Message from @Monolith
Discord ID: 598776832762052618
You can exchange things and not have commodity production.
Yeah, that wasn't the USSR, the USSR was production and exchange
Yeah, Marx goes on this SAME problem. organizing it doesn't make it not in profit use
Pick up a book and read into soviet economics, tl;dr my argument
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
What the f
can you guarantee me that wikipedia has the truth
Who the hell are the mods?
@η αρετή Ενωχ can you guarantee someone else does?
Who are the people?
i don't know their names 🤔
what
Depends on the source
You can read this too
>if you don't listen to the bowlcut ML
The USSR was state capitalist smh
nerds
thinking that capitalist propaganda is correct
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.
oh so everybody who disagrees with you is wrong
bruh
Are you saying if we *represent* workers owning things they actually own it?
Representation is not ownership. Republic are not direct Democracies.
what other class was there then?
"manager", dont make me laugh with that
>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
>capitalists exist under the ussr
proof?
I didn't say that
Don't strawman