Stalinist USSR was Anarcho-Capitalist.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Under anarcho-capitalism there is no distinction between monopoly capitalists and government.
In theory, anarcho-capitalist legal and judicial systems would be owned exclusively by a capitalist.
Think about it.

[jookyle]

There was a planned economy and the motives of industry (and a lot of farms) were collectively owned.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I know about the capitalist part of the argument, but where does the anarcho kick in?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No, lets not.

Seriously, can you try to use facts in your sectarian rants about "Stalinists"

[Delenda Carthago]

Posts like these are not helping set the level of the forum higher.

[Ostrinski]

I think this could be a good rhetorical move against anarcho capitalists.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think this could be a good rhetorical move against anarcho capitalists.

This is the only hypothetical reason why I would ever support this kind of rhetoric.

Edit: Actually, never mind. Not even the ana caps deserve this. Even they deserve factual retorts.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am with Gourmet Pez and Ostrinski. I would suggest that the ultimate result of anarcho-caoitalism would be a society that shares all of the negative features of the Soviet Union without any of its positive aspects. For example, During the Stalin years the Union did industrialize at least with respect to heavy industry (I would argue they did a rather poor job with respect to light industry). For example, Moscow under the anarcho-caps would NEVER have constructed the beautiful Moscow Metro. Anarcho-cap society would certainly be hell on earth for the vast majority of people. Some similarities to the Union circa 1930s but many more similarities to NAzi Germany or Democratic Kampuchea.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I am with Gourmet Pez and Ostrinski. I would suggest that the ultimate result of anarcho-caoitalism would be a society that shares all of the negative features of the Soviet Union without any of its positive aspects. For example, During the Stalin years the Union did industrialize at least with respect to heavy industry (I would argue they did a rather poor job with respect to light industry). For example, Moscow under the anarcho-caps would NEVER have constructed the beautiful Moscow Metro. Anarcho-cap society would certainly be hell on earth for the vast majority of people. Some similarities to the Union circa 1930s but many more similarities to NAzi Germany or Democratic Kampuchea.

"We don't like Anarcho-Caps because they are NAZI STALINIST POL POTS!!1!"

I generally like you, but please replace Anarcho-Capitalist with Socialists, and you'll realize that this line of reasoning is no better than something cooked up from a tea party nutter. Intellectual honesty isn't something we use only for people we like, it has intrinsic value in of it's self. This isn't intellectually honest, I don't even know if I can say what it is here without getting infracted for flaming myself.

[GoddessCleoLover]

"We don't like Anarcho-Caps because they are NAZI STALINIST POL POTS!!1!"

I generally like you, but please replace Anarcho-Capitalist with Socialists, and you'll realize that this line of reasoning is no better than something cooked up from a tea party nutter. Intellectual honesty isn't something we use only for people we like, it has intrinsic value in of it's self. This isn't intellectually honest, I don't even know if I can say what it is here without getting infracted for flaming myself.

Thanks for distorting my post. Anarcho-caps share only the negative characteristics of "Stalinists". Then I listed some positive attributes of "Stalinism" In conclusion I said that the Stalin analogy was partial at best, that a better analogy would be to Nazis or Pol Pot. I never drew ANY analogy between Stalin and the Nazis/Pol Pot. Such an interpretation is simply a misreading of my post.

[Geiseric]

Anarcho caps are morons, I quit arguing with them, and oher petit bourgeois capitalist idealists a while ago.

[Aurora]

Well that's a new one i must say, unfortunately though it's on about the same level of ridiculous as the capitalists were hiding in the basement of the Kremlin or socialism was built in 1934.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Gourmet Pez is being hyperbolic but his point is worth serious consideration. Under AnCap organs of the state would be presumably controlled by the wealthiest capitalist. The worst aspects of the Soviet system of the 30s involved governmental institutions falling into the hands of one man by means of the dictatorship of an overcentralized party.

Once more, I want to emphasize IMO this involves only the worst aspects of the Union at the worst stage of its history. OTOH AnCap seem to view such a situation as the optimal human society. Hence my reference to hyperbole.

[Zealot]

Gourmet Pez is being hyperbolic but his point is worth serious consideration. Under AnCap organs of the state would be presumably controlled by the wealthiest capitalist. The worst aspects of the Soviet system of the 30s involved governmental institutions falling into the hands of one man by means of the dictatorship of an overcentralized party.

Once more, I want to emphasize IMO this involves only the worst aspects of the Union at the worst stage of its history. OTOH AnCap seem to view such a situation as the optimal human society. Hence my reference to hyperbole.

I'm sorry, but this isn't worth consideration at all let alone serious consideration and not even bourgeois scholars would say that the entire government was under the command of a single person. But thanks OP, you gave me a good laugh.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah great analysis.

Seriously, why are you bothering making such a joke thread?

[robbo203]

Well that's a new one i must say, unfortunately though it's on about the same level of ridiculous as the capitalists were hiding in the basement of the Kremlin or socialism was built in 1934.


Actually the state capitalist class was hardly hiding in the basement but rather occupying and operating their dictroship from the capacious and rather sumptuous offices of the Kremlin amongst other places. Their relationship to the means of production being totally different from that of the Russian working class, this put them in another class altogether as the ultimate controllers - and therefore de facto owners - of those means. Socialism was never at any point on the cards in the long and tragic history of soviet state capitalism. Nor could it ever be. State capitalism is arguably #the most formidable obstacle that capitalism has yet come up with to the growth of socialist ideas - perhaps with the exception of nationalism

[Comrade #138672]

This is the only hypothetical reason why I would ever support this kind of rhetoric.

Edit: Actually, never mind. Not even the ana caps deserve this. Even they deserve factual retorts.It's on their level. They should be able to understand it better like that.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

If you buy into the bullshit bourgeois myth about what the Stalin-era Soviet Union was, then yes, it does sound like what the logical conclusions of anarcho-capitalism would be. I agree with that entirely.

But the only problem with that is that the Stalin-era was the golden age of the USSR.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

well, I dont mean to damper Lenin in that last post. Im just saying that Stalin was a badass and that the Stalin-era was in truth characterized by the furthest advances towards Communism that the USSR ever made. again however, the false stereotype of the Stalin era fits what anarcho-capitalism would be perfectly.

[Ostrinski]

Agree that Stalin was badass, in fact one of the more badass bourgeois revolutionaries comparable to Robespierre and Saint-Just.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

i think your being sarcastic, but i like the comment anyways and agree. if you really dig into it, Robespierre and Saint-Just were some of the most merciful.

[Luís Henrique]

Under AnCap organs of the state would be presumably controlled by the wealthiest capitalist.

While in the Soviet Union it was the opposite, ie, the capitalist wealth was controlled by the State.


The worst aspects of the Soviet system of the 30s involved governmental institutions falling into the hands of one man by means of the dictatorship of an overcentralized party.

This was the appearance; but in fact the governmental institutions were overarching, not subject to the control of the wealthy. Stalin's control was always political; he did not buy the Soviet Government, nor his position in it had anything to do with his personal fortune (which indeed didn't even exist in any meaningful way).

"Anarcho-capitalism" must be debated for what it is: an absurd oxymoron, a petty bourgeois fantasy that cannot be applied to the real world, because capitalism cannot exist without a State - and a strong one for what is worth. The Soviet Union was never Anarcho-capitalist, not because it was better or worse than that, but because it was a real, existant, social formation. Anarcho-capitalism isn't, never was, and cannot be.

Luís Henrique

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I have to say, this is kind of saying that Anarcho-communism is like Stalinism; both want to abolish money...

[sixdollarchampagne]

I was a Russian language major in college, and our professors were either immigrants from the USSR, in fundamental disagreement with the system there, or the children of such immigrants. Our professors flourished under capitalism in the US, so I would have a very hard time believing that the USSR represented any form of capitalism. If that were true, why would acquisitive, self-interested people have left? I think the less one knows about Russia, the more convincing the state-cap argument is. If it was capitalism, then why couldn't managers and like pass on state property to their children?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This is the only hypothetical reason why I would ever support this kind of rhetoric.

Edit: Actually, never mind. Not even the ana caps deserve this. Even they deserve factual retorts.

Why must Stalinoids get so butthurt over hypotheticals? This topic is interesting, I wish it were more fleshed out, we'll see, I might contribute.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Why must Stalinoids get so butthurt over hypotheticals? This topic is interesting, I wish it were more fleshed out, we'll see, I might contribute.

Why can't Anti-"Stalinists" do anything other than spew bullshit about Stalin.

Not even "Stalinists" call themselves that, heck I don't even think Anti-"Stalinists" have a coherent idea of what "Stalinism" is. At least you can excuse since you are an anarchist and you are opposed to any form of state regardless of it's flavor

[Ostrinski]

I don't respect it when when Stalinists get all indignant about other people's attitudes toward them. You uphold a dictator that is responsible for the deaths of millions, that carried out disastrous economic policies, and codified the death of the only genuine worker's revolution in history. And you have the audacity to complain that you don't like people being mean to you? BOO-FUCKING-HOO.

[hetz]

Yeah but at least Stalin was polite to people, I mean for example he even toasted with the Japanese ambassador in Moscow. And gave some big sword to Churchill in Teheran.

[Zulu]

And gave some big sword to Churchill in Teheran.

Actually, it was Churchill who gave Stalin the sword (from the King of England to honor the Red Army* victory at Stalingrad).


And by the way, this topic is even a greater flamebomb for the anacaps and libertarians:

http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/meh.ro7684.jpg

Joseph Stalin, the greatest business entrepreneur in the history of mankind. Henry Ford just sucks in comparison.


__________
* Stalin's very own PMC.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't respect it when when Stalinists get all indignant about other people's attitudes toward them. You uphold a dictator that is responsible for the deaths of millions, that carried out disastrous economic policies, and codified the death of the only genuine worker's revolution in history. And you have the audacity to complain that you don't like people being mean to you? BOO-FUCKING-HOO.

This... Is... AWESOME! :laugh: :D

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Why can't Anti-"Stalinists" do anything other than spew bullshit about Stalin.

Not even "Stalinists" call themselves that, heck I don't even think Anti-"Stalinists" have a coherent idea of what "Stalinism" is. At least you can excuse since you are an anarchist and you are opposed to any form of state regardless of it's flavor

Look, i despise the man, but i never spew shit about him. I just shut up about it.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

codified the death of the only genuine workers revolution in history? your delusional, Josef Stalin was a great and true warrior for socialist justice in world history. everything you say against him is regurgitated bourgeois propaganda, the international working class will conquer and your petite bourgeois individualism shall have nothing to do with it. the militant working class will triumph and the third world will rally behind it. you are lost fools if you deny the validity of anti-revisionism. trotskyism, anarchism, and social democracy are doomed

[Libertad the Second]

codified the death of the only genuine workers revolution in history? your delusional, Josef Stalin was a great and true warrior for socialist justice in world history. everything you say against him is regurgitated bourgeois propaganda, the international working class will conquer and your petite bourgeois individualism shall have nothing to do with it. the militant working class will triumph and the third world will rally behind it. you are lost fools if you deny the validity of anti-revisionism. trotskyism, anarchism, and social democracy are doomed

:rolleyes:

God.... Since when Stalin hired you from the grave as part of his 50 Cent Party?

This is disgusting.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:

This thread has been derailed by so much shitposting I'm going to lock it.

You people really seem to have trouble being serious & keeping on topic sometimes.