/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

this bait is mid, you should have workshopped it a bit longer. also the tony soprano chudjak's neck is wider than his collar. fix the collar.

>>2875128
state monopoly is still a monopoly, you got scammed by a rebranding campaign

OP is gonna get banned by faggy mods who don't read while OP is simply repeating the pro-Buhkarin/Dengist line or the Guy Debord one.

and the party burecrats were broke compared to any capitalist

>>2875160
just like me!

I see that this is the Dengism thread

It's true but I agree, OP will still get banned for baiting because the mods are tankies. Monopoly is monopoly - obsession purely with monopoly by private citizens is as intentionally myopic as l*bertarians who care only about state power rather than private power. Power is power.

>>2875226
why does 2026 correct to 1.

>>2875227
Site automatically puts text in numbered form when you place a number at the beginning

>>2875236
Read Bordiga, Bordiga, Read Bordiga….
Read Bordiga, Bordiga, Read Bordiga….

Leftcoms, all unite
Let the people fight,
Be a lazy shit, do sweet fuck all

Activism is pointless,
Your efforts are all fruitless,
I'll just wait for capitalism to fall,
till then I shall read

>state capitalism
Wrong. Markets and small producers dominated the economy. It was barely regulated capitalism.

>>2875236
Hey are you Mexibro? Miss that handsome brown man like you wouldn't believe

material explanation why communist parties are so good at capitalism but bad at communism?

>>2875272
because picrel

>>2875270
No I'm the teto poster

>>2875128
its fine bait, you can imagine any two cent leftcom saying this word for word

>>2875350
>its fine bait, you can imagine any two cent leftcom saying this word for word
that's exactly what makes it mid tho

There’s only one way this argument ever goes, the ultras/anti revisionists will say “this is insufficient or even counter sufficient” the right and revisionists will go “something is better than nothing, what’s your proven alternative?” back and forth until either the sun swallows the earth or the FBI finally seizes this shithole.

Fact

>>2875478
I can’t read this

>>2875483
It’s missing the army

>>2875483
>Collective farmers on the bottom
Wrong. They're at the top. Seethe harder capitalistoid.

>>2875535
True, unlike the capitalist west where those dastardly party bureaucrat makes 20x the wage of the average farm, in glorious social democracy, they make a measly 5x time, that puts them way below in political power to the average gigachad collective farmer

>>2875123
If the USSR was state capitalist, does that mean that modern China is a free market economy by comparison, considering how the Chinese economy is more liberalised than the Soviet one?

>>2875540
the free market is a misnomer under actually existing capitalism but yes

>>2875123
Mensheviks won in the end. The Russian Empire got their liberal regime in the 1920s

Historically progressive

>>2875123
Okay, then riddle me this, how was the surplus product allocated, did it take on the form of capital? You are talking about monopoly capitalism in state form, in what way was the USSR a rentier state?

>>2875148
>guy who thinks co-ops are socialism tells people to read
Classic
>Guy Debord
Pedo

>>2875123
>private dachas
There was no private property in the USSR. Everything was owned by the state, and cannot not be sold or inherited to another in a private manner.

>>2875123
I belong in the shitzone of /pol/
I have been banished to /leftypol/ and I am too lazy to ban evade.

I'm glad to be around smarter people of leftypol.

>>2875123
>banned all market competitors by forcelabor
Exhibit A: Retard does not know what he is talking about

>>2875483
Exhibit B: Another retard does not know what he is talking about. At least make the pyramid on the right shorter and wider. There was much less stratification in the USSR compared to the Russian Empire. And the higher strata earned less than their counterparts elsewhere. They were not that richer compared to everyone else. Why do you think they all wanted to switch to capitalism in the 1980s? Also, why China has communist billionaires. I hate how everything reverts to feudalism eventually. AcademicAgent wins again. Iron law of oligarchy.

>muuuuuh monopoly
clowns

>>2875129
>you got scammed by a rebranding campaign
its tragicomical that this is all "marxism-leninism" ever was and people still fall for it to this day

>>2875677
Neither leftcoms nor anarchists have any kind of proven alternative

>one single corporation (the Party) owned 100% market share and banned all market competitors by forcelabor
This is not true at all. Markets existed in all sectors of the USSR from 1921 onwards, as I show in this report (1921-28): >>2857646
This taken from official Soviet literature published by the party (1929):
https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/index.htm
Stalin's later collectivisation of agriculture still left the production of commodities intact (e.g. via markets), by his own report in 1951:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm
The later liberalisation through subsequent leaders obviously left a market system in place, the same as what occurs in China today. A state monopoly on certain sectors such as industry does not mean a total control of the economy.

>>2875679
Good think communist internationalists do.

>>2875692
No you fucking don’t, you just produce treats for capitalist treatlers

>>2875694
Are you still in elementary? No treats until you finish your homework this week.

>>2875697
Marxism Leninism doesn’t exist, it’s just alter liberalism, liberalism in countries with weak bourgeois
>but le CIA CONSPIRED to DeStROy us
They also conspired to destroy tsarist russia, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan. Notice how none of your bullshit revolutions happened anywhere with a strong, entrenched bourgeois.

>>2875483
trvke
>>2875656
>There was much less stratification in the USSR compared to the Russian Empire. And the higher strata earned less than their counterparts elsewhere.
so? it still wasn't classless, everything else is lesser evil moralism and has nothing to do with socialism, go suck bureaukkkrat dick somewhere else

>>2875701
>They also conspired to destroy tsarist russia, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan.
the CIA only started existing after WW2 you retarded monkey

>>2875702
>Bureaucrats are a class
I swear to god the intellectual capability of this board has decreased so much the last years. This shit used to be mocked

>>2875704
Intelligence agencies have existed for as long as class society has, the Greek revolution was the original western backed color revolution

>>2875706
They’re PMC, meaning not proletarian, ML “”””states””” are nothing more than dictatorships of managers

>>2875708
>“”””states”””
what did you mean by this?

>>2875710
All states are fake

>>2875708
>PMC
It doesn't get better. Go back to DSA posting on twitter

>>2875715
the soviet union was nothing more than a fat DSA meeting, finger snaps and all

>>2875713
I’m gonna freely associate all of your face

>>2875706
keep sweeping for the not-a-class that sold out the USSR bro

>>2875717
It seems like I hit a nerve.

>>2875777
You’re an alt liberal same as every “marxist”

>>2875702
Ok dipshit, if someone makes a better plane will you still be a dipshit and be like
>muh idealism is getting in the way
Or will you fly the thing, especially when you are racing against time?
I know you are not a serious faggot so go suck glowie dick elsewhere. You will never be J. Sakai.

>>2875784
Man was never meant to fly, and the world is already out of kerosene, and burning it fucks the climate up

>>2875784
>if someone makes a better plane
I don't care about capitalism but le betterer because I'm not a socdem like you, sorry (and if the USSR was truly "a better plane" then it would still exist)

>>2875790
My bad, you are not a glowie. You are a child.
Good does not always win in this world. The USSR was the better option, but the elites wanted to be oligarchs so they betrayed themselves. Meanwhile the shitty US is still around and is a miserable shithole, but hey, it's oligarchs are happy so yeah.
But I guess by your logic, pissrael is the better option because they will genocide who they want.

>>2875787
And then you wonder how the american indians were genocided.

>>2875794
Keep burning jet fuel and everyone dies numbskull, the genocide is for nothing, you can’t even argue it’s “historically progressive” (KKKarl Marxxx’s word for moral)

>>2875794
>But I guess by your logic, pissrael is the better option because they will genocide who they want.
it was the USSR under your daddy Stalin that helped create Israel btw, not me, so take it with the "better plane" builders
>but the elites wanted to be oligarchs so they betrayed themselves
they didn't betray themselves, they just followed their material interest (which was opposed to the proletariat's, nice "workers state" you got there)

>>2875796
Bordiga, is that you?

>>2875813
>it was the USSR under your daddy Stalin that helped create Israel btw, not me, so take it with the "better plane" builders
Yeah, and they should not have done that, but they got fooled and then spent the rest of the USSR's existence fighting pissrael (although they should have tried harder).
>they didn't betray themselves, they just followed their material interest (which was opposed to the proletariat's, nice "workers state" you got there)
Was it in their material interest to get fooled by the west into destroying their country? Look at modern russia and how desperately they still want to be accepted by the west. The USSR was a workers' state compared to what came before and what came after. I have no idea why you need to deny this to make your leftoid fantansies come true.

>>2875823
>Was it in their material interest to get fooled by the west into destroying their country?
they got rich doing it so yeah, they weren't "fooled" you peasantoid brained retard, this is "the tsar just has bad advisors" levels of cope lol, have some self-respect

>>2875123
Capitalism requires generalized commodity production, which did not exist in the Soviet Union. 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.

The Soviet Union lacked the elements of capitalism such as employment was guaranteed, all industry was public because it was nationalized and socialized to follow the national economic plan meeting the needs of workers, and all production followed a collective plan rather than selling for profit in the market. There was no financial speculation or methods of accumulating capital. Agricultural cooperatives had an exclusive relationship with the state, not competing with each other, the rest were state farms, with workers receiving the surplus after deductions from the total according to their labor and needs. There was no private property, no social classes of owners, and no anarchy of production. The internal ruble currency did not circulate, functioning as a certificate of labor to access means of consumption; the so-called "privileges" you mention did not exist. There was public property to cater to the leisure of the population, which was accessible to the rest of the population. Holiday homes were used by workers after contributing their labor, being collectively maintained, and temporarily used as the worker's personal property during vacations. The inequality that one worker had over another in the Soviet Union was minuscule if you research the subject.

In the Soviet Union, the external ruble served to facilitate foreign trade; it was linked to gold and existed to enable more egalitarian relations—allowing countries to develop and industrialize outside the control of capitalist imperialists and to pursue a socialist path as an alternative to the dollar. Internationally, it aimed to break the dependency of peripheral nations on unequal relationships by fostering state-led initiatives, even though barter was also utilized. All of this served the purpose of securing necessary goods from abroad and defending socialism and anti-imperialism. Until a socialist victory establishes global socialist hegemony—thereby allowing the state to wither away and full communism to be achieved—such measures remain necessary.

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

<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.htm

Here, one can see that any fantasy of workers receiving the total social product is not socialism; rather, the worker receives a return from society—out of the public property and following the deductions Marx described—in the form of benefits derived from what has been socialized. What the worker actually receives is access to means of consumption via a certificate of their labor, adhering to the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work," until there is sufficient abundance to follow the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." An economy consisting merely of cooperatives and petty-bourgeois producers competing with one another in the market is not socialism.

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

Now I will post a quote proving my point:

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

<3 points.

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

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

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

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

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

>>2875123
Continuing what I wrote here:
>>2875827
Let'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, 1867

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

On the issue of fantasies about decentralization, Marx positioned himself against this; popular councils should organize collectively in associations for the national plan and not compete for petty interests with fantasies of localism. Furthermore, the dictatorship of the proletariat must suppress those who deny the supremacy of the proletarian class:

<The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.

<In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.

[…]

<The Communal Constitution has been mistaken for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins,[B] that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production. The antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization. Peculiar historical circumstances may have prevented the classical development, as in France, of the bourgeois form of government, and may have allowed, as in England, to complete the great central state organs by corrupt vestries, jobbing councillors, and ferocious poor-law guardians in the towns, and virtually hereditary magistrates in the counties.

<The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society. By this one act, it would have initiated the regeneration of France.

<Karl Marx: The Civil War in France, The Third Address, May, 1871, [The Paris Commune]

buckle up boys, the quotemining king has arrived

>>2875830
is it a real person? i'm not sure.

>>2875825
>they got rich doing it so yeah, they weren't "fooled" you peasantoid brained retard, this is "the tsar just has bad advisors" levels of cope lol, have some self-respect
They got their 30 pieces of silver and they still did not get a seat at the western table. I am not exculpating them, but they should have never trusted the west.

>>2875849
you are still implying they were le tricked without adressing the fact that their material interest was in opposition with the one of the rest of the working masses (i.e. the proletariat) of the USSR, which makes the "workers state" label absurd, doesn't matter how much le gooder it was to what came before or after
once you kick your lesser evil moralism cope addiction all of this will be self-evident to you and you will laugh at your old self
good luck

>>2875827
>>2875828
This is what Lenin wrote (1921):
<Get down to business, all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them. 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htm
Lenin himself described the Soviet Union as "State Capitalism".
This cope is unwarranted.

>>2875861
Why are you quoting Lenin in 1921 on Comintern 3rd Congress? Completely irrelevant to what's being discussed lmao

>>2875483
the soviet pyramid is a pancake retard btw

>>2875868
The claim is that the USSR wasn't even capitalist since profit and money didn't exist, when this is false.

>>2875813
stalin never materially supported israel, the soviets armed syria, lebanon and egypt btw in 1948 since then.

the zionists czechoslovaks that did armed israel were executed.

>>2875483
the soviet pyramid is a pancake übermensch btw

>>2875914
I love pancake!

>>2875859
>truth doesn't matter
What is your ideology retard?

>>2875861
You are confusing state capitalism during the NEP, which is superior to private capitalism, and small-scale peasant production in the countryside, preparing peasants for collective production in cooperatives. This eventually came to an end with collectivization under Stalin when state capitalism was no longer useful and the right-wing sector could be exposed and more easily purged. This ended the manipulation of grain prices by the kulaks, who were already trying to wage a civil war to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat. State capitalism was a limited market in the countryside and followed what Engels wrote:

<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, 1894, The Peasant Question in France and Germany

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

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

You confuse and forget that Lenin says there were five modes of production in Russia during the time he wrote during the NEP and wrote about state capitalism:

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

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

Lenin argued strongly in favor of building socialism and said it was no longer a matter of the distant future, but something viable that could be built during the immediately following years:

<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.

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

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/20.htm

This is what Lenin said in 1923:

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

<Lenin, “Our Revolution” (1923)

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ch09.htm

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

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

<Lenin, “On Cooperation” (1923)

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

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

<For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

<There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism.
[…]
<The dialectics of history is such that the war, by extraordinarily expediting the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily advanced mankind towards socialism.

<Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.

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

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

this isn't anything new OP. the amalgamation of all capital into one giant ball of capital, thus abolishing competition, exchange and capital itself, is the historical path of history and the duty of all communists

Holy based