/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Dolphins will be shocked to learn all "Marxist-Leninist" states had markets, commodity production and kept the value form.

I suggest we uplift the dolphins and give them hands. Then teach them the concept of using nukes and dropping the bombs. That way the ayy lmaos can see we are advanced enough to uplift another spieces and bring us into the galactic federation.

Trotsky thought that the USSR was in a transitionary stage thoughever

They're sex pests so they would be perfect in your local lefty org

>>2693600
Is that why they look so happy?

>>2693285
you cant teach something smarter than you, so your project is doomed you fucking moron

>>2693628
Those who teach learn by teaching, and those who learn teach by learning.

>Dolphins are smarter than Stalinists
not a very high bar as evidenced by this very website

It doesn’t matter how smart you are if you don’t have opposable thumbs, nothing in the ocean can use tools

>>2693731
*octopus blocks your passage*

>>2693749
They don’t live long enough and don’t care for tools

>>2693285
Sometimes I forget Posadists are trotskyist
at least online, I'm sure the existing posadist party in Uruguay is mostly concerned with trotskyist writing, but online it feels like anyone who believes in the mythos of aliens, dolphin sapience, nuclear war or anything like that with a remotely leftist view calls themselves a Posadist

>>2693285
Capitalism requires generalized commodity production, which did not exist in the Soviet Union. The socialization of the economy made capital accumulation impossible, and there was no competition for profit among agricultural cooperatives. Therefore, it was not capitalist. Economic planning in the Soviet Union bore no comparison or resemblance whatsoever to the sale of goods in the market for profit that characterizes capitalism. The modes of production prior to capitalism were not capitalism, so the Soviet Union was not capitalist. Therefore, the so-called "Stalinists" are not wrong.

In short, here's why you're wrong: The Soviet Union abolished private property, unemployment, and all features of capitalism for the planning of the economy. State capitalism, small-scale commodity production, and the private capitalism of the NEP (New Economic Policy) by peasants in the rural sector were eventually abolished by Stalin, who reorganized the rest of the economy as a socialist economy according to an economic plan with state farms and agricultural cooperatives that did not compete for profit.

Marx and Engels supported the idea that a socialist revolution should be carried out as soon as possible without waiting for capitalism to develop “on its own” and destroy the peasantry. Lenin’s policy of worker-peasant alliance, developing of agricultural co-operatives and using state-capitalism as a transition from semi-feudalism and undeveloped capitalism to socialism is in accordance with Marx and Engels.

<We, of course, are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to make it possible for him to remain on his small holding for a protracted length of time to think the matter over, should he still be unable to bring himself to this decision. We do this not only because we consider the small peasant living by his own labor as virtually belonging to us, but also in the direct interest of the Party. The greater the number of peasants whom we can save from being actually hurled down into the proletariat, whom we can win to our side while they are still peasants, the more quickly and easily the social transformation will be accomplished. It will serve us no reason to wait with this transformation until capitalist production has developed everywhere to its extreme consequences, until the last small craftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale production.

<Engels, The Peasant Question in France and Germany

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htm

This is what Lenin said in 1923:

<Infinitely stereotyped, for instance, is the argument they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, but as certain “learned” gentleman among them put it, the objective economic premises for socialism do not exist in our country… “The development of the productive forces of Russia has not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible.” All the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, beat the drums about this proposition. They keep harping on this incontrovertible proposition in a thousand different keys, and think that it is decisive criterion of our revolution… You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?

<Lenin, “Our Revolution” (1923)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm

Lenin reiterates that it is feasable and necessary to implement measures of proletarian state-control, which is not socialism, but a step towards it:

<Under no circumstances can the party of the proletariat set itself the aim of “introducing” socialism in a country of small peasants so long as the overwhelming majority of the population has not come to realise the need for a socialist revolution.

<But only bourgeois sophists, hiding behind “near-Marxist” catchwords, can deduce from this truth a justification of the policy of post poning immediate revolutionary measures, the time for which is fully ripe; measures which have been frequently resorted to during the war by a number of bourgeois states… the nationalisation of the land, of all the banks and capitalist syndicates, or, at least, the immediate establishment of the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, etc., over them… which are only steps towards socialism, and which are perfectly feasible economically.

<Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution (1917)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ch09.htm#v24zz99h-073-GUESS

Lenin also realized that in order to transition to socialism it was necessary to create a collective agriculture sector. He said in 1923, talking about agricultural co-operatives:

<As a matter of fact, the political power of the Soviet over all large-scale means of production, the power in the state in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc, …is not this all that is necessary in order from the co-operatives – from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly treated as huckstering, and which, from a certain aspect, we have the right to treat as such now, under the new economic policy – is not this all that is necessary in order to build a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building.

<Lenin, “On Cooperation” (1923)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm

Lenin’s opponents claimed that Lenin was going backwards and betraying socialism by advocating development on state-capitalist lines. Lenin reminded them of what he said already in 1917:

<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.
[…]
<…no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe… state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.

<Lenin, “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it” (1917)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm#v25zz99h-360

In the question about commodity production, I suggest this quote to answer several questions about money:

<But in the trading between the commune and its members the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate; to use Marx's phrase, it is “merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption”, and in carrying out this function, it is “no more ‘money’ than a ticket for the theatre”. It can therefore be replaced by any other token, just as Weitling replaces it by a “ledger”, in which the labour-hours worked are entered on one side and means of subsistence taken as compensation on the other. [121] In a word, in the trading of the economic commune with its members it functions merely as Owen’s “labour money”, that “phantom” which Herr Dühring looks down upon so disdainfully, but nevertheless is himself compelled to introduce into his economics of the future. Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the “obligation to produce”, and thus of the earned “right to consume” {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin is absolutely of no consequence for this purpose.

[…]

<Thus neither in exchange between the economic commune and its members nor in exchange between the different communes can gold, which is “money by nature”, get to realise this its nature.

<Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels, 1877, Part III: Socialism, IV. Distribution

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm

It's a mistake to read capital witbout even first grasping basic logic
If a then b doesn't mean if b then a

Capitalism has commodity production (generalized)
But commodity production itself doesn't mean capitalism, as it existed in feudalism as well.

Also, stuff like commodity, value fotm, etc are abstract concepts. You don't abolish them directly just like how you don't abolish a gas leak by fighting its smell

>>2693898
Nowhere does it say "generalized" you built on this lie because when you write "generalized" it turns it into a matter of subjectivity.
I just destroyed your entire wall of text quotefarming writing this.

>>2693900
>But commodity production itself doesn't mean capitalism, as it existed in feudalism as well.
Irrelevant, we've clearly not regressed to a previous mode of production, the next quota was outlined in the condition that production is for use-value, not for the sake of producing commodities for profit. That is a definitive condition for socialism.

>Also, stuff like commodity, value fotm, etc are abstract concepts.
Pharisee says "this is my interpretation of jewish law", "its subjective", "its an abstract metaphor".
Literally any word is subjective abstract in itself - a manmade invention, you neglect Marx's objective analysis.

>>2693904
The point of dialectical materialism is that abstractions are real and describe real objective phenomena, but the point remains that you don't change the world by attacking abstractions, you attack the concrete material conditions.

So called anti-stalinists are in reality anti leninists and anti maoists

>>2693923
Yes, no contradiction

>>2693909
Then Lenin was anti-leninist because in all his letters prior death (Lenin's Testament) he condemned Stalin

"Leninism", "Marxism-Leninism", "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" are all fabrications of the Stalinist cabal

>>2693932
Full contradiction, pretending it is an abstraction so it cannot be confronted directly, followed by saying said abstractions describe real phenomena.

>>2693933
>Lenin's Testament
Trotskyist babble

>>2693923
You are a crypto positivist
Read engels

Trotsky was an anti-leninist btw

>>2693902
You are wrong. You are ignoring petty commodity production, or simple commodity production, that existed before capitalism. If you ignore this, you will not understand the historical formation of capitalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie as the dominant class, which needs a society that produces commodities according to market sales, following exchange value instead of use value, which did not exist in countries that socialized their economies, such as the Soviet Union.

Now I will post a quote proving my point:

<Both commodities and money are the elementary presuppositions of capital, but they only develop into capital under certain conditions. Capital formation cannot occur except on the basis of the circulation of commodities (which includes the circulation of money), hence at an already given stage of development of trade in which the latter has achieved a certain extension. The production and circulation of commodities, however, do not conversely presuppose the capitalist mode of production for their existence; on the contrary, as I have already demonstrated, they also “exist in pre-bourgeois social formations”. They are the historical presupposition of the capitalist mode of production.>> [442] On the other hand, however, it is only on the basis of capitalist production that the commodity becomes the general form of the product, that every product must take on the commodity form, that sale and purchase seize control not only of the surplus of production but of its very substance, and that the various conditions of production themselves emerge in their totality as commodities which go into the production process from circulation. Hence if the commodity appears on the one hand as the presupposition for the formation of capital, the commodity also appears, on the other hand, as essentially the product and result of the capitalist production process, in so far as it is the universal elementary form of the product. At earlier stages of production, products assume the commodity form in part. Capital, in contrast, necessarily produces its product as a commodity. [Sismondi] Therefore, to the degree that capitalist production, i.e. capital, develops, the general laws developed with regard to the commodity — for example, the laws concerning value — are also realized in the different forms of money circulation.
[…]
<The conversion of’ money, which is itself’ only a converted form of the commodity, into capital only takes place once labor capacity has been converted into a commodity for the worker himself; hence once the category of commodity trade has taken control of a sphere which was previously excluded from it, or only sporadically included in it. Only when the working population has ceased either to form part of the objective conditions of labor, or to enter the market as a producer of commodities, selling its labor itself — or more precisely its labor capacity — instead of the product of its labor, does production become the production of commodities to its complete extent, over the whole of its length and breadth. Only then are all products converted into commodities, and only then do the objective conditions of each individual sphere of production enter into production as commodities themselves. Only on the basis of capitalist production does the commodity in fact become the universal elementary form of wealth. If, e.g., capital has not yet taken control of agriculture, a large part of the product is still produced directly as means of subsistence, not as commodities; a large part of the working population will not yet have been converted into wage laborers, nor will a large part of the conditions of labor have been converted into capital. This implies that the developed division of labor, as it appears accidentally within society, and the capitalist division of labor within the workshop, conditions and produces each other. For the commodity as the necessary form of the product, and therefore the alienation of the product as the necessary form of its appropriation, imply a fully developed division of social labor, while on the other hand it is only on the basis of capitalist production, hence also of the capitalist division of labor within the workshop, that. all products necessarily assume the commodity form, and all producers are therefore necessarily commodity producers. It is therefore only with the coming of capitalist production that use value is first generally mediated through exchange value.

<3 points.

<1) Capitalist production is the first to make the commodity the universal form of all products.

<2) Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist production, once the worker has ceased to be a part of the conditions of production (slavery, serfdom) or the naturally evolved community no longer remains the basis [of production] (India). From the moment at which labor power itself in general becomes a commodity.

<3) Capitalist production annihilates the [original] basis of commodity production, isolated, independent production and exchange between the owners of commodities, or the exchange of equivalents. The exchange between capital and labor power becomes formal:

<Economic Works of Karl Marx 1861-1864, The Process of Production of Capital, Draft Chapter 6 of Capital, Results of the Direct Production Process, Chapter 1: Commodities as the Product of Capital

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch01.htm

>>2693939
Yeah of course Krupskaya faked it, Lenin's own wife. Lmao. Natsoc cultists.

>>2693943 Maximal liberal.
Irrelevant quotefarming, irrelevantly pointing out commodites existed before capitalism, "generalized" is your subjective descriptor. Socialism does not have commodity production, see use-value.

>>2693945
The only time trotskyists ever agree with lenin is when he gets a brain hemorrhage

>>2693946
So the term generalized commodity production doesn't exist for you? Let's take Capital so you can read Marx using the term:

<This result becomes inevitable from the moment there is a free sale, by the labourer himself, of labour-power as a commodity. But it is also only from then onwards that commodity production is generalised and becomes the typical form of production; it is only from then onwards that, from the first, every product is produced for sale and all wealth produced goes through the sphere of circulation. Only when and where wage labour is its basis does commodity production impose itself upon society as a whole; but only then and there also does it unfold all its hidden potentialities. To say that the supervention of wage labour adulterates commodity production is to say that commodity production must not develop if it is to remain unadulterated. To the extent that commodity production, in accordance with its own inherent laws, develops further, into capitalist production, the property laws of commodity production change into the laws of capitalist appropriation.

<Karl Marx. Capital Volume One, Chapter Twenty-Four: Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital, 1867

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm

Now, regarding the issue of commodity production in the Soviet Union, it was limited to cooperatives that did not compete with each other and had an exclusive relationship with the government in what is called commodity production. Use value was what was produced for the population's consumption according to the collectively decided economic plan; therefore, it was socialist, unless you are implying that it could be improved by making all agricultural cooperatives become state farms. This type of measure would have my support as progressive for the communist cause; Stalin even supported this. However, after collectivization, the Soviet Union had definitively ended private capitalism and petty commodity production among peasants that existed in the NEP; therefore, again, the Soviet Union was not capitalist.

>>2693970
Quote mining, go lick the ccp's boot, campist

>>2693285
Everyone who has ever read a book should know that dolphins are the second smartest creatures on earth and humans are only third
The answer is 42

>>2694020
How's the weather in Langley?

you are right, there has been no AES in history, and tru communism is actually just a retarded idea talked about and masturbated to by trotskyists and anarchists who are opposed to any kind of pragmatic organization on a large enough scale to hold territory. i guess we should all just give up.

>>2693970
Lower commodity production

>>2693354
The aliens are space rapists anyway, you don't want to be friends with them.

We get invited into the galactic federation and I'm bopping the Grey Emperor in his boppo-the-clown face the moment the first teleporter gets installed on earth.