Was Lenin a State-Capitalist? (The NEP explained) 

@Geist Maschine Yes, I suppose so

Thanks for the Heads up!

The answer is Trotsky and his concept of permanent revolution.

The problem here is that you have no precise definitions of your terms between state capitalism, socialism, and communism. It makes it hard to have an objective analysis without precise definitions

How does this relate to achieving socialism or communism in modern western countries?

Gatekeepers and Pentagon employees like Chomsky are partly responsible for this.

Tianmu Huang yeah also very true

@@marka.1770 at killing people and pleasing Capitalists

@@adawm Most convininent sources in the west fail to give people the overall picture of China. The chinese population was 0.4 billion during WW2, it was already near 1 billion in the 70's, so much so they adopted population control soon later. When all the mainstream media does is to focus on the persecutions and man made famines of that regime, you get the impression that many died and perished, more that what the Japanese invaders had done... Not true at all, cos look at the numbers, they are nothing to compare. During WW2 they had population decline, and after it, they had even bigger baby boom than we did. Yet still, we get the brainwashing meme that somehow communism was responsible for killing more of their own people than genociding invaders.

Stalin is even more misunderstood.

Man, a lot of your videos are gone, how do you plan to reupload them?

._.

@@ubik5453 RU-vid deleted them.

@@ubik5453 RU-vid contracted with the CIA, FBI and NSA you knows.

@@Huy-G-Le It was actually some bug that took them down. He's fixed them and now his videos are back up.

Mhmm, although the assassination attempt on him probably didn't help things

He killed millions you fucking dicks...

@@tombarry4777 What do you think a revolution is? A dinner party?

@@tombarry4777 Under the Tsar, Yeltsin and Putin nobody died. No one would die under Navalny or Dugin either. Edit: How many millions? Want to know the death toll attributed to him, did it already exceed actual, read: archived not made up deaths under Stalin's leadership?

@@tombarry4777 Your country killed 500.000 iraqis in an useless war (of course it wasn't useless from the pov of Halliburton and co.) just recently, the nefarious ramifications of that war are still killing people nowadays, maybe you should focus on that instead of focusing on famines that happened 100 years ago (but of course ideology and conditioning prevent you to do so). Especially since that area had always been famine-prone historically, even before the communists and if anything the mechanization of agriculture of the communists and the reorganization of agriculture into kolhoz and sovkhoz ended the famines for good.

Шe dhe matriX-Men: dhe eksplojted ænd opprêssed pod-бorn

@@DirtyJuvenile Are you ok?

Actually there was an industrial proletariat in czarist/post-czarist Russia just small (very) when compared to Germany or Britain.

@@sheldonscott4037 yes, but the industrial proletariat was mainly situated within the urban areas. The countryside, by contrast, was extremely underdeveloped. The majority of the population there were peasants, and they made up the vast majority of the population who were literally stuck in medieval times. In comparison to places like Britain and Germany, Tsarist Russia was still centuries behind.

@@ComradeRhys I can't argue on what was said; basically, you were more explicit than my retort. Red salute.

DA, ZDRAVJETVČJÊT KRÂSNAJA 3x MILLIÔNNAJA ARMIJÂ!!

@BULL SCHEIST Wdym Lenin caused the famine the farmers were burning their own crops because they were starving, which made them starve even more, also Lenin bought the Rolls-Royce limousine for 1,850£ as a part of a secret deal for bomber planes engines.

@@NikKliaf That was during the War Communism era.

If you were to live in a fully industrialized social democracy like Sweden, how would you go about transitioning to socialism? Would you usher in State-Capitalism in an already highly developed country ?

@@Red-rj7sr well, I feel like social democracy would have already completed the first stages. It is state Capitalism, so the process of reaching socialism would be short. If we were talking about a society like America, then such things wouldn't be the case. Socialism's transitional process would be longer. Though, I recommend that nations should try to reach socialism as fast as possible.

Nice.

@Geist Maschine Đe si zemi, odakle si ti

Бest шišhes frʌm Siбeria∴

@Geist Maschine Srbin iz Austrije, pa ti si pravi Srbin Ahahahah, šala brt, ja iz Bajine Bašte

Someone got early access ; ) I try to maintain a consistent schedule for uploads so I didnt want to release this immediately after that last vid

@Comrade Kabo Since feudal times, Russian peasantry already operated in the "obshchina", a communal type of agriculture. The Soviet kolkhoz system built upon, expanded, modernised, and, to an extent, centralised these methods.

First Last you’re brainwashed

@@FirstLast-wu1gl People wanting you control themselves and the value which they themselves work to produce is a threat and danger for you?

You can/t handle dhe truth шill set you free..

Good point, and so did Trump. Lenin is basically no different than Trump, just another capitalist who wants to build up the economy on the basis of vague nationalism. Just building up the economy doesn't equal socialism.

@@AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3 cursed comment

AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3 nah

@@AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3 False Equivalence.

@@AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3 Trumpism-Jucheism

Dengism is not socialism period

NEPmen were merchants and capitalists who still existed in the USSR during the NEP

u mean late stage socialism

@@archlinuxuser I'm not a Marxist but am a history buff and study the philosophy to further understand its historical impact. In the Marxist philosophy communism is an anarchic state where the workers run everything without a government. True communism by Marxs definition never happened. The 'communist countries' are socialist states where the ruling party is Communist.

@@alexanderledvina8743 Exactly. Full communism also has no classes and no money.

Check your kulak privilege

@@DirtyJuvenile Still a pretty good Commercial.

I don't actually have a video fully analyzing soviet revisionism but this video talks about it a little bit. The sources in the description give more information about it though. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4xWeMBXV23g.html&

I made this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tUCRUAsrB8Y.html

USA needs reeducation & doctrine after revolution.

@W M USA is an imperialist nest that uses fascist policy against other countries, the working class in America is so deorganized, so ignorant, uneducated and narrow minded, and vast majority of population in US is simply degenerate. This country will never be socialist, it will be more likely turned into the ashes by nuclear war with communist countries. But there will never be a working class power in US, mark my words.

I personally find it unpalatable and subkosher

Monsieur Z is a nationalist

They seem like liberal socdems and euro-communists but I don't know much about them

Ask away

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 What is the communist position on trade? Are you for free trade or protectionism?

Try to think of interesting topics and make sure you have sources for your facts

Thank you comrade

Morphing Taxi thanks, that clarifies it a bit.

Hienoa, jäsenhakemuskaavake voidaan lähettää postitse jos on tarve. Vielä parempi on jos lähistöllä on osasto josta joku henkilö voisi puhua sinun kanssasi. Kannattaa laittaa sähköpostia ktp:n osoitteeseen niin saat kyllä neuvoa liittymiseen ja samalla voit tilata lehden. Lehden tilaus ei muuta vaadi kuin maksun ja ilmoitat vain, että tilaat sen ja annat yhteystiedot.

Lenin put forward the plan of creating agricultural cooperatives in his 1923 article "On Cooperation". They didn't have collective farms before the NEP.

@tiglath pileser Indeed, the Stolypin reforms were intended to grow a rural middle class and a market for industrial goods, thus growing the basis for industrial capitalism in Russia. The NEP was much the same, albeit to lay the basis of state-owned industrial production hence the concern about the growth of the Kulaks. The Left Opposition saw the need for this temporary retreat, but advocated a plan of industrialisation and collectivisation much sooner than 1928. By then, the Kulaks had grown to such a degree that collectivisation necessarily became a violent struggle against them in order to achieve the objectives of the 5 year plans.

Бy refuzing tu adhêre tu dhe perfektly reazonaбle demokratik ænd mætter-ov-kourse prosess ov kollektivization dhose grajn-hoardĩng kulax klansmen шere faund guilti ov trotsкy-ist hêresy ænd hæd tu paj dhi ûltimate prise før dheir tranzgression

In war communism they didnt collectivize agriculture yet the army basically just confiscated production. My understanding was he allowed free market trading of agricultural products to incentivize the farmers to produce more because there was a shortage of grain after the civil war.

China may be a State capitalism. But it has nothing to do with Lenin's idea of transnational State capitalism. Chinese CP just wants to keep things as they are, not in a communist view, but rather in a traditional imperial Chinese structure of bureaucrats, businessman and of course, the new Emperor that happens to be Xi Jinping. Current CCP is openly anti-Maoist.

@@MK-jc6us Changed your mind?

@@sw36jl Why should I? Chinese rich boys are being sent to the farms for maoist-style reeducation? China is Party-managed capitalism and workers are not "gaining more rights" there. Except if you consider that being tracked 24/7 is a fundamental right.

​@@MK-jc6us "Chinese rich boys are being sent to the farms for maoist-style reeducation" Nah read what is happening in China now. Behind all the hullabaloo, if you read what Xi Jinping Thought is about, it is an evolution of Deng and sticking to the socialist road of development (the moderate and pragmatic left). Yes you are right the current CPC is anti-maoist, they just don't denounce Mao since he unified the nation just as Qin Shi Huang the tyrant unified China, they denounce what they call the "extreme left". However, the current education on Xi Jinping thought is not about loyalty to Xi, it actually never states Xi in it, it's about loyalty to socialism (and the party). Many schools of thoughts have the creators names in them, Dengism (Deng Xiaopeng Theory), McCarthyism, Marxism etc. The issue with transnational State capitalism is that if the governing body running this gets awashed with corruption, it can deviate to what you see in Russia today, an oligarchy. In many ways, you are also right that the CPC has a traditional structure. However, I would argue that the Chinese structure of governance has always been that of a proletarian dictatorship, especially with its meritocracy. During the height of the Tang Dynasty, Emperor Tang Taizong would flirt with communist ideas eg. giving a cow, and a few chickens to every single registered household. Throughout Chinese history, the most successful dynasties have attempted some form of quasi-communism, except they lacked the technological capabilities to apply it to our current living standards. Follow the writing on the wall, the period of Jiang and Hu is over, but during their times, China became extremely corrupt, you had figures like the railway minister getting huge fortunes of poor people. Moreover, in the hype of capitalism, the population (a huge one remember 1.4 billion) forgot what communism was. In many ways, this education drive is to remind people what China's goals are, so we don't have another Lee Teng Hui entering the party (for reference, Lee Teng Hui joined the KMT but would kill it from the inside, changing the course of Taiwanese politics)

@@sw36jl thanks for the comments. I am not sure what you consider a "proletarian dictatorship". This centralized, meritocratic system dates from far before the Chinese revolution. On top of that, the proletarian in China have less and less power, so hard for me to think it as a proletarian dictatorship, more like a bureaucratic dictatorship as we had in the Soviet Union, the main difference here is economical. To give some cows and chickens is not communism (this is basic redistribution, what was never refused in toto by the liberals - quite the contrary, without this, workers and small owners would have zero incentives to take part in the capitalist system). Communism is workers' control (at least of the main) means of production. Soviet Union was close to that, but the administration of the public companies and collective farms were not done by the workers, it was done by bureaucrats and party members. I agree that the Chinese government will keep the "red mask" as long as it fits their global purposes and assures some stability. In practice, there is no communism in China, state-capitalism is not a perfect, but is a not so bad definition of the current situation. Communism cannot be simply considered State-control. Specially when we refer to pre-modern times. Although similar, what Marx called a "Asiatic" system is not communism. There are some articles on Jstor on the Inca civilization and the "Asiatic system" that clearly draw the difference between this system and communism (both real and theoretical).

There was the threat of German invasion, I think the five year plans under Stalin were vital to survive the period

Stalin abolished Lenin's state capitalism and built socialism

It’s not Ironic. It’s kind of like Thomas Jefferson owning slaves and trying to abolish slavery at the same time. We are all stuck in the economic system of our era and we might want to end the economic system we are in.

It was necessary to end it because the kulaks were beginning to blackmail the cities by hoarding food. The only two options was to confiscate the kulaks' grain, which led to the kulaks retaliating and in turn led to collectivization of agriculture OR the state could have given into the demands of the kulaks and implemented a fully free-market system which was unacceptable. Furthermore, collectivization of agriculture was necessary for the rapid industrialization that was required in order to prepare to USSR to defend itself against foreign threats. They had roughly 10-15 years to modernize and industrialize before the Nazis attacked them, or before some other power attacked them, and they barely did it in time. So unfortunately it could not be post-poned or slowed down.

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 I guess it's not the worst thing that could have come from October, but I don't buy Stalin's insistence that socialism had been fully achieved

@@yungsouichi2317 socialism itself is only a transition, but the term Stalin used was "complete socialist society" which comes from Lenin. Lenin said workers' state which controls the large means of productions + cooperative farms in agriculture was all that was needed for a complete socialist society. It means 'complete' in the sense that its not any kind of hybrid mix of capitalism

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 commodity production still existed, albiet not in a generalized way. I'd elaborate but I don't feel the need to argue Ticktin's points for him.

You're correct. But capitalism needs generalized commodity production while earlier systems had small commodity production and socialism still has remnants of it

What the fuck

SEIZE THE MEMES OF POOP PRODUCTION

Imagine unironically believing that kulaks would voluntary hand over their land to their peasants. And don't say 'farmers' to try and imply they had some sort of independence, more than 80% of Russians were indeed peasants and dependent on their kulak to live. What's the difference between a 'forced nationalisation' which you dengites are fine with compared to a 'forced collectivisation'. Maybe are you even going to the October Revolution a 'forced revolution'?

@@Midshipman_Vlores I am not for "forced nationalizaton" or "forced collectivization". That is a Marxist/Leninist concept. I am an advocate of a free market, so I am hardly a marxist - although I have no problem with some Marxist ideas.

New Kids On Dhe Blecch cut a bunch of hits∴

​@@Midshipman_Vlores you didn't provide a better reply, your comment was just whataboutism. Please provide a different reply.

Maybe you could say there are different types of state capitalism. One type where a section of the Bourgeoisie controls the rest with state power, and another type where the proletariat controls the economy with state power. I think this is what Lenin was also basically saying.

Kulaks tu dhe gulagz!!

that middle ground is socialism. Socialism is merely the first phase of communism from capitalism.

What the fuck are you talking about? The US is almost the most neoliberal country that a developed country can be. I mean, they now even have private prisons and have relied more and more on private mercenary companies (like blackwater) to do the dirty work of their own armed forces, ffs.

Not always. And in some cases like Cuba, there are zero parties in elections, only candidates themselves. In contrast capitalist countries have numerous parties and they all represent the same thing: capitalism.

TheFinnishBolshevik 1. If your a capitalist in cuba you will never win. The only thing that regime wants is to protect the revolution. I got a copy of the new constitution and it explains that the socialist party is the permanent party and the superior political force. They are not a democracy that’s false

1. Why do you think we shouldn't defend the revolution? 2. Do you mean the Communist Party? The Communist Party doesn't take part in elections. The laws are made by the parliament, and you run for elections without any party.

@@kageedit354 "If you're a capitalist in Cuba you will never win" Good

@pillowjunkie5 In the case of the USSR, it was the corrupt party officials that reverted to capitalism for their personal gain, but I'm not saying to have burgeois "democracy" instead.

Can you explain?

First off: HEY HOLY SHIT YOU RESPONDED THX MAN

There is a clear over-arching logic for why history develops in these stages. However, I didn't explain it in detail in this video. These things are explained for example in my video series on economics: ru-vid.com/group/PLbnLysSug0vQo-Dyr0gYfNiJhhEs2Hmdm The stages always develop in a certain order. You never have a state first developing capitalism and then developing into feudalism and from feudalism to slavery, its always the opposite. You never see a society developing feudalism first, then slavery, then capitalism. The order is always primitive -> slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism. It is possible for a country to skip a certain stage if it receives the necessary resources from abroad. For example Finland never had a fully developed slave system. Finland had a primitive stateless society until the Swedish colonists brought Feudalism to this country. We skipped slavery almost entirely. There are also some other small differences between different countries. In the modern era capitalist corporations often invest into countries which still have primitive tribal or nomadic regions or feudal relations. They bring modern imperialist capitalism to those countries from abroad, and thus those places skip over several stages. These stages are not absolutely rigid. In feudalism there are remnants of slavery and elements of capitalism already. Similarly, capitalism already has elements of socialism and remnants of feudalism. Each stage can also be separated into sub-stages. There is a big difference between early and late feudalism, and early and late capitalism. You ask if we need capitalism in order to industrialize. Capitalism means a profit driven system based on private ownership. You suggest that workers should immediately industrialize the society without any capitalism. But what does that mean? Industry requires resources and capital. It is often necessary to accumulate capital by using domestic trade, promoting small production etc. which can be developed to larger state-controlled production and finally socialism. The workers also don't automatically know how to manage large companies. It is often necessary that the workers learn management from the capitalists before taking over the companies. Lenin said every worker must learn to manage production, but he didn't say "every worker automatically knows it immediately". Besides, in the Soviet Union capitalism mostly meant small business and private farmers. The country had to be considered capitalist until all small business was replaced by large-scale collective industry. I'm confused what you mean by this hierarchical capitalist industrialization. The Soviet Union industrialized mainly during the Socialist Five Year Plans (1928-1938), which were not capitalist. During the NEP the country repaired war-damage and prepared for socialist industrialization. You seem to be asking, is it possible to industrialize immediately without allowing any private or free-market production to exist. The answer depends on the given conditions, but is almost certainly no. Almost certainly there will be some transition period where capitalism will still exist, until it is abolished by socialism. However, immediately when the workers take over they will impose controls and regulations on the capitalists and begin to plan the transition to socialism.

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 Thank you for the elaborate response. I see you have many videos on this, so I’ll take my time and watch them before I respond to the stages of history part of your comment. Perhaps I’ll agree after watching them and reading some more. Regarding management, even if we take the most extreme position, which would be anarchism, workers would have to be taught to manage their own workplace through education and guidance. The main difference between anarchism and Leninism would be whether this central management is coerced under threat of state violence or not. Depending on the context of the revolution and the degree to which prefiguration preceded the actual revolution, yes the workers may be more or less dependent on a small group of knowledgeable workers and yes they would need to subject themselves to their knowledge until they themselves are knowledgeable enough to fully self organise. The existence of such an intellectual “vanguard” across many aspects of the revolution is not a strange concept, even within anarchism. Malatesta wrote about it. In practice, we also see that this can work, even with extremely loose/informal organisation. In the worker-consumer cooperative Cecosesola in Venezuela, we see that management of workers is rotated among those that want to, and the workers that are most capable/knowledgeable consistently fulfill these roles. Effectively leading the other workers but without an underlying threat of violence. If among the workers are capable managers, they will naturally assume positions of management among the workers on the basis of their capability, as recognised by the rest of the workers. If there is a shortage, there can be centralised organisation between different worker bodies that decide on distribution of such capable managers between worker bodies. And I’ll also mention that Cecosesola involves many different types of workers, from hospitals to funeral services to food production, all associated together and run by popular assemblies. And not only is it a cooperation of workers, consumers are also included in this cooperative if they purchase its services. So many different aspects of the local economy fall under it, and not only workers are included in it, resembling state-like structures and organisation but without mimicking the bourgeois state with its monopoly on violence, etc. It is surprising what workers can actually do if allowed self-organisation. It’s very interesting to read about and for me confirms that yes, workers can self organise effectively, and yes they can organise centrally without centralisation being coerced by a hierarchical state. And between anarchism and Leninism, many other flavours exist that may also function with less of a coercive state. It just is not needed in my view. Regarding industrialisation, I call organisation that subjugates workers to higher bodies of power, enforced by the threat of violence, capitalism. Or at least not socialism because the workers hold no power to organise as they see fit. So if the USSR through the state appoints managers that direct (not guide, direct) the workers, under threat of state violence if the workers wish alternative organisation/management, I call that capitalist because it recreates capitalist social relations. State capitalist. To me it is all about how this industrialisation is organised; top down through hierarchical power structures that alienate the workers from power, or bottom up through horizontal power structures that have the workers at the base of power (they may delegate power upwards to organise centrally, this is not to be confused with decentralisation vs centralisation). And yes, as long as resources are needed from outside to facilitate industrial development, market mechanisms will have to remain within the revolutionary region in order to interact with other nations. Though I do not see why this free market necessarily has to be capitalist in nature. What is needed is production to generate the capital needed to import resources and organisation to properly allocate those resources for industrialisation. Capitalism is but one mode of production among others, and a hierarchical state is but one means of (central) organisation among many. And even within the confines of a hierarchical state there are ways to have more direct democratic power for the workers than democratic centralism had. I do not see why that specific mode of production and that specific manner of organisation would be necessary, especially considering they are quite far from our revolutionary wishes and thus should be used as a “necessary evil” only. Anyway, as I said I will take my time to watch your videos and understand more closely where you’re coming from. I also saw you have a series of critique of anarchism, which I shall watch as well.

@@Timbo5000 I still don't understand your critique or argument about management. Why do you say Leninism uses coercion and anarchism doesn't? What is the actual difference? In anarchism every factory and workplace competes against others. Under Bolshevism the workplaces worked together. Originally every factory was taken over by the workers, with very little organization. This was encouraged by the bolsheviks in order to smash the capitalists and take their factories away from them, because the capitalists refused to keep the factories operating. Quickly the bolsheviks realized there needs to be more organization. As a result, they created a supreme economic council which controlled the economy. It consisted of people's comissars, representatives of factory committees and Soviets, and mostly of representatives of trade-unions. The trade-unions played the biggest part in management. The bolsheviks implemented "one man management", which meant that someone was chosen as a director of the factory. The director would be responsible if something went wrong. They also implemented "workers' control", which meant that workers supervise the director. Often the director was some engineer, or might even be an ex-capitalist, or he might be a communist. There was no more coercion than necessary. The factories had to produce what the consumers needed, and not what they wanted to produce. A certain historian described it as a command by the community instead of a command by the factories. Learning to manage a factory takes a long time. Many workers became factory directors or factory foremen. In Russia back then most workers came from the countryside and they didn't even know how to read, didn't know how to use running water and didn't understand basic cleanliness inside the factory. Many of them were not used to arriving to work on time. In the west workers have been taught to obey capitalist regulations over a period of centuries, but in Russia things were more chaotic. When anarchists have been in power they have just implemented a military dictatorship, and when they have only controlled certain factories, they've created chaos and collaborated with capitalists to compete against other factories. Capitalist social relations mean that workers sell their labor power on the market to a capitalist who owns the factory. In the Soviet Union labor power was not sold on the market, because everyone was guaranteed a job. There were also no private owners of factories. The manager was working for the workers' state, and he was under the control of the trade-union. Workers could not be fired without permission of the union. But the workers themselves understood the need to have a manager or a director. They were not interested in being without a director. If anything, they only wanted the director to be good, and they wanted to have a rising standard of living for the whole society, which is only reasonable. It doesn't make any sense to try to force a supposedly horizontal or directorless structure, even when it doesn't do any good and there is no reason for it. The Soviet Union didn't do anything just for ideological reasons -- all the economic policies emerged due to trial and error. Before "one man management" was implemented they had collective management (with a board of managers) but it created irresponsibility, at least in those conditions. You claim a free market is not necessarily capitalist. I don't see how that is possible. Keep in mind my videos critiquing anarchism are quite old, and are also unnecessarily hostile in tone. That was just how the community was back then.

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 I’ve watched all your economics videos. I enjoyed them, they’re well made. It was largely as expected, a good analysis of history but it doesn’t properly establish that these historical stages were inevitable/necessary. Yes, at any time, material conditions limit the possible ways in which society can be organised. And yes, modes of production often have their limits, which necessitate transition into a different mode of production at some point, as there is increasing pressure to change as the limit of the current system is approached. But within the range of what was materially possible at any time, there was a wealth of possibilities that would have caused different conditions in the future, which conditions again would create many different possibilities that differ from how history largely took place. Etc. There is no fixed path of history, but many paths within certain limits. Which path materialises and how long these social relations persist and evolve, will dictate what material conditions exist when these social relations are either ceased by revolution or by the ruling class reinventing social relations such that their position of power is still cemented within the new social relations. At any point in history, a myriad of possibilities to organise either hierarchically or horizontally existed. An historical example of a horizontal means of organising society within the stage of feudalism can be found in my country: the period of Frisian Freedom. Peasants killed their lord on multiple occasions and at some point successfully prevented new lords from being installed. In short, within central authority, these regions (we speak of regions the size of, say, modern day Northern Ireland) had several federations of land owners (crucially this included peasants, as there were no lords and no serfs) who in turn also had central meetings yearly, covering the entire region. This lasted roughly 400 years (approx 1100-1498). This region advanced like any other. All you need is organisation, whatever form it may take. Plenty more examples probably exist, especially outside of the modern West. So in short I appreciate Marxist history as an analysis of how different modes of production largely did emerge historically, but reject the idea of those stages being entirely predetermined. That seems like simplified history to me. So to return to the point of industrialisation, we do not need capitalism for that just because historically it was capitalism that birthed industrialisation. If we today in an unindustrialised country wish to reach that, all we need is an organised effort, whatever form it may take, to attempt to reach this goal. It can be a hierarchical state (which may take many forms), it can be stateless horizontal organisation (which again may take many forms). Each form of organisation has its strengths and weaknesses, but there is no such thing as a predetermined form of organisation for any stage. But limitations obviously do apply. Whatever the case, the organisation would need to be centralised, I’d say. More examples can exist. I shall respond to your new comment separately, so 1/2:

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 The two main assumptions about anarchism I see are that workers would necessarily be directorless/leaderless and that workplaces would compete with one another. Yes, if that were true I’d follow your logic. But workers needing guidance/leadership does not clash with horizontal power structures. It is all about how this leadership is organised. Do uneducated/inexperienced workers need leadership? Yes. Do they need the dictates of these leaders to be enforced through state violence? No. There is a huge difference between a leader being either elected or naturally followed (power lies with the masses), and a leader being appointed by a higher body of power with their authority enforced by (threat of) state violence (power is concentrated in a hierarchical position of power and enforced over the masses). I already named the real life example of Cecosesola, which is worker-consumer cooperative which has unimaginably loose organisation. No formal organisation at all. Everything is organised through worker popular assemblies. Hospitals, farms, funeral insurance, etc all within one major organisation, yet without any formal structure. Even this loose/informal of an organisation is functional. Uneducated workers are led by experienced workers who assume managerial positions in an informal process of rotation. Anyone who wants and is able to fulfil these positions of leadership participates in this rotating leadership. The only difference with what you say is that these leaders’ positions and decisions are not enforced through violence, if necessary. I fail to see why workers would need to be violently threatened to follow the leadership of someone they know is more experienced and knowledgeable than them. The one interesting point I see is that the USSR did nothing for ideological reasons and all economic policies emerged out of trial and error. The supposed error of collective management was irresponsibility. Can you elaborate on what this irresponsibility was exactly and why state directives were necessary to quell this issue? About competition I’ll be brief: workplaces would be federated together. Why would they compete and over what exactly? They are in a structure of cooperation and codecisionmaking

Socialism is about abolition of private property. Planning is a very essential part of socialism. Market economy always leads to massive private accumulation of wealth, growing inequality and fast restoration of capitalism. Its not possible to eliminate unemployment if the majority of the citizens work in the private sector. During the NEP small peasants were still getting smaller and rich peasants were getting richer because that is the inevitable consequence of capitalism and market economy. Millions of peasants ended up becoming landless, ruined by rich peasants. The rich peasants were getting more powerful as time went on, and that made it necessary to collectivize agriculture. Every successful rich peasant was becoming a rural capitalist. As Lenin said: "Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale." (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch02.htm)

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 i get a 404 error with this link

@@krzysztofbroda5376 its _"Left"-Wing Communism: an infantile disorder_ by Lenin

That's anti-marxist

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 nope. Marx was an evolutionary capitalist. Capitalism will naturally bring about socialism. Only thing that needs to be done is let capitalism run its course unadulterated.

@@Bryan-vb1gb good troll lol

@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 not trolling man. You know im right but you dont want to critique lenin. Im not here to troll only discuss. I believe trotsky had a better idea on this. Stalin is my guy dont get me wrong but the best tool for socialism is capitalism. Fact.

@@Bryan-vb1gb I quoted Marx & Engels saying that it doesn't benefit us to just wait for capitalism to develop by itself

Millions of peasants were never starved or killed by Stalin or the party. Russia did have several deadly famines in the Tsarist era and early Soviet era, but these were caused by lack of agricultural technology. Stalin's industrialization stopped famines, which had been a permanent plague on Russia until that time. That is why the USSR later did not have famines and modern Russia doesn't have famine anymore. Stalin and his colleagues also opposed "mass operations" which targeted the population who resisted government policies. Stalin only reluctanctly accepted the use of mass operations in 1930-31 and 1937. Millions of people did not die in those operations, but it seems several hundred thousand did in 1937. This was committed by N. Yezhov, who was acting against government policies and against Stalin's orders. Yezhov was stopped by Stalin's colleagues Vyshinsky and Zhdanov, and Yezhov was removed from his position and later arrested for criminal violations of legality.

atleast rstionality rules adress his critism and being honest unlike the finnish bolshevick whos being constantaly being dishonest to his viewers