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?
From the provisional government that was formed after the February revolution that took power from the Tzar and started organizing elections, which the Bolshevik lost and then decided to take power by force.
The provisional government was a liberal, pro-capitalist government. The counter-revolutionary thing to do would be to protect the provisional government. Further, it was not a black and white case of the Bolsheviks losing elections, the various parties of the time formed coalitions, which legitimized the Bolshevik coalition, as well as the peasant elections that you’re ignoring.
Again more historical inaccuracies. The provisional government was a hodgepot of different ideas and it was very clear from the start that the rural socialist party would win the proposed election (as they did). These and somewhat allied anarchist thinkers proposed ideas that went well beyond the state-capitalism that the Bolshevik endorsed, so ursurping the provisional government and taking power in the november revolution by force was clearly counter-revolutionary. Coalitions that happened after that are sham when everyone just saw what happens when you stand in the way of how the Bolshevik take power.
Nope, no historical inaccuracies. You’re referring to the Right-SRs, who had recently split from the Left-SRs. The rural socialists banded together with the Bolsheviks in a coalition. You’re also ignoring that the workers and peasants already saw the provisional government as illegitimate, backing the Soviets. The anarchists may have had what they believed were good ideas, but the proletariat and peasantry largely disagreed and agreed with the socialists, who coalesced around the Bolsheviks.
Again more historical inaccuracies. For example the “Soviets” back then were not the Bolshevik, even if they later falsely claimed to represent them and usurped the term.
You really need lay off on the fan-fiction and self-serving election reports literally written by Lenin himself.
I never claimed Bolsheviks and Soviets were synonymous, only that both the soviet government and provisional government existed in a dual state, and that the Soviets stood opposed to the provisional government. The Soviet government did back the Bolsheviks, and eventually came to be entirely Bolshevik.
Again historical inacurracies. Yes obviously the Soviets opposed the provisional government. But they did not try to take it over as that would have invalidated the very idea they stood for.
What happened after the November revolution is no indication of how the members of the Soviets really felt as the Bolshevik started purging people that disagred with them quite heavily.
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.
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.
Not quite. You can find data like this, but the length of time isn’t nearly as long, and only really accounts for the Xi Jinping era, and is missing the data on the bottom 50%. I’m sure the data is out there, but I don’t have any on hand.
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.
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 😏
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?
Usurped control of the state from…who?
From the provisional government that was formed after the February revolution that took power from the Tzar and started organizing elections, which the Bolshevik lost and then decided to take power by force.
The provisional government was a liberal, pro-capitalist government. The counter-revolutionary thing to do would be to protect the provisional government. Further, it was not a black and white case of the Bolsheviks losing elections, the various parties of the time formed coalitions, which legitimized the Bolshevik coalition, as well as the peasant elections that you’re ignoring.
Again more historical inaccuracies. The provisional government was a hodgepot of different ideas and it was very clear from the start that the rural socialist party would win the proposed election (as they did). These and somewhat allied anarchist thinkers proposed ideas that went well beyond the state-capitalism that the Bolshevik endorsed, so ursurping the provisional government and taking power in the november revolution by force was clearly counter-revolutionary. Coalitions that happened after that are sham when everyone just saw what happens when you stand in the way of how the Bolshevik take power.
Nope, no historical inaccuracies. You’re referring to the Right-SRs, who had recently split from the Left-SRs. The rural socialists banded together with the Bolsheviks in a coalition. You’re also ignoring that the workers and peasants already saw the provisional government as illegitimate, backing the Soviets. The anarchists may have had what they believed were good ideas, but the proletariat and peasantry largely disagreed and agreed with the socialists, who coalesced around the Bolsheviks.
Again more historical inaccuracies. For example the “Soviets” back then were not the Bolshevik, even if they later falsely claimed to represent them and usurped the term.
You really need lay off on the fan-fiction and self-serving election reports literally written by Lenin himself.
I never claimed Bolsheviks and Soviets were synonymous, only that both the soviet government and provisional government existed in a dual state, and that the Soviets stood opposed to the provisional government. The Soviet government did back the Bolsheviks, and eventually came to be entirely Bolshevik.
Again historical inacurracies. Yes obviously the Soviets opposed the provisional government. But they did not try to take it over as that would have invalidated the very idea they stood for.
What happened after the November revolution is no indication of how the members of the Soviets really felt as the Bolshevik started purging people that disagred with them quite heavily.
I don’t know what to call this level of historical revision in service of an obscure sectarian grudge from a hundred years before you were born.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Do you have a graph like that but for China?
Not quite. You can find data like this, but the length of time isn’t nearly as long, and only really accounts for the Xi Jinping era, and is missing the data on the bottom 50%. I’m sure the data is out there, but I don’t have any on hand.
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.
Removed by mod
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 😏