Daily reminder that literally NO ONE is buying "it was state capitalist" and you should come up with better arguments

Dude, Lenin himself admitted that the Soviet Union was State Capitalism. His successors did nothing to change that.

But the state is the workers, it's a proletarian state. Dictatorship of the proletariat by definition means that the proles control the state.

I'm supposed to think this is a good thing.

Except eliminating private property and trade, of course.

look, no one is saying the Soviet Union was a socialist state but "state capitalism" is an analysis that refer to a very short period and is, as an argument, dumb as fuck and unlikely to resonate with anyone that isn't already a Socialist.

Under capitalism the MoP is held by private individuals in the form of private/absentee property.
Under socialism the MoP is held by the individuals using it i.e. the workers
In 'state capitalism' the state holds the MoP in the form of private/absentee property

The state is a tool used to handle class struggle and allow the ruling class to dominate the others, i.e. under capitalism the state serves the interests of bourgies, under feudalism its the aristocrats etc.

Unless you think bureaucrats were somehow a class in the USSR or PRC, the state in 'state capitalist' nations was supposedly meant to oppress the porkies in the interest of the working class in order to clear the ground for socialism.

I think state capitalism is a meme because it isn't really capitalism, nor is it socialism. Its far closer to capitalism since it maintain many of the other features of it. I'd call it statism but that's already a thing.

wew, nazbols don't know shit about leninism.

top wew

MAKHNO WOKE AF TBH

Not an argument.

because it did happen that way

the dictatorship of the proletariat is a thing, and the state represents the workers and is controlled by the workers

the NEP was necessary to quickly help russia industrialize, it was a pragmatic move, not a counterrevolutionary move. when lenin said "state capitalism", he didnt mean it as in the state was the bourgeois and is still oppressing the people, but that the state would strive for profit and development in favor of the working class

how so?

lol good luck having trade unions in a country where industry is virtually inexistent

By that logic, a cooperative is the workers

Yes, it is. Are you saying it isn't?

At least research what your criticizing.

If the state owns exclusive rights to the means of production, then it is not a worker.

then what the fuck are you advocating?

the state represents the workers and is controlled directly by the workers through democratic centralism

Democratic centralism is a method of internal party organisation you nazi faggot.

yes, so in order to take control of the state, the workers only have to enter the party, which wasnt an uncommon thing. your point?

If the election is controlled by the party, it's the worst form of representative democracy.

The party had 20 million members. It wasn't an exclusive club.

and the US is just so much more democratic, amirite :^)
this is a prime example of how snowflakes would side with liberals over socialists just because of ideological purist bullshit

Read a book dude, fucking newfags

Is this a joke? Of course it is.

I.e. you can recall any congressman at any time?

jesus christ i bet you think hillary wasnt a chosen candidate from the start too

I can choose to not vote for an opposition party.

ffs it's an oligarchy m8

This is how low anarkiddies and leftcoms will go to shit on the USSR.

and I thought the nazbol was dumb

...

Which is it?

...

By that logic, the USSR was a dictatorship. A one party rule state with one supreme commander.

holy fucking shit

I never said it was an ideal form of democracy. I just said it was one. Are you denying that?

This level of democracy is unheard of.

Yes, I am denying that. It's oligarchy, not democracy.

I guess the adjective "bourgeois" negates the "democracy" part.

kys

Yeah. It implies minority rule.

...

This is the form of democracy that actually exists. It's not great. But it is a democracy. Maybe the confusion is that people think democracy means direct democracy. But I think this is a mistake just historically.

Refute this.

state capitalism is a good meme tho

Democracy means majority rule. This can be accomplished through direct democracy or through some type of horizontally structured representative organ whose delegates can be recalled at any time.

Liberal democracy is a farce and you should feel bad for believing it isn't.

ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes/thomas/h68l/chapter19.html

Pretty much every government in history falls under the third category, the US included. I concede the US allows democracy for the elections process but the overwhelming majority of decisions are still made by a massive state bureaucracy. Representative democracy should be more honestly called a aristocratic-democratic system, a form of mixed government.

Are you fucking out of your mind?

When did this board get so fucking liberal?

Do we have any other kind of democracy?

Who the fuck did not have worker self-management? As for not teaching Capital - I need a truckload of proofs.

Similarity of Soviet macro-economy to Capitalist during Stalin's era is beyond retarded. What were they smoking?

I can confirm one thing only - Taylor's works actually were researched in USSR. As was anything important. Even Mein Kampf got translated. But this had nothing to do with Fordism. Pure organization process. It's worse than claiming that welfare is Socialism.

Not like it's hard. Soviet enterprises may have been exploitative, that's not surprising for a country led by a personality cult desperately trying to industrialize under harsh conditions. However, there is nothing to suggest they were inherently exploitative as under capitalism. To call the Soviet state comparable to a capitalist enterprise, even though it didn't purchase any commodities or accumulate any capital, can only be seen as laughable.

When most people talk about democracy, they don't mean things that would purposely leave out liberal/representative democracies because … Those are forms of democracy that actually exist whether or not they live up to the ideal.

We are losing our radical edge

[citation needed]

Top kek

Literally my dilemma when talking about Stalin-era USSR. It wasn't socialist, but it's also a huge stretch to call it capitalist because they eliminated commodity production.

And he also meant leaving capitalist bosses in power instead of giving workplace control to the proles.

Lenin dismantled worker control, what do you mean by this?

So, they were exploitative to the working class while the bureaucrats lived in luxury?

No it didn't.

tell me how the workers could be trusted with direct control of the means of production when the country is barely able to read. the country was a fucking agricultural feudalist shithole, it needed to develop before it could be properly socialist. you anarchists literally think russia could have fought off imperialism AND develop if you just left workers with no state nor anyone to guide them?

Yes, that's true. All resources except consumer goods were held in common by the state industries, collective farms, and smaller co-operatives with no exchanges in ownership occurring between them. (at least until some "reforms" starting in the 50's, the state started selling equipment to the farms and by 65' the industrial ministries were scrapped altogether) And when the major economic authorities do not purchase any commodities there obviously can't be any M-C-M circuit. This is basic information for anyone even remotely familiar with the central planning system built in the 30's.

Nobody really lived in what I'd call luxury. But the fact that inequalities existed is a testament to the corruption of the system, not to a capitalist production process.

B-but I want muh socialism and I want it nooooooww!!

He is correct. Read about Makhno's Free State.

Is this Wolff again?

I'm sorry, but I'd like source on this.

He did not.

First of all, not an anarchist. Second, your patronising tone about the workers not knowing how to read ∴ can't be trusted with to be left alone with machinery just shows how much your nazbol ideology has blinded you. At the end of the day you would rather leave porky alone than give the factory over to the soviets. Get off my board.

I have, and just stating "read etc" isn't an argument.

It was socialist, see my post below yours. Worker control is just a slogan, if you wanted to use a more accurate one to describe what socialism really is then production for use would be more accurate. The Soviet state, having abolished capital accumulation, could only mean the goal of production was to meet the demands of the nation rather than capital. The effect may have been muddied somewhat by retaining commodification of consumer goods but that on it's own is not sufficient enough to be capitalist on it's own.

Sure thing famrade, just might take a bit cause it's all buried in old notes 😪

literally no argument spotted
wow this is your board now, the hypocrisy is real

prove it

Nazbol poster makes me want to throw up.

The USSR controlled the capital.
The bureaucracy of the soviet union controlled the means of production not the workers.
The Bureaucracy became a a new class equivalent to a boss.
so fuck you.
It was State capitalism.

isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

Being illiterate makes it tough to organize and maintain one of the largest territories on the planet in the middle of a civil war while being invaded by 14 foreign powers.

give me one instance of a stateless community defending themselves for an extended period of time without establishing a state

wow thats really edgy mate
read above and stop acting like you know shit

anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/on-the-bolshevik-myth

I wont take you serious you are a fucking reactionary a traitor a centralist.

consider the following:

Kill yourself.

This Advice goes for Tankies too.

Again, not an anarchist. I just take the slogan "all power to the soviets" to mean exactly that.

Maybe if you actually read something like the fucking wiki on the Soviet Union you would know it wasn't a totalitarian shitshow. Do us all a favor and try to learn something today

You don't know what that word means. Stop living in buzzwords

I'll check it out but I don't have high hopes of being 'convinced'

Not even surprised

still no argument spotted kek.

wow thats edgy as fuck. i'd prefer staying alive since my existence seems to make a lot of liberals and anarkiddies upset.

okay? give me an example of a [insert your specific infallible form of socialism here] community that managed to defend itself against foreign invasions, develop AND stay together for an extended period of time

I don't have high hopes for you being convinced either. You're already blinded by your ideology, and an article won't fix that.

not an argument tbqh

IKR.

That Nazbol poster needs to ingest cyanide.

Daily reminder "state capitalism" is an inadequate explanation.

daily reminder that getting fed up and telling some guy over the internet to kill himself wont actually make him kill himself and only makes you look like a tard who focuses on labels way too much and not arguments.

I cant argue with a crypto fascist.
the only solution I have in mind is to set you on fucking fire.

Also the article doesn't even deny that Makhno had a secret police and veto'd elections, it just digs on the Bolsheviks

The USSR is dead and it's never coming back.
Why waste more then a moment's thought about it?

One of the features of the NEP (or what Lenin referred to as state capitalism) is that it revoked the full-nationalisation of War Communism, and replaced it with a system that allowed capitalists to own small industries. Kenez, Peter (2006). A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 47–48.

(I have more, but I honestly thought it was common knowledge that the NEP allowed capitalist enterprises?)

does it ever occur to you that maybe if you cant argue with someone and cant provide any better argument than "hurr kys", maybe you're wrong and the person you're "arguing" with is right?
sadly for you and good for me that you cant.

The NEP ended you know…

I'm aware? We are talking about the NEP era and why it's considered to be state capitalism

we dont, we want to move on, its the anarchists and liberals always bring it up to disregard anything we say and do.

Holy shit, all you fags ever do is rant on and on about how Stalin did nothing wrong and talk about killing everyone on earth that isn't a ML.

Agreed. We need to take what lessons we can and move on.

oops, my b. I agree that during that short period it was state-capitalism.

Were products being sold to the workers at a profit in the Stalinist era?

do you have an actual argument against us or are you just going to criticize some imaginary version of us?

Because, as evidenced by your two replies, you too see the history of the USSR as being of crucial importance for the struggle of communism today. Everyone does.

Nazbols and Tankies must be Russian paid trolls that Idolize Stalin and dobby.

It's more about arguing over the "lesson to be learned" from that period. Anarchists will generally shit on the USSR entirely for being "totalitarian", MLs like myself are arguing against this narrative, and believe there is something positive to be learned from the experiment.

Except there were. This is basic information for anyone even remotely familiar with… Stalin's works.

Economic problems of the USSR, 1953 (!!!)

how much did hillary pay you this time?

Reminder that Stalin was working on replacing commodity-money relations with what was called products-exchange. This activity was denounced after his death.
revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv13n1/smolin.htm

See, I'm a harsh critic of a lot of things the Bolsheviks did. But I'd like to think my critique differs from the anarchists in that I don't think they did those things because they were evil totalitarians, but that they were legitimately trying to do something that had never been done before. Naturally, huge mistakes were made.

But I think it's important to study the Lenin and Stalin periods so we can learn from those mistakes and do a better job if the opportunity ever presents itself in our lifetimes.

The article calls into question the validity of the entire article, pointing out numerous inaccuracies and biases.

Exactly. It wasn't perfect, and Stalin was far from an angel. However- as the argument goes - their failures shouldn't cause us to dismiss their praxis and theory entirely.
What can we learn then? Most obvious to me is the need to manage a transition of power more effectively (to prevent a second Khrushchev). Otherwise, though, I recognize something needs to be said about the bureaucratization of the USSR, with party members favoring positions for their relatives and whatnot.

Wrong. Lenin did not refer to NEP as state capitalism. He referred to concessions as such. And then there was state monopoly capitalism - state control over MoP, which is a different animal altogether.

I had to look up the goddamn book to see if we've finally got Cambridge falsifying history openly. Unfortunately, no.

The law was revoked (because concessions), not the nationalisation. Learn to read, FFS.

There were concessions and lease. But state still owned everything.

It requires to have your level of reading comprehension to know it.

Seriously, what is this with quotes being ripped out of context today?

There are consumer goods and industrial good. user was speaking about industry. This commodity production was about consumer goods.

As for the law of value:
Right in the next paragraph:
> True, the law of value has no regulating function in our socialist production, but it nevertheless influences production, and this fact cannot be ignored when directing production.

Literally, in the beginning, for those who don't know DiaMat:

Also, it's 1952.

yes, but only in the end consumer market.
you pay money and state/cooperative owned good becomes your personal good

plus, there were two money circuits

one, in the end consumer market with money exactly like in capitalist economy,
in this market law of value operated, but only in relation to cooperatives and individual entrepreneurs, because they produced for profit.

another "money" circuit was in state industry.
there was no exchange of ownership and rubles were just an accounting unit. It were not the same rubles as in consumer market, you couldn't buy goods with them.
enterprises produced according to plan, i.e. for use, not for profit.

At the beginning of each plannig cycle money accounts of all enterprises were annuled and new planned sums were transferred to each enterprise so that they can "buy" resources and means of production according to plan

If there was unbalance, that meant someone fucked up

another aspect was that main indicator of enterprise effectivness was cost of product in those accounting units.
reduction of costs was planned
enterprises coundn't reduce costs by cutting wages, so they were forced to adapt more advanced technology

after war there were periodic planned reductions of prices (wages stayed the same or increased) of end consumer goods, because all cost reduction in the state industry stacked up

on a side note, this money system with two circuits maked it almost impossible for corruption to exist in state industry, because even if you somehow stole rubles (they were just numbers) you couldn't buy shit with them

Essentially, two currencies. One was "cash" (consumer) roubles, the other "non-cash" roubles - and those existed only on paper.

This also might be interpreted as partial abolition of money, since consumer roubles role was decreased.

not stalinist trickery

KEK

Man that article BTFO The Bolsheviks. I didn't know they banned worker councils within industry, seems like they were about as socialist as Hitler.

Easy there.

Because they didn't.

Did you put on an icon after claiming that Lenin returned factories to Capitalists?

Yes.

A commodity is a product destined to be exchanged. I don't have the time to read your link right now, but the distinction seems a bit strange to me.
Anyway, if that was true, why call the USSR already socialist (a society in which "the producers do not exchange their products" in any way)?

The state-capitalist "meme" comes from fucking Lenin himself.

"State capitalism" is a cancerous phrase that needs to be abolished from every language. Anyone implying that socialist states deserve such a label should be imprisoneduand interrogated until they are re educated.

If that's socialism, we might as well have socialism right now because durr the proles can vote on policies and democracy and shit!

The chomskyite liberals have taken over, there's no use

If anything, the fact that consumer goods were commodities only make Stalin's era Russia more capitalist.

This is utter nonsense. What the law of value is all about is precisely the regulation of production.
Your "context" is simply Stalin dishonestly trying to justify his claim that the USSR was socialist, after having conceded, because it was obvious for anyone actually looking, that it was still almost entirely based on commodity production.
To quote Stalin himself (how ironical):
The "law of science" here isn't the law of value ("muh human nature").
The "law of science" is the fact that a society in which the law of value "does exist and does operate" isn't and cannot be anything but capitalist (or pre-capitalist), "independently of the will of man", even if said man is Stalin.

As if it just came from anarchists. Libertarian Marxists say it too.

marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/marginal.htm

Why haven't you embraced Democratic Confederalism

It sounds like an American Revolution slogan. It's funny how you don't even try to look communist tbh.

You're fucking dense,

No. Nothing can make any society "more capitalist," it's either capitalist or it isn't.

He conceded nothing to anyone. For anyone even remotely literate on the Soviet economy or socialism in general, certainly not you, the fact that the USSR had a socialist system is beyond any real question. Your laughable claim that commodification of consumer goods can somehow define a given society is nothing more than wishful thinking, a desperate attempt to justify your pathological hatred of the Soviet state. Even a passing glance at Marxist theory can eviscerate your "argument" here.

Feudal Europe had commodities too. In the cities and even, less often, in the countryside. Yet that does not mean we can see capitalism in embryo within feudal society from the start. These commodities could not possibly change the fact that labor was posited and appropriated towards the end of satisfying the consumption demands of the elite unique to an agrarian economy. If capital existed it was a means to this end, not the end in itself. And for the Soviet state, without a basis for capital (commodification of means of production) the primary goal of production could only be use-value. Soviet commodities, as in feudal society, may have muddied the effect somewhat but nonetheless did not change the existing relations of production.

Cult of personality
Socialism in one country
These are the two main problems of the soviet union.

And it wasn't even socialism

It wasn't communism. It was an attempt at moving from capitalism to communism, so yes it was still based in capitalism, but I think its disingenuous to make it seem as though it was no different to the capitalist west.

That's why I started my sentence with "if anything". The USSR was capitalist, plain and simple.

Let's have a passing glance at Marxist theory then:
>Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products
>What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society
Oh s**t, looks like the society that "just emerges" from the capitalist one is characterised by the absence of trade.

Quite the opposite: this is exactly what that means. Or do you think capitalism just appeared out of thin air some day?

And I'm the one doing wishful thinking? This is fucking laughable.

Tbh, I'm ready to concede the USSR wasn't completely capitalist. As your own comparison involuntarily suggests, one could argue that, during Stalin's era, the USSR was still mostly… feudal.

And by the way, why the hell would I hate a long-standing state?

I meant long-dead.

No. It can only be predominantly something. Capitalist included. DiaMat, people.

To quote Lenin:
> I replied: Take a close look at the actual economic relations in Russia. We find at least five different economic systems, or structures, which, from bottom to top, are: first, the patriarchal economy, when the peasant farms produce only for their own needs, or are in a nomadic or semi-nomadic state, and we happen to have any number of these; second, small commodity production, when goods are sold on the market; third, capitalist production, the emergence of capitalists, small private capital; fourth, state capitalism, and fifth, socialism.
> I ask you: What is state capitalism in these circumstances? It is the amalgamation of small-scale production. Capital amalgamates small enterprises and grows out of them. It is no use closing our eyes to this fact. Of course, a free market means a growth of capitalism; there’s no getting away from the fact. And anyone who tries to do so will be deluding himself. Capitalism will emerge wherever there is small enterprise and free exchange. But are we to be afraid of it, if we have control of the factories, transport and foreign trade? Let me repeat what I said then: I believe it to be incontrovertible that we need have no fear of this capitalism. Concessions are that kind of capitalism.

Kill yourself.

Lenin meant different thing, user. See above.

You've misplaced the part where you actually explain this statement. I.e. prove it.

Are you genuinely retarded? Stalin said, that it no longer dominates decision-making in USSR. Because there is planned economy that decides things based not on how profitable they are, but how necessary for society.

I.e. if it costs $100 to make a drug, but state sells it for $10 (so as to make it accessible), you clearly have a situation where law of value does not regulate economy.

Coal being mined? Planned economy.
Iron ore being mined? Planned economy.
Iron being smelted? Planned economy.
Iron being shaped? Planned economy.
Iron being transported? Planned economy.
Cooperative buys it from state? Planned economy.
Energy is being produced? Planned economy.
Cooperative buys energy from the state? Planned economy.
Machinery is being produced or bought by state? Planned economy.
Cooperative buys machinery from the state? Planned economy.

Cooperative produces and sells its wares?

Oh, no. It is almost entirely based on commodity production now!

Will there be anything except you personal opinion on the matter?

How does the worker eat, genius? How does he get his clothes, his accommodation, his soap, etc.?

You know there are dozens of examples of capitalist countries with nationalised coal, steel or energy sectors, right? Does that make them socialist? Do you think add tractors and some heavy machinery to that list would make them socialist?

And how could it "cost $100 to make a drug" if there's no trade involved in the production process?

This needs to be condensed into some kind of repostable image, like those idiotic Churchill and Thatcher quotes.

Do you really need a chain of production for each and every product? I thought it's clear that final price of consumer goods is not influenced by decisions based on law of value.

We are talking about Central Planning not being Commodity Production.

Except it was!

Take the food for example (without a doubt the most important consumer good): by the time of Stalin's death, 80% of the agriculture was kolkhozes. And except for about 15% that had to be sold to the State below the market price, the kolkhozes could sell – or not! – their products on the market. Moreover, the kolkhozes' families could personally enjoy a part of the land of the kolkhoz, exactly as a property; that represented a huge part of the production, especially for cattle.

Just to precise something: at the time, the kolkhozians were 52% of the population.

In case you didn't notice, farming stopped being determining factor during industrial revolution. And Central Planning does not mean that government sets price on each and every product.

Not to mention, kolkhozs directly affected only raw product. For example, before milk could get from kolkhozs to the table, it had to go through the milk factory where it got pasteurized and bottled. Except then we get milk that is actually cheaper than the one that kolkhoz sold to the milk factory. And not because it was diluted or something. They got sponsored by state to sell it cheaper. Grain? It needs to be turned into flour and then baked. The same process applies.

Even if there is no state-owned middle-man, if Central Planning decides to make raw product available cheaper, it can make a deal with kolkhoz - they sell products to the state, and the state re-sells them cheaper.

So people can sell shit on the market, but the law of value did not apply?

ok it's a degenerated workers state then

What does this even mean? I hear Trotskyist say it all the time. Like what about the worker state degenerated?

It's just a case of sour grapes from Trotsky because he lost.

It's a Trotskyist theory that tries to avoid le state capitalism meme but doesn't want to admit the USSR under Stalin was socialist either. It's completely contradictory to the Marxist conception of the state, too.

Can the Ultra-Left ever win an argument?

It's like arguing about planes that don't fall, but can be still affected by gravity.

This.

Is it?

Well, it claims that while production relations are socialist the proletariat isn't really in power because the bureaucracy controls production. The bureaucracy however isn't seen as a distinct class.

This goes against the idea of the state as an instrument of class rule.