Does anyone have that webm where the whole concept of 'state capitalism' is dismantled?

Does anyone have that webm where the whole concept of 'state capitalism' is dismantled?

Does the guy have a European accent? It's probably the Finnish Bolshevik if so.

Nah it's an old, slightly grainy video of a guy (in glasses?) explaining why the Soviet Union couldn't really be considered 'capitalist' in any sense of the word. He also also spoke about how none of the Warsaw Pact states had been democratic before the Soviets arrived, if that helps in any way.

No such video or book exists.

sounds like a michael parenti video

Also does anyone have the webm of bigfoot creating cultural marxism in area 51?

Personally, I'm still looking for the webm of a ML reading Marx.

I'd take any video with an ML reading anything, instead of just letting Rush Limbaugh caricature leftism on the radio and then deciding to support the caricature.

...

That's it, thank you

This guys talking a lot of non-sense, the black market in the Soviet Union was a powerhouse and more than one jew unofficially owned entire production facilities, producing overtime once quotas were met, and they were met pretty fast.
You are all just retards.

Well after 1956 I can agree with you that all started to go to shit, as Krushev introduced refoms that allowed competition.

Competition was allowed in the Soviet Union from the very start.

Not during war communism or when Stalin took power. During NEP perhaps.

is this /tankiegeneral/ now?

You can say that the soviet union had many markers of a socialist economy, without being a tankie. But with wage labour existing and the state acting as a profit seeking entity in some parts of the economy to finance imports and other clearly non socialist things existing it actually is a matter of definition and how you understand Marxism.

I love that Cockshott is finally getting recognition

Make sure to meme him (srs)

Of course you do, it makes your job as an cointelpro agent easier.

settle down cointelpro

Parenti is a smart guy but this is one of his worst takes. The definition of socialism isn't "less exploitative than America"

if you think socialism and/or communism will be that easy, that just a little book could explain it, that it is something that won't be a trial-and-error thing that develops through practice and during the revolution then you indeed need to actually read the people on the left - especially adorno - and possibly hegel. it's through the critique of capitalism and our current society overall that you begin to understand "this is what should not be", the negation of the negation. and overall things get simply way too difficult.

representation? or everything should be local? should people decide everything during production? but how could they when their decisions affect hundreds of other people? if there is a need to meet but nobody wants to do the necessary work for it, what is the next course of action? how will we organize the family? how will we organize schools? how do we build alternatives to the state while maintaining what people like about the state (mainly that it organizes society so they don't have to think and wonder about it all the time and can concentrate on themselves and their self-actualization)? which needs to we prioritize over others? who decides that?

there are one trillion questions we simply cannot answer unless a revolutionary situation arises. adorno's non-identity, that which breaks the logic of capitalism and eludes itself from it, that which isn't rationalized. lenin's call to stop the war was such a moment of non-identity. it turned communism into a world-wide movement all by itself. for such things, for such moments of critique, for such moments of non-identity we have to look for, again and again, moments which break capitalist logic. looking for these moments over and over again can bring the liberated society. hence theory and practice are
always identical, because those moments have to be experienced and acted upon. that is the only way towards humanity liberating itself.

You mean like the 70+ years of trial and error in actually existing socialist societies that the book was written in response to? Yeah, stop pretending like its still 1910 and socialism has never been even attempted in the real world.
Cockshott literally comments all those questions in TANS, with his ideas on urban communes, direct democracy and such.
just no. See OP's meme

Obviously it has been attempted. But at multiple points in its course one could make out that it already had failed. If not already post-1923. There was no non-identity anymore, nothing that could lead us to believe in more, that could sign to a world outside of the existing. The Soviet Union could not help to be anything but a state capitalist endeavor with "socialist money" and "socialist commodities" and "socialist value" - all of which are contradictions. The communists had failed to engage in this specific trial and error that would have stopped them from creating a pseudo-socialist society that could not function without the black market, in which production could only somewhat function through control and force. What I am saying is that the real-existing socialism failed in a very real-existing way fairly early on - when it had to rely on millions in the gulag to industrialize and on sanctions and force in all sectors of society to force people to "be honest" rather than try to work towards their individual interest.


Those remain to be seen still. Society's logic will be a different one so the problems will be different ones and the solutions will be different ones. What we need to think about is how to change society's logic and to break out of it, hence Adorno's revolutionary theory of seeking the non-identity. What we would need to even change society at all is a revolution in the first place; a populace that wants to make revolution; a populace that agrees that the planned economy is in their own interested; the revolution has to be global. Specifically what I mean is that from the beginning until the end of the transition, we need to find that in the specific situation that makes people believe things will improve, get better and that what they are doing will bring something new. You can build your model of socialist utopia all you want, but to actually get there requires a whole lot of revolution.

People always accuse WPC of having no praxis, but no one has read his review of Althusser. Cockshott has a probabilistic interpretation of historical materialism, its pretty interesting

Disagree.

why you have leftcom flag and shilling adorno?

That book is the perfect excuse for tankies to depart from scientific Marxism. At least you're all starting to admit you're not related to people who read Marx anymore.

You can leave the board too now.

...

adorno is the least of the problem, he's literally talking about idealism.

it's the second time in a few days that i get the feeling leftcoms have no idea what historical materialism is. not that he's entirely wrong, it's true that it's gonna be trial and error, but it's not exactly some great insight. everything is trial and error and writing books about what we should try is part of the trial and error process.