Capitalism is a mode of production and distribution where private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. By “principal,” I mean rising and dominant. Contrary to your claims, socialism has been established and solidified through revolution, and reformism cannot and will not work because the capitalist state has evolved around capitalism itself. That’s why all successful revolutions have destroyed the old state apparatus.
Okay, first, Lenin couped the revolution, and then banned dissent. He seized control of the means of production for himself. Full stop.
He then wrote about how a vanguard party (Totalitarian rule by what might as well be a king) was somehow socialism.
It’s about as socialist as national socialism.
Actual socialism has been partially implemented in the form of universal healthcare, universal schools, and basic social safety programs.
The fascists hate these things, because they’re what leads to Marx’s dream, not Vanguard parties that are simply another name for the same old oligarchs, just in a coat of red paint.
First, Lenin did not coup the Tsar, nor the Provisional Government. The October Revolution was popularly supported, and in the aftermath and the ensuing Russian Civil War a democratic front coalesced around the Bolsheviks, who managed to be popular among both the proletariat and the peasantry, when most groups on the left only managed to win over one of those two groups. This resulted in the establishment of socialism in Russia.
Secondly, the vanguard party existed even in the time of Marx. Marx was a member of communist parties, and supported the organization of the advanced among the proletariat, seeing it as the duty of communists to bring the proletariat up to their level. Lenin wrote about the necessity of a vanguard well before the October Revolution, as it was necessary for the revolution in the first place! The Bolsheviks only became a vanguard after they had worked tirelessly to become one.
The soviet union was a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets brutalized the capitalists, tsarists, fascists, landlords, and kulaks, while liberating the workers and peasants. The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
Side note: Socialism in Power is slightly outdated, as the section on the DPRK was written before the democratic front was abolished and multi-candidate primaries have started rolling out in various jurisdictions in the DPRK. This development is very new, not at all ironed-out, and began in 2024, so while it’s useful for understanding how elections in the DPRK worked for the majority of their existence, it isn’t useful any longer for understanding how they work today.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
What you call “actual socialism” is instead simply welfare, and you are using it to dress up western social democracies in socialist clothes. However, the truth of the matter is that these very social democracies rely on imperialism and neocolonialism to fund these massive welfare states while maintaining capitalism. This is the price of class collaboration, the creation of what Engels calls the “bourgeois proletariat.”
That you would accuse existing socialism as “national socialism” while espousing support for imperialist and neocolonial social democracies as “partial socialism” is incredibly dishonest. Marx did not live to see imperialism the way Lenin had, but even he saw the beginnings of such a system and as such hated proto-social democracies like Bismarck’s system. Marx was a revolutionary through and through, and attempted to form a vanguard in his time, even if he failed. Lenin succeeded by carrying the torch.
The fascists, meanwhile, love social democracy. They are twins, after all, both founded in class collaboration and maintaining imperialism and neocolonialism.
The Constituent Assembly was not a “free and fair election,” it was largely a petite bourgeois institution used to placate the liberals in Russia. The peasantry and huge portions of the proletariat did not participate in it, because they recognized the soviets as the legitimate government. The Bolsheviks had broad support among both the proletarian and peasant Soviets.
Further, the state capitalist period referred to the New Economic Policy, which predated collectivization. Even then, Lenin considered the state itself to be socialist even in the NEP, as the working classes ran the state and the large firms and key industries were publicly owned. The NEP was a necessary move after War Communism had destroyed the peasantry due to needing rations to fuel the war effort, and by the 1930s the economy was overwhelmingly state owned and run in a manner that could not possibly be confused as the “State Capitalism” of the NEP.
Removed by mod
Capitalism is a mode of production and distribution where private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. By “principal,” I mean rising and dominant. Contrary to your claims, socialism has been established and solidified through revolution, and reformism cannot and will not work because the capitalist state has evolved around capitalism itself. That’s why all successful revolutions have destroyed the old state apparatus.
Okay, first, Lenin couped the revolution, and then banned dissent. He seized control of the means of production for himself. Full stop.
He then wrote about how a vanguard party (Totalitarian rule by what might as well be a king) was somehow socialism.
It’s about as socialist as national socialism.
Actual socialism has been partially implemented in the form of universal healthcare, universal schools, and basic social safety programs.
The fascists hate these things, because they’re what leads to Marx’s dream, not Vanguard parties that are simply another name for the same old oligarchs, just in a coat of red paint.
This is, frankly, ahistorical jibberish.
First, Lenin did not coup the Tsar, nor the Provisional Government. The October Revolution was popularly supported, and in the aftermath and the ensuing Russian Civil War a democratic front coalesced around the Bolsheviks, who managed to be popular among both the proletariat and the peasantry, when most groups on the left only managed to win over one of those two groups. This resulted in the establishment of socialism in Russia.
Secondly, the vanguard party existed even in the time of Marx. Marx was a member of communist parties, and supported the organization of the advanced among the proletariat, seeing it as the duty of communists to bring the proletariat up to their level. Lenin wrote about the necessity of a vanguard well before the October Revolution, as it was necessary for the revolution in the first place! The Bolsheviks only became a vanguard after they had worked tirelessly to become one.
The soviet union was a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets brutalized the capitalists, tsarists, fascists, landlords, and kulaks, while liberating the workers and peasants. The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
Side note: Socialism in Power is slightly outdated, as the section on the DPRK was written before the democratic front was abolished and multi-candidate primaries have started rolling out in various jurisdictions in the DPRK. This development is very new, not at all ironed-out, and began in 2024, so while it’s useful for understanding how elections in the DPRK worked for the majority of their existence, it isn’t useful any longer for understanding how they work today.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
What you call “actual socialism” is instead simply welfare, and you are using it to dress up western social democracies in socialist clothes. However, the truth of the matter is that these very social democracies rely on imperialism and neocolonialism to fund these massive welfare states while maintaining capitalism. This is the price of class collaboration, the creation of what Engels calls the “bourgeois proletariat.”
That you would accuse existing socialism as “national socialism” while espousing support for imperialist and neocolonial social democracies as “partial socialism” is incredibly dishonest. Marx did not live to see imperialism the way Lenin had, but even he saw the beginnings of such a system and as such hated proto-social democracies like Bismarck’s system. Marx was a revolutionary through and through, and attempted to form a vanguard in his time, even if he failed. Lenin succeeded by carrying the torch.
The fascists, meanwhile, love social democracy. They are twins, after all, both founded in class collaboration and maintaining imperialism and neocolonialism.
Removed by mod
The Constituent Assembly was not a “free and fair election,” it was largely a petite bourgeois institution used to placate the liberals in Russia. The peasantry and huge portions of the proletariat did not participate in it, because they recognized the soviets as the legitimate government. The Bolsheviks had broad support among both the proletarian and peasant Soviets.
Further, the state capitalist period referred to the New Economic Policy, which predated collectivization. Even then, Lenin considered the state itself to be socialist even in the NEP, as the working classes ran the state and the large firms and key industries were publicly owned. The NEP was a necessary move after War Communism had destroyed the peasantry due to needing rations to fuel the war effort, and by the 1930s the economy was overwhelmingly state owned and run in a manner that could not possibly be confused as the “State Capitalism” of the NEP.