USSR was state capitalism

If the USSR is real socialism then call me a capitalist. Maybe they should've just gone through capitalism like Marx fucking said.

It's really very simple. Russia was soviet capitalism controlled by a GROUP OF workers, not THE workers, and the group gradually became an elite and its interests grew more and more alienated from the interests of the working class.

That there are people that can defend both pre and post Kruschev USSR as some sort of monolithic block is baffling.

Both the tankies and anarkiddies(not all anarchists) are retarded. People claiming the USSR or Kekalonia as somehow socialist are fucking clueless.

Reading and comprehension are two different things.

How are people so fucking sense that they don't realise this is exactly what socialism is? A capitalist system controlled by the state which in turn works on behalf of the workers.

Holy fucking shit, I hate tankies.

Tell me: in what sense are the coordinators of that system not a bourgeoisie? And why would they choose to transition from socialism to communism, and give up their muh privileges as such?

This is exactly why we're loosing ground in the west. No, the goal of the state immediately should be to establish worker control of an industry, not to run it for them.

Fuck off you pathetic leftcom.

How does having a position of responsibility and control make one bourgeoisie? In a socialist system - leaders come from the working class - and don't pass any muh privilege onto their descendants, thus eliminating the bourgeoisie class.

A system with potential flaws and corruption is better than not having a functional system at all.

But I suppose we should all sit around holding hands and communism will magically manifest itself in reality?

Akshually I'm a municipal libertarian, and hate ultras just as much as you apparently do. But who cares?

In any case, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about a party which has total control over the economy, nor about a working class which gets to "put forward" its oppressors.

I certainly agree! This is why pls read bookchin

The problem being of course, that any such society would be immediately crushed by the weight of every imperial power on the globe. The only reason Rojava is allowed to exist is because it directly serves US imperialist interests right now.

Which is why we need that kind of government in the USA. I'm kind of a first-worldist in that respect.

USSR economy was based on trade. As a consequence, it was capitalist. Period.

Aren't you tankies supposed to be "marxists-leninists"?

Lenin, The State and Revolution
K. Marx, Critique of the Gotha programme

No. Period.

At best it was capitalist in the technological sense. I.e. it had industrial economy.

He was quoting Lenin.

Okay. What does this actually mean?

If that's a nod towards USSR, you are wrong in both cases.

Ugh

Socialism is a transitory period, intended to usher in a communist world order.

"The first stage of communism" indicates that it is a necessary step on the road to a communist society, not that the actual state functions as a proto-communist society.

How can people posting on Holla Forums not understand the distinction?

Is the framework for post- USSR laid out anywhere?

What are you talking about? Soviet transition to Communism?

You're pretty much going by the pseudo-Marxist leftcom argument here where they just parrot "commodity production" and leave the issue at that. And while this is incomparably more advanced than the way anarchists define state-capitalism it still falls flat to describe the USSR. The state industries, co-operatives, and collective farms did market their consumer goods but this is not a feature exclusive to capitalism. Marx pointed out bourgeois society only came into being when the worker, now divorced from any means of production, was compelled to sell his labor-power on the market. Yet the USSR, at least for part of it's existence, had no commodification of labor or the means of production. So how could their markets possibly lead to capitalist production?

It seems absurd that you take Lenin's definitions of socialism and communism as the word of got yet haven't even read the passage from that quote. Lenin made it quite clear that the first-phase of communism could be accurately referred to as just communism.

...

"referred to"

Meaning: "it's ok to call the USSR a communist state" - this is because it is a state run by the communist party - and is striving towards communism. This doesn't mean it is in fact communism, because it isn't.

If there is no distinction, as you seem to believe, then why are there two distinct terms at all?

Lenin operated with the DiaMat methods. I.e. each and every statement is correct only in specific context. Not abstractly correct.

Communism can also be broadly defined as a "process of deliberate advancement towards Communism". In this sense USSR is Communist.

But if we are talking about economy, it is a different thing entirely. And this doesn't mean that economy (as in technological basis of society) became post-capitalist.

Tankies sure do sound like they know what they're talking about just as much as fucking liberals. Whats with this sudden influx of reddit tier idiots who have so little understand about pretty much anything at all on leftypol? Have we just gone fully autistic as a board?

Do you have anything to contribute, except your butthurt?

That's rich coming from a Hegelian.

No it wasn't based on trade, or no a society based on trade isn't capitalist?

Are you retarded? "The first stage of" means "the first stage of", not "the last stage before".

This is where we disagree. The commodification of labour goes hand in hand with the commodification of its products, you can't have one without the other (for you need commodities to buy oher commodities); and indeed, USSR had both.

No, im quite content with point out you and people like you are idiots. All you need to do is read what you've posted. Its just a shame that you're to fucking stupid to realize youre own stupidity. How bout you go back to /r/socialism and stay there and stop shitting up an already shitty board.

complete semantics at this point really

socialism is an intermediate step between capitalism and communism, right. we can agree on that.

how about looking at how a socialist state actually functions, rather than arguing over phrasing

you do realise that /r/socialism is clogged with infantile "muh rojava" leftcoms, rather than tankies, right?

Uh, I've read a great deal about Catalonia, so rather large books on it. How in hell was it not socialist?

...

This video makes me hurt.

No we can't! Do you even read? Socialism is a stage of communism! In other words: a socialist society IS communist! That is: classless, stateless, moneyless!

As long as you have a transition, you don't have socialism; you just have an ongoing revolution.

oh for fuck's sake

you're one of these "no such thing as a socialist state" people, seemingly because your reading comprehension needs work

are you a trot? because the only way your utopian society would be possible is with a global simultaneous revolution

Watching liberals LARP as radical socialists chanting "WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT OUR CHAINS" in Cleveland hurts too.

Clearly you're not a communist.

You know all the previous revolutions lasted centuries, right?

Yes, I am a communist.

but good job assessing my political views based on one word. the reason I used it is because your hypothesised socialist society is impossible. it can't happen.

Right…

Except that's not what your post implied. You denied the existence of a socialist state.

A classless, stateless, moneyless society can't be created without socialist nation states. This is simply a fact.

What do you think imperialist powers will do when they see a country overthrow it's rulers and establish a communist society? Sit back and watch?

You don't undestand. Of course, the revolution cannot succeed without a communist proletarian state; "communist" in the way that its goal is to make the society communist. Not in the way that the society is already communist. As soon as the society becomes actually communist, that is: when the global revolution has succeeded, there is no more need for a state, and it withers away. Have you ever read The State and Revolution?

Which is why I called your vision of the world utopian

This is an impossibility, do you not see that conditions are completely different in different parts of the world? Are the exploited in the third world supposed to just sit on their hands waiting for a first world revolution to take place?

Capitalism is global. How exactly do you intend to overthrow it without a global revolution? You realise a revolution can last a very long time, right?

but how do you expect the proletariat of every single country on earth to rise up at once?

I've never heard a single trot or leftcom give a reasonable explanation of how this miraculous event will occur.

Meanwhile there are countless examples of revolutions taking place in single countries - because that is very possible if the conditions are right

Seriously, the only utopian thing here is to think one can have an actual socialist country surrounded by capitalism.

Except you quite clearly can, as there are many examples from history.

There are zero examples, not one, of anything even approaching a "global revolution" - not even the faintest flicker of a possibility. It is sheer fantasy, ludicrous self-delusion that seems to be required for people trying to reconcile left-wing beliefs with US anti-soviet propaganda.

I don't! What part don't you understand in "a very long time"?!

No, there are none. You confuse a revolution, which is the overthrowing of a system of production by a superior one, with a simple coup or uprising, which changes only the superstructure of the society. Of course, you'll need uprisings to make the revolution, but the uprisings are not revolutions all by themselves.
As a matter of fact, there has been only one real attempt for a communist revolution (October), and it failed.
And yes, there have arguably been distinct re solutions in distinct countries before (typically: to get from feudalism to capitalism) but only these were distinct societies to begin with. Now, thanks to capitalism, there's only one global society; to change it requires one global revolution.

And how do you call the spreading of capitalism over the world, destroying all the former forms of society?

By the way: notice how it took a very long time?

kek

and how did this take place? did everyone hold hands and suddenly transition to beautiful capitalist butterflies?

Are you familiar with the french revolution? The ONLY reason that survived is because a STATE was created, a STATE capable of resisting the aggressive actions of regressive feudal STATES.

This was done through WAR. CONFLICT. Which a communist society is not capable or carrying out.

Seriously, what don't you understand in my previous statement?

You defined communism as "classless, stateless, moneyless"

now you are calling for a "communist state". Oh dear.

Of course what you are in actuality describing - a "communist proletarian state" that isn't communist in actuality but fights for the existence of communism - IS A SOCIALIST STATE. WHICH I HAVE BEEN ARGUING FOR ALL ALONG

Aren't you the one who pretends the USSR was a socialist society the way?

But that is not what the USSR pretended! They pretended to be an actual socialist society! But they weren't, which I have been arguing all along.

I don't think they could be called "communist" in any way past the 1920's tbh. If Stalin's goal was actual socialism, why pretend his capitalist country was already socialist?

yes, although I'm fucking confused as to who I'm arguing with.

My points - the USSR was demonstrably socialist.
Socialist states such as this are necessary if communism is to be established.
There is no such thing as a "communist state" - communism is a global state of affairs which will be achieved through cooperation of the socialist nations of the world.
A simultaneous global revolution is impossible - socialist states must be established to protect the gains that socialist revolution has made worldwide - for example the Soviet Union protecting Cuba from an otherwise inevitable invasion and occupation from the US

Hope that clears things up

Hello, fellow comrades. Hello, filthy revisionists. What is going on here?

Do you not understand that Revolution is a process, not an International Red Jihad?

Or, do you believe that we had achieved fully industrialized society (the one that can immediately advance towards Communism), despite that fact that your beloved iPhones are still made not by hi-tech robots, but by underpaid human workers in 12-hour shifts?

Who is John Galt? What is a socialism?

> Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic. Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism. 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.

> Either we have to be revolutionary democrats in fact, in which case we must not fear to take steps towards socialism. Or we fear to take steps towards socialism, condemn them in the Plekhanov, Dan or Chernov way, by arguing that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that socialism cannot be “introduced”, etc., in which case we inevitably sink to the level of Kerensky, Milyukov and Kornilov, i.e., we in a reactionary-bureaucratic way suppress the “revolutionary-democratic” aspirations of the workers and peasants.

Thank you comrade

You're arguing with:

Please allow to try and clears things up too.

A "communist something" can have two meanings:
- something that fights for communism: by this definition, a "communist state" makes perfect sense (and is actually deeply needed);
- if the "something" is a society: a classless, stateless and moneyless society.

Socialism only has one clear meaning: the first stage of communism. So a "socialist state" doesn't make sense, since a state that fight for socialism actually fights for communism, and thus shall be called a communist state.
As a consequence, the USSR was not socialist. And it wasn't communist in any way either past the 20's.

A simultaneous global revolution is of course impossible. It will be a long process that will require not several but one communist state. In my opinion, it is the main mistake of the Russian communists not to have handed over their country try to the Third International.

Stalin would have done well following this advice.

So, essentially this whole argument has arisen because you got confused between terminology?

It sounds like we are on the exact same page here but the entire issue was semantic - what you would describe as a "communist nation" - I would describe as socialist, because that is what it is in practice.

LOL

communists fall for the same old scam over and over again. you rally behind the 'strong leaders' who play you all like a fucking fiddle

I thought you were pretending the USSR was an actual communist society.

What are you talking about?

No - I claimed it was a socialist one.

Yeah, I'm sure the reams of revolutionary text, lifetime of revolutionary activity and participation in dangerous conflict were all just an elaborate ruse and Lenin, Stalin and Mao only wanted power.

If you actually believe this, why do you think they took such a ridiculously convoluted way to gaining power?

disgusting

Also, are you seriously suggesting that people don't devote their lives to the pursuit of power and haven't done so throughout history?

oh wait

Are communists this daft in general? lmao no wonder every fucking """"communist"""" state collapses into totalitarianism.

I there some specific accusation you would like to voice?

I.e. your argument boils down to "soccer doesn't exist, because we already call it football"?

Soviet Union had only one leader and that was Gorbachev. There was no Soviet head of state until 1990. There is a reason for this.

Smoke and mirrors are the classic socialist tool, but come the fuck on. You are using propaganda people didn't even buy in Stalin's time.

Would you like to support your statements with some evidence? At least, elaborate a bit? So that I can point out that you don't actually know anything.

...

LOL

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

LOL!

...

My bad, this time I messed with the terms: I actually meant "socialist".

Anyway, I have to disagree again: the USSR wasn't socialist, neither by the classical Marxist definition (classless, stateless, moneyless, "to each according his deeds"), nor by your own definition ("a society in which the state is fighting for socialism" – am I right?). Stalin didn't fight for socialism; quite the opposite: he was very content wih calling his country already socialist (by the Marxist definition), which could only spread confusion among the proletariat, and thus send it backward.

Yeah: Stalin successfully built capitalism in Russia (which was a good thing), but he stopped there and called this socialism, betraying the revolution.

My argument wasn't meant for you talkies, who do not call the USSR socialist because it was supposedly fighting for socialism, but because you think it was already actual socialism. The user I was talking to was using confusing terms (IMO); you are just wrong.

(same guy)
Great, I mess with he quotes now… The last one wasn't supposed to be there.

Can you explain us how there could be a state in a classless society, genius?

I asked for specifics.

Specifics of all the things he didn't do? You realise this question is stupid, right?

By the way, calling a capitalist society "socialist" sounds specific to me.