@MrBATMAN Yeah, but why do those people deserve eternal physical pains?

ngl @succubust you're not big brained enough for this argument I am about to unleash

>ancom
Ancoms don't know what the holodomor is

>orbiter
don't be a retard

she won't get out of MY servers

small brain

cope

@Ned Kelly is a loan shark

Jews make loans

makes sense

this guy looks like the sharks

Why am I a follower

I eat children

what more do you want from me?

I will sing the anthem of the Ustasha in vc rn if I can get devotee

@Monolith who are you?

Well clearly you didn't matter enough

also

>anarchist
Yeah like your opinion matters

but nice to re-meet you

ebin

by the way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_mode_of_production

Am still correct

>when it references his works

He just responds with *hurr durr wiki*

The Marxist definition of socialism is an economic transition where the sole criterion for production is use-value

Argument made

disprove

Him calling it lower-phase communism means literally the same thing as Socialism

```Under socialism its production and exchange, not production for exchange```
Dude, this IS what I said

Do you know what *commodity-production* is?

Commodity production is made to be exchanged

that is the entire concept

You can exchange things and not have commodity production.

Yeah, Marx goes on this SAME problem. organizing it doesn't make it not in profit use

They actively had a system where they still used money and production to expand it. Organizing this production doesn't do anything

@η αρετή Ενωχ Are you actually critiquing wikipedia bc people made it? You do know it gets changed back when there are issues. Mods exist, you are essentially arguing that at this moment it has been changed to do something wrong (even though the page certifies it has no incomplete sections).

```Pick up a book and read into soviet economics, tl;dr my argument```
This isn't an argument in itself. And I don't have to read much more to know they still had capital and produced to expand it.

Capitalists can quite literally organize a conglomerate to plan out the productivity and it is *still* the same thing

@η αρετή Ενωχ can you guarantee someone else does?

i don't know their names 🤔

what

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190695545.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190695545-e-50

You can read this too

>if you don't listen to the bowlcut ML

of course he won't go to the other link I gave.

For one, Xexizy and FinBol start out wrong here. The definition of Capitalism is right, sure.
But you'd have to say *well bc it's a state* makes it not commodity production. They are doing it for the *same* reason. The workers of the USSR were not planning this themselves. They didn't even own the shit.

inb4 worker representation = socialism

Nationalizing every single industry would not make America socialist

At this point you're arguing statism can now be socialism. Which just deviates from the initial point.

bruh

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190695545.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190695545-e-50

Are you saying if we *represent* workers owning things they actually own it?

Representation is not ownership. Republic are not direct Democracies.

>the state in itself does not function with the same utility
>when it's doing the exact same thing as Capitalists were b4 but with nationalization and worker representation

You could literally destroy wealth classes

Have this and you still don't have workers controlling it

I didn't say that

Don't strawman

```>when it's doing the exact *same thing* as Capitalists were b4 but with nationalization and worker representation```

The state planners were, actually. The soviet government did this

dude

I literally just explained

you can destroy a wealth class of owners

Strawmanning hard asf

and if the state still MAINTAINS their position, nothing has changed except you've nationalized

Was Fascist Italy Socialist? The Social Republic loved nationalizing

must be socialism

I didn't call planners a class

They did not *directly own* by legal terms, but they collectively did the same thing. Claiming it was representing.

Directing an economy =/= Socialism

Imagine taking context out

Organization is *one* part of it and I have given more than enough evidence

Where is yours?

Bruh

then you just admitted you're wrong

because that's unironically all it was

*state planning is socialism btw*

So workers just ran the nation cooperatively? REALLY?

>inb4 soviet state didn't exist
>when 5 year plans were the workers as a whole

I didn't argue in disguise. I didn't argue publicly.

They weren't Capitalist, clearly. But that doesn't make them Socialist

if you wanna argue semantics, go ahead. But that's useless as a conversation. If you don't like the fact that what I posted quite literally explains there must be a change from exchange production than use, then keep coping

>stalin was a worker
>chairmans and central committee was all just a bunch of factory niggas

Mhm

keep copin

```>commodity production is drastically reduced```
When you still have capital and produce to project capital, not because workers directly involved in deciding their own needs. State got an idea of it and got them to make it. They didn't command production.
```>worker oppression by capitalists is removed```
When you're still making wages

proof

You've dismissed two links both showing the same thing so you've already shown you don't care.

*and both go to marx btw*

yes, having reforms rejected doesn't mean much. Who was telling workers what to do, Leah?

Was it them just doing it for use? Or because someone planned them to do so

I didn't say Stalin

What is the state at all? Just capitalists? That's a hOt take dude

By the way, what is the piece-rate system?

Full value?

😂

>mao

we aren't on PRC

The USSR still had a system which did not show a full value of labor. It was still based on capital production and was still beyond the actual production times.

aka, wages still existed

>ignoring what I just said

You just reverted the topic

Just ignores the fact they literally had wage labor