"State Capitalism": a most convenient term for everyone

[stsoc]

@Anenome

I don’t know the details of those two coop, I just saw that they are called worker coops and have many workers. If it is the case that they are not organized by direct democracy, but have a hierarchy (delegation of power, and from top to down organization) then they are not worker coops.

@Fool on the hill

Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism and Pannekoek’s State Capitalism and Dictatorship are orthodox marxist perspectives that clearly see nationalization as a process that produces state capitalism, not socialism.

I mentioned Bakunin, but also Proudhon and Kropotkin dismissed nationalization as having anything to do with socialism.

Leninism, when it came in power, destroyed socialism, first moves of Lenin, Trotsky and the rest of the Bolshevik leadership was to abolish the worker councils, which were organization of socialism (being that the core of socialism is workers’ self-menagement), and to call that destruction of socialim “socialism” is simply a travesty, either an act of malevolent propaganda, or a manifestation of vast ignorance of the topic at hand.

What system is characterized by limited private ownership with ultimate central control? Fascism.

Mix of laissez faire capitalism and state capitalism (mixed economy capitalism) can be in different degrees and with different non-economic policies. USA has one type of mixed economy capitalism, social-democracy has another, a little closer to state capitalism. Titioism would be even closer to state capitalism, whereas Stalinism is full state capitalism. Fascism is just a nationalistic or rasist and imperialist version of social-democracy. USA has a mixed economy capitalism that is closest to laissez faire capitalism- even though it really is not close to it, it is the closest from all systems of first world countries, and has similarities with fascist states, imperialism being one.

[Fool_on_the_Hill]

I came across an article that looks to be a deeper analysis of the capitalist nature of the USSR than the ones I posted above: What was the USSR?

[Malachi]

While both Lenin and Trotsky argued that it was necessary to overthrow the Provisional Government and establish a workers’ government through a socialist-proletarian revolution, neither Lenin nor Trotsky saw socialism as an immediate prospect in a backward country such as Russia. The proletarian revolution that established the worker-peasant dictatorship was seen as only the first step in the long transition to a fully developed socialist society. As Trotsky was later to argue,10 even in an advanced capitalist country like the USA a proletarian revolution would not be able to bring about a socialist society all at once. A period of transition would be required that would allow the further development of the forces of production necessary to provide the material basis for a self-sustaining socialist society. In an advanced capitalist country like the USA such a period of transition could take several years; in a country as backward as Russia it would take decades, and ultimately it would only be possible with the material support of a socialist Europe.

interesting to note that it is taken as a given, even among communists, that communists will never get anything done and other people, even perhaps other, inferior communists, will have to undertake to provide the capital for such an existence. Admit it, its an elaborate farcical attempt to trick other people into doing your work for you.

[h.k]

@Malachi

While both Lenin and Trotsky argued that it was necessary to overthrow the Provisional Government and establish a workers’ government through a socialist-proletarian revolution, neither Lenin nor Trotsky saw socialism as an immediate prospect in a backward country such as Russia. The proletarian revolution that established the worker-peasant dictatorship was seen as only the first step in the long transition to a fully developed socialist society. As Trotsky was later to argue,10 even in an advanced capitalist country like the USA a proletarian revolution would not be able to bring about a socialist society all at once. A period of transition would be required that would allow the further development of the forces of production necessary to provide the material basis for a self-sustaining socialist society. In an advanced capitalist country like the USA such a period of transition could take several years; in a country as backward as Russia it would take decades, and ultimately it would only be possible with the material support of a socialist Europe.

interesting to note that it is taken as a given, even among communists, that communists will never get anything done and other people, even perhaps other, inferior communists, will have to undertake to provide the capital for such an existence. Admit it, its an elaborate farcical attempt to trick other people into doing your work for you.

Communism is really just a roundabout way of saying that those nerds in highschool who study really hard, aren’t actually smarter than those dipshit jocks who get average grades. Conceptually it isn’t very different at all.

[Cortes]

Would it be correct to consider “State Capitalism” a tautology?

Trying to repackage the same thing, depending on the context the word is used, as something allegedly completely different, using different words? In socialists and anti-capitalists’ case, it’s used to describe a planned economy. For libertarians, who don’t seem to use the word as much, it’s analogous to ‘crony capitalism’ or 'corportatism, or any government/business partnership.