Can you explain what I’ve posted that’s fanfiction? I won’t deny that I often copy and paste replies I’ve already written, as most topics discussed aren’t genuinely new and I’ve usually discussed them before and see no need to artisinally craft each response, but I do take the allegations of fan-fiction seriously. Do you have an example?
Almost all state sponsored or (worse) self-serving “theory” from AES is fan-fiction and has little to do with reality for obvious reasons. The same is of course usually true for so called economic theory from liberal capitalist states.
What “obvious reasons?” The fact that socialist theory and history from socialists actually building socialism happens to back up their reasoning in most cases? There’s also critique and discussion of problems in existing socialism coming from AES countries as well. This is an utterly self-defeating argument that only validates those most removed from the actual practice of building socialism.
Again, to stress, your point is that we should inherently distrust those building socialism in real life, and only accept theory from those that are utterely disengaged from practice.
Further, there’s no critical examination of the merits of socialist theory and history produced by socialist countries on your part, the very fact that they are produced by the people actively building socialism is enough to discredit them in your views. Can you not see the logical trap? If you succeeded in building socialism and spoke about your experiences, successes, and failures, you would have to discredit yourself as fanfiction!
Should the merit of theory not be tested through practice?
Lol, you seriously think that the self-serving texts of counter-revolutionaries that ursurped control of the state are in any shape or form trustworthy? How removed from praxis and reality can you be?
I think the texts written by socialists building socialism are valuable insights into the actual struggles run into when building socialism. I also believe labeling them “counter-revolutionaries” without demonstrating how and why this is the case is an entirely ineffective means of argument, I’ve already made it clear that I consider socialist states to be real, and I back up those claims with historical and theoretical evidence when needed. Simply saying “no” is not an argument, and telling me I’m removed from praxis and reality when I know this isn’t the case is naked Ad Hominem.
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!
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.
You don’t get to make moral arguments that anyone takes seriously and you sure don’t get to criticize others arguments. Yours led you to support Rhodesia.
I don’t support any government, but I recognize the right of the Ukranian people to defend themselves against imperial aggression.
And you specifically should be very careful about calling other people “fash” given your long history of supporting authoritarian state-capitalist regimes or worse.
Do the people of Donetsk and Luhansk have a right to defend themselves against the Banderite regime in Kiev? That’s what the modern war spiraled out from, a Banderite coup spilling into a civil war.
As for state capitalism, I don’t support Singapore or the Republic of Korea. I support socialist market economies and socialist planned economies, as I support socialism in general, and there’s a wide gulf between state capitalism and socialism when it comes to which class is on top.
If you had written this in 2014 or shortly after, I would have agreed, but a lot has happend since then.
And I think we will have to agree to disagree about a self-proclaimed “vanguard” or party functionaries representing the working class in any shape or form.
Sure, a lot has indeed happened. I don’t think it invalidates my question.
Vanguards do not proclaim themselves as such, they become them through popular support from the people. This is not mere tautology, a vanguard cannot succeed in its aims alone, it requires the rest of the proletariat to rally behind it and legitimize it. It cannot be self-legitimizing.
Which question? All people have the right to defend themselves against outside aggression. This obviously includes the people of eastern Ukraine. But the imperial war of aggression by the Russian side has long overshadowed the localized conflict that started around 2014, and by now people that didn’t agree with the Russian occupation are either dead or have fled.
And your argument about the vanguard is on the same logical level as monarchs proclaiming to be loved by their subjects 🙄 Completely circular logic that really no one buys, including people that actually live(d) under such regimes.
Oh, but you do support a government in tangible terms because you support the war the regime is fighting and the atrocities it commits against its people. The regime literally kidnaps people off the street and forces them into fighting. You’ve openly stated many times that you support continuation of the war and that you stand on the side of a openly fascist regime. That makes you a fascist.
Also, imagine being over the age of 13 and using terms like authoritarian. 🤡
The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in so-called authoritarian regimes, the ruling party serves the working class as seen in countries like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and they enjoy broad support from the masses.
To add to that, the whole idea of state capitalism is a misnomer. It basically says that while you have state owned enterprise, the internal capitalist relations within it remain largely the same. While that’s true, there is a fundamental difference here. Capitalism is a system where people who own capital hire workers to exploit there labor with the purpose of increasing their capital. The goal of capitalist enterprise is to create wealth for the owners with any social benefits being strictly incidental. On the other hand, the purpose of state enterprise is to provide social value. Workers in state owned companies are producing things that the society needs. They are working for their own benefit and those of others around them. Therefore, the nature of work itself is fundamentally different from actual capitalism.
I guess I shouldn’t be expecting much from somebody who equates a socialist state where means of production are publicly owned with fascism.
Nice, another vapid reply from our resident fascist troll. The reply wasn’t meant to convince you of anything since we all know exactly what you stand for. It’s to educate people on the misinformation you spread here and how to address it.
Yeah you, however in your case a good start would be needing to be able to read anything since you seem to be engaging and arguing with your eyes closed
the Ukranian people to defend themselves against imperial aggression.
The Ukranian people want an end to the war, and it’s only the US imperial puppet regime the live under that has decided to aggressively kidnap them into vans at gunpoint instead.
Full support to the brave Ukranians who kill draft officers.
You mean they dump copy-pasta fan-fiction about AES everywhere.
Can you explain what I’ve posted that’s fanfiction? I won’t deny that I often copy and paste replies I’ve already written, as most topics discussed aren’t genuinely new and I’ve usually discussed them before and see no need to artisinally craft each response, but I do take the allegations of fan-fiction seriously. Do you have an example?
Almost all state sponsored or (worse) self-serving “theory” from AES is fan-fiction and has little to do with reality for obvious reasons. The same is of course usually true for so called economic theory from liberal capitalist states.
What “obvious reasons?” The fact that socialist theory and history from socialists actually building socialism happens to back up their reasoning in most cases? There’s also critique and discussion of problems in existing socialism coming from AES countries as well. This is an utterly self-defeating argument that only validates those most removed from the actual practice of building socialism.
Again, to stress, your point is that we should inherently distrust those building socialism in real life, and only accept theory from those that are utterely disengaged from practice.
Further, there’s no critical examination of the merits of socialist theory and history produced by socialist countries on your part, the very fact that they are produced by the people actively building socialism is enough to discredit them in your views. Can you not see the logical trap? If you succeeded in building socialism and spoke about your experiences, successes, and failures, you would have to discredit yourself as fanfiction!
Should the merit of theory not be tested through practice?
Lol, you seriously think that the self-serving texts of counter-revolutionaries that ursurped control of the state are in any shape or form trustworthy? How removed from praxis and reality can you be?
I think the texts written by socialists building socialism are valuable insights into the actual struggles run into when building socialism. I also believe labeling them “counter-revolutionaries” without demonstrating how and why this is the case is an entirely ineffective means of argument, I’ve already made it clear that I consider socialist states to be real, and I back up those claims with historical and theoretical evidence when needed. Simply saying “no” is not an argument, and telling me I’m removed from praxis and reality when I know this isn’t the case is naked Ad Hominem.
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!
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.
You literally supported Rhodesia.
You don’t get to make moral arguments that anyone takes seriously and you sure don’t get to criticize others arguments. Yours led you to support Rhodesia.
Holy shit? There are Rhodesia apologists on Lemmy?
I searched Rhodesia and this one was in the first page of the results. Is this satire? https://www.freespeechbacklash.com/article/rhodesia-brief-history-magnificent-country
I honestly can’t tell. Former Rhodesians and Rhodesia apologists are kinda fucking like that.
It’s like finding a legendary pokemon, if a pokemon said racial slurs
Lol, you continue to make up funny stories that have nothing to do with reality. I never “supported Rhodesia”.
you do support the fascist regime in Ukraine tho, or gonna pretend that’s also a funny story fash?
I don’t support any government, but I recognize the right of the Ukranian people to defend themselves against imperial aggression.
And you specifically should be very careful about calling other people “fash” given your long history of supporting authoritarian state-capitalist regimes or worse.
Do the people of Donetsk and Luhansk have a right to defend themselves against the Banderite regime in Kiev? That’s what the modern war spiraled out from, a Banderite coup spilling into a civil war.
As for state capitalism, I don’t support Singapore or the Republic of Korea. I support socialist market economies and socialist planned economies, as I support socialism in general, and there’s a wide gulf between state capitalism and socialism when it comes to which class is on top.
If you had written this in 2014 or shortly after, I would have agreed, but a lot has happend since then.
And I think we will have to agree to disagree about a self-proclaimed “vanguard” or party functionaries representing the working class in any shape or form.
Sure, a lot has indeed happened. I don’t think it invalidates my question.
Vanguards do not proclaim themselves as such, they become them through popular support from the people. This is not mere tautology, a vanguard cannot succeed in its aims alone, it requires the rest of the proletariat to rally behind it and legitimize it. It cannot be self-legitimizing.
Which question? All people have the right to defend themselves against outside aggression. This obviously includes the people of eastern Ukraine. But the imperial war of aggression by the Russian side has long overshadowed the localized conflict that started around 2014, and by now people that didn’t agree with the Russian occupation are either dead or have fled.
And your argument about the vanguard is on the same logical level as monarchs proclaiming to be loved by their subjects 🙄 Completely circular logic that really no one buys, including people that actually live(d) under such regimes.
Dictionary: libspeak to english
Oh, but you do support a government in tangible terms because you support the war the regime is fighting and the atrocities it commits against its people. The regime literally kidnaps people off the street and forces them into fighting. You’ve openly stated many times that you support continuation of the war and that you stand on the side of a openly fascist regime. That makes you a fascist.
Also, imagine being over the age of 13 and using terms like authoritarian. 🤡
The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in so-called authoritarian regimes, the ruling party serves the working class as seen in countries like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and they enjoy broad support from the masses.
To add to that, the whole idea of state capitalism is a misnomer. It basically says that while you have state owned enterprise, the internal capitalist relations within it remain largely the same. While that’s true, there is a fundamental difference here. Capitalism is a system where people who own capital hire workers to exploit there labor with the purpose of increasing their capital. The goal of capitalist enterprise is to create wealth for the owners with any social benefits being strictly incidental. On the other hand, the purpose of state enterprise is to provide social value. Workers in state owned companies are producing things that the society needs. They are working for their own benefit and those of others around them. Therefore, the nature of work itself is fundamentally different from actual capitalism.
I guess I shouldn’t be expecting much from somebody who equates a socialist state where means of production are publicly owned with fascism.
Nice, another copy-pasta fan-fiction from someone that needs to read more theory 😏
Do you have theory to suggest?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/ is a good start.
😆
Sometimes I think Lemmy needs reactions. Then I come to my senses.
You fool! Once again you have defeated yourself by exceeding my attention span!
Nice, another vapid reply from our resident fascist troll. The reply wasn’t meant to convince you of anything since we all know exactly what you stand for. It’s to educate people on the misinformation you spread here and how to address it.
Yeah you, however in your case a good start would be needing to be able to read anything since you seem to be engaging and arguing with your eyes closed
The Ukranian people want an end to the war, and it’s only the US imperial puppet regime the live under that has decided to aggressively kidnap them into vans at gunpoint instead.
Full support to the brave Ukranians who kill draft officers.
This entire argument except the being a US puppet part can be flipped to Russia
Cats can be flipped to dogs if you don’t give a shit what’s real, but most people do.
go home fash