Why does socialism always end up becoming state capitalism? Is it because socialist economics are full on retarded?

Why does socialism always end up becoming state capitalism? Is it because socialist economics are full on retarded?

Attached: 664DC74C-ECFE-492A-A83D-33909594677D.jpeg (425x640 94.34 KB, 57.18K)

no it's because of its inner contradictions and eventual collapse


have you read any socialist literature before coming here just asking


It's pretty much guaranteed when average RoP starts sinking negative and it becomes just unprofitable to run.

RoP is a chaotic system which means we don't know how long it'll take, because chaos, but averages ensure that it does eventually happen. We're just not close to that yet.



Attached: 69127216-762C-40AB-BD8A-6278880DE046.jpeg (700x700, 75.8K)

It's because communism doesn't work, OP. At least not right now with the general level of human and technological development. But this doesn't imply much of an argument against state capitalism, which – in the Soviet case – achieved full peacetime employment and job security for the first time in Russian history, which was a gain and superior to the alternatives.

That's an explicitly anti-socialist work though. Have you read any socialist literature?

What state are you even talking about? The USSR was socialist for 90% of its existence.


Attached: 89391E85-943F-451E-A76C-FE312E3063C5.png (500x804, 185.78K)

That's an explicitly anti-socialist work though. Have you read any socialist literature?

OP, I want you to answer one very, simple question.

Do you think that the modern rate of exponential growth is stable over the course of the next 200 years?

You are looking at literally one rash of revolts against a system that has come onto the scene of human history alongside the industrial revolution like a fucking atomic bomb, and proudly proclaim that nothing can beat capitalism, ever, because nothing has done over the last literal one tenth of one second on the clock of human history.

Book attached

Epic meme. I've seen that one reposted on 4/pol/ a lot. Are you from there?

You won't learn much socialist economics reading the manifesto. It's valuable mainly as an introduction to Marxist historiography, in my opinion.

lol is reading is gay you fag. too busy lifting weights and making money. you should exercise sometime

truly an anarchist

Get off my board faggot.
First, we do have the technology necessary to establish communism. Read Cockshott.
Second, Soviet Russia wasn't state capitalist or communist. They were fully socialist until the revisionists took over. Unfortunately they didn't achieve communism.

Attached: virginchadgenocide.png (720x559, 168.03K)

Fuck right off.

As ever the "anarcho" capitalist shows off why ancas should be shot

The idea that capitalism has anything to do with "selfishness" is nonsense. People's behavior under capitalism is structurally determined. Capitalists that do what the market requires of them prosper and get to expand. Capitalists that don't do this fail and get nothing. You can start a company out of pure altruism and if you want to stay in business, you'll be pressed to behave the exact same way a power-hungry psychopath would do.
Bullshit. We don't expect anyone to work for anything but themselves. It just so happens that free individuals coming together to suit their own best interests will inevitably serve the common good. It's kinda telling that ancaps don't seem to believe that.

All you """socialist""" niggas gave awful answers. OP, the real reason is because almost all socialist states in existance (regardless of how they themselves improved their societies and people's lives in their own nations and they themselves overthrew their oppressors) were reliant on soviet aid. So when the USSR collapsed almost all of them were forced to liberalize their economies in order to develop their productive forces as a way to somewhat combat economic sanctions and stagnation independent of socialism at the cost of the quality of life of their citizens. And the USSR became state capitalist when Kruschev retardedly decided to liberalize their economy to develop their productive forces when it wasn't necessary at all, Brezhnev could've gone back to socialism by either implementing kadarism or cybernetic socialism but he did neither for whatever fucking reason.
also if capitalism is so great then it should've been completely uphill after the USSR reverted back to capitalism right? Oh wait except it wasn't

Oh high mark, did you just come from leftyb to shit-post here too?

Attached: o3xzpscrvxh21.jpg (640x491, 77.58K)

If you're looking for legitimate answers in a complete shitpost to begin with, you're probably not here to learn so we don't waste their time on trolls.

If you were here to learn you wouldn't be posting such stupid shit

Clearly many people itt responded seriously, I choose when to respond ironically or unironically to shitposts or questions in bad faith. Now I felt like giving OP and actual answer, instead of telling him to go read a 400 page book.

Real question. Why did the Soviet Union, that was full of Marxists, go State Capitalist. And not only that but they also didn't put anything on cybernetics so that everything could've been 100% automated.


Because it was ran by opportunistic career politicians that became indistinguishable from a capitalist upper-class over time. Then, when the chance came, they just reverted back to naked capitalism. It isn't very mysterious.

As absolute leader Lenin noted "It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words."


I suppose it's for various reasons but the two main ones: revisionist careerists and dogmatism. As much as some of us may say it or wish for it, the USSR clearly wasn't full of marxists, especially in the government. Not only many of them were revisionists that revised Marx to suit their own benefits but many of them were nothing more than just carrerists that didn't really believe in the cause they were supposed to be for. Something that tends to happen in countries controlled by radical and "for the cause" ideologies (similar things happened in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy).
The second thing is dogmatism. Like what I mentioned about Brezhnev, for example that cybernetic socialism idea was something originally propoaed by Kruschev and Brezhnev being dogmatic and dislikeful of him rejected something that could've easily given the USSR more years of life.

t. man who strengthened the grip of the bureaucracy at every opportunity

Attached: lenindictatorshipdemocracy.png (622x532, 106.76K)

literally full of shit, get this anarchist out of here