Ah yes, because all of the leaders of socialist nations were just capitalists in disguise and they started revolutions for their own gain rather than the people’s.
This is what liberals believe, not socialists. Get real.
Lenin coined the term state capitalism, replacing private ownership of the means with a new class heirarchy in the form of an inequitable and unjust beaurocratic state apparatus.
Makes sense that an anarchist would unironically believe this.
Lenin coined the term state capitalism,
It is true that Lenin considered his own experiment state capitalist, this was referring to the New Economic Policy he set up. This, however, was meant to pave the way for a more advanced form of socialism. In other words, it was taking one step back to take two steps forward.
Why was this done? Socialism requires an industrialized society. Tsarist Russia was barely this, it was mostly a semi-feudal, agrarian nation. How do you get industrialization? Capitalism. Many socialists in Russia at the time agreed that their country was not ready for socialism and needed a period of capitalism in order to develop the country.
This isn’t some random new thing they came up with, this is basic Marxism. You don’t go to a socialist or communist society instantly, it gradually develops and it will have traits of previous modes of production for a while.
In other words, the NEP was put in place in order to help develop the country. Otherwise, they could not have a fully socialist society without most of the population remaining in poverty. Even with the capitalist mode of production in place, the state remained a significant part of the economy, millions of people were taught to read and write, they were guaranteed employment, they had access to healthcare, and many other things that would not be possible in a fully capitalist society.
replacing private ownership of the means with a new class hierarchy in the form of an inequitable and unjust bureaucratic state apparatus
The Soviet state was structured around the Soviets, or worker’s councils, where workers would vote for delegates to represent them in regional councils, who would vote for representatives in national councils, including the highest council: the Supreme Soviet. This council had the supreme legislative power in the country, not any leader or party. This meant that the state apparatus that you are talking about was in the control of none other than the working people themselves. How inequitable and unjust was that?
For more information, I would recommend reading Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.
No state has ever liberated the working class.
How is giving the working class supreme political power not liberating them? This supreme political power was used to feed, educate, employ, house, and take care of the working people. How many anarchist societies have achieved that?
In order to have more success with educating people, just chill out and let people have their fun, you won’t educate anyone if come across as a smug asshole who acts like they think they’re much more intelligent than the person you’re talking to. People aren’t always rational and sometimes will only listen to “someone they could have a beer with.”
It would be great if solid intellectual discourse was the only thing needed, but unfortunately you need a friendly face first, the rest can come later. So sometimes you have to bite the bullet and reference the Harry Potters and capeshit just to get your foot in the door.
This has nothing to do with what you just posted, I just thought it might be good advice. Though sorry about it being completely unsolicited, I’ll totally understand if that just pisses you off, it is pretty rude and presumptuous of me.
This is generally good advice, but not for a person who is wrong. No amount of trimming the snark would allow anarchism to reliably convert MLs because most reality supports ML.
I guess I’m confused, I’ve seen you around here. Are you an anarchist?
No, I’m an ML, and honestly, I think the OP’s joke about state capitalism was terrible and quite wrong. I’m not sure if they’re an anarchist or an ultra or something, but I did look through their post history to find out and they just seemed to mostly spend time being snarky rather than educating people. This was probably better off for a PM honestly.
I decided instead of just calling someone out and getting into another pointless internet argument I’d try something else. Doesn’t really seem to work though. I probably should avoid doing stuff like this first thing in the morning, I’m not the most coherent then.
Hello fellow Lemmygrad, this ☝️ is exactly the sort of attitude that Western leftists are conditioned to have that ultimately does the most damage to our cause, even in more sensible spheres of the Left.
muh glorious people’s boot
Ah yes, because all of the leaders of socialist nations were just capitalists in disguise and they started revolutions for their own gain rather than the people’s.
This is what liberals believe, not socialists. Get real.
I’m an anarchist.
Lenin coined the term state capitalism, replacing private ownership of the means with a new class heirarchy in the form of an inequitable and unjust beaurocratic state apparatus.
No state has ever liberated the working class.
Makes sense that an anarchist would unironically believe this.
It is true that Lenin considered his own experiment state capitalist, this was referring to the New Economic Policy he set up. This, however, was meant to pave the way for a more advanced form of socialism. In other words, it was taking one step back to take two steps forward.
Why was this done? Socialism requires an industrialized society. Tsarist Russia was barely this, it was mostly a semi-feudal, agrarian nation. How do you get industrialization? Capitalism. Many socialists in Russia at the time agreed that their country was not ready for socialism and needed a period of capitalism in order to develop the country.
This isn’t some random new thing they came up with, this is basic Marxism. You don’t go to a socialist or communist society instantly, it gradually develops and it will have traits of previous modes of production for a while.
In other words, the NEP was put in place in order to help develop the country. Otherwise, they could not have a fully socialist society without most of the population remaining in poverty. Even with the capitalist mode of production in place, the state remained a significant part of the economy, millions of people were taught to read and write, they were guaranteed employment, they had access to healthcare, and many other things that would not be possible in a fully capitalist society.
The Soviet state was structured around the Soviets, or worker’s councils, where workers would vote for delegates to represent them in regional councils, who would vote for representatives in national councils, including the highest council: the Supreme Soviet. This council had the supreme legislative power in the country, not any leader or party. This meant that the state apparatus that you are talking about was in the control of none other than the working people themselves. How inequitable and unjust was that?
For more information, I would recommend reading Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.
How is giving the working class supreme political power not liberating them? This supreme political power was used to feed, educate, employ, house, and take care of the working people. How many anarchist societies have achieved that?
Hundreds of millions of Marxists spinning in their graves at this bullshit
not enough imo
Unlike that of my future comrades and heroes
your grave wont be marked
Hundreds of millions of everyday people that countries you sneer at as “state capitalist” radically improved the lives of.
Have you heard of how much lived improve in every socialist country?
Meanwhile, how many hundreds of millions of lives has anarchism improved…?
How do you feel about China raising 800+ million people out of poverty?
Does this one example seem like a thing a capitalist country would be capable of doing?
In order to have more success with educating people, just chill out and let people have their fun, you won’t educate anyone if come across as a smug asshole who acts like they think they’re much more intelligent than the person you’re talking to. People aren’t always rational and sometimes will only listen to “someone they could have a beer with.”
It would be great if solid intellectual discourse was the only thing needed, but unfortunately you need a friendly face first, the rest can come later. So sometimes you have to bite the bullet and reference the Harry Potters and capeshit just to get your foot in the door.
This has nothing to do with what you just posted, I just thought it might be good advice. Though sorry about it being completely unsolicited, I’ll totally understand if that just pisses you off, it is pretty rude and presumptuous of me.
This is generally good advice, but not for a person who is wrong. No amount of trimming the snark would allow anarchism to reliably convert MLs because most reality supports ML.
I guess I’m confused, I’ve seen you around here. Are you an anarchist?
No, I’m an ML, and honestly, I think the OP’s joke about state capitalism was terrible and quite wrong. I’m not sure if they’re an anarchist or an ultra or something, but I did look through their post history to find out and they just seemed to mostly spend time being snarky rather than educating people. This was probably better off for a PM honestly.
I decided instead of just calling someone out and getting into another pointless internet argument I’d try something else. Doesn’t really seem to work though. I probably should avoid doing stuff like this first thing in the morning, I’m not the most coherent then.
you’re not entirely wrong, I’m just not interested in performing the emotional labor of handholding.
Hello fellow Lemmygrad, this ☝️ is exactly the sort of attitude that Western leftists are conditioned to have that ultimately does the most damage to our cause, even in more sensible spheres of the Left.
Just thought it was a good example.
Fair enough, then dunk away comrade.