Memes

A formalist reading of Marx is not just wrong. It abandons the soul of scientific socialism and borders on the reactionary. It substitutes legal abstractions for the analysis of concrete social relations and replaces historical materialism with moralistic catechism.

Wordslop and the Stalino-Kruschevite fetishism of Formalism that doesn't mean anything outside of its use as a verbal battering ram.

Your watch analogy is idiotic

I could make the same analogy with a piece of equipment used in production of goods and it would still hold water.

Administration is not ownership

It literally is. But in the Stalino-Trotskiite worldview you need to add extra steps to explain why managers, party officials and people high up in the military were totally socialist or communist and A OK.

Try exercising your supposed “ownership” by walking into that bank and demanding to appropriate that capital you “own” as personal wealth

You completely incorrectly conflate the subset personal wealth with capital. Just because the USSR had collective democratic mechanisms and was depersonalised (in a limited way) doesn't mean it gets to be exempt from analyses of it.

Administration is not ownership.

To reiterate, it is. When I hold dominion over something like a steam train I practically own it because I get to say what happens to it, I get to say that it's mine for example.

Your point about public land, firefighters, and internet services under capitalism is detached from both theory and reality. Thatcherites privatized public land on a massive scale. Tech firms and telecom monopolies wage constant campaigns to enclose the digital commons and commodify every facet of the internet. The fact that capitalism tolerates or even manages certain public functions currently does not negate its driving logic. These are concessions wrung from capital or functional necessities for reproducing labour power, not evidence of a different mode of production.

Here is the thing. Even if public land is privatised there is a hard limit to which you can do that. You might have a few counterexamples examples where land and certain services are privatised, but that does not disprove the fact that socialisation is an absolute necessity even in capitalism. You are also twisting my words, I never said that this as is was evidence of a different mode of production.

Your KMT comparison remains idiotic even after clarification. Yes, both the KMT and the USSR employed state centralization. But form without content is idealism. The USSR broke private property relations in land and industry. The KMT preserved landlordism and comprador capital. The class character of state power and the direction of surplus allocation were fundamentally opposed. To ignore this is to reduce Marxism to a checklist of administrative techniques. That is not analysis. It is fetishism.

Yo, I am literally pointing out the content. A few hammer and sickles on flags and pins are not content, that there wasn't private property in exactly the same way as in Spain is not relevant. Making the state the landlord does not alter the class character of anything or whatever that word is supposed to mean. I am not reducing Marxism, a term Marx completely rejected, to a checklist of things. I am pointing out that the Soviet experiment from a standpoint of history had a very similar trajectory to many unabashedly capitalistic nations and that it failed in its goals.

[...] the privatization creep across Scandinavia if you like. Ignore the private health insurance racket in America if it suits your argument. But do not pretend these are equivalent to socialist planning

Then what the Soviet Union did was not socialist planning.

Scandinavian economies do not subordinate firms to the public good.

What does the word "good" even mean, who is "the public"???

Private ownership remains the principle. Decommodification is tactical, contingent, and constantly under assault. Under socialism, social ownership is the principle and capital is repressed. That absolutely determines the direction of travel. The USSR, for most of its existence, directed surplus to industrialization, universal education, healthcare, and defence against imperialism. That is not a minor variation. It is a qualitative break.

If I abstract concrete needs into an average of a population and go to the stock market to let this population do the bidding, or let bidding be done in its interest by some sort of elected representative or whatever, I no longer have private ownership per se, I have common ownership. I am however still doing capitalism. For example: the point of critique in regards to cooperatives is that their engagement with society, with the world at large, is still a capitalistic one. Again your line of argument conflates some form of common ownership with communization.

You can issue all the plans you want. Without the proper material conditions and productive forces, they will not amount to shit

This is the problem with Stalinists. When Cuba or Vietnam fails it's the material conditions, when China actually makes a leap it's material conditions. This is the handwavy explaining that Marx actively tried to avoid. Marx talks about the organisation of society as being part of the base, it's most its important aspect in fact. The base does not just include the ultra tangible stuff you refer to when you talk about materialism.

[...] To cite these as evidence that capitalism already does what socialism does is to ignore the direction of travel and the class struggle over every concession.

This entire paragraph is confusing. Capital tends to centralise as a default and for its continued functioning needs to abolish certain aspects of trade, there is no movement to transform this centralisation and inherent partial decommodification into communist relations yet and the class struggle from below has been dead for half a century when you look at your beloved imperial core. Only very recently there were two or three practically meaningless deeds of adventurism by lone wolves and sixteen years ago you had occupy.

[...] Bordigist purism offers the comfort of certainty without the burden of construction [...]

I frankly do not know what this last paragraph is supposed to mean really. If you want to critique my negativity or skepticism because it doesn't nativly offer a planned out concrete alternative then I refer to the various critiques of appeals to constructive criticism that have existed in history. If you want fantastical imagery of a planned society then you're asking for bona fide utopianism and immediatetism.