SSDR wrote:@Senter, "Derailed to state capitalism?" Yeah this is proof that you're very liberal, and that you're either a left communist, Western Marxist, or you're just an ultra leftist. Socialist states such as the Soviet Union were state socialist that had some capitalist characteristics, but they were state socialist.
Uhhh.... why do you say "were"?
You're free to label me however you wish, and you will. But I'm interested in solving problems rather than earning a label.
Marx made it very clear that in his analysis it was the oppressed class under the ancient slave systems, as in Rome, became feudal landowners with a new oppressed class - serfs. He further made it clear that under feudalism the oppressed class of serfs and others created capitalism and became capitalists with a new oppressed class - workers. He further made it clear that this was the consistent story throughout history, and that the oppressed class always became the oppressors. He was also quite clear that under capitalism, the oppressed working class would ultimately become owners of the MoP in a system he called "lower communism" and we call "socialism".
In the Soviet Union the workers were not the owners of the MoP. The state was. That made no change to the relationship the workers had to their bosses. Hence it was not "lower communism" (socialism).
This response of yours makes you sound like you believe that socialism can't have ANY state, whether the state is capitalist or socialist.
You would do much better and be more mannerly if you would ask questions rather that making assumptions like this, and risk being as wrong as this. The desire to have no state is not only counter to Marxism, but is also illogical to the point of being fatuous. So no, I don't oppose any state.
When Marx described socialism as "stateless" he meant a capitalist state, and a capitalist state is a state that enforces capitalist classes, defends private property rights, and maintains a currency and uses debt to control the workers.
Marx didn't describe socialism as "stateless". You're confusing his ideas about communism with those of socialism. If he indicated that socialism would be "the dictatorship of the proletariat", obviously he wasn't describing a stateless society.
Reformism that has some socialized characteristics is state capitalist, not state socialist, and that reformism conserves the capitalist mode of production, but uses some state capitalist or some socialist characteristics to defend its mode of production, so that it doesn't collapse, giving true opportunity for a socialist uprising to occur.
The inclusion of policies and characteristics that resemble some that may be found in socialism doesn't make the system socialism since it doesn't change the owners of the MoP to workers.
How is it different for feudalism to evolve into capitalism? Because both defend classes, currency, the concept of value, debt, and in some cases, slavery (some capitalist countries defended slavery and had it enforced like Saudi Arabia up until the 1960's).
Feudalism didn't have currency. The system was more like a bartering economy. And value? Every system and every proposed system involves the notion of value.
Capitalism is a modernized, less family oriented, liberalized version of feudalism. The only main difference between capitalism and feudalism is that in capitalism, the labourers have opportunities to change their class (for example, a poor farmer starts his own company, gains lots of customers and gains access to natural resources, builds his company, and gets rich and becomes an employer himself), labourers can choose where they live and how their wealth is (in feudalism, landlords chose where you live and how your material wealth is, via how you dress or what luxuries you're allowed to have, etc.), and is not as family oriented (in more advanced capitalism, where the economy is more socialized, via welfare, wages, labour unions, state employment, jobs).
Capitalism is more similar to feudalism than it is to socialism.
And yet your idea of capitalism being (merely) a liberalized version of feudalism is absurd. There is little similarity.