It’s an issue that Marxist economists debate about.

Comrade, surplus value has absolutely nothing to do with current production costs.

Surplus value is the capitalist’s profit—nothing more.

According to Marx, surplus value is the value created by the unpaid labor of a wage worker—over and above the value of their labor power—and appropriated gratuitously by the capitalist. It is the hidden source of all forms of unearned income: entrepreneurial profit, commercial markup, bank interest, and ground rent.

In the USSR, there was no surplus value whatsoever; any “surplus” consisted solely of taxes earmarked for social benefits and similar expenditures.

Consequently, goods in the USSR cost a mere fraction of what the very same goods cost in the West.

Surplus value is the very mechanism by which capitalists grow rich—it is money out of thin air.

However, calling whatever the soviets did “true socialism”

Here, again, is a small caveat: we are not discussing the process—but rather the result—of building developed socialism. And we aren’t even considering the economic aspect here. The USSR faced immense difficulties back then, particularly when the U.S. sought to drain its resources using various hoaxes—the Moon landing, and other such nonsense. Incidentally—in case you weren’t aware—it turned out that the U.S. actually lacked the rockets needed to fly into space; once the Space Shuttle program failed, they were forced to pay $80 million per astronaut for transport provided by Russia to the ISS. And it begs the question: what on earth happened to the Apollo program? The ISS is only 400 kilometers away, yet the Moon is 400,000…

But I digress. That was the USSR’s path toward socialism—a path that was incredibly thorny and arduous. Whether before World War II or after it, the USSR was under siege from all sides.

Be that as it may, socialism was successfully built in the USSR—in what amounted to its roughly final form. It may have lacked glitz and glamour, but it was, undeniably, socialism.

As for the Cubans, Koreans, and Vietnamese—their situation is far more challenging, as their nations lack the self-sufficiency that the USSR possessed. The USSR had the industrial capacity, the natural resources—everything required to withstand isolation and continue forging ahead. However, in light of recent events—specifically the ongoing realignment of the global order—these nations now appear to hold immense promise for future development. But building developed socialism requires a lot of money.

China, for its part, built its brand of socialism using Western capital. It constructed a form of socialism that suited the West’s interests… at least until very recently, that is. China proved to be far more complex than the West had anticipated—and ultimately outmaneuvered the West! Yet, fundamentally, that does not alter the nature of the matter.

My hope is that China will, in the end, achieve its true objective. As things stand, what currently exists there doesn’t quite measure up… I’m not sure if one can accurately apply the term you placed in quotation marks to it—so I won’t venture to say.

Why was that guy removed?

It doesn’t seem like he said anything outrageous.

Capitalism is defined by private ownership of businesses.

There is another name for this: private ownership of the means of production.

The means of production constitute the aggregate of all material resources used to create goods and services. They comprise two main components: the instruments of labor (the tools and machinery used to work) and the subjects of labor (the raw materials and inputs worked upon).

This concept also encompasses wage labor. Under socialism, a private individual is not permitted to hire another person for employment.

However, during the Stalin era, private enterprise did, in fact, exist. These took the form of artels—small workshops, typically employing up to ten people, that manufactured light industrial goods. There were tens of thousands of such artels across the USSR. Yet, within these artels, both the workers and the managers participated on equal terms; specifically, the director of the artel was re-elected annually by the collective membership. Artels in the USSR produced items such as radio receivers, televisions, children’s toys, and similar goods.

I would put it differently: there should be only one true form of socialism, but the methods for achieving it may vary.

As for my own experience: my father—who held a Ph.D.—earned a lower salary than the father of one of my classmates, who was a highly skilled fitter.

And I understand perfectly well that you cannot even begin to imagine that such a thing is possible. Yes, salaries were relatively modest—the idea being not to let money corrupt people. But you had free healthcare, free education, and a free apartment; and the utility bill for a 70-square-meter apartment—like the one I had—came to… $3 a month. Plus, a free one-month summer vacation at a sanatorium somewhere in Crimea.

Places where the oligarchs’ massive mansions had been confiscated and converted into holiday retreats for the people.

Now you understand what kind of socialism I am talking about. I know of no other kind—and I have no desire to know of any other!

No, Comrade, I am speaking of the Western understanding of Marx.

No, the government. “The government” as you likely imagine it is in fact made up of 2 components. Thank you for enlightening me, Comrade…

Is the government: The organ of administration and organisation necessary in all advanced societies.

Yes, that is exactly what I said: for a government to function effectively in the sphere of social development, the dictatorship of the proletariat is absolutely essential!

The right to vote on state decisions belongs to representatives drawn from the people—those elected at the local level. The right to a real vote. That is how it worked in the USSR during the 1930s.

The only catch—as you well know—is that in the 1980s, the clause regarding the “dictatorship of the proletariat” vanished from the CPC Charter…

“The oligarchs” (the bourgeoisie) are an issue due to the fact that in capitalist countries they control the state and rule over the other classes.

And in socialist countries?.. )))

The aim of communists is to seize control of the state and then wield it to repress and proletarianise the bourgeoisie until only a single class remains

It was an agonizing process; to achieve this, the USSR had to pass through “War Communism.”

Are you saying that in China, the oligarchs are socialist, while in the West, they are capitalist?

No, Comrade—I am referring to the kind of socialism you are talking about: the kind of socialism that can coexist with capital.

I already gave you my answer in the previous post—having already realized you were from China, based on the characters in your username. You should understand what I meant.

Wow, you’re a member of the CPC. I envy you, Comrade… )))

I am incredibly impressed by how much China has flourished economically over the last couple of decades.

But how has this impacted the lives of the Chinese proletariat?

It seems to me that the life of a worker in Shanghai is no different from the life of a worker in, say, Moscow. As the saying goes: spot the three differences.

Do you know what Lenin was the first to promise the workers in order to get them to join him in the uprising? Do you know what issue sparked the world’s first workers’ strike—held on May 1st—in the USA?

That’s right, Comrade: the eight-hour workday.

And you, as a true Chinese communist, must surely know that every single Western socialist regards China as the gold standard of socialism—the belief that China took the correct path, having learned from the mistakes of the USSR, whose system proved unviable… indeed, fundamentally flawed from the very start.

Let me guess: you think so, too.

In your view, how does a Chinese socialist differ from a Western socialist? I’m not talking about pseudo-socialists here; I’m talking about true socialists—those who actually read Marx. What was your reason for drawing such a sharp dividing line in your post?

Sorry, I’m getting confused here. To me—based on what I’ve read here—the concept of Western socialism looks more like reformed capitalism than socialism.

Dictatorship of the proletariat

In a capitalist society, this is impossible to implement. The government is lobbied by capitalists whose goal is their own profit.

The government is those very oligarchs.

I’m talking about that guy up above who got offended and doesn’t want to reply.

To be honest, I read through a massive amount of text there—it’s all so impeccably written, yet the essence of it keeps slipping through my fingers… It reminds me a lot of an LSD trip… ))) “The truth is out there”—just like in The X-Files… )))

Mind you, I don’t mean to offend anyone; I am, after all, just an ignoramus… complete with a beard, felt boots, and a balalaika… reeking of stale vodka.

Please, don’t judge me too harshly! )))

Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that?

Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was.

“György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with ‘Western Marxism,’ his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine.”

Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things?

I told you recently that the understanding of socialism in the West—and my own understanding of it—are two different poles.

That guy is very smart and well-read, but what he says… really surprises me.

When I read his first post, I didn’t even understand which camp he belonged to… because a person cannot defend oligarchs while being a socialist. To me, that is nonsense!

It seemed very simple under true socialism: in exchange for your conscientious labor, you received an apartment for free. You could live in it—and after you, your grandchildren could live there, and so on—but you could not sell the apartment, because it was state property.

and anarchist scholarship

In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism.

On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist

I know you won’t read my reply, but I’ll answer anyway: it’s very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin’s successor.

Lenin and not Lukács

I studied Lenin in school.

I haven’t read Lukács. He wasn’t popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels.