Claiming to be socialist doesn’t make a state so. Just saying “but I believe them” is no argument, when all the practical reality shows that these states were and are state-capitalist with a tiny ruling elite.
And please read some actual history and eye-witness reports about the Russian revolution, and not the fan-fiction that people directly involved or their later syncopants wrote. Lenin and his gang were absolutly counter-revolutionaries that re-established a capitalist state, but with them in control. Lenin was literally allowed to go there by the German government to do just that.
And it is kinda funny that you are now arguing about ad-hominem when you said the very same thing first.
I agree that simple claims do not make a state socialist. I never made claims to the contrary. What makes a state socialist is proletarian control of the state, and public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. All practical reality, contrary to your position, backs up this position.
State capitalism refers to a bourgeois economy with heavy state planning, yet capitalist control of the state and the social surplus. Think the Republic of Korea, Singapore, etc. The NEP, China’s and Vietnam’s socialist market economies, all of these are largely differentiated from state capitalism through the class character of the state, and having public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. Calling these “state capitalist” despite clear differences with the ROK, Singapore, etc. in form, direction, and results erases class from the state.
Socialist planned economies take this further, having been farther along in eliminating private property. The DPRK, Cuba, and mid-late USSR are all examples of this form of socialist economy. This is where it makes even less sense to describe these as “state capitalism,” you’re just using capitalism to refer to industrial production at this point. Such a clear mislabeling makes utter mud of how we view socialism.
This is not mere phraseology, but a practical investigation of what makes a class, which is defined by relation to ownership of the means of production. Administrators in socialism are not a “tiny ruling elite,” they are a subsection of the broader proletariat, and share equal ownership of the means of production in practical terms, not merely formal phrasemongering.
If the CPSU were a “tiny ruling elite,” they certainly sucked at being so! Certainly you can see the clear difference between salaried workers and capital owners entitling themselves to the near entirety of the social surplus?
Regarding the Russian revolution, I have read a great deal about it, as well as the period of early socialist construction, industrialization, collectivization, preparation for World War II, and the post-War economy, including reforms that weakened the socialist system and contributed partially towards its disollution. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were by no means counter-revolutionaries, even if you considered the NEP to be state capitalism, they abolished this and collectivized the economy.
There’s absolutely nothing backing what you’ve claimed. The Germans allowed Lenin to go to overthrow the Russian government precisely because they sought chaos, and even then it was dangerous for Lenin to do so as many people hated the idea. He had to travel covertly.
Regarding the Ad Hominem, no, I did no such thing.
More circular logic. Someone that administers the state is by definition no longer working class.
And if you abolish the typical liberal capitalist ways of wealth accumulation, then the data and ways of measuring such stops making sense, but this doesn’t change the fact that the people at the top of these states comandeered vast wealth and used that for their personal benefit and pet projects. And this is also a typical characteristic of state-capitalism where the people in charge are typically living a quite low profile life outside their public persona a few cultivate for vain reasons.
And yes there was some political disagreement at the time in Germany, which also had gone though significant political upheaval recently, but to allow someone to go that you know is in favour of establishing a capitalist state when you dislike the alternative is sure sowing chaos or you could also say they wished for a counter-revolution to take place, which they got through the hands of Lenin.
Class is a relation to ownership of the means of production, not a job. This is the definition of class. Administrators that receive salaries for their labor and share equal ownership with the rest of the working classes are by definition working class. Simply saying that they aren’t does not actually disprove this, at minimum you need to explain why the Marxist understanding of class, class interest, and the state is wrong.
I find it funny that you admit that socialism is entirely different from capitalism, and thus reduce socialism to “equalism” rather than a system with proletarian control of the state and public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. Disparity between administrators in socialism and the rest of the working classes is far smaller than the immense appropriation of surplus value by capitalists, precisely because the mechanisms are entirely different.
Finally, again, the USSR was not capitalist, and Lenin was not a counter-revolutionary. If your only argument that Lenin was a counter-revolutionary is because he established a socialist state and overthrew a capitalist one, then I’m not sure who you’re trying to convince. Anyone can see that that’s clearly silly, and you haven’t provided a coherent explanation for your views behind class and capitalism.
Class relations are indeed a matter of control over the means of production. If you monopolize them through controlling the state then you are no longer working class. No amount of circular make-believe logic changes that.
Abolishing stock ownership and similar means of how liberal capitalist states represent the wealth of its ruling elite does not make a state “socialist”. I never made any comparison or difference to socialism and that also would make so sense since we never talked about socialist states, other than some that nominally claim(ed) to be so.
Just saying: no I disagree with historical facts is no argument 🤷 But indeed if that is the level of your argument then I wonder who I am trying to convince. Usually I do not argue with religious zealots that ignore reality.
In socialist states, ownership and control is held in the hands of the proletariat. Delegation and administration is built up precisely due to the necessity of administrative labor, this does not make salaried administrators a separate owner class. Teachers and principals are both proletarian, even if the form of labor is different, even if the pay is different, because they share the same class interests and relations to the means of production and distribution.
What makes a society socialist is proletarian control of the state, and public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. Plain and simple. Calling entirely different economic systems capitalist as a means to discredit socialism is a subjectivist argument, it doesn’t get us any closer to the truth.
As for me “disagreeing with historical fact,” I’d love an explanation of how I do that. You do seem to admit to trying to convince me, so perhaps you could play ball and actually give me some examples, arguments, and literature? I’m utterly uninterested in subjectivist declarations devoid of any actual substance, without actual examples and arguments I couldn’t even be convinced by you if I wanted to be.
You are not going to convince me with more circular logic. A system’s purpose is what the system does. Monopolizing state power is not putting the workers in power, it is the exact opposite.
And no I am not going to do the research for you. When someone is as ignorant of historical facts as you then I am not going to do the work for you. You are not my boss, even if you claim to represent me as a member of the vanguard party 😏
Cowbee brings the receipts, and you don’t. You do understand this is an argument being made in a public forum, and not your DMs, right? I can only assume that your goal is to feel intellectually superior, and not to actually persuade anyone to adopt your point of view.
Monopolizing state power in the hands of the working classes is putting the working classes in power. The state is not outside of class struggle, but within it, and arises from it. None of my logic has been circular.
As for your strategy, you reveal your utter disdain for actual organizing work when you claim you would be “doing my research for me.” I am openly inviting you to share what you think are good ideas, and instead you insult me. This attitude is aristocratic, the workers are not good enough for your knowledge, they just have to trust whatever it is you say, and if they don’t, they are not worthy.
I never claimed to be your boss, nor am I a part of a vanguard party, as no party can declare itself as such. If you do org work in real life, I suggest you try to actually engage with those who disagree with you, or else you’ll have an extremely difficult time gaining new members.
More ad-hominem as before, great. And no, trying to usurp state power is not activism or praxis, and you are literally THE example of an armchair communist here on Lemmy 😅
Claiming to be socialist doesn’t make a state so. Just saying “but I believe them” is no argument, when all the practical reality shows that these states were and are state-capitalist with a tiny ruling elite.
And please read some actual history and eye-witness reports about the Russian revolution, and not the fan-fiction that people directly involved or their later syncopants wrote. Lenin and his gang were absolutly counter-revolutionaries that re-established a capitalist state, but with them in control. Lenin was literally allowed to go there by the German government to do just that.
And it is kinda funny that you are now arguing about ad-hominem when you said the very same thing first.
I agree that simple claims do not make a state socialist. I never made claims to the contrary. What makes a state socialist is proletarian control of the state, and public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. All practical reality, contrary to your position, backs up this position.
State capitalism refers to a bourgeois economy with heavy state planning, yet capitalist control of the state and the social surplus. Think the Republic of Korea, Singapore, etc. The NEP, China’s and Vietnam’s socialist market economies, all of these are largely differentiated from state capitalism through the class character of the state, and having public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. Calling these “state capitalist” despite clear differences with the ROK, Singapore, etc. in form, direction, and results erases class from the state.
Socialist planned economies take this further, having been farther along in eliminating private property. The DPRK, Cuba, and mid-late USSR are all examples of this form of socialist economy. This is where it makes even less sense to describe these as “state capitalism,” you’re just using capitalism to refer to industrial production at this point. Such a clear mislabeling makes utter mud of how we view socialism.
This is not mere phraseology, but a practical investigation of what makes a class, which is defined by relation to ownership of the means of production. Administrators in socialism are not a “tiny ruling elite,” they are a subsection of the broader proletariat, and share equal ownership of the means of production in practical terms, not merely formal phrasemongering.
If the CPSU were a “tiny ruling elite,” they certainly sucked at being so! Certainly you can see the clear difference between salaried workers and capital owners entitling themselves to the near entirety of the social surplus?
Regarding the Russian revolution, I have read a great deal about it, as well as the period of early socialist construction, industrialization, collectivization, preparation for World War II, and the post-War economy, including reforms that weakened the socialist system and contributed partially towards its disollution. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were by no means counter-revolutionaries, even if you considered the NEP to be state capitalism, they abolished this and collectivized the economy.
There’s absolutely nothing backing what you’ve claimed. The Germans allowed Lenin to go to overthrow the Russian government precisely because they sought chaos, and even then it was dangerous for Lenin to do so as many people hated the idea. He had to travel covertly.
Regarding the Ad Hominem, no, I did no such thing.
More circular logic. Someone that administers the state is by definition no longer working class.
And if you abolish the typical liberal capitalist ways of wealth accumulation, then the data and ways of measuring such stops making sense, but this doesn’t change the fact that the people at the top of these states comandeered vast wealth and used that for their personal benefit and pet projects. And this is also a typical characteristic of state-capitalism where the people in charge are typically living a quite low profile life outside their public persona a few cultivate for vain reasons.
And yes there was some political disagreement at the time in Germany, which also had gone though significant political upheaval recently, but to allow someone to go that you know is in favour of establishing a capitalist state when you dislike the alternative is sure sowing chaos or you could also say they wished for a counter-revolution to take place, which they got through the hands of Lenin.
Class is a relation to ownership of the means of production, not a job. This is the definition of class. Administrators that receive salaries for their labor and share equal ownership with the rest of the working classes are by definition working class. Simply saying that they aren’t does not actually disprove this, at minimum you need to explain why the Marxist understanding of class, class interest, and the state is wrong.
I find it funny that you admit that socialism is entirely different from capitalism, and thus reduce socialism to “equalism” rather than a system with proletarian control of the state and public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. Disparity between administrators in socialism and the rest of the working classes is far smaller than the immense appropriation of surplus value by capitalists, precisely because the mechanisms are entirely different.
Finally, again, the USSR was not capitalist, and Lenin was not a counter-revolutionary. If your only argument that Lenin was a counter-revolutionary is because he established a socialist state and overthrew a capitalist one, then I’m not sure who you’re trying to convince. Anyone can see that that’s clearly silly, and you haven’t provided a coherent explanation for your views behind class and capitalism.
Class relations are indeed a matter of control over the means of production. If you monopolize them through controlling the state then you are no longer working class. No amount of circular make-believe logic changes that.
Abolishing stock ownership and similar means of how liberal capitalist states represent the wealth of its ruling elite does not make a state “socialist”. I never made any comparison or difference to socialism and that also would make so sense since we never talked about socialist states, other than some that nominally claim(ed) to be so.
Just saying: no I disagree with historical facts is no argument 🤷 But indeed if that is the level of your argument then I wonder who I am trying to convince. Usually I do not argue with religious zealots that ignore reality.
In socialist states, ownership and control is held in the hands of the proletariat. Delegation and administration is built up precisely due to the necessity of administrative labor, this does not make salaried administrators a separate owner class. Teachers and principals are both proletarian, even if the form of labor is different, even if the pay is different, because they share the same class interests and relations to the means of production and distribution.
What makes a society socialist is proletarian control of the state, and public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. Plain and simple. Calling entirely different economic systems capitalist as a means to discredit socialism is a subjectivist argument, it doesn’t get us any closer to the truth.
As for me “disagreeing with historical fact,” I’d love an explanation of how I do that. You do seem to admit to trying to convince me, so perhaps you could play ball and actually give me some examples, arguments, and literature? I’m utterly uninterested in subjectivist declarations devoid of any actual substance, without actual examples and arguments I couldn’t even be convinced by you if I wanted to be.
You are not going to convince me with more circular logic. A system’s purpose is what the system does. Monopolizing state power is not putting the workers in power, it is the exact opposite.
And no I am not going to do the research for you. When someone is as ignorant of historical facts as you then I am not going to do the work for you. You are not my boss, even if you claim to represent me as a member of the vanguard party 😏
Cowbee brings the receipts, and you don’t. You do understand this is an argument being made in a public forum, and not your DMs, right? I can only assume that your goal is to feel intellectually superior, and not to actually persuade anyone to adopt your point of view.
“Reciepts” to fan-fiction are worthless 🤷
Monopolizing state power in the hands of the working classes is putting the working classes in power. The state is not outside of class struggle, but within it, and arises from it. None of my logic has been circular.
As for your strategy, you reveal your utter disdain for actual organizing work when you claim you would be “doing my research for me.” I am openly inviting you to share what you think are good ideas, and instead you insult me. This attitude is aristocratic, the workers are not good enough for your knowledge, they just have to trust whatever it is you say, and if they don’t, they are not worthy.
I never claimed to be your boss, nor am I a part of a vanguard party, as no party can declare itself as such. If you do org work in real life, I suggest you try to actually engage with those who disagree with you, or else you’ll have an extremely difficult time gaining new members.
More ad-hominem as before, great. And no, trying to usurp state power is not activism or praxis, and you are literally THE example of an armchair communist here on Lemmy 😅