Ah yes, because all of the leaders of socialist nations were just capitalists in disguise and they started revolutions for their own gain rather than the people’s.
This is what liberals believe, not socialists. Get real.
Lenin coined the term state capitalism, replacing private ownership of the means with a new class heirarchy in the form of an inequitable and unjust beaurocratic state apparatus.
Makes sense that an anarchist would unironically believe this.
Lenin coined the term state capitalism,
It is true that Lenin considered his own experiment state capitalist, this was referring to the New Economic Policy he set up. This, however, was meant to pave the way for a more advanced form of socialism. In other words, it was taking one step back to take two steps forward.
Why was this done? Socialism requires an industrialized society. Tsarist Russia was barely this, it was mostly a semi-feudal, agrarian nation. How do you get industrialization? Capitalism. Many socialists in Russia at the time agreed that their country was not ready for socialism and needed a period of capitalism in order to develop the country.
This isn’t some random new thing they came up with, this is basic Marxism. You don’t go to a socialist or communist society instantly, it gradually develops and it will have traits of previous modes of production for a while.
In other words, the NEP was put in place in order to help develop the country. Otherwise, they could not have a fully socialist society without most of the population remaining in poverty. Even with the capitalist mode of production in place, the state remained a significant part of the economy, millions of people were taught to read and write, they were guaranteed employment, they had access to healthcare, and many other things that would not be possible in a fully capitalist society.
replacing private ownership of the means with a new class hierarchy in the form of an inequitable and unjust bureaucratic state apparatus
The Soviet state was structured around the Soviets, or worker’s councils, where workers would vote for delegates to represent them in regional councils, who would vote for representatives in national councils, including the highest council: the Supreme Soviet. This council had the supreme legislative power in the country, not any leader or party. This meant that the state apparatus that you are talking about was in the control of none other than the working people themselves. How inequitable and unjust was that?
For more information, I would recommend reading Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.
No state has ever liberated the working class.
How is giving the working class supreme political power not liberating them? This supreme political power was used to feed, educate, employ, house, and take care of the working people. How many anarchist societies have achieved that?
Ah yes, because all of the leaders of socialist nations were just capitalists in disguise and they started revolutions for their own gain rather than the people’s.
This is what liberals believe, not socialists. Get real.
I’m an anarchist.
Lenin coined the term state capitalism, replacing private ownership of the means with a new class heirarchy in the form of an inequitable and unjust beaurocratic state apparatus.
No state has ever liberated the working class.
Makes sense that an anarchist would unironically believe this.
It is true that Lenin considered his own experiment state capitalist, this was referring to the New Economic Policy he set up. This, however, was meant to pave the way for a more advanced form of socialism. In other words, it was taking one step back to take two steps forward.
Why was this done? Socialism requires an industrialized society. Tsarist Russia was barely this, it was mostly a semi-feudal, agrarian nation. How do you get industrialization? Capitalism. Many socialists in Russia at the time agreed that their country was not ready for socialism and needed a period of capitalism in order to develop the country.
This isn’t some random new thing they came up with, this is basic Marxism. You don’t go to a socialist or communist society instantly, it gradually develops and it will have traits of previous modes of production for a while.
In other words, the NEP was put in place in order to help develop the country. Otherwise, they could not have a fully socialist society without most of the population remaining in poverty. Even with the capitalist mode of production in place, the state remained a significant part of the economy, millions of people were taught to read and write, they were guaranteed employment, they had access to healthcare, and many other things that would not be possible in a fully capitalist society.
The Soviet state was structured around the Soviets, or worker’s councils, where workers would vote for delegates to represent them in regional councils, who would vote for representatives in national councils, including the highest council: the Supreme Soviet. This council had the supreme legislative power in the country, not any leader or party. This meant that the state apparatus that you are talking about was in the control of none other than the working people themselves. How inequitable and unjust was that?
For more information, I would recommend reading Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.
How is giving the working class supreme political power not liberating them? This supreme political power was used to feed, educate, employ, house, and take care of the working people. How many anarchist societies have achieved that?