Socialist Economy Poll

Isakenaz wrote:How do comrades here view the idea that he suggests which I have emboldened?

The RevLeft member is wrong in thinking that the demise of the Soviet Union was a "tremendous blow to the morale of the world working class," in my opinion. It certainly affected many Marxist-Leninist parties negatively, and may have been discouraging to various national liberation struggles in the global south, but it did not really factor into the working class movement in Western Europe or North America. If anything, anti-communist propaganda had far more of a detrimental role, especially in convincing people that no desirable alternatives to capitalism exist.

I agree with him or her regarding the fact that basically "every element of the standard economic program of any socialist party was actually implemented in the USSR," but a lack of democracy wasn't the only problem. The economic model was itself flawed in numerous important respects. It wasn't as horribly inefficient as bourgeois economists contend, but several facets of it should have been reformed (e.g., the management of firms and planning mechanism) for reasons of efficiency and justice.

Celtiberian wrote:As a matter of fact, it did. The concept dates back as early as the 1840s, with the writings of the Ricardian socialists, e.g., Thomas Hodgskin and John Francis Bray. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon further developed the idea in his theory of mutualism.

I was referring to as a practical concept not a theoretical one. NEP was the first market socialist experience in the world to the ones who considered it market socialism.

Correct, but a state accumulation of capital is very different from the fundamental class process of capitalism. Just as it would be inaccurate to refer to the self-employed as being capitalists (since they do not hire and exploit wage laborers), it's inaccurate to refer to state socialism as being capitalistic. Capitalism is the combination of private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and generalized commodity production.

But you still have wage labor, commodity production, bureaucratic control over workers, hired and exploited wage laborers in State Socialism but working for the state. The only difference is that the means of production are concentrated in the hands of the state instead of private ownership. That's why it's called State Capitalism.

Because wage labor was not permitted in Yugoslavia, nor was private ownership of capital (minor exceptions not withstanding).

Your statement is not accurate. The 1953 agrarian law reform permitted private agricultural smallholdings and over 80 percent of the land returned to private ownership. Privately owned craftshops could employ up to 5 people per owner: "It is true that in Yugoslavia there have existed private craftsmen with the right to employ not more than 5 hired workers. The Chinese give the figure of "more than 115,000 privately-owned craft establishments in Yugoslavia" in 1963." This is more than minor exceptions. I still don't see any major difference that could led me to believe that we are talking two completely different systems.

Nobody considered the NEP market socialism, you twit. It had far more in common with the economy of modern China than, say, Yugoslavia. End of story.

Syndicalism (and perhaps market socialism) should have more votes than it does because anarchism is not a proper economic category but a political philosophy. Anarchists are socialists, and they have historically gravitated toward syndicalism, mutualism, or outright communism (although most of us hold this latter economic system as an ultimate goal).

I agree but didn't know that at the time of taking this poll, oops .

Comrade_Joe wrote:I was referring to as a practical concept not a theoretical one. NEP was the first market socialist experience in the world to the ones who considered it market socialism.

First of all, the "ones who considered it market socialism" were a few analysts, not the individuals (e.g., Lenin) responsible for designing and implementing the model. Secondly, market socialism was practiced prior to the New Economic Policy experiment in the Ukrainian Free Territory, and various communes in the United States and Western Europe throughout the 19th century.

But you still have wage labor

The wages system exists, wage labor does not. Wage labor is the product of competitive labor markets, which are absent within state socialism.

commodity production

Generalized commodity production also requires a market. State socialism organizes production around a social plan, not market price signals.

bureaucratic control over workers

Yes, but hierarchical management, while undoubtedly unjust, is not a unique attribute of capitalism. Feudalism and slavery also practiced hierarchical management techniques.

hired and exploited wage laborers in State Socialism but working for the state.

Hired, yes (under what circumstances would that ever change?), but it's debatable as to whether or not they are exploited. Workers under state socialism are certainly alienated, and I would argue that they are exploited insofar as economic plans fail to include the products and services the people actually want while nevertheless providing the nomenklatura with all of the luxuries they desire. It's a very different form of exploitation from that which capitalism engenders.

The only difference is that the means of production are concentrated in the hands of the state instead of private ownership. That's why it's called State Capitalism.

That isn't the "only difference," though it's definitely enough to render classifying it as "state capitalism" nonsensical.

The 1953 agrarian law reform permitted private agricultural smallholdings and over 80 percent of the land returned to private ownership.

Privately cultivating land, without use of wage labor, is reflective of the ancient (or independent) class process. It's neither capitalist nor socialist, and it isn't exploitative.

Privately owned craftshops could employ up to 5 people per owner: "It is true that in Yugoslavia there have existed private craftsmen with the right to employ not more than 5 hired workers.

That is an example of a minor exception.

The Chinese give the figure of "more than 115,000 privately-owned craft establishments in Yugoslavia" in 1963."

What "Chinese"? What source are you using for this statistic?

I still don't see any major difference that could led me to believe that we are talking two completely different systems.

How much clearer can it be? Workers' self-management (albeit imperfectly implemented) was the norm in Yugoslavia, while it existed nowhere in the Soviet Union during the New Economic Policy; private ownership of capital assets (not land) was prohibited to a more significant extent in Yugoslavia; etc. These are considerable differences.

Celtiberian wrote:First of all, the "ones who considered it market socialism" were a few analysts, not the individuals (e.g., Lenin) responsible for designing and implementing the model. Secondly, market socialism was practiced prior to the New Economic Policy experiment in the Ukrainian Free Territory, and various communes in the United States and Western Europe throughout the 19th century.

Few analysts who have much more credentials than you and are by far much more credible. I've already told you why Lenin didn't considered it market socialism. Are you gonna repeat the same thing all over again? Even if it really existed your examples are not acceptable since it was not implemented in the whole economic system of an Independent State or Country.

The wages system exists, wage labor does not. Wage labor is the product of competitive labor markets, which are absent within state socialism.

LOL. Wage-labour - Employment as an employee for a specified weekly wage or monthly salary, normally on terms and conditions determined by the employer, whose offer may be constrained by employment law, collective-bargaining agreements, or pressure from trade unions. The term is often used to emphasize the weak bargaining position of people who have only their own labour to sell, and may be exploited.

If the state is the employer I don't see the difference. Try not to invent so much.

Generalized commodity production also requires a market. State socialism organizes production around a social plan, not market price signals.

Commodity of production still exists but are not so relevant as within a capitalist market system.

Yes, but hierarchical management, while undoubtedly unjust, is not a unique attribute of capitalism. Feudalism and slavery also practiced hierarchical management techniques.

This doesn't invalidate the fact that you have it in capitalism.

Hired, yes (under what circumstances would that ever change?), but it's debatable as to whether or not they are exploited. Workers under state socialism are certainly alienated, and I would argue that they are exploited insofar as economic plans fail to include the products and services the people actually want while nevertheless providing the nomenklatura with all of the luxuries they desire. It's a very different form of exploitation from that which capitalism engenders.

LOL. You just admitted that there is exploitation even under a socialist state. Remembered of our other discussion? I never talked specifically about capitalism exploitation but exploitation in its truly meaning. And i don't think it's debatable. Exploitation is exploitation, it may acquire new forms but it still exploitation. Try again not to invent.

That isn't the "only difference," though it's definitely enough to render classifying it as "state capitalism" nonsensical.

How come is nonsensical if you have capitalist accumulation as you admitted along with the other capitalistic characteristics that you outlined above?

Privately cultivating land, without use of wage labor, is reflective of the ancient (or independent) class process. It's neither capitalist nor socialist, and it isn't exploitative.

Besides how ridiculous your statement appears to be you were talking about private ownership. The farmers didn't sell their surplus yields?

That is an example of a minor exception.

115,000 privately-owned craft establishments is a minor exception?

What "Chinese"? What source are you using for this statistic?

"According to the official Statistical Pocket-Book of Yugoslavia, 1963 published in Belgrade, there are over 115,000 privately-owned craft establishments in Yugoslavia. But in fact the owners of many of these private enterprises are not "craftsmen" but typical private capitalists."

You can see it here: marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sino-soviet-split/cpc/yugoslavia.htm

How much clearer can it be? Workers' self-management (albeit imperfectly implemented) was the norm in Yugoslavia, while it existed nowhere in the Soviet Union during the New Economic Policy; private ownership of capital assets (not land) was prohibited to a more significant extent in Yugoslavia; etc. These are considerable differences.

I showed to you how private ownership existed pretty much like what existed in NEP (although the dimension may vary). With NEP there was also a privatization of the land pretty much like the process in Yugoslavia. The only difference is the Workers' self-management. I don't think is enough to differentiate so much both systems.

Comrade_Joe wrote:LOL. Wage-labour - Employment as an employee for a specified weekly wage or monthly salary, normally on terms and conditions determined by the employer, whose offer may be constrained by employment law, collective-bargaining agreements, or pressure from trade unions. The term is often used to emphasize the weak bargaining position of people who have only their own labour to sell, and may be exploited.

If the state is the employer I don't see the difference. Try not to invent so much.

There is a tremendous difference. You are citing some disingenuous neoclassical definition of wage labor, which is vague and misleading, as it does not include the socialist concept of exploitation and presupposes private property (namely, employee vs. employer bargaining within the context of a labor market). The state is not a private employer who expropriates the surplus value created by workers nor does it treat labor as capital. It is not exploitation if a public body appropriates the social product. Now, insofar as a class of unaccountable bureaucrats such as the nomenklatura makes use of its privileged status in order to bolster itself and the personal lives of its members one might be justified in making the case for exploitation, but there is no necessary connection between state ownership and the deprivation of labor of its product.

Under what circumstances, however, would the hiring of workers disappear? Try again not to be such an ignoramus.

Comrade_Joe wrote:I was referring to as a practical concept not a theoretical one. NEP was the first market socialist experience in the world to the ones who considered it market socialism.

The bold is vacuous circular reasoning. The NEP was considered the first market socialist economy by those who considered it market socialism? You don't say... It is also factually incorrect, as Celtiberian has illustrated.

The NEP was neither socialist in theory nor in practice.

Few analysts who have much more credentials than you and are by far much more credible.

Who might those analysts be, pray tell? Why is their analysis superior to ours? What makes you think that we cannot make far more reliable appeals to authority than you? You have already demonstrated a vast dearth of understanding. Who lacks credibility?

Rev Scare wrote:There is a tremendous difference. You are citing some disingenuous neoclassical definition of wage labor, which is vague and misleading, as it does not include the socialist concept of exploitation and presupposes private property (namely, employee vs. employer bargaining within the context of a labor market). The state is not a private employer who expropriates the surplus value created by workers nor does it treat labor as capital. It is not exploitation if a public body appropriates the social product. Now, insofar as a class of unaccountable bureaucrats such as the nomenklatura makes use of its privileged status in order to bolster itself and the personal lives of its members one might be justified in making the case for exploitation, but there is no necessary connection between state ownership and the deprivation of labor of its product.

Under what circumstances, however, would the hiring of workers disappear? Try again not to be such an ignoramus.

Dumbass, when I said that the hiring of workers would disappear? What a DUMBFUCK! I only stated that the exploitation continues but now under the state guidance. Are you really that dumb? In a state capitalist economic regime the state owns the capital and the workers surplus value. Only when the state disappears that exploitation disappears, which Marx stated that would occur in the late phase of socialism. DUMBASS

Rev Scare wrote:The bold is vacuous circular reasoning. The NEP was considered the first market socialist economy by those who considered it market socialism? You don't say... It is also factually incorrect, as Celtiberian has illustrated.]

Yes, it was consider by them the first experience, dumbfuck.

The NEP was neither socialist in theory nor in practice.

Yes it was because it restrained the capitalist activity and the state owned the major industries, banks, etc.

Whom might those analysts be, pray tell? Why is their analysis superior to ours? What makes you think that we cannot make far more reliable appeals to authority than you? You have already demonstrated a vast dearth of understanding. Who lacks credibility?

You, dummie.
I was talking about university researchers, you DUMBASS. Is a dumbfuck like you more credible than a university researcher? I don't think so.

If you're going to be calling people dummie, dumbass, and dumbfuck you should probably learn how to use the quote button effectively.

Comrade_Joe wrote:Dumbass, when I said that the hiring of workers would disappear? What a DUMBFUCK! I only stated that the exploitation continues but now under the state guidance. Are you really that dumb? In a state capitalist economic regime the state owns the capital and the workers surplus value. Only when the state disappears that exploitation disappears, which Marx stated that would occur in the late phase of socialism. DUMBASS

The above does not constitute an argument, "comrade." It only serves to corroborate one claim: that you are a mental midget. You have basically reiterated the tripe you've flung about above and nothing more. A workers' state does not retain the fundamental class process of capitalism.

How old are you, in any case? 15? You don't know what you are on about, kid. Go play communist somewhere else.

Comrade_Joe wrote:Few analysts who have much more credentials than you and are by far much more credible.

I could cite several academicians who contend that socialism in an untenable theory, does that make it so? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands that even claims made by experts shouldn't simply be accepted prima facie. They must be weighed against opposing views and whatever empirical evidence happens to exists.

I've already told you why Lenin didn't considered it market socialism.

He didn't consider it market socialism because he realized that there was nothing socialistic about it.

Even if it really existed your examples are not acceptable since it was not implemented in the whole economic system of an Independent State or Country.

You have an incredibly annoying tendency of shifting the goalposts during a debate. First you argued that the very concept of market socialism didn't exist prior to the NEP, then that it was never practiced prior to it, and now that it wasn't practiced on a sufficient enough scale. Mature people are capable of conceding when they've been proven wrong. I think Rev Scare is correct in assuming that you must be teenager.

If the state is the employer I don't see the difference. Try not to invent so much.

The difference is that the state is not a private individual accumulating capital. Whatever surplus is produced by the working class under state socialism is reinvested into the national economy. Wage labor is inextricable from the capital-labor social relations of capitalism. Since a labor market is absent within state socialism, labor does not take on the commodity form which it does under capitalism. Thus, it is not wage-labor (though, again, the wages system is retained).

Commodity of production still exists but are not so relevant as within a capitalist market system.

No, it doesn't. (Unless, of course, you're referring to black market activity, or the state permitting market activity in certain sectors of the economy.)

This doesn't invalidate the fact that you have it in capitalism.

It means that it should be an irrelevant factor in determining whether or not state socialism qualifies as 'state capitalism.'

You just admitted that there is exploitation even under a socialist state.

I wrote that state socialism can be considered exploitative in a sense, not that the state itself is exploitative. Very different.

Exploitation is exploitation, it may acquire new forms but it still exploitation. Try again not to invent.

The only thing being 'invented' here is your bizarre new theory of exploitation, wherein economic exploitation and state taxation are conflated.

How come is nonsensical if you have capitalist accumulation as you admitted along with the other capitalistic characteristics that you outlined above?

Because accumulating capital is but one aspect of capitalism. The employment of wage labor is indispensable for discerning whether or not a mode of production is indeed capitalist. As Karl Marx wrote,

"Property in money, means of subsistence, machines, and other means of production, does not as yet stamp a man as a capitalist if the essential complement to these things is missing: the wage-labourer, the other man, who is compelled to sell himself of his own free will . . . Capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons which is mediated by things."
Marx, Karl. Das Kapital vol. I, p. 932.

Besides how ridiculous your statement appears to be

Exactly what was "ridiculous" about it?

you were talking about private ownership. The farmers didn't sell their surplus yields?

They did, but they didn't employ wage laborers. Ergo, they were not capitalists.

115,000 privately-owned craft establishments is a minor exception?

That was a exaggerated claim meant to distort what was actually occurring in Yugoslavia. One should expect as much from a propagandistic rag like the one you linked to. Here's the reality of the situation:

"Between 1959 and 1964 the number of small craftsmen decreased by 17,000. A large number (118,000) of these craftsmen left the private sector and joined craft cooperatives where they were not under pressure from the communes for taxes and did not have to pay high rents for their premises. The work of craftsmen is limited by law. They cannot employ more than five workers and therefore it is inaccurate to call such people (in 1964 118,200 of them altogether employing 42,000 helpers and apprentices in their workshops) private capitalists, as some Chinese sources do."
Bićanić, Rudolph. Economic Policy in Socialist Yugoslavia, p. 34 (emphasis added).

So, if the craft sector was the sole bastion of wage labor in Yugoslavia, no more than 42,000 individuals (out of a total population of approximately 19 million people) were employed in such work. Moreover, many of them were apprentices and therefore likely became members of cooperatives or self-employed eventually.

The only difference is the Workers' self-management. I don't think is enough to differentiate so much both systems.

The preponderance of social ownership in Yugoslavia and the generalization of workers' self-management is more than enough to distinguish it from Lenin's NEP. The Soviet Union during the NEP featured an economy wherein "some 80 per cent of small-scale production, and 99 per cent of farming remained in the private sector" [Overy, Robert. The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, p. 397.] and in which bourgeois social relations typified work life for many people. Nationalized industries were an inconsequential aspect of the economy, as the USSR hadn't yet industrialized to a meaningful extent.

Joe, you are a pathetic individual who is lashing out like a child that has been scolded. Your black and white thinking is ridiculous. No one cares about your petty jabs, and your inability to understand basic concepts is completely obvious. Take this crap somewhere else.

Comrade_Joe wrote:Dude, I think is better to call one of your pals to close this thread too.

1.) I didn't call on anyone to do anything.
2.) The reason the other thread was closed was likely because our discussion veered away from the topic the thread was intended to address: Socialism in One Country and its relation, if any, to left-wing nationalism.

I was citing those academics just to prove that your statement is not 100% consensual. Got it? I always stated that we can have two views about the matter and that's why I cited it.

Seldom are the causes, characteristics, and descriptions of any historical event unanimously agreed upon in academia. The bottom line, however, is you (and evidently Mr. Bandera, whom you cited) are using the term "market socialism" to describe a capitalist market economy (with an inconsequential nationalized sector in heavy industry) presided over by an ostensibly communist party. That is not how the actual philosophers and economists who espouse market socialism designed the model, so they'd never consider the NEP to have been an example of market socialism. We're basically involved in a conflict of definitions.

Also, saying that it was nothing socialistic about it is so ridiculous as comparing modern nations to primitive tribes. Of course it was! The major industries, banks,etc were nationalized and the private ownership was limited.

Nationalization, in and of itself, is not socialism. If the New Economic Policy rendered the Soviet Union socialist, then, to be logically consistent, one would have to consider the United Kingdom between the administrations of Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher to have been "socialist" as well.

I just exposed all the holes and contradictory shit about your theory and forced one of your pals to close the thread.

All that was "exposed" was the depth of your ignorance. The debate will be continued, rest assured, but in a more appropriate thread.

The state is not a private individual but stills accumulates capital. The surplus value of the working class is still taken by the state.

But, unlike under capitalism, that surplus is not invested in private firms or kept as profit for the bourgeoisie. It is instead shared among the entire nation, by way of it being allocated back into the economy as a whole and into social services for the people. In short, the fundamental and subsumed class processes are completely different from those exhibited within the capitalist mode of production. (I must admit, it is rather humorous to witness a Stalinist adamantly insisting that the very economy which Stalin had organized was nothing more than a manifestation of "state capitalism"—which is generally a Trotskyist criticism of Stalinism.)

That is why I said that exists but are not so relevant.

It may have existed as an aberration in practice, but the theoretical model of state socialism is the negation of markets.

If it is an element of a capitalist economic system it serves to characterize an economy as capitalist and not socialist.

No more than it serves to characterize a society as feudal or slave-based.

Socialism is not capitalism, sorry.

Thank you ever so much for that profound insight. I am seriously indebted to your genius.

We were talking about exploitation under state socialism and not the nature of the state. You are already confusing all of it.

How many times are you going to accuse others of being "confused" when it is blatantly obvious to all that it is you who hasn't been able to follow a single argument you've been engaged in?

We were discussing the exploitative nature of state socialism in this thread. You then proceeded to use my statements regarding that issue to accuse me of inconsistency in an entirely different thread, wherein I was arguing that the state (not state socialism) is not inherently exploitative. Let me explain this as clearly as I possibly can for you: Institutions of governance are not what render state socialism exploitative; it is the manner by which those institutions are organized which does. Understand?

The state is not just exploitative but still has that component whether you like it or not and that component won't go away as long as the state exists.

What "component" are you referring to?

You are trying to be like the DumbRev here? I say that is exploitation because the workers are hired by the state and work for it, not because of taxes.

See above.

You just need to trade the word man for state to classify it as state capitalism.

The state hiring workers is hardly the only difference, nimrod. Full employment is guaranteed, thereby diminishing the impact of being dismissed from a job and charging the entire social relation of employment; surplus is (theoretically) socially controlled; etc.

"The "general agricultural co-operatives" and the "agricultural farms" hire and exploit a large number of long-term and temporary workers. According to data in The Statistical Year-Book of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia of 1962, long-term workers hired by the "cooperatives" alone totalled more than 100,000 in 1961. A large number of temporary workers were also employed. As disclosed by Rad on December 1, 1962, hired labourers "are very often subject to the crudest exploitation (the working day may be as long as 15 hours), and usually their personal income is extremely low".

More quotations from your deceptive propaganda article, I see. None of the accusations leveled against Yugoslavian socialism by the Chinese government can be corroborated by any work on the subject that I've ever read. For those interested, here's how the agricultural sector was actually structured in Yugoslavia:

"In 1958, the non-socialist sector was rather heterogeneous and various forms of production relations and ownership were found in it. It included 2.2 million peasant and family agricultural holdings (10 million people) and 147,000 priavte artisans, of which only 16,000 employed hired labour.

"As we have seen, land can be owned, by private persons whose occupation is agriculture. There is a limit here. No agricultural household can own more than 10 hectares of cultivable land, i.e. excluding forests and pastures. In some areas where there are large joint families with ten or more members this maximum can be somewhat increased. The number of livestock is not limited, but peasants could not own large agricultural machines until 1967. There were in fact 5,000 privately-owned tractors in 1965, but these were mainly old and had been discarded by the socialist holdings. In the same year there were 40,000 tractors in the socialist sector. Since 1967 privately-owned agricultural machines can be used on the fields of the owner, and can be hired out for services to other agricultural holdings on condition that they are operated by the owner himself or a member of his family and not by hired labour."
Bićanić, Rudolph. Economic Policy in Socialist Yugoslavia, pp. 32-33 (emphasis added).

I've gave you numbers from the official Yugoslavia pocket book and you call it propaganda?

What you've given me are a set of manipulated data, compiled by partisan Chinese hacks.

As a rule, these contractors no longer engage in labour but only give orders, make plans and conclude contracts, travelling by car from one enterprise to another.

Even if this were true (which is doubtful), it's not as if centralized economic planning in Maoist China functioned any differently.

From the profits made by these entrepreneurs, one can see that they are one hundred per cent capitalists. Svet reported on December 8, 1961 that "the net income of some private handicraftsmen reaches one million dinars per month", and the Belgrade Vecernje novosti said on December 20, 1961 that in Belgrade "last year 116 owners of private enterprises each received an income of more than 10 million dinars". Some entrepreneurs "received an income of about 70 million dinars" in one year, which is nearly U.S.$100,000 according to the official rate of exchange.

Income distribution in Yugoslavia was characterized as having been quite egalitarian by most dispassionate analysts:

"The Yugoslav system, from the point of view of the equality of pay, has not done badly. The general picture of pay inequalities is not worse, and in fact in many cases is even better, than in other socialist countries. The Yugoslav experience suggests that a decentralized economic system can have smaller inequalities of pay than a more centralized economy."
Henryk Flakierski, "Does Yugoslavia's Self-Management System Promote Income Equality?," Flakierski and Sekine (eds.). Socialist Dilemmas: East and West, p. 58 (emphasis added).

That's not to say the system achieved remunerative justice as I (and many others) conceive of it, but then no socialist country has thus far. There were also various problems, such as inter-branch and inter-firm inequalities attributable to the nature of the market, but state socialism featured pretty significant income disparities as well.

source: Vesnik u sredu. 1961.

The extent to which the Renmin Ribao Editorial Department were accurately representing the information reported in Vesnik u sredu cannot be verified, since the Vesnik u sredu source itself is inaccessible. The transparent lies written throughout Is Yugoslavia a Socialist Country?, however, provide us with a reasonable basis for skepticism.

After all I just showed to you the self-management it still not enough to distinguish both systems.

On the contrary, it's a crucial difference. Labor-managed firms are not exploitative and they foster socialist social relations. The fact they were conspicuously absent in the NEP serves to distinguish the systems to a considerable extent.

Therefore both systems can be consider the same since both held the same main characteristics.

The only characteristics they had in common was that both models utilized markets and were organized by communist parties. By every other measure (e.g., management, extent of social property, class relations, exploitation) they were markedly dissimilar.