GenZhou

913 readers

1 users here now

GenZhou is GenZedong without the shitposts

See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space (shared with GenZedong). See this thread for more information.

Rules:

This community is explicitly pro-AES (China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam)
No ableism, racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc.
No pro-imperialists, liberals or electoralists
No dogmatism/idealism
For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
Shitposts will be removed (please post them to /c/GenZedong or elsewhere instead)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml

What separates socialism from state capitalism? (I promise I'm not an anarchist) (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 5 days ago by King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzhou@lemmygrad.ml

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So, in discussions about Gaddafi era Libya, people usually say it was state capitalism, from what I've seen anyway. Thats fair and I think I agree (although if you pointed a gun at me and forced me to define it, the best I could think of would be anti-colonial bonapartism, but idk). However, it does make many wonder what splits socialism from state capitalism. For instance, the soviet union under the NEP is fairly regularly called a period of "state capitalism." Bukharin is also usually labeled a right oppurtunist who was open to the Bourgeois elements of the NEP men. Conversely, China and Vietnam today are said to be "market socialist."

In terms of Gaddafi's Libya, what does make it state capitalist versus socialist? Profit motive? Commodity production?

What about post Krushchev soviet union? Was it state capitalist and social imperialist like maoists say?

I know theres not one concrete answer to this. It's not like there's a communism button you can press to confirm communism (I wish), but I am curious

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

The way i see it, "state capitalism" is a misnomer. What ultras call "state capitalism" is actually an early stage of socialism. Lenin elaborates on this in "A Tax In Kind".

The reason why ultras think that because you have "state capitalism" that means you don't have socialism is because they don't look any deeper at how things actually work and how much "state capitalism" differs from actual capitalism. They just see "oh, it has capitalism in the name therefore it must be capitalism".

It's a very liberal kind of mentality whereby it is assumed that simply by naming something a certain thing you have determined its essence. They are incapable of conceiving of socialism as progressing in stages. Instead they think that socialism is just this one specific thing and if it doesn't match exactly their conception of socialism then it must not be socialism.

There is also no coherent definition of the term "social imperialist". In fact it makes no sense at all according to the Leninist conception of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism for a socialist state, even a revisionist one, to be imperialist.

As for Gaddafi's Libya, that's a more complicated discussion, because i think we can agree that it was certainly not Marxist socialism, but it was something quite revolutionary. It had strong elements of socialism in practice but its ideological basis was quite different from that of scientific socialism, and the power of the state was not as firmly rooted in the working class as it typically is in socialist countries.

The key element of socialism imo is not a specific type of organization of the economy, though that is also important, but the dictatorship of the proletariat. And Libya, for all its other great achievements, never fully implemented that. Though given time perhaps it could have, as other anti-imperialist countries with very progressive (in the economic sense) governments like Nicaragua and Venezuela are now trying to do.

[–] deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There is also no coherent definition of the term “social imperialist”. In fact it makes no sense at all according to the Leninist conception of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism for a socialist state, even a revisionist one, to be imperialist.

I suppose, then, it must be an insult term against imperialism, with a Socdem face.

The leaders of the present-day, so-called, “Social-Democratic” Party of Germany are justly called “social-imperialists,” that is, socialists in words and imperialists in deeds;

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 5 days ago

Indeed. The only form of "social imperialism" that can be called such is social democracy, and even then the "social" part is just a temporary, tactical concession.