooperatives and private property was completely abolished wasn't socialism.

I've heard the excuses before "the government told them what to do!" "they had to sell their grain to the government" etc. as if you could just hand the peasants the ownership of the farms and leave everything else up to the world market. Market socialism is an oxymoron which is nothing but capitalism with a worker-ist face which has failed everywhere its been put in practice (like Dengist China, Yugoslavia etc.) And even Robert C. Allen admits that the Soviet state paid the peasantry fair prices for their grain when comparing it to world prices.

So the question is how would the economy be planned if not for the state in 1920s-30s Russia? Decentralized planning essentially creates the kind of chaos between regions (like in Maoist China) that essentially leads back to market relations and mark soc. sure it may work well within your community but what about when you want to trade with the next village over?

To go with market soc. as the most pragmatic option would be just to concede defeat to capitalism and allow the economy to be planned via whatever the market decides are the most profitable industries and the most in-demand skills on the part of the division of labor. In short, capitalism, maybe a somewhat fairer capitalism (which is ironically what you accuse us of) but still capitalism.

At least the Left-coms genuinely believe that nothing can really be done as long as the law of value cannot be abolished, their generally not dumb enough to fall for the coops and market socialism memes. I mean I think its retarded because it basically says or implies that if you can't go to full-communism right away why even try but it is something, much better then the blind worship of worker spontaneity and activist culture, dissidence-for-dissidence sake etc, etc.

95% of Holla Forums on the other hand… their still trying socialism-in-one-factory


The OP obviously alludes to the existence of hierarchy and inequality in the USSR and takes it as prima facie evidence that since it exists its not a socialist society. Thanks for proving my point for me though, you're absolutely right the existence of inequality does not prove that a country is or isn't socialist.

However, since one metric of socialism is the construction of a fairer economy without exploitation and the satisfaction of man's needs then looking at the inequality in a nation does make some sense when trying to ascertain if they genuinely attempted socialism.

Since they were more equal then any social democracy in the world and they had worker's rights and achievements not matched by any Western social democracy leaving aside the fact that all successful soc democracies are imperialist nations that were already rich then we can ascertain that the USSR wasn't a typical social democratic capitalism. It was better then any other social democracy in that respect and it also rejected basic features of a capitalist economy like a market economy and private ownership of means of production.

Well its a fair question, if it was just another vehicle of capitalism why didn't they like it? If they chose not to adopt it/fought it in absolutely almost every country that they could avoid doing so then what is the basis for saying that they liked it as you imply?

Okay, so they never really were in love with it but what point did they make the most peace with it? I'd say that was the revisionist period under Khrushchev and his successors which ironically was supposed to free the country from the perceived negatives of Stalinism. Wonder why that failed? It is a question worth asking since left-coms, Trots, and Ancoms essentially have identical views about the Stalin period. Why didn't Khrushchev's Thaw and Glasnost lead to a better type of socialism, why did instead lead to the most brutal type of capitalism after 1989?

Why didnt the forms of socialism untainted by Stalinism/Leninism, which are really the most popular types in the West, fail to achieve anything of note beyond pink-haired punks smoking meth and living in dives or hipsters virtue-signaling on twitter? Even most of the "Leninist" movement abandoned and criticized "Stalinism" after 1956 why didn't that really produce any results either?

im not even going to read the rest of your post you retard

state owned private property is not an abolishment of private property

co-operatives are not socialism

How about better socialism.

...

first two sentences display a complete ignorance of the subject matter

Where did this meme come from ?

There's marxism-leninist groups working with the YPG

You're making a fool out of yourself, kid.

you need to read

Show me the palaces Soviet politicians resided in

Think about what the word "private property" entails for a moment.

*words

It entails legal acknowledgement (including on a international scale i.e. nation borders) and state enforcement (which the USSR had)

are you two fucking dense?

A state is a private entity so long as it exists within a capitalist world with other nation states to compete with

Read Marx faggots, understand the necessity of internationalism

...

Nobody fucking denies that.

What would your solution be? War with the entire world?

HAVE YOU TWO NIGGERS NOT READ ANYTHING EVER?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_internationalism

You're just redefining state-property to mean private property and vice-versa. Pretty sure Dark Ages warlords held private property without a state around to enforce it or not much of one anyway. The class contradictions and property forces create the need for a state not vice-versa, if the state were to fall ruling classes would simply create a new one as they have throughout history-you have to solve the problem of class systems and the system of production before you can do away with the state.


As for borders even indigenous american tribes had a clear conception of communal ownership of land and property and borders/territory held by neighboring tribes even if they didn't have private property in any meaningful sense of the word.

Also I'm pretty sure most anarchist organizations that seized any actual territory over the past 3 centuries clearly objected to capitalists and capitalist soldiers violating their borders, even if they didn't always call it that.

*property formations/mode of production create the need

youtube.com/watch?v=dBZxth7SMmM

under capitalism there is literally no difference