>>2815044>don't care about your drivel bro, it's very simple to prove you wrong.So far you've only proven to cling to liberal abstractions without proving anything.
>the USSr never had socialsim, if it did, and if the USSr proves state capitalism leads to socialism, then the USSR shows that socialism leads to neoliberalism, as the USSR collapsed and neoliberalism took over.Capitalism requires generalized commodity production, which did not exist in the Soviet Union where private property was abolished, anarchy of production was abolished, and the social classes of owners were abolished. 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 neither capitalist nor state capitalism.
The Soviet Union had no elements of state capitalism after the end of the NEP because state capitalism has the same problems as private capitalism, and in the Soviet Union production followed a collective plan rather than selling for profit in the market. There was no financial speculation or methods of accumulating capital. Cooperatives had an exclusive relationship with the state, not competing with each other, with workers receiving the surplus after deductions from the total labor according to their labor and needs in the means of consumption, while the rest was public right returning from society to the worker to meet their needs. If you think that socialism depends on workers receiving the profits from the sale of everything produced in a society of cooperatives that compete with each other, then you are wrong.
Now, regarding the question of neoliberalism, this mode of organization was already used by the bourgeoisie when they realized they didn't need to make concessions to the workers and the profit rate began to decrease. The conflict of class struggle continues even after a revolution implements a socialist economy in a country, since there is the threat of international imperialist capitalism and its reactionary and liberal puppet agents. The workers' gains are destroyed if the imperialist capitalists win against the supremacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the expectation is to plunder public property as spoils of war. Neoliberalism is quite characteristic when the aim is to subjugate a country like a neocolony.
Another mistake here is the issue of small commodity production, which is only common in semi-feudal or underdeveloped countries where industrialization hasn't spread to more isolated rural areas, leaving them cut off from the capitalist market. However, socialism, private capitalism, and state capitalism all eliminate small commodity production by peasants when large-scale production occurs and the isolation of these peasants ends. This is irreversible, so you are wrong on this point as well.
>congrats, you finally understood that the private-state capitalist false dichotomy is retardedWrong. Both can coexist in the bourgeois state. The bourgeoisie will use this in circumstances that benefit them, but it's possible that some bourgeois individuals might try to cannibalize state capitalism to try to make a profit for petty interests, even if it's quite unproductive for everyone. This is common in neoliberalism with the financialization of everything, being short-term focused on quick profits. China took advantage of this when neoliberalism spread throughout the world to use state capitalism to gain control of a sovereign national technology, unlike other countries that submitted to neoliberal economic orthodoxy. In any case, state capitalism doesn't need to complement private capitalism; it can be hostile and cause instability to the bourgeois state and can be used in the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, this must be done to socialize the economy and acquire economic sovereignty as quickly as possible, acquiring knowledge, tools, technologies, and means of production for a country to be self-sufficient. This is because it will still have all the problems of capitalism that will lead counter-revolutionaries to try to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat and end the supremacy of the proletariat.
It's important to remember that this is only a problem in semi-feudal countries. If capitalism has already spread throughout the country, then socialization will be much faster, leading directly to a socialist economy because there will already be means of production to be seized and no isolated part of the population.
>economic sovereignty of whom?For the proletarian state, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat, acquiring complete financial sovereignty would mean nationalizing all banks and socializing the country's finances with its own currency before the abolition of money, in addition to obtaining a public monopoly for foreign exchange. Food sovereignty means socializing seeds, tools, fertilizers, and chemical production so that a country is not at the mercy of capitalist blackmail. Technological sovereignty means having its own national technology without being at the mercy of multinationals abroad that will blackmail a country that does not have sovereign technology. Energy sovereignty means having control over its energy production, not being at the mercy of capitalists and not depending on imports. Industrial sovereignty would be having a national industry with its own technology so as not to be at the mercy of capitalists.
All this results in economic sovereignty for the workers to control the means of production in order to organize a socialist economy through economic planning. It's clear that the more deindustrialized a country is, lacking the tools to use state capitalism and the means of production, the more problems there will be, requiring more drastic actions by communists to socialize the economy.
>China doesn0t have state capitalism, China has a mixed model where private capitalism exists and is allowed to exist.Wrong. The Chinese government directs the economy with state-owned enterprises; this is characteristic of state capitalism. This is useful for implementing public policies that can be used for various purposes in the economy. Of course, there is private capitalism in China. Other capitalist countries, following neoliberal orthodoxy, consider it taboo to take advantage of the full potential of state capitalism. This is denied for ideological reasons by the bourgeois class in the West because they do not question neoliberal economic orthodoxy. China uses this for its own benefit, taking advantage of this type of situation.
>And yet you want to give capitalism state power by implementing state capitalism lolState capitalism facilitates the democratization of the economy with monopolization, public participation, and by removing the illusions of the masses regarding a separation of politics and economics. This gives the means of production and tools to the workers to socialize the economy more easily and suffer less risk of sabotage and manipulation by capitalists, benefiting the communist cause. A country undergoing a revolution can be threatened by capitalist imperialism abroad to prevent the revolution if there is no economic sovereignty, which will be exploited by counter-revolutionaries.
Remembering that the conditions for a revolutionary situation are different in each country where the bourgeoisie has more stable or more unstable control, with some having greater intensification of the exploitation of their workers, there is also the problem of uneven development, and so the communist revolution will overthrow the bourgeois state to implement the proletarian state. One cannot depend on international bourgeois organizations abroad; alternative international socialist organizations will have to be created as alternatives. It is clear that the objective is the supremacy of socialist hegemony to end all bourgeois institutions, private property, market competition, and social classes.
You are forgetting that the communist position is to oppose giving any repressive power to the bourgeois state so that it enters into crisis and collapse, to arm the workers so that popular militias in workers' self-defense committees can disarm class enemies such as owners and their counter-revolutionary agents so that the proletarian class acquires its supremacy.
>you are retarded, I never said this.Every time you talk about a fascist threat that is supposedly different from neoliberal imperialist capitalism, which for you would be a lesser evil, you are indeed serving finance capital as a useful idiot.
>Brazil's own industrialization ended up being appropriated by the neoliberal period of Collor and Cardoso. State capitalism is socializing investment and privatizing profits. History shows this; feel free to prove this wrong, something you haven't been able to do for days.Fernando Henrique Cardoso is when neoliberalism consolidates in Brazil, completing what Collor did not complete. But the bourgeoisie had already been rebelling against the citizen constitution of the new Republic since the constitution was written. Article 192, in its original wording, stipulated that real interest rates could not exceed 12% per year. This aimed to protect the productive sector and citizens from financial speculation, and this law was emptied to serve financial capital from its inception. Brazil's industrialization was subservient to the United States and dependent on it since the Vargas government. Perhaps if it weren't for the coup that brought about by the military junta, Brazil could have followed a more neutral path in the Cold War and could have leveraged state capitalism to achieve a level of technological and industrial sovereignty, if the Brazilian left hadn't been so naive in underestimating the US puppets in Brazil who were conspiring.
With the Washington Consensus, neoliberalism is eventually forced by finance capital as if it were common sense to intensify the exploitation and deindustrialization of countries like Brazil. However, this doesn't change the fact that state capitalism can be used against private property, and that the Brazilian left has never been able to take advantage of the potential of state capitalism to democratize the economy, build dual power, and prepare for revolutionary situations. This is because state-owned enterprises can be used to compete against private companies at a low price, and because politics, not separated from economics, cannot be so easily hidden from the masses when state capitalism is in place.
Brazilian state capitalism was hindering the interests of financial capital, which had been rebelling since the beginning of the new republic. It was constantly dismantling and cutting funds from state-owned companies so they could be privatized and siphoned off by private companies. These companies then used the modern equipment that had been kept unused on purpose to spread false propaganda to the masses, claiming that private companies were superior to public ones. Because this equipment was handed over to the company that bought the public companies, the administration constantly sabotaged these public companies by choosing individuals with conflicts of interest, serving the interests of private companies, thus sabotaging public companies and always taking advantage of austerity measures. The left in Brazil has always governed with a minority in the Chamber of Deputies, which is another factor. Although reformists, in my opinion, are unable to reverse financialization because they fear conflict and chaos and believe in class conciliation instead of using everything as a weapon against the bourgeoisie and to intensify the class struggle.
>so it didn't have state capitalism thenThe cooperative sector during the NEP was part of state capitalism. With the end of the NEP, and with these cooperatives no longer able to compete with each other due to their exclusive relationship with the state and with equalization, they became part of the socialist economy along with state farms. Although it would be better if all cooperatives were collective enterprises belonging to the whole society, like state farms.
>projectionA person like you who fantasizes about a fascist threat and clings to neoliberalism, thinking that imperialist capitalism, through submission to finance capital, is separate from the fascism you hate as if it were a lesser evil against "fascist statism," is a liberal wanting to co-opt the masses to serve finance capital as a useful idiot, denying the tools that communists can use and the propaganda they could spread.
>I have the entire history of the XXth century on my side, you have quotemined wall of texts.And I affirm that the entire history of the 20th century is on my side instead of yours. You simply use the liberal "common sense" of what 20th-century history is without any reference to or confrontation with the bourgeois narrative or adjacent groups co-opted to it who do not wish to use "authoritarianism" to spread revolutionary terror and gain power. I, too, am not afraid to cause chaos in the bourgeois state to prepare for the revolutionary situation, but you are afraid of this.
I have scientific socialist texts on my side, and you have none.
>and that gave rise to the US Empire, so your multipolarity theory falls flat on it's face when we study the XXth centuryWrong. The rise of the American empire depended on the integration of the various bourgeoisies of the world using the communist threat against the workers of the world. Currently there is no socialist power acting to create a socialist hegemony. The current proletarian democracies are in isolated defense, which means that it is necessary to cause chaos so that the capitalists do not work together to give more opportunity for communists of the world to act. Even during the Cold War, the Soviet Union encouraged countries to remain neutral, helping them to industrialize and achieve economic sovereignty, while the United States made concessions to various countries in an attempt to preserve capitalism. Currently, these concessions no longer exist with the Washington Consensus, so multipolarity is necessary until another socialist bloc forms.
>says the guy that implies that state capitalism and the empowerment of third world bourgeois advances communism lolThe use of state capitalism does not mean that the bourgeoisie of the third world would be strengthened, although countries having more equal relations could be said to be relatively stronger internationally, but a comprador bourgeoisie also has its level of security and strength as part of the financial capitalist empire subjugating the neocolony. The use of state capitalism can reduce social inequality and intensify class struggle as cooperatives advance along with the democratization of the economy, which depends on breaking the illusion of separation between politics and economics. Private capitalism maintains the illusion, while state capitalism is much more difficult to convince the masses because neoliberal politics, which pretends to be outside of politics, is unable to maintain its illusions and sell its programs to the masses, having to act stealthily to carry out its program.
Having several countries with more sovereign economies and equal relations also leads to more instability where proletarians can seize the means of production. Furthermore, these capitalists will not constantly act against each other due to various conflicts of interest and lack the means to intimidate or integrate each other into some capitalist imperialist plan against socialists. This will make sanctions less effective, giving the new proletarian state time to acquire what is necessary to socialize the economy, benefiting the communist cause because the masses cannot remain passive.
A unipolar world is much more capable of preventing communists and overthrowing revolution in the most unstable points of the empire, which can be isolated and neutralized with the cooperation of the world bourgeoisie. A multipolar world has fewer means of making countries accept patents and respect intellectual property, which will benefit communists in acquiring the economic sovereignty necessary to organize a socialist economy.
I am thinking of all the factors that exist before the revolution, during the revolution, during the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, during the socialization of the economy, and in preparing for the communist revolution in the world. You don't think about this; you probably believe in a fantasy that out of nowhere the world's workers will try to start a world revolution by implanting communism in the world without questioning that this is an idealistic fantasy.