@Deleted User @Blebleh would be fun to hear both of you in voice chat.

not the bourgeoisie extracting surplus value from the workers

but a planned economy for the workers

There's a fallacy where either you must be in the mob, or in the tower. But in the end the tower doesn't crumble and the mob only settles their implements of harvest

>planned economy

And who plans the economy?

The workers? The people?

yes

Through popular voicing?

soviets

@Deleted User or communist authority.

Authority of the rulers over the mob then

they make surveys and agree on a common program

How does this ensure the workers at all have a say in their fate?

nowadays would be easier and in real time because we have cybernetics

>surveys
>cybernetics

in the USSR the production was directed towards the needs for the war and healthcare for example

life expectancy skyrocketed

the production was being improved over years until the liberal reforms

For an expansive imperium and a docile people

no, the USSR wasn't imperialist

in period of Stalin

Annexing and vassalizing foreign lands is not imperialism?

Or be it colonialism?

which lands?

Eastern Europe and all her peoples, any countries in South America and Africa, promotion of revolutionary movements in Asia and elsewhere

Lenin and Stalin respected the right of nations to self-determination

Would not an emperor subvert his neighbors and colonize foreign barbarians who-do-not-know-the-true-way

they both wrote about it

of course they have to promote revolutionary movements when possible

they're not doing coups, they're helping revolutionaries

Incorporating sovereign nations into a singular unions doesn't sound much like self determination, neither does the suppression of nationalist movements.

@Deleted User inti-imperialism may look like imperialist to an uneducated eye.

Yes I am uneducated because I can see a system for what it is

>helping revolutionaries

@Deleted User you see only the outside.

the working class can achieve total liberation only in world socialism; the capitalist bloc won't let them have peace

Yes and we were helping revolutionaries during the Afghan war

The end goal is not communism? Socialism is not a transition state to utopia?

yes the end goal is communism

but first you need world socialism

what did she mean by this

So you wish to consolidate the world under one state. What of those who do not wish for this?

no, the union is voluntary and only possible after world socialism

And do you see a corrupt neo-bourgeois run union of unwilling and brutally subverted states as 'world socialism'?

if they're bourgeois they can't be socialist

the bourgeoisie are the ones owning the means of production

they can be petit, big...

on the other side the proletariat, those who don't own them

And if the workers control the means of production are they not the bourgeois in place of the old?

Not to say the workers as the bourgeois is what I am criticizing

Quite the opposite really

no, because they can't exploit other workers with the means

since they're collectively owned not privately owned

Promising sovereignty through a representative union to the court is not my idea of a prole dictatorship

Bourgeois means to control the means of production

Have you not read Marx?

it is, dictatorship of the proletariat means the proletariat having power over the bourgoisie, at the contrary that the dictatorship of the capital

The collective becoming the bourgeois and eliminating their oppression is the very essence of communism

no

that would be distributism

the economy isn't privately owned

the means

however

the means of productions are collective, but personal property is for each worker

who has worked for it

And the worker is not the collective?

"to each according to his contribution" is socialism

the worker is part of the proletariat in capitalism

No the collective in the ideal communist society

yes

And there is no bourgeois?

in communism it's "to each according to his needs"

there isn't bourgeois in socialism or communism

Each according to his contribution sounds like a trade or merit system more than socialism

If there is no bourgeois then who controls production?

the state/the workers

If the workers are the proles then they do not control production

in the USSR they were owned publicly

wtf is this?

The state controlling the production makes the state the bourgeois

in anarchist projects they were owned by the workers directly (Self-management)

@Cosmetic Hey that avatar is my waifu hands off

yeah uhhhhhh

no

nah

she mine monica

the state doesn't extract surplus value, if something taxes

Get your grubby hands off my anime waifu

it's a step towards communism

no communism

otherwise they couldn't defend themselves

bad bad

@Cosmetic Johaness trying to survive being Fascist in our chat.

only capitalism so my Jewish grandparents can get rich 😃

:))))

If they cannot defend themselves without a state and the state is the temporary bourgeois then how do they defend themselves in communism?

gulag for them

Who runs the gulag?