>>2615798>The state, for example under feudalism tried desperately to prevent capitalist class power from dominating the state.Yet It was it's own legal statutes that enabled capitalism. Yes. Nobles wanted to keep merchants down but the Feudal state de facto supported capitalism through it's own laws.
>The underlying economic relations had already started transforming.Right. With the states support. Economics is not independent of the rest of society. The State was an integral part of the transformation process itself.
>You only see what you want to seeWho are you fooling? As if people on this board haven't seen the same loaded language used by anarchists and libertarians before.
> it is easier for you to process that any critique of the state nationalization is from an anarchist, No, right-libertarians also believe in minimal state interference in the economy because they think it will help capitalism. You also want to keep the state out of the economy but you claim that it will help socialism instead. Same exact policy…
>I just think they are kind of retardedWhy? It's an easy way to get rid of money (one of the goals of communism) but still keep track of what workers want while giving them some choice in what they consume.
> if only the man at the top had done this!Using politicians to represent policy decisions of the faction or state they represent is normal. It's not literally about Stalin as a individual but his leadership of the USSR and the polices he represents. Were you really confused about that?
>so has been the boss it would be communism now.How many times do I have to talk about democratic centralism being flawed before you get it?
>So you believe the only way to replace capitalism is to use the incentives of capitalist production?Directing workers is what the class in charge does the specific way doesn't matter. Capitalist use payment and employee employer relations while a socialist state would just tell them what to work on.
>Workers interest very rarely go beyond simple improvements to their life within the bounds of capitalism. Just because capitalists kill workers who step out of line so the majority keep their heads low doesn't mean their interest in being free of capitalism disappears.
>And what even is power if not the ability to control the means of production/derive surplus,The power to kill. That is the essence of state power and why people obey.
> how does one in power eat if he is not producing the food himself? By threatening the producers.
>As if many corrupt officials didn't have a direct hand in orchestrating the collapse for their own benefit,The vast majority of USSR officials did not benefit in the end. The ones that managed to get some money out of the USSR were eaten up by the market, oligarchs, and gangsters.
>The workers ≠ the stateThe socialist state is wholly composed of workers.
>Also the state is essentially a manager of the internal productive relations of society, it's point is stability. That is only one function. And states throw out short term stability for long term gains all the time.
Only liberals idealize the state as non political entity that just sits on top of things doing nothing.
>Sure, in theory you could have some enlightened leaders of a state brute force it against the incentives inherent to their control of the political apparatusYes, that's the whole point of a socialist state. To force capitalism into socialism.
>but as I said this is unnecessary So you say. But what if it is necessary? You want to have everyone waiting for hundreds of years before they realizes it's not happening? So you have some sort of timeline or is it vague feeling you got?
>complete control of world production is necessary to experiment with different organizational methods?I'm not against experimenting. But when they find the best solution you don't keep it local.