Socialist commodity production/socialism in one country is inherently necessary for countries outside the imperial core. What's the alternative? It redistributes all profit into the well-being of the population, and the more countries join this system (a la USSR), the more it can be progressively self-abolished. This is better than the capitalism under a red cloak you see in China or Vietnam.
I can understand criticisms of this theory, but no alternative has ever been able to convince me there's anything better. So for now Hoxhaists or Maoists make the most sense to me. Leftkkkoms seem to not give a shit about the imperialised countries and just affirm revolution in the first world before such a thing can be implemented elsewhere, which history has taught us is not how it works.
Feel free to convince me otherwise, though.
Marxists are interested in changing the mode of production not just making things slightly better
There is no such thing as a socialist state.
The paris commune was seen as the closet to the ideal dotp by Karl Marx.
OP is a revisionist.
>>2844006Nice arguments, bro. Very convincing.
>>2844009If you think that’s convincing, wait until you actually get into the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Gonna blow your socks off with that.
>>2844010Yes, I've read them, now please tell me why socialist commodity production is inherently bad, putting aside the name.
>>2844001Socialism can be implemented at any level at any time, it’s just a question of luck and perseverance whether the proletariat can withstand the inevitable repression of the global bourgeoisie. In a perfect world, the entire globe would be ruled democratically at a world legislature, with arbitrary distinctions like “countries” only being administrative divisions and not desperate beings in an anarchic state of nature as they are now. I never understood the Marxist squabbling over whether this or that country “can” impose socialism. Just seems like an excuse for the limitation of rights and freedoms under the guise of not being “ready”, presenting economic freedom as a long-term goal.
>>2844011>Yes, I've read them>now please tell me why socialist commodity production is inherently badSo you’ve read them? Yet instead of going ahead deeper into the discussion, you ask this? Bad faith or imbecile, call it.
>>2844014How is it different from doing NEP capitalism instead?
>>2844020I don’t think they said there was a difference
>>2844020It isn't. NEP was capitalism and no one claimed otherwise. Is also failed per Lenin's last speech
>>2844022>>2844023So what is a country with a fresh revolution meant to do?
>>2844024
It’s best…at hunting down the remaining bourgeoisie elements within the nation’s borders before moving on to the rest of the world. And burning all the money. And setting up the communes that will replace the dotp entirely.
>>2844004>it can be progressively self-abolished.do you have any evidence of this actually happening?
>>2844015>the entire globe would be ruled democratically at a world legislatureThis sounds horrible
>>2844021<SOURCE; the numerous societies around the world that developed communal, even centrally planned economies from early phases in development. The most famous would be the Incans in precolonial South America.
I don’t need a specific theorist to say that societies can progress in a certain way to believe it. Human beings develop differently based on an infinite number of traits about their environment and material access, to say nothing of the inherent randomness that results from isolated human development. People can develop systems of goods/labor distribution that are more equal or less equal in ways that are best left advocated for. Leave economic analysis of history to the anthropologists on this one.
>>2844028Historically? No because socialism never encompassed enough of the world.
>>2844025the revolution would abolish commodity production. The Russian revolution was premature they couldn't have implemented socialism at the state Russia was in
>>2844032so what is your basis for thinking it could "progressively self-abolished"
>>2844031You cannot be serious.
>>2844033>the revolution would abolish commodity production. The Russian revolution was premature they couldn't have implemented socialism at the state Russia was inGoing back to my point in the OP, you're basically giving up on revolution outside the imperial core.
>>2844035The Cultural Revolution is a good example for how this could be attempted.
>>2844030>the numerous societies around the world that developed communal, even centrally planned economies from early phases in development. The most famous would be the Incans in precolonial South AmericaThat’s primitive communism at best. That doesn’t count.
>>2844029Is this a better alternative? Where nations are treated as individuals not in a healthy, functioning society, but like cavemen beating each other with sticks for access to goods? The only half-decent argument I’ve heard is from indigenous people afraid that giving democratic control of their countries decision making to the world at large would pose a threat, but it would function more like an American state system. Where rights are guaranteed and applied equally as a rule and each locality would have the final say over the issues affecting them domestically, but paying tax into the federal system from which they can access funds in time of need. Anyone else saying this is a horrible idea are literally just colonialists openly defending the strongs right to bomb the weak.
>>2844036>Going back to my point in the OP, you're basically giving up on revolution outside the imperial core.Yes, but so what? No where in Marxist theory is the idea that any random country can just implement communism at any point in time you do realize this right?
>>2844037I would call the incans every bit as developed when they were conquered as the Russians were when they had their revolution.
>>2844036>The Cultural Revolution is a good example for how this could be attempted.they didn't self abolish commodity production in fact there is more commodity production post cultural revolution then prior
>>2844039ideally people groups would together through the principle of Juche establish their own relation to the outside world
>>2844042Marxists wouldn't
>>2844042>I would call the incans every bit as developed when they were conquered as the Russians were when they had their revolution.Crackhead statement. The incans were literal pre industrial society.
>>2844041It also presupposed revolution happening in the imperial core first and spreading from there, which was proven wrong historically.
>>2844043No shit, it failed, but a proper one that learned from its mistakes could potentially be successful in abolishing it once all production has been centralized.
>>2844048>which was proven wrong historicallySource?
>>2844051All the revolutions happening in backwater/third world countries?
>>2844052What revolutions?
>>2844045There needs to be a structured, democratic system for those relations to take place though, otherwise there is no effective power to truly prevent resource colonization.
>>2844054USSR, China, Vietnam, DPRK, Cuba, Angola, South Africa, etc. etc.
>>2844048>It also presupposed revolution happening in the imperial core first and spreading from there, which was proven wrong historically.he didn't assume revolutions would happen in the most developed nations first he suggested socialism would, of course there have been national liberations but none have been able to implement socialism just state capitalism at best
>>2844048>No shit, it failed, but a proper one that learned from its mistakes could potentially be successful in abolishing it once all production has been centralized.so your only example is by your admission a failure?
>>2844055>There needs to be a structured, democratic systemwhy
>>2844055>There needs to be a structured, democratic systemLiberal democracy gets the wall
>>2844047Idk man even with the atrocious theocracy that held power for most of their civilizations recorded history, they really seemed to establish a higher standard of living than anything the tsars put Russia through. Maybe they weren’t better developed from a linear wheel-to-iPhone timeline, but I know which one I’d rather live in. The native Americans were by no means a backwards people.
>>2844062Mode of production is not "standard of living" please actually read Marx for once
>>2844036>>the revolution would abolish commodity production. The Russian revolution was premature they couldn't have implemented socialism at the state Russia was in>Going back to my point in the OP, you're basically giving up on revolution outside the imperial coreI dont think that follows, even if socialism cant be fully achieved until it happens in the imperial core you can still mantain a DOTP, and plenty of places in the world now are more developed than russia or china were in the early 20th century, they need to get nukes tho
>>2844367
Marx didn't have a "positive alternative" to actually existing capitalism either so I guess his critique of it is dust in the wind too
>>2844373
he did lib out sometimes I agree with that
>>2844380
yes, he should have only ever taken the side of the international proletariat and nothing else
>>2844380
Lenin resolved most of the deficiencies in Marx, which typically had to do with his bad takes on colonialism and the internal affairs of colonized countries.
>>2844394
Tbf there wasn't really a proletariat outside of Europe at the time, and even there they were a minority while he was alive even in much of Western Europe.
>>2844394
>he just assumed all that bullshit in European capitals would be universal
im from latam, everytime someone I know from here travels to europe they tell me they were disappointed because its basically the same shit but richer and cleaner
>>2844417
why is he pretentious
>>2844001Those who call themselves leftycoms often ignore two quotes when discussing the socialist organization of the economy: one by Engels in "Anti-Dühring" and another by Lenin, if some opportunist distorts the concept of state capitalism as a pejorative insult that fails to distinguish between state capitalism in the regulated grain market in the Soviet Union during the NEP and the post-collectivization period after the NEP.
I'll start with the first quote:
<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. Distributionhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htmNow the second quote:
<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)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htmWith all this, you can be more confident in the position you want to defend; however, this does not mean that there are no advances that could be made in the socialist organization of the economy. This is useful against the narrative of "state capitalism" that some opportunists are spreading on the internet.
China is winning and making their country better, imperialoid.
>>2844475
>Thank god the pre-hispanic tribalism disappeared and a western order was imposed.
but the western order came with christcuckery tho, the ultimate cattlefier poison
>>2844475
its much better to kill one other over drugs i fully agree
>>2844482
maybe in a nominal way but its secular form is still very internalized
>>2844449Incorrect. If a backward, semi-feudal country has regions isolated from the world market and technologically lagging behind, the dictatorship of the proletariat can use state capitalism until it has the means of production for the socialist organization of the economy. This was done in the Soviet Union to organize a fully socialist economy because eventually collectivization extinguished the state capitalist sector when it was deemed no longer necessary, and because this state capitalism was causing problems due to kulaks and right-wing Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union who invented excuses for the petty bourgeoisie to speculate on grain prices to serve the counter-revolution, but eventually they exposed themselves and were purged.
Let's look at quotes that prove that the use of state capitalism at the time was correct instead of leaving everything to private capitalism and small peasant production.
The first quote proves that 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 Germanyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htmThis 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.htmLenin 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.htmLenin 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.htmNow let's see a quote that demonstrates that the NEP was something temporal according to Lenin:
<Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future, or an abstract picture, or an icon. Our opinion of icons is the same—a very bad one. We have brought socialism into everyday life and must here see how matters stand. That is the task of our day, the task of our epoch. 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.
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Speech At A Plenary Session Of The Moscow Soviet, November 20, 1922https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/20.htmNow, to help you understand that if the capitalists win in a counter-revolution, there will likely be neoliberalism in the current historical period after the Washington Consensus because these capitalists will probably be part of the comprador bourgeoisie wanting to sell the country to become a neocolony, but this depends on the proletariat losing the struggle for political supremacy.
>>2844491
>stoning and lashing women is still considered normal.
is it really? are you sure about that, theres a few countries where that happens but its a minority amongst the muslim countries theres also enough sub saharan christian countries that have cruel punishments and it shoud be stopped but its hardly normal but yeah nowadays its getting worse again thanks nato very cool keep bombing these shitholes and keep funding extremists im sure that helps making them more liberal, if you told your mates in for example palestine or lebanon in the 70s or 80s that youre observing your daily prayers (whether christian or muslim) they wouldve just laughed at you nowadays however shit has gotten so bad people need something to cope but thats due to the material conditions
>>2844001"a la USSR" shows you where this leads: stagnation and collapse. painful as it is to accept, the USSR is one big "how not to do it" guide and the left will fail again and again until it recognises this.
>>2844489>with South America enduring some of the highest regional homicde rates in the worldlatambros… we were the barbarians all along…
>>2844014automatic global revolution is imposibble so why don't you end your life instead?
>>2844038
might as well not have done the revolution at all atp
>>2844529>automatic global revolution is imposibblesource?
>>2844531>>automatic global revolution is posibblesource?
>>2844499Wrong again. When the five-year economic planning began after collectivization, state capitalism no longer existed. State capitalism was effective as it was superior to private capitalism and small-scale peasant production in preparing the creation of a cooperative sector to facilitate the transition of peasants to collective cooperative production. For this, it was necessary to separate the poor and middle peasants from the more prosperous peasants, the kulaks, who conspired to wage war to deceive peasants against urban workers about problems created by the capitalist relations that still existed during the NEP. The kulaks tried to manipulate this with grain speculation to facilitate imperialist capitalist intervention from abroad, which needed a favorable and opportune scenario.
Revisionism and the degradation of the dictatorship of the proletariat is another matter, but the Bolsheviks already demonstrated how the proletariat assumed its political supremacy to socialize the economy. Nowadays, technology has spread much further than it did back then, eliminating the problem of isolated small-scale peasant production. Therefore, the use of state capitalism to acquire technology and technological sovereignty would be much faster, not forgetting what can be organized with socialist economic planning immediately after seizing the means of production.
>>2844502Incorrect. Stagnation is a myth invented by opportunists when the same level of growth is not achieved as during Stalin's government to justify liberal reforms and capitalist restoration. However, this is not necessary because the level of construction required by Stalin's government to meet the needs of the population is not necessary after the means of production have been built and the country has been industrialized. Furthermore, even during Brezhnev's government there was growth; however, a socialist economy does not need meaningless, infinite growth because it does not follow the logic of capital accumulation profiting from the sale of goods in the market, but rather economic planning to meet the needs of the population.
>>2844532global capitalism homogenizing and interconecting everything
>>2844535>global revolution seems to have even less chances of happening than a progressive transformation into full communism at a global scalewhat makes you think that
>>2844547It seems pretty self explanatory that a revolution would happen in one or maybe a handful of countries at a time instead of everywhere all at once. Revolutionary situations are rare, and successful revolutions even more so. A simultaneous world revolution is unprecedented in history. The closest thing was the bourgeois revolution, which began its earliest phases in the 17th century and didn't reach the more remote corners of the world until the 20th.
>>2844535You are a liberal
>>2844534>Wrong again.Prove this data wrong then
>When the five-year economic planning began after collectivization, state capitalism no longer existed. Economic planning isn't socialism, the social relationships.of capitalism were not abolished during Stalin's rule
>Revisionism and the degradation of the dictatorship of the proletariat is another matterNo it isn't, they are a fundamental problem of Marxism-Leninism.
>not forgetting what can be organized with socialist economic planning immediately after seizing the means of production.So we wouldn't need state capitalism then.
>Stagnation is a myth invented by opportunists when the same level of growth is not achieved as during Stalin's government to justify liberal reforms and capitalist restoration.But I thought state capitalism doesn't result in capitalist restoration, which one is it?
>>2844001> inherentlystop using this word you democrackka
>>2844537This does not change the fact that conditions in countries around the world are not equal for a revolutionary situation to occur, and these capitalist countries do not have equal relations with one another, nor do they have the same level of organization of workers and the communist movement. Many countries lack access to any of the technology that would be necessary for technological sovereignty to organize a socialist economy if the means of production were seized in these countries, and would have to be recreated. Furthermore, current imperialist capitalism is a barrier to the development of the means of production in many countries because it is useful for maintaining indebted neocolonies and intensifying the exploitation of their workers. Moreover, the conditions for a revolutionary situation have never historically occurred simultaneously throughout the world; this would be unprecedented.
>>2844561>A simultaneous world revolution is unprecedented in history.we live in an exceptional era tho, never before have people been comunicating in the way we are doing right now for example, if something as unlikely and unprecedented as a global revolution had any chance of happening ever is now, I don't see it any much more likely or unlikely to happen than an USSR 2.0 is likely to succeed with the gradualist approach that has already been tried and failed
>>2844537literally proof of the opposite of what you are arguing for
>>2844597Unless you believe capitalism is still revolutionary
>>2844561>A simultaneous world revolution is unprecedented in historyit's lieterally impossible once you take into account the existing conditions within capitalism advocating for it means going back to pre-scientific socialism, it's pure moralism and 0 materialism
>>2844571you are an enemy of the working class
>>2844598capitalism being interconected does not make it weaker but stronger and instant global revolution even less likely
stop coping you are delussional
>>2844592
>You realize the bourgeois control the internet and can pull the plug on it any time they want right?
they won't do shit
>>2844571>Prove this data wrong thenYou are including data from the period of restoration of capitalist relations during the Gorbachev government.
>Economic planning isn't socialism, the social relationships.of capitalism were not abolished during Stalin's ruleWrong. Capitalism requires generalized commodity production, which did not exist in the Soviet Union. The socialization of the economy made capital accumulation impossible, and there was no competition for profit among agricultural cooperatives. Therefore, it was not capitalist. Economic planning in the Soviet Union bore no comparison or resemblance whatsoever to the sale of goods in the market for profit that characterizes capitalism. The modes of production prior to capitalism were not capitalism, so the Soviet Union was not capitalist. Therefore, the so-called "Stalinists" are not wrong.
The Soviet Union abolished private property, unemployment, and all features of capitalism for the planning of the economy. State capitalism, small-scale commodity production, and the private capitalism of the NEP (New Economic Policy) by peasants in the rural sector were eventually abolished by Stalin, who reorganized the rest of the economy as a socialist economy according to an economic plan with state farms and agricultural cooperatives that did not compete for profit.
You are ignoring petty commodity production, or simple commodity production, that existed before capitalism. If you ignore this, you will not understand the historical formation of capitalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie as the dominant class, which needs a society that produces commodities according to market sales, following exchange value instead of use value, which did not exist in countries that socialized their economies, such as the Soviet Union.
Now I will post a quote proving my point:
<Both commodities and money are the elementary presuppositions of capital, but they only develop into capital under certain conditions. Capital formation cannot occur except on the basis of the circulation of commodities (which includes the circulation of money), hence at an already given stage of development of trade in which the latter has achieved a certain extension. The production and circulation of commodities, however, do not conversely presuppose the capitalist mode of production for their existence; on the contrary, as I have already demonstrated, they also “exist in pre-bourgeois social formations”. They are the historical presupposition of the capitalist mode of production.>> [442] On the other hand, however, it is only on the basis of capitalist production that the commodity becomes the general form of the product, that every product must take on the commodity form, that sale and purchase seize control not only of the surplus of production but of its very substance, and that the various conditions of production themselves emerge in their totality as commodities which go into the production process from circulation. Hence if the commodity appears on the one hand as the presupposition for the formation of capital, the commodity also appears, on the other hand, as essentially the product and result of the capitalist production process, in so far as it is the universal elementary form of the product. At earlier stages of production, products assume the commodity form in part. Capital, in contrast, necessarily produces its product as a commodity. [Sismondi] Therefore, to the degree that capitalist production, i.e. capital, develops, the general laws developed with regard to the commodity — for example, the laws concerning value — are also realized in the different forms of money circulation.[…]
<The conversion of’ money, which is itself’ only a converted form of the commodity, into capital only takes place once labor capacity has been converted into a commodity for the worker himself; hence once the category of commodity trade has taken control of a sphere which was previously excluded from it, or only sporadically included in it. Only when the working population has ceased either to form part of the objective conditions of labor, or to enter the market as a producer of commodities, selling its labor itself — or more precisely its labor capacity — instead of the product of its labor, does production become the production of commodities to its complete extent, over the whole of its length and breadth. Only then are all products converted into commodities, and only then do the objective conditions of each individual sphere of production enter into production as commodities themselves. Only on the basis of capitalist production does the commodity in fact become the universal elementary form of wealth. If, e.g., capital has not yet taken control of agriculture, a large part of the product is still produced directly as means of subsistence, not as commodities; a large part of the working population will not yet have been converted into wage laborers, nor will a large part of the conditions of labor have been converted into capital. This implies that the developed division of labor, as it appears accidentally within society, and the capitalist division of labor within the workshop, conditions and produces each other. For the commodity as the necessary form of the product, and therefore the alienation of the product as the necessary form of its appropriation, imply a fully developed division of social labor, while on the other hand it is only on the basis of capitalist production, hence also of the capitalist division of labor within the workshop, that. all products necessarily assume the commodity form, and all producers are therefore necessarily commodity producers. It is therefore only with the coming of capitalist production that use value is first generally mediated through exchange value.
<3 points.
<1) Capitalist production is the first to make the commodity the universal form of all products.
<2) Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist production, once the worker has ceased to be a part of the conditions of production (slavery, serfdom) or the naturally evolved community no longer remains the basis [of production] (India). From the moment at which labor power itself in general becomes a commodity.
<3) Capitalist production annihilates the [original] basis of commodity production, isolated, independent production and exchange between the owners of commodities, or the exchange of equivalents. The exchange between capital and labor power becomes formal:
<Economic Works of Karl Marx 1861-1864, The Process of Production of Capital, Draft Chapter 6 of Capital, Results of the Direct Production Process, Chapter 1: Commodities as the Product of Capitalhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch01.htmLet's take Capital so you can read Marx using the term generalized commodity production:
<This result becomes inevitable from the moment there is a free sale, by the labourer himself, of labour-power as a commodity. But it is also only from then onwards that commodity production is generalised and becomes the typical form of production; it is only from then onwards that, from the first, every product is produced for sale and all wealth produced goes through the sphere of circulation. Only when and where wage labour is its basis does commodity production impose itself upon society as a whole; but only then and there also does it unfold all its hidden potentialities. To say that the supervention of wage labour adulterates commodity production is to say that commodity production must not develop if it is to remain unadulterated. To the extent that commodity production, in accordance with its own inherent laws, develops further, into capitalist production, the property laws of commodity production change into the laws of capitalist appropriation.
<Karl Marx. Capital Volume One, Chapter Twenty-Four: Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital, 1867https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm
>No it isn't, they are a fundamental problem of Marxism-Leninism.Wrong. 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.
>So we wouldn't need state capitalism then.There will be, at some level, until technological sovereignty and economic sovereignty are acquired, which can exist during bourgeois democracy, revolutionary war, and at the beginning of the dictatorship of the proletariat 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. Although, depending on the case, it may not be necessary if all means of production are available for planning in a socialist economy with independent and sovereign technology.
>But I thought state capitalism doesn't result in capitalist restoration, which one is it?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.
>>2844582Imagine being this close and still not getting it.
If imperialist capitalism wishes to mantain the third world indebted perpetually and also has the means to do so, it is obvious communist struggle must occur inside the imperial core, as in an otherwise a multipolar capitalist world eliminating one major imperial power means the rest of the imperial will join forced and fight against you (basically what happened with NATO)
Something these kind of leftists also do not explain is how many of the productive forces™ need to be developed, to what extent do they need to be developed, do everyone need a lathe, a laser welder, a cnc sheet bender, a diesel truck, and so on? What even is the "development of productive forces" is it the change in the organic composition of capitalism? If we need to turn every industry anywhere in the world into a fully automated dark factory like the chinese car industry has to have a communist revolution, we could already have one because China has pretty much already has the possibility to engage in communism, yet they don't.
>>2844599>you are an enemy of the working classYou are not even working class
>>2844582>This does not change the fact that conditions in countries around the world are not equal for a revolutionary situation to occurbut they become more equal the longer capitalism keeps going
>nor do they have the same level of organization of workers and the communist movementits basically equally shit almost everywhere
>Many countries lack access to any of the technology that would be necessary for technological sovereignty to organize a socialist economy if the means of production were seized in these countriescapitalism is well developed in most of the world and this is all thats necessary for socialism, do you realize many places even in the third world are more developed now than the semi-feudal russia the USSR was born out of was?
>this would be unprecedented.doesn't matter
obviously proletarian revolution happening in each and every single country in the planet at the same time is very unlikely, but the conditions for it happening in at least mutiple ones at the same time are better now than they were in the past
>>2844620>eliminating one major imperial power means the rest of the imperial will join forced and fight against you (basically what happened with NATO)nato is a paper tiger thou
>>2844623>Capitalism will keep going until it’s physically impossible to continue it, just like with all the other modes of productionno mode of production just "ceased" to exist thats not how history works dumbass
>>2844626>they become more equal the longer capitalism keeps goingyou are living in a word of delussions
>the conditions for it happening in at least mutiple ones at the same time are better now than they were in the pastyeah maybe once a bunch of countries manage to do these revolutions they can make some sort of union of revolutionary states or something
>>2844001>Socialist commodity productionStopped reading there
>>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 UnionCommodity 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.
>unemploymentNot necessarily means they had socialism
>and all features of capitalismWrong, 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 acquiredliberalism
>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 technologyWow, 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 tigerSo what is China waiting for then?
>no mode of production just "ceased" to existName one feudal nation
>>2844636>you are living in a word of delussions
<The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. >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?
>>2844652Generalized 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 itselfthis negro hasn't heard of the french revolution
>>2844650<it creates a world after its own imagethe 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
>>2844652sure that part is retarded but op is right about the rest
>>2844661>the french revolution Not every country had a violent bourgeois revolution, retard
>>2844656both are wrong because global proletariat revolution will never happen and more development of productive froces is not necesary for revolution in one country
>>2844664wich proves some had to have one for feudalism to disappear
>>2844665when 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
>>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
>>2844729Better poet and writer than Marx though
>>2844729What 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?
>>2844738What 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>alcohol>anti socialAnti Bacchus propaganda from Christoid zealots
>>2844745You either are a mean drunk or have never met one
>>2844001Funny 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.
>>2844785Communism 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 timelineWrong 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 UnionCommodity 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.
>FalseProve 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.
>CuteSo 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 socialismA 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 socialismIf 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 socialismHave 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 Partyhttps://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 Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>I am notYou 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 capitalismWrong. 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 IIhttps://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 Communismhttps://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 capitalismWrong 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 Zeitunghttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/05/19c.htm
>liberalismI 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 planThere 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 againSo 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 timeSo 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 otherThe 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 productionIncorrect. Some of the value was appropiated by party officials, military generals and ministers.
>Meeting the needs of the populationFalse
>And the economic planThere 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.
>>2844903And 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
>>2845004Pretty much proven by the leftcoms in this thread, yup.
>>2845013>>2845004Buttblasted M-Loids lol
>>2844910I 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.
>>2845310Was 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. >>2844571You 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?
>>2845310You are embarassing yourself and leftcoms by proxy.
>>2845356Copy-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
>>2844837>there exists no exploitation under communism.Where do communists get their metals, fossil fuels, and timber? Just hoping all the natives are dead by then?
>>2844903>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.Wrong. Stalin finished what Lenin had left and acted within the available socio-historical limitations. Khrushchev's anti-Stalin rhetoric, along with "De-Stalinization," falling into the false narrative of decentralization or ignoring class struggle by imagining a "state of the whole people" instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat, fantasies of peaceful coexistence, and even encouraging simulations of competition in a socialist state, damaged the dictatorship of the proletariat. Breshnev, in response, represented those who criticized Khrushchev, resolving some of the problems but remaining complacent and lacking vision for the path forward, allowing this degradation of the dictatorship of the proletariat to continue. With all this, what we see is that more revolutionary terror was needed, not tolerating the talk of false criticisms such as those that deny the supremacy of the proletariat, deny the dictatorship of the proletariat, deny socialist economic planning, fantasize about decentralization, lack self-confidence and spread distrust in order to defend the dictatorship of the proletariat, which should be defended no matter how much you are hated and no matter how many counter-revolutionary opportunists have to be punished with re-education or worse, depending on the case. Stalin himself had suggestions that in the future agricultural cooperatives could become state farms belonging to the whole society as an advance in socialist construction that could be achieved. The communist movement of the proletariat having scruples, to me, is demonstrating weakness for the enemy class to exploit. Furthermore, there are scientific foundations in socialism that must be defended in the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be allowed to lose its right to use revolutionary terror. It cannot be forgotten that there should be a much more brutal and radical Brezhnev Doctrine to defend proletarian dictatorships, socialist economies, maintain the supremacy of the proletarian class, and advance the communist cause no matter how many casualties there are, no matter how much it is hated and feared as "evil" by opportunists.
>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.Wrong again. State capitalism did what it had to do with its limitations. Capitalist restoration tends to occur due to weaknesses that are exploited by agents of imperialist capitalism, capitalists, and the lackey petty bourgeoisie to try to implant a neocolony with a comprador bourgeoisie as the target to be infiltrated. This success depends on the degradation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, giving space for confusion to opportunists to open weaknesses and spaces for counter-revolutionaries to advance. I had studied many coups d'état by capitalists in the past and realized that what facilitates this is a naive socialist left that underestimates the enemy, fantasizes about humanism, not wanting to be "authoritarian" like the Soviet Union, believes that being vigilant against reactionaries, liberals, and opportunists is unfounded paranoia, is afraid of power or using force for communist revolution, is afraid of suffering more to serve the revolution or having to make sacrifices together. The greatest weakness I see in the left that suffered coups at the hands of the bourgeoisie is wanting to be a martyr for Jesus, losing with a moral high ground against the enemy, and being afraid of conflict, wanting others to feel sorry for them.
All this reminds me of Marx's criticisms of the Paris Commune, which was the great decency and "good nature" that caused their downfall, and which caught my attention. I realized this element was a factor in some communist movements that failed to carry out the revolution in their countries, often not even having prepared for a revolutionary situation, thus demonstrating weakness in my opinion and often having a worse fate than those who demonstrated strength and trusted in themselves, but failed. However, these others have my utmost respect as heroes in the class struggle, even with some of them being martyrs.
>This happened under Stalin's government, Stalin alligned with the west.You are confusing the fact that the Soviet Union always saw the threat of British capitalist imperialism as an obstacle to be overcome for the advancement of the socialist cause. Common interests due to historical circumstances were already evident, with the Soviet Union having to secretly aid Republican Spain while the Allies pretended to be neutral, blocking aid but allowing the reactionaries to help the nationalist side in the Spanish Civil War. Stalin never stopped seeing the threat of imperialist capitalism in his foreign policy, even after the Second World War, and he also wrote that a global socialist hegemony was necessary for the proletarian state to wither away, always seeing the threat of the saboteurs of imperialist capitalism. Furthermore, reactionaries spending their time in conflict with a liberal capitalist country that was surreptitiously helping the reactionaries to become cannon fodder against communists is more acceptable to me than if they had used these fools for their original purpose. A multipolar world opens space for the socialist bloc to strengthen globally, but if a capitalist country in a multipolar world is an obstacle and a threat to communists, why shouldn't alliances of convenience be used?
When I say "lower your guard," I'm talking about using revolutionary terror and purges, which were used very effectively to prevent infiltration by reactionaries who could serve as collaborators serving the capitalists with Operation Barbarossa. Deaths and casualties aren't as important to me because defending the supremacy of the proletariat and preventing the degradation of the dictatorship of the proletariat are more important. The formation of an independent industrial base also earns my respect for using socialist economic planning.
>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.Wrong. My method would be to never have de-Stalinization for opportunists to blame problems on the demonization of the previous figure. Many problems in the Soviet Union could have been solved better without making a scapegoat that has nothing to do with capitalism.
With the experiences of socialist construction in the 20th century, there is already knowledge of many false discourses that can be detected and the foundations of scientific socialism that can be defended to maintain revolutionary fervor and discipline among workers to maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist state.
>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.Wrong. There were exchanges abroad to acquire technologies, spread the revolution, and encourage countries to develop independently. These exchanges also involved losses for the Soviet Union, benefiting the other side, tied to gold in a system of bartering that allowed countries to develop more independently and encourage the spread of sovereign technologies and industries. This also forced imperialist capitalists to make concessions that are no longer permitted today. Unlike imperialist capitalism, which creates relationships of dependency with peripheral countries in the so-called Third World to intensify exploitation, socialist countries encouraged the opposite in the Third World, aiming for more sovereign economies and more equal relations through the use of state-owned enterprises and cooperatives. Eventually, imperialist capitalism also made concessions to its puppets and collaborators simply to preserve the capitalist system until it felt more secure to implement neoliberalism, which consolidated as foreign policy with the Washington Consensus.
>So Pemex isn't capitalist?The Pemex company is still in a bourgeois state with significant debt under the control of rentiers. Its management is tied to private profit because it is very common for the interests of private capitalism, through "technocrats," to place the interests of private companies in the administration of a public company to sabotage it or simply serve the interests of capitalists as intermediaries. A public company needs to be 100% public and not mixed; this facilitates public policies that do not follow the logic of profit, potentially allowing oil and gas to not follow speculative international prices but rather meet the needs of the population. However, this requires industrial sovereignty, energy sovereignty, and financial sovereignty.
Therefore, it is necessary to audit this debt and renegotiate and cancel any means of payment of these debts that are following the financial speculation of rentiers. This will break part of the imperialist control. Don't forget that the entire financial sector must be state-owned, free from financial speculation. Nationalizing all banks is a necessary slogan, but a national public bank can facilitate cheap credit for the working masses, along with cooperatives and public enterprises.
All production-sharing contracts with transnational corporations need to be terminated. All neoliberal reforms that opened the energy sector to private capital need to be reversed. It is necessary to develop national public technology for the exploration and refining of everything possible, eliminating dependence on imperialist knowledge. It is necessary to pivot oil trade to alternative currencies to weaken the Western financial blockade and damage imperialist capitalist control. It is necessary to establish elected workers' councils to manage production and audit finances; this will break the control of technocratic intermediaries who serve the capitalist class. It is necessary to democratize the Pemex union (STPRM), eliminating the manipulation of class conciliation that domesticates workers, along with union wage equalization, to force all these workers to fight, win, and lose together, preventing opportunists. It is necessary to open the accounting books for public and working-class scrutiny to combat the misappropriation of funds and to get the population used to participatory budgeting, which prevents closed-door actions that capitalists love to use. It is necessary to direct refining revenue directly to domestic consumption (public transport, communal agriculture) at cost price. Oil revenue can also be used to finance the transition to a diversified state-owned industrial infrastructure to prepare for future actions by the enemy class and to expand into other sectors to safeguard against weaknesses that capitalists will try to exploit if there is no preparation.
For environmentalists reading this, remember that current oil revenues can be used to build a clean, state-owned energy matrix; it's possible to compensate and restore the environment for indigenous and peasant communities affected by extractive activities; and to implement more environmental preservation policies through the democratization of the economy, meaning public ownership with worker participation in national economic planning.
Let's look at quotes that prove my point, starting with "The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier," which was written after the publication of Capital Volume 1 and after the Paris Commune, with the following policy measures:
<B. Economic Section[…]
<3. Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers' statistical commission;[…]
<11. Annulment of all contracts that have alienated public property (banks, railways, mines, etc.), and the exploitation of all state-owned workshops to be entrusted to the workers who work there;
<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrierhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.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.
<These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
<Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.[…]
<5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.[…]
<7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmRemember that, as Lenin said, state monopoly capitalism is on the verge of becoming socialized public property, and Pemex is an opportunity that should not be wasted with childish resentment, demonstrating that you are neither revolutionary nor useful for the supremacy of the proletarian class.
>>2844903>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.Wrong again. Capitalists only follow the logic of capital accumulation—extracting surplus value from the sale of goods for more money. This has nothing to do with meeting any of the capitalist's needs. The freedom of the bourgeois state exists only for the bourgeois as bourgeois. Your words mean nothing and go against the writings of Marx and Engels.
Another point is that there is no accumulation by officials in the Soviet Union, any leisure service such as the use of a swimming pool was available to the entire population, in addition, any inequality that one worker had over another depended on the specific needs of the worker, such as having children, and the work done that the worker received had a minuscule inequality compared to any other type of society.
The so-called privilege you are talking about is a fantasy invented by resentful, liberal, and opportunistic people.
Have you forgotten what Marx wrote about how the economy works in low-stage communism?
<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.
<Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
<Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
<In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
<But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmDid you also forget this other quote in the capital?
<Given the mass of surplus-value, then, the larger the one of these parts, the smaller is the other. Caeteris paribus, the ratio of these parts determines the magnitude of the accumulation. But it is by the owner of the surplus-value, by the capitalist alone, that the division is made. It is his deliberate act. That part of the tribute exacted by him which he accumulates, is said to be saved by him, because he does not eat it, i.e., because he performs the function of a capitalist, and enriches himself.
<Except as personified capital, the capitalist has no historical value, and no right to that historical existence, which, to use an expression of the witty Lichnowsky, “hasn’t got no date.” And so far only is the necessity for his own transitory existence implied in the transitory necessity for the capitalist mode of production. But, so far as he is personified capital, it is not values in use and the enjoyment of them, but exchange-value and its augmentation, that spur him into action. Fanatically bent on making value expand itself, he ruthlessly forces the human race to produce for production’s sake; he thus forces the development of the productive powers of society, and creates those material conditions, which alone can form the real basis of a higher form of society, a society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle. Only as personified capital is the capitalist respectable. As such, he shares with the miser the passion for wealth as wealth. But that which in the miser is a mere idiosyncrasy, is, in the capitalist, the effect of the social mechanism, of which he is but one of the wheels. Moreover, the development of capitalist production makes it constantly necessary to keep increasing the amount of the capital laid out in a given industrial undertaking, and competition makes the immanent laws of capitalist production to be felt by each individual capitalist, as external coercive laws. It compels him to keep constantly extending his capital, in order to preserve it, but extend it he cannot, except by means of progressive accumulation.
<So far, therefore, as his actions are a mere function of capital — endowed as capital is, in his person, with consciousness and a will — his own private consumption is a robbery perpetrated on accumulation, just as in book-keeping by double entry, the private expenditure of the capitalist is placed on the debtor side of his account against his capital. To accumulate, is to conquer the world of social wealth, to increase the mass of human beings exploited by him, and thus to extend both the direct and the indirect sway of the capitalist. [20][…]
<At the historical dawn of capitalist production, — and every capitalist upstart has personally to go through this historical stage — avarice, and desire to get rich, are the ruling passions. But the progress of capitalist production not only creates a world of delights; it lays open, in speculation and the credit system, a thousand sources of sudden enrichment. When a certain stage of development has been reached, a conventional degree of prodigality, which is also an exhibition of wealth, and consequently a source of credit, becomes a business necessity to the “unfortunate” capitalist. Luxury enters into capital’s expenses of representation. Moreover, the capitalist gets rich, not like the miser, in proportion to his personal labour and restricted consumption, but at the same rate as he squeezes out the labour-power of others, and enforces on the labourer abstinence from all life’s enjoyments. Although, therefore, the prodigality of the capitalist never possesses the bona fide character of the open-handed feudal lord’s prodigality, but, on the contrary, has always lurking behind it the most sordid avarice and the most anxious calculation, yet his expenditure grows with his accumulation, without the one necessarily restricting the other. But along with this growth, there is at the same time developed in his breast, a Faustian conflict between the passion for accumulation, and the desire for enjoyment.[…]
<Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets! “Industry furnishes the material which saving accumulates.” [23] Therefore, save, save, i.e., reconvert the greatest possible portion of surplus-value, or surplus-product into capital! Accumulation for accumulation’s sake, production for production’s sake: by this formula classical economy expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie, and did not for a single instant deceive itself over the birth-throes of wealth. [24] But what avails lamentation in the face of historical necessity? If to classical economy, the proletarian is but a machine for the production of surplus-value; on the other hand, the capitalist is in its eyes only a machine for the conversion of this surplus-value into additional capital. Political Economy takes the historical function of the capitalist in bitter earnest. In order to charm out of his bosom the awful conflict between the desire for enjoyment and the chase after riches, Malthus, about the year 1820, advocated a division of labour, which assigns to the capitalist actually engaged in production, the business of accumulating, and to the other sharers in surplus-value, to the landlords, the place-men, the beneficed clergy, &c., the business of spending.
<Karl Marx. Capital Volume One, Chapter Twenty-Four: Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital, SECTION 3.SEPARATION OF SURPLUS-VALUE INTO CAPITAL AND REVENUE. THE ABSTINENCE THEORYhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htmNow I'll leave it to you that the formula for the circulation of capital is M (Money): Money / initial capital invested. C (Commodity): Goods purchased. M' (Money plus): Money added / valued (M + Δ M).
M - C - M' did not exist because there was no private property, competition, owners, or sale of goods in the market to generate profit because everything was already planned in advance with the total value of labor in production, according to the planning of the national economy. Therefore, there is no accumulation of capital, and there is no way to invest money to generate more money. The means of consumption were consumed directly by the workers through distribution by the state-owned enterprises of the socialist state.
>Cool, the USSR still traded commodities with foreign nations. That's capitalism.Wrong. Trade is not capitalist, just as bartering in pre-capitalist societies is not capitalist. Trade between countries also doesn't mean capitalism; there is no generalized commodity production, nor is wage labor being bought as labor power to extract surplus value by some capitalist for profit in the market. Furthermore, the Soviet Union's trade with other countries served to create an alternative system outside the dollar, allowing other nations to develop independently with state-owned enterprises and to receive what they need to minimize the blackmail of imperialist capitalism. This would be detrimental to the Soviet Union if you look at it from the perspective of gaining something extra. However, a socialist country benefits the more economic sovereignty other countries possess, the more independent industry exists in other countries, and the more democratized technology in the world. This is the opposite of imperialist capitalism, which needs dependent countries to facilitate intimidation and coercion, intensify exploitation, and facilitate the possibility of imposing sanctions, blockades, and threats against its enemies who do not accept subjugation.
>>2844903>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.Wrong. The very information offered about the Soviet Union in Blackshirts and Reds already shows that the difference in workers' earnings was between 1 and 3 times, any leisure benefit such as dachas or holiday homes was public, as was everything else, with no capacity to accumulate capital. All needs were already guaranteed: health, education, food, transportation, childcare, sanitation, leisure, and community were socialized, not private property. Therefore, you are the one who is wrong. Workers were paid according to the motto "from each according to their ability, from each according to their work."
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?
Wrong again. The difference in lifestyle in the Soviet Union was minimal, with so-called luxuries like swimming pools and theaters being public and enjoyed by the population. All I see here is a resentful person with no class consciousness who is probably ignorant enough to regurgitate the lie that if you privatized the state-owned company of the country where you live, there would spontaneously be a global communist revolution. Any data you provided has no source, so you demonstrated nothing, only lies.
You pretend that what is wrong is "propaganda" and what is right is not. I replied that communist propaganda is correct, your propaganda is false and without source, and I don't pretend that propaganda is something bad, even though I have been using the Marxist source texts of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and you have used nothing, inventing a "common sense" that what you say is true, the same false myths propagated by capitalists and opportunists.
>Incorrect. Some of the value was appropiated by party officials, military generals and ministers.Wrong again. No source again. Scientific socialism has nothing to do with any fantasy of individual value separate from the worker in cooperatives; capitalism makes production social with private appropriation. In low-stage socialism, everything is social, done on a national economic level; the leisure that the population enjoys belonged to public property, belonging for the population to use.
Again, a speech from a resentful person who doesn't analyze the means of production, having an obsession with wages and no source.
>FalseYou have no sources, so you are the one who is false.
>There is a huge argument here that allows us to understand the economic plans did not meet the general needs of the population.There is nothing. The economic plan is made collectively serving the supremacy of the proletarian class, petty-bourgeois individualism that does not accept discipline, organization, collective planning and does not recognize the supremacy of the organized proletariat as a class is not tolerated and will be punished. Do you think I have some subjectivist attachment to whiny fantasies like yours? The advancement and supremacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat will be maintained no matter how much suffering is necessary or opportunists will have to be punished.
>It is. The law of value and the value form still exist.Wrong again. There was no private property, anarchy of production, and no social classes of owners; there was no M-C-M' capital circulation circuit since the population consumed from state-owned enterprises. The only types of property recognized were public and collective property (such as cooperatives in the countryside that did not compete with each other, having only a relationship with the Soviet state) plus personal property for the personal use of the workers. Capitalism is not something eternal that has always existed, but rather something historically specific, and the Soviet Union does not fit into this definition unless you distort it to call pre-capitalist societies capitalist, vulgarizing the term and losing all meaning.
>That is irrelevant, the Soviet state engaged in commodity trade with other nations, in no different manner to state capitalist firms in modern times.Wrong again. There was no exchange to serve any market, but rather exchange between countries. State capitalism often exists to support capitalists collectively or to provide support for some of them. Again, countries engaging in trade is not capitalism unless you call all pre-capitalist societies that engaged in trade and diplomacy capitalist. You're still wrong.
>Foreign trade is still capitalism, these commodities sold by the state exchanged according to their market price.Wrong again. Foreign trade in the Soviet Union did not follow market logic; it existed similarly to barter and the use of an external currency of rubles pegged to gold to exist outside the world market as diplomacy and aid to other countries allied to the Soviet Union, or to have relations with neutral countries that decided to make a specific exchange. Foreign trade is a monopoly of the socialist state to separate internal and external currency so that there is no capital accumulation and capitalist infiltration. Furthermore, foreign trade is not capitalism.
>I already explained that the accumulation of currency isn’t the accumulation of capital.So your entire argument proves false. The Soviet Union was socialist, and you concede this. The fact that there is no difference in workers' consumption when the ruble increases and decreases demonstrates that there is no capital accumulation nor the surplus value that Marx wrote about in "Value, Price and Profit". In a capitalist country, increasing wages would decrease the surplus value that the capitalist exploits from the workers, thus incentivizing the economy to produce to meet the consumption of these workers. This would occur even in state capitalism. However, because the Soviet Union was a socialist economic system, which is different, this logic of increasing wages begins to make no sense in a system where money functions more like a certificate, with the means of production being socialized. This fact again demonstrates that the Soviet Union was not capitalist.
>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.Wrong again. Here, only the use value that the worker receives as means of consumption exists; the internal flow of goods did not circulate, and there was no formation of any M-C-M' circuit of capital circulation. There was no exchange value because everything depended on how much was produced, and the incentive or disincentive to consume was decided in the democratic economic planning that was distributed to the population. Local people's councils adjusted the plan and updated the larger people's councils with information that would prepare the next national economic plan. Therefore, taxes lose their meaning unless there is an interest in discouraging the consumption of some means of consumption.
All this is different and closer to the cost of production plus the use value. What was produced in the Soviet Union's economic plan was done directly with the natural resources of the means of production, without needing to worry about tax collection or the sale of goods to acquire profit with more money; therefore, further proof that it was not capitalist.
>Lol no. Go read Capital again.So Marx was secretly against Engels, or is it just the fantasy of Capital that you don't cite or provide sources for, existing only in your imagination?
Because I have a quote that I put against you that Marx did not object to in any of the letters when Engels was writing his manuscripts that he eventually published that proves my point:
<III. Proletarian Revolution — Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.
<Frederick Engels, 1880, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific III, [Historical Materialism]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
>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?He only wrote in the preface that it could have been written differently given the new circumstances. He didn't deny the measures in Section II, and he himself wrote other political proposals for a bourgeois state later in "Programme of the French Workers' Party" by Karl Marx and Jules Guess in 1880, which also obviously involve state capitalism. Besides, you haven't quoted anything. Proving again that you conceded you were wrong.
>Doing away with the specific elements of the NEP doesn't mean they did away capitalism.Stalin ended the entire NEP and the kulaks, ending state capitalism, private capitalism, and small-scale peasant commodity production, leaving only collective and public property with recognition of personal property for personal use, not allowing the exploitation of other workers.
>When was this ever discussed?When you vulgarize any exchange as if it were capitalism and vulgarize the term state capitalism that Lenin wrote in The Tax in Kind because Lenin listed (4) state capitalism and (5) socialism as having existed at the time he wrote in the Soviet Union. However, you distort it into something he didn't write, so you are being a reformist opportunist afraid of "authoritarianism" because state capitalism isn't even a term used by Marx and Engels.
>Nationalization isn’t socialism.It is a necessary step as a tool to start the socialization of the property. Nationalization can also be done without compensation, expropriations can also serve as tools too, but scientific socialism is not against nationalizations, only opportunists like you. By taking private property to be public property it can easily be reorganized so as not to serve the profit or exchange price of what is produced with workers organizing it according to the national economic plan meeting the use value without capitalist intermediaries getting in the way. In all communist revolutions there will also be occupations or any means to acquire power and spread revolutionary terror. Denying tools is the speech of opportunists.
>So why did he stop there?The goal here is to prepare the peasants for cooperative work and to acquire the machines and knowledge to use them and replicate them for other workers, along with a level of industrialization and electrification to connect these isolated regions, and not to fall into the trap that the kulaks were trying to set: a war between urban proletarians and rural peasants in a civil war that would serve as a springboard for foreign intervention along with reactionary puppets to elevate these kulaks to become new capitalists. There were right-wing revisionist individuals within the communist party who needed to be exposed and purged; they defended these kulaks and manipulated society behind the scenes in their defense. The material conditions did not allow for socialist economic organization in these isolated rural peasant regions where capitalism had not expanded. Therefore, state capitalism to prepare cooperatives was preferable to the private capitalism of kulaks and their gangsters expanding, fueling prejudice between the urban worker and the ruined rural peasant to go to the cities, who were constantly being coerced by the kulaks who controlled animals, the best lands, and wanted to indebt and sabotage these poor peasants, in addition to manipulating grain prices.
>The means of production are global, so it can’t be done in one country. So is Marx wrong in his Critique of the Gotha Programme here?
<It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle – insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form".
<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter Ihttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmOr the Communist Manifesto?
<Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1848, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>History has shown this method of achieving socialism is flawed as it results in capitalist restoration.Wrong. State capitalism is a tool that has been used successfully, but what results in capitalist restoration is a matter of defeat in the class struggle against imperialist capitalism. Having consolidated the revolutionary proletarian state, it loses if there is no preparation against opportunists who use false rhetoric against "authoritarianism" and seek "freedom" to attack the supremacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, with the organized proletariat as the new dominant class that the opportunist hates and wishes to prevent and end. The foundations of scientific socialism must be maintained even by force, regardless of the consequences, how many opportunists will have to be punished, or how much suffering will exist.
>>2845809>Wrong. Stalin finished what Lenin had left and acted within the available socio-historical limitations. Khrushchev's anti-Stalin rhetoric, along with "De-Stalinization," falling into the false narrative of decentralization or ignoring class struggle by imagining a "state of the whole people" instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat, fantasies of peaceful coexistence, and even encouraging simulations of competition in a socialist state, damaged the dictatorship of the proletariat. Ok, that is an argument against YOU, not against me, is Stalin abolished state capitalism, if Stalin abolished commodity production and private property, how come these "revisionists" took power? Where did they come from? How come such a group was allowed to gain so much power as to place Khrushchev at the top.
Are you seriously so stupid that you cannot understand this???
Stalin did not abolish capitalism, Stalin did not abolish class relationships, that's why they were allowed to "take over".
>With all this, what we see is that more revolutionary terror was needed, not tolerating the talk of false criticisms such as those that deny the supremacy of the proletariat, deny the dictatorship of the proletariat, deny socialist economic planning, fantasize about decentralization, lack self-confidence and spread distrust in order to defend the dictatorship of the proletariat, which should be defended no matter how much you are hated and no matter how many counter-revolutionary opportunists have to be punished with re-education or worse, depending on the case.Again, this is YOUR problem to address, You believe you can do away with class relations, the value form and commodity fetishism that existed under Stalin with political repression, explain how?
>Wrong again. State capitalism did what it had to do with its limitations. Capitalist restoration tends to occur due to weaknesses that are exploited by agents of imperialist capitalism, capitalists, and the lackey petty bourgeoisie to try to implant a neocolony with a comprador bourgeoisie as the target to be infiltrated.So your system is flawed then, again, don't explain to me shit I already know as an attempt to reply to my criticism. The system YOU propose is what resulted in capitalist restoration.
Imagine we are discussing how rust forms in metal, we know the electro-chemical process behind rust, so when I suggest you to paint carbon steel or put a film of oil on top of it, you cannot reply with "we wouldn't need a layer of paint or oil if only oxygen and electrical charges didn't rust the metal".
Are you able to understand this analogy? I do not care that you explain to me what happened in the Soviet Union, I I want you to explain how you go from
>Stalin achieved socialismTo
>Petty bourg opportunists engaged in revisionism and restored capitalismAgain, do not remind us that "petty bourgs" engaged in capitalist restoration, explain how it was possible that these agents of capitalism manifested themselves out of thin air if Stalin was able to achieve socialism.
We will adress one point at a time because you clearly ignore the topic we are discussing.
>>2844944>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.It only proves that you are wrong, you continue lying and manipulating those who do not have a formed scientific socialist theory, again proving nothing, just being an opportunist who harbors resentment for the tools that can be used in the supremacy of the proletariat and therefore will be crushed and re-educated in the revolution when bourgeois freedom and bourgeois individuality will be eliminated for national economic planning to be done.
>What you cited is State propaganda used to justify commodity production.What I quoted was written by Engels before any socialist state existed, therefore you are wrong. Marx didn't write anything opposing what Engels wrote, so you are neither a scientific socialist nor a Marxist.
>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. As long as there is no global socialist hegemony and the various contradictions of society that create the state still exist, the dictatorship of the proletariat will wither away as these conditions are resolved by socialist society. Furthermore, state-owned enterprises will always be useful as a tactic and strategy in the revolution and in the face of a revolutionary situation. Remember that many capitalist countries in the world do not have factories or knowledge of semiconductors, electronic chips, and technologies of many industries that will need to be remade in these countries after a revolution, or even before, to be expropriated and democratized for use by the dictatorship of the proletariat to achieve economic, technological, industrial, food, financial, and energy sovereignty to secure the revolution against the threat of imperialist capitalism.
>I literally never stated this.To vulgarize the term "state capitalism" that Lenin used is a discourse of opportunists who fantasize about decentralization, so you are indeed saying this as a typical tactic of opportunists to try to deceive.
>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 idealistWrong. According to the circumstances and knowledge of the time, I do not blame the communists of that time. With the experiences and knowledge gained from the Cold War up to the present day, I see the need to maintain revolutionary fervor, to uphold the foundations of scientific socialism within a socialist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and to avoid actions that would be considered "authoritarian" and "imperialist" by liberals, reformists, and opportunists.
However, I do not deny that the Soviet Union was socialist and that it lost the class struggle against capitalist imperialism. But it has been successful long enough in what I consider acceptable and useful for future revolutions: to detect the various discourses of opportunists, as well as how to organize socialist construction to reach a level beyond Stalin and Mao Zedong, without denying the experiences and contributions of previous revolutionaries. I do not deny any useful tools that can be employed before or during a revolutionary situation, tools that will be useful in the socialization of the economy during the dictatorship of the proletariat, and during the socialist economy.
>No I don't, again, you have no idea what is being discussed in this partI only see you as an opportunist who doesn't want to organize nationally in your country, who doesn't want to take an anti-imperialist stance, which is necessary to avoid feeding imperialist capitalism, in solidarity with the workers of the world, to advance the class struggle in your country, to prepare for a revolutionary situation, and to take advantage of the tools you have to use in the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat without giving up. The way you write is like waiting for the universe to create a perfect revolution for you, but your intention is to demobilize future communists so they don't organize, don't defend the revolutionary experiences of the past, don't create and strengthen a revolutionary communist party for the supremacy of the proletariat independent of the bourgeoisie, don't know what to do during a bourgeois democracy until the revolutionary situation, during the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in the socialist construction of the economy.
>That's cool, but completely irrelevant to this part of the discussionThis is relevant for opportunists who hide behind idealism to avoid acting to build forces in preparation for a revolutionary situation, and who do not want to engage in socialist construction or defend the dictatorship of the proletariat, fantasizing about immediate full communism worldwide.
>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.Counter-revolutionaries and all who deny the supremacy of the proletariat will be crushed and re-educated, or do you think the communist revolution has to do with feeling pity or morality? Revolutionary terror is necessary for the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeois state; the enemy classes will not feel pity and will also have no scruples for their enemies.
>No surprise, MLs are just temporarely embarrassed imperialists.It doesn't have the 5 characteristics that Lenin described as imperialist capitalism, so it's not capitalist imperialism. Furthermore, I doubt that a country that doesn't even have economic sovereignty, where communists try to take over, will have the luxury of creating another imperialist capitalist center when this country will probably be attacked by almost all capitalists who want to crush and isolate it to subjugate it and become a neocolony. This depends on building a national electronics and internet infrastructure to secure the revolution against capitalists abroad, minimizing threats that try to hinder the socialization of the economy.
>Again, this is idealism, explain exactly what the development of the productive forces™ is?This is not idealism. I recognize several industries that are lacking in third-world countries; the industry that exists is dependent and limited, without technological control. Therefore, state-owned enterprises will be key to accelerating the bankruptcy of all capitalists so that they can be expropriated using the production of these state-owned enterprises. All machines need to be understood and remade nationally, along with the electronic software, to prevent sabotage, espionage, and infiltration.
This is necessary to coordinate economic planning unless you want to be at the mercy of foreign capitalists who will besiege their target state to overthrow you. Any immoral act is acceptable to me to achieve technological sovereignty as quickly as possible to secure against threats to the dictatorship of the proletariat. I do not underestimate the enemy classes, I do not tolerate giving up, and I do not tolerate weaknesses that the enemy class can use against the supremacy of the proletariat.
>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.Vânia Bambirra and several writers following Marxist dependency theory clearly demonstrate in Brazil this entire dependency relationship that can also be seen in the world, dependent industrialization and the need to build a national public technological base for many countries in the world that are being deindustrialized and financialized, and that it is not possible to return to this dependent industrialization.
The use of state-owned enterprises could solve this problem, while state competition in producing products in the market can be used as a weapon to bankrupt other capitalists to facilitate expropriations, occupations, nationalizations, and socializations, facilitating the abolition of private property.
>Again, based on what?Based on the fact that many countries do not have the technology to manufacture semiconductors and that all the electronic infrastructure of the internet depends on the United States in Latin America. This is an intolerable weakness.
>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.Until the revolutionary situation arrives, you will have to use state capitalism. Once you have a dictatorship of the proletariat, state capitalism will be used to deliberately ruin all other capitalists, to accelerate the socialization of the economy and crush those who will fight for the return of the bourgeois state. Technology for weak points where there is no national industry will be acquired in various ways to initiate a self-sufficient socialist economy. The means of production seized in the revolution will already be organized into a socialist economy, so there will be no problem. Furthermore, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is consolidated, I would say that acquiring these technologies would be quite fast if you don't let morality get in your way. There will be no problem of small-scale, isolated, technologically backward commodity production, so I would say it will be quite fast.
Regarding your question of how long this will take, I would say until these technologies are produced in a factory in a reproducible way, accessible to the population economically, until the socialist part of the economy encompasses the entire socialist country for the production and use of everything.
>LarpDo you think there will be no suffering and sacrifice in a communist revolution? Then you are being naive.
>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.A state-owned company will be created to compete in all branches of the economy against private companies, cooperatives will be encouraged, and everything will be done to encourage class struggle until all private companies go bankrupt or are expropriated before that happens. Occupations will be encouraged, and everything will be used to bring chaos to overthrow the bourgeois state and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Another necessary action is to follow what Marx and Engels always criticized in the Paris Commune: the need for the nationalization of banks, which every revolution has done to succeed. This will be useful to accelerate the socialization of the economy. During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the socialization of the economy can be done with the means of production seized, occupied, nationalized, and expropriated for collective national economic planning, while part of the resources and revolutionaries will focus on consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat and acquiring all the technologies necessary to have technological sovereignty in any way possible.
You seem to me like someone who is afraid to use a tool that will be discarded.
>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.A state-owned company will be created to compete in all branches of the economy against private companies, cooperatives will be encouraged, and everything will be done to encourage class struggle until all private companies go bankrupt or are expropriated before that happens. Occupations will be encouraged, and everything will be used to bring chaos to overthrow the bourgeois state and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Another necessary action is to follow what Marx and Engels always criticized in the Paris Commune: the need for the nationalization of banks, which every revolution has done to succeed. This will be useful to accelerate the socialization of the economy. During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the socialization of the economy can be done with the means of production seized, occupied, nationalized, and expropriated for collective national economic planning, while part of the resources and revolutionaries will focus on consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat and acquiring all the technologies necessary to have technological sovereignty in any way possible.
If there is no factory producing something necessary for the population that should have it, and there is no technological base to produce something, then this must be corrected in any way possible. Any exposed weakness that imperialist capitalism will use against the dictatorship of the proletariat must be remedied. Whether what needs to be done is "immoral" or "authoritarian," or whether I will be hated, is irrelevant to me because I will not tolerate these weaknesses to the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor will I be complacent about them.
>No, that is what I face everyday in my backyard’s socialist republic. But how is this related to socialism?If you depend on imports or products controlled by multinationals abroad, or infrastructure abroad, then this has to be resolved urgently. This is a reality that new revolutionaries will have to deal with during and after a revolution in the global south or a country on the periphery that has primary-exporting economies. With the natural resources in these countries, this can be done.
>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 socialismWrong. Past socialist experiments worked in practice, and the use of state capitalism to flood the market to bankrupt capitalists also worked, following what Engels wrote. The proletariat, organized as a class, will achieve power by following the revolutionaries who succeeded in overthrowing bourgeois states to acquire their supremacy. The Soviet Union does not work according to you and the propaganda of cowards who are afraid of "authoritarianism" to capitulate to capitalist propaganda. The Soviet Union lasted, so it is already a useful example of how to achieve power because it worked. Those who deny this will be punished as counter-revolutionaries if they stand in my way with idealistic fantasies.
>That will be you.Wrong. That would be you wanting a non-authoritarian global revolution. I am in favor of implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat by force and acquiring the means of production by any means. If there are no means of production, they will be recreated with state capitalism, with the proletariat in command to initiate this sector into a socialist economy. All tools that are useful for the supremacy of the proletariat will be used, all obstacles will be eliminated, workers will be disciplined for the socialist economy, speeches about giving up because they bring suffering, because an action is "immoral" or "authoritarian" will also be punished, rationing will be used, sacrifices will be made, everything will be done to acquire economic sovereignty. Workers who do not accept the supremacy of the proletarian class as the ruling class will be punished along with all counter-revolutionaries with re-education. Technological sovereignty and economic sovereignty will be achieved, and the dictatorship of the proletariat will be defended no matter how many would have to die or how much suffering would have to come, or how many people close to me would have to die and suffer.
>>2844944>Again, feel free to explain how do you account the productive forces™ so as to decide we need state capitalism.If the technology is located abroad and there is no factory to produce it, this is obvious; if there is private capitalism to be extinguished, this is also obvious that I will not leave behind weapons and tools that could be used for the supremacy of the proletariat.
>Yeah, your model of development is flawed, that's what I’ve been saying all the time.Wrong. Focusing on growth in a socialist economy while trying to copy some logic from capitalist countries leads to these kinds of actions. Throughout the socialist period there was growth. This type of discourse comes from people regurgitating capitalist logic without questioning all the capitalist countries with less growth than the Soviet Union. Backward, peripheral capitalist countries lacking means of production may have immense growth, probably because there is space for mass construction, but eventually this falls as these constructions end and there is nowhere to expand.
In terms of development, the Soviet model proves to be far superior.
>LolThis was a problem of individuals who were following the wrong logic without understanding that the internal ruble currency did not circulate. It was earned through work and spent to acquire the means of consumption by the workers. Therefore, I would say that one must be careful with opportunists in socialist countries who want to imitate the capitalist West, causing annoyance in socialist society or worse.
>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.But there were changes in essence: nationalizing the means of production so that only public and collective property existed, with all this subordinated to the economic plan and not to the anarchy of production, with no more capitalists or any class of owners. The law of value was barred from being the primary regulator of the overall proportions of labor distributed throughout the national economy. You ignore the fact that there were no owners or an industrial reserve of labor; production did not follow the logic of seeking exchange value of goods in the market, but rather an economic plan following use value and without competition.
>>2846056>Ok, that is an argument against YOU, not against me, is Stalin abolished state capitalism, if Stalin abolished commodity production and private property, how come these "revisionists" took power? Where did they come from? How come such a group was allowed to gain so much power as to place Khrushchev at the top.
>Are you seriously so stupid that you cannot understand this???
>Stalin did not abolish capitalism, Stalin did not abolish class relationships, that's why they were allowed to "take over".Wrong. When you abolish social classes and private property, there are many individuals who retain their consciousness before the socialist society. Furthermore, there are opportunists who will be encouraged by agents of imperialist capitalism and the old order of capitalists and ex-aristocrats who are supported by other capitalists. They will encourage any error or weakening of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to launch further attacks. The Soviet government during Stalin's rule had purged many of the reactionaries that the Nazis could use in the war, or opportunists wanting to maintain the NEP, but Stalin died after the Second World War, which had worn down the Soviet state from the war and for a time focused on reconstruction. Another wave of purges would be necessary, and there was the problem that this was the first experience of socialist construction in history, with its limitations.
Stalin never considered having a socialist state to mean perpetual security against infiltration and sabotage, and I also don't consider it so as long as there are capitalists in the world financing puppets, reactionaries, and useful opportunists.
>Again, this is YOUR problem to address, You believe you can do away with class relations, the value form and commodity fetishism that existed under Stalin with political repression, explain how?By abolishing private property, the anarchy of production, and the social classes of owners that Stalin did, and collectively organizing the economy, there is still the war against world capitalism and the threats of imperialist capitalism and its agents. This will require suppressing constant enemies being funded to weaken the dictatorship of the proletariat and the supremacy of the proletariat. There is still the ultimate victory of global socialist hegemony to be achieved; until that happens, you use what you have and perfect the socialist economy along with aid to communists worldwide, national liberation movements, and alternative systems so that nations have more equal relations and more proletarian states are defended and secured in the world.
>So your system is flawed then, again, don't explain to me shit I already know as an attempt to reply to my criticism. The system YOU propose is what resulted in capitalist restoration.Wrong again. Bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas subservient to the bourgeoisie are constantly funded abroad; eventually, agents will constantly infiltrate to spread confusion and opportunism that facilitate worse elements entering and being cultivated internally. This will last as long as there is still a global capitalist hegemony. Any threat to the enemy class will be combated in every possible way; to ignore this is to be naive or one of the opportunistic, idiotic useful tools of the capitalists.
>Again, do not remind us that "petty bourgeois" engaged in capitalist restoration. Explain how it was possible that these agents of capitalism manifested themselves out of thin air if Stalin was able to achieve socialism.The petty bourgeoisie also includes artisans as workers using their own labor power without exploiting another worker, if you forgot.
You have to understand that this is a process; agents of imperialist capitalism will usually constantly encourage a naive opportunist tendency that does not see the influence of these agents as so bad, or does not combat it, to encourage worse opportunism in order to open space for a petty bourgeoisie to form, which will serve as a springboard for capitalist restoration and eventually the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, the capacity of the dictatorship of the proletariat to use revolutionary terror to defend the supremacy of the proletariat cannot be weakened by opportunists who cloud the ability to combat the agents of the enemy class. For this reason, these types of opportunists, who seem more "innocent" but who degrade the dictatorship of the proletariat, must also be punished, and the masses must be better educated to combat this type of threat. In this case, there is something to be learned from Mao Zedong and the Chinese revolution about the Cultural Revolution, although I do not separate this from Marxist-Leninism.
>>2846657>When you abolish social classesSocial classes were not abolished during Stalin's government. I already explained that capitalists do not seek capital accumulation just for the sake of accumulating capital, the accumulation of capital is a necessity to exploit the proletariat. Capitalists seek to accumulate wealth so they can enjoy a lavish lifestyle, such discrepancy in the level of wealth available for people was never abolished in the Soviet Union, Leaders of ministries, partymen and generals in big cities enjoyed a lifestyle that was unattainable by countryside peasants. This is a well documented fact, you chose to ignore this because it conflicts with your ideology. We as communists seek to abolish exploitation, in the USSR there was exploitation on the basis that labour was commodified by this new ruling class. The new ruling class had access to many more commodities than the industrial or agricultural workers. As a matter of fact, the very instance of health risk related to labour being only present on industrial or agricultural workers, while the new ruling class loyal to Stalin enjoyed lavish dinner parties, this is well documented. A classless society isn’t possible when miners die of lung fibrosis while the minister of coal is getting drunk with Stalin.
>there are many individuals who retain their consciousnessLol are you an idealist? Why would it matter if a minority group of people retain their reactionary ideology? If Stalin was able to abolish classes and establish socialism (he didn't) then it would not matter if a minority group of reactionaries attempt to restore captalism, because the Proletariat would have been able to defend the DotP in this case, but as we know, the proletariat under Stalin's regime did not establish a dictatorship.
I cannot try to re-establish monarchism in México, as the DotB would put me in jail if I decide to pay taxes to the Spanish crown instead of paying taxes to the Mexican state. The only way we could re-establish the Colony of New Spain is if the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, decide to abolish the Mexican state, as a result, we can understand the following:
A minority group cannot decide to re-establish a previous historical period if they aren’t in control of the state. The only way a group can re-establish a historical period is if they are in control of the state, so if the reactionary revisionists were able to return to capitalism after Stalin, then we understand that they had control over the so called “socialist” State under the leadership of Stalin. If an anti-communist, revisionists, reactionary group controls the state, then such state cannot be considered a DotP.
With this simple logical analysis we can determine Stalin did not establish socialism, nor he was able to abolish social classes.
Again, we won't move any further until you are able to refute this.
>>2847288You have to give treats to upper member of society, or else they just go ask for them by working for the ennemy, this is the treatler paradox, people living in abject poverty can't dream of getting private poverty and fuck offing from the state
>Socialist commodity productionYou mean state capitalism? The state manufactures and sells commodities to a domestic and international market, and profits are accounted for as budget and/or trade surpluses?
You can read on some details on the early Soviet economy here (1929):
https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/index.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch05.htm >>2847352Tolstoy defined the government as organized violence not organized democracy
>>2847329How is that different from what Marx advocated for with his criticism of the concept of "the undiminished proceeds of labour" in Critique of the Gotha Program?
I don't know if you've heard of the stagflation crisis that hit Europe in the 70s. Stagflation means that inflation and unemployment rates soar at the same time, which was theoretically impossible according to economic theories from the early Cold War (the Phillips Curve), but it happened anyway. At that time, the prices of key raw materials for production (like oil and food) skyrocketed suddenly (during the first and second oil crises), which drove up production costs for businesses. Even when the economy was sluggish, companies still had to raise prices, leading to runaway inflation. Because costs were just too high, consumers couldn't afford them, so companies' profits were severely squeezed. They had no choice but to cut production or even go bankrupt, which in turn caused unemployment rates to soar and the economy to stall. Since Europe couldn't continue making huge profits locally, companies started looking to developing regions for absolute or comparative advantages. So it's pretty impossible for a country to achieve a complete industrial cycle. China might be the closest, but its high-tech still lags behind that of developed countries
I think the biggest problem right now isn't "better national systems," but multinational big capital
＞It redistributes all profit into the well-being of the population…
Tituation probably only existed in the social democratic European countries during the early Cold War (typical examplbeing Scandinavia, but times have changed. Multinational capital won't let you put all your profits intwelfare programs because they need to "reproduce" themselves (I'm not entirely sure about this though).
No country can lock in capital - China can't, Norway can't, Russia can't either (unless they voluntarily withdraw, like Russia did)
>>2844032>1/3 of the earth's population results in literally 0 meaningful progresssocialism in one paradox achievement
>>2847485You fell for the monetardist narrative. In reality the oil supply shock caused stagflation and the Club of Rome used it as an excuse to discredit full employment policy so they could usher in neoliberalism.
Unique IPs: 55