How are MLs leftists?

Compare that house from Stalin with Versailles then…go on ;)

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

this is already known. anyone who still makes stalin apologia unironically ought to be treated like any other reactionary because that's exactly what they are: Holla Forums pretending to not be Holla Forums

The state itself functioned as the bourgeoisie with the surplus being extracted from workers being reinvested at the whim of the bureaucracy. It certainly is qualitatively different from western free-market capitalism, but it was still capitalism. Socialism would necessitate a much greater paradigm shift than a simple replacement of the the bourgeois class.

Says the corruption apologist. Your kind will be deported to the US where is socially accept to be corrupted. You aren't needed to build socialism, you useless cunt.

wtf i'm a tankie now
Stalin created a truly functioning socialist society.

I never really understood why other leftists are so keen to shit upon M-Lism/the USSR.
Is it because they feel inadequate and irrelevant by comparison?

Given all of the achievements of the USSR (right up until Khrushchev fucked it over), I would think that any non-sectarian socialist would be keen praise what it and by extension orthodox M-Lism were able to do.

Only Marxism-Leninism can claim to have established a long lasting workers state.
Only Marxism-Leninism can claim to have defeated Fascism in Europe.
Only the USSR can claim to have improved the position of western workers simply by existing.

Also:
The early USSR attempted that, they even had Bill Haywood involved.
The experiment failed.
The material conditions of the early USSR simply did not allow for the inefficiency of workers control over factories and the like.
By the time that both the USSR and technology had developed to the point of being able to implement such control, the leadership had already succumb to revisionism and lacked any interest in such things.

Right because of Daddy Joe lived for another 30 years, he would have helped transitioned the USSR into workers' controlled socialism.

My fucking sides. Should he have receptions with foreign leaders and ministers in a cave? My Gott

So basically your issue is simply that the planning lacked democracy, am I getting that right? As Marx correctly said: "It's socialism when more people decide how to do things. Commodification, market, capital accumulation, and production for exchange have nothing to with it."

Jesus fucking Christ, this board

Christianity is incompetible with materialism. If God exists, communism as a concept would be obsolete.

what a funny joke.

They're not.

I have certainly never claimed that Stalin was perfect.
But he was not the monster that both capitalists and many leftists (what a coincidence) make him out to be.
Indeed, given the challenges that the USSR would face under his reign, he was in many ways just the sort of leader needed.

I'm quite confident that had he been succeeded by an actual Marxist-Leninist, the USSR would be a cybernetic, post-labour paradise today.

MLs are just closet Fascists that are only here to complain about America and shill for Russian Capitalism
They get paid
They're faggot traitors

Hi billy where are the proofs :DDDDDDD

...

FSB*

Can't relate tbh :^)

Stalins dachas weren't actually Stalins. They were state-owned

You mean the Kuzbas AIC? That worked out until Stalin demanded full "collectivization" (read: state control).
flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/kuzbass_colony.html
You're not even a leftist - you supporting the USSR just lends further support to OP's argument tbqh. Stop tripfagging.
The workers' didn't control anything. If I took over as Walmart's CEO and called it a "workers's company" while not changing how it functioned from day to day, it would still be the same crappy Walmart. Ditto for the USSR - it functioned like one big corporation draped in red.
Cool, but that doesn't make it socialism
See above. If that's your criteria of socialism, then you really are nothing more than a gunpoint social democrat.
He got them to the moon and the Kosygin reforms had to be made because, without free communistic distribution as a guide for production, there was no way to sustain growth once absolute scarcity had been overcome. Stalin would have done the same. It wasn't a choice.
No, it's because it was a bureaucratic, state-capitalistic, totalitarian nightmare to live in. You have the mindset of a child if you want to side with someone because they're big, strong "winners". Not even a child, no - they generally know not to take bullshit like this seriously.
———————————
You can accept that the USSR made real advances and gave us lessons to learn from while still accepting that it's not socialist. It's ridiculous to take up any other position. The leftcoms were right all along.

TheFinnishBolshevik is a liar. Pic related is about his video on Catalonia, but the point still stands. Don't ever trust tankies, they're disingenuous.

Leninism is fascism.

Leninism is not to be debated. It is to be SMASHED.

Nice false flag, tankie.

Yeah you gotta explain to me why otherwise I'm not buying it. If anything the economic growth of the USSR implies that under Krushchev economic growth became slower, while it was pretty much stable with zero unemployment right until the guy took over.

Krushchev was a revisionist, he didn't collectivization could work and wanted the USSR become like America. It's an understandable position considering that Russia as reached an unmatched living standard with long period of peace lying ahead, so he wanted to play it safe by letting market forces take hold. I guess the creation of a comfy welfare state with production under exchange value isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's revionist and abandons socialism.

Forgot pic

Nice. Good prole

Anarchists are beyond schizo, no wonder it's historically associated with antisemtism

>>>Holla Forums

Comrade have you actually read "The Anarchists in Spanish Civil War"? I have not read any of the others to be honest, I don't see major contradictions in this book, could you actually explain them??
And how the fuck is this related with the video I linked?

degenerate anarkiddie pedofaggots get out

you will all be put up against the wall

Did someone say… based WPC?

I live in my car

We should make more Cockshot memes

Lol there are so many "leftists" who unironically believe the whe red fascism meme at least in rhetoric that I would not be surprised if it was completely sincere.

And? Blame capitalism for that, you wouldn't live in your car under Stalin

gb2reddit

I'ts true that on USSR even on pre-Jrushev period burocratization and elitism was a problem, we should certainely correct this if we want a sucessful socialist state.
But it's incorrect to say they were the burgeoise. Did they recieve the majority of their income from exploiting someones Labour?

Stalin did lots of things wrong,but under Stalin´s rule you will not be living in a car.

If the USSR had the USA's 1st and 2nd amendments it would have been the greatest country in the history of the world

Parenti BTFOs you in Blackshirts and Reds, Left Anticommunism.

Most modern MLs can be broken down into one of four general categories:

The first 3 might as well not be considered leftists as they explicitly have little interest in cultivating a modern communist movement. The last group tends to be a mixed bag. Historical MLs really comes down to questions of intent, which is difficult to parse after this much time without significant bias informing the judgement. I'd personally say a solid half of major figures under the ML label had very little interest in the long-term communist project and were, to some capacity, opportunists. They certainly didn't achieve socialism if that was being implied.

TFB largely sold the Stalinist factions within the Spanish Republican government as being the only faction that embodied revolutionary intent while decrying the anarchist and other socialist/communist factions as largely being, phrased one way or another, counterrevolutionary. While "The Anarchists in Spanish Civil War" did have both praise and critique of the anarchists (which is to be expected: their project was by no means flawless), he also explicitly denounces the Stalinist faction as having sabotaged any possibility of a socialist Spain. The point was that he internalized/exaggerated the critiques of the anarchists while ignoring the critiques of his own ideology's proponents.
So no, it has nothing to do with the video you linked. I think he posted it to point out that TFB usually links sources with the intent of making his pre-existing assertions seem more valid on a cursory glance rather than actually addressing the content of said sources (both the content that supports and challenges his argument).

A) Stalinism didn't end until bureaucracy fully asserted itself within the vacuum and kicked out Malenkov in favor of Khrushchyov. Even then, it's hard to say that Stalin was responsible for everything as a de-facto monarch, and ridiculous to blame the somewhat-autonomous-but-not-really Khrushchyov for "revisionism", whatever the fuck that means after Lenin's positivistic mangling of communism with his "empirio-criticism".
B) It's no coincidence that the reforms happened a little under 2 decades after the last famines ended. Under Stalin's industrialization, more meant better because everything was in short supply. When it came around to Khrushchyov's times, when the economy had to diversify to meet consumer needs in order to continue to improve productivity by the same basic mechanism as Taylorism in order to keep up with the USA doing the same via the market, there were two choices to manage this data overflow - Glushkov's cybernetic OGAS (eliminate bureaucracy, all power to the soviets, firms manage themselves largely and communicate directly with a very stripped-down Gosplan, no more middle men, actual socialism), or marketize somewhat to be able to let enterprises self-manage in a quasi-market way to maximize productivity (preserve and even increase bureaucracy, eventually be forced to capitulate entirely to Gorbachyovites and at best end up in social democracy, etc etc all that bad stuff).
I'm not a market socialist (I see it as no different from social democracy or Stalinism; as inferred from above, I support Cockshott's ideas in general but disagree on terminology and definitions) but I'll let Jacobin's very well-written article on market socialism do the rest of the talking on allocation of capital goods and long-run productivity:
jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black
Sooner or later, Stalinisim must always comply with the laws of complex economic systems demanding some form of distributed control. There are 3 theoretically possible options here: 1) some form of modern syndicalism or a related system like Pat Devine's negotiated coordination, 2) cybernetic planning like OGAS, Cybersyn, etc., or 3) a full reversion of the system to capitalism
When you go with Stalinism, however, the bureaucratic inertia of the system naturally propels it towards #3 because that's the only choice which has a potential of being congruent with the bureaucracy's own interests in terms of what its members see as useful. Who do you think became the oligarchs and how? Any element of the Law Of Value present via the forcing of labor to extract surplus value for some separate purpose must always expand itself and be confronted by solely the proletariat's own resistance, as that is all which can dispel it. If Stalin himself had somehow lived into the '60s somehow and ordered OGAS developed, it would have still ended up a nightmare which caused more harm than good as its bastard children of separate and incompatible systems under Brezhnev did because bureaucracy has a consciousness of its own - the first job of the bureaucracy is to protect the bureaucracy. The best we can do is to never again create a system like that and start off with free association, as free consumption as possible, and cybernetic planning.

...

Primary objectives common to communists and technocrats:
-abolition of currency
-abolition of economic classes
-ownership of the MoP by specialists (who are still workers, only more experienced i.e. they climbed the professional ladder through skill)

The only thing lacking in Technocracy is the abolition of state. So, pretty leftist to me, more so than Mutualism anyway.

The State acted as a hierarchical corporation that ordered the means of production and rewarded friends.

...

great, just because Caplan is an ancap this CNT larper apriori dismissed his analysis
Caplan's individualist moralism is not the core of his paper
the core is the actual economic and political practices which he shows were statist in the coutryside and market "socialist" in urban areas which resulted in the same problems that Yugos will later face only CNT faced them in a civil war conditions
and more so Caplan heavily sourced his shit

also, funny to hear a CNT fag bitching about shit sources when they themselves circulate some shitty unsourced pamphlet which claims that Catalonian industrial index was actually growing when pretty much all conventional statistics show otherwise

wtf are you talking about?
are you referring to a marginal productivity theory?

again, wtf are you talking about?
SU economy was one of the most diversified ecomonies in the world
this was one of its strongest points
the whole idustrialization was about diversification and economic autarky and sovereignty

…society needs to advance its productive forces, which Soviets were doing just fine

Soviet average productivity growth after the ww2 up to the 60s was in double digits on par with japs
at the time Stalin died they DOUBLED thier productivity of labor form the pre ww2 level
and this fact disproves the claim that high soviet economic growth was achieved only by extensive means, i. e. more labor input into industry
after industrialization and the ww2 soviet mass reserves of labor in the countryside were no more, so all that was left is intensive led growth by increasing productivity of labor

apparently any management technique that helps to increase productivity by optimally organizing production process should be ignored because Taylorism
fuck assembly line, right? fuck reducing labor time costs

irony aside, basic mechanism was a constant improvement of the means of production and fast dissipation of those means in the economy
initial push to improve productivity after the ww2 was achieved by widely adapting for civilian use production technology used in the ww2
notable example is automated welding that was initially developed in the SU to produce tanks

in Economic Problems Stalin specifically emphasized importance of prioritizing the first department of production in the state investment plans
Khrushchev called this policy lopsided development and shilled for prioritizing the second department because more gibmedats to buy pleb support with, nevermind that long-term development is sacrificed for short-term gain in the standard of living

another way by which soviets improved productivity was novator and stakhanovite movements
most people think that stakhanovite movement was about working longer shifts and working without weekends when in reality it was all about improving production process and saving labor time
Stakhanov himself got famous because he improved mining production process, and his experience was then successfully adapted in many other mines
this was one way to facilitate wide experience exchange between production units
there were also established special cources, special novator journals were published in great numbers

in my opinion Cockshott exaggerates information problem
yea, plans were in aggregate terms, but planners had a room for maneuver by using reserves
and in aggregate terms material balances did their job in the 50s, no shortages n' shiet
plus Gosplan was actively using computers for disaggregating particular excellent industries
and it was only getting better
in the late 50s Gosplan made the first input output production matrix model of the whole soviet economy in aggregate terms
pity that Khruschev already decentralized planning and Gosplan was just a shadow of its former self, only advising sovnarchozes, so it all was just an academic exercize in the end

Glushkov was not obsessed with disaggregating all the way like Cockshott
he thought that disaggregating to some product groups would work just fine with a manageable margin of error
and as computing productivity increases ever more and more disaggregated plans could be made
OGAS first of all was about operational rolling edge planning, constant tracking of technical coefficients in the production matrix to register technological change, and validity of statistical information

more like reduce management costs
in Glushkov's iterative optimizing procedure input at each step is assumed to be from technical experts, management personnel etc.
it's more like a consensus mechanism that with each step approximates to optimal plan

this is not OGAS
Gosplan was supposed to do the preliminary plans, a starting point of the whole process of planning, and be a planning operator
also, Glushkov didn't mention anything about soviets

Cockshott debunked Hayek's information argument on the basis of information theory

you can't get rid of management until full blown AI is created, and I don't want to sit around waiting for some AI messiah
so we have to deal with bureaucracy want you this or not

in the SU labor was not a commodity

you sound like some preacher
Law of Value is not some fucking Holy Spirit lurking around

topkek
how are you gonna enforce the plan with your free association bullshit? free association implies freedom to invest and freedom to choose suppliers and markets for your products
this indicative planning bullshit was tried and failed miserably after ww2
enterprises just ignored "recomendations" from planning agencies

what does this even mean?

cybernetic anything will not save you
for fuck's sake read a fucking book about how planning actually works in modern enterprises
it is fucking OGAS 2.0 only without Glushkov's iterative procedure

*for disaggregating particular excellent industries

fuck you wordfilter
PRОBLEMATIC INDUSTRIES