[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
Not reporting is bourgeois
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1746980184292.png (496.17 KB, 587x663, 17267 - cartoon glasses mi….png)

 

Why is it that in socialist economies the state "dieing out of itself [as the base shaping superstructure]" also takes with it the mode of production?
This is of course not something we see under capitalist neoliberalism where the "dieing out of itself" only strengthens the mode of production.
Even in the two socialist countries where the mode of production hasn't been replaced there have been a growth in private sector employment.

My best guess is that it's something to do with the vanguard not being as suited to administering Socialism as it is to DotP.
Specifically advantages conveyed to party membership making it less about dedication, and more about career.

Nonsense, everything was perfect except Stalin didn't kill enough people. Had he just killed Khrushchev we'd be living in full communism right now

>>2264040
So maybe the purity narrative is false; it's more to do with the means of production themselves.
But what specifically? Is it just a matter of not having the political will (or resources) to computerize for example.

>>2264086
A failure to adopt modern scientific methods of economic management?
Even this would still perhaps be a structural issue possibly to do with the vanguard.

>le AES
xd

>>2264005
That's cause they are/were not socialist. They just developed industry using state intervened capitalism. Sorry. It lifted people out of poverty (they just moved from the town to the city).

>>2264118
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO COMMUNISM IS WHEN WELFARE

>>2264118
<For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

>>2264005
The picture should be Khrushchev.

>>2264105
it was, the economy was not organized for profit but for use from a central economic authority. this is QUALITATIEVLY different. at least it was untill the RAT khruschev introducted profit back into the equation

>>2264163
>>2264173
Part of the problem is that this has happened over and over again, and that there is no single buggy man.

>>2264283
As long as capitalism exists in the world so does bourgeois ideology and revisionism is the manifestation and remnants of bourgeois ideology in socialist politics. This is contrary to the position of the current revisionist Chinese Communist party who claim that class struggle ends after revolution which is why we keep seeing this repeat over and over again because these deviations in the party are not fought properly and are allowed to fester until we end up with someone like Gorbachav who dismantles the party entirely. The same thing will happen in China if Chinese workers refuse to continue participating in class struggle. The state is not withering away, it's being subverted by bourgeois influences who differentiate from the goal of building Communism.

>>2264313
>class struggle ends after revolution
Not after the revolution but surely if the DotP has been successful in establishing socialism.
The recreation of the class after the fact just indicates a failure to maintain the mode of production.
Surely the bourgeois influence would only be significant after their recreation.
The only alternative is a state too weak to maintain itself in the face of imperialism.

>The [socialist] state is[/was] not withering away, it's [was] being subverted by bourgeois influences who differentiate from the goal of building Communism.
Seem to disagree with this entirely.
Perhaps my argument isn't good enough though.

>>2264350
The socialist state only starts to wither away the closer it gets to full communism, Marx says this himself. In the case of the Soviet Union it is was not getting closer to Communism, it was regressing towards capitalism until the government was finally coup'ed by the petite bourgeois radicals who had infiltrated the party.

File: 1746999587548.jpeg (574.63 KB, 1569x2001, freedom of speech.jpeg)

If German Revolution succeeded, Lenin wouldn't have needed to do NEP because the USSR could cooperate with socialist Germany. Actual socialism would have been built in the 20th century and we'd have communism by now. Socdems doomed humanity.

>>2264400
Started this discussion elsewhere but:
<The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state.

>>2264410
No this isn't fair my apologies,
Even by my own reading the state as the state is different from the state.

>>2264005
because you can have leaps to the past. a retrograde leap backward. same way liberalism jumps to fascism, the same way fascism has retuned monarchies. the same way there are evolutionary steps, there is reactioniaries against it, because their interest is to install or perpetuate exploitation, and that's the way they find to defend they wealth accumulation.
>>2264118
>shitlib doesn't know what communism and socialism is, the reply!
For one, they were, under The Principles of Communism Question 1, their working class was enmancipated.

>>2264400
They still can't have actually been petty bourgeoisie could they have been? At least in the case of the USSR it seemed as if these were also abolished.

>>2264507
The party members who helped dissolve the Soviet Union are the same people who make up the current Russian/Eastern European bourgeoisie.

>>2264005
>Even in the two socialist countries where the mode of production hasn't been replaced there have been a growth in private sector employment.
that's rather a necessity, than a chosen option.

>>2264537
that's not completely right, in a great extent, I'd say the opposite is closer to the reality. people like Gaidar were sidelined, and eventually they left Russia, because Russia abandoned the neoliberalization of Russia for nato's benefit. and that exploded in 2022.
there are still some, though.

>>2264537
Don't understand how this would be a class conflict then, a group which would become a dominant class forming.
Also not sure how one would actually deal with this if it was the case other than more purity/mandarin tests.

>>2264554
It is class conflict because it's outside capitalist influence infiltrating the party and changing the direction the party was taking. Revisionism is violence coming from the external capitalist world being wielded against the proletarian state by infiltration of the party. It's not about purity or anything like that, it's about maintaining a consistent party program which was decided on by the workers.

>>2264163
Gorbachev is just as true as the image says. A local man ruins everything. Gorby's political decisions were objectively terrible.

>>2264587
nta but if one single dumb fuck could ruin everything then the soviet union had gigantic issues in the way it was organized, china surpassed the soviet union long ago by simply never creating the conditions for a gorbachev to exist


Unique IPs: 11
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ Return / Go to top /