[Conscript]

I disagree. They were (/are) state capitalist.

They might have only built state capitalism in russia, but they nonetheless were marxists who tied their revolution to the international socialist revolution. Prior to then, we could only wait and pray for the bourgeoisie to be revolutionary and liberate nations from reactionary grip.

Lenin taught us in the era of imperialism the bourgeoisie is not revolutionary, and the peasants and workers must ally if they want to crush the aristocracy, its backwards ideals, and end imperialist war in russia. That was the bourgeois character of the russian revolution, socialists marching with peasants. When isolated, this revolution is lost and the revolutionaries can only emulate the most efficient and calculating state capitalism, like the germans had.

[Social_Critic]

marxism is fairly disconnected from reality. Marx and Engels were fairly ignorant, they didn't have to work for a living in a real sense, and they never understood how things worked in real life. Plus they are thoroughly obsolete, this isn't the 19th century.

If we observe what happened in the soviet union and china, we can see reality at work. And reality sucks for those of us who have had the glory of living in a socialist paradise. Never again. We have overcome.

[stsoc]

They might have only built state capitalism in russia, but they nonetheless were marxists who tied their revolution to the international socialist revolution. Prior to then, we could only wait and pray for the bourgeoisie to be revolutionary and liberate nations from reactionary grip.

The bolshevik weren't revolutionary. Revolution in the Russian Empire was conducted by Esers and AnComs, bolshevik hijacked it by lies ("power to the soviets"), destroyed it (by abolishing the soviets), and established capitalism that oppressed the toilers more that any capitalism that existed (and exists) in the world (which was noticed by socialist all over Europe during Lenin's rule).

marxism is fairly disconnected from reality. Marx and Engels were fairly ignorant, they didn't have to work for a living in a real sense, and they never understood how things worked in real life. Plus they are thoroughly obsolete, this isn't the 19th century.

If we observe what happened in the soviet union and china, we can see reality at work. And reality sucks for those of us who have had the glory of living in a socialist paradise. Never again. We have overcome.

Sovien Union and China (and similar states) don't have much to do with Marx's and Engels' writings, but with Lenin, Stalin, Mao. Check out writings od Kautsky and Pannekoek, look up Orthodox Marxism, Impossibilism, SPGB.

[Conscript]

The bolshevik weren't revolutionary.

Along with the left SRs, they were the most revolutionary party and embodied the interests of russia's small proletariat and arguably, the poor peasantry.

Revolution in the Russian Empire was conducted by Esers and AnComs

It was conducted by many different people. Bolsheviks and left SRs represented its communist character and won the support of the industrial workers, unlike the others who were more peasant oriented and bourgeois.

bolshevik hijacked it by lies ("power to the soviets"), destroyed it (by abolishing the soviets)

The bolsheviks didn't 'hijack' it, they gained the support of workers and poor peasants as demonstrated in the constituent assembly and consistently pushed for the most revolutionary program. This put them at odds with rightists and utopians like the right SRs and the peasant anarchists.

The dissolution of the soviets was regrettable yet inevitable considering the bourgeois character of the russian revolution: they marched with peasants. The birth of the soviets signalled a strange development, a highly conscious, advanced proletariat that exists in a backwards society as a minority, contrary to marx's prediction. 'All power to the soviets' was a necessary slogan to signal the transfer of state power to the alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry, who would develop russia and turn it into a beacon for revolution under the guidance of the bolsheviks and, initially, the left SRs.
Russia had a unique revolution that combined the bourgeois and socialist revolution, retaining a correct line here would be absolutely necessary. That's why I don't think the soviets were very relevant after the collapse of the republic and instead could be used as a front for the right SRs and mensheviks, bourgeois 'socialists'.

and established capitalism that oppressed the toilers more that any capitalism that existed

Now you're being hysterical. There is no such thing as a 'more oppressive capitalism' and nobody believed russia was capable of immediately introducing socialism (except maybe the utopian anarchists) and instead needed to build capitalism in the immediate period after the revolution but before the international socialist revolution received them. It represented the completion of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the developing of the kind of accounting and calculating Lenin claimed capitalism introduces.

(and exists) in the world (which was noticed by socialist all over Europe during Lenin's rule).

Socialists all over europe supported october, and there is no such thing as 'lenin's rule', he did not have autocratic power.

[stsoc]

The bolsheviks didn't 'hijack' it, they gained the support of workers and poor peasants as demonstrated in the constituent assembly

Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917
__________________________________ Votes ___ Percent _ Deputies
Socialist-Revolutionary Party (SRs) _____ 17,100,000 41.0 380
Bolsheviks ________________________ 9,800,000 23.5 168

The dissolution of the soviets was regrettable yet inevitable considering the bourgeois character of the russian revolution: they marched with peasants.

This makes no sense. Peasants belong to the toiling class, together with artisans, industrial and office workers. All (able-bodied) who live by their own labor and not by someone else's are toilers, and those who don't are exploiters. Peasants are not bourgeois.

There is no such thing as a 'more oppressive capitalism

"Capitalism is now once again celebrating a resurrection, but in forms that are more oppressive and harrowing for the proletariat than of old.
Formerly state officials and officials from private capital were critical, often very hostile towards each other. Consequently the working man found that his advantage lay with one or the other in turn. Today the state bureaucracy and capitalist bureaucracy are merged into one—that is the upshot of the great socialist revolution brought about by the Bolsheviks. It constitutes the most oppressive of all despotisms that Russia has ever had to suffer."
Kautsky, Terrorism and Communism.

Socialists all over europe supported october

State capitalists did, socialists didn't.

[Social_Critic]

stsoc, the problem, as I see it, is that as soon as socialists take over they become state capitalists.

Tell you what, rather than telling you guys marxism sucks and the socialism you envision turns into a ruthless and fascist monster every time, why don't you write a short piece telling us how you envision the way the power generation and distribution sector would be managed in the socialist utopia you prefer? After you write it, I'll give you my educated opinion regarding whether your vision is viable or not.

[stsoc]

Where have socialists "taken over"? Russia? Romania? Yugoslavia? Those were all state capitalists establishing state capitalism. Socialists "took over" in Free Territory, Revolutionary Catalonia, and Zapatista Chiapas, and consequently- established socialism.

why don't you write a short piece telling us how you envision the way the power generation and distribution sector would be managed in the socialist utopia you prefer?

As a spanish fascist historian said: "The economic changes that followed the military insurrection were no less dramatic than the political. In those provinces where the revolt had failed the workers of the two trade union federations, the Socialist UGT and the Anarchosyndicalist CNT, took into their hands a vast portion of the economy. Landed properties were seized; some were collectivized, others were distributed among the peasants, and notarial archives as well as registers of property were burnt in countless towns and villages. Railways, tramcars and buses, taxicabs and shipping, electric light and power companies, gasworks and waterworks, engineering and automobile assembly plants, mines and cement works, textile mills and paper factories, electrical and chemical concerns, glass bottle factories and perfumeries, food-processing plants and breweries, as well as a host of other enterprises, were confiscated or controlled by workmen's committees, either term possessing for the owners almost equal significance in practice. Motion-picture theatres and legitimate theatres, newspapers and printing shops, department stores and bars, were likewise sequestered or controlled as were the headquarters of business and professional associations and thousands of dwellings owned by the upper class."
Check online how did that work.

[Conscript]

Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917
__________________________________ Votes ___ Percent _ Deputies
Socialist-Revolutionary Party (SRs) _____ 17,100,000 41.0 380
Bolsheviks ________________________ 9,800,000 23.5 168

This is before the SRs split and the left faction entered into a coalition with the bolsheviks, and they dissolved the CA.

I hope you don't see any value in the right SRs, they held back the revolution if anything.

This makes no sense. Peasants belong to the toiling class,

What the hell is a 'toiling class' and since when is it relevant to marxist analysis?

Peasants are peasants. They are feudal leftovers and are more petty bourgeois than 'proletarian'. The peasantry is a crib for the bourgeoisie in its infancy and ultimately their class isn't progressive and revolutionary. The only people who claim otherwise are nutty stalinoids like maoists.

together with artisans, industrial and office workers.

Artisans are the classic petty bourgeoisie, and are even romanticized as such. Industrial and office workers are proletarians, they are wage-laborers.

All (able-bodied) who live by their own labor and not by someone else's are toilers

Lol...this is ridiculous.

1. Nobody except hermits 'live by their own labor'.
2. Capitalism and socialism, as systems of socialized production, have everyone rely on someone else's labor.
3. The correct definition of a proletarian is someone who lives off the sale of their labor-power.

and those who don't are exploiters.

The exploiters extract surplus value to accumulate capital, not 'live off someone's labor'.

Peasants are not bourgeois.

They are in the sense they are a driving force of the bourgeois revolution, they are the working class of the feudal society and responsible for its transformation into capitalism.

"Capitalism is now once again celebrating a resurrection, but in forms that are more oppressive and harrowing for the proletariat than of old.
Formerly state officials and officials from private capital were critical, often very hostile towards each other. Consequently the working man found that his advantage lay with one or the other in turn. Today the state bureaucracy and capitalist bureaucracy are merged into one—that is the upshot of the great socialist revolution brought about by the Bolsheviks. It constitutes the most oppressive of all despotisms that Russia has ever had to suffer."
Kautsky, Terrorism and Communism.

Kautsky said it so it must be true? State capitalism and the general merger of the interests of the nation and capital he described are quantitative differences. Capitalism is capitalism and just as exploitive and reactionary no matter what the ruling class does.

You're implying capitalism can somehow be less oppressive.

State capitalists all over europe supported october

1. There is no such thing as a 'state capitalist', nobody aspires to it as an end goal.
2. Luxemburg was not a 'state capitalist'
3. State capitalism is inevitable until the world is won and we can head towards post-scarcity.

You have such a silly grasp of marxism it's sad, but it's to be expected from an 'anarchist' utopian.

[stsoc]

I hope you don't see any value in the right SRs, they held back the revolution if anything.

Bolsheviks were reactionary, the Esers were the ones who conducted the revolution.

What the hell is a 'toiling class' and since when is it relevant to marxist analysis?
Sence when is marxist (especially marxist-leninist) analysis relevant? I'm not a marxist.

Peasants are peasants. They are feudal leftovers and are more petty bourgeois than 'proletarian'.
There's no such thing as petty bourgeois, either you're a bourgeois, meaning exploiter, or you are worker living by your own labor.

The peasantry is a crib for the bourgeoisie in its infancy and ultimately their class isn't progressive and revolutionary. The only people who claim otherwise are nutty stalinoids like maoists.
The only people who claim that bolsheviks are socialists or revolutionary are people who don't what socialism is.

1. Nobody except hermits 'live by their own labor'.
Living by your own labor means not having unearned income (profits, rent, interest) which is basically living by other's labor.

3. The correct definition of a proletarian is someone who lives off the sale of their labor-power.
I don't care, I'm a worker/ laborer/ toiler, I don't need to use some fansy latin names.

Capitalism is capitalism and just as exploitive and reactionary no matter what the ruling class does.
Which doesn't mean that it cannot be more or less oppressive, e.g. in state capitalism (like USSR) workers are prohibited by law to strike or self-organize (which is justified by the lie that in state capitalism workers have have the power and therefore nothing to complain about).

1. There is no such thing as a 'state capitalist', nobody aspires to it as an end goal.
Yes there is, but, of course, they use names "socialists" or "communists" to disguise themselves. If they were to call themselves "state capitalists" they would certainly have less support among the workers.

2. Luxemburg was not a 'state capitalist'
Neither did I say she was, she was for non-hierarchical organisation of workers.

3. State capitalism is inevitable until the world is won and we can head towards post-scarcity.
Socialism (in any it's forms of mutualism, collectivism or communism) can exist anywhere in any scale. If people can subsist within any non-socialist economy system (slavery, feudalism, capitalism), they could surely more easily live in socialism which is much more efficiant. People live in a post-scarcity conditions since advent of agriculture.

You have such a silly grasp of marxism it's sad, but it's to be expected from an 'anarchist' utopian.
Even accepting for the sake of argument that marxism is relevant, read orthodox marxists, and learn about how leninism and it's offspring have little to do with marxism. And again, I'm not an anarchist, I'm a state socialist.

[Social_Critic]

Where have socialists "taken over"? Russia? Romania? Yugoslavia? Those were all state capitalists establishing state capitalism.

I guess socialist communism is called state capitalism. I'm used to this excuse. It's pretty lame.

[stsoc]

I guess socialist communism is called state capitalism. I'm used to this excuse. It's pretty lame.

Socialist communism? Socialism is an economic system without hierarchy, that is- without bosses (and it can exist as mutualism, collectivism and communism). Replacing one boss with another cannot be socialism. Hence the name state capitalism, because the state is the new capitalist.

[Social_Critic]

Socialism without hierarchy, without bosses....that's not the way it has been practiced.

But I do want to indulge you:

Please explain to me how you would run an oil company in Venezuela using this socialism you describe.Please prepare yourself for an interesting and very educational debate.

[stsoc]

Socialism without hierarchy, without bosses....that's not the way it has been practiced.

You cannot practice socialism any other way. If you don't practice it that way, it's not socialism, but something else.

Please explain to me how you would run an oil company in Venezuela using this socialism you describe.

Read some books on Revolutionary Catalonia, you have explained in them how people successfully establish socialism.

[Malatant of Shadow]

stsoc, the problem, as I see it, is that as soon as socialists take over they become state capitalists.

That's only true if they "take over" by abolishing democracy. (I have a problem with the term "state capitalism," too, but I understand what you mean so I'll let that slide.)

Democracy is a requirement for socialism to work and vice-versa. The Soviet Union was not socialist because it was not democratic. The United States is not democratic because it is not socialist. Socialism is economic democracy, and democracy is political socialism. Both are egalitarian philosophies concerned with the widespread sharing and dispersal of power -- economic power in the case of socialism, political power in the case of democracy. If one type of power is concentrated into too few hands, it will be used to concentrate the other kind of power, too, and both egalitarian attempts will fail.

[Social_Critic]

I live in Valencia. There was no successful socialist Catalonia. Where would you get such a silly idea?

[stsoc]

Anarcho-syndicalism is a type of socialism, and much of Catalonia and Andalusia where CNT-FAI was the chief organization established a mix of anarcho-communism (in it's subtype of anarcho-syndicalism) and anarcho-collectivism.

Socialism can be practiced as mutualism (according to Proudhon or Spooner), collectivism (Bakunin or Parecon) or communism (Kropotkin or syndicalism), or a mix of those systems. Anything else is not socialism.

[Someone5]

I live in Valencia. There was no successful socialist Catalonia. Where would you get such a silly idea?

It's pretty hard to have a successful revolution of any sort when the rest of the world is funding a fascist dictator trying to destroy you.

[Andropov]

To better understand socialism, one must look at the most successful socialist state in history, the Soviet Union.

What prevents somebody from leaching off the state?

In the Soviet Union, the maxim was as follows: if you don't work, you don't eat. There was no welfare in the USSR, but there was no unemployment either, so there was no excuse to not have a job.

How will we move forward without any personal incentives?

Who says personal initiative will not play a role?

Wages are determined by results. The more a worker produces, the more he is paid. A truck driver I met in Moscow in 1944 had been getting as high as $600 per month. A certain norm is set for every job, and the more the worker exceeds this, the more he is paid. This inequality has been greeted with cheers and groans, according to the point of view, as a departure from socialist principles. Stalin has denied this when he said, "These people evidently think that socialism calls for equality, for leveling the requirements and the personal lives of all members of society. Needless to say, such an assumption has nothing in common with Marxism.... By equality Marxism means not equality in personal requirements and personal life, but the abolition of classes, i.e. (a) the equal emancipation of all toilers from exploitation, after the capitalists have been overthrown and expropriated, (b) the equal abolition for all of private property in the means of production, after this has been transformed into the property of the whole society, (c) the equal duty of all to work according to their ability, and the equal right of all toilers to receive according to their requirements. And Marxism starts out with the assumption that people's abilities and requirements are not, and cannot be, equal in quality or quantity, either in the period of socialism or of communism."

Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 65

How can a government effectively take control of the lives of each of its citizens?

What? This is neither necessary for socialism, nor at all a positive thing- the massive logistical problems of constantly monitoring and directing everyone will come at massive human and labor cost and at little gain. In no country ever in history has the government taken control over the lives of its citizens- they have influenced people's lives at various intensities, but this cannot be called "controlling their lives".

Is there any form of private property or ownership of anything?

No- private property is theft.

Is there room for a private sector?

No- a private sector implies private property, which is theft.

How do government jobs provide economic growth when employees are all paid in tax money?

Perhaps you should take a High School economics class before asking this absurd question. During Stalin's reign, the Soviet Union experienced unprecedented economic growth, the likes of which was and remains never before seen in history- and the Soviet Union accomplished this with the entire world as its enemy, not relying on a penny of outside investment.

I don't know why I wasted my time answering these stupid questions, as they are clearly written by someone grossly uneducated about socialism and socialist history.

[Malatant of Shadow]

To better understand socialism, one must look at the most successful socialist state in history, the Soviet Union.

You're not helping.

The Soviet Union was not socialist.

[Andropov]

What is your definition of socialism? And why was the USSR not socialist?