Stalin and Mao

[Comrade Walter]

Do you think Mao was Stalin's ideological and political successor?

[Sabot Cat]

No, not really consider the personal animosity, philosophical differences and geopolitical divergence that occurred between those two and their nations in their lifetimes. However I would say that Georgy Malenkov was Stalin's true ideological and political successor.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

No, they really had two different philosophies regarding communism, but that was only because of the differences between the needs of China and Russia. Their feud was actually quite silly and immature, to be honest. Their differences were ultimately negligible in the grand scheme of things.

[reb]

They were both bourgeois revolutionaries.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

They were both bourgeois revolutionaries.

I certainly don't approve of them, but how exactly were they bourgeois? Not trying to verbally attack you or anything, but I feel like that word gets thrown around a bit too much without real meaning behind it in many cases.

[Remus Bleys]

I certainly don't approve of them, but how exactly were they bourgeois? Not trying to verbally attack you or anything, but I feel like that word gets thrown around a bit too much without real meaning behind it in many cases.
because they developed capitalism in a mostly pre-capitalist area maybe?

[Brotto Rühle]

They were both bourgeois revolutionaries.
You go deep into the Nepalese mountains, convince the guerillas not to kill you, pick up an AK, and fight with them THEN TELL ME MAO WAS BOURGEOIS!!!!!:laugh:

I digress, you explained enough for the OP, I believe.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Political successor on acid, maybe. Mao was a million times more interesting, imho, than Stalin aside from Stalin's support for humanzee research. Jiang Qing, his widow, was also pretty interesting, more than Mao, even.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

because they developed capitalism in a mostly pre-capitalist area maybe?

Capitalism? Capitalist elements maybe, but land equalization and abolishment of landlords, plus redistribution of food hardly qualifies as capitalism. I'm not defending the two twats, I mean they completely failed to feed their people adequately. I'm just saying, you can't exactly call it capitalism. State capitalism, maybe. But even that is an oversimplification.

[celticnachos]

because they developed capitalism in a mostly pre-capitalist area maybe?

What do you mean? Stalin developed a socialist Soviet Union without a capitalist class, the deformation back to capitalism was due to Khrushchev's revisionism.

[Remus Bleys]

Capitalism? Capitalist elements maybe, but land equalization and abolishment of landlords, plus redistribution of food hardly qualifies as capitalism. I'm not defending the two twats, I mean they completely failed to feed their people adequately. I'm just saying, you can't exactly call it capitalism. State capitalism, maybe. But even that is an oversimplification.http://www.sinistra.net/lib/pro/whyrusnsoc.html
ah so i see. wage-labor, exploitation, accumulation of capital, foreign trade with other capitalist nations, nationalism, production for value isn't capitalist?
Kolkhoz aren't capitalist then?
dont even stalinists say stalin developed capitalism before establishing socialism?

What do you mean? Stalin developed a socialist Soviet Union without a capitalist class, the deformation back to capitalism was due to Khrushchev's revisionism.
“All its [the bourgeoisie] social functions are now performed by salaried employees." ~ Engels
also this is really funny as its idealism at its finest. Socialism isnt established by the will of a few people, that is blanquism's false perception.

[reb]

I certainly don't approve of them, but how exactly were they bourgeois? Not trying to verbally attack you or anything, but I feel like that word gets thrown around a bit too much without real meaning behind it in many cases.

Unless you are suffering from a disease of perception called stalinism, then every day reality will tell you that the the places where these people ruled over are now regular neo-liberal capitalist regimes. Stalinism and maoism paved the way for this capitalist development.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What do you mean? Stalin developed a socialist Soviet Union without a capitalist class, the deformation back to capitalism was due to Khrushchev's revisionism.

Which was brought on by his banishment from Disneyland which was followed famously by national mourning. Coping with feelings of suicide, it was on this day he vowed, to himself and the Soviet people, that we would ball out and make our own Disneyland.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

http://www.sinistra.net/lib/pro/whyrusnsoc.html
ah so i see. wage-labor, exploitation, accumulation of capital, foreign trade with other capitalist nations, nationalism, production for value isn't capitalist?
Kolkhoz aren't capitalist then?
dont even stalinists say stalin developed capitalism before establishing socialism?

“All its [the bourgeoisie] social functions are now performed by salaried employees." ~ Engels
also this is really funny as its idealism at its finest. Socialism isnt established by the will of a few people, that is blanquism's false perception.


If you look at my post I said "capitalist elements maybe". You're absolutely right, those are all capitalist elements. But there were also many non-capitalist elements. Don't misconstrue my post as me defending them. But they both also took a militant stance against capitalism and created trading networks with other "socialist" countries that excluded capitalist nations. But it is completely absurd to claim that they built capitalism. If they built capitalism, then why were capitalist nations trying to destroy them?

[reb]

Capitalism? Capitalist elements maybe, but land equalization and abolishment of landlords, plus redistribution of food hardly qualifies as capitalism. I'm not defending the two twats, I mean they completely failed to feed their people adequately. I'm just saying, you can't exactly call it capitalism. State capitalism, maybe. But even that is an oversimplification.

It's an over complication to call it anything other than capitalism to the extent that you start describing idealist nonsense. And yes, the policies adopted by the soviet state in regards to land did pave the way for the capitalist development of the state and it's industrialization.

[Remus Bleys]

If you look at my post I said "capitalist elements maybe". You're absolutely right, those are all capitalist elements. But there were also many non-capitalist elements. Don't misconstrue my post as me defending them. But they both also took a militant stance against capitalism and created trading networks with other "socialist" countries that excluded capitalist nations. But it is completely absurd to claim that they built capitalism. If they built capitalism, then why were capitalist nations trying to destroy them?
By this logic, the Fascist states were socialist, because the capitalist states destroyed them! OR the liberal democracies were socialist, because the capitalist states tried to destroy them! There must have been a socialist camp in WW1, right? Right? Why else would they possibly ever come into conflict then, right? RIGHT? RIGHT?

[reb]

What do you mean? Stalin developed a socialist Soviet Union without a capitalist class, the deformation back to capitalism was due to Khrushchev's revisionism.

You don't "develop socialism". What are you, 12? What happened was that they did develop the base for socialism, but what this amounted to was a development of capitalism. And yes, because one man in charge has the ability to completely roll back an epoch in human social relations. This Khrushchev you speak of must have the power of a hundred Bonapartes and at least twenty Jesuses. Frankly, unless you think that the soviet union became capitalist over night then you must believe that you had a situation where you had a non-socialist leadership with a socialist base and this makes you a trotskyite.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

It's an over complication to call it anything other than capitalism to the extent that you start describing idealist nonsense. And yes, the policies adopted by the soviet state in regards to land did pave the way for the capitalist development of the state and it's industrialization.

What idealist nonsense? I am severely anti Stalin and anti Mao (moreso anti Stalin). I was never defending them, I'm just being logical. Since when is land redistribution a capitalist concept? Since when is kicking out capitalist countries out of a trading network capitalist? I'm just saying that it had some capitalist elements, but to call them capitalist? WHy didn't the US support them if they were a capitalist country? That is absurd.

[celticnachos]

“All its [the bourgeoisie] social functions are now performed by salaried employees." ~ Engels
also this is really funny as its idealism at its finest. Socialism isnt established by the will of a few people, that is blanquism's false perception.
[/QUOTE]

It wasn't just Stalin that established socialism, it was the Russian people led by the communist party that created socialism. Funny how other revolutionaries developed socialism in other countries by using some of the same strategies that Stalin and his comrades used.

[reb]

What idealist nonsense? I am severely anti Stalin and anti Mao (moreso anti Stalin). I was never defending them, I'm just being logical. Since when is land redistribution a capitalist concept? Since when is kicking out capitalist countries out of a trading network capitalist? I'm just saying that it had some capitalist elements, but to call them capitalist? WHy didn't the US support them if they were a capitalist country? That is absurd.

I wasn't calling you an idealist. Just stalinists. Land redistribution was the center point for all capitalist development. You can't have industry without agricultural development. Capitalism is more than just people going around with the name "capitalist" attached to them. It is a series of social-relations involving private property and the production of value. And as to why the US didn't support them, why doesn't Coke support Pepsi? They both produce cola!

[Remus Bleys]

What idealist nonsense? I am severely anti Stalin and anti Mao (moreso anti Stalin). I was never defending them, I'm just being logical. Since when is land redistribution a capitalist concept? Since when is kicking out capitalist countries out of a trading network capitalist? I'm just saying that it had some capitalist elements, but to call them capitalist? WHy didn't the US support them if they were a capitalist country? That is absurd.
Why didn't the US support the fascists states during WW2? It must obviously be because the fascist state in ww2 are post-capitalist. Im just being logical, because the us is the sole force in determining if something is socialist or not.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I wasn't calling you an idealist. Just stalinists. Land redistribution was the center point for all capitalist development. You can't have industry without agricultural development. Capitalism is more than just people going around with the name "capitalist" attached to them. It is a series of social-relations involving private property and the production of value. And as to why the US didn't support them, why doesn't Coke support Pepsi? They both produce cola!

That argument is literally nonsense. I'm sorry but I do not understand your argument and it might be a lack of understanding on my part. How is land redistribution the center point of capitalist development? Under Stalin, land was literally taken from people perceived to be a threat to the Party's leadership. Yes it is totalitarian, but not capitalist. Under capitalism, it would have been left alone to the Kulaks who had more land than most, and the serfs would pay the Kulaks rents. That would be capitalism. Under Stalin, private property was owned by….well, basically Stalin. You could say Stalin played the part of the landlord and he did to an extent, but landlords to not redistribute food from collective farms to others.


Why didn't the US support the fascists states during WW2? It must obviously be because the fascist state in ww2 are post-capitalist. Im just being logical, because the us is the sole force in determining if something is socialist or not.

They did not support fascist states because of the same reason they did not support "communist" countries. They were not allowing privatized central banks and privatization of their industries independent of the respective governments.

[Remus Bleys]

They did not support fascist states because of the same reason they did not support "communist" countries. They were not allowing privatized central banks and privatization of their industries independent of the respective governments.
wait so is your argument actually, i mean literally, that central banks and nationalization isn't capitalist and thus the fascist states were not capitalist?
also explain ww1 then

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

wait so is your argument actually, i mean literally, that central banks and nationalization isn't capitalist and thus the fascist states were not capitalist?
also explain ww1 then

WWI had nothing to do with central banks and nationalization. I could go into it if you wanted but it would be irrelevant to the discussion. The gist is the military industrial complex.

Fascist states had many more capitalist elements than "communist" states, but they were not capitalist because they directed their corporations towards the "needs of the nation." Capitalists do not care about that, they use capitalist nations as henchmen instead to keep up their networks.

[Sea]

You go deep into the Nepalese mountains, convince the guerillas not to kill you, pick up an AK, and fight with them THEN TELL ME MAO WAS BOURGEOIS!!!!!:laugh:

I digress, you explained enough for the OP, I believe.There's 5 steps to your instructions. What step are you on?
WWI had nothing to do with central banksOh my fucking god.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

There's 5 steps to your instructions. What step are you on?Oh my fucking god.

Instead of being immature and saying "oh my fucking god", why don't you refute my fucking argument?

[reb]

That argument is literally nonsense. I'm sorry but I do not understand your argument and it might be a lack of understanding on my part. How is land redistribution the center point of capitalist development? Under Stalin, land was literally taken from people perceived to be a threat to the Party's leadership. Yes it is totalitarian, but not capitalist. Under capitalism, it would have been left alone to the Kulaks who had more land than most, and the serfs would pay the Kulaks rents. That would be capitalism. Under Stalin, private property was owned by….well, basically Stalin. You could say Stalin played the part of the landlord and he did to an extent, but landlords to not redistribute food from collective farms to others.


Uh... this is historical fact? In every capitalist country the peasantry and agrarian areas were squeezed for capitalist accumulation. Around the turn of the 1860s this was the case with most countries and the ones that didn't, lagged behind. The peasant way of production was inhibiting this capitalist development. Do you see peasants in any modern industrial nation? Nope.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Uh... this is historical fact? In every capitalist country the peasantry and agrarian areas were squeezed for capitalist accumulation. Around the turn of the 1860s this was the case with most countries and the ones that didn't, lagged behind. The peasant way of production was inhibiting this capitalist development. Do you see peasants in any modern industrial nation? Nope.

That doesn't address the fact that the peasants were forced to move to collective farms and many people lost their land for the sake of equal land distribution. How is that capitalist? Honestly, I think we can both agree that Stalin was a piece of shit. But you are saying he built capitalism which doesn't make any since.

[Sea]

Instead of being immature and saying "oh my fucking god", why don't you refute my fucking argument?Your own argument is too immature and undeveloped to really refute. You just say "XYZ had nothing to do with WWI" which is blatantly false and clearly you don't understand the role of banks in imperialist capitalism (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch02.htm). What is there to refute? Please elaborate first.

[Remus Bleys]

Your own argument is too immature and undeveloped to really refute. You just say "XYZ had nothing to do with WWI" which is blatantly false and clearly you don't understand the role of banks in imperialist capitalism (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch02.htm). What is there to refute? Please elaborate first.
Sea, you just don't understand the fact that hitler was post-capitalist and thus this doesn't apply to him. C'mon, dude!

[Brotto Rühle]

What do you mean? Stalin developed a socialist Soviet Union without a capitalist class, the deformation back to capitalism was due to Khrushchev's revisionism.Stalin took the remnants of Lenin's capitalism, and solidified a ruling capitalist class in the state. It was state capitalism, plain and simple.

[Brotto Rühle]

There's 5 steps to your instructions. What step are you on?Oh my fucking god.The same as yourself.

[Sea]

Sea, you just don't understand the fact that hitler was post-capitalist and thus this doesn't apply to him. C'mon, dude!I thought hitler was a post-office... Fucking hipsters.
The same as yourself.Does this mean I have to go off on a journey of inner reflection and spiritual discovery?

[bill]

Stalin took the remnants of Lenin's capitalism, and solidified a ruling capitalist class in the state. It was state capitalism, plain and simple.

I concur with this.

[Remus Bleys]

Funny how other revolutionaries developed socialism in other countries by using some of the same strategies that Stalin and his comrades used.
No, they had developed capitalism. If I just said the USSR wasn't socialist, why would the argument "Well, Eastern Bloc/China used the same tactics" work? I am honestly curious as to why you think I would not say that these other states were capitalist.

[Geiseric]

No, they had developed capitalism. If I just said the USSR wasn't socialist, why would the argument "Well, Eastern Bloc/China used the same tactics" work? I am honestly curious as to why you think I would not say that these other states were capitalist.

The USSR was not capitalist. If it was, explain the present extreme poverty in Russia, eastern Europe, and its other spheres of influence. Why didn't this exist when there was a planned economy? The Stalinists struggled until 1989 to privatise the economy.

[Geiseric]

Why didn't the US support the fascists states during WW2? It must obviously be because the fascist state in ww2 are post-capitalist. Im just being logical, because the us is the sole force in determining if something is socialist or not.

Lol the US did aid Fascism before WW2. Its main goals were the former colonies of the European powers, which is why they traded billions of dollars worth to both sides from the Spanish civil war onward, waiting for the other countries to deplete themselves. American interests deemed aiding (selling things) to the USSR as their best interest just as they found trading with Franco was in their interests. It was extremely short sighted, which is how capitalism operates.

[Remus Bleys]

The USSR was not capitalist. If it was, explain the present extreme poverty in Russia, eastern Europe, and its other spheres of influence. Why didn't this exist when there was a planned economy? The Stalinists struggled until 1989 to privatise the economy.
Wait so before 1989 there wasn't extreme poverty, mass starvation, etc etc?
Okay then...

[Remus Bleys]

Lol the US did aid Fascism before WW2.
Yes and? Does that have to do with the war itself? Because maybe if you had read the post i was replying to then maybe you wouldn't have replied with such a silly post. Of course the governments traded with eachother, but capitalist nations will inevitably end up at war with another, and therefore the argument i was replying to was null and void.

[Per Levy]

The USSR was not capitalist. If it was, explain the present extreme poverty in Russia, eastern Europe, and its other spheres of influence. Why didn't this exist when there was a planned economy? The Stalinists struggled until 1989 to privatise the economy.

the soviet union was capitalist or can you explain the wagelabour, commodity production, aliennation of the workers, the participitation of the SU in the capitalist world market?

also if poverty is now the defining factor for you in what counts as capitalist and what not, was west germany then not capitalist during the 60s/70s/80s?

[celticnachos]

the soviet union was capitalist or can you explain the wagelabour, commodity production, aliennation of the workers, the participitation of the SU in the capitalist world market?

also if poverty is now the defining factor for you in what counts as capitalist and what not, was west germany then not capitalist during the 60s/70s/80s?

The entirety of the Soviet economy was centrally planned, and GOSPLAN would determine the amount of each commodity the country needed. Goods were priced based on the wages of workers, providing affordability for everyone. During the construction of socialism some of the capitalist components will remain as the economy produces the means to abolish them. And certainly in the Soviet Union the means of production have been taken control of by the working class through the state for public benefit. The socialization process is a matter of time, and that was the case for the USSR. It is a fact that there was no private property, wealth or an exploiting class under Stalin.

The means of production need to be developed to such a point where the commodities that society requires can be produced on the basis of need rather than exchange value. It doesn't happen over night, and the party had to wisely manage and plan the course of Russia's development. The historical fact is that Soviet Union had abandoned capitalism as a mechanism of exploitation, and centrally planned the economy to maximize the welfare of the workers.

Focusing entirely on theory and not focusing on how things can be achieved in present conditions is a sign of dogmatism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The entirety of the Soviet economy was centrally planned, and GOSPLAN would determine the amount of each commodity the country needed. Goods were priced based on the wages of workers, providing affordability for everyone.

This isn't true. Because the calculation for each details would be too difficult, the system was abstracted. Prices where set by price committees, but prices of all goods were not centrally controlled by Gosplan. Instead, Gosplan issued "guide prices" for a selection of widely varied goods, which numbered roughly 200,000 types of product; this in a market of some 24 million types of product.

Anyway, your admittance that this is "the construction of socialism" is an essential admission that this is in fact not-actually-socialism, but an economy in transition. In other words, an economy that is still capitalist. The economy was still tied to the world market and its nature thus will forever by necessity remain capitalist as well, and this difficulty at acquiring hard-currency (by exports) with which to pay for imported goods, resources and other things was an important contributor to the economic instability of the Eastern bloc countries.

[celticnachos]

This isn't true. Because the calculation for each details would be too difficult, the system was abstracted. Prices where set by price committees, but prices of all goods were not centrally controlled by Gosplan. Instead, Gosplan issued "guide prices" for a selection of widely varied goods, which numbered roughly 200,000 types of product; this in a market of some 24 million types of product.

Anyway, your admittance that this is "the construction of socialism" is an essential admission that this is in fact not-actually-socialism, but an economy in transition. In other words, an economy that is still capitalist. The economy was still tied to the world market and its nature thus will forever by necessity remain capitalist as well, and this difficulty at acquiring hard-currency (by exports) with which to pay for imported goods, resources and other things was an important contributor to the economic instability of the Eastern bloc countries. Since when does trade negate socialism? Do you not believe in the concepts of the lower and higher stages of socialism? A socialist revolution is not an instantaneous transition to socialism, and Marx makes the distinction between phases. The fact of the matter is that there was no exploiting class or private property under Stalin, and participating in the global market is necessary and does not negate socialism. Marx had identified the Paris Commune as being a dictatorship of the proletariat, and that was in one city. Socialism can certainly exist in one country, however their will always be an external struggle if imperialism is still prevalent.

[reb]

Since when does trade negate socialism?

Private property, commodity production, the law of value.


Do you not believe in the concepts of the lower and higher stages of socialism?[ A socialist revolution is not an instantaneous transition to socialism, Stalinist revisionism.


and Marx makes the distinction between phases.No he doesn't


The fact of the matter is that there was no exploiting class or private property under Stalin, Yes there was. Capital doesn't require individual capitalists to function. Read Capital by Karl Marx.


and participating in the global market is necessary and does not negate socialism. Yes it does, see above.


Marx had identified the Paris Commune as being a dictatorship of the proletariat, and that was in one city. Socialism can certainly exist in one country, however their will always be an external struggle if imperialism is still prevalent.He didn't call that socialism. Socialism can exist in one country if you're definition of socialism is capitalism with red flags.

[Comrade #138672]

Since when does trade negate socialism? Do you not believe in the concepts of the lower and higher stages of socialism? A socialist revolution is not an instantaneous transition to socialism, and Marx makes the distinction between phases. The fact of the matter is that there was no exploiting class or private property under Stalin, and participating in the global market is necessary and does not negate socialism. Marx had identified the Paris Commune as being a dictatorship of the proletariat, and that was in one city. Socialism can certainly exist in one country, however their will always be an external struggle if imperialism is still prevalent.A dictatorship of the proletariat, not socialism.

[celticnachos]

Private property, commodity production, the law of value.

Stalinist revisionism.

No he doesn't

Yes there was. Capital doesn't require individual capitalists to function. Read Capital by Karl Marx.

Yes it does, see above.

He didn't call that socialism. Socialism can exist in one country if you're definition of socialism is capitalism with red flags.

Marx would call you a social democrat, because Marx himself was open to possibilities and not submitted to dogma. His thought wasn't based off principles but rather off of observation.

[reb]

Marx would call you a social democrat, because Marx himself was open to possibilities and not submitted to dogma. His thought wasn't based off principles but rather off of observation.

Basically, what you are telling me is that you have never read anything by Karl Marx except maybe a couple of second hand accounts.

[celticnachos]

Basically, what you are telling me is that you have never read anything by Karl Marx except maybe a couple of second hand accounts.

Is that the premise of your argument? Marx once entertained the possibility of the United States transitioning to a dictatorship of the proletariat by democratic means in some of his correspondence. Maybe this was because his political opinion was based off observation.

[Per Levy]

Marx would call you a social democrat, because Marx himself was open to possibilities and not submitted to dogma. His thought wasn't based off principles but rather off of observation.

besides that to marxens time social-democrat meant revolutionary, rep and other are basing their views on observations and actual facts, and the facts are that the SU was part of the capitalist world market, that the workers were exploited, alienated, opressed and didnt own the means of production and so on and so forth.

all you're doing is to belive and reproduce petty propaganda and would i belive in that i had to belive that the country i live in everyone is free and equal.

[reb]

Is that the premise of your argument? Marx once entertained the possibility of the United States transitioning to a dictatorship of the proletariat by democratic means in some of his correspondence. Maybe this was because his political opinion was based off observation.

What has this got to do with anything? You're calling me a social democrat. Let's see, is calling for the complete abolition of capitalism and the state something a social democrat would say? Pretty sure a social democrat would be someone who called for a welfare state and a gradual transition to communism. Hmmm.... sounds a lot like you and the rest of the stalinists if we are to be honest with each other here.

[Geiseric]

A dictatorship of the proletariat, not socialism.

Marx didn't define the Paris commune as state capitalist, so I don't know why russia would even qualify as something less revolutionary.

[TriPac Dude]

I am very anti Stalin. What that evil man did to my country during the Holodomyr in the 30's was not communism, it was genocide. Communism is supposed to support the equality of all people, ethnic groups, religions, whatever. Stalin was bent on annihilating the Ukrainian people. Any supporters of Stalins policies should read more about Ukrainian history and suffering at the hands of this man. He was just plain evil, no doubt about it

[Zukunftsmusik]

The USSR was not capitalist. If it was, explain the present extreme poverty in Russia, eastern Europe, and its other spheres of influence. Why didn't this exist when there was a planned economy?

Well thank god! In my country there is no extreme poverty, so apparently my task is done. This is such a relief. I wasn't really ready for the whole revolution thing.

[Brotto Rühle]

What makes capitalism is not who owns the means of production, not whether poverty is at low levels, and not whether production is or isn't planned. Honestly, go read some fucking Karl Marx.

[Paul Cockshott]

Reb wrote:
Land redistribution was the center point for all capitalist development. You can't have industry without agricultural development.
Yes but capitalis land reform as carried out in Britain took the form of the enclosing of communal land and its conversion to private land. What took place in China was the exact reverse.

[reb]

Reb wrote:
Yes but capitalis land reform as carried out in Britain took the form of the enclosing of communal land and its conversion to private land. What took place in China was the exact reverse.

Cockshott, a self proclaimed utopian socialist (see his Towards a New Socialism), fails here, because he is a utopian. For him form over takes content in matters of importance.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

You can make your point without being so rude reb...

[Geiseric]

Well thank god! In my country there is no extreme poverty, so apparently my task is done. This is such a relief. I wasn't really ready for the whole revolution thing.

If you stop being a wise ass and look at other countries other than Norway there is massive poverty. Especially in the former eastern bloc. Despite totalitarianism a standard of living was maintained which was the result of the working class's struggle with the bureaucratic caste.

[Geiseric]

What makes capitalism is not who owns the means of production, not whether poverty is at low levels, and not whether production is or isn't planned. Honestly, go read some fucking Karl Marx.

Youre full of shit. Who gains control over the surplus value isn't important? Do you want to literally end the production of surplus? Because that's ridiculous.

[Remus Bleys]

Youre full of shit. Who gains control over the surplus value isn't important? Do you want to literally end the production of surplus? Because that's ridiculous.
yeah subvert, its almost as if you want to live in a world without wages? Don't be ridiculous, just be thankful for the "gains" given to you by the bourgeoisie.
edit: i do not think you know what surplus value is or why you brought it up. i can only hope i understood what you meant by this deranged post, for if i did, my sarcasm would then apply.

[Brotto Rühle]

Youre full of shit. Who gains control over the surplus value isn't important? Do you want to literally end the production of surplus? Because that's ridiculous.

Who said control over "surplus value" wasn't important? I must have been asleep.

[Remus Bleys]

If you stop being a wise ass and look at other countries other than Norway there is massive poverty. Especially in the former eastern bloc. Despite totalitarianism a standard of living was maintained which was the result of the working class's struggle with the bureaucratic caste.
So for some reason I was thinking about this post in the car and there is a big fallacy here you are missing.
So, your argument for the USSR being a Degenerated Workers State is that there was no poverty. Then Zukufntmusik (howevery you spell it) says "well norway doesn't have extreme poverty, so it must be a Degenerated Workers State." To this you reply "There is poverty in other countries, therefore Norway is capitalist."
However, this means that when you say "The USSR was a degenerated Workers State because their was no poverty," you would have to say "here is poverty in other countries, therefore Russia is capitalist."
So, by your own demented, warped, logic, either the Soviet Union is Capitalist or Norway is a Degenerated Workers State.

[Sea]

The USSR was not capitalist. If it was, explain the present extreme poverty in Russia, eastern Europe, and its other spheres of influence.1. The USSR was capitalist.
2. Capitalism leads to poverty.

Is that enough for you?


Why didn't this exist when there was a planned economy?Out of all the bourgeois states that publish statistics, try looking elsewhere, usually the bourgeois state that the statistics concern will lie.



The Stalinists struggled until 1989 to privatise the economy.The so-called Stalinists were out of the door and down the road long before 1989.

[reb]

Youre full of shit. Who gains control over the surplus value isn't important? Do you want to literally end the production of surplus? Because that's ridiculous.

Can't you read your own sentences? There's a difference between a surplus of things and having surplus value. I don't expect you to know anything about Marxism, from reading your posts no one would get the impression that you did, but you could at least get your own sentences straight.

[Geiseric]

So for some reason I was thinking about this post in the car and there is a big fallacy here you are missing.
So, your argument for the USSR being a Degenerated Workers State is that there was no poverty. Then Zukufntmusik (howevery you spell it) says "well norway doesn't have extreme poverty, so it must be a Degenerated Workers State." To this you reply "There is poverty in other countries, therefore Norway is capitalist."
However, this means that when you say "The USSR was a degenerated Workers State because their was no poverty," you would have to say "here is poverty in other countries, therefore Russia is capitalist."
So, by your own demented, warped, logic, either the Soviet Union is Capitalist or Norway is a Degenerated Workers State.

The absence of poverty doesn't make something a DWS. I've explained what does make a DWS several times in different threads. A publicly owned economy and national planning based on even development based on the law of USE VALUE would only happen under a proletarian dictatorship.

[Geiseric]

yeah subvert, its almost as if you want to live in a world without wages? Don't be ridiculous, just be thankful for the "gains" given to you by the bourgeoisie.
edit: i do not think you know what surplus value is or why you brought it up. i can only hope i understood what you meant by this deranged post, for if i did, my sarcasm would then apply.

He said "whoever owns the MoP and whether it's planned or not" is insignificant. Meaning whoever appropiates the surplus, even if It's the working class, doesn't matter. Which is wrong if that's what he meant.

[Thirsty Crow]

Who said control over "surplus value" wasn't important? I must have been asleep.
I'd say it isn't important.
Obviously, I'd be exaggerating since the control over production and political mechanisms of revolutionary transformation is quite important, but from the standpoint of the finished process, something else is crucial - the eradication of that second term, value, which goes hand in hand with the formation of a communal control over the surplus product.

But yeah, let's focus on forms of ownership of capital instead, them pesky fundamentals of social reproduction based on capital are quite trivial in fact.

[Remus Bleys]

He said "whoever owns the MoP and whether it's planned or not" is insignificant. Meaning whoever appropiates the surplus, even if It's the working class, doesn't matter. Which is wrong if that's what he meant.

So do you think a society of coops wouldn't capitalist?

[Geiseric]

So do you think a society of coops wouldn't capitalist?

If 100% of the economy is owned by the working class, there is no bourgeoisie. So it is no longer capitalist since the expropiating class has now, itself, been expropriated. That would only happen through revolution.

[Remus Bleys]

If 100% of the economy is owned by the working class, there is no bourgeoisie. So it is no longer capitalist since the expropiating class has now, itself, been expropriated. That would only happen through revolution.
wait wait wait. so where was the revolution during the so-called Deformed Workers State? Do trotskyists seriously believe that China had a post-capitalist revolution?

[Radio Spartacus]

I love how people here think it's possible for something to have "socialist elements". I don't think these people understand capitalism as a mode of production, they understand it as a set of policies. Which obviously is stupid and they should feel bad.

[Future]

Aside from both of them being genocidal sociopaths and totalitarian pro-bourgeois pseudo-socialists, not really. China and the USSR were in totally different situations and Mao's terrible ideas differed from Stalin's terrible ideas in very noticible ways. Both achieved similar ends however.

[Geiseric]

wait wait wait. so where was the revolution during the so-called Deformed Workers State? Do trotskyists seriously believe that China had a post-capitalist revolution?

The revolutions were in some aspects partially successful, only because of the conflict the working class had and has with the Chinese bureaucracy. Same for the fSU, there were many good things that happened due to the working class's struggle against Stalinism, but the political consciousness to overthrow Stalinism never developed.

[Brotto Rühle]

If 100% of the economy is owned by the working class, there is no bourgeoisie. So it is no longer capitalist since the expropiating class has now, itself, been expropriated. That would only happen through revolution.


So fundamental to Marx’s method was this distinction between property relations and the social relations of production that he refused to recognize property forms or property relations at all, unless they included the total relations of production; “outside of these relations bourgeois property is nothing but a metaphysical or juristic illusion.” For Marx, “to define bourgeois property is nothing other than to explain all the social relations of bourgeois production”. He wrote of the “various forms of private property, as, for example, wages, trade value, price, money, etc.” Bourgeois property relations could only be denned “by a critical analysis of political economy, embracing the whole of the relations of property, not in their juridical expression as relations of will, but in their real form as relations of material production. As Proudhon subordinated the whole of these economic relations to the juridical notion of property, he could not go beyond the response which had been already given by Brissot before 1789 and in the same terms ‘Property is Robbery.’”

Easier to just quote CLR since im using a phone.

[Remus Bleys]

Do trots actually believe that a deformed workers state had a revolution? If so, how is it different from a degenerated state?

[L.A.P.]

Geiseric, how is surplus-value appropriated in social relations dictated by use-value and common ownership?

how was it that the working class even appropriated surplus-value? they earned wages while most of the capital accumulated was re-invested into the bureaucratic-apparatus (a portion of it went to extensive social programs, but even more was thrown at armaments production).

why are Trotskyists so invested in defending Stalinism?

[Geiseric]

Do trots actually believe that a deformed workers state had a revolution? If so, how is it different from a degenerated state?

The only difference is that the struggle was in fact against Russian puppets in deformed states as opposed to actually being inside of the fSU for a degenerated state. There was a revolutionary movement in China as much against Mao's policies as against capitalism. Same for the eastern bloc, only it was against the stalinist lackys.

[Geiseric]

Geiseric, how is surplus-value appropriated in social relations dictated by use-value and common ownership?

how was it that the working class even appropriated surplus-value? they earned wages while most of the capital accumulated was re-invested into the bureaucratic-apparatus (a portion of it went to extensive social programs, but even more was thrown at armaments production).

why are Trotskyists so invested in defending Stalinism?

What do you call it when a factory is owned by revolutionary workers and the surplus of what they create goes to spreading the revolution?

[L.A.P.]

I would call that mutualism or some impossible form of trade union capitalism

what revolution was being spread? aren't you familiar with socialism in one country? unless you're referring to the USSR's limited funding of national liberation wars, in which case that's a joke.

how was the factory owned by workers rather than secretaries of the regional communist party?

[Remus Bleys]

The only difference is that the struggle was in fact against Russian puppets in deformed states as opposed to actually being inside of the fSU for a degenerated state. There was a revolutionary movement in China as much against Mao's policies as against capitalism. Same for the eastern bloc, only it was against the stalinist lackys.

This is a bit unclear towards the end. Do you genuinely believe there was a proletarian revolution in China led by mao, a proletarian revolution in Albania led by Hoxha, and a proletarian revolution in China led by Castro?
Yes or No? From your first half I got us from the second I got no.

[Geiseric]

I would call that mutualism or some impossible form of trade union capitalism

what revolution was being spread? aren't you familiar with socialism in one country? unless you're referring to the USSR's limited funding of national liberation wars, in which case that's a joke.

how was the factory owned by workers rather than secretaries of the regional communist party?

Because a thing called "public ownership" existed. If you don't support what I described, which was basically Russia from the revolution onwards, you are a counter revolutionary. If you support the spread of socialism but see that Stalinism is counter revolutionary, you would be in line with basic Marxist theories regarding the workers state as a vehicle of class struggle of the working class. The bureaucracy which grew could potentially happen in any region where the revolution is isolated.

[L.A.P.]

Marxism doesn't advocate for public ownership, common ownership is a far different thing. What you described as "Russia from the revolution onwards" is deeply wrong on three levels: the working class' relationship to the means of production was radically different from the initial October insurrection to its political stabilization. you basically described an economic system of co-operatives that never existed in revolutionary Russia as the soviets amalgamated workers based on regions/territories, not on each factory/shop/department which is a lot more exclusionary. And to top it off, a society of democratically-controlled co-ops that engage in commodity-exchange (thus the appropriation of surplus-value) is not a communist society.

I'm not a counter-revolutionary, you're a reformist

[Geiseric]

Objectively youre against the power of workers control over the means of production as embodied by a workers state, aka a class dictatorship. You are blatantly ignoring the ten planks of communism as expressed in the communist manifesto.

[L.A.P.]

objectively you advocate for capitalism without its substance, expanded self-reproduction and commodity-exchange without exploitation of wage-labor, and don't have a grasp on what a proletarian dictatorship is or how it was embodied in Bolshevik Russia for a brief historical moment due to you're crude abstractions. You also objectively apologize for Stalinism and other bourgeois dictatorships.

btw, anyone who dogmatically utilizes the ten planks of communism as the criterion of a proletarian dictatorship has probably only read the Manifesto and I would recommend reading it again.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Objectively youre against the power of workers control over the means of production as embodied by a workers state, aka a class dictatorship. You are blatantly ignoring the ten planks of communism as expressed in the communist manifesto.

Or is it you who blatantly ignore that Marx and Engels themselves revised these points only some years later? Not that that even would matter, the fact that they were put forward as strategical measures in 1848 should tell you how well they can be applied today.

[Thirsty Crow]

Objectively youre against the power of workers control over the means of production as embodied by a workers state, aka a class dictatorship. You are blatantly ignoring the ten planks of communism as expressed in the communist manifesto.
Man, oh man. So let me get this straight, it's adherence to a set of demands put forward by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto that is the criterion for one's politics?

You're hopeless, I'm afraid. And a better Bordigist than many of them actually.

[Greek Warrior]

Mao was definitely Stalin's ideological and political successor.

[RedThunder]

Stalin was wrong imo he didn't care about human life.Greeks,Jews and many other innocent people died when he ruled USSR for no reason.He also joined sides with Hitler.