Comment

The party supplanted the bourgeoisie and became them

The party didn’t have nearly enough wealth, especially not intergenerational, they were as much public workers as doctors and teachers.

small group gain control of the means of production

Again proving you don’t know shit about soviet historiography and democratic mechanisms

source

Sort:hotnew top

Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I know Lenin said this:

Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in Russia, that would be a victory.
Lenin, Minutes of the Sessions of the All-Russia C.E.C., 4th Convocation. Verbatim Report

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.

source
- volodya_ilich@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  it was under central control, so they achieved state capitalism
  
  “State capitalism is when central planning of the economy in a worker state without markets or surplus value extraction”. Lmao.
  
  Calling Lenin a bourgeois and making up a capitalist class out of thin air in the Soviet Union just proves again that you have done exactly 0 research or reading on the topic, you’ve just listened to someone online telling you that the USSR was state capitalism because central control, but you haven’t read any theory of communism and capitalism and you haven’t read any serious account of the functioning of the Soviet economy. Just disengage, you’re proving that you’re exclusively interested in putting “evil person” labels on certain historical leftist figures
  
  source