Solidarity was a Capitalist-backed anti-Socialist movement, just because workers participated didn’t make it in the interests of the workers.
Planners in AES serve collective ownership, I already gave you a couple books to read on to show this is the case. You can continue to assert the opposite, and you’ll continue to be wrong.
More than anything, your definition of Socialism appears to be “executes Marxist principles perfectly and without flaw,” which is dogmatism and anti-Materialist. This is the biggest error, and why in your eyes Socialism will likely never exist. The thing is, Marx himself would laugh at that notion.
My comments consistently reject perfectionism and dogmatism, focusing instead on grounding socialism in Marxist principles. Claiming that recognizing AES’s contradictions means believing socialism can’t exist is simply false. Whether someone agrees or not is irrelevant. This is commentary, not an effort to convert anyone.
You claim this but your comments prove the opposite.
You fail to correctly analyze classes. “State Capitalism” refers to ownership by a bourgeois state, not a proletarian state, and in the USSR production was not done for the profits of individual owners of the economy, as it was collectively owned and managed.
You firmly reject new information. This is an approach that goes against Dialectical Materialism. In your assertion that planning in the USSR wasn’t democratic, I linked 2 clear resources proving that it was and describing how. You ignored them entirely, proving more interest in arguing than coming to a mutual understanding.
You make the anti-Marxist, dogmatic assertion that “true” socialism doesn’t have contradictions. To the contrary, even Communism will have contradictions, but over long periods of time these contradictions are worked out.
Marxism is about changing the world through understanding it. Your unique, particular form of “Marxism” has achieved no revolutions and no improvements for the working class, while AES states stand as clear examples of working class victories.
You draw hard lines where they don’t exist. You failed to explain how the Soviet Democratic model stands in contrast to Marx and Engels in any material way, just vague assertions otherwise.
Overall, critique is important, but more than for criticism itself. Critique is important if correctly applied to what worked and what did not, and is only further useful if it is actionable. It appears your critique is for the sake of critique, which explains the lack of any common agreements with other Marxists and the apparent lack of org affiliation.
State capitalism, as Lenin explained, can be a transitional phase under a proletarian state. However, AES states developed bureaucratic classes managing production, diverging from Marx’s idea of collective control by the working class (Critique of the Gotha Programme).
I do not reject evidence but consider contradictions. AES planning excluded workers from real decision-making, violating Marx’s principle of collective worker control (The Civil War in France).
I never claimed socialism must be flawless. Marx recognized contradictions exist in all stages.
Revolutions prove nothing without examining their results. AES states stabilized under bureaucratic control, sidelining the working class, which Marx and Engels warned against (The Communist Manifesto).
Marx and Engels envisioned workers directly controlling production. The USSR’s soviets were subordinated to a centralized bureaucracy, diverging from this vision (The State and Revolution).
These comments are rooted in Marxism’s principle: the working class must emancipate itself.
It might be valuable to try to be mindful of the displayed habit of repeatedly misrepresenting what is written, either purposefully or out of misunderstanding. This distorts and distracts from the actual topic and makes for a standoffish look.
You’re doing that thing again where you provide no evidence for this “beaurocratic class” existing as a class, and refuse to read evidence to the contrary. Moreover, having upper level officials within the Proletariat, as AES has, is not an issue, but a requirement for large industry as Engels already espoused.
Please do some genuine consideration for why your views might be considered extremely fringe among Marxists globally, to not do so is to assert that your opinion is superior to that of hundreds of millions of working Marxists that build Socialism in the real world.
Cool, so now your stance is largely flip-flopping and AES is Socialist, glad we are in agreement finally.
There is no flip-flopping. AES does not align with the Marxist principles.
Solidarity was a Capitalist-backed anti-Socialist movement, just because workers participated didn’t make it in the interests of the workers.
Planners in AES serve collective ownership, I already gave you a couple books to read on to show this is the case. You can continue to assert the opposite, and you’ll continue to be wrong.
More than anything, your definition of Socialism appears to be “executes Marxist principles perfectly and without flaw,” which is dogmatism and anti-Materialist. This is the biggest error, and why in your eyes Socialism will likely never exist. The thing is, Marx himself would laugh at that notion.
My comments consistently reject perfectionism and dogmatism, focusing instead on grounding socialism in Marxist principles. Claiming that recognizing AES’s contradictions means believing socialism can’t exist is simply false. Whether someone agrees or not is irrelevant. This is commentary, not an effort to convert anyone.
You claim this but your comments prove the opposite.
You fail to correctly analyze classes. “State Capitalism” refers to ownership by a bourgeois state, not a proletarian state, and in the USSR production was not done for the profits of individual owners of the economy, as it was collectively owned and managed.
You firmly reject new information. This is an approach that goes against Dialectical Materialism. In your assertion that planning in the USSR wasn’t democratic, I linked 2 clear resources proving that it was and describing how. You ignored them entirely, proving more interest in arguing than coming to a mutual understanding.
You make the anti-Marxist, dogmatic assertion that “true” socialism doesn’t have contradictions. To the contrary, even Communism will have contradictions, but over long periods of time these contradictions are worked out.
Marxism is about changing the world through understanding it. Your unique, particular form of “Marxism” has achieved no revolutions and no improvements for the working class, while AES states stand as clear examples of working class victories.
You draw hard lines where they don’t exist. You failed to explain how the Soviet Democratic model stands in contrast to Marx and Engels in any material way, just vague assertions otherwise.
Overall, critique is important, but more than for criticism itself. Critique is important if correctly applied to what worked and what did not, and is only further useful if it is actionable. It appears your critique is for the sake of critique, which explains the lack of any common agreements with other Marxists and the apparent lack of org affiliation.
State capitalism, as Lenin explained, can be a transitional phase under a proletarian state. However, AES states developed bureaucratic classes managing production, diverging from Marx’s idea of collective control by the working class (Critique of the Gotha Programme).
I do not reject evidence but consider contradictions. AES planning excluded workers from real decision-making, violating Marx’s principle of collective worker control (The Civil War in France).
I never claimed socialism must be flawless. Marx recognized contradictions exist in all stages.
Revolutions prove nothing without examining their results. AES states stabilized under bureaucratic control, sidelining the working class, which Marx and Engels warned against (The Communist Manifesto).
Marx and Engels envisioned workers directly controlling production. The USSR’s soviets were subordinated to a centralized bureaucracy, diverging from this vision (The State and Revolution).
These comments are rooted in Marxism’s principle: the working class must emancipate itself.
It might be valuable to try to be mindful of the displayed habit of repeatedly misrepresenting what is written, either purposefully or out of misunderstanding. This distorts and distracts from the actual topic and makes for a standoffish look.
Good night.
You’re doing that thing again where you provide no evidence for this “beaurocratic class” existing as a class, and refuse to read evidence to the contrary. Moreover, having upper level officials within the Proletariat, as AES has, is not an issue, but a requirement for large industry as Engels already espoused.
Please do some genuine consideration for why your views might be considered extremely fringe among Marxists globally, to not do so is to assert that your opinion is superior to that of hundreds of millions of working Marxists that build Socialism in the real world.