No, means of production were bought and sold between enterprises, labour-power was sold to separate enterprises, not the state. There was 'a market' for consumer goods, but of course there is a market for milk, etc. So markets (plural) and market.
I sympathise with any attempt at reform, because I believe it's necessary for people to develop to their maximum capacity, which will lead to revolution inevitably. On the flip side of that I'm generally negative of all parties and simply see the more progressive ones as a way of getting such reform. As such, while I feel that the SPGB and CPGB have aims which are closer to my own, I don't find myself anymore supportive of them. If that makes sense? I struggle to formulate my ideas without rambling.
I'm not sure what you don't get, so forgive me if I'm not addressing it. A market is something like a nominal space of interacting buyers and sellers conducting exchange based on monetary transactions. Basically enduring commodity exchange. You have consumers buying goods, and producers selling goods. Consumers can be individuals or enterprises; producers are enterprises of course. Commodities are exchanged for other commodities (including money). In the USSR money was exchanged for consumer goods, money was exchanged for capital goods, money was exchanged for labour-power. Hence, there were markets, including a labour market.
Of course. A market is something like a nominal space of interacting buyers and sellers conducting exchange based on monetary transactions. Basically enduring commodity exchange. In the USSR labour-power, means of production/capital goods, and consumer goods were commodities and bought and sold.
Oh, and no one is more extreme in their dogmatism than the dogmatic agnostics and compromisers, who as a matter of principle hate any principled political position. As always, the point of this crusade against "dogmatism" is to bury the dictatorship of the proletariat and social control of the means of production, to replace them with coalitionism and market "socialism". Thank you, I'll pass.
But apparently I am surrounded by people who have never been demoralised, how blessed I am to be in the company of such holy fools. As for the statement that most posters are not members or sympathisers of actual revolutionary socialist organisations, the point was not that they don't do "political activity" (i.e. wave silly little placards in protests of three people or shill for whatever bourgeois party you have decided is "progressive"), but that RevLeft is completely disconnected from the actual socialist movement. Globally, Marxists-Leninists, which practically don't exist on RevLeft, make up most of socialists. RevLeft "orthodox Marxists" (ha-ha), Third World Caesarists, market anarchists etc. exist only on the Internet, and there only on RevLeft. Not to mention the general atrocious theoretical and political level of people on RevLeft.
Honey, if you're going to base your accusations on one or two posts, the least you could do is actually read them, and understand them in context. But I thought you people were all experts on the ICL? How is it, then, that you are not familiar with the ICL jab "literary orthodoxy"? Which is how the SL described the position of Healy, Slaughter and others from the British SLL, whose position was quite orthodox on paper ("World Prospect for Socialism" is still an excellent text, and all the people going on about how peak oil or whatever the petite bourgeoisie is supposed to be scared of this week is going to bring about the revolution automatically should give it a read), but whose actual intentions were far from orthodox. And here, poor fool, I thought that I could use it ironically to describe my own doubts as to whether I care about the socialism or if I just want to see the world burn.
Capital vol III "The principal agents of this mode of production itself, the capitalist and the wage-labourer, are as such merely embodiments, personifications of capital and wage-labour". The capitalist class is the personification of capital. Capital is a social relationship, so inevitable there'll always be those who command and control capital, and as such constitute the bourgeoisie despite perhaps not legally owning means of production -- such as CEOs or CFOs. I'd call these the functional bourgeoisie. (Engels would disagree). The USSR had upper layers in its social arrangement that commanded and controlled capital, and hence it had such a functional bourgeoisie.
I think the rural areas under anarchist control was a well functioning workers' state, with force, pressure, and coercion exerted to socialise production. The abolition of money was optional, and did not emerge from socialisation itself, as one would expect to happen from Marx's analysis of the social character of labour. It was an experiment, in other words.
Failure of Russian revolution, one of the primary reason I'd say is substitutionism. But again, I will re-evaluate my positions regarding the Russian revolution in the near future. Spanish Revolution, I generally agree with POUM. Anarchist urban areas were flawed in that market exchange was permitted to flourish; rural areas were better.
i literally, like, can't even
Greek Junior Revolutionary
Junior Revolutionary
Sinister Revolutionist
Anti-Stalinist
Committed User
GRAMMAR CHEKA
