• trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    What sepparates any form of Marxism from “state capitalism,” in your eyes? Marx was an advocate for central planning.

    Marx was also an advocate of worker ownership of the MoP, not state ownership.

    The state owning and using force to control the MoP just recreates capitalist class dynamics.

    I am not a fan of central planning personally, but you can have a centrally planned economy that is not state capitalist, as long as the planning committees are actually made up of workers and delegates chosen by the workers.

    Immediately after the revolution, the existing workers and factory councils were either destroyed or coopted by the party.

    Secondly, please describe how the CPSU competed against each other in Markets for the purpose of Capital accumulation into their own pockets, and explain why wealth disparity greatly decreased during the USSR and increased after it’s dissolution.

    I have honestly no idea what strawman you are trying to beat up here.

    I never said anything about internal competition, I was talking about state capitalism as a system that perpetuates capitalist class structure with the state and agents of the state replacing the bourgeoisie.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Marx was also an advocate of worker ownership of the MoP, not state ownership.

      Marx’s State specifically referred to the elements of government that enforce class dynamics, like Private Property Rights. Marx was fully in favor of government, just not the State.

      The state owning and using force to control the MoP just recreates capitalist class dynamics.

      In what manner? If you eliminate market competition, Capital accumulation, and the necessity for profit, then you have fundamentally moved beyond Capitalism. The CPSU did not compete against each other and pocket vast amounts of profits, and the Soviets were run democratically. It’s fundamentally and entirely different.

      I am not a fan of central planning personally, but you can have a centrally planned economy that is not state capitalist, as long as the planning committees are actually made up of workers and delegates chosen by the workers.

      So then the USSR was Socialist, after all. The Soviet Union was based on Soviet Democracy, worker councils with elected delegates. There was corruption, and there were inner-power conflicts, but the structure overall was Socialist.

      Immediately after the revolution, the existing workers and factory councils were either destroyed or coopted by the party.

      The Soviets never went away.

      I have honestly no idea what strawman you are trying to beat up here.

      I never said anything about internal competition, I was talking about state capitalism as a system that perpetuates capitalist class structure with the state and agents of the state replacing the bourgeoisie.

      There’s no strawman here, you claimed that the agents of the state functioned as the bourgeoisie, and I asked how they replicated the functions of the bourgeoise, the necessary components of which include competition and production for individual profit. The lack of those means it cannot be considered Capitalist.

      I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme, it might help you get a clearer understanding of the transition to Communism in Marx’s own words.

      Additionally, I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds if you want a critical look at the successes and failures of the USSR, and its place in Socialist history.

      • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Marx’s State specifically referred to the elements of government that enforce class dynamics, like Private Property Rights. Marx was fully in favor of government, just not the State.

        You’re shadowboxxing again, I never mentioned the state/government distinction.

        Completely pointless either way since the USSR was not state abolitionist.

        In what manner? If you eliminate market competition, Capital accumulation, and the necessity for profit, then you have fundamentally moved beyond Capitalism. The CPSU did not compete against each other and pocket vast amounts of profits, and the Soviets were run democratically. It’s fundamentally and entirely different

        Because competition isn’t what creates class disparity, the problem is the ownership and control part, which was entirely reserved for members of the party.

        Because the party, which was controlled from the top down had complete economic and political control over the system, it essentially just replaced the ruling class of old.

        Yes, the competition was mostly removed but the class structure stayed basically the same.

        So then the USSR was Socialist, after all. The Soviet Union was based on Soviet Democracy, worker councils with elected delegates. There was corruption, and there were inner-power conflicts, but the structure overall was Socialist.

        The Soviets never went away.

        But there was no worker control of these institutions, they were entirely controlled from the top down by party officials.

        If there were elections they were a sham, basically nothing else than virtue signaling to the values the communist party supposedly had but in practice despised.

        There’s no strawman here, you claimed that the agents of the state functioned as the bourgeoisie, and I asked how they replicated the functions of the bourgeoise, the necessary components of which include competition and production for individual profit. The lack of those means it cannot be considered Capitalist.

        I don’t need to reply to this for the 759th time.

        I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme, it might help you get a clearer understanding of the transition to Communism in Marx’s own words

        MLs flipping a coin on if they should tell someone to read Critique of the Gotha Programme or On Authority today.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re shadowboxxing again, I never mentioned the state/government distinction.

          Completely pointless either way since the USSR was not state abolitionist.

          What structural aspects of the USSR differed from what Marx advocated for?

          Because competition isn’t what creates class disparity, the problem is the ownership and control part, which was entirely reserved for members of the party.

          Incorrect. Competition is key to accmulation and production for profit along Capitalist lines. Ownership was done via government, yes, and was participated in by the public. The Party was the group that largely ran the government, but you could join it if you wished.

          If there were elections they were a sham, basically nothing else than virtue signaling to the values the communist party supposedly had but in practice despised.

          There were elections. I would like justification for your claim that they were a sham.

          MLs flipping a coin on if they should tell someone to read Critique of the Gotha Programme or On Authority today.

          Marxists suggest reading Marx and Engels, shocker.