Stalin and Socialism in One Country

Did Stalin plan to push the revolution outwards once socialism in one country was achieved? In other words, would the Soviet Union have openly and forcefully aided revolution in other countries if it had fully developed (and perhaps surpassed) the capitalist world?

If not, was Stalin content to coexist with Capitalism?

He coexisted with capitalism so long as it didn't pose a direct threat. He made deals with the imperialists on splitting the world rather than support revolutionaries (he often fought against them instead).

He worked with bourgeois governments more than anyone. He used communists outside the USSR to reinforce capitalist governments he didn't want to fall (popular front), and do anything else to protect the USSR instead of achieving revolution.

He also admitted himself world revolution wasn't his goal, and takes it a step further and says it was never the goal. He was the ultimate revisionist that contrasted every communist in Russia before (except for the mensheviks, interestingly). Those communists also ended up being suppressed under his government.

Stalin was nothing more than an opportunist. He demonstrated it repeatedly.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /03/01.htm

And here's a list of his intentional blunders:

Please don't link to other forums - Moris

So if this is true, does it mean the USSR was doomed to failure because of Stalin setting the precedent for realpolitik?

It was more or less doomed to failure because he kept the revolution isolated and bureaucratically domained. It was bound to restore capitalism, reject his rule, and we can all see it did.

Quote:

He coexisted with capitalism so long as it didn't pose a direct threat.

And what's bad about this?

Quote:

It was bound to restore capitalism, reject his rule, and we can all see it did.

No it wasn't.For frag's sake,by 1939. capitalism was all but eliminated.What you're saying is more like "mechanicism" to me,not dialectical thinking.Things didn't go "lineally" like that.You're ignoring the post '53 changes that happened,changes which were not,imo,an absolutely necessity and the only possible consequence,outcome of Stalin's rule.

Quote:

He worked with bourgeois governments more than anyone.

Yes,because Mongolia was a huge producer of machines and a huge market for Soviet raw materials.

Quote:

He used communists outside the USSR to reinforce capitalist governments he didn't want to fall (popular front), and do anything else to protect the USSR instead of achieving revolution.

Yes,let's blame Stalin and the Popular Front for the victory against fascism in China and the subsequent communist revolution there...

Quote:

He also admitted himself world revolution wasn't his goal, and takes it a step further and says it was never the goal.

Source?

Quote:

He was the ultimate revisionist that contrasted every communist in Russia before

Even Lenin?

This is bordering on apologetics.

Quote:

And what's bad about this?

Meaning he was perfectly fine to make allies out of capitalists unless they challenged him. Not only that, he forced communists to assist him in doing so, sabotaging revolution and empowering the bourgeoisie all the way through the 20s to the 40s. Instead of working to spread revolution, he just worked to cement the power of his state. International communism was just a means for him to safeguard soviet national interests abroad.

Quote:

No it wasn't.

Of course, that's why the USSR still stands today as our shining beacon of socialism.

Quote:

For frag's sake,by 1939. capitalism was all but eliminated

It was merely state run and unaccountable to all but the bureaucracy that managed it.

Quote:

What you're saying is more like "mechanicism" to me,not dialectical thinking.Things didn't go "lineally" like that.You're ignoring the post '53 changes that happened,changes which were not,imo,an absolutely necessity and the only possible consequence,outcome of Stalin's rule.

I don't know what you're going on about here. It sounds like you have a point to make but you didn't elaborate on it.

Quote:

Yes,because Mongolia was a huge producer of machines and a huge market for Soviet raw materials.

Same deal here. Do you read your posts before you submit them?

Quote:

Yes,let's blame Stalin and the Popular Front for the victory against fascism in China and the subsequent communist revolution there...

Stalin impeded revolution in China, from the 20s on he told the CCP to work with the KMT (who WERE the fascists, but stalin called them a 'revolutionary national bourgeoisie' to justify his actions, signaling his opportunist retreat to menshevik ideas), all the way up to 1949. His 'bloc within' policy led to the savage murdering of chinese communists by the KMT, most notably in 1927. Even Mao disagreed with him. It was the Chinese that defeated the japanese imperialists, the KMT fascists, and gave China a chance for a better, modern future. The Stalinists only gave them difficulties while they were protecting their power.

A word of advice, the last thing you should do is bring up China when you defend Stalin.

Quote:

Source?

Are you playing dumb? It's in the post, and I've shown it to you before.

Quote:

Even Lenin?

Especially Lenin.

Loz you really need to give up your Stalin fetish.

soviet78 wrote:

Stalin was a pragmatist, not an opportunist. He realized that clearly pronouncing the goal of spreading 'world revolution' would be disastrous for the USSR, given that in his day pretty much the rest of the world would be fighting against the USSR in the event of (inevitable) reaction to Soviet maneuvers to support revolutions.

This is pretty much the impression that I gained from my own studies in university too. On the whole, I would agree more with soviet78's assessment of Stalin's role. The man was a Marxist-Leninist who did believe in the eventual victory of communism. Unlike Mao who thought that he could create a purely proletarian communist culture and society in his own lifetime, however, Stalin was more careful, some might say conservative, in this regard.

In this sense, Stalin played along in the realpolitik game with the goal of securing the position of the Soviet Union, which undoubtedly was seen by many at the time (whether rightly or wrongly is a matter of debate) as the "heart" of the Revolution, until the next wave of revolution and warfare that would sweep the capitalist states off of their feet. Because of this he tried to create a new form of balance of power in Europe, not to stop revolution, but to rebuild and secure the position of the USSR after the Great Patriotic War, much in the same way that his predecessors took a step back from trying to spread revolution once other revolutions failed to materialize or simply were crushed in Europe, Soviet forces took heavy losses in Poland, and Russia itself was facing Western intervention and internal unrest by anti-Soviet forces.

soviet78 wrote:

Stalin was a pragmatist, not an opportunist.

I think he was a pragmatist for the soviet state's position, an undeveloped country with a powerful state safeguarding the revolution, but not that of socialism. For that reason, he is an opportunist. He abandoned world revolution in favor of increasing his clique's power and that of the USSR over the international movement, at the same time purging opposition, former political allies, and original revolutionaries internally. He disbanded soviets in favor of direct bureaucratic rule.

Quote:

He realized that clearly pronouncing the goal of spreading 'world revolution' would be disastrous for the USSR, given that in his day pretty much the rest of the world would be fighting against the USSR in the event of (inevitable) reaction to Soviet maneuvers to support revolutions.

That's not how it worked. It's not that he refused to be a communist napoleon, it's that he refused to support any chance at revolution while he was turning communists into allies of the national bourgeoisie, insisting on communists joining the government to keep it stable and help align it to the USSR. He squandered opportunities doing such things in places like Spain, Germany, China, Britain, and France. This goes beyond any fears of imperialist counterattack, revolutions in these countries would drastically change the balance of power, but they would also not be under soviet direction. Instead we had communists being told to join popular fronts or face a power struggle with stalinists if they wanted a revolution. Soviet communism was a mask for empire-building of the elitist state. Stalin started a tradition of 'communism' that was nothing more than about the empowering of his clique and the USSR under him, and led to the what should be paradoxical defeats we have today (the failure of the March referendum to change anything and general unwillingness of workers to defend their revolution comes to mind).

Quote:

It could be argued that Stalin was too much of a pragmatist in the aftermath of the Second World War, where he forced communists to join coalition governments in a situation where revolution could be said to be imminent (France and Italy for instance).

He was doing that everywhere for a long time before 1945. It happened in France in 1936, the official CP set up a popular front and seriously acted like a liberal party, proposing liberal policies while actual liberals in the popular front weren't. I don't know about it being 'too pragmatist' though, as all he did was sell out revolutions to the west in exchange for them recognizing soviet control of to-be warsaw pact countries. Sounds like opportunism to me.

Quote:

Then of course there's the example of Greece, whose abandonment is almost impossible to defend on principle.

Doesn't that expose to you anything? Greece is an blatant example of soviet political maneuvering for a position that better suits itself.

Quote:

These errors of judgement can be attributed to Stalin's erroneous conception on the inevitability of crisis and war between Western capitalist states.

That makes no sense. Why would he believe the western allies, who by then forged one of the most trusting and infallible alliance in the world, would turn on each other in the face of the largest land army in the world occupying half of europe? Britain, France, and the US were the top 3 imperialist powers, and they all worked together to keep it that way. Other bourgeoisie followed suit as it was their best chance for protection from communism.

Furthermore, if he believed bourgeois governments were doomed to be at war with others of their kind, why did he insist on strengthening them with local communists?

Quote:

He theorized that in the next World War, the imperialists would again begin fighting one another (perhaps Europeans against one another again, or the Americans vs. the Europeans for their colonial resources and markets).

Is there somewhere where I can read about this?

Quote:

Once again, the USSR, having rebuilt itself and surrounded itself with allied states in Eastern Europe, would attempt to keep itself out of the conflict as long as possible. However, assuming it was attacked once again, the USSR would simply push further West, again defeating the imperialists and leaving fewer bases for them in the world from which to attack the socialist countries.

I seriously doubt Stalin expected the west to invade it, those advocating aggression were usually the rabid nationalists (Churchill and McArthur for example) and their rabidness was seen as going from useful to a liability. They were silenced. Also I seriously doubt he expect the west to turn on each other. They were standing together against threats to their power for 40 years and 2 world wars. Old russia was with them once, don't forget.

Quote:

Grounding his conception on the causes of war on the preceding epoch, Stalin did not anticipate that informal neocolonialism would come to replace formal colonialism, nor that the Europeans could come to get along among themselves, and with the United States. He also probably didn't realize the full implications of the effects of nuclear weapons on the global strategic balance until close to his death. Hence Stalin's conceived-of WW3 never happened. Nevertheless, that does not mean that 'global communism was never the goal' for him, since as a Marxist-Leninist he believed that imperialist wars and revolutions were inevitable. It just wasn't necessarily up to the USSR to make them all happen.

I don't see how this justifies sabotage of revolution in favor of soviet dominance and/or stability of the current government.

Quote:

but nevertheless, the argument 'Stalin did x and then nearly forty years later the country collapsed as a result' sounds pretty weak to me.

He set the stage for the kind of collapse to come. People voted to preserve the USSR, and nothing changed. When nothing changed, they didn't rally to defend the revolution, they did nothing and suffered the extremes to come. They had nothing to lose in the following the promise of a democratic government and defending that promise from old communists who wanted to maintain the system. This kind of lack of democracy doesn't empower the masses, it does the opposite, and it leads to kind of defeats we see in 1991.

Quote:

If there is anything about Stalin's rule which led to the collapse of the country later, it's not for the above reasons, but for the particularly harsh way that he governed the country -which may have been necessary at the time. Many of the intellectual leaders of the perestroika counterrevolution, including Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Yakovlev, Arbatov, Shakhnazarov, Falin and others were young people when Khrushchev's 'secret speech' at the 20th Congress destroyed many illusions they may have had about the Stalin era. For this Khrushchev himself deserves some of the blame, for deliberately exaggerating Stalin's crimes in order to elevate himself. Nevertheless, if these violations of socialist legality had never occurred during the Stalin period, there would have been nothing for Khrushchev to say to attempt to discredit Koba, and the future liberals would have nothing to get disillusioned about. Then again, it was ultimately the fault of the 1980s Politburo, and chiefly Gorbachev, for actually putting these disheartened liberals in power in virtually all the media, academic and cultural institutions in the country during glasnost.

Welcome to the politics of the nomenklatura, cliques accuse others with lies and exaggerations to achieve power, Stalin started that tradition, and did it extensively compared to Khrushchev. He did that to eliminate the left opposition, the old bolsheviks, and his former allies in the government, the right opposition. The only difference between what he did and what Khrushchev did was that Khrushchev's accusations had some obvious truths to them. If they didn't, it's unlikely he'd ever get anywhere.

Quote:

Meaning he was perfectly fine to make allies out of capitalists unless they challenged him.

Of course,that was the essence of Soviet Foreign Affairs policies since the early 20s.To exploit the contradictions between the capitalist states so that the USSR profits the most out of it.

Quote:

Not only that, he forced communists to assist him in doing so, sabotaging revolution and empowering the bourgeoisie all the way through the 20s to the 40s.

In my opinion that is because the Soviet Union was in grave danger,surrounded by two fascist states.

Quote:

Instead of working to spread revolution, he just worked to cement the power of his state.

Stalin worked to spread the revolution as much as it was possible,but the Soviet Union was not even ready to face all of its biggest enemies at once.

Quote:

International communism was just a means for him to safeguard soviet national interests abroad.

What time are you talking about?

Quote:

Of course, that's why the USSR still stands today as our shining beacon of socialism.

Yes,therefore Lenin's Thought is wrong.

Quote:

It was merely state run and unaccountable to all but the bureaucracy that managed it.

How do you mean it was state run capitalism?
And wasn't the bureaucracy accountable to the Party in the end?

Quote:

I don't know what you're going on about here.

You cannot categorically state that that the collapse of USSR was Stalin's fault.

Quote:

Do you read your posts before you submit them?

He worked with "bourgeois governments more than anyone" because,for the most part,these were the only governments that existed.Only Monglia,Tanu Tuva and Soviet China had a socialist government.At least that's the way i see it.

Quote:

A word of advice, the last thing you should do is bring up China when you defend Stalin.

Yes,a lot of mistakes were made but these were in the end corrected and a Communist China emerged victorious.

Quote:

Are you playing dumb? It's in the post, and I've shown it to you before.

But where does it say that "the world revolution wasn't Stalin's goal"?

Quote:

Especially Lenin.

How come?

Loz wrote:

Yes,a lot of mistakes were made but these were in the end corrected and a Communist China emerged victorious.

They were corrected by the CPC against Stalin's wishes. If the CPC hadn't done this we'd likely be talking about the ROC today rather than the PRC.

Quote:

Of course,that was the essence of Soviet Foreign Affairs policies since the early 20s.To exploit the contradictions between the capitalist states so that the USSR profits the most out of it.

False. In the early 20s, communists were actively working for revolution outside the USSR. It wasn't until Stalin's clique was 'exploiting the contradictions between capitalist states' that we had communists abandoning revolution and joining the bourgeois state instead, to defend and achieve the USSR's international position and goals.

Quote:

In my opinion that is because the Soviet Union was in grave danger,surrounded by two fascist states.

M-L's always go back to this for some reason. It's like they forget they helped it get that way by sabotaging revolution. Either way it doesn't really justify forcing communists to...not be communists.

Quote:

Stalin worked to spread the revolution as much as it was possible,but the Soviet Union was not even ready to face all of its biggest enemies at once.

He wanted to spread 'revolution' to governments instituted by the red army and willfully ignored by the west (like poland), in exchange for western governments spreading liberalism with their own armies and willfully ignored by the USSR (like Greece). That's all there was to it. Other than that, he sabotaged revolution. In fact, we wouldn't even have a PRC if Stalin had his go at 'working to spread the revolution as much as possible'.

Quote:

What time are you talking about?

Throughout his whole lifetime.

Quote:

Yes,therefore Lenin's Thought is wrong.

Therefore Stalin's methods that gave us the degenerated workers' state after Lenin died, is wrong. Lenin never conceived of the revolution being limited the USSR, let alone it being crushed by Stalinism and taken on a reverse course.

Quote:

How do you mean it was state run capitalism?

I mean it was the state appropriating surplus value and distributing it according to its own designs: State-run capitalism. This goes far beyond Marx's conception of the administrative state performing necessary social duties with surplus value (maintenance, disaster funds, etc) and proceeds into the state appropriating any amount it wants for anything it wants. Thus a bureaucracy forms with its own separate designs apart from the mass of the workers.

Quote:

And wasn't the bureaucracy accountable to the Party in the end?

Is this supposed to change everything?

Quote:

You cannot categorically state that that the collapse of USSR was Stalin's fault.

Yes I can, and I'll do it right now. Stalin's USSR abandoned revolution and established a rule of the bureaucracy which would ultimately re-establish capitalism, just as Trotsky predicted and reality showed us.

Quote:

He worked with "bourgeois governments more than anyone" because,for the most part,these were the only governments that existed.Only Monglia,Tanu Tuva and Soviet China had a socialist government.At least that's the way i see it.

More than anyone, not just other 'official' socialist states. He made more deals with crooks like Churchill concerning socialism and socialists than the socialists themselves.

Quote:

Yes,a lot of mistakes were made but these were in the end corrected and a Communist China emerged victorious.

No thanks to Stalin.

Quote:

But where does it say that "the world revolution wasn't Stalin's goal"?

Quote:

Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.

Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.

Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.

Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?

Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.

Just read for Frag sake.

Quote:

How come?

His foreign policy was a complete reversal from Lenin's, and it betrayed the fundamentals the USSR was established on: dropping stagism in favor of using revolution in peasant-dominated societies as a spark to ignite revolution in the west. He reversed course back to his ideas he had before Lenin arrived in April 1917 and sharply criticized him on: supporting the two-stage theory and also subsequently supporting the bourgeois russian provisional government. He applied these to China and greatly hindered chinese communism with his insistence on it being allied with the 'nationalist revolutionary bourgeoisie' of the KMT.

He abandoned Lenin's ideal of a republic of soviets in favor of rule of the privileged apparatchiks. He killed off the original revolutionaries and all opposition to his power, while Lenin was content with purging the career-seeking opportunists Stalin's clique, and that of every other, based its power on.

Quote:

I mean it was the state appropriating surplus value and distributing it according to its own designs: State-run capitalism.

lol no. I mean I don't really know about how it worked during Stalin's time, but in the GDR economy (which was modelled on the Soviet one), labor power had ceased to be a commodity. Labor power was not sold. Without the sale of labor power, there's no surplus value, because surplus value is merely the difference between the value of labor power and the value that labor has created. The enterprises didn't "profit" on anything either.

Marx disagrees.

Quote:

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... a/ch01.htm

Surplus value has to be appropriated under socialism in order to fund socially necessary but non-value producing labor and programs, like maintenance and healthcare. Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism took it a step forward and appropriated surplus value at any rate it wanted and spent it on anything it wanted. They could do this because the state did buy labour, but it also bought it a rate the plan demanded. Wages (which presuppose capital, by the way) were set by bureaucracy, and they were always below the value of what was produced, this is how the state both profited on exports and funded its huge military.

Quote:

False. In the early 20s, communists were actively working for revolution outside the USSR.

Yes,because there were active,powerful revolutionary movements in many countries at that time.Even Soviet Republics were formed.Things changed in the later years though.

Quote:

It wasn't until Stalin's clique was 'exploiting the contradictions between capitalist states' that we had communists abandoning revolution and joining the bourgeois state instead, to defend and achieve the USSR's international position and goals.

A powerful,aggressive fascist state (the one that could seriously threaten Europe,that means excluding Italy) didn't exist in the 20s.

Quote:

Either way it doesn't really justify forcing communists to...not be communists.

And how exactly did the USSR force communists "not to be communists"?

Quote:

He wanted to spread 'revolution' to governments instituted by the red army and willfully ignored by the west

The People's Democracies must be discussed on a case to case basis.

Quote:

...in exchange for western governments spreading liberalism with their own armies and willfully ignored by the USSR (like Greece).

Stalin knew that the West wouldn't give Greece away,and he couldn't risk a nuclear war because of Greece.But anyway,tens of thousands of people in Greece today uphold Stalin,even though he in a way "betrayed" their country.

Quote:

Other than that, he sabotaged revolution.

How come? By building the world's most powerful (and for a long time,the only) communist country?

Quote:

Stalin's USSR abandoned revolution and established a rule of the bureaucracy which would ultimately re-establish capitalism, just as Trotsky predicted and reality showed us.

I disagree.Stalin did not establish a "rule of the bureaucracy".
But please provide some evidence for your claim.Namely the one about the "bureaucracy" taking the power.

Quote:

No thanks to Stalin.

Why?

Quote:

Just read for Frag sake.

I still don't see the proof that Stalin abandoned the world revolution as his goal.But we have to look at the context,since this was an interview for Western papers given in the troubled times of the rise of fascism.Stalin just said that the USSR would not bring about the world revolution,and for me this means (considering the at that time prevalent Western view of the USSR as a country which would eventually set on conquering the whole Europe) that Stalin would not attack the surrounding capitalist nations,that he would not violently "spread the revolution".

Quote:

Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism took it a step forward and appropriated surplus value at any rate it wanted and spent it on anything it wanted. They could do this because the state did buy labour, but it also bought it a rate the plan demanded. Wages (which presuppose capital, by the way) were set by bureaucracy, and they were always below the value of what was produced, this is how the state both profited on exports and funded its huge military.

And isn't that what socialist accumulation's all about?

Quote:

Marx disagrees.

No he doesn't. Surely you've noticed that he doesn't use the term "surplus value" even once in the text you've quoted? Stop fetishizing Gotha.

Quote:

Surplus value has to be appropriated under socialism in order to fund socially necessary but non-value producing labor and programs, like maintenance and healthcare.

lol this is wrong on so many levels.

Firstly, there is no surplus value under socialism. Surplus value is the difference between the value created by the worker and the value of his labor power. Therefore, in order to even have surplus value, you need value of labor power. Labor power only has a value if there is a market for it. There is no market for labor power under socialism (full employment, no competition for jobs, no exchange of labor power, no exploitation), therefore labor power stops being a commodity.

Value of a commodity under capitalism: Value of means of production + Value of labor power + Surplus value

Composition of value of a commodity under socialism: Value of means of production + Value created by the worker

It's different.

Secondly, maintenance produces value, because non-maintained means of production lose value over time. Maintenance replaces this value.

Quote:

Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism took it a step forward and appropriated surplus value at any rate it wanted and spent it on anything it wanted.

lol no. If you look at the socialist economies of the Warsaw Pact, you'll notice that they invested mainly in "replacement of the means of production used up," "expansion of production", and "reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by (natural) calamities, etc."

In case you haven't noticed, imperialist aggression is a calamity... albeit one that Marx could not have foreseen. Of course some officials were corrupt and took more than they deserved, but that doesn't change shit about the character of the system.

Quote:

They could do this because the state did buy labour, but it also bought it a rate the plan demanded.

"Buying labour?"

That's impossible, dude.

Under socialism, labor power is not "bought". I mean the most convincing example of this is the Stalinist period itself where every worker was actually forced to work, otherwise they'd be imprisoned for sabotage. The wage under socialism is simply a more or less random (but ever-increasing) amount of money that's given to the workers, but not in exchange for their work, but simply because they deserve to partake in the material wealth that they've produced. This is not a commodity exchange because there is no market in between. It's actually more like a family where everybody just does their chores and everybody can eat at the common meals.

I mean this is most obvious if you look at the wages themselves. Under capitalism, labor power has the value that is required to reproduce it - meaning you're paid just as much as necessary to make you come back the next day. In order to pressure you to be happy with crappy wages, there's an industrial reserve army of unemployed people who will replace you if you dare to complain. Under socialism, however, you get (and people got) as much as possible - after the value needed to expand production, defend against imperialism and provide for social services such as healthcare as housing - was substracted, and of course with some stratification because it's "according to their deed". This is why wages have the general tendency to sink under capitalism whereas they kept constantly rising under socialism.

The corruption of a few officials changed nothing about the general character of socialist society.

Quote:

Wages (which presuppose capital, by the way)...

Wages as "prices of labor power" presuppose capital, yes. But I've just shown how they weren't prices of labor power under socialism. I mean capital did actually go on to exist under socialism, but it was a "tamed", a "controlled", a planned version of capital without exploitation. They called it funds, and the funds circulated in a planned manner. Quoting from Political Economy: Capitalism/Socialism (GDR, 1987):

Quote:

The monetary funds are used to buy means of production which are necessary for the process of production and to pay the wages of working people in the enterprises. The productive funds are means of production necessary for the concrete production of goods. The commodity funds are the finished goods meant for sale, as well as the means of production which have been bought, but not yet been included in the process of production.

The movement of funds - the permanent transformation of monetary funds into commodity funds, of commodity funds into productive funds, their transformation into commodities and realization of the latter in money to buy new means of production and use them in production as well as to pay the workers - this is the circulation of funds.

Quote:

...were set by bureaucracy...

But they were ever-increasing, for everybody. This is not capitalism, and it's not state capitalism either. If anything, it's inverted capitalism.

Quote:

...and they were always below the value of what was produced...

...which is necessary as you've said yourself, and as Marx says in Gotha.

Quote:

...this is how the state both profited on exports and funded its huge military.

"The state profited", yeah. What did the state use its "profit" for? To increase the welfare of its people, and to protect them from imperialism is a necessary part of that. What kind of dream world are you living in?

THE FACT THAT SOME OF THIS WAS PRIVATELY APPROPRIATED BY CORRUPT OFFICIALS DOES NOT CHANGE SHIT ABOUT THIS.

Loz wrote:

Yes,because there were active,powerful revolutionary movements in many countries at that time.Even Soviet Republics were formed.Things changed in the later years though.

Things changed because Stalin told them to stop being communists.

Quote:

And how exactly did the USSR force communists "not to be communists"?

By telling them to stop working for revolution, which is what a communist does.

Quote:

How come? By building the world's most powerful (and for a long time,the only) communist country?

Yeah, because that country thought it was a cool idea to construct an Iron Curtain.

Quote:

No he doesn't. Surely you've noticed that he doesn't use the term "surplus value" even once in the text you've quoted? Stop fetishizing Gotha.

I'm fetishizing gotha now? Regardless, these deductions take the form of appropriations of value from the worker. He doesn't receive the full value of his labour, thus surplus value. What are you even arguing?

Quote:

Firstly, there is no surplus value under socialism.

Yet we manage to not pay the worker the full value of his labour...

Quote:

Surplus value is the difference between the value created by the worker and the value of his labor power.

As I already demonstrated, Marx disagrees that the worker receives the full value of his labor in socialism.

Quote:

Labor power only has a value if there is a market for it.

No, its value is the living standard.

Quote:

Secondly, maintenance produces value, because non-maintained means of production lose value over time. Maintenance replaces this value.

No, maintenance restores the ability of the means of production to produce value. It produces no value in itself, just as expanding the means of production produces no value of itself. All it does it stop value from going to waste. Two machines, one new and one repaired, are equal in quality and productive ability, does one produce more goods than the other? Does one use less labor than another? Unless god said so, no. It produces no more value, maintenance and repairs are just a way to save value, as paying them to repair already-existing means of production is cheaper than constructing them anew.

Quote:

If you look at the socialist economies of the Warsaw Pact, you'll notice that they invested mainly in "replacement of the means of production used up," "expansion of production", and "reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by (natural) calamities, etc."

Not necessarily. Why weren't computers in widespread use then, for things like planning and such? Such efficient machines, too bad they were so efficient they threatened to reduce the size and power of the bureaucracy by making them obsolete. Why were members of the state elite getting more goods faster than the average person? Why was the warsaw pact dependent on loans from the west? Why were most people living in almost austerity conditions? You call this socialism?

Quote:

In case you haven't noticed, imperialist aggression is a calamity... albeit one that Marx could not have foreseen.

Imperialist aggression doesn't necessitate created oversized armies in a M.A.D. situation. This was just the expanding the military bureaucracy, which formed an integral part of the power of the bureaucratic state over the people.

Quote:

Of course some officials were corrupt and took more than they deserved, but that doesn't change shit about the character of the system.

The fact that therein lies an ability of your 'socialist' system for bureaucratic managers to distribute value according to their preferences, including paying themselves far more than the average worker, changes the character entirely. It proves that nothing was commonly owned, just state-owned. This comes far closer to state capitalism.

Quote:

The wage under socialism is simply a more or less random (but ever-increasing) amount of money that's given to the workers, but not in exchange for their work, but simply because they deserve to partake in the material wealth that they've produced

this is hilariously stupid. in other words, the state bought labour at a rate it preferred, which happened to be less than the value it was producing, because and it all wasn't an exchange, it's just that workers 'deserve some x amount of wealth', but only if they worked

The existence of wages along proves that labor power was bought and sold, it's the state creating a cost of labor its satisfied with.

Quote:

Under socialism, however, you get (and people got) as much as possible - after the value needed to expand production, defend against imperialism and provide for social services such as healthcare as housing - was substracted, and of course with some stratification because it's "according to their deed". This is why wages have the general tendency to sink under capitalism whereas they kept constantly rising under socialism.

I have no doubt wages kept rising in relation to expanding production, but that changes nothing. That just proves the state had a leftover surplus after spending it on its own plan, which was not overall designed not by the participation of the working class.

Quote:

The corruption of a few officials changed nothing about the general character of socialist society.

You keep going back to this strawman. It's not 'corruption of a few officials', it's corrupt substitutionism.

Quote:

Wages as "prices of labor power" presuppose capital, yes. But I've just shown how they weren't prices of labor power under socialism. I mean capital did actually go on to exist under socialism, but it was a "tamed", a "controlled", a planned version of capital without exploitation. They called it funds, and the funds circulated in a planned manner. Quoting from Political Economy: Capitalism/Socialism (GDR, 1987):

No, you did nothing actually. You just showed how workers get a growing share of a growing pie, and now you're conceding that there was capital, but it wasn't 'exploitive'. This says enough.

Quote:

But they were ever-increasing, for everybody. This is not capitalism, and it's not state capitalism either. If anything, it's inverted capitalism.

Indeed, and it'd be a true tragedy if they didn't. However, workers didn't control who got the what share of the pie, it was done for them (and not always with good intentions).

Quote:

...which is necessary as you've said yourself, and as Marx says in Gotha.

It's one thing to have deductions to pay for socially-necessary but non-value producing programs to afford a comfortable life for workers, but it's another to have wages which are state-set living standards and the unpaid value of the worker going to the state to afford various programs of their own, including high salaries and demand priority of officials and brass.

Quote:

"The state profited", yeah. What did the state use its "profit" for? To increase the welfare of its people, and to protect them from imperialism is a necessary part of that. What kind of dream world are you living in?

One where the plan isn't decided on for workers, instead by workers, so we don't plunge into degeneration and manipulation that arise from disenfranchising the working class from power. What the state spent on was decided on by the state, but the cost of labor (wages) was set by the state and thus so was the rate of exploitation.

Herbert Marcuse addresses this point in his book Soviet Marxism:

"The very success of Stalinist civilization leads to an impasse, which is clearly defined in the Marxist-Leninist theory of imperialism. According to this theory, the war economy provides an outlet for the aggravating inherent contradictions of capitalism, although the capitalist consolidation thus created is precarious and short-lived and bound to explode in wars between the competing imperialist countries. However, if and when there is a 'common enemy' outside the capitalist world, whose growing power and expansion requires the maintenance of a 'permanent' war or preparedness economy in which the imperialist powers unite, while at the same time technological progress enables capitalism to maintain this economy without noticeably reducing the standard of living (perhaps even increasing it!), then a situation prevails where the very growth of the Soviet orbit seems to sustain the unity and stability of the 'imperialist' orbit. The former cannot break this impasse without fundamentally altering its policy... Such a change in policy — aiming at the dissolution of the 'war economy' on which the capitalist stabilization is held to rest — presupposes that the Soviet state has attained a level of competitive strength which enables it to 'relax' its intransigent and aggressive strategy. Only such a relaxation, sustained systematically and for a long time, could possibly shatter the international capitalist stabilization and revert the capitalist system to that 'normality' in which the internal contradictions are supposed to ripen and ultimately to explode."