>free market capitalism isn't going to happen because it naturally developed to corporatism because of capital accumulation and monopolies
>authoritarian socialist regimes were a mistake, the next revolution will be more democratic
can you explain that reasoning pls
it's dialectics.. i aint gotta explain shit
it's because marxists actually have no understanding of economics, which is why they fuck up everytime, which is always blamed on there not being enough socialism
Dialectics doesn't even mean anything, it's basically the Marxist equivalent of religious dogma.
Where exactly do you think there's a contradiction between these statements, my dear friend
Are you the same guy who wrote "Is this board chock full of shitfucking retards or something?" in the other thread? You sound smart af
Which means that it means everything. It's an ideological machine to weld together conclusions retro-actively, it has no predictive power and no falsifiability, it's useless.
No, I don't swear.
"Corporatism" aka "capitalism when it's bad" develops because it's beneficial to the owners of capital or investors as a form of risk management. Even without limited liability laws they would push the state to enact, a corporation allows individuals to reduce the effects of losses and start out with more capital than they would as individual businesses. This allows them to more easily eat a loss and use the profits to expand, thus creating a situation where a few entities are able to out compete most smaller operations and continue to grow and dominate the market.
They were a mistake because they collapsed into capitalism and were repressive of citizens. There is no guarantee that the next (leftist) revolution will result in a more democratic government than the USSR, but it would be foolish to make the same mistakes as the 20th century states did.
The next revolution will be voted for by the people.
Get ready :^)
That's your reasoning, dumbass, why don't you explain it yourself?
As for the USSR, its authoritarianism was not a mistake, its society was not socialist and the next revolution will not be any more democratic.
Literally no one says this. There's nothing more authoritarian than a revolution.
Self-proclaimed communists don't seem to understand that social revolutions are authoritarian, and will likely (not definitely) produce governments which reflect such conditions.
The same people who seem to understand that the French revolution was no picnic don't seem to grasp that a socialist revolution will not remain untainted by revolutionary excess and terror. So the Russian revolution was considered an aberration, a mistake, and somehow things will happen more smoothly and cleanly next time.
The obsession with workers' self-management and "democracy", the ideological result of the anti-communist crusade known as the Cold War, is little more than thinly-veiled anarchism. We can skip that disquieting period where counter-revolution, intervention, and imperialist espionage loom threateningly; the masses will be unimpeachable and unfalteringly correct in their decisions, which will lead us to communism. Hmm. On the other hand, isn't this just an inversion of the "totalitarian" state? Really makes you think.
rlly makes u think…..
Marxism differs from pure communism in how the state is used to insure the existence of monopolies (albeit publicly-owned monopolies). Rich kids with lots of time on their hands have dreamt up a magical form of communism that is going to be post-statist, but haven't solved practical problems such as decreases in production due to workers complaining about their neighbors, disagreeing about ideas or simply haven't different motivations and tolerances for personal sacrifice.
Lenin is less authoritarian than Stalin. This does not make Lenin a raging anarchist. Is this hard to understand?
For tankies, yes.
Capitalism doesn't exist without a state.
No. That's just capitalism.
Corporatism, etymologically, was first used politically to describe fascist economic organization.
What did he mean by this?
That phrase was featured in a very popular Holla Forums instructional video, titled "Redpilling 101. Shilling tips and tricks for the enlightened man" as such, it is commonly heard by Holla Forumsyps in situations like these.
I know. "What did he mean by this?" Seems to be the other thing they like to spout.
oh no, I was joking
Free market capitalism isn't going to happen because we are living in a free market capitalism; there was no pre-modern capitalism, no pre-monopoly capitalism, no pre-corporate capitalism. The current state of capitalism is the default, it didn't degenerate from anything.
And what's so special in taking these premises in their historical context? For Lenin, who was the main proponent of Monopoly Stage theory, this was obvious – capitalism now has monopolized industries, high capital intensity high entry barriers and 'no competition' so we just have to nationalize them and use public democratic means of control.
Who says this?
I think the goal should be to keep things about as authoritarian as they are right now and just make things more equal. Both statements are correct tho. Authoriterian socialist regimes came about through the use of one party systems, in a different system there would be different results.
A pragmatic failure is not the same thing as a dogmatic one.
The modern far left is also highly skeptical of authoritarian regimes.
this
How can something not be an aberration when if fails in 70 years.
I really wish the USSR was still around, and I really think it was more than "state capitalism" but you can't deny that internal contradictions played a huge role in its failure.
70 years is a long time in politics.
I already imagine anons from 3016 writing about some Communist Union that was clearly a mistake, since it lasted only 700 years and failed to achieve Communism - they still had mandatory work 15 minutes a day!
I sure hope you could choose to do those 15 minutes in chunks. My travel time to school is longer than that.
For example, the Flavian dynasty lasted less than thirty years. Nerva's reign was barely two.
Chronological length is no measure of legitimacy.
The Flavian dynasty didn't change the mode of production
Neither did the USSR.
It was not a mistake itself, but Bolsheviks did a lot of unnecessary fuck-ups when it came to dealing with other leftists or with the factories. It simply could've been done better, that's all
None of those things were uneccesary or fuck-ups.
States consolidates power. It's just what they do. Socialism was never really the goal once it waas all about power. What happened weren't mistakes.
It doesn't make sense because the word "capitalism" doesn't describe anything coherent.
The problem with ultra-lefts and ancoms in general is that, as much as they reject Leninism, in practice is very likely that in a revolutionary struggle they would have to reinvent Leninism or face defeat.
So yeah, the people defending the line that democratic workers' councils alone will lead to communism are petite bourgs who don't understand revolutions aren't dinner parties, they will need something as repressive as the state apparatus itself to defend the revolution.
What insurance do you have that this repressive regime won't lead the revolution into becoming a state capitalist shit hole like North Korea, or the PRC?
None tbh fam, my theory doesn't go that far yet ;_;