/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan

Putting infantile critiques of Marxism-Leninism to bed Anonymous 02/19/2020 (Wed) 20:57:58 No. 286051
Let's clean up some misconceptions ultraleftists have about Marxism-Leninism. >bureaucracy A bureaucrat is not the same as a capitalist as the relationship to the means of production is proprietary. A bureaucrat can not decide that a factory must produce fidget spinners instead of steel ingots because producing consumer products is more profitable. >exploitation Exploitation in the Marxist sense is the rate of surplus-value extraction, e.g. the difference between the reproduction cost of variable capital (labor-power commodified) and the exchange-value of the commodity or service produced. With labor not being subject to commodification in socialism, there can also be no surplus-value. >so what is surplus-value? The social (historical) form the surplus product takes on in capitalism. Modes of production are defined by the social form of surplus-extraction, in socialism, surplus still exists in material form, which was accounted for in socialist states through the Material Product System. Therefore, the proletarian condition of producing surplus-value is abolished. >value Marx says in Capital III that value as a metric for book-keeping will remain: <Secondly, after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but still retaining social production, the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labour-time and the distribution of social labour among the various production groups, ultimately the book-keeping encompassing all this, become more essential than ever. This makes sense because as Marx says in the CotGP, labor-time as a metric will also regulate production in the lower phase of communism, the difference is that there is no social exchange (not the same as physical exchanges, like, exchanging tools in a factory) between producers, whereas the exchange-value emerges as the social form of labor-value (usually referred to when Marx says "value") which is not the same thing. Exchange-value is materialized of abstract labor, which is imbued in the commodity that takes on this form once it becomes social, e.g. enters the market. >dictatorship of the proletariat but isn't socialism classles?! As states were under capitalist siege, the working people in the socialist countries had/have to fend off the capitalist siege and still engage in foreign trade, even if the proletarian condition internally was abolished. >why no further communization? Because it's not just the social relations but also the real, material foundations that determine whether full preclusion from capitalism is possible. Capitalism, that is, the absolute subordination of labor under capital was only possible by machine production (after which workers were excluded from owning means of production, even though capitalist relations such as wage-labor existed before, but the capitalist mode of production wasn't realized until then), especially through the steam engine. Moving beyond socialism, and further the establishment of more advanced communist formation will necessarily be predetermined by things like full electrification with enough energy available for everybody. Productive forces aren't a Deng meme, they're very real, in that sense Deng had even a better understanding of historical materialism than Mao, because Mao did what Leftcoms usually demand, forming communes (most Leftcommunist tendencies such as the strain founded by Bordiga consider the end of war communism and the stratification of the NEP as the end of the Russian Revolution), and failed because of insufficient productive forces. >working class seizing power is already some sublation of capitalism As Marx wrote in "Civil War in France", socialism is cooperatives in a planned economy. Once the working class establishes itself over the heights of the economy, such as transportation, energy, heavy industry, national trade, etc. (in Marxist-Leninist words: the disentanglement of monopoly capital) capital as such ceases to be capital in the sense of a social relation within the capitalist economy (see: Anti-Dühring by Engels). >socialism in one country Not a contradiction to internationalism. As Lenin implies in his article about the idea of a "United States of Europe", socialism will happen in country-by-country and not at the same time. >muh gorillions, red fascism Fuck off
>she will never be your gf fuck this gay earth
Ok, who's the girl tho
Prepare to be BTFO by this quote, ready: >In Russia… where the so-called “proletarian dictatorship” has ripened into reality, the aspirations of a particular party for political power have prevented any truly socialistic reconstruction of economy and have forced the country into the slavery of a grinding state-capitalism. The “dictatorship of the proletariat,” in which naïve souls wish to see merely a passing, but inevitable, transition stage to real Socialism, has today grown into a frightful despotism and a new imperialism, which lags behind the tyranny of the Fascist states in nothing. The assertion that the state must continue to exist until class conflicts, and classes with them, disappear, sounds, in the light of all historical experience, almost like a bad joke.
>>286051 >Socialism is cooperatives within a planned economy By this definition the USSR wasn't socialist then
>>286051 >With labor not being subject to commodification To be a devil's advocate, doesn't the state still need to extract surplus value in order to maintain itself under a state socialist system? Also what about the argument that a stateless society can never be brought about if the state is empowered via M-L.
> With labor not being subject to commodification in socialism, there can also be no surplus-value. Wasn't labor paid for?
>>286051 Richard Wolff said in Contending Economic Theories that state socialism was exploitation. What would be the counter to this?
does the baby need a nap?
>>286066 State doens't equal state. Show me 10 different leftists and I will show you 10 different definitions of what a state is.
>>286062 >doesn't the state still need to extract surplus value in order to maintain itself under a state socialist system? the OP just explained that
>>286060 Please source random quotes? Also, the quote is not a critique or bringing forth any arguments, it just rambles on about red fascism. >The assertion that the state must continue to exist until class conflicts, and classes with them, disappear, sounds, in the light of all historical experience, almost like a bad joke. The author can cry and whine about material reality all they want, it just doesn't really further any discussion. >>286061 Why? Cooperatives existed in the USSR and those enterprises which were public property had worker's control enforced in them through multiple organs, such as staff councils, unions, etc. - production was organized more or less democratically (not perfectly of course). >>286062 No surplus-value, but material surplus of course. Marx, in the Critique of the Gotha Program, suggests a tax on labor that goes into things like pension funds, insurances, infrastructure and expansion of production. While labor wasn't taxed in the USSR, sales where, which is effectively the same thing under socialism. >Also what about the argument that a stateless society can never be brought about if the state is empowered via M-L. I don't know what this means. >>286065 Labor is still renumerated in socialism, according to the principle "to each according to their labor". >>286066 I would counter that Marx himself in the Critique of the Gotha Program argues for deductions made to the product of labor to provide welfare and the such. To engage further with Wolff I'd have to know what his arguments are. Remember that Wolff isn't really a theorist, he is more of an agitator of Marxism that seeks to popularize it. >>286057 Just an FDJ girl, the Youth Organization of the Socialist Unity Party, the ruling party of the German Democratic Republic. The FDJ still exists today by the way, today without a party of course, but they participate in protests, seminars for young people, reading circles, communist summer camps, etc.
>>286077 This is, in my opinion, because Marx died before he could write Capital IV which was supposed to be about the state. Instead, we got Lenin's State and Revolution, which seems good enough, but the problem is that while states existed for thousands of years, the specifically capitalist nation state is a rather modern formation.
>>286090 I mean that in practice a ML government increases the power of the state it does not wither away. Overtime wouldn't the incentive for the army, politicans ect be to maintain that state power rather than see it wither away as intended? Furthermore, wouldn't later generations be less ideological as we saw with the late stage USSR. Meaning they'd be less likely to be dedicated to the ideal of the stateless society.
>>286106 Existence of an army or law enforcement isn't really the definition of a state. Anarchist confederations would necessarily also have a military and law enforcement, as evidenced by real-existing anarchism in Spain or similar experiments. The abolition of the state is not a mental act, it's the dialectical sublation of material conditions and social relation that have developed to a point where the preclusion of etatism is possible. I don't think the USSR reached a point where the abolition of the state was possible, so ideological commitment doesn't really matter. As long as you stick to Marx or Lenin instead of Dugin or Strasser, you'll always have stateless communism as the end goal formulated everywhere. Cynicism in the late USSR certainly had different causes. I guess you can make the point that as long as you have remnants of capitalism, such as money, there is, for example, no incentive for finance to abolish itself. Hence, why Glushkov got rebuked by the ministry of finance as the full establishment of OGAS would move further towards a moneyless economy. But again, these are issues of the 'economic foundations'', the base, and aren't related to the "nature of the state" or whatever.
Marxism leninism: take shit from porkies in the name of the people, then pinky promise you will manage it to benefit them, while keeping a capitalist mode of production
>>286140 How have Marxist-Leninist governments not have means of production directed towards the public good and comprehensive development? <inb4 but that one bureaucrat had an imported Chardonnay from France!!!! Meaningless.
>>286140 Can you actually tell us how is it capitalist mode of production or are you throwing around leftish terms?
>>286090 >Why? Cooperatives existed in the USSR and those enterprises which were public property had worker's control enforced in them through multiple organs, such as staff councils, unions, etc. - production was organized more or less democratically (not perfectly of course). Sure cooperatives existed but that wasn't the main organizing method within the USSR. It's not as if you could elect who your manager is or remove them democratically. Managers were still decided top down by the party. If you have sources proving otherwise I'd be more than happy to read them
>>286140 freaking epic post. upvoted!
(52.81 KB 638x545 USSR gini coefficient.png)
>>286155 Inequality in the in the USSR was actually on par with capitalism in socdem states.
>>286304 Source? And as it has become clear as day porky only allowed socdem policies when threatened by the USSR, so...
>>286292 Democratic control isn't just "electing your manager" - it's collective action through mass organizations as well, such as unions, also, managers were, if not voted in by a committee, like in some cases, appointed by the state, not the party, which is not the same. State organization was based on democratic centralism. I mean, if enterprises are public property, and the public state is democratic from the bottom-up, workplace democracy as separate from this kinda becomes a moot point anyway, right? Also, managers weren't all powerful, in factory production decisions were made according to the "triangle system" which was a committee of the manager, unionists, and members of the CPSU. Here is a source that suffers from being from 1937 but general workplace organization didn't really change in the USSR, it's just that Cornman gave more competences to the managers in decision-making which increased their demographics inside the CPSU. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.261348/page/n5/mode/2up
>>286156 Wage labor and commodity production. But let me guess that's also allowed in ML -socialism- because state owns everything therefore not 'private property' anymore (lol) therefore socialism
>>286126 There is more to a state than an army or law enforcement though.
>>286304 The goal of Marxism isn't total equality of outcome. Also, the Gini Coefficient is a poor way to portray actual power structures in a society, even in SocDem states a handful of billionaires usually owns 50% of the entire bottom half of wealth. This is certainly not the same in a country where the means of production are socialized, no matter income differences. Gini coefficients for SocDem states obscure actual class relations and poverty, as they look good because of a bulky "middle class" with a decent median income. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/04/gini-index-is-a-poor-inequality-measure
>>286324 Wage labor doesn't exist in Marxist-Leninist states that haven't reformed and opened-up such as Vietnam, China and Laos. Commodity production is a bit of a silly point, considering that it exists since thousands of years while the hallmark of capitalism is the universalization of commodity production; which didn't exist in socialist states: As land, means of production including capital goods and labor-power weren't commodities. In China, land to this day is not a commodity. And those commodities that existed in the USSR and similar states were produced according to their use-value but were then exchanged according to materialized abstract labor, if not subsidized like most groceries. Exchanges between public enterprises were in fact not commodified, even though they appear to us as such, although there is debate over whether this is true, late Soviet economists argued that those were commodities as well, Stalin-era economists argued differently. In the end it's a relatively formal debate that doesn't change the real relations that existed in those countries. <In socialist economy commodity production is commodity production of a special kind, without private ownership of the means of production, without capitalists. In the main it is carried on by united socialist producers (the State, collective farms, the co-operatives). The means of production are socially owned, and the system of hired labour and the exploitation of man by man is abolished; these decisive economic conditions confine commodity production in socialist economy within definite limits. It cannot turn into capitalist production, and serves socialist society. <In socialist society commodity production is not as unlimited and universal in its scope as it is under capitalism. The area of operation of commodity production and circulation is limited mainly to consumer goods. Labour-power is not a commodity. The land and natural resources are State property and cannot be bought or sold. State enterprises cannot be bought and sold, and may be transferred from one State organisation to another only by special permission: this includes works, factories, mines, arid power stations, and their fixed productive stocks (machinery, buildings, installations, etc.). They are therefore not commodities, not objects of sale or purchase. https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch32.htm Again, abolition of commodity production isn't a mental act either, you can not break basic economic laws with willpower, the existence of the difference between city and countryside for example warrants commodity production to an extent (with fixed price rates under socialism), until this is sublated communist formation can't be furthered towards a complete abolition of commodity production. <Under socialism, the products of socialist enterprises retain the properties of commodities, but they undergo a further development. The use value becomes directly social. The value expresses the socialist production relations. The lowering of the unit costs of commodities resulting from the greater productivity of social labor makes it possible to satisfy society’s needs while keeping expenditures at the same level. Society is therefore interested in lowering the unit costs of products. With public ownership of the means of production, the commodity ceases to be the sole and universal form of wealth and the social form of the product of labor. Labor power, land, natural resources, and operating enterprises are excluded from commodity circulation. The conversion of a commodity into a noncommodity thus begins. <[...] <The contradictions involving the products as commodities (between the use value and the value) may give rise to a certain divergence of economic interests between society as a whole and the separate enterprises. The purpose of a socialist enterprise as an organically homogeneous cell of public production is the production of use values for the satisfaction of society’s needs. Separated from other enterprises, an enterprise may concentrate on those use values that will increase profits, for example, by violating plans pertaining to commodity variety; that is, the enterprise may evaluate profitability of production from a narrower point of view. This outlook can lead to violations of the plans for producing the use values needed to solve society’s tasks and to violations of standards, a lowering product quality, and the production of unnecessary goods. <However, regardless of the way in which the contradictions of socialist production manifest themselves in specific situations, the contradictions cannot cause the general overproduction of commodities that is characteristic of capitalism. Socialist society, by organizing a planned distribution of the commodity output through socialized wholesale and retail trade, creates the conditions for satisfying the needs of society as a whole. The use of value indexes permits a fuller and more efficient utilization of the commodity form of a product for planned public accounting and control during reproduction and exchange. Included here is a public accounting of the movement of capital stocks, of production costs, of distribution according to labor, and of accumulations. Products of labor will lose their properties as commodities altogether with the transition to unified communist ownership based on the creation of the material and technical basis for communism. At this point, socialist production relations will develop into the relations of a communist society. https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/commodity
>>286326 Can you elaborate on that? What are the hallmarks of the state for anarchists, aside from an army and law enforcement?
>>286361 I think you already covered it in your OP >le red fascism gr8 thread, btw
(280.24 KB 832x1200 5.jpg)
>This makes sense because as Marx says in the CotGP, labor-time as a metric will also regulate production in the lower phase of communism He also said, in the same book, that commodity production doesn't exist in "the first phase of communist society": <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. There exists the same principle which regulates the exchange of commodities but not the commodity itself. Also, in volume I of Das Kapital, Marx described a society that is parallel to the commodity-producing one in which the distribution is not according to the need but contribution: <Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. <The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution. ...and then he proceeds to BTFO tankies for not adopting christianity lmao <And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour – for such a society, Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, &c., is the most fitting form of religion. >>286358 >Commodity production is a bit of a silly point, considering that it exists since thousands of years Abolishing exclusive ownership of the MoP is a bit of silly aswell tbh. It has existed since forever! >commodities that existed in the USSR and similar states were produced according to their use-value but were then exchanged according to materialized abstract labor Things were produced for sale just like in every other country
>>286323 >>286323 Functionally the state and party where the same thing, since the party controlled the state etc. I wouldn't call the USSR democratic because of this fact, and its hard to argue that the enterprises would be any more democratic given this state of affairs
>>286516 >Things were produced for sale just like in every other country That's just false
>>286516 >There exists the same principle which regulates the exchange of commodities but not the commodity itself. You are conflating value and commodity production here. I never said that production of commodities is as universalized as value in the form of labor-value, which is in line with the quote I gave from Capital III. Exchanges within the public sector, the dominant one, not being commodities would be the logical conclusion from Marx's definition of commodities; and Marx would have bristled up against such obvious reductionist takes that just because commodity exchange prevails in a different form and content between the cooperative sector and the public, it being "not real socialism." He even says in this quote that the only product that is still exchangeable are individual means of consumption, what is not exchangeable are, as he insinuates, means of production and capital goods. >Abolishing exclusive ownership of the MoP is a bit of silly aswell tbh. It has existed since forever! Nonsense. Universalized private ownership of means of production is the specific capitalist social form, feudalism was based on land ownership and slavery on ownership of people. Means of production were sometimes owned in common, sometimes subject to the distribution of usufruct rights in case there was a noble prerogative, such as roads. >Things were produced for sale just like in every other country No, production even in the cooperative sector was regulated by quotas but imbued labor-value obviously materialized as exchange-value once the product became social, as in, social exchange between producers. You may notice that societies without commodity production, such as the ancient Indian society or the Incan society, both referenced by Marx in capital, tend to have almost no division of labor between the macroeconomic sector, unlike the result of unequal development between city and countryside that warrants commodity production as a basic economic law.
>>286530 Democracy isn't the more parties you have available for election. The CPSU was itself organized according the principle of democratic centralism, and the organizations that determined labor affairs, such as unions, were different from the party (although I admit that influence of the party in these organizations was great but I find this too reductionist to claim it was undemocratic because there were still tons of participatory platforms).
>>286591 Democratic centralism just means that once the party votes on something, all members of it agree to carry it out. This speaks to nothing of how politics within the party actually worked, with it's factionalism and it's top down promotion of party members. Having "participatory platforms" is ultimately irrelevant if the power is ultimately within th party. I think cockshotts critiques of the organization of the Soviet state is worth looking into
>>286051 jesus christ what i would do to her. imagine cum all over of her face. fuckkkk jesusss i need her
STOP HORNYPOSTING ON MAIN
>>286051 >A bureaucrat can not decide that a factory must produce fidget spinners instead of steel ingots because producing consumer products is more profitable. Exactly who decides what is produced then? If it's not the workers, then are ML states really socialist in practice (as opposed to ideologically)?
>>286671 Imagine her now as a middle aged lady lurking the board and reading your post.
(6.88 KB 227x222 1500330808432.jpg)
>>287813 Imagine anyone not a cumbrain sexist seeing that comment
>>286577 Your quote from Capital explicitly states that the determination of value as in abstract labour and not value itself will exist. Moreover, value can only arise in a society of private owners where the only social connection is that of exchange. In socialism,as Marx demonstrates in CotGP, principle of "exchange of equal labour",like that of the law of value but content and form are changed because only means of consumption can pass into individual hands. The substance of value remains as abstract labour but it does not objectify,constitute itself as a material property of the product of labour
Disagree with OP, but nice thread.
>A bureaucrat is not the same as a capitalist as the relationship to the means of production is proprietary. a bureaucrat is also not the same of the worker the leftcom/trot critique of the soviet union is not merely that it had a bureaucracy the critique is that it became bureaucratized, meaning that the bureaucracy caste wrested control of the state away from the proletariat. Address the substantive critique, not this "bureaucrat=capitalist" garbage. the rest of your post is good.
In what ways did the bureaucracy stifle M-L states?
>>286577 >No, production even in the cooperative sector was regulated by quotas but imbued labor-value obviously materialized as exchange-value once the product became social, as in, social exchange between producers. So a product could only realize itself as socially useful labour,i.e use-values, only through assuming itself as exchange-value? So it's a commodity and it's produced not for immediate comsumption but exchange/"sale".
Well im doing it what about muh gorgillion? I just want a simple way to demonstrate the inflated statistics!
>>288476 According to anti-communist propaganda, communists supposedly killed 100 million people in 100 years. Meanwhile, capitalism actually kills 100 million people every 5 years.
>>288476 I know that I'm trying to convince people in a simple way, the ussr and china didn't kill as much as the inflated statistics say. Take the 20 million or 60 million statistics for the ussr and china. I believe its more like half or less based on how I've seen the inflation for say gulag statistics or purge statistics, the famines... how they added ww2 deaths... how they took the expected population growth and the outcome in china and made it look like way more died. creating people that were never born... I want to easily call out this ahistoric bullshit for what it is!
>>288516 First pics nice but doesn't showcase the numbers enough! Or go into the other areas often mentioned. Basically needs to be more extensive!
>>288070 When Marx uses the term "value", he means labor-value if not stated otherwise. So your first sentence makes no sense. How can there be exchange-value when there is no exchange? Obviously, the determination of value is all-encompassing book-keeping at this point, which is exactly what happened in the public sector of the USSR. >>286998 Society as a whole that draws up the economic plan. Aspects of the plan are derived at differently. For example, wages set for entire industry branches were arrived at in negotiation with the All-Union Council. >>288162 What is a bureaucrat then, if not a capitalist, but also not worker? Provide a definition then. It seems to be another strata, just like engineers, officers or scientists; but not really a class. >>288263 Every commodity has use-value, even in capitalism. The point is that the consideration of use-values is dominant in commodity production between the public and the cooperative sector, just the act of exchange will obviously necessitate exchange-value as the regulator of exchange, but cooperatives didn't produce commodities just "for exchange". <But in socialist economy there are differences in the directly social nature of labour in State enterprises and that in the collective farms, which arise from the differences between the two forms of socialist ownership of the means of production. In State enterprises labour is socialised on a national scale, by virtue of which the product of labour, too, belongs to the whole of society in the shape of the Socialist State. In the collective farms labour is socialised within the limits of the given agricultural artel, by virtue of which the products of labour, too, are the property of the artel. In addition, collective farmers use their labour on their personal auxiliary plot, which is of subordinate importance. Labour in the subsidiary husbandry is private labour; it is not directly social labour. Yes, contradictions remain: <In socialist economy the antagonistic contradiction between use-value and value with which is linked the possibility of crises of overproduction, does not exist. At the same time a non-antagonistic contradiction between use-value and value can arise under socialism as well. Socialist economy makes it fully possible to fulfil production plans in both monetary and physical terms. <However, this possibility is not always realised. In the practical work of economic construction, the contradiction between use-value and value is revealed, for example, in cases of excessive amount of a commodity, when a commodity cannot be sold because of its low quality, because it does not correspond to the demand, and so on, or in cases where individual enterprises in a drive to turn out the more profitable sorts of articles fail to fulfil the plan as regards range and quality of production. Contradictions of this kind are revealed and resolved in the course of the planned management of economy. https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch32.htm Therefore, with the increase of communist formations (formation of communes), such contradictions ought to be phased out over time, but to argue that the USSR failed because it had commodity production leading to a crisis of overaccumulation is extremely dubious as there is no evidence for this. The commodity exchange existing between the cooperative and the public sector (sometimes called "people's property" in some states like Germany) is more akin to primitive commodity exchange because capital couldn't be accumulated, and is simply the exchange of equal values (not imbued surplus-value), with capital goods and means of production not being commodities there can not be capital accumulation. Tractors and other machinery were given to farmers for free to use in the form of usufruct rights. People's property (Volkseigentum) got that label slapped on it and violating it was a crime. Theoretically, they were free for all people to use, but since we aren't dealing with free association as in full communism, access was still restricted but not through private property but through the distribution of usufruct rights (socialist civil law).
>>286051 Great, so now that the infantile critiques have been disposed of, we can move on to the good critiques, right? >...in the Soviet Union capital’s metabolism was disrupted without an alternative being established; lacking organic coherence, the system could not survive once the exceptional conditions of revolutionary mobilisation, of terror, and of war, passed. The USSR has to be seen as the negation of socialism within socialism, and tendentially refounding capitalism as indeed occurred. This is because the benefits of social ownership are only possible with self-management; but where materialised capital remained, without the capitalist economic form to direct it, there was nothing to motivate efficiency; voluntarism, coercion, incentives, all failed. Hence the chronic crisis of underutilisation of resources, massive waste, defective products, and final collapse. Certainly, if the factory system in which capital materialised itself remains, then one cannot speak of socialism; but, conversely, if the law of value enforced through capitalist competition is no longer operative we have a clock without a spring.
>>286090 >>286051 Can you elaborate and/or simplify on your point that there is no exploitation in a ML state. How does the lack of commodification mean there is no surplus value? Isn't the existence of surplus tied to labor time and no whether or not products are commodified? >No surplus-value, but material surplus of course. Can you explain this point further. >Marx, in the Critique of the Gotha Program, suggests a tax on labor that goes into things like pension funds, insurances, infrastructure and expansion of production. >I would counter that Marx himself in the Critique of the Gotha Program argues for deductions made to the product of labor to provide welfare and the such. How does providing welfare benefits counter the notion of surplus value exploitation though? If exploitation of workers exists but workers get some welfare benefits how is this different from demsoc or socdem?
>>286361 Central banks, media, territory/boundaries, laws/legal system, public educational system. I'd say those all are hallmarks of a state. But I'm not an anarchist and I'm sure each anarchist may have a different take on it. >Anarchist confederations would necessarily also have a military and law enforcement, as evidenced by real-existing anarchism in Spain or similar experiments. Well I wouldn't count that since those were merely 'experiments' during wartime usually as you said and nothing long term. And imo afaik the Spainish confederations were pretty much states just not called that. >I don't think the USSR reached a point where the abolition of the state was possible, so ideological commitment doesn't really matter. As long as you stick to Marx or Lenin instead of Dugin or Strasser, you'll always have stateless communism as the end goal formulated everywhere. Cynicism in the late USSR certainly had different causes. I ideological commitment does matter because if the USSR had reached a point where statelessness was possible if the leadership was not committed to that goal then it wouldn't have been achievable. That begs the question too, at what point would statelessness be possible for a ML state? That seems like a open ended question wouldn't new variables always come up that might prolong that point?
>>289007 Surplus will always exist in societies that are not subsistence economies. When a commune in medieval Iceland decided to build a central hall for congregation, they obviously produced surplus but no exploitation was involved. Surplus-value on the other hand is simply the social form of surplus-extraction under capitalism (just like there use-value and exchange-value, concrete labor and abstract labor, etc.), stemming from the relationship between capital and labor. In capitalism, a worker still produces material surplus but it's obscured on the social sphere of valorizing the difference between the reproduction cost of their labor-power (variable capital) and the exchange-value of the commodity being produced. >Isn't the existence of surplus tied to labor time and no whether or not products are commodified? There two forms of surplus-value, absolute surplus-value and relative surplus-value. The first one is simply the worker working longer hours than necessary for their own subsistence; for example, a fisherman gets hired by a local merchant to fish some more fish than necessary to survive to earn money. With the arrival of the capitalist mode of production, that is, machine production, the worker is free in two ways: He's free from serfdom, and also free from means of production (with the fisher still owning his fishing rod in contrast). Factories and highly specialized division of labor make it impossible for the proletarian to own means of production, and his own means of consumption are now commodified as products of the same mode of production: That includes housing, groceries, transport, etc. - so the worker's entire reproduction as a worker is a commodity, so in exchange with the capitalist, the relationship is obscured as the capitalist pays the worker the "equal" value of their labor power, they're not underpaying the worker; because now surplus-value is relative to the value of the produced commodity alone (this is different from the feudal relation of serfs to landed property, by having to work a certain number of days on the field of their lord, here, the exploitation is visibly out in the open). Surplus-value therefore is an emergent property that is established after the fact; e.g. the social relations that organize surplus extraction in the given historical mode of production. In socialism, the worker is renumerated according to quantity and quality of work and not hired by a capitalist or the state. Without a capital-labor relation the idea of surplus-value looses meaning, what remains is the production of a physical surplus to increase the total social product comprehensively and to make deductions as I said before, in the USSR this was realized through a sales tax - labor is directly social and not bargained in the form of private labor. This means that work is less psychologically alienating, as your actual renumeration is tied to the product you create, and not just based on your own reproduction cost (the capitalist paying you as much as necessary for you to show up to work tomorrow). >How does providing welfare benefits counter the notion of surplus value exploitation though? If exploitation of workers exists but workers get some welfare benefits how is this different from demsoc or socdem? Marx: <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. However, this is not the same as in capitalism: <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. E.g. the surplus flows into direct use-values and not capital accumulation or private profits. There is no exploiting class. It's not surplus-value because there is no labor-capital relation. This is different from experiments like Yugoslavia where cooperatives, while not being private property, could hire and fire workers. I don't know if you could call that "self-exploitation" (that's just a bit of a silly term) but there certainly was surplus-value. SocDem states work similarly.
>>289033 >central banks I'd say nation-states precede that and the creation of a central bank was actually a demand of early communists, which was why Bakunin and Proudhon called Marx a kike. >territory/boundaries I'd say that's half right, while feudal "states" relied upon dominance over vassals instead of fixed borders, like, there isn't a border between lord A and lord B but different estates of gentry and mansions have sworn fealty to each of them, therefore, creating territories. However, you already had fixed borders in the almost modern sense in the Roman Empire. >public education system Another early demand of communists, therefore preceded by the nation-state. In any case, very likely to continue into communism. >That begs the question too, at what point would statelessness be possible for a ML state? I'd say: 1.) sufficient productive forces (abundance of energy and appropriate basic goods) 2.) world socialism or at least capitalism heavily being on the retreat (defeat of imperialism)
holy fucking shit you guys have fuck guys have this massive ego as if you still have authority in this world. The soviet union fell. China is state capitalist. Every other currently existing ML state is small and isolated. You're on the same level as every other leftist tendency now. Accept it and stop having this mindset that you're the only tendency doing things.
>>289294 >no argument against OP’s points other than ad-hominems Yeah I’m thinking MLs are based
>>289294 <Thread designed for debunking anti-ML arguments >You have massive ego. Ur not special fuck you i don evwn spell im mad Truly an enlightening and on topic post
>>289175 >Orthodox Marxists in the former USSR and elsewhere understood its collapse as that of socialism. They reasoned that socialism existed in the USSR because the state had socialized property ownership and subordinated markets to central state planning. This conception of socialism neglected the organization of surplus within Soviet enterprises. It missed completely that the surplus appropriators inside state enterprises were Soviet state officials, the famous Council of Ministers, who acted similarly to private-capitalism ’ s board of directors selected by major shareholders. The Soviet workers themselves did not collectively appropriate the surpluses they produced inside the enterprises or industries where they worked. That is why we have applied the term state capitalism to this system. The Council of Ministers distributed the surpluses they appropriated from workers and did so according to the priorities established by the Communist Party and the leaders of the Soviet state. For more than fifty years, this Council put relentless pressure on Soviet workers to produce ever more surpluses to build and especially to industrialize their state-capitalism. The Council, like the Party and the Soviet state, referred to this as building socialism, since their orthodox definition made socialism a matter of state property ownership and planning. Wolff, Richard D.. Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian (The MIT Press) (p. 338). The MIT Press. I'm going to repost what Dr. Wolff said because he can elucidate this better than I can. It seems like your distinction between surplus value and surplus is like a distinction without much of a difference tbh. If surplus value exists only in relationships between capitalists and workers what about when the enterprises the workers work in is run by the state? Wouldn't the state actors become the new capitalists? As this quote essentially puts forth. >>289188 >The state, another site in most modern societies, differs from both capitalist enterprises and feudal household because of the precise subset of social processes that occur together in (and thereby constitute) the state. The processes that generally distinguish the modern state from other social sites include the following: • maintaining a standing military force, • designing and passing laws for society as a whole, • adjudicating disputes over those laws, • enforcing compliance with those laws, • operating an educational system, • collecting taxes. >Past and present states have not been the exclusive sites of these processes. In some societies the state does not maintain the only standing military force. That occurs also at other sites (as in enterprises that maintain security forces or even households that employ guards). Similarly in some societies other sites beside the state design laws, enforce them and adjudicate disputes over them: for example, religious institutions may do that alongside the state. However, the history of modern societies suggests that the list above fairly typifies processes that occur predominantly in the state. I think that just because early communists suggested such programs does not necessarily mean those are not functions and mechanisms of a modern state. >world socialism >capitalism heavily being on the retreat I don't see either of those two ever happening tbh. Too many variables and factors, too much opposition for world socialism imo short of some kind of global conquest. And capitalism's ability to keep growing and adapting make heavily being on the retreat also something really difficult to bring to fruition imo. Wolff, Richard D.. Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian (The MIT Press) (p. 232).
>>289303 I mean saying that they have no major power backing them up anymore is an argument.
>>289352 Im Chad McGigacock an im backing them up
>>289294 In the left's lowest point the fact that there is still Marxist Leninist states is pretty amazing on it's own right to be honest. It really does make me feel like it's the tendency with the most resilience.
>>289365 That's like praising Argentina and Spain for being resilient after 1945.
>no major power backing them up Might =/= right. Not an argument even though I agree with you that ML is flawed.
>>289320 >I'm going to repost what Dr. Wolff said because he can elucidate this better than I can. It seems like your distinction between surplus value and surplus is like a distinction without much of a difference tbh It's not "my" distinction, it's formulated by Marx and Engels at large in Capital I, II and III, and it's literally on Wikipedia: <Labor costs and surplus-value are the monetary valuations of what Marx calls the necessary product and the surplus product, or paid labour and unpaid labour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value You can read about the development of theories of surplus in classical economy, collected and systematized by Marx, here: http://www.bard.edu/library/arendt/pdfs/Marx-Surplus.pdf >If surplus value exists only in relationships between capitalists and workers what about when the enterprises the workers work in is run by the state? Wouldn't the state actors become the new capitalists? Sure could. You would have to substantiate that though, in which way the state was capitalist, e.g. hired and fired workers. I haven't seen anybody actually making that argument. Now what does Wolff say? >Orthodox Marxists in the former USSR and elsewhere understood its collapse as that of socialism. This is very strange terminology here - Orthodox Marxists (with a capital O and a capital M) usually refer to the Second International before Lenin asserted dominance, referring to pre-WWI Kautsky or Plekhanov. >This conception of socialism neglected the organization of surplus within Soviet enterprises. It missed completely that the surplus appropriators inside state enterprises were Soviet state officials, the famous Council of Ministers, who acted similarly to private-capitalism ’ s board of directors selected by major shareholders. The council of ministers didn't appoint managers, and where does Wolff rationalize that they acted like "a board of shareholders"? In no shape or form became it a task of Soviet enterprises to shake out dividends. >The Soviet workers themselves did not collectively appropriate the surpluses they produced inside the enterprises or industries where they worked. What does he mean by this? If they were to consume it, it would literally not be surplus. If they invested surplus into the areas fledged out by Marx, they are pretty much in line with Marx here? Where was the private appropriation? >That is why we have applied the term state capitalism to this system. Capitalism without surplus-value, interesting. This quite literally the worst critique you could make, at least Unorthodox Trots and Leftcoms usually refer to Marx in some way. Wolff just seems to want to reduce everything to workplace organization which is just localism. In capitalism, you do not become less alienated if the staff votes on who has to clean the toilet tomorrow. This is honestly the same shit that Lassalle thought, even worse. It obscures the real, underlying economic relations. He criticizes the influence over state institutions (an omnipotent "Council of Ministers") over the economy, when socialism is indeed the establishment of a political supremacy over economic anarchy, while in capitalism, it is the opposite (economic anarchy asserting supremacy over politics). >And capitalism's ability to keep growing and adapting make heavily being on the retreat also something really difficult to bring to fruition imo. Capitalism's adaptability may have been certainly underestimated by Marx himself, but the fundamental laws of capitalism do not change, this includes reoccurring crises and a falling rate of profit, two things socialist economies do not have to deal with (even though there were other problems, obviously). I also contest Wolff's assessment of the complete lack of worker power in the USSR: That really is silly. Page 140 and following of this work talks about workplace participation in the USSR: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/ >>289294 >>289352 Meh, Marxism-Leninism is still, by far, the most quantitatively and qualitatively biggest tendency of the communist movement worldwide and holds power in several states. There have always been setbacks but no other tendency even comes remotely close; it's also that most other tendencies are stagnating in theory development quite terribly.
>>289399 Youre right it isnt an arguement. I just said that because one of the common statements for MLs to back up their views is claiming that it is "actually existing socialism" when it isnt existing anymore.
>>289417 Or, its existing but on life support
(94.26 KB 880x660 4724.jpg)
(77.12 KB 700x525 47234.jpg)
(151.31 KB 1200x900 73254274527.jpg)
>>289419 If Marxism-Leninism is on life support, then all other communist tendencies are with one foot in the morgue. Really, this doesn't mean I want to shit on all other tendencies but the argument that we're so beaten down becomes a boomerang once you are applying to the alternatives. To give some positives, Marxist-Leninists have pulled the World Federation of Trade Unions out of the mud. They saved the World Federation of Democratic Youth. They carried out a literal revolution in Nepal. Generally, Marxist-Leninist parties and youth leagues are growing, very slowly, but the negative trend of the 90s and the 2000s has been stopped. I'd say don't write us off just yet.
>>289414 >Part of Marxism — what came to be called the “ orthodox ” kind basically shared the structuralist understanding of society. However, another part of Marxism — the part we will be presenting in this book — broke from both humanism and structuralism to establish a basically different way of understanding society. >Interestingly enough, the humanist/structuralist divide in non-Marxian economics reappears within Marxian economics. A structuralist view of how the economy and society functioned emerged soon after Marx ’ s death. It eventually became the dominant interpretation in — and was distributed globally by — the former Soviet Union. Sometimes referred to as classical or orthodox Marxism, it argued that (1) inner “ laws ” structured each economy ’ s foundation — its “ mode of production, ” and (2) the structured economy ultimately determined everything else in the society. This orthodox Marxism visualized society as a building whose mode of production (economy) was the “ base ” that determined its “ superstructure ” (politics and culture). This is where his terminology originates from. >Distributions to expand military hardware were necessitated not only by the arms race with the United States but also to support Soviet foreign policy elsewhere in the world. A growing state bureaucracy was required to plan, organize, and control growing state industry. Because tensions and struggles typical in capitalism arose inside Soviet state-enterprises, surplus distributions went to support more communist party officials and secret police to manage them. >Workers producing ever more surpluses to meet ever rising state demands meant in Marxian terms a rising rate of exploitation. In other words, workers ’ exploitation worsened in what was defined as a workers ’ society. Those hardpressed workers eventually reacted with growing resentment, >Soviet workers supplied ever more surpluses to fund these successful developments. Their wages were stagnant for much of this half-century while their productivity constantly rose because of the machinery pouring out of the USSR ’ s prioritized capital-goods industries. From the perspective of Marxian economics, this is another way of saying that Soviet workers ’ rate of exploitation rose: the success of Soviet state capitalism was built on a rising rate of class exploitation. >They replaced private boards of directors with state officials who received and distributed the surpluses/profits generated across enterprises. This meant much too little micro-level change for most workers: as before, they came to work, delivered the products and the surpluses embodied in them to other people , and returned home.
>>289414 >>289465 He's arguing that the council of ministers acted similarly. They were appropriating the surplus of the workers and managing that surplus. >What did he mean by this? The workers did not appropriate the surplus they produced. *Those hardpressed workers eventually reacted with growing resentment, lowered work efforts, and deepening alienation from the socialism and communism that Soviet leaders claimed was in place.
(15.69 KB 633x758 5645.png)
>>289414 >I also contest Wolff's assessment of the complete lack of worker power in the USSR: That really is silly. Page 140 and following of this work talks about workplace participation in the USSR: He never said there was a complete lack of worker power. Also regarding that work I checked the sources on the citations. I followed them for footnotes 56 and 57. >The view is not infrequently voiced that a managerial class has arisen in the Soviet Union, and that the dust of world politics should gradually settle as this class takes over the reins of power in the Soviet Union. For, it is argued, these managers are reasonable business folk, concerned with running their own factories and industries, and having strong vested interests in the status quo. >The idea that there exists a special managerial class in the Soviet Union needs examination. >Considering all the evidence together, there seems to be no sound basis for differentiating between a "management class" and a class of "full-time Communist Party officials." The two [276/277] groups are highly similar in income, education, political activity, and even in the fact of having as members the same individuals at different stages of their career. >If we turn our glance to American business, much the same conclusions would seem to hold. It is difficult to delimit a specifically "business" class whose members have far more in common with one another than with other upper-class individuals in our culture. >Soviet managers receive incomes which are many times that of an ordinary Soviet worker. The director of a plant with a labor force of one thousand employees may earn five to six times as much as the average Soviet worker. In the steel industry, where workers are highly paid compared to those in other industries, the director of a very large plant earns five times as much as a semiskilled worker under him. The work you linked, cited a book by an author but only included a portion of what the author said and probably out of context deliberately for obvious reasons. The author clearly states that in the USSR an elite managerial class exists who are usually party officials and earn more than the workers they oversee. 1/??
>>289596 https://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/Granick.htm Here is the link for those quotes. Also I followed the other citation which led me to an article on JSTOR which states. >There is no question that participation is strictly constrained in the workplace. The principle of edinonachalie, or one-person management, still holds in Soviet industry. Ziegler, Charles E. “Worker Participation and Worker Discontent in the Soviet Union.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 98, no. 2, 1983, pp. 235–253. JSTOR,
Will answer tomorrow. Also, including that >>288997 post which I've frankly overlooked.
>>289633 Ok. I'll check back tomorrow.
>>287938 This is why sex and marriage should be illegal until 40. That way we'll know people are marrying for personality and not money or looks.
>>289999 Nah, instead it should be something more reasonable like 20 decades
>>288997 >in the Soviet Union capital’s metabolism was disrupted without an alternative being established; lacking organic coherence, the system could not survive once the exceptional conditions of revolutionary mobilisation, of terror, and of war, passed. What the fuck is meant by "organic coherence"? New societies will always carry the birthmarks of what came before; while simultaneously also carrying the embryonic seed of the future. Capitalism too is stamped with this and is, in that sense, not "organically coherent". The idea that the USSR was a "non-mode of production", as Ticktin claimed (towards which the author here seems to lean judging by my instinct), is also a bit weird considering the revolutionary turmoil and the war times weren't what kept the USSR alive, the USSR existed after 1945 for over 40 years in relative peace. >The USSR has to be seen as the negation of socialism within socialism iamverysmart.jpg - never gonna have a Leftcom article with some vulgar dialectical wizardry! >This is because the benefits of social ownership are only possible with self-management Asserted, without evidence or reference to Marx. Of course worker's power plays a role within their emancipation but I fail to see the correlation. >but where materialised capital remained I don't know what "materialized capital" means here. I really just come at this from Marx's angle, maybe the author means something else, but for Marx capital materializes in money, but it isn't materialized itself as it is a social relation but then through capitalism fetishized as a material quality possessed by itself. How this is in any way the case with the USSR? Means of production didn't take on the social form of capital, they weren't to be bought and sold, they weren't to be accumulated, as there was no MCM' cycle (M' being materialized capital). By the way, if the author did mean money, why not just write money instead of "materialized capital". >without the capitalist economic form to direct it there was nothing to motivate efficiency; voluntarism, coercion, incentives, all failed. Is this written by a market anarchist? >Hence the chronic crisis of underutilisation of resources The USSR utilized the fuck out of its resources, often to the detriment of the environment. >massive waste Wastefulness was a problem but this was a result of missed reforms in planning. Managers were often promoted/demoted based on quotas of fixed production output, this means that there was a chronic lack of spare parts because for a manager it was more convenient to produce ten more tractors than just fixing ten broken tractors. I have no idea how this is related to "capital materialized"? Obviously, quotas measured material output. >Certainly, if the factory system in which capital materialised itself remains, then one cannot speak of socialism; but, conversely, if the law of value enforced through capitalist competition is no longer operative we have a clock without a spring. This sounds a lot like this myth "the Soviets checked American shopping catalogs to determine prices for goods" - the law of value did operate in the USSR, it however was not, in the last instance, the determining factor, when it came to things like heavy industry, housing or basic needs. The author makes a weird inverse by claiming that something which the Soviets claimed not to have existed - capital - to have existed; while claiming that something which the Soviets claimed to have existed - law of value - not to have existed. I'm not sure how to respond to this.
>>289596 >The author clearly states that in the USSR an elite managerial class exists who are usually party officials and earn more than the workers they oversee. Yep, this was a problem. Especially when the amount of industrial workers shrank in the party which made Gorbachev's reforms possible; this goes back to Khrushchev's reforms. The answer to this is obviously intensified struggle against revisionism to maintain the character of the leading party to be a party representing all workers. I don't think equal wages are a solution though, under Brezhnev they had the most equal wages in their history and that was the time that was usually associated with a slowdown of economic growth. I find the higher percentage of Communist Party members among the managers compared with among the workers not to irritating though. When you were a party member, more was expected of you, more discipline and more contribution to the community. I find the Cuban model worth looking at where the party is not allowed to promote or nominate candidates. Here is a work that examines worker participation in the USSR: https://archive.org/details/WorkersParticipationInTheSovietUnion/ ...considering Wolff may not claim that "not participation" existed, but he still obviously overdramatizes the issue ("the Council of Ministers told everyone what to do!!"). >The work you linked, cited a book by an author but only included a portion of what the author said and probably out of context deliberately for obvious reasons. The reason was that Al Szymanski was arguing against Maoists who claimed that a capitalist class has formed in the USSR and that it became "social-imperialist"; comparing it to Hitler.
>>291207 thank u for you're commitment to this thread
>>289368 >Spain and Argentina resilient after 1945 They didn't fight against both the liberals and the communists as the old Axis did. They were allied to the liberal west against the communists, as were all other fascists.
>>291207 Also any participation was strictly limited as I posted here >>289610 which is more of a key point than an elite managerial class existing imo. Nonetheless the fact that an elite managerial class existed with often higher wages is case in point of what I was arguing. An elite class existed which appropriated the surplus of workers for their own benefit.
>>291871 >as the old Axis did. That's true but they were sympathizers. >as were all other fascists. There was some collaboration between communist(s) and the Italian RSI against the allies in Italy around 1944-45 tbh.
>>291874 >An elite class existed which appropriated the surplus of workers for their own benefit. Explain how this worked? In a capitalist company, does an engineer with a higher wage "exploit" the janitor with a lower wage? No, it's porky who is the exploiter of both of them. If the managerial strata (not class) was indeed redirecting economic activity to the point where it personally benefited them, they were to be able to close down plants and open up new enterprises of which they could profit off, but this never happened. Furthermore, when the managerial strata manages to achieve that, the Soviet Union collapsed, 1989-1991 was a power grab of some select few of the managerial strata, which clearly proves that they couldn't act in such a way during the Soviet framework. Many members of the intelligentsia were upset that they lived in the same apartment complex than regular workers, etc. - even in popular media with dedicated anti-communist themes like the Chernobyl series it portrays living quarters like that.
>>292277 >Explain how this worked? Yes but we're not talking about a capitalist company. Who is paying the elite class, who is paying the workers in the USSR? It's the state run by the elites. Where is that money coming from? A substantial portion of state funds has to be in the form of the surplus appropriated from the workers. I have posted the source above that claims the workers did not themselves appropriate their own surpluses. This combined with the source detailing the existence of an elite managerial class would spell the obvious imo. What I believe you're implicitly saying, correct me if I misunderstand you, is that just because an elite managerial class existed and the workers did not appropriate their own surpluses, does not necessarily mean this elite managerial class used those surpluses to enrich themselves. But that's like trusting the elite managerial class in capitalist countries (porky) to not enrich himself at the workers expense. I'm sure at the very least on multiple occasions such activity did occur in the Soviet bloc.
(22.35 KB 200x282 heh.jpg)
After the death of Stalin, Socialism in the Soviet Union was largely dismantled. The profit motive for individual enterprises was reintroduced, enterprises had to pay for not-Capital and resorted to blatantly capitalist measures like advertising, market research, etc. So how, in a workers state was socialism so easily destroyed without the consent of the people? If the planners did not have an interest separate from the workers, why was this done? If the state was controlled by the workers, why did it act in such a way?
>>292277 >they were to be able to close down plants and open up new enterprises of which they could profit off, but this never happened. There could be other variables at work too. If I was redirecting economic activity to benefit myself why would I close down plants and open up new enterprises? I'm already benefiting from that. I can just keep appropriating surpluses and besides opening up enterprises would expose me and discredit me to others who are more ideologically committed and may take action against me. >Furthermore, when the managerial strata manages to achieve that, the Soviet Union collapsed, 1989-1991 was a power grab of some select few of the managerial strata, which clearly proves that they couldn't act in such a way during the Soviet framework. I think there were many variables for the collapse but appropriating surplus was something already going on before 1989-1991. I don't think it served as the single catalyst for the collapse either. Do you have a source illustrating that the managerial strata did not behave in such a way until 1989? >Many members of the intelligentsia were upset that they lived in the same apartment complex than regular workers, That doesn't refute what I posted though. I'm sure sometimes somewhere there are capitalists who sometimes have poorer neighbors too.
(50.28 KB 768x768 porky-restraint.jpg)
>>292492 >But that's like trusting the elite managerial class in capitalist countries (porky) to not enrich himself at the workers expense. I'm sure at the very least on multiple occasions such activity did occur in the Soviet bloc. The neo-liberals have played this game for a very long time. It creating a narrative where capitalism has no alternative, and one of the tricks in their bag of bamboozlement was to try to explain that the Soviet union was also just capitalism, because there is no alternative. The Soviet system had no counterpart to the capitalists, in that society they just did not exist. Political power was held by people that did not have the highest income, and the decisions about how to allocate surplus was done on the level of society as a hole. The planers could not plan into their pockets, neihter could the company mangers not the technical strata. Even in the revisionist period, the drive towards personal enrichment at the expense the workers was blocked, that only was possible after the dissolution of the USSR. You can find many flaws with this system , but it wasn't a capitalist one.
>>292277 >>292492 >But that's like trusting the elite managerial class in capitalist countries (porky) to not enrich himself at the workers expense. I'm sure at the very least on multiple occasions such activity did occur in the Soviet bloc. I should expand on this a bit. Even then, if we accept that not a single member of the Soviet elite ever enriched themselves. They are still appropriating the surpluses of the workers and using it for other purposes like funding the Cheka/NKVD/KGB. This is still exploitation of the workers. The workers are not getting their full money's worth for their work.
>>292493 >After the death of Stalin >Later, in 1929 under Josef Stalin, the Soviet Union persuaded Ford to cooperate on building and supervising a car plant in Gorky to turn out Model T cars. Ford made $30 million on the deal, and in the 1930s 100,000 cars a year were built in Gorky--at the very plant Gorbachev's government wants Ford to modernize today. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-12-07-fi-913-story.html >In 1944, according to Brinkley, Stalin wrote to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, calling Henry Ford “one of the world’s greatest industrialists” and expressing the hope that “may God preserve him.” https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-signs-agreement-with-soviet-union >inb4 history channel Of course this is an isolated incident, but there is also Stalin's notoriously lavish dachas and late nights watching American western films. Stalin was not a saint. Even if we accept what you are saying, the institutional framework existed for his successors to abuse the system. And Stalin did nothing to fix the system to prevent that when he was alive. >>292500 >The neo-liberals have played this game for a very long time. It creating a narrative where capitalism has no alternative, and one of the tricks in their bag of bamboozlement was to try to explain that the Soviet union was also just capitalism, because there is no alternative. I disagree. Plenty of genuine neo-liberals recognize there are other alternatives to capitalism besides Marxism-Leninism. Of course the average boomer neocon in America will think anything left of the Democratic Party is communism. But genuine neoliberals do recognize there are other alternatives imo like demsoc, trots or anarchist variants ect. >and the decisions about how to allocate surplus was done on the level of society as a hole. Do you have a source for this? I posted sources which claim otherwise. >the drive towards personal enrichment at the expense the workers was blocked Any source for this? >You can find many flaws with this system , but it wasn't a capitalist one. Yes the system is not perfect. But if the workers had their surpluses appropriated by the state to use for other purposes like funding the KGB. That sounds like exploitation to me. It may not be capitalism but it is arguably similar to if not outright state capitalism.
>>292521 Why do you think I was saying that Stalin was a saint? I was saying that his central planning ran companies not according to profit, as in outside of the law of value. Not necessarily that he was a good person or even that this constituted proletarian dictatorship. >Stalin was not a saint. Even if we accept what you are saying, the institutional framework existed for his successors to abuse the system. And Stalin did nothing to fix the system to prevent that when he was alive. Literally what I was saying.
>>292521 Its not Capitalism. It may not be socialism, but it aint fuckin Capitalism either. It doesn't follow the basic laws. The definition of Capitalism is not the generation of surplus product which is used to maintain society, every system does that. Feudalism did that. Even the society Marx described in Critique of the Gotha Programme did that. Retarded point. Lets look at the major aspects of Capitalism that the Stalinist USSR lacked. 1 - Wage labor was not a commodity, workers were not hired or fired by anyone but rather assigned according to a plan. This is a fundamentally non-commodity way of allocating labor. 2 - Profit was not the motive of production. It can be easily seen that this is a fact with the light vs heavy industry situation, where unprofitable heavy industry was kept alive despite being wholly profitable. Why? Because Stalin needed it to industrialize. 3 - The means of production were not commodities. Capital was not bought or sold but allocated by the state.
>>292596 >Why do you think I was saying that Stalin was a saint? I was saying that just as a statement because you said 'after stalin' and we're on bunkerchan. So I did that as a preliminary measure in case you were coming from a stalinist/tankie pov arguing that these problems only occurred after Stalin. >literally what I was saying You didn't say Stalin did nothing to fix the system though.
>>292636 He tried to fix the system by killing people he didn't agree with to consolidate power, but that didn't address the root cause.
>>292639 I think that has to do more with consolidating power for himself rather than for some altruistic reason tbh. Which in either case testifies to the problems of such a system in that the killing people and consolidating power were allowed to happen in the first place.
>>292646 The reason it could be dismantled so easily was because the Soviet Union was not even entirely a workers state. It was not a system that reproduced itself like a Capitalist system but rather a very centralized planned economy dependent on a group of true believers in the party to uphold socialism and not begin to dismantle the socialist system for their own gain, which is what happened after Stalin. It became such an artificial mode of production because of Russia's underdeveloped conditions and the failure of world revolution. Destroyed Russia could not operate democratically and the workers councils that had formed before the revolution could not whether the storm of the civil war. People call Stalin "the grave digger of the revolution" and in a sense he was, as in he destroyed the period of revolutionary change to defend the results of the revolution with his consolidation of power that protected the USSR from the reversion back to Capitalism that Trotsky predicted, But just like a grave digger, he didn't kill the revolution, he merely buried it. Could it have been avoided? No. You might be able to keep the good boy Communists from back in the day in power for a few more years, but the planners had an objective interest once separated from the masses of proletariat. After all of the reforms done by Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the Soviet Union was essentially a very nice social democracy and the collapse of the USSR in the 90s can be viewed as something more like austerity than anything else.
>>292646 Ok, I've had enough of this dancing around. not the poster you were replying to btw The issue with stalin is the issue of economic centralisation vs decentralisation. Are you of opinion that there can be no political freedom without economic freedom? Do you believe that centralized binding nationwide plan cannot be democratic?
>>292610 >Its not Capitalism. I didn't say it was capitalism. I said it was similar to and arguably was, state capitalism. >every system does that >feudalism did that I thought the entire point was to progress away from feudalism. What's the point of achieving communism if it retains some of the worst parts of feudalism? >assigned according to a plan. By the state instead of by porky. >Profit was not the motive of production. Fair enough but this does not address the exploitation issue. I'm not contesting this. >allocated by the state. Just because toravish stalin does it instead of porky does not mean it's socialism or much different from capitalism. Tomato, tomato.
>>292668 >The issue with stalin is the issue of economic centralisation vs decentralisation. I think that isn't just limited to Stalin though, but Stalin is probably exhibit A of that divide. >Are you of opinion that there can be no political freedom without economic freedom? Yes. >Do you believe that centralized binding nationwide plan cannot be democratic? That's a tough question, I think there are a lot of variables to consider like the size of the population and size of the territory ect. I also think it largely depends on how such a plan is operated in practice and who is administering such a plan.
>>292682 I do think however that especially for a large landmass and/or populous society like Russia or China, there is probably a tendency to consolidate power. Especially if people with selfish motives are allowed some power which they can then use to build upon. The issue is not so much whether or not such a planning system can be democratic as it is whether or not under such a system workers can get their full money's worth for the time they've worked.
>>292669 Read Marx retard. >I thought the entire point was to progress away from feudalism. What's the point of achieving communism if it retains some of the worst parts of feudalism? Did you read the line right after that? EVERY SOCIETY PRODUCES A SURPLUS PRODUCT AND USES IT TO REPRODUCE SOCIETY. Here is a quote from Critique of the Gotha program. >"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." There is no such thing as getting the "full product of your labor". There is a fundamental difference between a state plan and a market. One follows exchange value, the other may not. One is anarchic and has booms and busts based on speculation and nonsense. Porky doesn't assign workers to a job. He hires them, pays for their labor power as a commodity. THIS IS NOT THE SAME. Porky doesn't allocate Capital. THE MARKET DOES. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME. The problem is not "Porky". The difference is between Market anarchy and a planned economy. They are fundamentally different no matter how you want to look at it.
>>292689 This is a nonsensical lassellian approach. >full money's worth for the time they've worked. NO. The point of Communism is not to give the worker the full value of their labor, it is to abolish value and its influences on the economy.
>>289999 Have sex.
(114.67 KB 2253x400 Dialogue With Stalin - Bordiga.png)
>>292610 >Wage labor was not a commodity, >workers were not hired or fired >by anyone but rather assigned >according to a plan. If wage labor wasn't a commodity - why was it a crime for people not to work? Work under socialism is suppose to be done voluntarily. >2 - Profit was not the motive of >production. That's not true. He admitted this in the Economic Problems of the USSR and Bordiga tore that argument to to shreds. Pic related. >3 - The means of production were >not commodities. Capital was not >bought or sold but allocated by >the state. That's absurd. That just means the state, like all bourgeois democracies, are just capitalist.
(106.21 KB 800x750 1566538143402.png)
>>288516 >lack of clean water is to blame on capitalism >hunger is to blame on capitalism >muhh western plunder of africa!! we wuz kangz and rich until whitey came!! its not like we always were a complete poor shithole!! yes, the ACTUAL plundering of africa that happened during feudalism and slavery and other economic systems that preceded capitalism was totally capitalism!!!
>>292745 I never said it was Socialist, I said it wasn't Capitalist. >If wage labor wasn't a commodity - why was it a crime for people not to work? How is that evidence for wage labor being a commodity? That suggests the opposite to me. Unemployment and a reserve army of labor is a major component of Capitalism. >That's not true. He admitted this in the Economic Problems of the USSR and Bordiga tore that argument to to shreds. Can't say much on this, haven't read Bordiga's fall critique. But I think at the very least, it was a different sort of production for profit than Capitalism. It was not the anarchic system of markets but rather the production for long term, nation wide profit. I consider that different enough. >That's absurd. That just means the state, like all bourgeois democracies, are just capitalist. Its supposed to show that the MoP were not comodified. You can view it in two ways. 1 - The USSR was socialist or a sorta-socialist non-mode of production or 2 - The USSR was massively monopolistic capitalism, with the national interest of the USSR as a whole, overriding the typical forces of market production. Either of those, I would say transcend ordinary Capitalism to a degree to be a different system with different laws of motion and tendencies.
>>292754 Jeff Bezo's money alone could fix world hunger. So yes.
>>292745 >If wage labor wasn't a commodity - why was it a crime for people not to work? Not working wasn't a crime but you wouldn't get anything in exchange for not doing anything. Societies need to work to function. <Every child knows a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would perish. Every child knows, too, that the masses of products corresponding to the different needs required different and quantitatively determined masses of the total labor of society. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_07_11-abs.htm <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. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm <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. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm To move to the principle "everybody according to their needs" right away is obviously not possible. >That's not true. He admitted this in the Economic Problems of the USSR and Bordiga tore that argument to to shreds. 1.) He also said that profit does not determine production in the last instance, why has never anybody read this small book by Stalin? 2.) Profit was simply a way of accounting - and enterprise ought not to use up more resources than it produces, but profitability was accounted at the national scale: <In socialist economy, over and above the profitability of particular enterprises and branches of production, a higher measure of profitability, inaccessible to capitalism, is attained—profitability on a national scale. This signifies that profitability is determined not only from the point of view of particular enterprises and branches of production, and not only within the limits of a single year, but also from the point of view of the whole national economy and over a long period. At the same time an increase in the profitability of individual enterprises and of whole branches of the economy is a necessary condition for acceleration of the rate of development of the whole national economy. This means that unprofitable enterprise did exist and were deliberately tolerated as such. https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch34.htm Economic accounting, as formulated by Marx, as in the role of book-keeping, becomes after capitalism "more essential than ever" (Capital III), 3.) Bordiga's suggestion to crash the economy and focus on consumer goods seems to be a horrible idea. You need to have a sufficient level of productive forces to give way to socialism. Marx: <Nor will we explain to them that it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse... https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm
>>292781 Also good arguments.
>>292754 >lack of clean water is to blame on capitalism >hunger is to blame on capitalism Of course not. Le epic commie famines all happened because of communism though!
>Read Marx retard. Typical tankie response. >Every society produces a surplus product >Somehow this makes surplus exploitation more acceptable/tolerable. >Precisely this situation, when the direct laborers do not appropriate their own surplus labor, is what Marx called “ exploitation. ” One person exploits another, in Marxian theory, if and only if he or she appropriates the surplus labor of that other. Exploitation is a basic concept in Marxian economics. Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian (p. 155). >One form is commonly called “ the primitive communist ” class process, after Marx ’ s initial usage of the phrase. While he used “ primitive ” because his particular examples had occurred long ago or in much less economically developed parts of the world in Marx ’ s time, we will drop the primitive since we now know that this kind of class process has existed and exists now in many different societies. In the communist form of the fundamental class process, the direct laborers themselves collectively appropriate the surplus they have produced . Those direct laborers produce the goods and services that they themselves consume (the fruit of their necessary labor), but they also produce more goods and services (the fruit of their surplus labor). The communist subsumed class process occurs when such direct laborers distribute portions of the communist surplus to others (for performing various nonclass processes that provide conditions of existence for the communist fundamental class process). Those others — recipients of distributed shares of the communist surplus — constitute communist subsumed classes. Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian (p. 160). In a communist society the laborers themselves appropriate the surplus they have produced unlike previous societies. The goal is to reach a stage where that is possible. Replacing porky with a new class of elites within a 'worker's state' to appropriate those surpluses is just continuing that trend.
>>292727 Not him but I unironically browse wizardchan. So, no.
>>292788 You can view this in two ways, >soviet state represented the workers democratically, thus its use of surplus is the workers using their own surplus product. or >elite class exploits workers to run the KGB. It ultimately comes back to the idea of whether the USSR or any planning system was democratic, a question you rejected previously. See: >>292689 Saying : >The issue is not so much whether or not such a planning system can be democratic as it is whether or not under such a system workers can get their full money's worth for the time they've worked. When now, you've shown that clearly is the issue.
>>292797 >Let’s break that Hindenburg line and finish this war
>>292788 The difference is that with porky that surplus isn't invested in you but rather remains in the pockets of porky, while in a socialist planned economy the surplus is invested back to you in the form of free healthcare, education etc. You argue like a minarchist or ancap or whatever.
>>292788 I'm sorry, but what are you trying to accomplish here with this little book by Wolff? Wolff obviously has a very different approach than Marx and basically measures everything in terms of workplace democracy, Wolff does not really seem interested in the real economic foundations of commodity production, economic exchange and the social form of surplus-production in the form of surplus-value. You can think that in the USSR, as Wolff insinuates, everything was determined by the "Council of Ministers", or you can have a more nuanced view that details worker participation in the USSR with the links I provided. But I don't see how that help us, according to Wolff, Rojava or Yugoslavia were/are true socialist societies, quite a dubious view.
>>292772 Because people are being forced to work. Why would they be forced to work if labor power wasn't a commodity? Commodity production existed within the USSR, Stalin admitted this in the Economic Problems of the USSR. Do we have to quote the first two lines of “Capital” again? “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ‘an immense accumulation of commodities’.” >Not working wasn't a crime That's not true - it was http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1961-2/anti-parasite-law/ >To move to the principle "everybody according to their needs" right away is obviously not possible. The problem is, neither would the first phase of communist society (socialism) applied in the USSR either because commodity exchange i.g. exchange for goods on a market existed within in the USSR. There was the fact that private property wasn't even abolished completely since kolkhozniki allowed private plots of land. >He also said that profit does not determine production in the last instance But he does though? Again, Bordiga points out profitable was used by executives by Stalin's own admission. Ironically, Stalin himself admits the USSR wasn't socialist: >They are two different things. ?>Capitalist production is the >highest form of commodity >production. Commodity production >leads to capitalism only if >there is private owner-ship of >the means of production, if >labour power appears in the >market Private farmers in the USSR sold their goods to the state for a wage that they used to re-invest into their economy. Wage labor still existed within the USSR. There was nothing in the USSR that even close to whats laid out in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. >Bordiga's suggestion to crash the economy and focus on consumer goods seems That's not even his suggestion though, and its weird you phase it like this - why would there be economic crashes in a so called socialist society with economic planning?
>>292797 >soviet state represented the workers democratically I addressed that here: >>289610 >There is no question that participation is strictly constrained in the workplace. The principle of edinonachalie, or one-person management, still holds in Soviet industry. >a question you rejected previously. No. Your question was whether I thought a centrally planned economy can be democratic to which I said there are many variables but there is a likelihood for it to not be democratic. You did not specifically ask me whether or not the USSR's planning system was democratic, in that case, based on the evidence I've seen and posted in this thread I'd say no, it was not democratic. >When now, you've shown that clearly is the issue. I think they are two separate but closely related issues.
>>292805 Co-op fetishists often seem to have quite a petit-bourgeois understanding of socialism. It's ultimately similar to the notion of "self-ownership" - who cares if the chains of wage-labor, accumulation and alienation have been broken, who cares that the impersonal domination of capital has been smashed, will someone please think of voting in the co-op tomorrow! I recommend Marx's Poverty of Philosophy. Even if you transfer everything into a co-op, you got socialized capitalism, with the laws of capital being fully operational, eventually leading to a bust. Of course, in such a hypothetical society, the proletariat might to reproduce itself as such anymore, and may want to move beyond it, or, it will revert to private capitalism. In any case, it's not socialism.
>>292811 People were forced to work under Slave Societies too. Commodity production didn't exist under those societies. >Commodity production existed within the USSR, Stalin admitted this in the Economic Problems of the USSR. Not generalized retard. And Commodity production existed under feudalism. The difference is that under those systems, it was not generalized.
>>292820 >People were forced to work under Slave Societies too. This is a stupid argument though because the USSR claimed to be socialist. Under socialism, labor is voluntarily because its no longer a commodity to survive. People were forced to work to produce for a capitalist production plan. >Not generalized retard. It was though because private farmers, millions of them, sold goods on their collective farms to the state for a profit. Millions of people in the USSR received a wage after being forced to sell their labor power to the state. You have to leave this circlejerk here because its making you stupid.
By saying the USSR is socialist - you're admitting that socialism is utopian to enact since the USSR was capitalist just as much as modern day China. Its no wonder why ML groups are so small, insignificant cults these days
>>292830 Not arguing that it was Socialist, just non-Capitalist.
>>292838 The USSR successfully built socialism by 1937 and remained socialist until 1956. China successfully built socialism by 1957 and remained socialist until 1976. These are historically known facts, anarshits
>>292842 false flag, ignore. We're clearly arguing over the definition of socialism here as China still claims to be socialist while obviously not being.
>>292805 >the surplus is invested back to you in the form of free healthcare, education ect. There are countries that have that and aren't Marxist-Leninist states though. And the surplus doesn't just go to public welfare systems it also would probably go to funding mechanisms used to control the workers. >You argue like X That's /pol/ tier and I'm not either of those. If I was an ancap or whatever I'd argue porky would reinvest that surplus back into the workers by creating more jobs or something.
>>292842 >until 1956 Why 1956? Hungary?
>>292811 >Private farmers in the USSR sold their goods to the state for a wage that they used to re-invest into their economy. yeah the real problem was Stalin didn't collectivize agriculture ENOUGH. He shoulda fuckin rolled in their with tanks and just said "BRO THIS IS ILLEGAL COMMODITY PRODUCTION YOU BELONG TO THE STATE NOW." because we all know that collectivization worked incredibly well with zero problems in the 30s and fulfilling the goals of ideological purity asap is more important than food
>>292811 >Why would they be forced to work if labor power wasn't a commodity? Societies have existed throughout thousands of years when labor-power was not a commodity. In primitive communism, people were forced to work, otherwise they would die. The obligation to work is a result of nature. It is what makes humans different from animals, only humans influence their environment through work. >Commodity production existed within the USSR, Stalin admitted this in the Economic Problems of the USSR And neither was it generalized, not did it occur along the lines of exchange-value. Abolition of commodity production is a necessity arising out of the difference between industrial city and countryside. >That's not true - it was. This law only refereed to leeching off society in a way while being able-bodied. It didn't refer to housewives, old people, children, etc. - it was mostly an effort to tighten workplace discipline. >The problem is, neither would the first phase of communist society (socialism) applied in the USSR either because commodity exchange i.g. exchange for goods on a market existed within in the USSR. There was the fact that private property wasn't even abolished completely since kolkhozniki allowed private plots of land. Private property isn't the same as cooperatives, it is already a negation of that: <The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour. They show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one, when the development of the material forces of production and of the corresponding forms of social production have reached a particular stage. Without the factory system arising out of the capitalist mode of production there could have been no co-operative factories. Nor could these have developed without the credit system arising out of the same mode of production. The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist private enterprises into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale. The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in the other. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm Land, capital goods, means of production, labour-power, etc. all were not commodities. < The commodities that are distributed commercially in planned fashion between state enterprises (means of production) are a direct expression of the relations within the public sector; the commodities that state enterprises sell to or buy from agricultural cooperatives (kolkhozes) represent the relations between society as a whole and the peasantry organized into cooperatives (kolkhoz workers). The exchange and trade of commodities express the unity of the planned distribution of the aggregate social product by the socialist state on the one hand, and the exchange for money on the other. https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/commodity <Commodity production and commodity exchange still exist in socialist society, and a commodity system is still practised. This is mainly because two kinds of socialist ownership, namely, ownership by the whole people and collective ownership, exist side by side. No unpaid allocation of products between different ownerships of the public economy can be practised. Their economic relations can only be commodity exchange, and hence commodity production. State distribution of consumer goods among workers and staff also utilizes the form of commodity exchange through money. However, the socialist type of commodity production differs from the capitalist type. This is manifested chiefly by the fact that there no longer is the economic relation of exploitation of workers by the capitalists, anarchism in production has been eliminated and the scope of commodity exchange has been reduced. Yet it must be noted that bourgeois right unavoidably exists in distribution and exchange in socialist society. The principle of exchange of equal values is still carried out in commodity exchange. If bourgeois right in distribution and exchange is developed and extended at will, capitalist ideas of amassing fortunes and craving for profits will spread unchecked; such phenomena as turning public property into private property, graft and corruption, theft and bribery, and speculation will arise, and there will be a change in the nature of the system of ownership in certain departments and units which follow the revisionist line. The inevitable result will be polarization, i.e., a small number of people will acquire an increasing quantity of commodities and money and convert them into capital. These people will turn out to be new bourgeois elements. The labouring people, on the other hand, once again will become oppressed and exploited wage-slaves. Therefore, bourgeois right as regards distribution and exchange has to be restricted under the dictatorship of the proletariat and conditions for finally eliminating the commodity system must gradually be created. https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/peking-review/1975/PR1975-22b.htm >But he does though? Again, Bordiga points out profitable was used by executives by Stalin's own admission. Again: Socialist profit isn't the result of surplus-value extraction but simply a form of accounting to use up less resources for appropriate production. And yes, he does, search for "profit" here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm >Private farmers in the USSR sold their goods to the state for a wage that they used to re-invest into their economy. No, they didn't, revenue is not the same as a wage. >Wage labor still existed within the USSR How? >why would there be economic crashes in a so called socialist society with economic planning? Please get a grip. There were no crises of overaccumulation but obviously you can't go heads-on-pants retarded with favoring consumer goods in a society that is industrializing.
>>292808 >I'm sorry, but what are you trying to accomplish here with this little book by Wolff? No need to be incredibly patronizing, it's a good credible resource and I'm using it to contribute to our discussion. >Wolff obviously has a very different approach than Marx and basically measures everything in terms of workplace democracy Well he has to take that approach because of MLs such as yourself who through their actions have associated Marxism with totalitarian anti-democratic politics for the past 100 years. This has done more to discredit Marxism to many people more than anything capitalists have done. So he has to take that approach in order to appeal to a modern audience. >Wolff does not really seem interested That's pretty subjective whether he seems a certain way is open to anyone's own opinion. >or you can have a more nuanced view that details worker participation in the USSR with the links I provided. Well the links I provided tell a very opposite story of that and ironically I found them by following the footnotes of works you provided.
>>292858 I should correct myself in saying his approach is not different from Marx as you suggest. But rather his interpretation of Marx is not the same as many MLs I'm sure.
>>292851 Khrushchev's Secret Speech, and the Sino-Soviet Split. (I only use Stalin because he is my favorite flag. there is no Maoist flag, and if there were, I would use it.)
>>292858 >Well he has to take that approach because of MLs such as yourself who through their actions have associated Marxism with totalitarian anti-democratic politics for the past 100 years. This has done more to discredit Marxism to many people more than anything capitalists have done. So he has to take that approach in order to appeal to a modern audience. Just because those revolutions failed doesn't mean you can just fucking wipe the slate clean and claim no responsibility. They were failures but they were our failures and the reasons they failed are not bound to individualistic actions or ebil totalitarianism.
>>292830 Again, Engels and Marx lay out very specifically that people have to work to survive, you can continue to ignore it or just make shit up. In the first chapter of Capital, Marx mentioned ancient Indian societies with division of labor ("forced work") and no commodity production.There is absolutely no correlation with "labor not being a commodity" and "not having to work to survive". How do you think a labor voucher system would look like? Can you just choose not to work?! >It was though because private farmers, millions of them, sold goods on their collective farms to the state for a profit. This is such a moot point because the MCM' cycle was defunct. Cooperative farms did not own means of production, they received usufruct rights over them from the state. They didn't accumulate capital, they just used their revenue to purchase consumer goods or live off their own produce. It was the expression of city-country relations that wasn't antagonistic. The USSR didn't fail because farmers sold their products. >Millions of people in the USSR received a wage after being forced to sell their labor power to the state. They did not sell them as they had a right to work. They also didn't get paid according to the reproduction cost of variable capital, but however received renumeration in accordance with the quantity of labor they provided, literally not a sale.
>>292811 >Because people are being forced to work. Why would they be forced to work if labor power wasn't a commodity? Because society still needs people to work. Don't be a utopian moron. The commodity form is specific to capitalism but all societies must direct labor power in some form. >“The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ‘an immense accumulation of commodities’.” wealth in the USSR did not present itself in this way
>>292847 >There are countries that have that Yes, but in those countries private ownership of the means of production exists, while it didn't in the USSR. I have to say though that i'm not myself a ML. I do not believe in the classical leninist concepts, (except imperialism i guess), like vanguardism etc. I do think there was a certain workplace democracy, but there was no political democracy of course. The bolsheviks thought the masses were not ready to completely decide for themselves. I don't think Stalin or Lenin were le ebil men who killed muh gorillion, i do not agree with their approach to socialism though. I think having workers control of the factories, the farms etc is as important as political democracy. I don't think you can have democracy at all if a capitalist mode of production stands and exploiters are a thing, however socializing the workplace is not the "ultimate" step to democracy, direct democracy must also be implemented, and with modern technology this is easier than ever to accomplish imo. https://youtu.be/bHN0foV4Ntk https://youtu.be/YxSPirB9ePA
>>292847 In these countries you still have all laws of capital operating, a capitalist class that exploits surplus-value, anarchy of the market, and mere concessions from the ruling class usually designed to increase consumption. This is very different from a direct deduction from one's labor product to be reallocated in the total social labor product, which is what Marx literally writes in the CotGP.
>>292858 If Wolff's approach is so modern, hip and disassociated from "totalitarianism" he shouldn't lose all these debates vs libertarian morons. Also, I attacked the book because it isn't even about the USSR but a short introduction of economic theories.
>>292864 I don't see how doing a speech denouncing the cult of personality of Stalin meant that there was a capitalist mode of production in place in the Soviet Union...
>>292858 One last thing: The accusation of the lack of democracy isn't really a refutation of Marxism-Leninism in theory, at the very best it is the refutation of some policies Marxist-Leninists have pursued in the past, but Marxism-Leninism is subscribed the ideals of worker power and democratization of the economy.
>>292854 We all know that in the middle of the Kremlin, in a secret room, there was a big red button that said "END THE COMMODITY FORM" and Stalin never pressed it because he skipped out on his Marx classes.
>>292866 No one is saying to wipe the slate clean. But you can't lump MLs with trots, market socialists, leftcoms, or anything else. There are different ideological strands with very real differences. Those failures were the failures of MLs.
>>292895 Insert real movement quote here.
>>292873 >a capitalist class that exploits surplus-value Just like the soviet class that exploits the surplus of soviet workers. >mere concessions from the ruling class The public welfare programs in the USSR could be seen as concessions from the elites to the workers in order to control them. >he shouldn't lose all these debates vs libertarian morons. Even if he did lose debates that shouldn't discredit his positions. That just means he isn't good at debating which is usually all pomp and show. The book isn't only about the USSR obviously but it does include commentary on the USSR and had relevant portions of text for this discussion which is why I posted it. It's not irrelevant and is more credible than the sources you linked.
>>292885 The lack of democracy is tied to the issue of exploitation. And in this sense it does refute ML whether that is in theory or in practice is arguable. This was addressed here >>292816
>>292925 Elite managerial class + worker participation being heavily limited = anti-democratic and exploitation.
>>292919 >Just like the soviet class that exploits the surplus of soviet workers. I'm not going to explain the differences between surplus and surplus-value to you for the n-th time, it's literally on Wikipedia. >The public welfare programs in the USSR could be seen as concessions from the elites to the workers in order to control them. No, because, just as Marx suggested it, it was directly deducted from labor and taxed from a capitalist middle-man to fund it. They were also aimed at comprehensive development and not to produce are more healthy army of proletarians like in capitalism. >Even if he did lose debates that shouldn't discredit his positions. That just means he isn't good at debating which is usually all pomp and show. The book isn't only about the USSR obviously but it does include commentary on the USSR and had relevant portions of text for this discussion which is why I posted it. It's not irrelevant and is more credible than the sources you linked. It actually kind of does, if you do revise Marxism like that, you ought to have some popular appeal at the very least. I fail to see how the prospect of working in a cooperative is attractive to proletarians. The problems of capitalism for the working class is material immiseration, alienation (commodity fetishism), reification. The problem of capitalism for all humanity is that it drives us off a cliff. The problem for capitalism to the global south is that it imperializes and ravages poor countries. I fail to see how co-ops are the attractive alternative that we need.
>>292941 Commodity fetishism is not the same as alienation. Commodity Fetishism is the way that Commodities seem to have power in themselves, separate from the labor process.
>>292933 Well, you can just say you don't like the USSR model, but you do not really use the Marxist definition of exploitation, you are using a vulgar one. Not liking something =/= it must be capitalist
that feel when ultras are so obsessed with proving that the USSR wasn't democratic that they'll disregard marxist theory itself
>>292958 There is a clear difference between ultras who talk about commodity production and private farms, and retards who talk about muh totalitarianism and muh bureaucracy.
>>292943 I believe it is one of the main sources of it. And it is not that commodities have just power (you can imagine a society with very important rare commodities that everybody wants to have that doesn't have commodity fetishism), it's just the reification of social relations onto objects when value takes on an objective quality, possessed by the object, instead of a social one (ascription of mystical qualities to an inanimate object). This is a precondition for the product of your own labor approaching you as something alien, even hostile to you.
>>292964 It feels like the worst of both worlds falls together in this thread.
>>292975 Interesting take.
>>289414 >It's not "my" distinction, it's formulated by Marx and Engels at large in Capital I, II and III, and it's literally on Wikipedia: <Labor costs and surplus-value are the monetary valuations of what Marx calls the necessary product and the surplus product, or paid labour and unpaid labour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value You can read about the development of theories of surplus in classical economy, collected and systematized by Marx, here: http://www.bard.edu/library/arendt/pdfs/Marx-Surplus.pdf >I'm not going to explain the differences between surplus and surplus-value to you for the n-th time, it's literally on Wikipedia. You literally didn't explain anything the first time. You essentially said 'go to wikipedia' initially like you are now. I fail to see any major difference between surplus and surplus value besides the circumstances that given rise to each which imo aren't very big differences. >No, because, just as Marx suggested it, it was directly deducted from labor and taxed from a capitalist middle-man to it. I'm not sure that's what was happening for 100 years in the USSR and other countries though. >They were also aimed at comprehensive development That's what porky would say really arbitrary. >attractive to proletarians I think it is more attractive than ML. But you are right here in that the idea of a coop by itself won't exactly fix all the problems capitalism has created. >>292945 I do in fact think that the USSR model is deeply flawed as my posts have indicated. However, I did use the Marxist definition of exploitation afaik. I'm not saying it was capitalism I said it was similar to and arguably was depending on who you ask, state capitalism. >>292958 >disregard marxist theory itself >there is only one true interpretation of marx I'm not an expert on Marx who has devoted his life to studying Marxist text. And I don't think someone should have to be that to post here or elsewhere. It's precisely because I recognize my own limitations and ignorance that I put more value on people like Wolff than the average person on anonymous anime image-boards. >>292964 >retards who talk about muh totalitarianism and muh bureaucracy. Those are legitimate grievances though, maybe exaggerated and often repeated but shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Especially if it's an issued tied to alienation.
>>292958 They have the tools to critique but they don't use them. A whole box of tools that sits unused while they try to take apart the house using their bare hands. That's what the average leftist criticism of the USSR looks like. Bolsheviks built the house using the tools and anarchists shout and kick at the walls. >>292981 >A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses. In the same way the light from an object is perceived by us not as the subjective excitation of our optic nerve, but as the objective form of something outside the eye itself. But, in the act of seeing, there is at all events, an actual passage of light from one thing to another, from the external object to the eye. There is a physical relation between physical things. But it is different with commodities. There, the existence of the things quâ commodities, and the value relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities. I think Marx's comparison with religion can be misleading. The important thing is this: inseparable from the production of commodities. It's not separate from the production process at all.
>>288934 >What is a bureaucrat then, if not a capitalist, but also not worker? Provide a definition then. It seems to be another strata, just like engineers, officers or scientists; but not really a class. strata is a good term. Layer also works. Trotsky calls them a caste
>>293000 In very simple terms: Surplus production happens in every human society after the invention of agriculture and domestication. It quite literally means, producing more materially than necessary for one's own subsistence. Surplus-value is the very social form under which surplus extraction under capitalism takes place: It is the subsumption of labor under capital, where labor-power is renumerated by its own reproduction cost in exchange for something with a higher exchange-value than the latter, which obscures the real relation by appearing as an exchange of equal values (this is also a fetishization). Think about the properties of a commodity, it has a use-value and an exchange-value: This two-fold character can also apply to surplus, you have the surplus product as a material reality, and the surplus-value as the social form under capitalism. Does that make sense? >I'm not sure that's what was happening for 100 years in the USSR and other countries though. Workers and managers got paid by the state, which is no different from a low-paid work and a high-paid worker in the same company, obviously the latter isn't exploiting the former. Where is the capitalist? >That's what porky would say really arbitrary. Except when we say it we mean development that has substance and avoids the pitfalls of the massively unequal development under capitalism. Even modern China showcases today what planned development does in comparison to anarchic development. >state capitalism Capitalism with no bourgeoisie, no surplus-value, no wage labor, no universalized commodity production, no anarchy of the market, ... I really do not see how people so quickly jump to the conclusion that the USSR was capitalist, or are drawn to such a conclusion seemingly immediately.
>>293040 Caste is problematic, as you are born into one. There was still meritocracy in the USSR in the sense that one could work their way up. >>293014 I think Marx's comparison with religion very fitting, as it also beautifully connects young Marx with his critique of Feuerbach with late Marx. On the ideological reproduction of capitalism, there is little difference to religion, especially when considering the protestant/Calvinist roots of capitalist ideology, especially in terms of renunciation. One of my favorite Marx quotes: <By counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard – general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank, and it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage. Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/needs.htm
>Because society still needs people to work The problem is you keep getting this wrong. There is a difference between being forced to work at gun point, being forced to work due to basic necessities making labor power a commodity. Its such a stupid argument - people in the USSR weren't working for "needs" they working to industerialize the USSR in the form of wage slavery. They were forced to do this by law. Like, you're dumb as fuck because even in Catalonia, the Anarchists did not force people to work, people voluntarily joined the collectives, communes and did work because things needed to be produced. Like, you're upholding a shitty example of "socialism" when the Anarchists in Spain, and Mao himself, had better solutions like not forcing people to work, and using communal planning that offered people free services provided contributed to the commune using a work point system. >The commodity form is specific to capitalism Commodity Production existed in the USSR in the form of wage labor as a commodity and private property was not abolished. It was capitalist. Firms operated on a profit motive. Stalin admits this. There were no labor vouchers, rationing was phased out, and production was not based on consumption, but increasing geo-metric growth. You can live in this delusional world where the Soviet Union was socialist - but outside your dumbass Stalinist circlejerk, it makes no difference.
Like literally read the Critique Gotha Programme >Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products >Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products >Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products >Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products If there is commodity exchange on a market, which happened in the USSR, it was capitalist. Not socialist. Just fucking read instead of making absurd conclusions.
>>293047 So surplus happens in every society and surplus-value happens under capitalism. That is what I believed the difference was but it does not seem like a huge difference. I mentioned that the state would be capable of appropriating surplus value of workers if it hired/fired workers to produce commodities. Of course the workers were not hired but assigned according to a plan as pointed out here >>292610. I don't see how a worker being assigned by a state official rather than hired by a capitalist to make a certain product is that big of a difference to then say the worker is not being exploited if he is assigned rather than hired. This is without mentioning the time Stalin let Ford build in the USSR. Would that be an instance of the soviet state being complicit in creating and allocating surplus value?
(18.78 KB 326x523 2gpylg.jpg)
>>293077 >There is a difference between being forced to work at gun point, being forced to work due to basic necessities making labor power a commodity Pic related. Nature is capitalist now because it forces you to hunt down game to eat. >Like, you're dumb as fuck because even in Catalonia, the Anarchists did not force people to work, people voluntarily joined the collectives, communes and did work because things needed to be produced. This is objectively not true, CNT-FAI had work quotas everybody needed to fulfil and had an armed police that made sure they did. Again, there is no such thing as "free lunch" - if you want to withdraw from the means of consumption, you need to contribute equivalencies, unless you are disabled, old, a child, sick or whatever. >Commodity Production existed in the USSR in the form of wage labor as a commodity Where were workers hired and fired? >private property was not abolished Where did a private entity own means of production? >Firms operated on a profit motive. Again, I'm tired of repeating myself, profit wasn't based on the extraction of surplus-value, and profits weren't invested into capital, it was just a cost-accounting method as the law of value, as Marx states, does persist in the sense that labor-values regulate production and distribution. >and production was not based on consumption, but increasing geo-metric growth. An industrial society is the precondition for increased consumption, this is again, a very basic point in Marxism, unless you are a primitivist. >>293087 Yup, relations between public enterprises in socialism do not constitute social exchange, as such, goods exchanged within the public sector do not appear to us as commodities in substance (like when a worker echanges a hammer for a gear within one enterprise, before their labor becomes social). I think Kim il-Sung wrote a good account on this in his collected works on page 388 - 394: http://www.bannedthought.net/Korea-DPRK/KimIlSung/KimIlSung-Works-23-OCR.pdf
>>293149 >That is what I believed the difference was but it does not seem like a huge difference. The social form of surplus extraction is literally one of the main characteristics within historical materialism of how you define a mode or production in an historical era. The formal and absolute subordination of labor under capital is based on it in the transition from post-feudalism to capitalism. >This is without mentioning the time Stalin let Ford build in the USSR. Would that be an instance of the soviet state being complicit in creating and allocating surplus value? Probably, albeit distorted. >I don't see how a worker being assigned by a state official rather than hired by a capitalist to make a certain product is that big of a difference to then say the worker is not being exploited if he is assigned rather than hired. Nobody was assigned on command, you went to a job training or education within a poly-technical education system, and then you got a list of option where your abilities are needed for which you then applied.
(73.17 KB 640x641 3c5l0zln5ra41.jpg)
>defending the bureaucrats
>>293215 I know that the form in which he surplus is extracted defines how the mode of production is in part. But if the workers are not appropriating their own surplus. I don't see how removing porky means no exploitation, but rather is just exploitation by someone else. That's one of the main issues I have I suppose. As for the job training and educational programs I'm skeptical that those were free and useful programs seeing as things like worker participation were heavily controlled.
I need to go shower.>>293352 It's been a good thread so far tbh. And I'll return to check it later.
>>293352 I mean, I think one way to show that there was "exploitation" would be to portray how the surplus we are talking about was invested into things that only benefited a minority. If you look at the USSR, most of what was produced went into stuff that everybody who is a member of society uses. There were no gated communities, no mansions, no yachts, no corporate scams, no rent-seeking, no super-profits of the pharma industry, etc. - everything went into education, infrastructure, leisure activities, sports, housing, and so on; while you can find all the former things in modern Russia today. I have a hard time talking about exploitation when it all went into socially useful things. In Western countries your taxes go into bailing out banks. >those were free Education was free with a required two-year of obligated work at an assigned station to make up for it.
>>293192 >This is objectively not true, CNT-FAI had work quotas everybody needed to fulfil This is wrong. They had production quotas that were set by the workers themselves. The state planners, in the USSR, set quotas, and forced the workers to fulfill them under penalty of law. The "armed police" were militas under direct control of the workers themselves. This is a stupid argument, again, because neither Marx, Engels or Lenin considered "militas" police especially when they are armed by the workers themselves. >Where were workers hired and fired? Has nothing to do with commodity production - but here you go (http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/labor-discip.html) >Where did a private entity own means of production? Its literally in the 1936 Soviet Constitution. Private property was allowed in law, and peasant collective had them. >Again, I'm tired of repeating myself, profit wasn't based on the extraction I'm tired of you being fucking wrong. If profit exists - its not socialism. its capitalism. Stalin said profit was a factor in guiding the economy, that law of value existed - it was capitalism. You fucking stalinist degenerates not only distorted marxism, but fucking kill everyone attempting to stop you. >An industrial society is the precondition for increased consumption But socialism has nothing do with increased consumption - its planned consumption for need. The Soviet Union economy was focused on "needs" but focused on building up its heavy industrial and military apparatus. Why do you think they had constant footage shortages?
>>289458 >>286090 >>286051 If I agree with everyone in this thread will I receive a state mandated a hot ML waifu?
>>293460 >I mean, I think one way to show that there was "exploitation" would be to portray how the surplus we are talking about was invested into things that only benefited a minority. I don't think that has to be the case though. Imo exploitation would exist even if the surplus extracted and distributed is for altruistic end goals. But I think that it did in fact benefit a minority. That elite managerial class from earlier in the thread got paid more than the workers. Who paid them? They paid themselves via the state apparatus. There were instances of people like that benefiting themselves on funds from the state treasury which ultimately drew some of it's funds from the surplus produced.
>>293590 >Imo exploitation would exist even if the surplus extracted and distributed is for altruistic end goals. I understand your point. I think it's a very anarchist and individualist point though. I'm more of a collectivist of course, that's why i'm a leftist. I do not mind sharing a bit of my earnings with the rest of society to set common goals and projects that benefit everyone (welfare, etc). However, by following your logic, i do not get who is exactly the exploiter in this situation. I'm not talking about the specific circumstances of the SU but rather what you said, "exploitation would exist even if the surplus extracted and distributed is for altruistic end goals". If this is exploitative, then who's the exploiter? society? workers? workers are "exploiting" themselves for... the betterment of workers? can you really call this exploitation? (Remember, i'm not talking about how things worked in the USSR). Of course, it is exploitation if its forceful. I agree with the anarchist take on this, the voluntary association thing. What if, the amount of surplus-value extracted from workers and the end given to it is democratically choosen by the people that said surplus is extracted from? Would you still consider that exploitation? maybe the exploitation of the majority or something like that? I personally wouldn't, because as i stated i'm social and i believe in the collective and the rule of the majority. Now, whether workers did have the ability and rights to decide what to do with their extracted surplus in the Soviet Union is arguable, of course. I'm sure if workers did have the ability to do so in the former USSR they probably wouldn't have given their food and grain to the Red Army during the civil war (during the time of war communism), because they literally starved to death because the Party considered more important to forcefully feed its army to win the war than feeding the peasants who produced said food. That's why obviously the peasants didn't voluntarily give their grain to the reds, of course the bolsheviks took it by force.
>>294039 >I understand your point. I think it's a very anarchist and individualist point though. I think that's the entire point of communism though. Working towards a stateless society where people are free to take what they want to use as they see fit. On that note libertarian socialism I think is a good response to ML. G.A. Cohen has written a lot about libertarian socialist theory iirc. >In this book G. A. Cohen examines the libertarian principle of self-ownership, which says that each person belongs to himself and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else. This principle is used to defend capitalist inequality, which is said to reflect each person’s freedom to do as he wishes with himself. The author argues that self-ownership cannot deliver the freedom it promises to secure. He thereby undermines the idea that lovers of freedom should embrace capitalism and the inequality that comes with it. He goes on to show that the standard Marxist condemnation of exploitation implies an endorsement of self-ownership, since, in the Marxist conception, the employer steals from the worker what should belong to her, because she produced it. >Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995 Or any other traditional anarchist take could be the end result of following the logic I set forth in that post. >democratically chosen by the people That would probably bring in new issues to deal with and no system is perfect. But it probably would be more desirable than allow elites to appropriate and distribute the surpluses. But it really depends on your own underlying philosophy. Since you are more of a collectivist, as you said, your views are understandable. And unironically very similar to genuine fascism in this regard the red fascism meme aside. Workers having the rights and abilities are all arguable too. But I believe any rights and powers the workers did have was very restricted.
>>293528 >Its literally in the 1936 Soviet Constitution. Private property was allowed in law, and peasant collective had them. This is misleading. The 1936 Constitution stated, "In addition to its basic income from the public collective-farm enterprise, every household in a collective farm has for its personal use a small plot of land attached to the dwelling and, as its personal property, a subsidiary establishment on the plot, a dwelling house, livestock, poultry and minor agricultural implements in accordance with the statutes of the agricultural artel." While the "small plot of land attached to the dwelling" was known as the private plot, the peasant could not buy or sell this plot (since he didn't own the land; the state did), he could not use hired labor to work the plot, and the main purpose of the plot was to supplement the personal consumption needs of the collective farmer. In other words, there was no possibility of the private plots leading to the establishment of capitalism. And even this tiny bit of private initiative was viewed with suspicion by the CPSU, whose officials often sought to further shrink the size of the private plots.
>>293528 >This is wrong. They had production quotas that were set by the workers themselves. Catalonia wasn't a united mass. In several regions several unions and collectives enforced their own rules, and if they leaned more towards the collectivist side they did enforce work quotas, and this caused friction amongst the factions more often than not, leading to the weak military success of the whole experiment. In general I regard it as wrong to split from an anti-fascist front while fascism is literally about to conquer you. >Has nothing to do with commodity production - but here you go The question is whether labour-power was a commodity. The article doesn't claim that, it just talks about efforts to increase workplace discipline during early industrialisation. By hired and fired I obviously mean a capital-labour relation; where labour is paid its own reproduction cost, and where surplus is extracted as surplus-value, backed by a reserve army of labour (which didn't exist in the USSR). >Its literally in the 1936 Soviet Constitution. This is so childish. It allowed small private plots for subsistence, what the fuck would you do with them, nationalise them? Nationalise toothbrushes? To call this a restoration of private property is probably the dumbest argument I've heard from you here, and you came storming in here insulting everybody. >If profit exists - its not socialism. its capitalism. Stalin said profit was a factor in guiding the economy, that law of value existed - it was capitalism. You did not quote me directly but only half of my sentence. The Marxist argument is, as I pointed out in OP, that the law of value would continue to exist in the form of labor-value, to organise production of distribution within the realm of social production. Profits similarly become metrics of cost-accounting and not realizations of surplus-value; which is the one defining aspect of capitalism, the other being the possibility to turn profit into capital - also, according your own metric, Revolutionary Catalonia was capitalist too. >But socialism has nothing do with increased consumption - its planned consumption for need. The Soviet Union economy was focused on "needs" but focused on building up its heavy industrial and military apparatus. Why do you think they had constant footage shortages? The USSR overcame food shortages by mechanizing their agriculture. Are you some kind of primitivist? The production of capital goods especially in a society with deficient productive forces, and saw a deduction in the surplus product for the expansion of means of production necessary in the Critique of the Gotha Program. <Nor will we explain to them that it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse.. I also don't know what the hell "planned consumption for need" means, because consumption already implies need, what's the antagonism here, being forced to eat twenty Snickers a day? Let's have a type of socialism where we have political supremacy over a rationally planned economy with anarchy of production being abolished, while also simultanously trying not to revert back to the Bronze Age.
>>293542 No you'll have to out-woo everyone else and since work will once again be prized your competition will be tougher since everyone will have muscles and work out and you won't be able to get an easy wife anymore simply because you inherited money. Since inheritance will have been abolished along with all passive and parasitical income streams (stock market investing, landlording, etc.).
bump
bump
(3.97 MB 1000x10267 tankie.png)
>>286051 This is the most based thread I've seen all day.
Funny how the leftcoms in the leftcom thread haven't come back here and prefer to dump their shit-takes there and ignore the debunks here.
>>319571 They live in an alternate reality so they need an alternate thread.
>>286051 >>muh gorillions, red fascism Fuck off Give an answer instead of just "muh propaganda"
>>320074 "muh gorillions" literally is just propaganda.
Surprised this thread is still alive. I've already stumped DDRposter with >>288997, but here's a few more for discussion's sake: 1. Strict centralism, the ban on factions and other organizational structures (e.g. public ballots and slate voting) adopted during the Russian Civil War have been extremely detrimental to subsequent Leninist organizing attempts. These measures are understandable during wartime conditions, but they have no place being applied during peacetime, especially in Western capitalist democracies. Public factions and open criticism was accepted and common among the Bolsheviks up until 1918, so it's also historically false to claim that these measures have always been necessary. In practice, centralism and banning factionalism stifles party democracy and internal debate, breaks the connection between the party and the working class, and necessarily leads to splits and purges as the only way to handle disagreement between members. The west is littered with tiny, insignificant ML/Trot sects because of this terrible organizational legacy. 2. The USSR grossly misjudged the postwar international situation and unnecessarily alienated/split the socialist movement because of it. It was understandable to call for world revolution immediately after 1917, but advocating the same thing into the 1920s was futile. Stuff like the March Action were forced through by Moscow without regard to the actual social conditions in Germany, leading to abject failure and alienating Communists from the workers. The 21 Conditions and demands that Communists split from the broader socialist parties to 'purify' themselves of evil right-wing ideas unnecessarily alienated potential supporters and isolated them from potential allies. The Comintern became a fanclub and foreign policy tool of the USSR, not an organization for carrying out global proletarian revolution. 3. The Popular Front is seldom talked about on /leftypol/, which is odd considering how it was the height of "Communist" influence in the West. Maybe because it ultimately was a disaster which led to every Communist faction who adopted pop-front strategies being purged or massacred for their trouble. The legacy of pop-front thinking still persists though, it's why remaining Communist factions urge you to vote for Hillary Clinton or Macron or Merkel as the 'lesser-evil' against the evil nationalist/fascist Trumps and Le Pens. Leninist orgs keep stanning for bourgeois politicians instead of, you know, actually building an independent working-class movement.
(79.21 KB 255x374 sed_chan-1.png)
>>320513 >Surprised this thread is still alive. I've already stumped DDRposter with >>288997, but here's a few more for discussion's sake: I've responded to it: >>291181 >1. Strict centralism, the ban on factions and other organizational structures (e.g. public ballots and slate voting) adopted during the Russian Civil War have been extremely detrimental to subsequent Leninist organizing attempts. These measures are understandable during wartime conditions, but they have no place being applied during peacetime, especially in Western capitalist democracies. Public factions and open criticism was accepted and common among the Bolsheviks up until 1918, so it's also historically false to claim that these measures have always been necessary. In practice, centralism and banning factionalism stifles party democracy and internal debate, breaks the connection between the party and the working class, and necessarily leads to splits and purges as the only way to handle disagreement between members. The west is littered with tiny, insignificant ML/Trot sects because of this terrible organizational legacy. You should give an example as to why this is the case, and not just claim shit. Communist Parties are often the ones who have to deal with the heaviest amount of repression, or subversion. Democratic centralism doesn't mean that there is no discussion, there is plenty of discussion, but I fail to see why this should be carried out in public. I'm a member of the DKP, the German Communist Party, and we strictly have to carry out some discussions through our own platforms as we are threatened by a ban (talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat for example). This is the reality of "western democracies", stop buying Karl Popper's meme of an "open society" (interesting that in allegedly more "repressive countries" like Syria, communists can openly talk about such things). Public ballots seem like a terrible option for a communist party, which is supposed to be a vanguard, not some cookie-cutter DemSoc big tent shit. This doesn't mean that you can't partake in united fronts, or have your candidates appear on ballots together with DemSoc parties, etc. - an example of this praxis would be the Communist Party of Portugal, I don't see how they are ineffectual or how democratic centralism hampers them. >The USSR grossly misjudged the postwar international situation and unnecessarily alienated/split the socialist movement because of it. It was understandable to call for world revolution immediately after 1917, but advocating the same thing into the 1920s was futile. Stuff like the March Action were forced through by Moscow without regard to the actual social conditions in Germany, leading to abject failure and alienating Communists from the workers. The 21 Conditions and demands that Communists split from the broader socialist parties to 'purify' themselves of evil right-wing ideas unnecessarily alienated potential supporters and isolated them from potential allies. The Comintern became a fanclub and foreign policy tool of the USSR, not an organization for carrying out global proletarian revolution. I agree here except the last part (unnecessary quip of being "agents of Moscow which was exactly what bourgeois politicians accused Marxist-Leninists during that time, and even today), and the Third International agreed too, which is why the theory of social fascism was dropped in 1935 and popular fronts were advocated to fight off fascism. It's wrong though that this was all enforced by "Moscow", the KPD in Germany had plenty of supporters that genuinely misjudged the situation and did not compromise outside a demand of "Soviet Germany" being realized. That the KPD overestimated their strength and the revolutionary potential was indeed the case. It's funny seeing this argument now, from Trots, Maoists and Leftcoms we are always lambasted whenever we judge a situation as disadvantageous, like when the KKE defends the bourgeois parliament against anarchist smashies, because storming the parliament would result into nothing productive at best and Greece turning into a fascist dictatorship at worst. This is pretty consistent with how the Bolsheviks acted too during the revolutionary years in Russia, knowing when to strike and knowing when to retreat. >The Popular Front is seldom talked about on /leftypol/, which is odd considering how it was the height of "Communist" influence in the West. Maybe because it ultimately was a disaster which led to every Communist faction who adopted pop-front strategies being purged or massacred for their trouble. The legacy of pop-front thinking still persists though, it's why remaining Communist factions urge you to vote for Hillary Clinton or Macron or Merkel as the 'lesser-evil' against the evil nationalist/fascist Trumps and Le Pens. Leninist orgs keep stanning for bourgeois politicians instead of, you know, actually building an independent working-class movement. First you trash us for being too adventurous, now you trash us for being too conformist? Make up your mind. The popular front strategy was advocated against the rise of fascism, and was subsequently advocated in imperialiszed countries that fight off the comprador bourgeoisie or imperialists together with the national bourgeoisie. As for the former, the struggle against fascism was mostly militant, and it literally does not matter if a fascist dies by a bullet that's fired by a communist or a liberal (so it's different than saying "hey vote for this neolib to own the fascists" as you seem to insinuate). As for the latter, this was firstly used during World War II against the Nazi occupation, and then against British imperialism in Greece. If you're trying to argue that the KKE shouldn't have formed the EAM, then that is completely silly. The KKE wasn't strong enough to take on the Greek monarchists and British tanks on their own. Popular fronts were also applied successfully in Vietnam, Laos, Korea, Cuba and many other countries in which communists seized power. I think you are just grossly mischaracterizing what a popular front means, and when it is applied. When I'm looking to at the communist parties in the Global North, pretty much nobody advocates working with neoliberals against the populist right. The PCF is not Marxist-Leninist anymore, they have literally denounced it and embraced Eurocommunism. Your other example is the CPUSA, their stance towards the Democratic Party is widely criticized by pretty much all other communist parties. Plus, the infamous article that advocated voting for Clinton in the Daily Worker was written by a Cuban ambassador, because no matter what you think of Clinton, she would have probably been better for the Cuban people as the Republican Party is full of gusanos that will enforce any action against left-wing Latin American governments (not saying the Democrats don't, but in the specific Cuban example, she would have been the "lesser evil"). As I've said, I'm in the DKP, and to argue that we in any shape or form would ever endorse Merkel to stop the AfD is not even a smear, because it's so delusional that nobody would take that seriously.
>>320074 I didn't do that because I didn't want this thread to degenerate into another history discussion as there are already plenty of threads about it.
(233.56 KB 1000x533 trotchart2.jpg)
>>321037 I saw your reply to that PDF, and wasn't convinced. Stalin was wrong, the law of value didn't function in the USSR but their system of planning wasn't socialized and participatory enough to function on its own without the state bureaucracy. I would have thought MLs would like the "non-mode of production" argument, it avoids all that "state capitalism" shit and admits that many chararacteristics of capitalism were abolished in the USSR, but goes into a deeper organizational/political critique of the Soviet system that seems more useful. Plus Ticktin actually lived and studied in the USSR, he wasn't just an armchair writing in the abstract. >You should give an example as to why this is the case, and not just claim shit The history of communist splits and purges is pretty well known, but okay. I live in America, land of the Trotskyist sects, there's at least a dozen of them, most of which hate each other, have less than a few hundred members, and all insist on running their own inconsequential candidates for president who get no votes. This is a massive waste of time and resources, particularly for groups who consider themselves the "vanguards" of the working class. Most of these splits were decades ago over inconsequential shit like whether they supported "Castroism" or "Pabloism" that just isn't relevant anymore. My post channelled some of Mike Macnair of the CPGB's arguments for broader left unity and independence. And I agree with his points, that it would be better to have the "left" under a big organization that's open and democratic and thus actually tied to the working class. Strict centralism lends itself too easy to a kind of bonapartism where the heads of the party enforce their will from the top down. Factionalism is not a bad thing, it's better to have public disagreement and hash it out within the party than supress it until it explodes in a split or purge. And I don't see how this would encourage repression, you'll be repressed for threatening the bourgeois state regardless of whether you're strictly centralist or openly democratic, it's gonna happen either way. >First you trash us for being too adventurous, now you trash us for being too conformist? Make up your mind. I was contrasting the Popular Front to the United Front, i.e. tactical collaboration with other socialist/liberal forces on specific issues, while maintaining your independence. The latter I have no problem with. Taking up arms against fascism I can understand, but when it means supressing criticism and joining a bourgeois party, I take issue with it. The CPUSA basically undoing all their work organizing black Americans in the deep south by collaborating with the Democratic Party at the end of the 1930s is a good example. Maybe it's too tenuous to tie the Pop Front into current calls to support the "lesser evil" in elections, if the latter is done mostly by unaffiliated journalists and public figures. But someone still needs to tell those people to STFU, because it's a bad strategy that abrogates the necessity of socialists to form their own political organs independent of the bourgeois state and parties.
>>323917 >wasn't convinced Of course you weren't
>>321053 I mean in discussing theory history is inevitably a part of it, especially since theory and practise are different.
bremp
Reposting here for posterity: There definitely was a time frame where it was possible to condemn Socialist systems or the leaders like Stalin and Mao, but that basically ended when the 90's neo-lib shock doctrine capitalism killed more people in the Soviet block than the crisis and failures during the bootstrapping phase of 20th century communism, with a notable difference that the shock doctrine deaths were purely ideological and had no material factors. You also have to keep in mind that the Soviet systemic competition was a important pressure that enabled social gains via well-fare systems outside the Soviet system and as such can be qualified as improving the conditions of international workers with a tremendous amount of soft-power. If you look at present conditions even in very rich first world countries where the life expectancy is starting to decline one really has to wonder why a ideological defence of this system is still possible. But I'm guessing that when life expectancy nearly doubled under Mao and Stalin that was because they were so evil and totalitarian that they accidentally oppressed the grim reaper too. There is still valid criticisms that can be had about these systems like people felt powerlessness, and there was considerable waste do to unresolved systemic issues but moral condemnation: Sorry NO.
>>286051 THANK You for this thread. LeftComs are very annoying.
>>293192 >CNT-FAI had work quotas everybody needed to fulfil No. Kill yourself liar.
>>397116 >On 18 June 1938 the CNT and UGT representatives of the Collectivá Gonzalo Coprons y Prat, which made military uniforms, reported a serious decline in production that lacked “a satisfactory explanation.”94 The representatives of the two unions demanded respect for production quotas and the work schedule, strict control of absences, and “the strengthening of the moral authority of the technicians.” The tailoring collective F. Vehils Vidal, which had established an elaborate system of incentives for its four hundred fifty workers, approved a rather strict set of rules in a general assembly on 5 March 1938.95 One individual was appointed to control tardiness, and too many latenesses would result in a worker’s expulsion. Comrades who were ill would be visited by a representative of the council of the collective; if they were not at home, they would be fined. As in many collectives, to leave during work hours was forbidden, and all work done in the collective had to be for the collective, meaning that personal projects were banned. Comrades leaving the shops with packages were required to show them to guards who were charged with inspection. If a worker observed incidents of stealing, fraud, or any dishonesty, he had to report them or be held responsible. Technicians were required to issue a weekly report on the failures and accomplishments of their sections. Comrades were not permitted to disturb “order inside or outside the firm,” and all workers who did not attend assemblies were fined. >Many other collectives of the clothing industry issued similar sets of rules. In February 1938 the CNTUGT council of Pantaleoni Germans prohibited unauthorized movements by threatening a suspension of work and salary ranging from three to eight days.96 The CNT-UGT Control Committee of the Rabat firm (employing mostly women) allowed only conversations concerning work during working hours. Other collectives, such as Artgust, which had unsuccessfully asked workers to increase production, also enforced rules forbidding conversations and even receiving phone calls.97 In August 1938 in the presence of representatives from the CNT, UGT, and the Generalitat, the workers’ assembly of the Casa A. Lanau prohibited lateness, false illness, and singing during work.98 The CNT and UGT unions of Badalona initiated a supervision of the sick and agreed that all workers must justify their absences, which were, they claimed, “incomprehensible” and “abusive,” considering that the working week had been reduced to 24 hours.99 In sev-eral collectives workers received a maximum three-day leave for a death in their immediate family. Enterprises also demanded that their personnel return to the workplace immediately after an air raid or alarm; the CNT Metallurgical Union urged militants to take measures to ensure that production could recommence “without any excuse.”100 marx.libcom.org/files/WorkersAgainstWork-Seidman_0.pdf
Imagine spending all this time and energy "defending" a country that hasn't existed for over 30 years and a man who has been dead for 70. Stalin-worship is not a necessary part of being a socialist.
(663.12 KB 640x640 212.png)
So let's TLDR, what difference did a worker experience between Stalinism and Social Democracy? Except for less privacy, less civil rights, less (formal) democracy, etc? Because both failed to neo-liberalism (for whatever reason) and neither seems to have any theory beyond "let's try it again". Oh yeah, and "aesthetics" doesn't count.
>>397156 They had work quotas but they were not "forceful" as you were trying to imply. The colectivization process (which was completely spontaneous by the way, not enforced by anyone except in barcelona) was based on voluntarism.
(85.10 KB 1025x373 CNT magic.jpg)
(254.80 KB 573x386 peaceful CNT-FAI.png)
>>385000 >>397193 Read >>397346 1) Defending legacy gives us a historic backing. No worker is going to support system that "hasn't been tried" The USSR was a giant 2) Stalin is defended because he is an iconic face of the USSR and attempting to talk shit about him is pure ideology and ignores the massive work he did in progressing socialism. And considering the current situation of the world, he was correct in stating, "What would happen if capital succeeded in smashing the Republic of Soviets? There would set in an era of the blackest reaction in all the capitalist and colonial countries, the working class and the oppressed peoples would be seized by the throat, the positions of international communism would be lost." - Speech at The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I. (December 1926) >less privacy/civil rights/democracy <muh neo-liberalism to quote: bitch are you serious Seriously go back to reddit with this liberal rubbish. >>397348 >they were not "forceful" Kek stop deluding yourself. the CNT was VERY forceful, because they had to enforce their quotas after a few months becuse no-one wanted to listen. Why do you think people keep joking about this with stuff like pic related? They even had their own equivalent of GULAGs, FFS. >muh voluntarism fuck off you disingenuous idealist lib-soc.
How do you expect to organize a legal party of professional revolutionaries without them all turning careerist? This has happened to basically every party that wasn't under immediate persecution or downright illegal, aka Black Panthers or Bolsheviks. It even happens in social democratic parties. And if you're planning on running an illegal party, how do you connect it to legitimate political movements without being crushed.
(74.33 KB 1200x900 2202942.jpg)
>>397710 I can't think of any stable government where Coup d'état were large and sucesfull and long therm. It's usually in moments of scarcity and fan hittin n shittin moments where an organized group of people have a chance. The closest I can think of probably are the zapatists, but even then they only had municipality scale success. If your scale is up to a shithole-ish forgoten by god town or small state they are good for the taking.
>>397737 Doesn't really answer the question though?
>>397743 I am answering by telling that you can't you fucking retard. Very few success stories and in very small scale.
>>397676 >to quote: bitch are you serious >Seriously go back to reddit with this liberal rubbish. I think you mixed up your response a bit, but setting that aside... If you intend to defend the legacy of the USSR "because of the workers" (to protect their innocence of whatever), consider addressing these points instead of just dismissing them. In standard liberal ideology, the points against "communists" is that they had a bad economy, they had no democracy, no rock and roll, no blue jeans, etc. These are the things that people associate with the eastern block. Right-wingers are the ones focusing on Stalin, because they want to make Hitler look good. A normal person might notice that a "who's less bad" battle is pointless, and doesn't actually convince anyone (not that it has to because no historic revolution took place because the activists managed to convince the people/the masses/the volk/the proletariat they they had a good system -- that's what liberal democracy does). Now again: What's the difference between social democracy and whatever the eastern block was doing.
>>286057 >Ok, who's the girl tho An actor, Teresa Weißbach, from the "Ostalgie" movie Sonnenalle: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0177242/
>>397676 >1) Defending legacy gives us a historic backing. No worker is going to support system that "hasn't been tried" The USSR was a giant USSR failed. No one wants to repeat a failure. >2) Stalin is defended because he is an iconic face of the USSR and attempting to talk shit about him is pure ideology Stalin was in charge when virtually all the surviving Old Bolsheviks were sent off to prison camps or secretly executed. Stalin cut a deal with Hitler, then cut a deal with Western imperialists. Under Stalin's leadership the normal functioning of the government was replaced by a dictatorship. This isn't ideology, these are all facts that can be quantified. >And considering the current situation of the world, he was correct in stating... That quote is sheer historical revisionism. The worker's movement was probably at its height BEFORE the USSR was officially created, fascism began overtaking Europe DURING the existence of the USSR, and by the 1970s the West began its neoliberal project and in many places utterly smashed and defeated Western labor movements. "Blackest reaction" didn't happen in the West after the fall of the USSR - it happened in the 1930s when the USSR was on the rise. I can't see how anyone can say that, based on historical fact, the USSR's existence gave a boost to the international worker's movement.
>>397824 <That quote is sheer historical revisionism. I should correct this - it would be better to say that using that quote in the sense that people do today is historical revisionism.
>>286051 >>muh gorillions, red fascism >Fuck off Is this really the best we can do?
>>397770 >>286055 >>286057 >>286671 Actually, it's even better! Opposed to what >>286090 says, she isn't "just an FDJ girl". Her character is "the most attractive girl on the eastern side of the Sonnenallee", a street that was split between east and west Berlin. Although all the eastern boys simp after her, she goes out with a chad from the west. When she takes him to a disco, but when the beta GDR officials find out, they force her to give a self-determination speak at the FDJ meeting. That's presumably the scene that is taking place here. The irony of choosing her as the eye-catcher for this thread is astounding, but nothing beyond the usual for MLs.
>>397676 >Kek stop deluding yourself. the CNT was VERY forceful, because they had to enforce their quotas after a few months becuse no-one wanted to listen. Why do you think people keep joking about this with stuff like pic related? They even had their own equivalent of GULAGs, FFS. Read a fucking book. And if possible, not a book that says the kind of porky myths that you're spouting. >the CNT was VERY forceful, because they had to enforce their quotas after a few months becuse no-one wanted to listen What even is this shit kek. enforce quotas? you just completely ignore how the process of collectivization happened and worked during the revolution. Stop using wikipedia as a legit source for your literal ancap propaganda. Goddamn guiris, you're embarassing sometimes. Also, what even is that picture trying to imply? you stupid underage faggot, anarcho syndicalism isn't about pacifism. Now it turns out that you faggots love the church! Personally i think there is nothing wrong with killing cardinals that pay mercenaries to kill workers like Segui, but of course you dont know shit about these people because you're a foreign smart ass who literally doesn't know anything about the civil war besides le evil anarkiddie burned my le beloved churcherino. <noooo you just cant execute my BELOVED fascist brothers!!! <the Spanish Church was innocent i tell you!! they were simply balancing the ledgers and praying to their diety! pacific islands and the americas colonized themselves! A tankie defending the exploiters of the people, nothing new under the sun. And it's not like these acts of vandalism were even promoted at a union level anyway, these were carried out mostly by individual communists from the PCE and individual anarchists. Priests were activity fighting for the fascists. Priests took arms against the Republic, they were combatants. Sorry my catholicuck fren. You're shooting at your own foot by making these revisionist posts. Now i understand how leninists feel when rightoids quote the Black Book of Communism or The Gulag Archipelago as legitimate sources to criticize the Gulag system in the Soviet Union. Man i wanna off this ride, fuck revisionists. A whole civil war fought, thousands of both communist and anarchist lives wasted so that one misinformed faggot on bunkerchan can own da anarkiddies.
>>400659 >Read a fucking book. No u unironiclly >porky myths <everyone who thinks the CNT wsan't "le anarchist dream" is porky Ok idiot >beloved fascist brothers Nice strawman you angry fuck Your entire mssive post is just n angry rant addressing strawmen. Be triggered on reddit dengite.
>>397824 >USSR failed <Muh soviet failure meme How is this any different from the "real communism has never been tried" idiocy? Go back to reddit you radlib, but first: 1) "And if planned economies, benevolent dictatorships, perfectionistic societies, and other utopian ventures have failed, we must remember that unplanned, undictated, and unperfected cultures have failed too. A failure is not always a mistake; it may simply be the best one can do under the circumstances. The real mistake is to stop trying. Perhaps we cannot now design a successful culture as a whole, but we can design better practices in a piecemeal fashion." – B.F. Skinner 2) The USSR lasted from 1922 to 1991 fought in many wars, and was lived through by 3 generations of people. It sent cosmonauts to space and back. It created the first lasting example of an alternative to capitalism and was the only other Superpower of its time. To call this a failure is like saying any empire or state from the past as a failure… yet somehow I don’t think history agrees. >That quote is sheer historical revisionism No it really isn't >Blackest reaction" didn't happen in the West after the fall of the USSR Imagine arguing a strawman this hard. It is pretty clear that Stalin first and foremost means the territories of the USSR and socialist movements of the time. Without the USSR, Vietnam would have been crushed, China a nationalist shithole, Korea a complete US puppet and Cuba and many other attempts at revolution would never get off the ground. Castro and Che were inspired by Stalin and Lenin and bolstered by the support of the USSR. >Stalin was in charge when virtually all the surviving Old Bolsheviks <Bla bla bla "muh old bolsheviks" crying Stalin committed no concrete crimes and most of the Great Terror wasn’t even his fault. Stalin was against mass arrests and once it became apparent how many people the NKVD was killing Stalin and the Centra Committee put Beria in the NKVD and removed Yezhov a short time later. The USSR was purging wreckers and opportunist holdovers from the revolution, which were many times outspoken anti-Bolsheviks that only backed the Bolshevik government when it became clear that they were the group that was going to take control when everything was said and done. These people had been allowed to fester since the civil war was won, and their purging was necessary and beneficial to the USSR. The problem with the purge was that it was not precise enough and had its efforts tainted by people like Yezhov, whose actions undermined the intention and effectiveness of the procedure. We know a great deal of the accusations in the great purge were true. Zinoviev, for example was in contact with Trotsky despite Trotsky denying it. We know this from Trotsky’s own archive. This was also proven efficient as the German wehrmacht found it hd severe problems getting tactical information and spies in the USSR after the purges. Lastly, the USSR was not a de facto dictatorship. The people had a great deal of say in how things were run and it was often the central government that was responding to their wishes. https://www.docdroid.net/t9gG4jQ/thurston-robert-reassessing-the-history-of-soviet-workers-opportunities-to-criticize-and-participate-in-decision-making.pdf https://www.quora.com/Which-USSR-leader-allows-free-speech/answer/Chuck-Garen
>>400844 The B.F. Skinner quote is good, but rhetorically it won't trump the argument made by anti-communists that the USSR collapsed and was a failure. Does it still exist? No - therefore it failed. That's why I avoid defending planning or socialism on the basis of the USSR. You can defend planning more effectively today by using the example of internal planning by giant corporations. On a micro level, socialism is when you combine that with democracy. This is how close we really are to being able to achieve a socialist society in the modern world. >Imagine arguing a strawman this hard. It is pretty clear that Stalin first and foremost means the territories of the USSR and socialist movements of the time. That's clearly the opposite of what he said... Stalin said: "What would happen if capital succeeded in smashing the Republic of Soviets? There would set in an era of the blackest reaction IN ALL THE CAPITALIST AND COLONIAL COUNTRIES, the working class and the oppressed peoples would be seized by the throat, the positions of international communism would be lost." (emphasis mine) >Stalin committed no concrete crimes and most of the Great Terror wasn’t even his fault. Stalin signed arrest lists, death warrants, etc. He removed Yagoda as head of the NKVD because Yagoda's efforts were perceived as lacking. Stalin personally wanted Yezhov as NKVD knowing it would mean intensifying the purges. >The USSR was purging wreckers and opportunist holdovers from the revolution, which were many times outspoken anti-Bolsheviks that only backed the Bolshevik government when it became clear that they were the group that was going to take control when everything was said and done. These people had been allowed to fester since the civil war was won, and their purging was necessary and beneficial to the USSR. The purges predominantly affected people in the higher ranks of society. These weren't pre-revolutionary "holdovers" or anti-Bolsheviks - they were often members of the Communist Party and held positions within the government and military. The higher one's rank the greater the chance of being purged. >We know a great deal of the accusations in the great purge were true. This is completely and utterly false. Many of the accusations were contradictory and totally fabricated. The more outrageous accusations have never been supported by any material evidence since the trials happened. Most of them were based on confessions that were forced under threats of violence against the accused or their families. >Zinoviev, for example was in contact with Trotsky despite Trotsky denying it. We know this from Trotsky’s own archive. Zinoviev having been in contact with Trotsky doesn't prove a giant Zinovievite-Trotskyist-Fascist plot within the Soviet government to overthrow the USSR. >Lastly, the USSR was not a de facto dictatorship. The people had a great deal of say in how things were run and it was often the central government that was responding to their wishes. Man, literally on the SECOND page of the paper by Thurston it quotes an emigre who says, "The Soviet system IS A DICTATORSHIP, but on the other side you must recognize that there exists a big criticism of the small and responsible workers excluding criticism of the regime..." (emphasis mine)
(167.15 KB 536x950 sov_congress_and_meetings.png)
pic related. it shows the decline of party congresses and official meetings of the politburo and other official bodies as Stalin consolidated his dictatorship throughout the '30s and '40s.
>>401934 not stalin's fault
>Ed Sard Fuck I should have realized it was you. Forgot to pay attention to the name. I'm jumping ship in this because arguing with a fool is to be a greater fool. I'll just cite that you emphasis on the Stalin quote deliberately ignores the context of the quote and the areas being referenced. China was not socialist at the moment of the quote but it did have a Revolution occurring and without the USSR it would have died. As for Skinner Rhetoric; 90% of anti-communists deny straight up facts about the USSR even when it BTFOs their entire image of communism. Using this as a reason to throw the USSR aside is playing into their hands by indirectly saying "they're right". As for Stalin consolidating power... you're just directly misinterpreting what little facts you are presenting and ignoring important parts of what I wrote and cited. Fucking sage >
>>402363 explain
>>286051 Your "socialism" has markets, money, wage labor and commodity production, red taylorism,labor camps, persecutes minorities, Lenin himself admitted that the bolsheviks inherited the old tzarist state, what the bolsheviks did was a military coup and forcible seizures of soviets, that's why Trotsky and co. created the Revolutionary Military Council outside the power of the soviets, because the bolsheviks did not want to wait for the general meetings of soviets where they would have lost, so with soldiers loyal to the RMC, they seized power to prevent that. Btw your definition of exploitation is Ricardian, not Marxist
>>400591 It's no worse than anarchists who constantly depict muh glorious Kelalonia with the image of a Catalan with a gun who in reality was a member of an ML party and worked for Pravda
Every time leftists try and "put something to bed" between other members other leftists, everyone becomes just even more fucking fragmented. Welcome to the left: were literally nothing ever happens. There should be a law named after this or something.
>>400659 The point is that it is hypocritical for anarchists to talk shit about ML states for doing the exact same things which they defend when Anarchist Catalonia does it.
There is still surplus value extraction under socialism but it goes into the social insurance fund, therefore the worker has an interest in producing surplus value.
(69.60 KB 1200x600 fdj1.jpg)
(60.30 KB 432x500 fdj2.jpg)
>>414803 That's unfair though because it is always Trots and Leftcoms who start the splitting, attack all socialist states, etc. >>400591 I didn't know that, oh well. I have not seen a single Ostalgie movie in my life, can you believe that. FDJ did have some cuties though (or does, they still exist). >>400560 I mean, this stuff has been addressed over and over. I was hoping the detractors of Marxism-Leninism would be redpilled about that already if they are on /leftypol/.
>>415409 >I mean, this stuff has been addressed over and over. Please do address it. There was a thread the other day where it was apparent that it couldn't be addressed - it's just there are more important arguments to be made than the 'figures'.
(662.03 KB 1080x2000 yc70mj2em8o21.png)
>>415448 Pic related. You need to be a bit more specific though.
>>414501 Explain

Delete
Report

no cookies?