The USSR did not have a capitalist mode of production, though. Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets. The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
The USSR was also extremely internationalist. It was itself a multi-national union, and sponsored revolutions the world over, dedicated itself to building up relations with other socialist countries like China and Cuba, etc, and aided even nationalist revolutions against imperialism, such as in Algeria.
The problems with the USSR were myriad, but its dissolution was not an inevitability as you claim. Gorbachev’s reforms ultimately led to political and economic instability, and the USSR was forced into dedicating a large portion of their productive forces to keeping up with the US Empire millitarily in order to stave off invasion. The USSR, despite its flaws, was a tremendous first step for socialism globally, and managed to rapidly achieve huge gains in quality of life, scientific achievement, and industrialization in a planned manner in a socialist economy.
Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets
Public ownership doesn’t make a mode of production, it’s a falsifier belief (such as of Lassalle) Marx himself had to fight against that he called bourgeois socialism.
The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
This does make their mode of production not purely capitalistic though I agree, even though the system wasn’t capital-free. Still, a lot of the social relations remained, enough for opportunism to still be heavily encouraged by the system especially when it came to the party and bureaucratic management of the capital.
That being said, it was still not socialist economy - a socialist economy comes after productive forces are sufficiently developed and commodity production has been completely abolished. Until then it hasn’t changed the mode of production yet from capitalist, with it being mixed at best and it instead is a period of DOTP where productive forces are developed or reorganized, which, don’t get me wrong, is a massive step forward and a massive achievement, but one that can be reversed unlike historical transformation of mode of production.
Stalin redefined socialism, which was previously viewed as the abolishment of capitalism into something entirely different and pretty much one of the main major goals into “whatever USSR was at the time”, which was quite a disgusting move in terms of opportunism, though may have had good intentions back when it was done. Now, it just serves to confuse people and as an excuse to call capitalism a different name.
Though, this is something we’ll NEVER see eye to eye with lmao
Yes, public ownership within a capitalist economy, under a bourgeois state, isn’t socialism, I agree. That’s not what I said, though. Just like markets in a socialist economy are not capitalism, public ownership in capitalist economies aren’t socialism. What ultimately matters is what is principle, not what exists period, otherwise all modes of production are the same as they all contain at minimum trace elements of others.
We’ve discussed this before, and I agree in that we will likely never agree, but I’ll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on “one-drop” analysis. Capitalist economies are not defined by the absence of collectivized ownership, but by private ownership and the circulation of capital being principle. Socialism, as the transition between capitalism and communism, is no different in that it too is not defined by purity, but by principle aspects.
This doesn’t come from Stalin, but is from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public ownership is the most effective, I agree, but I disagree that that means that an underdeveloped country cannot retain ownership of the large firms and key industries, gradually appropriating capital with respect to its development. It’s like using fire for heating, keeping it in check by controlling the environment and all inputs, fuel, etc, and gradually replacing it with electrified heating as time goes on and you get the tech for it.
I fundamentally cannot agree with treating socialism itself as some unique mode of production distinct from all previous in defining it by purity and not by the principle aspect.
but I’ll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on “one-drop” analysis.
All of the “socialist countries” that you defend, do not just have “one-drop” of capitalism. They inevitably reproduce and enfranchise the capitalist social relationship in all aspects of their production, and their populations are dependent on the market to survive. Whether that is done by state planners or private capitalists, the exploitation of the proletariat class continues, in fact following the laws of capitalism, like the continuous immiseration of the proletariat and the inevitable necessity of imperialism under Capitalism.
A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public ownership is the most effective, I agree, but I disagree that that means that an underdeveloped country cannot retain ownership of the large firms and key industries, gradually appropriating capital with respect to its development. It’s like using fire for heating, keeping it in check by controlling the environment and all inputs, fuel, etc, and gradually replacing it with electrified heating as time goes on and you get the tech for it.
Why do your “socialist countries” not appropriate capital then? Why do they inevitably concede to private ownership, or even under the “state run monopolies” continue the capitalist social relation?
I fundamentally cannot agree with treating socialism itself as some unique mode of production
Even if we concede that, Capitalist social relationships and Socialist social relationships will coexist under a Dictatorship of The Proletariat, your “socialist countries” do not even attempt this, bar the revision of defining “state ownership” as a socialist social relationship. Yet, a number of countries you would consider “capitalist” practice(d) state ownership.
Which reveals your ideology for what it truly is, Capitalism with red paint, essentially, social democracy. If socialism is not a mode of production, what is it? An ideology. Agitated for in bourgeoisie parliaments as ethical capitalism with red flag characteristics. What would be the end of a “Socialist State” to you? When they change the flag color? If the “Communist Party” changes its name to the “Capitalist Party”? You have no material conception of what Socialism and Capitalism is, which is why it collapses into idealism to the extent you even refuse to accept that Socialism is an independent mode of production in of itself.
No, this is a ridiculous misreading of my comment, and of Marxism in general. When I say “one drop,” I mean of private property, not of capitalism itself. Capitalism is an overarching system, it isn’t something you define as a quantum element. I already stated that capitalist systems have public ownership, and that that doesn’t mean capitalist systems have socialist elements either.
Socialist countries are appropriating capital, yes. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies as well. You proceed from a false assumption and base your argument on that, but the premise itself is false. Socialism is a mode of production where public, collectivized ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Simple as that. It isn’t the public sector of a capitalist state, nor is it exclusively a system that is fully collectivized.
Your entire comment is mired in the idealism you accuse me of. I have never once suggested that socialism isn’t a mode of production, yet you are here affirming it as something unique, holy even, perfect, ideal, devoid of contradictions, unlike the other modes of production. That’s what I meant by it not being unique among modes of production, not that it isn’t a mode of production. This concept of socialism being pure when no other mode of production is is the very utopian idealism Marx railed against when correcting Hegel’s idealist dialectics. All modes of production contain contradictions, all modes of production contain elements of other modes of production. If you erase dialectics and only look at systems by their purity, you’d find that all modes of production fail to be correctly analyzed, because none are pure.
Howdy.
The USSR did not have a capitalist mode of production, though. Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets. The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
The USSR was also extremely internationalist. It was itself a multi-national union, and sponsored revolutions the world over, dedicated itself to building up relations with other socialist countries like China and Cuba, etc, and aided even nationalist revolutions against imperialism, such as in Algeria.
The problems with the USSR were myriad, but its dissolution was not an inevitability as you claim. Gorbachev’s reforms ultimately led to political and economic instability, and the USSR was forced into dedicating a large portion of their productive forces to keeping up with the US Empire millitarily in order to stave off invasion. The USSR, despite its flaws, was a tremendous first step for socialism globally, and managed to rapidly achieve huge gains in quality of life, scientific achievement, and industrialization in a planned manner in a socialist economy.
Public ownership doesn’t make a mode of production, it’s a falsifier belief (such as of Lassalle) Marx himself had to fight against that he called bourgeois socialism.
This does make their mode of production not purely capitalistic though I agree, even though the system wasn’t capital-free. Still, a lot of the social relations remained, enough for opportunism to still be heavily encouraged by the system especially when it came to the party and bureaucratic management of the capital.
That being said, it was still not socialist economy - a socialist economy comes after productive forces are sufficiently developed and commodity production has been completely abolished. Until then it hasn’t changed the mode of production yet from capitalist, with it being mixed at best and it instead is a period of DOTP where productive forces are developed or reorganized, which, don’t get me wrong, is a massive step forward and a massive achievement, but one that can be reversed unlike historical transformation of mode of production.
Stalin redefined socialism, which was previously viewed as the abolishment of capitalism into something entirely different and pretty much one of the main major goals into “whatever USSR was at the time”, which was quite a disgusting move in terms of opportunism, though may have had good intentions back when it was done. Now, it just serves to confuse people and as an excuse to call capitalism a different name.
Though, this is something we’ll NEVER see eye to eye with lmao
Yes, public ownership within a capitalist economy, under a bourgeois state, isn’t socialism, I agree. That’s not what I said, though. Just like markets in a socialist economy are not capitalism, public ownership in capitalist economies aren’t socialism. What ultimately matters is what is principle, not what exists period, otherwise all modes of production are the same as they all contain at minimum trace elements of others.
We’ve discussed this before, and I agree in that we will likely never agree, but I’ll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on “one-drop” analysis. Capitalist economies are not defined by the absence of collectivized ownership, but by private ownership and the circulation of capital being principle. Socialism, as the transition between capitalism and communism, is no different in that it too is not defined by purity, but by principle aspects.
This doesn’t come from Stalin, but is from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public ownership is the most effective, I agree, but I disagree that that means that an underdeveloped country cannot retain ownership of the large firms and key industries, gradually appropriating capital with respect to its development. It’s like using fire for heating, keeping it in check by controlling the environment and all inputs, fuel, etc, and gradually replacing it with electrified heating as time goes on and you get the tech for it.
I fundamentally cannot agree with treating socialism itself as some unique mode of production distinct from all previous in defining it by purity and not by the principle aspect.
All of the “socialist countries” that you defend, do not just have “one-drop” of capitalism. They inevitably reproduce and enfranchise the capitalist social relationship in all aspects of their production, and their populations are dependent on the market to survive. Whether that is done by state planners or private capitalists, the exploitation of the proletariat class continues, in fact following the laws of capitalism, like the continuous immiseration of the proletariat and the inevitable necessity of imperialism under Capitalism.
Why do your “socialist countries” not appropriate capital then? Why do they inevitably concede to private ownership, or even under the “state run monopolies” continue the capitalist social relation?
Even if we concede that, Capitalist social relationships and Socialist social relationships will coexist under a Dictatorship of The Proletariat, your “socialist countries” do not even attempt this, bar the revision of defining “state ownership” as a socialist social relationship. Yet, a number of countries you would consider “capitalist” practice(d) state ownership.
Which reveals your ideology for what it truly is, Capitalism with red paint, essentially, social democracy. If socialism is not a mode of production, what is it? An ideology. Agitated for in bourgeoisie parliaments as ethical capitalism with red flag characteristics. What would be the end of a “Socialist State” to you? When they change the flag color? If the “Communist Party” changes its name to the “Capitalist Party”? You have no material conception of what Socialism and Capitalism is, which is why it collapses into idealism to the extent you even refuse to accept that Socialism is an independent mode of production in of itself.
No, this is a ridiculous misreading of my comment, and of Marxism in general. When I say “one drop,” I mean of private property, not of capitalism itself. Capitalism is an overarching system, it isn’t something you define as a quantum element. I already stated that capitalist systems have public ownership, and that that doesn’t mean capitalist systems have socialist elements either.
Socialist countries are appropriating capital, yes. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies as well. You proceed from a false assumption and base your argument on that, but the premise itself is false. Socialism is a mode of production where public, collectivized ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Simple as that. It isn’t the public sector of a capitalist state, nor is it exclusively a system that is fully collectivized.
Your entire comment is mired in the idealism you accuse me of. I have never once suggested that socialism isn’t a mode of production, yet you are here affirming it as something unique, holy even, perfect, ideal, devoid of contradictions, unlike the other modes of production. That’s what I meant by it not being unique among modes of production, not that it isn’t a mode of production. This concept of socialism being pure when no other mode of production is is the very utopian idealism Marx railed against when correcting Hegel’s idealist dialectics. All modes of production contain contradictions, all modes of production contain elements of other modes of production. If you erase dialectics and only look at systems by their purity, you’d find that all modes of production fail to be correctly analyzed, because none are pure.