SPGB

[Gravediggers]

Exactly, it's a real criticism. It doesn't just lump the SDF into a ready made category.



You're doing what you do with Marx and Engels. You're reading in what isn't there.

That being the case so is the party. Look up:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/spe(2000).pdf

Don't be daft.

Obviously, in your opinion there's a link between reform and revolution, OK explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravediggers
Support for reforms also implies the instruments for self-emancipation are to found through working with the political structure of capitalism. Whereas, we say its essential the workers forge their own instruments out of the self-activity of the class struggle.

That's simply not true. You don't have to say that reforms lead to self-emancipation - you can explicitly deny it if need be.

I'm not saying reforms lead to self-emancipation. I'm saying the 'instruments' for self-emancipation are not to be found within the capitalist political structure.

But you're not the only ones..

.

Names.

Why???

[/QUOTE]

Why not?

 

[Knotted]

That being the case so is the party. Look up:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/spe(2000).pdf

Yeah, I know. I'm criticising the party not just you here. They've lost their old revolutionary spirit for the sake of preserving revolutionary formalities.

Obviously, in your opinion there's a link between reform and revolution, OK explain.

That doesn't follow.

I'm not saying reforms lead to self-emancipation. I'm saying the 'instruments' for self-emancipation are not to be found within the capitalist political structure.

You're misreading me again. I'll try again.

It is simply not true that support for reforms implies that the instruments for self-emancipation are to be found within the political structure of capitalism. This is because when you support a reform you do not have to make any claims about that reform leading to self-emancipation. You can even explicitly deny that that reform or reforms in general lead to self-emancipation if you need to.

Names.

Everyone who calls themself a revolutionary socialist.

Why not?

That question doesn't make sense in context.

 

[Knotted]

It's fun to go through these SPGB contradictions as I was doing above, but I want to have a look at something more important. Going back to something Gravediggers said earlier in the thread:

The objective economic conditions for socialism already exist in that capitalism has shewn the working class how to produce an abundance in excess of its needs, it fails in that it is unable to distribute that abundance to meet human needs. On the other hand the subjective conditions, which I gather is the point you are trying to make still remains at the stage which Marx described as, "The class in itself". In my estimation the workers have grasped a broad understanding of democracy but have failed in understanding how to use democracy for their own ends and in their own interests. This is precisely the barrier the SPGB are trying to break down.

I think this is exactly where the SPGB go wrong in terms of their theory. I should say that what really characterises the SPGB is not some sort of original sin - a bad idea expressed in 1904. There are real conditions that keep the SPGB attached to these flawed ideas, but I shan't explore that here.

So to address this flawed theory...

Marxist theory states that the forces of production need to develop to a degree as a prequisite for socialism. If this prerequisite is fulfilled it does not follow that the objective conditions for socialism already exist and that socialists should only address the subjective factor - that is to focus entirely on propaganda for socialism and education about socialism.

We live in a world where the working class is stratified, where rich nations exploit poor nations, where productive forces are concentrated in certain areas to the neglect of other areas, where agriculture is still not everywhere modernised, where large sections of the population languish in shanty towns, where globalisation pits worker against worker. The problem is that capitalism stalls throughout most of the third world and throws up new inequalities. The transformation to socialism is not merely a matter of grabbing the means of production. It is also a matter of transforming the means of production so that they meet human needs, it is also a matter of transforming society particularly rural society in the third world, it is also a matter of bringing equality between nations. All this takes time and effort - it doesn't arrive overnight.

It should be regarded as a matter of fact that the objective condions for socialism have not been met, and that there are still tasks that have not and can not be achieved by capitalism. The working class really do have a role in history beyond simply seizing power and declaring socialism.

There is also the question of how to organise to deal with 21st century problems. Politics deals in terms of priorities and so must working class politics.

I should also say that it is very odd to see talk of objective factors divorced from subjective factors. I don't often bang on about the dialectic, but it is starkly anti-dialectical to talk in this way. It should be ringing alarm bells. It implies that the working class are deluded about objective reality.

I should also say that this rigid distinction between class in itself and class for itself, is more nonsense. We've had two centuries of working class organisation which really does struggle on behalf of itself. You can't address the subjective and the objective seperately because in reality it is impossible to identify them as seperate entities.

---

What I think is interesting about the SPGB, is that it draws such a stark conclusion and applies them consistently. In doing so it provides us with a living experiment to observe and draw conclusions from. Trotskyists, for example, often talk in terms of the objective factor and the subjective factor. In doing so, we can see the sterility of the SPGB as the logical conclusion of this tendency to seperate objective from subjective.

 

[whichfinder]

For the first time ever; a peep inside the bunker at 52.


http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/HO_Inside/insideth.html

 

[Gravediggers]

It's fun to go through these SPGB contradictions as I was doing above, but I want to have a look at something more important. Going back to something Gravediggers said earlier in the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
The objective economic conditions for socialism already exist in that capitalism has shewn the working class how to produce an abundance in excess of its needs, it fails in that it is unable to distribute that abundance to meet human needs. On the other hand the subjective conditions, which I gather is the point you are trying to make still remains at the stage which Marx described as, "The class in itself". In my estimation the workers have grasped a broad understanding of democracy but have failed in understanding how to use democracy for their own ends and in their own interests. This is precisely the barrier the SPGB are trying to break down.

I think this is exactly where the SPGB go wrong in terms of their theory. I should say that what really characterises the SPGB is not some sort of original sin - a bad idea expressed in 1904. There are real conditions that keep the SPGB attached to these flawed ideas, but I shan't explore that here.

So to address this flawed theory...

Marxist theory states that the forces of production need to develop to a degree as a prequisite for socialism. If this prerequisite is fulfilled it does not follow that the objective conditions for socialism already exist and that socialists should only address the subjective factor - that is to focus entirely on propaganda for socialism and education about socialism.

If has you argue, the prerequisite is fulfilled but the objective conditions - the creation of an abundance - remain unfulfilled how do you explain a global glut of products and a global over capacity? The means and forces of production are fully developed sufficiently for the working class to use them in meeting their needs. In which respect are the objective conditions unfulfilled?

We live in a world where the working class is stratified, where rich nations exploit poor nations, where productive forces are concentrated in certain areas to the neglect of other areas, where agriculture is still not everywhere modernised, where large sections of the population languish in shanty towns, where globalisation pits worker against worker. The problem is that capitalism stalls throughout most of the third world and throws up new inequalities. The transformation to socialism is not merely a matter of grabbing the means of production. It is also a matter of transforming the means of production so that they meet human needs, it is also a matter of transforming society particularly rural society in the third world, it is also a matter of bringing equality between nations. All this takes time and effort - it doesn't arrive overnight.

And if you think that capitalism will bring these about think again.

It should be regarded as a matter of fact that the objective condions for socialism have not been met,

Utter balderdash capitalism has created an abundance it will take a socialist society to distribute it.

... and that there are still tasks that have not and can not be achieved by capitalism. The working class really do have a role in history beyond simply seizing power and declaring socialism

.

Quite true, and that role is being played out at this very moment with more and more of the working class realising that capitalism is not for them.

There is also the question of how to organise to deal with 21st century problems. Politics deals in terms of priorities and so must working class politics.

Exactly.

I should also say that it is very odd to see talk of objective factors divorced from subjective factors. I don't often bang on about the dialectic, but it is starkly anti-dialectical to talk in this way. It should be ringing alarm bells. It implies that the working class are deluded about objective reality.

The objective and subjective factors are not divorced from each other, despite what you imagine.

I should also say that this rigid distinction between class in itself and class for itself, is more nonsense. We've had two centuries of working class organisation which really does struggle on behalf of itself. You can't address the subjective and the objective seperately because in reality it is impossible to identify them as seperate entities.

If indeed like you assert the workers are a class for itself how come capitalism is still with us?

---

What I think is interesting about the SPGB, is that it draws such a stark conclusion and applies them consistently. In doing so it provides us with a living experiment to observe and draw conclusions from. Trotskyists, for example, often talk in terms of the objective factor and the subjective factor. In doing so, we can see the sterility of the SPGB as the logical conclusion of this tendency to seperate objective from subjective.

Where is the evidence for this conclusion?

 

[Knotted]

And if you think that capitalism will bring these about think again.

Of course I don't. These are exactly the objective conditions for socialism that capitalism will not fulfill. The working class is confronted with real (objective) obstacles in it's path. It isn't a lack of education that's the problem.

The creation of abundance and to an extent the socialisation of labour are the only two objective conditions for socialism that capitalism fulfills.

Lenin once observed that when socialists talk about "socialism" they are merely talking about public ownership of the means of production rather than a society completely rid of all the features of capitalism and where the slogan "from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs" applies. I think this is in effect true of the SPGB with the proviso that the SPGB think that public ownership of the means of production automatically produces such a society overnight.

If indeed like you assert the workers are a class for itself how come capitalism is still with us?

Look up how Marx used that phrase. Hint - it's from Poverty of Philosophy.

 

[Knotted]

If has you argue, the prerequisite is fulfilled but the objective conditions - the creation of an abundance - remain unfulfilled how do you explain a global glut of products and a global over capacity? The means and forces of production are fully developed sufficiently for the working class to use them in meeting their needs. In which respect are the objective conditions unfulfilled?

In general I'm not going to reply to this sort of circular argument. You start by declaring that you are right ie. that the objective conditions for socialism is the creation of an abundance. You then conclude that I must be denying that there is a global glut of products even though I've stated the opposite. Are you trying to convince me of something or are you trying to convince yourself of something?

You can't convince anyone by simply declaring that you are right. Even Jehova Witnesses don't do this.

 

[Gravediggers]

Of course I don't. These are exactly the objective conditions for socialism that capitalism will not fulfill. The working class is confronted with real (objective) obstacles in it's path. It isn't a lack of education that's the problem.

The creation of abundance and to an extent the socialisation of labour are the only two objective conditions for socialism that capitalism fulfills.

So if there are no more objective conditions for capitalism to fulfill what is the problem?

Lenin once observed that when socialists talk about "socialism" they are merely talking about public ownership of the means of production rather than a society completely rid of all the features of capitalism and where the slogan "from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs" applies. I think this is in effect true of the SPGB with the proviso that the SPGB think that public ownership of the means of production automatically produces such a society overnight.

That is not the SPGB position. Look in our pamphlet section for: From Capitalism to Socialism.

Look up how Marx used that phrase. Hint - it's from Poverty of Philosophy.

Playing games why not spit it out?

 

[Gravediggers]

In general I'm not going to reply to this sort of circular argument. You start by declaring that you are right ie. that the objective conditions for socialism is the creation of an abundance. You then conclude that I must be denying that there is a global glut of products even though I've stated the opposite. Are you trying to convince me of something or are you trying to convince yourself of something?

You can't convince anyone by simply declaring that you are right. Even Jehova Witnesses don't do this.

Its your circular argument not mine. For its you who is stating the objective conditions are fulfilled and also there are other objective conditions that are not fulfilled. How do you square this circle?

 

[butchersapron]

So if there are no more objective conditions for capitalism to fulfill what is the problem?

He didn't say that all the objective conditions were fulfilled - he said that the only two objective conditions that capitalism could fulfill have been met. The same goes for your next post.

 

[Gravediggers]

He didn't say that all the objective conditions were fulfilled - he said that the only two objective conditions that capitalism could fulfill have been met. The same goes for your next post.

But there's no mention what these other objective conditions are. And why, if they exist, they are thought to be necessary for a revolutionary transformation.

 

[Knotted]

So if there are no more objective conditions for capitalism to fulfill what is the problem?

Because there are other objective conditions for full socialism that will have to be met.

Perhaps look at it this way. Does capitalism create an abundance everywhere? Look at Haiti for example. If all the wealth were shared out equally in Haiti, it wouldn't make much difference to living standards. Only poverty would be shared out.

There will need to be a great deal of economic development and a great deal of restructuring the world economy before the last vestiges of capitalism are abolished. This is not to say that the capitalist class will carry out this task.

That is not the SPGB position. Look in our pamphlet section for: From Capitalism to Socialism.

Will do.

Playing games why not spit it out?

1) This obscure terminology that Marx once used is not particularly relevant in my opinion.
2) If you're interested I'd rather encourage you to think about it for yourself.

 

[butchersapron]

But there's no mention what these other objective conditions are. And why, if they exist, they are thought to be necessary for a revolutionary transformation.

So what? It doesn't change what he said or that you misread what he said.

 

[Knotted]

That is not the SPGB position. Look in our pamphlet section for: From Capitalism to Socialism.

I've just read the last section of that, and it's not enlightening me. I'm going by the SPGB's object:

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

Edit: To spell it out: The SPGB think that a form of ownership (common ownership) will exist in a socialist society. Even this egalitarian and democratic concept has the imprint of capitalist property relations.

 

[Gravediggers]

Because there are other objective conditions for full socialism that will have to be met.

Perhaps look at it this way. Does capitalism create an abundance everywhere? Look at Haiti for example. If all the wealth were shared out equally in Haiti, it wouldn't make much difference to living standards. Only poverty would be shared out.

Good point you make above in reference to the redistribution of poverty, but not much in regards to the subject matter of the creation of an abundance and the potential of distributing needs. Its the absurd circumstances of poverty and inequality amongst plenty that socialism will address. It follows the redistribution of wealth is not on the agenda.

What is on the agenda is the understanding that whilst capitalism is capable of producing an abundance its incapable of distributing that abundance because of the profit motive. Resulting in millions dying through lack of money. The example of Haiti is not an objective condition but an example of uneven development.

There will need to be a great deal of economic development and a great deal of restructuring the world economy before the last vestiges of capitalism are abolished. This is not to say that the capitalist class will carry out this task.

The means of production are sufficiently developed for the purposes of common ownership. Although there will be a drastic turnaround in what will be produced we do not envisage that economic growth is a necessity in the long term when socialism will be aiming for a steady state economy.

1) This obscure terminology that Marx once used is not particularly relevant in my opinion.

It may seem obscure and irrelevant to you but the distinction between a class in itself and a class for itself is pretty well apparent to me. And I'm sure you don't need me to spell it out for you!

2) If you're interested I'd rather encourage you to think about it for yourself.

I know exactly what is in my class interests.

 

[Gravediggers]

I've just read the last section of that, and it's not enlightening me. I'm going by the SPGB's object:


Edit: To spell it out: The SPGB think that a form of ownership (common ownership) will exist in a socialist society. Even this egalitarian and democratic concept has the imprint of capitalist property relations.

If in your opinion this is indeed the case you need to make your case. Think on this: Where you have common ownership the whole concept of 'ownership' becomes a non issue and irrelevant to the changed circumstances. And your preferred description is .... .....?

 

[Knotted]

Good point you make above in reference to the redistribution of poverty, but not much in regards to the subject matter of the creation of an abundance and the potential of distributing needs. Its the absurd circumstances of poverty and inequality amongst plenty that socialism will address. It follows the redistribution of wealth is not on the agenda.

It is not just a question of an unequal distribution of needs but also a question of the unequal global distribution of productive power.

What is on the agenda is the understanding that whilst capitalism is capable of producing an abundance its incapable of distributing that abundance because of the profit motive. Resulting in millions dying through lack of money. The example of Haiti is not an objective condition but an example of uneven development.

It is an objective fact that will need to be overcome for the full development of socialism.

But besides that it is an objective fact that influences the class struggle in the immediate.

The means of production are sufficiently developed for the purposes of common ownership. Although there will be a drastic turnaround in what will be produced we do not envisage that economic growth is a necessity in the long term when socialism will be aiming for a steady state economy.

You can have common ownership which doesn't satify everyone's needs, so of course the means of production are sufficiently developed for the purposes of common ownership - they always have been. That's not the point. However common ownership presupposes the expropriation of small producers and we still have small producers.

There are all sorts of difficulties in establishing socialism beyond the development of the productive forces and class consciousness.

It may seem obscure and irrelevant to you but the distinction between a class in itself and a class for itself is pretty well apparent to me. And I'm sure you don't need me to spell it out for you!

I know exactly what is in my class interests.

Of course you do, you're in the SPGB.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I know exactly what is in my class interests.

I think you need to shout a bit louder GD, some of the dullards at the back are missing your pearls.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Knotted]

If in your opinion this is indeed the case you need to make your case. Think on this: Where you have common ownership the whole concept of 'ownership' becomes a non issue and irrelevant to the changed circumstances.

This isn't really the case because it is still required to be democratic ie. bourgeois equality still reins as each member of society has an equal say in how things are run and it is still necessary to subjugate the minority to the majority.

William Morris deals with this sort of question very nicely in News from Nowhere.

And your preferred description is .... .....?

A free association of producers where the development of each is the condition for the development of all and where we live by the maxim, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

This is full socialism. Common ownership is merely the first phase of socialism.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

This is full socialism. Common ownership is merely the first phase of socialism.

It's the negation of private property and therefore a necessary political goal.

 

[Knotted]

It's the negation of private property and therefore a necessary political goal.

Yes, it is. But this is also what Stalin did. Getting rid of private property in the means of production is not in itself socialist. The SPGB make a big fuss about this.

 

[Gravediggers]

It is not just a question of an unequal distribution of needs but also a question of the unequal global distribution of productive power.

True. But if you are suggesting the further development of the means of production to address the unequal global distribution of productive power that is a question which will need to be resolved by a socialist society. If indeed it needs to resolved. From our viewpoint each region of the globe will produce what it can, to meet their needs, from their own resources. Where these needs are unmet they can call on the global community to help out.

It is an objective fact that will need to be overcome for the full development of socialism.

But besides that it is an objective fact that influences the class struggle in the immediate.

True on both counts. But an objective fact is not the same as an objective condition. We are talking about the precondition of an abundance in the here and now and not about the future economical setup. It appears you are putting the cart before the horse by mixing up condition with fact.

You can have common ownership which doesn't satify everyone's needs, so of course the means of production are sufficiently developed for the purposes of common ownership - they always have been. That's not the point. However common ownership presupposes the expropriation of small producers and we still have small producers.

Common ownership presupposes the expropriation of wage slavery not of the actual producers. Small and large production units will have a role to serve in socialism.

There are all sorts of difficulties in establishing socialism beyond the development of the productive forces and class consciousness.

Don't I know it, and I also know that socialism will have a massive problem in cleaning up after capitalism.

 

[Gravediggers]

Yes, it is. But this is also what Stalin did. Getting rid of private property in the means of production is not in itself socialist. The SPGB make a big fuss about this.

Stalin replaced some private property with state property or state capitalism. We advocate getting rid of all property relationships.

 

[Gravediggers]

This isn't really the case because it is still required to be democratic ie. bourgeois equality still reins as each member of society has an equal say in how things are run and it is still necessary to subjugate the minority to the majority.

How you can compare representative democracy with participatory democracy confounds me. And of course the minority will be subject to the majority decision. If the majority do not have the final say its not a democracy! Obviously, the minority view will be taken on board if their suggestions are valid and are not in direct confrontation with common ownership. For example, if a bunch of capitalist minded people wish to set up a commune to put their ideas into practice, I'm sure we can find them a small island in the North Atlantic which will suit their purpose.

Unlike capitalist democracy the minority in participatory democracy will have equal recourse to state their case through the democratic channels. Nevertheless, there is no reason to suggest that this minority will be of a static entity, with a certain amount of flexibility and overlap between ideas deserving discussion.

William Morris deals with this sort of question very nicely in News from Nowhere.

I'm sure he does.

A free association of producers where the development of each is the condition for the development of all and where we live by the maxim, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

And the shorthand is - common ownership.

This is full socialism. Common ownership is merely the first phase of socialism.

Not strictly true. The first phase will be the political revolution, then the economic revolution, followed by the social revolution and finally the cultural revolution.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Yes, it is. But this is also what Stalin did. Getting rid of private property in the means of production is not in itself socialist. The SPGB make a big fuss about this.

But he didn't make them common property; only state property.

 

[Knotted]

How you can compare representative democracy with participatory democracy confounds me. And of course the minority will be subject to the majority decision. If the majority do not have the final say its not a democracy! Obviously, the minority view will be taken on board if their suggestions are valid and are not in direct confrontation with common ownership. For example, if a bunch of capitalist minded people wish to set up a commune to put their ideas into practice, I'm sure we can find them a small island in the North Atlantic which will suit their purpose.

Unlike capitalist democracy the minority in participatory democracy will have equal recourse to state their case through the democratic channels. Nevertheless, there is no reason to suggest that this minority will be of a static entity, with a certain amount of flexibility and overlap between ideas deserving discussion.

Full socialism means the abolition of all government, including democratic government. This includes direct democracy.

(Minorities have recourse to state their case in all forms of democracy.)

And the shorthand is - common ownership.

Ownership should be meaningless in full socialism - including common ownership.

Not strictly true. The first phase will be the political revolution, then the economic revolution, followed by the social revolution and finally the cultural revolution.

Political revolution certainly is not the first phase of socialism. Check your own literature on the Paris commune.

 

[Knotted]

But he didn't make them common property; only state property.

The point is he liquidated the capitalist class. I don't see very much difference between democratically controlled common property and democratically controlled state property. It seems like only a semantic difference to me.

Of course Stalin's regime was anything but democratic. There is also the fact that the USSR in it's isolation did not have the resources to adequately provide for it's population.

Stalin replaced some private property with state property or state capitalism. We advocate getting rid of all property relationships.

You advocate keeping common property and therefore some of the vestiges of capitalism. If in your terms the USSR was state capitalist, what you advocate is a category that's very similar - perhaps we could call it communal capitalism?

 

[Gravediggers]

Full socialism means the abolition of all government, including democratic government. This includes direct democracy.

(Minorities have recourse to state their case in all forms of democracy.)

Governments are not democratic in the sense they are neutral institutions. But it seems you are asserting here that the abolition of the state also means the abolition of (direct) democracy. If so you are talking utter hogswash or deliberately misleading. For you know full well that the establishment of socialism will be on the premise of participatory democracy. Indeed, not only are they inseparable but is the whole issue behind class struggle.

Ownership should be meaningless in full socialism - including common ownership.

I've already stated this.

Political revolution certainly is not the first phase of socialism. Check your own literature on the Paris commune.

If you are so certain on this why is it you have failed to provide a link to back your argument up that the first phase of socialism will be common ownership? This argument is plainly incorrect for it implies the economic takes precedent over the political and also assumes its possible to have a socialist economy running in parallel with a capitalist economy. Hmmm an island of socialism, don't be daft.

 

[Knotted]

Governments are not democratic in the sense they are neutral institutions. But it seems you are asserting here that the abolition of the state also means the abolition of (direct) democracy. If so you are talking utter hogswash or deliberately misleading. For you know full well that the establishment of socialism will be on the premise of participatory democracy. Indeed, not only are they inseparable but is the whole issue behind class struggle.

I agree that the establishment of socialism will be on the premise of participatory democracy. But I wasn't talking about the establishment of socialism. I was talking about full socialism.

Even direct democracy is flawed. A democratic ruling will tend to support a majority even if that majority only has a small stake in the ruling whereas the minority might have a large stake in the ruling. The question is whether it is necessary to subjugate minorities to the will of the majority. Democracy is a tool for a purpose, not the perfect form of goverment/administration.

I could say check Lenin or perhaps check various anarchist writers. But that would give you the heebeejeebees (or at least the espeejeebees!). So check Morris. You lot like Morris don't you?

If you are so certain on this why is it you have failed to provide a link to back your argument up that the first phase of socialism will be common ownership? This argument is plainly incorrect for it implies the economic takes precedent over the political and also assumes its possible to have a socialist economy running in parallel with a capitalist economy. Hmmm an island of socialism, don't be daft.

Alright. Common ownership is necessary for the establishment of socialism but by itself it is insufficient.

 

[Gravediggers]

The point is he liquidated the capitalist class. I don't see very much difference between democratically controlled common property and democratically controlled state property. It seems like only a semantic difference to me.

Stalin did not liquidate the *whole* of the private capitalist class for he allowed small businesses to remain more or less intact. Which was confirmed after he died.

Of course Stalin's regime was anything but democratic. There is also the fact that the USSR in it's isolation did not have the resources to adequately provide for it's population.

Which is short hand for saying that the objective conditions and the subjective conditions were not present in the USSR.

You advocate keeping common property and therefore some of the vestiges of capitalism. If in your terms the USSR was state capitalist, what you advocate is a category that's very similar - perhaps we could call it communal capitalism?

What are these vestiges of capitalism which will be retained in socialism? And what are the similarities between state capitalism and socialism? Blind assertions say nothing.