/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2844618
>You are including data from the period of restoration of capitalist relations during the Gorbachev government.
State capitalism resulted in the restoration of capitalist relations during the Gorbachov government. The USSR of Stalin and the USSR of Gorbachov exist in the same timeline

> Capitalism requires generalized commodity production, which did not exist in the Soviet Union
Commodity production existed in the Soviet Union
>The socialization of the economy made capital accumulation impossible,
False
>and there was no competition for profit among agricultural cooperatives.
Exchange for profit still existed in the Soviet Union, used goods were bought and sold.
You clearly have no understanding of the social relationships within the USSR.
>Therefore, it was not capitalist.
Cute

>The Soviet Union abolished private property,
The Soviet Union replaced the bourgeois notion of private property for a system in which party officials had the power to appropiate the administration of industry.
>unemployment
Not necessarily means they had socialism
>and all features of capitalism
Wrong, the USSR engaged in trade of goods, mainly natural resources, during all of it's lifetime.
>for the planning of the economy.
Not socialism

>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.
So they had a centrally planned economy, yet they never accomplished to engage in socialism

>You are ignoring petty commodity production, or simple commodity production, that existed before capitalism.
I am not
> 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.
The capitalist class was never abolished as a dominant class under Stalin's "socialism", which is a reason why Russia is a neoliberal country.

I can achieve socialism in my backyard too, what matters is that my method of achieving socialism in one backyard have the the global and historical repercusions that result in the abolition of capitalism

>Now I will post a quote proving my point:
Post data that proves state capitalism didn't result in the restoration of private capitalism, I already posted data that show it does. >>2844571


>It's only wrong for sentimentalists who don't want to organize the dictatorship of the proletariat because they fear revolutionary terror and who fear planning the economy by socializing it and abolishing private property.
You are not even making any sense. Please re-read this part of the discussion

What you are engaging in is the same ideological trap capitalist engage in when they day greed is the problem with capitalism

>Capitalism isn't the problem, greed is!
>State capitalism isn't the problem, revisionism is!

I don't care about your revolutionary terrorist larp, you can't even follow an argument.

>until technological sovereignty and economic sovereignty are acquired
liberalism

>where it is not possible to organize a socialist economy immediately because state capitalism is easier to socialize through the dictatorship of the proletariat and is superior to private capitalism and small-scale commodity production.
Lolz, we can already engage in socialism today, again, to what extent do we need to develop the productive forces™ to have socialism? How do we measure it? How do we make sure the government agents actually engage in socialism instead of delaying it so as to mantain their position of priviege and power?

>If all means of production are available for planning in a socialist economy with independent and sovereign technology
Wow, why don't you share with us the checklist you have ro make sure "all means of production" are avaliable for planning. Do you just mean control over the existing productive forces instead? If control is all that is necessary then why do we even need state capitalism to develop the productive forces™?

You are speaking nonesense.

>State capitalism did not exist during the immense growth that occurred during Stalin's rule. It was due to the socialist organization of the economy and the end of capitalist relations that existed during the NEP, which was abolished, that the level of growth that occurred at the time was achieved. The problem is that many opportunists kept using the false discourse of stagnation even though the Breshnev government had greater growth compared to many other capitalist countries of the time. However, the opportunists who served capitalist imperialism abroad indirectly or directly, trying to copy the West, brought confusion, degrading the dictatorship of the proletariat to try to implement these false solutions to open space for a counter-revolution.
<The problem with capitalism is greed, not actually capitalism!

>>2844632
>nato is a paper tiger
So what is China waiting for then?

>no mode of production just "ceased" to exist
Name one feudal nation

>we can't have socialism bro, we can't jump into socialism just like that bro, we need to develop le productive forces™ in every country bro
>Global proletariat revolution after the productive forces™ are developed around the globe bro? That's a pipedream bro.

So which one is it?

>>2844652
Generalized commodity production is a key tenet of capitalism, not commodity production as a whole. The production of commodities continues into lower-stage communism (socialism) but in a matter distinct from mass production for exchange on the market, but rather for direct consumption by the population. Under capitalism, commodity production necessarily takes a different character than it would under socialism, as the labor needed for production of commodities is itself a commodity bought and sold, while under socialism will be, well, socialized.

>>2844646
>the feudal system just "ceased" to exist by itself
this negro hasn't heard of the french revolution
>>2844650
<it creates a world after its own image
the basis of that world is the existance of inequal conditions (even if all exist within the bourgeois mode of production) nothing in that quote says otherwise

>>2844652
sure that part is retarded but op is right about the rest

>>2844661
>the french revolution
Not every country had a violent bourgeois revolution, retard

>>2844656
both are wrong because global proletariat revolution will never happen and more development of productive froces is not necesary for revolution in one country

>>2844664
wich proves some had to have one for feudalism to disappear
>>2844665
when will that happen with capitalism?

>>2844670
Another garbage thirdie worldists post

>>2844670
>Workers who install solar panels do not have the same interests as those working on oil barges or in coal mines and pretending they do isn’t helpful
they objectively do thoughbeit

>>2844665
That's a massively ahistorical and immaterial take. Necessarily, throughout history, the production on material forces and the honing of their relations would stagnate at the end of each economic world system (slavery, feudalism), creating prolonged crises like in Rome or 16th century Germany. During this stagnation, smaller classes (the local aristocracy in ancient rome and the urban mercantile class) would find "openings" to secure new relations in production under the umbrella of the previous world-system, until it proved too constraining for the new relations of production and a violent passing of the torch was necessary to free up the productive forces, though not always. The aristocracy that famously crushed the feudal lords and estates in the late Renaissance also allied with the burgeoning bourgeoisie after 1848, for example. However, transition from one to another exploitative class system was a messy affair (collapse of Rome, German peasant Wars, English civil war, French revolution). To say that it was "theater" is horrifically reductionist, even if revolution was not a necessity.

>>2844674
None of those workers own the firms that compete against eachother, dumbass.

>>2844675
POV: you have no idea how the economy works.

>>2844675
>How do coal miners benefit from the expansion of solar and wind?
you are literally conflating the interests of the owners of the mines and solar/wind energy plants with those of the workers obviously if the proletatiat assumes the consciousness of their masters intead of their own they will be forever stuck in petty squabbles

pls read marx

>>2844683
ok mr uyghur

>>2844683
Wholesome; leftypol reinvents subjective idealism without any of the philosophical knowledge.
That's what I get for trying to be reasonable on leftypol lel

>>2844685
das racist

>>2844700
solipsism but make it woke

>>2844699
to make commodities socialistically

>>2844674
The working class neither owns the means of production nor has substantial say in the process of peoduction. The MoP, workplaces, farmlands, factories, wherever a person may sell their labor to get by, is owned by a capitalist, or middle strata. The relations of production, and the relations of labor to capital, are clearly molded to be exploitative relations whereupon one class imposes its will on another. It is the competition between different capitalists that is endemic to this system, precisely like you said, coal vs green energy, small vs large capital, old vs new. Workers, simply for the fact that they have to sell their labor to the individual capitalist are caught up in these antagonisms, but have no benefit or even say in either scenario as their surplus value is stolen for the capitalist's own benefit while they mire with minimum wage and 10-12 hour workdays, or even unemployment for the employees of the "losing" firm.

>>2844699
>why should I read some dead smug drunk euro?
Because it teaches you third world savages that the economy isn't imaginary.

>>2844675
>How do coal miners benefit from the expansion of solar and wind?
They don't die from black lung anymore

>>2844718
Labor and the MoP will be liberated from the exploitative class relations in effect right now and be socialized, for the common wealth of the working class (under socialism) and then the wider population as classes and their relations with previous productive forces wither. Workers will be incentivised to work of the social benefit, creating commodities, infrastructure or whatever else may be useful to society, without the material incentive of wage or benefits, but due to the distillation of a new discipline that has been completed with the construction of lower-stage communism. There exists zero reason why present attitudes and temperaments, formed under the totalitarian pressure of an exploitative class system, will continue to exist in a non-exploitative non-class system. You have to take to account the scale of communist production and its historical weight.
Also Mao was an idealist and revisionist (bait).

>>2844729
Better poet and writer than Marx though

>>2844729
What about workers in industries that are inherently anti social like gambling or alcohol? Do you have a government program for those people to transfer to a new job in line with the new economy?

>>2844738
What are you even talking about dude, what kind of worker are those? People that work in a fucking distillation plant? People working coding bet sites? People that give away carda in poker games?

>>2844738
Those industries are only "breakthroughs" of a society that needs to keep the exploited complacent and submissive. It is very reasonable that these "industries" of debauchery will be done away with, and the workers in that sector transferred to more socially necessary sectors (light industry, logistics, construction, etc. etc.) Just because these horrific abortions or antisocial profiteering exist currently and necessarily make up a reasonable persentage of the working class' source of income doesn't mean that they shouldn't be done away with posthaste. Socialism will liberation the relations of production in such a manner to cast non-social enterprise pointless regardless.

>>2844738
>alcohol
>anti social
Anti Bacchus propaganda from Christoid zealots

>>2844744
Numerous spelling and grammar mistakes fahh

>>2844745
You either are a mean drunk or have never met one

>>2844001
Funny thing in the Germany Ideology there's a part where they talk about communism like it's a hothouse flower that DIES upon contact with capitalism which is why it has to global and world historic. But capitalism grew just fine under feudalism and punched out like a chestburster. More like CHADiptalism. Then again there's another part where Marx talks about how joint stock companies sorta-kinda abolish private property under capitalism which is where you get all the market socialists hot under the collar.

>>2844778
>But capitalism grew just fine under feudalism and punched out like a chestburster.
Because the transition of feudalism to capitalism was in essence the transition from one exploitative society to the next. The conditions for capitalism to begin to grow within the confines of feudalism became more fertile over time (freedom of serfs bring a larger, unemployed mass into the cities, the manufactories and trade guild enrich themselves through the resource extraction and trade routes solidified through colonialism, the feudal class stagnating and failing to keep its hold over its subjects throghout the 15th-17th centuries), until the constraints of feudalism's mode of production, i.e. decentral agrarian production spanning the breadth of provinces under the patronage of a hereditary lord, did not suit it anymore, and the burgeoning bourgeois class began to assert itself to mold society in its image. Communism is, unlike the economic systems that preceded it, a non-exploitative, non-class system, and as such no such pre-formation of socialist relations in production can exist under capitalism, because communism is not just a league above capitalism, but a historical leap forward, doing away with private property relations entirely.
>Then again there's another part where Marx talks about how joint stock companies sorta-kinda abolish private property under capitalism
I don't recall such a passage, post it please.

>>2844785
Communism is the new exploitation though, it’s the proletariat exploiting itself but for its own ends and under its own plan, it’s embryonic forms under capitalism are the worker coop and the State Owned Enterprises.

>>2844645
>State capitalism resulted in the restoration of capitalist relations during the Gorbachov government. The USSR of Stalin and the USSR of Gorbachov exist in the same timeline
Wrong again. When Lenin speaks of state capitalism, he says something specific that existed alongside the socialist economy in the text "Tax in Kind," which was directly linked to the limited grain market of the NEP, with the state encouraging peasants to get used to working in cooperatives to promote collective organization, preparing them for the organization of the socialist economy in the countryside. Gorbachev is the result of the degradation of the dictatorship of the proletariat that existed at the time, with the Soviet Union lowering its guard, believing in peaceful coexistence, ignoring the capitalist imperialist threat that continues after the revolution and after the organization of the socialist economy, which opened space for reformist opportunists like Gorbachev, who opened space for counter-revolutionaries like Yeltsin.

>Commodity production existed in the Soviet Union
Commodity production in the Soviet Union was limited to agricultural cooperatives that did not compete with each other, having exclusive relations with the Soviet state regarding commodity production and not for selling and profiting in the market by competing. Furthermore, there was equalization of gains and losses; therefore, it was not generalized commodity production and therefore it was not capitalist.

>False
Prove then that there was capital accumulation without private property, without shares to speculate, without competition in the market, without the production of goods to profit in the market because everything followed the economic plan according to the needs of the population.

>Exchange for profit still existed in the Soviet Union, used goods were bought and sold.
>You clearly have no understanding of the social relationships within the USSR.
Incorrect. The population consumed, receiving the means of consumption from the state. There was no competition between companies to profit, and employment was a guaranteed right, ending the industrial reserve of labor. There were no owners, and people were paid according to their work. The internal currency had a different function to prevent accumulation, so the characteristics of money for exchanging goods for profit did not exist, and it could not be invested to accumulate capital. You are unaware of the social relations of the socialist period in the Soviet Union.

>Cute
So you conceded that the Soviet Union was not capitalist and that I am correct.

>The Soviet Union replaced the bourgeois notion of private property for a system in which party officials had the power to appropiate the administration of industry.
Wrong. Officials and bureaucrats did not receive anything extra for owning something, but rather for the work done, just like other workers. Furthermore, many delegates to the people's councils were independent, not being members of the communist party, which demanded more responsibilities and more serious punishments for its members than for those who were independent.

In addition, all gains and losses were equalized to prevent regional inequalities.

>Not necessarily means they had socialism
A right to employment clashes with the ability to coerce workers using the industrial labor reserve; furthermore, there were no private property owners, competition, or shareholders to extract surplus value. The total value produced went to the development and maintenance of the means of production, meeting the needs of the population and the economic plan, and then reaching the means of consumption. This is not capitalism.

>Wrong, the USSR engaged in trade of goods, mainly natural resources, during all of it's lifetime.
Incorrect. You are confusing foreign trade, which used an external version of the ruble pegged to gold, different from the internal ruble for domestic use. Remember that the Soviet state had a monopoly on foreign trade with the internal consumption of the population, linked to an internal currency that served more as a certificate of labor that could not be accumulated into capital, serving only in the consumption of means of consumption made available by the state through economic planning.

>Not socialism
If you abolished private property, the anarchy of production, and the social classes of owners to organize the economy according to the needs of the population and the work performed, then you have a socialist economy.

>So they had a centrally planned economy, yet they never accomplished to engage in socialism
Have you forgotten that Marx never denied the revolutionary measures in Section II of the Manifesto?

<However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II.

<Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Preface, The 1872 German Edition, Manifesto of the Communist Party

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

<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

[…]

<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

<Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, 1848, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

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

>I am not
You are indeed mistaken in not even knowing what state capitalism is as something specific used during the NEP. Not knowing about pre-capitalist periods up to current capitalism also demonstrates that you continue to make these wrong statements about the Soviet Union.

>The capitalist class was never abolished as a dominant class under Stalin's "socialism", which is a reason why Russia is a neoliberal country.
>I can achieve socialism in my backyard too, what matters is that my method of achieving socialism in one backyard have the the global and historical repercusions that result in the abolition of capitalism
Wrong. Mass nationalization had already been done in the dictatorship of the proletariat when Lenin was alive with the means of production that existed to be seized. Furthermore, before collectivization, there had already been agrarian reform against the landowners, extinguishing the Russian capitalists and landowners. Nationalization of all banks had also already been done, following what Marx said about what the Paris Commune should have done. The only problem that was missing was the prosperous peasant petty bourgeoisie (kulak) that existed during the NEP, who conspired against state capitalism to restore capitalism. Stalin ended the NEP by abolishing the kulaks as a class and ending the existing rural relations through collectivization with cooperatives that did not compete with each other, having an exclusive relationship with the state and the use of state farms.

Socialism needs the means of production; therefore, it cannot be done in your backyard. A region with natural resources is necessary for workers to organize a self-sufficient economy with technological sovereignty as quickly as possible to minimize the effects of sanctions and coercion that imperialist capitalists will try to impose. But this must be done with what you have; it is not necessary to wait for the perfect revolution to appear because it is the result of class struggle for the proletariat to acquire its supremacy.

You need this quote from Lenin about revolutionary situations to think about:

<To the Marxist it is indisputable that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, it is not every revolutionary situation that leads to revolution. What, generally speaking, are the symptoms of a revolutionary situation? We shall certainly not be mistaken if we indicate the following three major symptoms: (1) when it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the "upper classes", a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for "the lower classes not to want" to live in the old way; it is also necessary that "the upper classes should be unable" to live in the old way; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; (3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in "peace time", but, in turbulent times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the "upper classes" themselves into independent historical action.

<Without these objective changes, which are independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties but even of individual classes, a revolution, as a general rule, is impossible. The totality of all these objective changes is called a revolutionary situation. Such a situation existed in 1905 in Russia, and in all revolutionary periods in the West; it also existed in Germany in the sixties of the last century, and in Russia in 1859-61 and 1879-80, although no revolution occurred in these instances. Why was that? It was because it is not every revolutionary situation that gives rise to a revolution; revolution arises only out of a situation in which the above-mentioned objective changes are accompanied by a subjective change, namely, the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass action strong enough to break (or dislocate) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, "falls", if it is not toppled over.

<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915, The Collapse of the Second International, Chapter II

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/ii.htm

>>2844645
>Post data that proves state capitalism didn't result in the restoration of private capitalism, I already posted data that show it does.
Wrong again. The data you posted has no source. What I cited has a source, and besides, collectivization by Stalin's government itself proves that it was useful for the organization of the socialist economy.

This is in line with Engels' own measures made for use in the bourgeois state:

<Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
[…]
<(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.
[…]
<(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

<(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
[…]
<It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.

<Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

>You are not even making any sense. Please re-read this part of the discussion
>What you are engaging in is the same ideological trap capitalist engage in when they day greed is the problem with capitalism
Wrong again. You are acting as if the socialist economy were a bunch of cooperatives and petty-bourgeoisie competing with each other. Scientific Socialism does not tolerate any fantasy of decentralization that you are insinuating with what Marx and Engels wrote about the Paris Commune.

>I don't care about your revolutionary terrorist larp, you can't even follow an argument.

You forgot that the state is the instrument of one social class to oppress another, while full communism is not achieved worldwide in a socialist hegemony resolving the various contradictions of current society, the dictatorship of the proletariat will spread revolutionary terror to maintain the supremacy of the proletariat.

Remember this quote:
<We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

<Final Issue Neue Rheinische Zeitung May 1849, Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/05/19c.htm

>liberalism
I am in favor of any means of acquiring technologies such as electronics to reverse engineer and produce them nationally with national and publicly owned software to minimize threats, not bribing someone, engaging in industrial espionage, kidnapping, making exchanges and using state-owned companies, use of force, threats, etc. to acquire the technologies and the means to develop them in order to achieve technological sovereignty, teach local workers to use and understand them to avoid blackmail by capitalists who control these technologies. Not doing this is idealism waiting for the technology to materialize or be handed to you on a silver platter.

>Lolz, we can already engage in socialism today, again, to what extent do we need to develop the productive forces™ to have socialism? How do we measure it? How do we make sure the government agents actually engage in socialism instead of delaying it so as to mantain their position of priviege and power?
If it is possible to organize the socialist economy by seizing the means of production, then this will be done. Whatever is lacking that can be done with state-owned enterprises will also be done, but I am skeptical that the technology and means of production of everything will be available for the dictatorship of the proletariat wherever there is a revolution. Therefore, I suggest the use of state capitalism, which will be more easily controlled, to be socialized until all the necessary technologies are made nationally, understood through reverse engineering and other means. I do not tolerate giving up.

>Wow, why don't you share with us the checklist you have ro make sure "all means of production" are avaliable for planning. Do you just mean control over the existing productive forces instead? If control is all that is necessary then why do we even need state capitalism to develop the productive forces™?
>You are speaking nonesense.
Are you forgetting that an entire internet and electronics infrastructure, such as computers with national chips, will have to be built in the socialist state? Have you forgotten the threat of sabotage and blackmail when a country lacks the technological understanding to produce everything nationally through state-owned enterprises? I am not as naive as you, but if the future dictatorship of the proletariat encounters no problems in organizing the socialist economy and the workers are disciplined, there will be no opposition from me. However, if reality does not conform to what idealists think, and I hear defeatist speeches of giving up, passivity, and fear of using force and authoritarianism due to a lack of available technologies, then there will be the use of state capitalism until the state-owned enterprises acquire these technologies, machines, and books that are missing so that the dictatorship of the proletariat has technological sovereignty in its country to organize the socialist economy.

>The problem with capitalism is greed, not actually capitalism!
My point is that the discourse of opportunists who kept focusing on the concept of growth, trying to make meaningless comparisons with capitalist countries to demand their false "solutions," is flawed. An example is imagining a wage increase in a socialist country, but then realizing that there was no effect on consumption because in a society without private appropriation of the means of production, organized collectively, the total value produced for the workers is already used, as written in the critique of the Gotha Programme, and the internal currency does not have the same function as in a capitalist country because in capitalist countries there is a suppression of workers' wages by capitalists to extract surplus value.

I am writing this because many people only think about distribution instead of the relationships for using the means of production.

>>2844826
>Communism is the new exploitation though, it’s the proletariat exploiting itself but for its own ends and under its own plan
There exists not one person that can claim to benefit more than others under communism thanks to the labor of others. Relations of exploiter-exploited in society are done away with private property and its relations of wage labor and employment as a whole. Classes, the state disappear, the new relations of production are solidified, humanity is no longer divided based on their relations to property and labor. Labor becomes a social good, not a commodity bought and sold, and a duty to one's community beyond a creative expression of humanity. Thus there exists no exploitation under communism.
>it’s embryonic forms under capitalism are the worker coop and the State Owned Enterprises.
No they're not. The scientific centrally planned economy is the only one tool in the worker's state's arsenal that can solidify socialist relations of production, through the coherent, accurate and immediate allocation of resources, laborers, machinery and all necessary processes for the step-by-step solodification of the socialist mode of production. Worker co-ops under capitalism serve as little better than official yellow unions that aim to win over the worlers by giving them a larger sum of their produced surplus value, but maintaining the exploitative relation of labor as a commodity in the service of capital. As for state enterprise, no, not even. State enerprise under capitalism functions under the rules of the capitalist economy by necessity; competition and the profit motive. Not to mention, that state enterprise is merely temporary, to be "daddied" by the bourgeois state up to a point where it proves profitable, up to which it is either sold or broken up to stimulate the economy.

>>2844828
>Wrong again
So after Stalin there was a shift to a parallel universe then? Because from what I and pretty much anyone with a basic understanding of history knows, the USSR that was under Stalin's rule was the same nation state that Gorbachov and Khrushchev were leaders off. Stalin policies resulted in Khrushchev's, you can claim it is the revisionists fault, but that is an argument against you, You are defending a system which lead to revisionists raking power, not me.

>Gorbachev is the result of the degradation of the dictatorship of the proletariat that existed at the time
So the system you propose is flawed, and doesn't result in socialism but on the restoration of private capitalism. Again, this is an argument against you, not against me. I do not support what Khrushchev or Gorbachov did, you indirectly are, because history has pretty much shown that state capitalism resulted in the restoration of capitalism, every single country that alligned itself with the policies of the USSR did, and I already proved it here.
>>2844571

>with the Soviet Union lowering its guard, believing in peaceful coexistence, ignoring the capitalist imperialist threat that continues after the revolution and after the organization of the socialist economy,
This happened under Stalin's government, Stalin alligned with the west.

>which opened space for reformist opportunists like Gorbachev, who opened space for counter-revolutionaries like Yeltsin.
So the method you propose that countries should follow to establish the development of socialism doesn't actually result in socialism, but in capitalism. Again, that is an argument against your position.

>Commodity production in the Soviet Union was limited to agricultural cooperatives that did not compete with each other
The USSR exported tens of millions in grain, minerals and other raw materials. The workers in the USSR produced these commodities and the USSR traded them in the global market, this is the textbook definition of commodity production.

>therefore it was not capitalist.
So Pemex isn't capitalist?

>Prove then that there was capital accumulation
Capitalists do not accumulate capital just for the sake of accumulation, the only people that fo are antique currency collectors, capitalists accumulate capital because it allows them to have such a lifestyle that is unattainable by the average proletariat, this is one of the reasons why capital accumulation existed in the soviet union, leaders of the different ministries, military generals and political partymen enjoyed a lifestyle that was not attainable by the average worker, they held such a position that allowed them to enjoy the fruits of labour of other people in a similar manner to western capitalists.

>The population consumed, receiving the means of consumption from the state. There was no competition between companies to profit,
Cool, the USSR still traded commodities with foreign nations. That's capitalism.

>and it could not be invested to accumulate capital. You are unaware of the social relations of the socialist period in the Soviet Union.
Again, only antique currency collectors accumulate capital for the sake of accumulating capital. A small group of people in the USSR enjoyed a lifestyle that was unattainable for the average worker. There were party officials, military generals and key people in different ministries that inhereted their position or attained it thanks to social capital.

It seems like the one unaware of USSR social relations is you.

>Officials and bureaucrats did not receive anything extra for owning something, but rather for the work done, just like other workers.
False, a miner worked a lot harder than the minister of coal, yet no miner enjoyed the same lifestyle as the minister. We can engage in an specific discussion on this topic as long as you don't ignore the data I provide and reply with Soviet state propaganda, deal?

>The total value produced went to the development and maintenance of the means of production
Incorrect. Some of the value was appropiated by party officials, military generals and ministers.
>Meeting the needs of the population
False
>And the economic plan
There is a huge argument here that allows us to understand the economic plans did not meet the general needs of the population.
>And then reaching the means of consumption.
Again, this isn't true.
>This is not capitalism.
It is. The law of value and the value form still exists.

>You are confusing foreign trade, which used an external version of the ruble pegged to gold, different from the internal ruble for domestic use.
That is irrelevant, the Soviet state engaged in commodity trade with other nations, in no different manner to state capitalist firms in modern times.
>Remember that the Soviet state had a monopoly on foreign trade with the internal consumption of the population.
Foreign trade is still capitalism, these commodities sold by the state exchanged according to their market price.

>linked to an internal currency that served more as a certificate of labor that could not be accumulated into capital.
I already explained that the accumulation of currency isn’t the accumulation of capital.

>certificate of labor that could not be accumulated into capital, serving only in the consumption of means of consumption made available by the state through economic planning.
So the workers were compensated with not-wages depending on the amount of not-value they produced, they used this not-currency to not-buy not-commodities in the not-market, and they could only afford the amount of not-value embedded in each not-commodity that they were not-paid by the not-capitalist Soviet state?
Someone doesn't understand the value form and that someone isn’t me lol.

Elements of commodity fetishism where social relations between people take the form of relations between things like prices and goods also persisted, since everyday life was still experienced through buying, selling, and earning wages rather than social control over production.

>If you abolished private property, the anarchy of production, and the social classes of owners to organize the economy according to the needs of the population and the work performed, then you have a socialist economy.
Lol no. Go read Capital again.

>Have you forgotten that Marx never denied the revolutionary measures in Section II of the Manifesto?
Do I have to quote Marx again where he states that measures to achieve socialism aren’t stati after his experience with the Paris commune?

>You are indeed mistaken in not even knowing what state capitalism is as something specific used during the NEP.
Doing away with the specific elements of the NEP doesn't mean they did away capitalism.
>Not knowing about pre-capitalist periods up to current capitalism also demonstrates that you continue to make these wrong statements about the Soviet Union.
When was this ever discussed?

>Mass nationalization had already been done in the dictatorship of the proletariat when Lenin was alive with the means of production that existed to be seized.
Nationalization isn’t socialism.

>extinguishing the Russian capitalists and landowners. Nationalization of all banks had also already been done, following what Marx said about what the Paris Commune should have done. The only problem that was missing was the prosperous peasant petty bourgeoisie (kulak) that existed during the NEP, who conspired against state capitalism to restore capitalism. Stalin ended the NEP by abolishing the kulaks as a class and ending the existing rural relations through collectivization with cooperatives that did not compete with each other, having an exclusive relationship with the state and the use of state farms.
So why did he stop there?

>Socialism needs the means of production; therefore, it cannot be done in your backyard.
The means of production are global, so it can’t be done in one country.

>A region with natural resources is necessary for workers to organize a self-sufficient economy with technological sovereignty as quickly as possible to minimize the effects of sanctions and coercion that imperialist capitalists will try to impose.
History has shown this method of achieving socialism is flawed as it results in capitalist restoration.

>>2844903
And what’s the positive alternative?

>Wrong again. The data you posted has no source.
So if I cite it with source, are you going to adress the issue that state capitalism regressed into private capitalism? I don't want to spen an hour trying to get the source ChatGPT used just for you to paste Soviet state propaganda.

>What I cited has a source
What you cited is State propaganda used to justify commodity production.

>collectivization by Stalin's government itself proves that it was useful for the organization of the socialist economy.
It's useless today, we have now the means to completely calculate the economy and to do away with a state apparatus that enforces the value form.

>Wrong again. You are acting as if the socialist economy were a bunch of cooperatives and petty-bourgeoisie competing with each other.
I literally never stated this.
>Scientific Socialism does not tolerate any fantasy of decentralization that you are insinuating with what Marx and Engels wrote about the Paris Commune.
Huh? You clearly have no understanding of what I meant with that part of my reply.
You want to imply that the Soviet system, from it's creation to the death of Stalin, was the correct way to engage in socialism, yet, at the same time, willfully try to deny that such system is what gave rise to revisionism. You want to imply that the Soviet Union magically switched to a parallel universe and it's own internal contradictions were not at fault for it's demise. You are an idealist

>You forgot that the state is the instrument of one social class to oppress another
No I don't, again, you have no idea what is being discussed in this part

>while full communism is not achieved worldwide in a socialist hegemony resolving the various contradictions of current society, the dictatorship of the proletariat will spread revolutionary terror to maintain the supremacy of the proletariat.
That's cool, but completely irrelevant to this part of the discussion

>Remember this quote:
Holy fucking shit, the absolute cringe with this guy, you should really try to focus on understanding the topic of my post before you reply, this larp is pathetic.

>I am in favor of any means of acquiring technologies such as electronics to reverse engineer and produce them nationally with national and publicly owned software to minimize threats blah blah blah
No surprise, MLs are just temporarely embarrassed imperialists.

>Not doing this is idealism waiting for the technology to materialize or be handed to you on a silver platter.
Again, this is idealism, explain exactly what the development of the productive forces™ is?

>If it is possible to organize the socialist economy by seizing the means of production, then this will be done. Whatever is lacking that can be done with state-owned enterprises will also be done.
And how exactly do you come up with the data that shows what is lacking in the development of the productive forces™? You claim we need state capitalism to develop them, how much state capitalism? For how long? How do we measure this development? Who decides what productive forces™ are to be developed? Your drivel is just ideology.

>But I am skeptical that the technology and means of production of everything will be available for the dictatorship of the proletariat wherever there is a revolution.
Again, based on what?

>Therefore, I suggest the use of state capitalism, which will be more easily controlled, to be socialized until all the necessary technologies are made nationally, understood through reverse engineering and other means.
Lol, so instead of making a couple of extra lathes under a socialists economy, we will have to endure state capitalism, for who knows how long, determined by who knows who, and without any way to measure if we can do away with state capitalism yet. And M-Ls have the audacity of claiming their ideology is capable of abolishing the anarchy of production.

>I do not tolerate giving up.
Larp

>Are you forgetting that an entire internet and electronics infrastructure, such as computers with national chips, will have to be built in the socialist state?
Huh? How does this answer what was asked? Do you enjoy coming up with irrelevant drivel whenever you don't understand an argument.
Let's try again. You claim we need to develop the productive forces™. How are you able to determine what individual elements of the productive forces™ are in need to be developed right now so that state capitalism develops more of them? You claim we need to use state capitalism after the revolution, how do you come up with this statement? How many more 4x12 lathes do we need? How many sandblasting kits do we need? I am not asking you if we can use cybernetics, LLMs and other models already in use by the bourgeoisie to do so, I am asking why do you believe state capitalism is a must after the revolution.

>Have you forgotten the threat of sabotage and blackmail when a country lacks the technological understanding to produce everything nationally through state-owned enterprises?
No, that is what I face everyday in my backyard’s socialist republic. But how is this related to socialism?

>I am not as naive as you, but if the future dictatorship of the proletariat encounters no problems in organizing the socialist economy and the workers are disciplined, there will be no opposition from me.
Your are the naive one, you wish to replicate the Soviet experiment despite the fact that history has shown it does not work in the implementation of socialism

>However, if reality does not conform to what idealists think, and I hear defeatist speeches of giving up, passivity, and fear of using force and authoritarianism due to a lack of available technologies.
That will be you.

>then there will be the use of state capitalism until the state-owned enterprises acquire these technologies, machines, and books that are missing so that the dictatorship of the proletariat has technological sovereignty in its country to organize the socialist economy.
Again, feel free to explain how do you account the productive forces™ so as to decide we need state capitalism.

>My point is that the discourse of opportunists who kept focusing on the concept of growth, trying to make meaningless comparisons with capitalist countries to demand their false "solutions," is flawed.
Yeah, your model of development is flawed, that's what I’ve been saying all the time.

>An example is imagining a wage increase in a socialist country
>Wages
>In socialism
Lol

I am writing this because many people only think about distribution instead of the relationships for using the means of production.
You say this while at the same time denyig that the value form remained under Stalin's government lol

Left communism is just going nuh uh and being smug, there’s literally nothing else

>>2845004
Pretty much proven by the leftcoms in this thread, yup.

>>2844043
Cite source

>>2845013
>>2845004
Buttblasted M-Loids lol

>>2844910
I am not sure, communism could be thousands of years away or it could happen tomorrow, all I know is that the Soviet system didn't do away with the law of value, it merely had one big state managing the value form.

I remember when I got my first credit card and I was looking at my MercadoLibre shooping cart. I realized the tools I needed to buy were more expensive than my line of credit. And I realized that the reason why I was given such a line of credit was because of my value as a worker in a way, I only get paid let's say 10 dollars so the bank only gave me 6 dollars in credit. Bit I was going to use these tools to produce more commodities so I would be avle to pay such loan, it didn't make any sense because such system is so inefficient. In a way socialism should allow me to demand more than 10 dollars from my online shopping cart (or any other system of distribution of consumer goods) as my needs exceed the amount of value society deems I produce. At the same time, just like with credit, I can use my future labour as a guarantee so I can demand this extra value in the form of consumer goods. If I die or I can't pay, I have the option to return them back to the store where they are assigned to someone else, if it gets damaged it would get recycled. Again, the Soviet system didn't work in such manner, you could only demand a similar amount of value as the one you produced. To each according to their needs wasn't possible.

>>2845310
Was there literally any policy decision the Soviet Union could have made differently after the failure of the German and Hungarian revolutions that would have satisfied you?

>>2844645
>Post data that proves state capitalism didn't result in the restoration of private capitalism, I already posted data that show it does. >>2844571
You didn't post source of that screenshot. Is that because it's from GPT slop, as indicated by the complete BS input it gave for China?
>>2845310
You are embarassing yourself and leftcoms by proxy.

>>2845356
Copy-paste slop deserves AI slop, this isn't the first time copy-paste anon has refused to address the issue of capitalist restoration

We can use other sources beside ChatGPT if you or him accept to stay on topic, you won't