Marxists aren’t fascists, though. Fascism is insepparable from Capitalism and bourgeois interests. Further, considering Marxists to be “authoritarian” implies that the only non-authoritarian form of government is a fully horizontal, Anarchist structure. Grouping all governments together as “fascist” is just a smokescreen in front of the quantitative and qualitative differenced between forms of government, which are often extreme, as they have historically been between Marxists and fascists.
Yes, that was my point. Socialism doesn’t become capitalism just because you call them “state capitalism”. Just like koala bears don’t become bears just because you call them that.
No. I defined what’s socialism for me (owning of the mean of production by the workers), and all can see that the USSR and friends weren’t that. Then I gave Marx’s definition of socialism, even if I’m not Marxist (a mode of production were the usefulness replaced the price as value), and all can see that the USSR and friends weren’t that. Thus they’re something else, and I used a term that Lenin himself used: state capitalism (which wasn’t limited to the NEP). Please stop with your strawmen.
When the principle aspects of an economy are controlled by the public, ie large firms and key industries, it is safely considered to have moved beyond Capitalism into Socialism as the Mode of Production. As all transfers from one Mode of Production into the next are both instant and gradual, the Mode of Production overall has changed while still being stamped with remnants of the former that wither over time as the state resolves contradictions in favor of the new Mode of Production.
Labelling all Socialist societies run by Marxists as “State Capitalist” when they have clearly transitioned to a new form of society incompatible with the old order, is a gross mistake in analysis.
No. Socialism as a mode of production is the owning of the means of production by the workers, not the State. For a worker, it doesn’t change anything if their overlords are politicians or industrialists.
Your definition is definitely contrary to Marxism, so if your definition of Socialism is exclusionary of Marxists, I find it a bit strange. “Worker ownership” is not sufficient for Socialism. A sole proprietor is not Socialist, but petite bourgeois. Cooperative ownership is generally considered “socialist,” but not Marxist, as cooperatives retain petite bourgeois class relations excluding the rest of society from owning the Capital of the cooperative.
Therefore, abolition of private property can only be accomplished truly and fully through total public ownership of Capital. This is the Marxist stance, once the state has managed to fold all of the instruments of production into its hands, it ceases to be recognizable as a state, as class no longer exists. Engels calls this post-state the “Administration of Things.”
I think the issue you have is seeing only Anarchist or Market Socialist formations as Socialist, and not Marxist. This is either from a bias towards the former and against the latter, or a lack of comprehension of the latter. This is why you see public ownership as fundamentally the same as private ownership, and is why your understanding is fundamentally flawed, seeing all hierarchies as “overlords,” be they intra-class hierarchies like workers and managers, or inter-class hierarchies like proletarian and bourgeoisie. It erases the victories achieved by the working class in Socialist states throughout history.
I’m not Marxist, so that’s quite normal. But even in Marxist terms, socialism is a mode of production were the usage value replaced the monetary value. That never happened in so called “communist” countries.
One can only abolish the commodity form in totality through global Socialism. Socialism’s beginning is the transition from Capitalism to Communism, that existence in which there are no longer classes, the state, or money. The fact that Socialist states governed by Communist parties have not as of yet achieved that global system is not an indication of a betrayal of Marxism or an indication of not being Socialist by any measure.
Production based on use-value as the basis of economic organization can only truly exist when commodity production has been erased, and this can only be achieved through mass development of the productive forces and the lack of outside pressures like sanctions or threats of war from Capitalist nations. This means they have not yet achieved Communism, but have achieved Socialism, hence why no Socialist country has ever considered itself to have achieved Communism.
You just wrote, in other words:.“It can’t be socialism before the global revolution but that doesn’t mean it’s not socialism”. Man, even Lenin called his system state capitalism… You’re not serious behind your big words, let’s stop here.
I can assure you that I have a problem with all types of fascists and authoritarians no matter the aesthetic.
You want failure and don’t want communism or socialism in other words.
Marxists aren’t fascists, though. Fascism is insepparable from Capitalism and bourgeois interests. Further, considering Marxists to be “authoritarian” implies that the only non-authoritarian form of government is a fully horizontal, Anarchist structure. Grouping all governments together as “fascist” is just a smokescreen in front of the quantitative and qualitative differenced between forms of government, which are often extreme, as they have historically been between Marxists and fascists.
State capitalism is capitalism, even if it’s pretending to be Marxist.
“koala bears are bears, even if they’re pretending they’re marsupials”
It’s more: koala bears are marsupials, even if they’re called bears.
Yes, that was my point. Socialism doesn’t become capitalism just because you call them “state capitalism”. Just like koala bears don’t become bears just because you call them that.
And state capitalism doesn’t become socialism just because you call it that.
Your only argument was essentially “it has capitalism in the name!”.
Now you just have “nuh-uh”
No. I defined what’s socialism for me (owning of the mean of production by the workers), and all can see that the USSR and friends weren’t that. Then I gave Marx’s definition of socialism, even if I’m not Marxist (a mode of production were the usefulness replaced the price as value), and all can see that the USSR and friends weren’t that. Thus they’re something else, and I used a term that Lenin himself used: state capitalism (which wasn’t limited to the NEP). Please stop with your strawmen.
When the principle aspects of an economy are controlled by the public, ie large firms and key industries, it is safely considered to have moved beyond Capitalism into Socialism as the Mode of Production. As all transfers from one Mode of Production into the next are both instant and gradual, the Mode of Production overall has changed while still being stamped with remnants of the former that wither over time as the state resolves contradictions in favor of the new Mode of Production.
Labelling all Socialist societies run by Marxists as “State Capitalist” when they have clearly transitioned to a new form of society incompatible with the old order, is a gross mistake in analysis.
No. Socialism as a mode of production is the owning of the means of production by the workers, not the State. For a worker, it doesn’t change anything if their overlords are politicians or industrialists.
Your definition is definitely contrary to Marxism, so if your definition of Socialism is exclusionary of Marxists, I find it a bit strange. “Worker ownership” is not sufficient for Socialism. A sole proprietor is not Socialist, but petite bourgeois. Cooperative ownership is generally considered “socialist,” but not Marxist, as cooperatives retain petite bourgeois class relations excluding the rest of society from owning the Capital of the cooperative.
Therefore, abolition of private property can only be accomplished truly and fully through total public ownership of Capital. This is the Marxist stance, once the state has managed to fold all of the instruments of production into its hands, it ceases to be recognizable as a state, as class no longer exists. Engels calls this post-state the “Administration of Things.”
I think the issue you have is seeing only Anarchist or Market Socialist formations as Socialist, and not Marxist. This is either from a bias towards the former and against the latter, or a lack of comprehension of the latter. This is why you see public ownership as fundamentally the same as private ownership, and is why your understanding is fundamentally flawed, seeing all hierarchies as “overlords,” be they intra-class hierarchies like workers and managers, or inter-class hierarchies like proletarian and bourgeoisie. It erases the victories achieved by the working class in Socialist states throughout history.
I’m not Marxist, so that’s quite normal. But even in Marxist terms, socialism is a mode of production were the usage value replaced the monetary value. That never happened in so called “communist” countries.
One can only abolish the commodity form in totality through global Socialism. Socialism’s beginning is the transition from Capitalism to Communism, that existence in which there are no longer classes, the state, or money. The fact that Socialist states governed by Communist parties have not as of yet achieved that global system is not an indication of a betrayal of Marxism or an indication of not being Socialist by any measure.
Production based on use-value as the basis of economic organization can only truly exist when commodity production has been erased, and this can only be achieved through mass development of the productive forces and the lack of outside pressures like sanctions or threats of war from Capitalist nations. This means they have not yet achieved Communism, but have achieved Socialism, hence why no Socialist country has ever considered itself to have achieved Communism.
You just wrote, in other words:.“It can’t be socialism before the global revolution but that doesn’t mean it’s not socialism”. Man, even Lenin called his system state capitalism… You’re not serious behind your big words, let’s stop here.
Yeah, but you’ve already admitted that you can’t actually identify fascists