New R. D. Wolff

8ch.net/leftypol/res/926440.html

If, as he suggests, local government gave in and gave the MoP to workers, then the federal government would declare a state of emergency and call the situation a rebellion. They would send in the national guard to put it down. OTOH, this would wake people up to who really owns shit and might precipitate a full blown class war.

Breddy Gud : D

Holy fuck that's some good freedom you got there

No. It has no bite. If government says "No" - what will you do? You've got nothing and everybody knows it.

I.e. let morons try out Wolff's Anarcho-Syndicalist ideas so as to make people understand that they need Vanguard to get things done.

And then we'll need to crash (with no survivors) economy with co-ops, but without planning - just to understand that Socialism actually is about State. Then we'll have to have second Revolution and (yet another) Civil War to deal with the Fascist coup that will be born out of destroyed economy.

Or we can actually go proper Marxist and skip all this post-"Marxist" nonsense.

What episode did Holla Forums sponsor? Has it happened yet?

...

"proper" Marxist?
what sort of things does the vanguard get done?

So which one is it? Is it dead on arrival or is it destined to take over, but ultimately crash?

Co-ops + nationalizing is the way to go for America for sure

By "proper Marxist", he means Leninist.

The vanguard party thing was all Lenin.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

How are you going to redistribute wealth? Via voting for S█████?

Is this "triggered enough" for you?

What's the deal with people thinking I'm a mod? This isn't the first time I've been accused of this. I don't know if you got banned or something but it wasn't me, I'm just another, user.

Also, Wolff is just advocating a variant of De Leonism, arguably the first Marxist ideology widely practiced in the United States.

Hardly the wacky tobacky crypto-anarchist neo-Marxism you're implying it is.

He literally goes on about Socialism without State.

He literally was part of post-Marxist journal "Rethinking Marxism".
He literally writes in his "Class Theory" that his theories has nothing to do with Marxism.

Even if you are completely uneducated (i.e. did not even read Anti-Duhring), and can't actually differentiate between different theories without other people labelling them for you, that should be more than enough.

It Wolff who is implying he is Marxist. He simply doesn't claims to be one openly and never clarifies anything, so as not to get caught lying and have plausible deniability.

If you've read enough, it is easy to see that he is Anarcho-Syndicalist who is using rehashed version of Duhring's theory of Power to rationalize Marxism away. Moreover, he is openly lying about history and ML, except you need to actually know a bit of history to notice it - but you don't read, do you?

He has S█████ 2.0 written all over him. What's so fucking hard to understand here? Why can't you read actual Marx/Engels and read actual Wolff?

Can I have some quotes that support Wolff's "De Leonism"?

fix

In his talks, he essentially advocates a form of De Leonism. A cooperative network supported by the state who's interests are advanced by a revolutionary party (or a cooperative party, as he puts it).

If Wolff was an anarchist, he never voiced this in any of his talks. In fact, the crux of his plan for advancing the cooperative system is using imminent domain to seize the means of production and the use of state to support and create new cooperatives.

We we know he isn't an M-L and you're eternally assblasted about it. We get it. Take it somewhere else.

Quotes, please.

I'm not going to argue about your impression of Wolff or what you think of him.

He is not Marxist by any definition that does not include Cultural Marxism as Marxist.

And the one who is assblasted about it is you: lo and behold - you need to actually read stuff.

In this Economic Update, for instance.
youtube.com/watch?v=1Hso_Mlopc0

It true, he doesn't say it directly, but around 45:10 he talks about unions and politicians working in tandem to expropriate business and at 53:10 he talk about cooperatives working in tandem with communities, heavily implying local government and with each other to create a planned system.

Also
You're the one who comes into each and every one of these threads to shitpost.

Answers that you don't like is not shitposting.

This is what I'm talking about. It's all you imagination.

So … where is the violent revolution? Or is this authoritarian Leninist revisionism of peaceful and nonviolent Marxism?

Let me quote Wolff (Occupy the Economy, p277):
> There are practical and popular steps we can take now toward realizing economic democracy. Against massive, wasteful and cruel unemployment and poverty, we propose a new kind of public works program. It would differ from the federal employment programs of the New Deal (when FDR hired millions of the unemployed) in two ways. First, it would focus on a “green” and support service agenda. By “green” we mean massively improving the sustainability of workplace and residential communities by, for example, building energy-saving mass transportation systems, restoring waterways, forests, etc., weatherizing residential and workplace structures and establishing systematic anti-pollution programs. By “support service” we mean new programs of children’s day-care and elder-care to help all families coping with the conditions of work and demographics in the US today.

See this? You know how it was called back in the day? It was called Reformism. Major part of Marx's works was to prove unsustainability of such political programs. You'll never get the money, unless you point the gun at the Capitalist. And does Wolff have a gun? Nope.

As for De Leonism, which had Vanguard Party and Planned Economy:
No State Planning. Everybody is a leader.

Don't get me wrong, but Step 1 is to get industrialization through, Step 2 is to free up enough time (4 hours of work per day), Step 3 is to get everyone educated, - and only then do we get Step 4 "Everybody makes decisions". That's Marxism and that's De Leonism (unless you can dig up something that says otherwise). Jumping straight to Step 4 is Anarchism. It works for small shops, not industrial projects that involve tens of millions of workers and require hundreds of highly-trained specialists to prepare.

I'd like to think that you're not being serious, but you probably are.

So was the 8 hour day, the right to unionize, paid time off, pensions, benefits, so on and so forth. Are you suggesting that the pursuit of these things never helped build the labor and socialist movements?

I already said it was a variant on De Lionism. And the video I showed you he advocates a planned economy and in the last Economic Update he seemed to advocate a party representing cooperative labor.

They already effectively collectivized factories in Argentina.

No go back to jerking off to pictures of the Mustache Man and crying yourself to sleep because your whole shitty system collapsed in the late 20th century and you're little more than the last of the dinosaurs.

hello?

Marxism being illegal doesn't make other things Marxist. If you don't want to talk about Marxism - don't do it.

If you want to argue about merits of Reformism - do it. But don't pretend it makes Reformism Marxist.

If it's not De Leonism, than don't drag it here.

> And the video I showed you he advocates a planned economy and in the last Economic Update he seemed to advocate a party representing cooperative labor.
He also openly shits not only on USSR and but on state involvement in general in his Socialism for Dummies and in his books. Pardon me for being sceptical.

And Planned Economy could easily be Anarchist, as is the case here, since it's Planning right now by all the workers. Literally every single worker making an (un)educated guess and the whole (unorganized) mass creates a Five-Year Plan, without relying on actual specialists or Party structure.

That's full-on Anarchism.

What are you even talking about? Present your thought process in full. Did someone from Third World industrialize without Planned Economy?

Um… That's some heavy projecting I see here.

I think it was either December or January.

If this shit is on the radio how come no more epeople listens to it?

Wolff loves to point out that Economic Update is constantly expanding its radio presence with no sign of slowing down yet.

Then do as he says and slander the politicians for being un-american.

Europe did and China's doing it right now.

That's not what projection is.

Again with this shit. Listen, I know it's difficult for tankies to not be dogmatic, but regularly and openly calling for violence against a nation with the most powerful and well funded military in the world in a time of relative stability and strength is not only retarded, it's the fastest and easiest way to put off most of your potential audience. Combine that with fact that your message is ultimately just "we'll replace your boss with a government official", and the reason why most tankie parties have difficulty filling a room becomes clear.

Also, it's you who's mischaracterizing De Leonism by describing it as basically M-L with minor syndicalism for flavor.

There is no vanguard party in De Leonism. The industrial and trade unions are regarded as the revolutionary vanguard, the revolutionary party is merely the representative of the unions in government.

Literally every country that wasn't in the Warsaw Pact.

But the point was, in his last economic update, he talked about Argentina's cooperative movement, including the fact that factories had become cooperatives. Meaning that your idea that industry is too complicated for cooperatives to handle is demonstrably untrue.

That's not what projecting means.

Now that "actually existing socialism" no longer actually exists, you fucks are riding completely on 20th century nostalgia and the old Soviet image.

>>Did someone from Third World industrialize >and China's doing it right now.
>>without Planned Economy?
Can you read?

Wonderful. You won. Against strawman.

Internet says:

You are assuming that:
a) my system collapsed
b) my ideology is outdated

Except once and again the opposite is proven true: ML works. Capitalism fucks up. Systems collapse or stagnate once ML is removed. And you literally have to resort to 19th (or pre-19th) century ideas to argue against ML.

Who is a dinosaur here? Hmm?

It did.
It is. No one wants to live in authoritarian hellhole

He argues against nationalization of industries run by bureaucrats. Engels argues against wage labour under a state in "Anti-Durhing" stating:

So Marx and Engels both talked about the concept of the "national capitalist" both in Capital and Anti-Durhing and yet you're trying to say that being against nationalization of industries(which is what Wolff is against, not all state involvement) somehow makes him Anti-Marxist.

Last time I checked you still had Labour laws and believed that workers actually can run a state.

Majority of those that lived there actually want to.

It might surprise you, but Engels argues against Duhring's theory in Anti-Duhring as well. Theory that is similar to "groundbreaking" Wolff's Class Theory.

> you're trying to say that being against nationalization of industries (which is what Wolff is against, not all state involvement) somehow makes him Anti-Marxist.
Yes.

And why didn't you fully quote Engels? He means that state ownership alone is not enough.

> State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.

> This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonising of the modes of production, appropriation, and exchange with the socialised character of the means of production. And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces which have outgrown all control except that of society as a whole. The social character of the means of production and of the products today reacts against the producers, periodically disrupts all production and exchange, acts only like a law of nature working blindly, forcibly, destructively. But with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilised by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself.

tl;dr: you need direct democracy ("Soviet Power" as per Lenin) to go with state ownership.

Bump, because I'm not copy-pasteing the same posts.

"Stalin was a gud boy, he dindu nuffin wrong"

The USSR only nationalized industries. Production was done for productions sake, in order to accumulate abstract wealth. Commodity production still took place, things were not just produced for their social value.

The entire time the USSR was trying to catch up with other capitalist nations in terms of industrialization, it maintained the capitalist relationship with the proletarian. Worker councils that existed within the Soviet Union who were the mediators between the workers and the state could be said to be analogous to the Unions that negotiate on behalf of the workers, the mediator between the capitalist and the proletarian.

The difference between the two is only in semantics; the law of value was still in full force. In order to industrialize efficiently during the first 5 year plan, wage labour persisted as a result of the socially necessary labour time being a requisite for selling commodities on the international market(for example: grain) at their proper value and at a competitive price.

Nationalization of industries may conceal the technical conditions that form the elements of the solution, yes. But only so long as commodity production, wage labour, markets and the law of value within commodity production are eliminated. It is the failure of the USSR to eliminate these elements( and the impossibility or the task) that make the USSR "State Capitalist" in it's truest sense.

[citation desperately needed]

The same goes for everything else. Honestly, it looks like bot-speak at this point.

...

I thought you faggots loved the 5 year plan? Is that not production to accumulate abstract wealth? Is this not exactly what Marx advocated against? Did the determination of value by labour time not persist? At least in the sense that labour time did not count above what was needed as the social average?

Hello, Holla Forums.
Goodbuy, Holla Forums.

Also - no. 5-year plans are not about "abstract" wealth. It's retarded to even suggest
it.

Are you retarded? Prove how that's retarded. You always just say "no no no you're wrong" without providing an argument. How was the accumulation of money in order to expand not the accumulation of abstract wealth in order to expand.

In the beginning of capital, Marx says M-C-M* is a cycle unique to the capitalist mode of production. M-C-M* existed in the USSR. It was State Capitalist.

No.

Because it's your job to provide an argument if you make a statement. If you come and say "elephants are pink", how can I argue this? You don't even try to prove it. There is nothing to discuss except to say "no".

See above: money being somehow relevant in 5-year plans is factually wrong. And you are dumb, if you try to use it as "evidence" of non-Marxist concepts being orthodox Marxism.

How do you expand if not by accumulation of abstract wealth?

The Soviet state would buy grain from the peasants, and then sell it for a profit on the international market. This money was then put back into the country in order to expand production(industrialize the country, build factories - production for the sake of more production). The thirst for expansion and the process of M-C-M* was present in the USSR.

It is now your job to offer up a counter example of how I am wrong - an example of MCM not existing between the workers and the State.

By accumulation of non-abstract wealth. Primarily - Means of Production. I.e. industrialization of the state.

No. It begins with commodity (grain, in your example) being bought with internal currency (which state has total control over). I.e. it is not an actual act of "buying". Then this commodity gets exchanged for international currency, which is used to buy necessary foreign goods. I.e. Commodity - Money - Commodity.

State has no desire to hoard international currency. It needs actual goods. Neither does the state have a desire to hoard internal currency - it could be printed at will in any amount at any moment.

I.e. we don't actually have a case of MCM.

But you don't have an example to counter. MCM does not apply here, as I had already mentioned before this post.

Tankies: not even once.

>>>/tumblr/
>>>/reddit/
>>>/gulag/

Which is not what the Soviet Union did.

Which is why I compared the Soviet Union's currency to company scrips paid to workers. You aren't gonna tell me that those companies that extract a workers surplus in exchange for a company scrip, and then sell the commodity the workers produced for the national currency aren't capitalist? Or does the Soviet Union doing this on a larger scale absolve it of being a capitalist state?

Goods, which are bought with Hard Currency. The more Hard Currency you have, the more goods you can buy, the more you can reinvest in your production in order to extract surplus value, which could be compared to attempts to increase GNP.

If the Soviet Union were to go to the international market with no hard currency and wanting to trade, they'd be laughed out. This is exactly a case of the accumulation of abstract wealth(hard currency on a market place) that is used to expand the means of production that outpaces the means of consumption(which we see in the economic growth the Soviet Union experienced).

It also begs the question of what "commodity" the Soviet international currency was, if not the universal equivalent to all other commodities. And which I already pointed out, Soviet economist were the first to admit they were a commodity producing society. marxisthumanistinitiative.org/a-new-revision-of-marxian-economics

The Soviet Union was State Capitalist.

[citation needed]

Workers didn't own those companies.

Oh, I'm sorry. I did not understood you were that … special.

You meant that if co-op sells its goods on market for "hard cash" it becomes Capitalist enterprise, right? Because I thought your argument was different. No wonder it seemed nonsensical. My apologies.

Two articles is not official opinion of USSR.

No.

Tankie ad hominem attacks are always fun.

My argument was that the State took on the role of the capitalist who extracted surplus labour and sold the commodity they produced on the market for hard cash( which if you didn't know means cash that isn't likely to rise or drop and is how the Soviet Union engaged in most trade), which is abstract wealth. The Soviet state produced commodities, sold them on the market place for their socially necessary value in order to accumulate abstract wealth. That abstract wealth was then used to invest in more production. The Soviet Union was operating according to market forces and the law of value applied. Therefore, the Soviet Union was not a socialist state.

The existence of worker councils does not make it socialist. A state composed of worker councils and a state WITH worker councils are two very, very different things.

Sorry for grammar errors on my phone. None the less I think my point remains clear.

Don't pretend they aren't justified.

Let me repeat: are co-ops that trade on market non-socialist?

Is North Korea the only Socialist state, is Juche the only True Socialism?

Whatever shuts down dissent right?

In the Marxian sense, no they are not. Accumulation of abstract wealth gained from selling commodities in order to expand production of commodities, is the relationship Marx says needs to done away with in order to eliminate capitalism. It's why Marx said in "Critique of the Gotha Program", one of the first steps a socialist state would have to take would be to eliminate money in favour of labor vouchers, which are non-accumulative. Of course, I contest that businesses in the Soviet Union were "co-ops". As I've pointed out, existence of worker councils as the mediator between the state and the workers does not make a country socialist. A state composed of worker councils( which you think is impossible because of le unwashed masses meme), and a state that has worker councils are two very different things.

This is why he attacked Proudhon. Not because Proudhon was a deluded anarkiddie like tankies say, but because he thought his solutions wouldn't work. So long as the market existed, the law of value would still apply to the MOP. It would eventually regress to capitalism, which the Soviet Union certainly did.

This is why "socialism in one country" is such a non-sensical idea. A "socialist country" will still have to trade on the international capitalist market and the laws of capitalist production will still apply with the State taking on the role of the capitalist. It's why socialism would NEED to be a global movement. The Russian revolution failed when the German one did.

I'm not saying that the leaders of the USSR are at fault for not achieving socialism, I don't think it could've been done in the 20th century since revolution failed to take hold in Western Europe. But don't go around proclaiming the USSR as socialism via the Marxian definition.

Are you high?

If you want to read specially why Kiliman(and I) believe that the law of value operated within the USSR, feel free to read this: marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/audio-mhi-discusses-state-capitalism-the-nature-of-soviet-union.html

Then maybe you'll understand and won't pull ridiculous straw man's out of your ass, as if I said North Korea did not operate in accordance with the law of value( considering they do trade with China by means of abstract wealth), or that the MOP are even owned by the workers in North Korea.

If you don't read it, don't expect a reply from me.

I never realized that people considered objectivity to be totalitarian oppression. But that would explain a lot.

Well, I'm glad I don't care much for Marxian sense.

Which was never proven by you to be the case for USSR, despite all my requests to do so, and you pretty much ignored any and all argumentation that contradicted it. But - hey, just another day on leftypol.

And Soviet money share no common features with labour vouchers, right? Except you also never proved it.

But it doesn't matter, because Soviet Union had to eliminate international money, if you logic is to be followed through. Only World-wide Socialism is real Socialism. You can't have "socialist mode of production" otherwise. Magic wouldn't work.

Soviets weren't mediators. They were in charge.

Paris fiasco is why. Proudhonism was clusterfuck of ill-defined ideas. It doesn't matter what intentions people have, if structure isn't there.

Yep. That's some heavy revisionism you are on. I hope you claiming "true understanding of Marx alone", with Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, and everyone else being too dumb (or too corrupt) to understand Real Marxian Marx(tm).

But I don't care about Marxian definition. It was propaganda fodder before it was born. Even Trotsky spat on those revisionists when he was alive. The only reason this abomination was allowed to breathe is because all real American Marxists were exterminated and pushed underground by McCarthyism and couldn't call out "Marxians" on their pseudo-intellectual theories.

But that's the only logical conclusion one can draw from your claims that trading on free market makes you Capitalist: unless you succeed at World Revolution, you must have 100% autarky to preserve sanctity of Socialism. Which Juche is about, in case you didn't know.

So, tell me: will North Korea become the only proper "Marxian" Socialism if they stop trading with China?

How about this
>State sells them for hard currency on the world market for their price based in accordance with he socially necessary labor time to produce the commodity en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_Union or for rubble between other communist countries
Therefore we can say that the bulk of commodes purchased in the Soviet Union were purchased using abstract wealth that was accumulative.
In conclusion, we can say the cycle of M-C-M* existed in the Soviet Union. The means of production were expanded faster than the means of consumption.

Then again I don't know why I'm trying to convince someone who denies the 1931-32 famine of objectivity.

Are you sure you aren't legitatmely retarded? The fact that the Soviets traded using rubble prevents it from being a non-accumulative way of circulating the means of subsistence. It is accumulative or it isn't, and rubble was accumulative. If it wasn't please provide an example of how rubble was NOT accumulative. To repeat: my example is that the Union traded with other countries USING rubble. This would be IMPOSSIBLE if rubble weren't accumulative

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_factions_in_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union

Here we have an example of the Soviet State banning dissent, even if that dissent was organized by workers who were interested in crating a true proletarian state.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura

And here we have an example of the Soviet state using its authority to appoint people to key positions. This process does not in anyway involve the worker councils.

From the banning of dissent organized by councils and the states ability to appoint officials to key positions without consulting worker councils, we can conclude that the Soviets were not in charge and that the State officials were the final word.

Same goes for the Soviet Union.

Yeah Lenin misunderstood Marxism and Engels said some retarded shit about dialectics. But just keep calling everything you don't like "revisionist". Yes I'm saying Lenin who is apparently sacrosanct misunderstood Marx. Prove me wrong. Show me where Marx says socialism can exist in one country. He always speaks of it as an international movement.

Semantics. Marxian usually refers to the Marxist school of thought using his work as the base. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory

No operating under the law of value preserves capitalist relations. And the law of value comes into place as long as commodity production exist.

No because socialism is lower stage communism which Marx talked about as a global revolution. The "transition period" Marx talked about isn't socialism. It's a period where the task is to establish a proletarian state - he does not use lower stage communism and proletarian state interchangeably. So I would disagree in saying that North Korea is a proletarian state, even if it stopped trading with China.

to elaborate more on the rubble does not equal labour vouchers point, labour vouchers are used once and then discarded. Rubble did not function quite like a market currency within the Union, but it was certainly possible for the State to accumulate an amount which they would use to trade with other state capiatal- I mean communist nations. It functioned as a company scrip in the hand of the prole, and an accumulative currency in the hands of the state.

The fact that the Soviet Union traded with Western nations using hard currency is pretty self explanatory.

Continuing on:

It's crucial to note that Marx did not deem private property to be the defining feature of a capitalist mode of production. In Capital Vol 1 Chapter 6 Marx says

This was when capitalist production truly starts. When the labourer is alienated from the means by which he labours when, The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home”.

But did the law of value, the commodification of labour power exist in the USSR? Was "society an abstract to the individual"?

Well we would certainly expect to see a hierarchy regarding decision making. This is certainly present in the 1936 constitution which states:

As well as the party being above the workers - granting it the right to interpret both the objective and subjective wants of the worker.

But how was the right of the Nomenklatura and the parts monopoly on the interest of the proletariat used?

Communist Raya Dunayevskaya examined the 5 year plan and came to this conclusion:

But what were some examples of this relationship that Dunayevskaya discovered?

Tankiesm is a form of revisionism you know? I must admit you are pretty insistent on shitposting your revisionism on this board.

Continuing on:

Dunayevskaya noted that after the 1943 admission that the law of value operated within Soviet society, there was no more reason to investigate the Stalinist system.

She did note that "“Although the ordinary commercial crisis are avoided through statification of the economy…when the crisis occur, they are deeper than even in traditional capitalist lands…It is true that the Russian brand of crisis takes the form not merely of the liquidation of obsolete units of capital, but of “liquidation” of its inefficient managers. But the law of production remains the same: the payment of the worker the minimum and the extraction from him of the maximum unpaid labour”.

But did this occur? Yes, indeed it did.

She noted that:

Anyway you have yet to offer up an adequate explanation of what differed in Soviet trade under Stalin to prevent it from being called State Capitalist. You then go on to make the dubious claim the economist working for Stalin, the architects of the system were wrong about commodity production taking place. You know the system better than those who orchestrated it.

I don't care though; your shitty system is dead. Buried to the dustbin in history. Destined to fail like it did in every country it was tried, with a regression back to capitalism and the failure to establish socialism or even a proletarian state.

You are truly one of the most cancerous memes on the board and should consider leaving and never coming back. This goes for all ML's.

Tankie BTFO

Repeating bullshit a thousand times does not make it true.

t. Worshipper of stalinist dogma

You fucking idiot. Europe industrialized without planned economies. That refutes your point. You don't just get to cherry pick geographical locations.

Read this you faggot maybe you'll learn something
marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/ch01.htm

Japan industrialized at the same rate as Russia under feudalism :)

Holy fuck

>Therefore we can say that the bulk of commodes purchased in the Soviet Union were purchased using abstract wealth that was accumulative.
No, we can't. You are talking about Foreign trade alone.

And you still miss the whole point of "socialist mode of production".

It's 1932-33, not 1931-32.

Objectivity implies lack of bias. If we do not have bias, then the very same methods used to determine number of "victims of Communism" should applicable in other situations. For the sake of simplicity: in the US, as well. And if we do apply them - we will see the very same HOLODOMOR in US. See picrelated: 20-24 years ago (so, going from 1955 - in 1931-35) we see a sudden decrease in "population growth". And if apply the methods of Conquest, Wheatcroft, and others to this "decrease", what will we see? Millions and millions of victims of … Capitalism.

So tell me, wise one, what should we do with this? Shall we claim "special magical circumstances" that make those methods applicable only to USSR? I tell - we throw those methods in the dustbin. I tell - we will stop trying to smear muds on the names of American journalists, who won awards for objectivity and showed - at the time, in the 30s - that apocalyptic reports of HOLODOMOR were wild speculations.

Shall we post some Goebbels to boot?

Europe industrialized for centuries, peon.

I'm sorry where is it right now?

The elimination of the law of value which was still present in the USSR.

Do you seriously think a decrease in population growth is the only thing Wheatcroft and other historians use to determine the death toll?

And Japan did the same thing as Russia under a feudalistic system except more efficient.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Time travel much?

And you still have nothing. You clearly have no idea how "no law of value" situation should look like. You are literally incapable to actually recognize situation where law of value does not apply.

In my opinion, if you bought goods for the subsidized price, it is clear that the law of value did not apply for this transaction. But for you it has to be "magic palaces falling from the sky" kind of situation, otherwise it does not count. There is nothing to argue about. You have no other criteria.

Specifics, please. Full sentences, please. What does feudal Russia has to do with anything?

No. There were others, equally retarded methods.

Direct change in population, for example. The one that does not account for population migration.

Yeah you retard. Here's a graph of MOP vs MOC. The MOP is higher than the MOC. There was very clearly a surplus being extracted from the workers or else the MOP would match the MOC. If you want to know what I think the law of value not applying looks like, a good start would be not having surplus value.

Japan industrialized at the same rate of Stalinist Russia despite being a feudal system and having much less access to resources.

Maybe if you read that piece I gave you, you wouldn't be asking retarded questions.

I personally haven't read Wheatcroft's work, only Tauger, but I assume his methodology in finding the death toll is up to the standard by which we judge every other famine in history. If you have a better methodology or death toll to offer up, be my guest.

Oh I hope you read it because this is a good one:

From: Voznessensky, The Growing Prosperity of the Soviet Union.

Still wanna tell the me the law of SNLT did not apply?

Graph? Of what?

All I see is numbers of (IIRC) consumer goods (group B) against industrial goods (group A). What is wrong here? That's how industrialization should look like: you create (heavy) industry, rather than consumer goods.

> If you want to know what I think the law of value not applying looks like, a good start would be not having surplus value.
You are insane.

It was not feudal. That's would be (a).
The (b) would be the fact that they regulated their economy pretty hard. Indistinguishably from Planned Economy hard. So I don't really see how are you going to use that as an argument.
And (c) - they weren't embargoed.

Much more importantly - where is the proof of "at the same rate"?

USSR-1932 => USSR-1937: +138%
Japan-1932 => Japan-1937: +76%

USSR was doing it faster. Almost twice as fast. As for 1940 numbers - Japan already occupied quite a bit of China and was sucking resources out. Pretending that this was not the case marks your source as propaganda.

I can speak, but you are clearly incapable of comprehending anything that does not support your beliefs.

It's the amount of industry produced vs the amount consumed, the MOP outpaced the means of consumption.

Sources: Industrialization of Japan and Manchukuo, 1930–1940, by Schumpeter, Allen, Gordon and Penrose; The Economic Strength of Japan, by Isoshi Asahi, and Industrialization of the Western Pacific, by Kate L. Mitchell, 1942.

Yes. Industrialization. Tell me something I don't know.

Doesn't change the fact that - according to the very same sources - Japan was developing 1.8 times slower, was not embargoed, and did suck quite a bit of resources out of China and Korea.

And this bit is particularly weird, if you ask me. North Korea was pretty big on metallurgy. Unless they count korean colonial territories as "long distances", of course.

I don't think you're understanding this. If the workers were getting the full compensation for their work, it would stand to reason that the amount being produced by the workers would = the amount being consumed. The fact that there was a surplus of products implies a shortage of Ruble's, that there was surplus labour extracted. It's not about "investing in heavy industry", it's about surplus labour being extracted.

In 1937 Japan wasn't far behind the USSR, and the USSR never got close to any of the capitalist nations even after the third 5 year plan.

To clarify: in the second chart and in
this is measured by the amount of Rubles created vs the amount consumed. It is impossible that wage labour didn't exist through some medium unless you're going to tell me that Soviet workers were hoarding Rubles and that's the reason the amount produced by the workers doesn't match the amount they consumed.

Still waiting on your superior methodology to every historian who's looked at the 1932-33 famine.

No. I don't.

It would not.

You presuppose that state is a Capitalist, it should be "honest employer", and pay in full. IRL we are talking about workers investing money (well, labour-wealth; which was never properly monetized) in the state they own. To build factories and produce more, better, and cheaper goods. Their payment (surplus) is not going anywhere. They still own it. They are simply not converting it in consumer goods.

Explain this better. So far this bit doesn't compute at all.

"Surplus of products" = prevalence of heavy industry?

Extracted by whom? By workers?

That still does not follow from your statements.

What Roubles are you even talking about? Because Soviets had cash and non-cash currency. The latter got created according to the Plan and got nullified at the end of the Plan.

This is the place where you need to provide a source, or to explain the meaning of your data properly (and it's neither chart, nor graph - it's table).

And I repeat: it is not wage labour, if you get the ownership of the whole product (which was the case for the citizens of USSR).

That's $300 worth of my labour, at the very least, and it'll get forgotten the next day. You are way too greedy.

you gotta be fucking kidding me
surplus is needed for extended reproduction
no surplus means no progress

I recognize this retarded marxist-humanist argument that there should be no extraction and accumulation of surplus in whatever form
muh exploitation

nevermind that surplus goes to benefit society as a whole in the form of advancing production forces of said siciety

I tried telling him. He doesn't believe me.

You mean the Nomenklatura who had the right to interpret laws?

Refer to my first post:

What was this ruble control? A form of credit that functioned the exact same way bank credit functions in a capitalist society.

This is only one example of how those in higher positions of hierarchy, usually appointed by the Nomenklatura extracted surplus labour for their own benefit.

Rubles were unevenly distributed. Surplus labour was extracted from the workers, and hoarded by higher ups.

The management was aloud to accumulate Ruble's.

Which is why we had discrepancies between the annual income of 3,467 and some managers earning over 300,000 rubles a year!

So here we have a system where by economizing labour

The reason production wasn't meeting consumption wasn't because they were putting aside Ruble's for industrializing, but because managers were hoarding Rubles for themselves.

*so where was have a system where by economizing labour, the managers could extract the workers surplus for themselves.

Also regarding your "le millions didn't die in the 1932-33 famine" what about what the Soviet government found.

Despite the fact that, on the one hand, their own statistics of decline in harvest and slaughter of cattle point to catastrophic conditions; and, on the other hand, the fact that the bourgeois journalists in Russia saw to it that the world heard of the famine, the state has denied the existence of famine in 1932–33. Apparently even the bureaucracy did not know what a toll of lives the famine had taken for by 1937 they ordered a census taken to prove that “life had become gayer.” According to the Plan, the census should have proved the existence of a population of 180.7 millions. But the data the census takers brought back told a vastly different story. Despite the fanfare that heralded the census, the data were never made public. The census was declared “defective” and another census was ordered for January 1939 to find the missing millions. The 180.7 millions “planned” for 1937 were based on the three million yearly growth in population characteristic of the period 1922–28. On that basis the 1939 census should have recorded a population of approximately 186 million. However, the accepted 1939 census revealed the population to be 170.5 million. No explanation was made as to the discrepancy in the figures, but much publicity was given to the 15.9 per cent increase over the 1926 census disclosed by the 1939 census. No explanation was made of the discrepancy between the planned figures and those found actually living. This 15.9 per cent increase, however, is not reflected in each age group and thereby hangs a tale of confirmatory evidence of the famine in 1932.

So was the Soviet States methodology wrong for coming up with what the expected population should've been? No, the numbers they found are actually higher than the methods used by Wheatcroft, Conquest, etc found.

didn't mean to post that twice.

Not to mention the Kolkhoz, had private property. The whole land wasn't communally owned, parts of it were designated to be "owned" by a Kolkhozy within the Kolkhoz.

Further, not all the land owned by Kolkhoz was equal. Those who had the biggest amount of land, in proportion to the amount of members of the Kolkhoz ended up being millionaires. There was indeed a millionaire class in the countryside and one in the State. They sold their commodities on the market for 9x the price of the State.

Nope! Only 15% of the product produced by the kolkhoz was sold directly by the kolkhoz. The 40% not claimed by the state was sold by individual kolhozy on the market.

...

...

This meme is conflicting, like is it calling Richard talks trash? as a pun because of the music genre?

You fucking dogmatic Marxist hypocrites. You fuckers are perfectly OK to attack market socialism for extracting surplus value but then you turn around and act like it isn't a problem when the same criticism is levelled against yourselves.

it's about who controls the surplus value fool (not the poster you were replying to btw)

I'd rather the factory workers control it than a massive nomenklatura thanks

Right, I'm an advocate for communism. By this I mean no markets, no subordination of humanity to economy. I don't think we should be aiming to recreate the Soviet Union. Whether market socialism is the way to reach communism or if it's by trying to rationally run the economy, remains to be seen.

And guess who didn't control it in the Soviet Union
the workers

I think is a pun because it's a hour and half video that talks about economics and the dude enjoys it like the most fire music

You're not one of the Stalinist fuckers these people are arguing with.

fucking kek

That's because Stalinist aren't Marxist

WTF? I thought it maxed out at like 6x

Nope. The minimum salary for a worker was 115 Rubles while the basis for a manager or directer was 2000, so almost a ratio of 1:20.

But as was pointed out:

He is lying. There was some disparity in income during early 30s (often up to 10-15 times), since USSR simply didn't have trained specialist and had to invite them (and pay it's own engineers accordingly).

Claims about "300 times more" - that's absolute nonsense.

...

[citation needed]
Why didn't you respond to the rest of his points? Is it because you can't?

Provide a source of fuck off.

I'm also curious as to what you would say to the market socialist, who said any criticisms you had of the market forcing the worker to exploit himself in order to invest in his business is any different than the state run by directors exploiting workers for their surplus value so they can invest in the well being of the state. In one situation the worker exploits himself for the expansion his business, in the other the state exploits him for the expansion of the state. I fail to see how the latter is anymore "true socialism", other than the fact that the convoluted planned economy led to economic stagnation by the time Kruschev came in. At least Yugoslavia had the highest living standards of Eastern Europe, even surpassing some Western nations at the time. USSR "le planned economy true socialism that still had surplus labour not controlled by the workers and markets in the country side" can't even attest to that.

Two words: Raya Dunayevskaya.

Source to what? Average wages in USSR?

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

Her analysis of the Soviet economy is valuable considering she was alive to see it happen and many of the articles she sights are not readily available today, most of them probably only still exist in archives.

We aren't talking purely about wages. When she said that "income taxes over 300,000 rubles, compared to the 3,467 rubles being the annual" that's a disparity of almost 100x. That inflation was coming from bonuses offered to the directors. It seems like Dunayevskaya's source on this is only available through contacting Columbia University library: clio.columbia.edu/catalog/4079359?counter=1

I'm pretty confident in her analysis considering how utter a failure the Soviet Union turned out to be, but feel free to contact them and get back to me on if you find a discrepancy between her work and her source.

Here's a copy of the book she used for her point about the credit based banking system and the banking cartel declaring a firm "bankrupt". amazon.co.uk/Soviet-Money-Finance-L-Hubbard/dp/B0006ANI4E

If you have any issue with what she writes, you should take it up with her sources.

But I bet you won't respond with anything of substance. You never do.

Damn I recall there being a soviet made engineering calculator costing 3000 roubles domestically in the late 80s, how much did an engineer be making at the time if the average annual salary was barely over 3000 roubles?

She still makes claims without any basis, distorts actual events to her benefit, and utterly fails at theory. She is not a source one can simply rely on alone. That's propaganda, not an actual analysis.

Irrelevant. She is suggesting some sort of "capitalist" strata existing in USSR at the time. This does not correlate with the data I had seen. Income disparity peaked at 10-15 (maybe 20, because there might've been something I missed), but not 300 or 100. There might've been singular incidents of such income, but - never systematic.

As is - I see unsourced war propaganda.

No.

Seems a bit far-fetched to be true. You sure it wasn't Soviet PC?

...

You don't have a book, don't quote her sources, but I must? Fuck off.

soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/second-kolkhoz-charter/
Found this in reference to the private plots that were put side for individual kolkhozy

I provided you with some sources you could check out. You haven't shown how she distorts events, you haven't provided a source of your own.

And she doesn't portray them as systematic. She uses the singular instances to highlight the systematic problem.

And?

Raya Dunayevskaya is not a source.

Unsourced instances.

Are you insane? Singular =! systematic.

If some kolkhoz had immense harvest, lucked out and got super-profits for one year, that does not make USSR Capitalist.

Please don't equate the two. The first is a liberal pipe dream, the second a communist transitionary organization as part of the "dual power" of the DotP.

And please let's not buy into the democratic ideology of bourg societies. Communists are not democrats, period. It's okay if you use the term in the context of simplified propaganda ("democracy in the workplace and larger democratic institutions between workplaces") but let's not fool ourselves in our own midst.

I don't agree. Democracy is a valuable tool.

Democracy, if taken as a tool, is definitely not communist. From its very conception it was an unequal and inane way of organization that on a theoretical level could only defend itself through some vague reliance on the diffuse majority it creates (50% +1 vote, yay) and in practice always solidified class rule.

It's no accident that Bordiga and Lenin had dispute over the term "democratic centralism" – the former advocating for the alternative naming "organic centralism" since he saw it as a populist concession to the ruling ideas.

But this is the case of what I already alluded to.

plz consult gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=2882020A778FD24392B22F368756680C

In other news:

marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/rsdlp/1903/program.htm
> By substituting social for private ownership of the means of production and exchange, and introducing planned organisation of the process of social production, in order to ensure the well-being and all-round development of all members of society, the social revolution of the proletariat will abolish the division of society into classes, and thereby free all oppressed mankind, since it will put an end to every form of exploitation of one part of society by another.

That's 1903. The earliest mention of Bolshevik (at the time - Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party) intent to go Planned. "Hurr durr, Lenin never wanted Planned Economy, Stalin betrayed him and Party by doing it …"

That's very narrow-minded definition of democracy.

[citation needed]
Also, what do you think, was "Nomenklatura"?

Broadly correct. Not "premiums", but to improve working conditions. For example, at least 50% had to go to the housing. The rest to factory kindergartens and so on. Some - to premiums, yes.

Fund was made out of enterprise profits: 4% of the "planned" and 50% of the "over-planned". I.e. if you earned more, you got more money to spend.

[citation needed]
Also, Stakhanovites were "rank and file workers". Moreover, workers could kick the director out ("purged", yes), if he misbehaved. And he had to account for any expenditures (which included "director's fund").

> There was introduced what was known as “ruble control”, that is to say the undertakings were to be conducted on principles of cost accounting as in any money economy
tl;dr: Finance control, aka Internal control.
Apparently, having accounting done means Capitalism.

And there were no "banks" in USSR. There was only one bank - Gosbank. It did not compete with itself and did not encourage "profiteering".

Not seeing a single example.

Statements, not facts.

Why can't you post source instead?

marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/ch02.htm

>The reason production wasn't meeting consumption wasn't because they were putting aside Ruble's for industrializing, but because managers were hoarding Rubles for themselves.
And didn't spend any of it on luxuries (aka consumer goods)? They were literally sitting on piles of money and not spending any? And that's it?

Was a mess and was considered to be defective by the Soviets themselves. Nobody (i.e. nobody serious) uses those figures, because of it.

It was given. Census was defective. Instructions were self-contradictory, the whole organization process (Soviets attempted one-day census using over a million untrained people) - was lacking. Many villages (and houses) were not included in the census, for example.

And - yes. Reports about census not working as intended begun appearing long before the census was finished. So you can't say that results were declared defective after numbers became known.

lol, the irony
it is the likes of Dunayevskaya that want communism here and now

problem is, their communism is dead on arrival
it is a stagnant society without surplus product accumulation
say goodbye to space, humanity

I can attack so-called marksoc on the basis that it is socialist in name only

same shit as capitalism, really
beloved Yugoslavian coops hired labour on the side to increase their profits, as typical capitalists they were

as another user pointed out, question of exploitation is a question about who benefits from accumulated surplus

SU used surplus on various projects, it is all in five-year plans
it is used surplus on military complex, on nuclear weapons, etc. which could be considered wasteful

what you retards can't grasp
is that there was not an M-C-M' circuit, but C-M-C' circuit

Did you miss the part where they said they did a 1939 census with the same result or?

I said she was using extremes in that instance to highlight the systemic problem.

If you have information on income taxes from a given year I can check out then show me please.

There were private plots that the Kolkhozy took care of within the Kolhoz. The Kolkhozy could hire workers to work these private plots for a wage and then traded their product on a market, the Kolkhozy who were given the best land then rose to become a millionaire class.

Sounds an awful lot like private property to me.

The sources I saw she used I listed here: amazon.co.uk/Soviet-Money-Finance-L-Hubbard/dp/B0006ANI4E

clio.columbia.edu/catalog/4079359?counter=1

soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/second-kolkhoz-charter/

jstor.org/stable/2225485?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I think she means the "technical workers" like the Stakhanovites were given more than the non-stakhanovite workers.

I don't know why you'd be expecting the regime that denied the existence of the famine and did shit like Katyn to be remotely truthful.

Considering the Soviet Union regressed to capitalism and the majority of people who voted in surveys that they preferred "socialism" to capitalism now, would've been living under "revisionist" Kruschevite socialism and not Stalinist Gulag socialism that you guys love.

A variety of people who held key administrative positions in the USSR, usually appointed by the communist party.

Tell me this: who was in charge of the secret police when they executed 700,000 people during The Great Purge? Who was in charge when Marxist like Bukarhin were put on show trials for being "fascist sympathizers" for disagreeing with Stalin about collectivization? Was it the Soviets? Or the communist party? That's vastly more people than Franco executed during the White Terror, Tsarist White Terror and gets close to the U.S. assisted Indonesian communist killings.

When workers were banned from being able to organize factions in opposition to Stalin(since Lenin banned factions) was that the will of the workers, or the Communist Party not allowing workers to dissent to policies? Was there every a vote held by the Soviets on repealing that policy?

Not "they". Where Raya Dunayevskaya wrote. You are quoting her war-time propaganda exclusively, no?

marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/ch03.htm
> The 180.7 millions “planned” for 1937 were based on the three million yearly growth in population characteristic of the period 1922–28

And - yes. I tend to subconsciously filter out the most retarded things you post to prevent brain damage. To be polite - I prefer to assume some basic intelligence at work behind your post. Erroneously, as it proves to be (again).

1) 1939 census did not have the same result as 1937. It accounted for 8 mil more people, IIRC.
2) I'd like some source on "3 mil per year" growth rate. That's more than +2% growth rate (if we assume 137 mil to be population in 1920; or anything less than 150 mil, for that matter).

To present systematic problem where one doesn't exist. You show conditions and reasons to present actual systematic problem.

For each and every person in USSR circa 1930? I don't think one exists (in the digital form, at least). Must be Communists hiding their dirty deeds, eh?

> There were private plots that the Kolkhozy took care of within the Kolhoz. The Kolkhozy could hire workers to work these private plots for a wage and then traded their product on a market, the Kolkhozy who were given the best land then rose to become a millionaire class.
[citation needed]
I'm not aware of any systematic hiring of workers being done by kolkhozs in USSR. There were some instances of seasonal requests for manpower from the cityfolk, but that was much later (70s, IIRC).

Also, you seem to refer to some "Kolkhozy". I'm not sure what that should mean, since "kolkhoz" literally means co-op (cooperative/collective enterprise).

Sounds an awful lot like propaganda to me.

> The sources I saw she used
You have only one source. Stop being retarded. Or pretending that I am retarded and don't notice this.

If you dig out those books and present quotes from those books - then you'll have other sources. Until that glorious moment arrives, you have only one source.

Stakhanovites were regular (whatever "technical" should even mean?) workers who worked better. Due to some of their inventions, techniques, or whatever. They'd do more and get awards for it.

She is being high on Trotskyist propaganda that demands everyone get equal payment regardless of effort. Simple politics: if it's introduced by Stalinist faction, it must be criticized.

I don't know why you'd be expecting the regime that invented the existence of the famine and shit like Katyn to be remotely truthful.

I sense someone's butthurt.

Wrong. "Nomenklatura" referred to the posts within the Party. Which is why those people were appointed by the Party members.

Now, since Party posts did not have any jurisdiction outside the Party structure, I have no idea how are you going to justify some "law interpretation" that was given to the "Nomenklatura". Judicial functions in USSR were granted to "People's judges", who were elected by population in general, not appointed (unlike in US, for example).

*bzzt* - USSR had no "secret police". That's a meme.

And you have no idea how "1937/38" purges worked, if you blame "secret police".

I'm not aware of any systematic hiring of workers being done by kolkhozs in USSR. There were some instances of seasonal requests for manpower from the cityfolk, but that was much later (70s, IIRC).
Also, you seem to refer to some "Kolkhozy". I'm not sure what that should mean, since "kolkhoz" literally means co-op (cooperative/collective enterprise).

I thought it referred to individual Kolkhoz but I don't know Russian. She cites issues of Pravda that said the Machine and Tractor sector was missing payment form Kolkhoz - 230,000 Rubles. The article states that the tractor workers left those farms for ones that could pay better and the individuals of the Kolkhoz would hire them to work on their private plots, which I citied in the Soviet history article.

Even though we have documentary evidence of it? A convergence of evidence - just like how we know the holocaust happen.

The NVKD operated in transparency?

So did the Soviets vote for this using democratic centralism or?

I also fail to see how the directors fund being used for worker welfare absolves it of being an example of state capitalism. In Chapter 12( I think) of Capital Volume 1 Marx talked about how the capitalist can use surplus to invest in the MOP, in order to shorten necessary labour time. Investing in housing for the workers, schooling could very much be seen as an example of that. An educated worker is more intuitive - SNLT will go down. One who is able to rest in a house will be more well rested and work harder - the SNLT. How is this any different from a capitalist company offering benefits to it's employers?

I don't know why you have to defend every single human rights abuse perpetrated by Stalin, it's really quite odd.

lowering the SNLT*

Who or what? Member of co-op or singular co-op?

I.e. one event (also, exceptional and unusual, if it was worthy of an article).

Of what?

They had complete accountability, everything had to be documented thoroughly, and had to follow the letter of the law.

Defining features of secret police are lack of accountability and independently extralegal activity. I.e. legalized gangsters. James Bond with "licence to kill", for example.

How is this relevant to anything?

For what?

You still haven't proven that it was capitalism.

Investing = Capitalism; Education = Capitalism; Rest = Capitalism.

Are you absolutely brain-dead?

Well, since in this very post you literally claimed that education and rest are crimes, I'll concede that Stalin was guilty of aiding and abetting the unforgivable crimes of worker leisure and education. The bloody tyrant, eh?

Member of the co-op.

Katyn.

So are the graves they dug up propaganda?

To execute 700,000 people?

No I think the directors being able to dig into a fund for them by paying workers the minimum a month makes it capitalism, the fact that 50% of that fund was reinvested stopped it from being capitalism.

No, I mean the execution of at least 700,000 people.

Comrades, lively debate you have going here but it's becoming a bit hard to follow. Could you both perhaps summarize your arguments as they stand so the rest of us can get some perspective on where you're actually trying to get to with your respective arguments?

Was Raya Dunayevskaya correct in her accusation of USSR as State Capitalist?

Also, general shit-flinging (what Mongolia has to do with anything?)

Proofs:
1) Goebbels.
2) Soviets not having enough evidence to convict one specific Nazi officer
3) Polish refusal to provide any evidence after their clusterfuck of expedition in 90s.

Pardon for being sceptical.

How is this relevant to anything? x2

How is this relevant to anything? x3

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

Correction. Apparently, it's full-on "innocent victims of Communism" mode now. And I still didn't get to get explanation on what user thinks Capitalism is.

I was asking you if the Soviet worker councils voted to have those people executed, if the workers were truly in charge?

[citation needed]
sovietinfo.tripod.com/ELM-Repression_Statistics.pdf

books.google.ca/books?id=SyimWfkx0-MC&pg=PA256&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Besides the documents discovered after Glossnot?

Your contention that Stalin wasn't a tyrant that killed 100's of thousands of people at the least. I don't see how your system breeding a tyrant is irrelevant to the validity of your system.

Labourer is alienated from the means by which he labours(a result of private property) and commodity production is the primary means by which people obtain their means of subsistence.

A bit unrelated but does anyone have that gif of the anime girl watching wolff?

How many times was Stalin actually convicted of anything non-political? Even his prison time before October was for politics and politics alone.

IIRC, there was only one recent show trial in Ukraine about Holodomor being "proven" to be deliberate genocide against Ukraine. That's it. That's all you have to support your (effectively religious) belief that Stalin was a tyrant.

Everything else is opinions that boil down to "you can't give decision-making power to people, because populist tyrants will emerge and unspeakable crimes will happen; we must have rich in charge". This is what anti-Stalinism is about: proof that democracy doesn't work.

I'd like you to explain to me how Marxism (or Socialism) breeds tyrants. And don't try to weasel out "it's not real Marxism/Socialism/Democracy". Explain how and how it should be avoided without supporting current status quo or going full AnCap.

By Boris "I had used anti-Communist propaganda to justify murder of hundreds of unarmed people and use of army to overthrow legitimate government" Yeltsin?

The document (Beria's report) that had numerous inconsistencies and which - as forensics found - had first three sheets typed on a typewriter that doesn't match any known contemporary typewriter? The document that was not subject to any extensive research?

Apologies. Forgetting such "discoveries", that were made by such "authoritative" source is absolutely unacceptable.

Proofs (updated):
1) Goebbels.
2) Soviets not having enough evidence to convict one specific Nazi officer.
3) Polish refusal to provide any evidence after their clusterfuck of expedition in 90s.
4) Boris Yeltsin.

Pardon for remaining sceptical.

You were trying to avoid discussion of your anti-Soviet war propaganda pamphlet. I repeat: what Mongolia has to do with anything?

Without accountability? No. They don't.

Just because all the worker funds get united into one fund and it gets called "director's fund" (to which not only director had access to), you don't get to claim that USSR was Capitalist.

Wrong. At the very least learn that labourer gets alienated from his labour. And you really need to understand why Capitalism is inherently exploitative.

Not having the bureaucrats like Stalin be able to issue direct orders to seize X person and murder them, as in the case of Jan Sten. 680,000(atleast) is a lot of people. No matter how you want to justify it, he killed much more than the Tsar, Franco, and gets up there with Indonesian communist killings.

The official NVKD records that show the ordered execution of at least 680,000 people.

Also the Holodomer wasn't genocide - but the whole of the famine was exacerbated by government policy.

Stalin didn't have such power.

Who?

Again: you have no idea how 1937/38 happened.

[citation needed]
If you want to push your religious beliefs as objective, please, provide supporting evidence.

Ordered by whom?

Don't tell it publicly in Ukraine. IIRC "denying crimes of Communism" is punishable by law there. They are very "free".

...

Yan Sten. Anyway, what's so special about him?

There's a difference between the social accumulation of material wealth and surplus value you fucking stalinist dolt. Value (in the marxist sense of the term) does not exist outside of capitalist society.

Surplus value?

last time I checked people liked Brezhnev times
stability and all that

Kruschev have a nick-name Cornman in russia
there's no denying that his adventure with virgin lands fucked Soviet agriculture real bad
plus he dismantled MTS, so all machinery amortisation costs became coops problem

and of cource people don't want to live in Stalin times
hasted industrialization, famine, war

but in those years foundation for later stable times was built

Stalintrip, can you repost that pdf you posted some weeks ago of an article written by an American journalist living in the USSR in the 30's? IIRC it was about the dekulakization process.

Yeah people just love economic stagnation.

in the same way ancaps are anarchists

whereas the Soviet Union hired workers for wage labor directly.

well, I guess it's not so bad if you have your job and place to live
or maybe polls were bullshit, I dunno

ancaps are the only true anarchists :^)

again, society needs a way to accumulate surplus

This?

Speaks volumes, if stagnation in Socialist state is preferable to living in a Capitalist state during economic boom.

They are consistently bullshit, then.

You are missing the point of surplus being returned to workers in non-monetary way.

Consider pure Communism. 100% of your labour is not monetized. user will claim it's slavery, because you aren't paid at all.

Stalins former tutor

Doesn't change the fact that his regime executed at least 680,000 people, and more if you include those who died in Gulags. I don't care about the semantics of how they did it, killing that many people in two years is a scale not even close to the former Tsar. I didn't know there was a proper way to surprises your civilians like that.

Mostly approved by party officials, but some were direct order by Stalin like in the case of Jan Sten.

Well the idea it was a genocide is loosing it's support in the West and Ukraine is one of the most reactionary places on Earth. However, the way the party responded to the famine exacerbated it. He was more concerned about industrialization than dying citizens, and yes I know the Kulaks hoarded grain and burned down crops. That isn't my issue.

Yeah that's the one, thanks.

there was no economic boom in russia
on the contrary, there was severe deindustrialization

I'd say russia now reminds me of post ww1 germany
they lost cold war
they want revenge
it's the root of russian nationalism

Shame they were talking about Brezhnev vs. Khrushchev, not Brezhnev vs. capitalism

i'm fucking done with you people

Polls are comparing USSR to modern Russia. So - vs. capitalism.

Anons voiced his own opinion, I think.