/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>(it would also indicate the bare minimum of conflictuality outside of mere capitalist competition)
I.e. the fact that they (The Tricontinental, Friends of Socialist China, BreakThrough News, Geopolitical Economy Report, Xiao Collective, Critical Theory Workshop, Wave Media), unlike DPRK-informative or MLM party media channels, get a free pass on imperial core monopoly-capitalist new media platforms like Youtube or Xitter. It's because they're not a threat and systemically only serve as the ideological expression of Chinese capital exports into western economies. It eases cognitive dissonance of the west coast finance bros and businessmen that have to deal with San Francisco / Shanghai trade, etc. and lets them feel really invested in securing the networks that underpin G20 / Davos / WEF / IMF clients.

————
I will return to this thread on a weekly basis to continually build a case for the thesis, as the receipts are beginning to become overwhelming and really have been telegraphed as an opportunist "movement" for many years at this point.

I'm no Maoist third worldist but the re-definition of the term to just mean "pro-Russia" or "pro-China" in the last few years annoys me, so thank you

>>2758892
Those are imitators, I mean the OG "wrong. China is communist" maoist-dengist wronganon

If you actually interacted with proletarians in either the first or third world you’d recognize they aren’t a revolutionary class

>>2758817
To what extent is this 'Dengist ThirdWorldism' an expression of PRC liberal nationalist thought propagated through the global Chinese diaspora, versus a meme ideology propped up by cynical westerners online who are frustrated by their own impotence?

>>2758817
>Recently saw a discussion in regards to "Third Worldism" as in MLM + unequal exchange
Obviously wrong because MLM is redwashed anarchist baby boiling ideology for petty bourgs and has nothing to do with scientific economic analysis

Didn't read further

>>2759054
I encourage you to engage with Sison and the CPP NPA, I promise what you’ll find has substance

Everything you say is wrong. You are epstein

>>2758817
>Maybe archive it, as their utterances, especially Prashad's, are sure to age badly
why don't you tell us what they said which is wrong or incorrect. same with geopolitical economy report.

>Bukharinist-Dengist capitulationist

Anyone who unironically believes either of those things are """capitulationist""" is unironically sabotaging communist movements by advocating for a failed economic system that has collapsed everytime it has been used (because it isn't socialist or communist). Reminder that the NEP was the first economic policy of the USSR. Reminder that planned economy is just feudalism in disguise. Reminder that you can't skip the capitalist mode of production. Reminder that Marxism is rooted in the understanding of history as stages and not idealistic attempts to move pass modes of production. KYS ultra, China won, Bukharin won, Deng won, Marxism won.

I think it comes from the degenerated remnants of western orgs who were meekly following the Kremlin line at the time of the cold war. When the USSR collapsed they were like headless chickens and most of the people in those parties just went full lib/socdem. But now that China is strong and nominally socialist the tradition of following a distant country supposed to be the manager of the international revolution is back. It's safe and cool because when you do that you're not supposed to actually work toward revolution, you're supposed to make some marketing NGO advancing foreign national/bourgeois interests and maybe even run in bourgeois elections, woah.

>>2761879
That's nonsense. The 'official' communist parties were mostly useless after WW2 but they were at least disciplined enough to follow a coherent line, and their remnants still do that today. Whereas modern China stans today are completely undisciplined, spouting the most absurd claims which the PRC's own theorists and politicians would disavow. The stuff OP is talking about is all coming from millenial streamers and twitter users, not from whatever fossilized rhetoric Monthly Review is publishing.

>>2761164
What's the point of socialism if you don't have the right to a job? Transgender workers in China have a 15.9% unemployment rate. Clearly, the "private entrepreneurs" still rule over the workers with the threat of the sack and have the power to impose their own petty superstitions on the workers.

>>2761153
He looks like Terry Davis and Jeffrey Epstein at the same time

>>2762391
bourgeois society already has the "right" to a job. Communist society imposes a universal obligation for all able bodied adults to work: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

>>2762401
>universal obligation for all able bodied adults to work
To require that would be to punish workers for not exercising their labor power. If the self-determination of workers is the aim of socialism, then imposing this as a universal principle of socialism, especially if we limit our definition of work to activities performed for a wage today, is contradictory to that proposition.

>>2762401
>Hello saar, I'd like job plz
>Sure. Being le'planned economy, you have your choice of coal factory, street cleaner, or tank repairer
>I have a degree
>Tank repairer it is

As opposed too
>I applied 100 times on indeed for tank repairer
>We are not hiring tank repairers
>Ok than make me a coal miner
>You'll need to go on our website and apply 100 times
>I have a degree
>The fuck does that have to do with anything? Give me your data goy

>>2762619
but not imposing a universal obligation to work leads to, at one end, idle classes, and at the other end, desperate unemployed, a reserve army of labor.

This is why Marx says:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

>Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

>>2762619
workers are already punished. universal obligation to work actually turns the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeois, and clergy into workers, thereby relieving the people who were already workers with additional help.

>>2762619
If you don't impose a universal obligation to work, you create a stratum of parasites who don't, so you deprive people of the freedom to not be parasitised upon

It's one of those dialectical freedoms, insight into necessity type shit

>>2758817
>Maybe archive it, as their utterances, especially Prashad's, are sure to age badly
archiving this thread for your inevitable downfall

>>2761164
> Reminder that the NEP was the first economic policy of the USSR.
That's just wrong. The NEP was an emergency manuver limited in scope, meant to appeal to the pesants that Lenin himself first deacribed as a retreat. The NEP is also what spawned the Kulaks and the grain crisis of 1928.

>>2763052
>The NEP was an emergency manuver limited in scope

This is a dumb fucking cope I keep seeing. You can literally read the transcripts of all the party congresses in the 20's getting rid of the NEP was NOBODIES policy not even Trotskys. Collectivization was Stalin's own policy no one elses. And NO the only reason there was a grain crisis was because there were price controls not because of capitalism suddenly deciding to stop working despite going fine for nearly a decade. The solution was not scrapping the NEP it was allowing the economy to breathe by not enforcing retarded price controls and constricting it with party overreach. Lenin described it as a retread because the original plan was to have the economy develop in tandum with the German revolution supporting it from the west, but when that failed he and all the rest of the Bolsheviks understood reality that capitalism WAS MANDATORY. Which is why getting rid of the NEP was even more retarded because EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS NEEDED.

>>2763032
where is your camp of the saints ass text coming from

>>2763411
hillary clinton

https://www.tabletmag.com/feature/zionism-for-everyone

>>2763294
Wrong. You are distorting the NEP as something economically necessary. Trotsky's position was to continue the war economic policy in the civil war of war communism; this does not abolish private property and was necessary in the use of confiscation with a fixed price for cities and soldiers, even if unpopular with peasants. Without war, there is a limited grain market with an incentive to transition peasants to collective work in the countryside.

You are confusing state capitalism, which was used when there were no developed means of production, with capitalism, which is the example of small peasant production isolated from each other, which is outdated for collective planning due to a lack of technology and organizational techniques. In this case, preparing a limited grain market with state capitalism is acceptable so that impoverished small peasants receive benefits for working in cooperatives, because the more prosperous peasants were acting like gangs, sabotaging and coercing the smaller peasants to submit to what would be the "new capitalists," who were preparing to eventually pit rural workers against urban workers in an attempt to restore the bourgeois state.

State capitalism is not something stable and must be used by the dictatorship of the proletariat to facilitate all the conditions for the entire economy to be socialized, such as having a level of education, machinery and self-sufficient national technology for collective planning. This will eventually have to come into conflict with a small minority of the petty bourgeoisie that is more prosperous and will try everything to get counterrevolutionaries to assume power to end proletarian democracy and the domination of the proletarian class over the intelligentsia, petty bourgeoisie and the rest of society.

You're also forgetting that the Soviet Union had to acquire books, knowledge, and machinery to be self-sufficient because it was already receiving sanctions from capitalist countries from the beginning. The existing trade was being deliberately limited to grains by the capitalists with the intention of creating civil war in the Soviet Union using the kulaks, but this failed even though the Soviet government gave the kulaks many chances to cooperate. Eventually, the hatred of the peasants against the prosperous peasants could no longer be contained. I would say that the Soviet government didn't fall into the trap the capitalists were hoping for, which was to wage war between rural and urban workers, even though the kulaks were given many more chances to cooperate by Stalin. This, however, was useful in exposing the right-wing revisionist sector in the Soviet Union.

Let's start with quotes explaining what the NEP is and debunking the lie that Lenin didn't want a socialist economy:

<In the first place economically state capitalism is immeasurably superior to our present economic system.

<In the second place there is nothing terrible in it for the Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the power of the workers and the poor is assured. . . .

<To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism.

<Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).

<Lenin, 1921, The Tax in Kind (The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.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

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.

<Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because 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), Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm

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

>>2763800
>Wrong. You are distorting the NEP as something economically necessary. Trotsky's position was to continue the war economic policy in the civil war of war communism; this does not abolish private property and was necessary in the use of confiscation with a fixed price for cities and soldiers, even if unpopular with peasants. Without war, there is a limited grain market with an incentive to transition peasants to collective work in the countryside.

No. You are already bullshitting, Trotsky wanted a continuation of the NEP with a rapid industrialization of the country. He was one of the first to advocate for NEP like changes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fKRrSNEoIg

>You are confusing state capitalism, which was used when there were no developed means of production, with capitalism, which is the example of small peasant production isolated from each other, which is outdated for collective planning due to a lack of technology and organizational techniques.

What the actual fuck are you talking about? You know State Capitalism has been used by non-socialist countries right? The idea of a mixed market economy goes back to the very birth of capitalism and isn't a uniquely Bolshevik policy in the slightest.

>You're also forgetting that the Soviet Union had to acquire books, knowledge, and machinery to be self-sufficient because it was already receiving sanctions from capitalist countries from the beginning. The existing trade was being deliberately limited to grains by the capitalists with the intention of creating civil war in the Soviet Union using the kulaks, but this failed even though the Soviet government gave the kulaks many chances to cooperate. Eventually, the hatred of the peasants against the prosperous peasants could no longer be contained. I would say that the Soviet government didn't fall into the trap the capitalists were hoping for, which was to wage war between rural and urban workers, even though the kulaks were given many more chances to cooperate by Stalin. This, however, was useful in exposing the right-wing revisionist sector in the Soviet Union.

Apparantly the Kulaks are a magical group of people that can single-handedly sabotage capitalism. The NEP was terrible because of those devious schemeing Kulaks, am I talking to a fucking NKVD agent or a real person? Come the fuck on, the Kulaks were peasant's who took advantage of the materially progressive land reform in the aftermath of the civil war, of course they are going to be fucking angry when Stalin says "SIKE actually you have to collectivize". Bit of a underhanded blow to these people you just allied with.

The rest of the quote-wall you just sent are gross misinterpretations of Lenin's understanding of political and economic socialism. You are first going to have to define what exactly YOU think "socialism" is before you start quotemining for shit to support your non-existent interpretation. Because as far as im concerned you have categorically failed to actually prove anything with those. And finally China also has farmer cooperatives in the modern day, would you call them a planned socialist economy? No didn't think so.

>>2763294
>The solution was not scrapping the NEP it was allowing the economy to breathe by not enforcing retarded price controls and constricting it with party overreach.
Dude, you can't will grain into existence by lifting price controls. I have no fucking clue where this magical line of thinking originates from, it's so fucking dumb

>>2764076
>Apparantly the Kulaks are a magical group of people that can single-handedly sabotage capitalism.

Kulaks became irrelevant by the late 20s as poor peasantry and state and collective farms became more and more dominant. Kulaks' grip on the grain market died, and their attempted sabotage was the last dying effort to reverse the trend. Retards went full luddite with attacking new ways of agriculture, tractors, any kind of mechanization, to return back the good times, but predictably enough, kulaks went out of business with their use of manual labor in the fields when your competition is using tractors, combines, pesticides, fertilizers, modern agricultural planning, etc etc.

Why are you acting surprised that a reactionary group of people has reactionary views on the economy, that makes them really fucking inefficient and turns them towards violence to get their way?

>>2764139
>>2764076
And unlike you, I'm not speaking out of my ass on kulaks being le poor victims of tyrant Stalin, I've actually read Soviet papers on the issue, documentation from the time, where CPSU was gloating how kulaks take smaller and smaller share of the economic pie, alongside drop in grain prices and also improving peasant condition because more and more of them left for the cities while those who remained in villages learned better productivity and could now work for 2 or 3 peasants merely a decade ago. And they were looking at American farmers with their policies, even, saying that everyone knows that despite American grain prices being low, their farmers were famously wealthy.

>>2764076
Let's see Trotsky's position in relation to the NEP then with quotes:

<The resolution of the Fourteenth Congress (January 1926) on industrialization voiced a whole series of correct theses, repeating almost word for word certain ideas that the Opposition had developed on this subject during 1923-1925. But alongside of this resolution a campaign was waged against the Left wing, labeled as “super-industrialists,” that is to say, against those who did not want the adopted decisions simply to remain on paper; our warnings about the kulak danger were presented under the absurd designation of “panic”; the positing of the fact that the differentiation of classes was taking place in the village was punished as anti-Soviet propaganda; the demand for the exercise of stronger pressure upon the kulak to the advantage of industry was labeled as a tendency to “plunder the peasants” (Stalin-Rykov-Kuibyshev manifesto); after all this the resolution on industrialization had as little influence on the real economic process as had been the case with certain other resolutions of the Fourteenth Congress on party democracy and on collective leadership in the Comintern.

<In 1926 the Opposition formulated the discussion on the smychka, which began as far back as the Spring of 1923, in the following way:

<“QUESTION: Is it true that the policy of the Opposition threatens to disrupt the smychka between the proletariat and the peasantry?

<“ANSWER: This accusation is false to the core. The smychka is threatened at this moment by the lag in industry, on the one hand, and by the growth of the kulak, on the other. The lack of industrial products is driving a wedge between country and city. In the political and economic domains, the kulak is beginning to dominate the middle and poor peasants, opposing them to the proletariat. This development is still in it’s very first stages. It is precisely this that threatens the smychka. The underestimation of the lag in industry and of the growth of the kulak disrupts the correct, Leninist leadership of the alliance between the two classes, this basis of the dictatorship under the conditions in our country.” [11]

<Let us stress here that in this question also the Opposition exaggerated nothing, despite the bitterness of the struggle, when, rising in opposition to the renegade theory of integrating the kulak into socialism, good only for paving the way to our integration into capitalism, we stated in 1926 that the kulak danger was “still in its very first stages.” We had pointed out, from 1923 on, the direction from which the danger was coming.

[…]

<To counterbalance all this the Opposition wrote a new in its theses for the Fifteenth Congress:

<“The decrease in the total amount of grains collected is, on the one hand, direct evidence of the profound disturbance existing in the relations between the city and the country and, on the other hand, it is a source of new difficulties which threaten us.”

<Where is the root of our difficulties? The Opposition replied:

<“In the course of recent years industry developed too slowly, lagging behind the development of national economy as a whole… Owing to this, the dependence of state economy on kulak and capitalist elements is growing in the domain of raw materials, in export, and in foodstuffs.”

<Let us recall also that the sharpest intervention of the Opposition was the one during the anniversary demonstration on November 7, 1927; The sharpest slogan formulated in this intervention was: “Let us turn our fire against the Right: against the kulak, the jober, and the bureaucrat; against the kulak and the jober sabotaging the grain collections; against the bureaucrat organizing or sleeping during the Donetz trial.” The controversy, which was no minor one, and wherein the head of the revolution was at stake, ended in the Winter of 1927-1928 accompanied by threats of GPU agents, while decisions were hurriedly signed punishing by exile, in conformity with Article 58, the “deviations” which varied from the general Centrist blindness, from that of Bukharin in particular.

<Had it not been for the entire preceding work of the Opposition beginning with the theses of 1923 and ending with the scoreboards of November 7, 1927; had not the Opposition established a correct prognosis in advance, and had it not raised a justified alarm in the party and working class ranks, the crisis in the grain collections would have only hastened the development of the Right wing course towards the further unleashing of capitalist forces.

<Leon Trotsky, 1928, The Third International After Lenin, What Now?

Trotsky warned that the capitalist tendencies among the kulaks developed within the NEP posed a threat to socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

<Twenty-five million small farms constitute the fundamental source of the capitalist tendencies in Russia. The kulak stratum, gradually emerging from this mass, is realizing the process of primitive accumulation of capital, digging a deep mine under the socialist position. The further destiny of this process depends ultimately upon the relation between the growth of the State economy and the private. The falling behind of our industry vastly increases the tempo of class-differentiation among the peasants and the political dangers arising from it.

<Lenin wrote:

<In the history of other countries the kulaks have more than once restored the power to landlords, Tsars, priests and capitalists. It has been so in all previous European revolutions, where, in consequence of the weakness of the workers, the kulaks have succeeded in reverting from a republic to monarchy, from the rulership of the toiling masses to the omnipotence of the exploiters, the rich, the parasites.

<You can reconcile the kulak with the landlord, the Tsar, and the priest easily enough, even though they’ve had a quarrel, but with the working class, never. [3]

<Whoever fails to understand this, whoever believes in “the kulak’s growing into socialism’, is good for just one thing – to run the revolution aground.

<There exist in this country two mutually exclusive fundamental positions. One, the position of the proletariat building socialism, the other, the position of the bourgeoisie aspiring to switch our development on to capitalist lines.

<The camp of the bourgeoisie and those layers of the petty bourgeoisie who trail after it are placing all their hopes upon the private initiative and the personal interest of the commodity producer. This camp is staking its play on the “economically strong’ peasant, aiming to make the co-operatives, industry and our foreign trade serve this peasant’s interest. This camp believes that socialist industry ought not to count upon the state budget, that its development ought not to be rapid enough to injure the interest of accumulation by the farmer capitalist. The struggle for an increased productivity of labour means to the daily consolidating petty bourgeois putting pressure on the muscles and nerves of the workers. The struggle for lower prices means to him a cutting down of the accumulation of the socialist industries in the interest of commercial capital. The struggle with bureaucratism means to him the dissipation of industry, the weakening of the planning centres. It means the pushing into the background of the heavy industries – that is, again, an adjustment in favour of the economically strong peasant, with the near prospect of an abandonment of the monopoly of foreign trade. This is the course of the Ustrialovs. The name of this course is capitalism on the instalment plan. It is a strong tendency in our country, and exercises an influence upon certain circles of our party.

<Leon Trotsky, Platform of the Joint Opposition, 1927, Chapter 1 Introductory

Trotsky states that the NEP creates “capitalistic relations” and “hostile forces” (kulaks and NEPmen) engaged in “primitive accumulation of capital,” which can push the state toward “capitalistic channels”, therefore it must be restricted, controlled, and subordinated through the development of socialized industry and collective ownership for the planning of the economy. Furthermore, industry was not developing sufficiently, hindering it due to capitalist interests and the small-scale production of goods by the peasants created within the NEP.

<Relying on these revisionist tendencies of the official course, the representatives of the new bourgeoisie having got into association with certain links of our state apparatus, are openly aspiring to switch our whole policy in the countryside on to the capitalist path. At the same time, the kulaks and their ideological defenders hide all their ambitions under a pretence of worrying about the development the productive forces, about increasing the volume of commodity production “in general”, etc. As a matter of fact, a kulak development on the productive forces, a kulak increase of commodity production, represses and checks the development of the productive forces of the entire remaining mass of the peasant farms.

<In spite of the comparatively swift reconstruction process in agriculture, the commodity production of peasant economy is very low. In 1925-1926, the total volume of goods sent to the market was only 64 per cent of the pre-war level, the volume exported only 24 per cent of the export in 1913. The cause of this, aside from the increasing total consumption in the village itself [6], lies in the disparity between agricultural and industrial prices and in the rapid accumulation of foodstuffs by the kulaks. Even the five-year plan is compelled to recognize that “the lack of industrial products in general places a definite limit to the equivalent exchange of goods between town and country, lowering the possible volume of agricultural products brought to the market”. [7] Thus the lagging of industry retards the growth of agriculture and in particular the growth of agricultural commodity production. It undermines the alliance of town and country and leads to a swift class differentiation among the peasants.

<The views of the Opposition on disputed questions of peasant policy have been confirmed wholly and absolutely. The partial corrections introduced into our general line, under pressure of sharp criticism from the Opposition, have not checked the continuing deviation of the official policy to the side of the “economically strong peasant”. To prove this, it is sufficient to recall that the Fourteenth Congress of the Soviets, in the resolution on Kalinin’s, report, had not one single word to say about class differentiation in the countryside or the growth of the kulak.

[…]

<The growth of land-renting must be offset by a more rapid development of collective farming. It is necessary systematically and from year to year to subsidize largely the efforts of the poor peasants to organize in collectives.

[…]

<The task of the party in relation to the growing kulak stratum ought to consist in the all-sided limitation of their efforts at exploitation. We must permit no departures from that article in our constitution depriving the exploiting class of electoral rights in the soviets. The following measures are necessary: A steeply progressive tax system; legislative measures for the defence of hired labour and the regulation of the wages of agricultural workers; a correct class policy in the matter of land division and utilization; the same thing in the matter of supplying the country with tractors and other implements of production.

<The growing system of land rental in the country, the existing method of land-utilization, according to which land com. munities – standing outside of all Soviet leadership and control and falling more and more under the influence of the kulak – dispose of the land, the resolution adopted by the Fourteenth Congress of the Soviets for “indemnification” at the time of land redistribution – all this is undermining the foundations of the nationalization of the land.

<One of the most essential measures for re-enforcing the nationalization of the land is the subordination of these land communities to the local organs of the state and the establishment of firm control by the local soviets, purified of kulak elements, over the regulations of all questions of the division and utilization of the land. The purpose of this control should be a maximum defence of the interests of the poor and the weak small peasants against domination by the kulaks. It is necessary in particular that the kulak, as a renter of land, should be wholly and absolutely, and not only in words but in fact, subject to supervision and control by the organs of the Soviet power in the countryside.

<The party ought to oppose a shattering resistance to all tendencies directed towards annulling or undermining the nationalization of the land – one of the foundation pillars qf the dictatorship of the proletariat.

<The existing system of a single agricultural tax ought to be changed in the direction of freeing altogether from taxation 40 to 50 per cent of the poorest and poorer peasant families, without making up for it by any additional tax upon the bulk of the middle peasants. The dates of tax collection should be accommodated to the interests of the lower groups of taxpayers.

<A much larger sum ought to be appropriated for the creation of state and collective farms. Maximum privileges must be accorded to the newly organized collective farms and other forms of collectivism. People deprived of electoral rights must not be allowed to be members of the collective farms. The whole work of the co-operatives ought to be permeated with a sense of the task of transforming a small-scale production into large-scale collective production. A firm class policy must be pursued in the sphere of machine supply and a special struggle waged against the fake machine societies.

<The work of land distribution must be carried on wholly at the expense of the state, and the first thing to be taken care of must be the collective farms and the poor peasant farms, with a maximum protection of their interests.

<The prices of grain and other agricultural products ought to guarantee to the poor and the basic mass of the middle peasants the possibility, at the very least, of maintaining their farms at the present level and gradually improving them. Measures should be taken to abolish the parity between autumn and spring grain prices. For this disparity counts heavily against the rural poor and gives all the advantage to the upper levels.

<Leon Trotsky, Platform of the Joint Opposition, 1927, Chapter 3, The Agrarian Question and Socialist Construction

Lenin says that the NEP is temporary and that in a few years the socialist economy will begin in the so-called "NEP Russia will become socialist Russia":

<Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future, or an abstract picture, or an icon… Permit me to conclude by expressing confidence that difficult as this task may be, new as it may be compared with our previous task, and numerous as the difficulties may be that it entails, we shall all—not in a day, but in a few years—all of us together fulfil it whatever the cost, so that NEP Russia will become socialist Russia.

<V. I. Lenin, November 20, 1922, Speech At A Plenary Session Of The Moscow Soviet

>>2764076
Continuing what I wrote here, part 2, with my text below.
>>2766758
Lenin was aware of the five modes of production that existed in Russia at the time and the threat posed by the petty bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie, and speculators:

<But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.

<Let us enumerate these elements:

<(1)patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;

<(2)small commodity production (this includcs the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);

<(3)private capitalism;

<(4)state capitalism;

<(5)socialism.

<Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific feature of the situation.

<The question arises: What elements predominate? Clearly, in a small-peasant country, the petty-bourgeois element predominates and it must predominate, for the great majority—those working the land—are small commodity producers. The shell of state capitalism (grain monopoly, state-controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain.

<It is in this field that the main struggle is being waged. Between what elements is this struggle being waged if we are to speak in terms of economic categories such as “state capitalism”? Between the fourth and fifth in the order in which I have just enumerated them? Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state-capitalist or state-socialist. This is an unquestionable fact of reality whose misunderstanding lies at the root of many economic mistakes. The profiteer, the commercial racketeer, the disrupter of monopoly—these are our principal “internal” enemies, the enemies of the economic measures of the Soviet power. A hundred and twenty-five years ago it might have been excusable for the French petty bourgeoisie, the most ardent and sincere revolutionaries, to try to crush the profiteer by executing a few of the “chosen” and by making thunderous declarations. Today, however, the purely French approach to the question assumed by some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries can arouse nothing but disgust and revulsion in every politically conscious revolutionary. We know perfectly well that the economic basis of profiteering is both the small proprietors, who are exceptionally widespread in Russia, and private capitalism, of which every petty bourgeois is an agent. We know that the million tentacles of this petty-bourgeois octopus now and again encircle various sections of the workers, that instead of state monopoly, profiteering forces its way into every pore of our social and economic organism.

<Those who fail to see this show by their blindness that they are slaves of petty-bourgeois prejudices….

<The petty bourgeoisie have money put away, the few thousands that they made during the war by “honest” and especially by dishonest means. They are the characteristic economic type, that is, the basis of profiteering and private capitalism. Money is a certificate entitling the possessor to receive social wealth; and a vast section of small proprietors, numbering millions, cling to this certificate and conceal it from the “state”. They do not believe in socialism or communism, and “mark time” until the proletarian storm blows over. Either we subordinate the petty bourgeoisie to our control and accounting (we can do this if we organise the poor, that is, the majority of the population or semi-proletarians, round the politically conscious proletarian vanguard), or they will overthrow our workers’ power as surely and as inevitably as the revolution was overthrown by the Napoleons and the Cavaignacs who sprang from this very soil of petty proprietorship. That is how the question stands. That is the only view we can take of the matter….

<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921, The Tax in Kind (The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions)

Let's see in the texts what Marx and Engels wrote about the communist economy in its lower phase:

<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

<Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

<The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

<Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)

Now, regarding the question of commodity production in the post-NEP period with collectivization, this quote answers any questions you may have:

<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

Really seems like you're confusing multipolarism with third worldism OP. They aren't the same thing.

>>2762401
Yes, but "the right to a job" sounds better. Perhaps "right and duty to work" might be better to phrasing.

Reminder that Mao never read Capital

What about 2nd worldism?

>>2766788
no they arent confusing they are conflating. this is the new state department line

>>2767098
Social imperialism

>>2767091
And in this classic we have the """ML""" reverting to black book of communism talking points about Mao (or Stalin, Lenin, Engels, Mao) the instance they face Marxist-Leninist criticism about their revisionism.
Time for you to make a Bukharinist-Dengist International, but then you couldn't wreck, huh? You deserve what's coming. Every public humiliation. Every indefinite imprisonment. Every workplace uprising "with some excesses". This time we won't flinch with the scientific application of the proletarian dictatorship. You handed the working women of the USSR and Eastern bloc to Epstein. Cybernetics has made you, the bureaucratic strata and the national and middle bourgeoisie, superfluous. Your definite expiry date is the middle of the century, in any core country, in any semi-periphery. Die.

>>2767091
Cite your source. Now.

>>2762401
>bourgeois society already has the "right" to a job.
No it doesn't. What planet are you living on anon? You don't have a right to be hired. It's all a bilateral transaction between you and the employer. The government cannot force the employer to hire you.
Bait used to be believable.

>>2762943
>>2762987
Imposing universal obligation to work leads to jobs for jobs own sake. You are not fixing the problem only patching it up with bullshit jobs. A revolutionary government would do well to create opportunities for work and planning mechanisms with nationalized enterprises as the backbone of the economy. In such an environment, people are naturally drawn to work. In other words, you need to maximize freedom & abilities, then you will get rid of parasitism.

>>2767251
>In other words, you need to maximize freedom & abilities, then you will get rid of parasitism.
The centrally planned USSR had anti-parasite laws…

>>2767251
There literally is no such thing as "enough work"

>>2767252
Yes and did it prevent that alienation everyone was aware of? Did it prevent black markets and speculation? Did it prevent parasitism at the party level? Another thing: 20th century planning models had labor hoarding problems as a matter of law because they obligated everyone to work. Had they adopted their own version of the Yugoslavian model, there would be less of that hoarding and more organic employment.

>>2767255
Yes there is. For whom are you generating entropy? And if you are worried about being outcompeted by the capitalists, then do the world a favor and nuke the capitalists and then everyone can chill not not participate in the rat race.

>>2767251
Universal obligation does not lead to "bullshit jobs" Sinbad, those didn't really exist in socialist states. Jobs were productive and besides maybe some functionary positions, they were necessary. We've got bullshit jobs now despite no obligation at all, it is imperialism/capitalist monopoly that generates them. The obligation to work was just q method of preventing unemployment and the sale of labor as a commodity

>>2767270
Very well. If universal obligation to work is indeed a good policy, then I will support it. But I fear given the capitalist culture of the west, any implementation in the west will lead to problems that would be more serious than what the 20th socialist models experienced.

>>2767294
Well a dotp would have to be established first before any obligation of worth could be implemented. Capitalist countries need unemployment so that they can exploit laborers and have a pool to choose from. But it'd have to remain to be seen exactly how measures against this should be done. I agree that the deep insulation into capitalist ruling class ideology for centuries will cause problems in the implementation of socialist policy across the board

>>2758817
>The original 90s ThirdWorldism "movement"
<(Three decades missing here)
>2020s Third Worldism
I just want to interject for a moment here.

Something Awful (www.somethingawful.com) was founded in 1999 by Lowtax "Suicide" Kyanka and the website back in the late 90's - early 00's pushed above its weight by tons, in the sense of influencing web humor and culture.

They did these awesome flashplayer.flash nonsensical toons, had "photoshop phridays" for picc editing, and the forum itself… well it went kind of crazy.

They were literal time travelers in a sense because with a 95% burger posteriat, nicknamed "the goons", they went full pomo "post-ironic" for laughs, and booted the "Thirld Worldist" meme (for First Worlders.)

They did it for the laffs, but the results spoke for themselves: it was fucking funny, self-evident, yet ironically detached.

I'd like to highlight three things:
1) these MFs made the "Third Worldist meme" known on the internet for the first time for a wide audience;
2) as far as I can tell this was the first case of "post-ironic" posting on the internet (First Worldist "libertarians" shilling an ideology that was absurd in their eyes;
yet,
3) some of the posters/contributors/cross-posters/etc. ("goons") did eventually dig into Marxism, Maoism, Wallerstein, etc. and did in fact realized that "le funi meme" held actual explanative power, and became unironic TWDsts.

I, for one, have long suspected our very own Jason Unruhe to have been molded in that very milieu.

I'm old.

>>2767262
Even if you "run out of work to do" (lol), you'd want to reduce the workday across the board instead of creating a class of parasites

This is just equivalrnt to saying "the work beyond the official workday is beyond our current capacity to plan for, so go nuts and find new work on your own"

>>2767262
>>2767356
I place it more down to structural issues leading to the reserve army of labor such as the anarchy of production. Over-accumulation leads to wasted work for some and unemployment for others. Small businesses are extremely inefficient in part because they have to do the same HR work every other business has to do. But you can't simply legislate away the greater and greater managerial work caused by the anarchy of production. Socialism in one country will inevitably lead to a massive contradiction between the socialist and capitalist bloc. It's a confusing technical issue tied to the town-country contradiction which I hope telework and other communications innovations will help solve. Nonetheless, I believe the centralized administration of employment by the state is a step forward.

>>2767356
>yeah so we're going to need you working 30 minutes monday,two hours tuesday etc etc
the statements of the utterly deranged

>>2767315
Are there any blogs that have historicised this being the case via archival methods or something similar? Or is it able to be unearthed through links to SA archives? Wasn't a SA user but considering it was very internet-centric this doesnt sound too unlikely. Would need some sort of proof of the connective tissue to counter-pose to the emergence of the M3W """orgs""" like MIM, IRTR, LLCO, etc.

>>2767251
invasive plant species mean no more "bullshit jobs",mechanical removal with lawn equipment of phragmites and kudzu alone would end unemployment.

>>2769125
>kudzu
Ok. Based. I changed my mind.