Comment on [deleted]
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 5 weeks agoAt no point in any of this are you adressing the argument being made, which is that state capitalism absolutely is a thing, which means Lenin became a capitalist.
You can make excuses for it all day, the only difference between them and the liberal revolutions is ideological at that point, which makes you an idealist.
volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
“I will overfixate on a debate on the academic definition of capitalism in order to be able to call X communist leader a capitalist instead of looking at the actual policy implemented” isn’t an honest framework to deal with this. In a worker state without bourgeoisie, such as the soviet union, there is no such thing as surplus value because there’s no capitalist class appropriating the wealth for itself. Instead, salaries are decided centrally, goods are provided at centrally-planned prices and NOT through the market principles. This is enough for me to claim that the USSR was socialist and not capitalist, and I refuse to engage in semantics rather than talking about policy: the USSR was materially and significantly different from any classical capitalist state, and much better by ANY actual metric than any capitalist state, and you’re just trying to bend definitions to call your Marxist-Leninist of choice a capitalist
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 5 weeks ago
Bourgeoisie aren’t some genetically distinct group. The party supplanted the bourgeoisie and became them.
I will never understand how tankies can see a small group gain control of the means of production and understand it as anything but a new bourgeoisie.
volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
The party didn’t have nearly enough wealth, especially not intergenerational, they were as much public workers as doctors and teachers.
Again proving you don’t know shit about soviet historiography and democratic mechanisms
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 5 weeks ago
I know Lenin said this:
You completely ignored that. Why?
They controlled the entire economy, you’ve said yourself it was under central control, so they achieved state capitalism. And why does wealth need to be intergenerational for it to create a bourgeois class? Oh, I know why, because otherwise you’d have to accept that your hero Lenin was bourgeois, and you can’t do that. You named yourself after him, you’re way too personally invested to see this issue clearly.