It's definitely not unique. China at least did the same thing in the early 50s, regulating a still-capitalist economy while transitioning to communes and state-owned businesses, a process which required massive literacy programs and bringing a lot of former landlords, businessmen, and other upper/middle class professionals into the fold because they were systemically the only literate groups pre-revolution and the need for literate functionaries was so dire that pardoning any who peacefully surrendered their claims to properties and agreed to work with the new system was seen as necessary.
I don’t think Lenin or the early Soviet leaders should be faulted for embracing what was entirely necessary to move the USSR forward.
Right. I'm just looking at his words through the lens of them not making much literal sense, but in the context of what they actually, materially did and the conditions they were faced with they make sense as an attempt to explain a pragmatic move (allowing regulated capitalism to persist as a holding pattern until collectivization and state-run industries could be accomplished) with a marxist theory explanation rather than openly admitting weakness or limitations at a time when they were beset on all sides by reactionaries.
Like the general progression of economies and the conditions for revolution exist more in a general sense than a strict order that a given place must follow. Like a socialist state offering aid to indigenous horticulturalists wouldn't say "oh well first we need you to establish an agricultural slave-based economy administered by a city-state with an oligarchic council, then get yourselves a king, then kill the king and get some businessmen, then kill the businessmen and we'll give you tractors, modern medicine, and a railway," because they have to progress through all the stages, because that's obviously not true. At the time of the Russian Revolution they materially had the precursors they needed to go on to establish the industrial socialist state that they'd become, but they needed time to actually build up and create those institutions: they didn't need regulated capitalism to produce the conditions they needed to build socialism, they needed it as a harm-reducing stop-gap measure to keep people working, fed, and housed while the state and party was building institutions needed for a socialist system.
I don't even know what such a stop-gap measure would look like in an imperial core country these days. Trying to quickly nationalize as much corporate logistics infrastructure as possible while trying to bring agricultural workers to the table to keep nationalized corporate agricultural holdings productive, while working to fully coopt Amazon supply lines and move smaller private businesses to a coop model under some local umbrella? I don't think there's a more solid answer than "literally whatever concession it takes to keep food growing and supplies moving while people stay busy and provided for, until a better system can be built," which is generally what successful revolutionaries have done in the past.
It's definitely not unique. China at least did the same thing in the early 50s, regulating a still-capitalist economy while transitioning to communes and state-owned businesses, a process which required massive literacy programs and bringing a lot of former landlords, businessmen, and other upper/middle class professionals into the fold because they were systemically the only literate groups pre-revolution and the need for literate functionaries was so dire that pardoning any who peacefully surrendered their claims to properties and agreed to work with the new system was seen as necessary.
Right. I'm just looking at his words through the lens of them not making much literal sense, but in the context of what they actually, materially did and the conditions they were faced with they make sense as an attempt to explain a pragmatic move (allowing regulated capitalism to persist as a holding pattern until collectivization and state-run industries could be accomplished) with a marxist theory explanation rather than openly admitting weakness or limitations at a time when they were beset on all sides by reactionaries.
Like the general progression of economies and the conditions for revolution exist more in a general sense than a strict order that a given place must follow. Like a socialist state offering aid to indigenous horticulturalists wouldn't say "oh well first we need you to establish an agricultural slave-based economy administered by a city-state with an oligarchic council, then get yourselves a king, then kill the king and get some businessmen, then kill the businessmen and we'll give you tractors, modern medicine, and a railway," because they have to progress through all the stages, because that's obviously not true. At the time of the Russian Revolution they materially had the precursors they needed to go on to establish the industrial socialist state that they'd become, but they needed time to actually build up and create those institutions: they didn't need regulated capitalism to produce the conditions they needed to build socialism, they needed it as a harm-reducing stop-gap measure to keep people working, fed, and housed while the state and party was building institutions needed for a socialist system.
I don't even know what such a stop-gap measure would look like in an imperial core country these days. Trying to quickly nationalize as much corporate logistics infrastructure as possible while trying to bring agricultural workers to the table to keep nationalized corporate agricultural holdings productive, while working to fully coopt Amazon supply lines and move smaller private businesses to a coop model under some local umbrella? I don't think there's a more solid answer than "literally whatever concession it takes to keep food growing and supplies moving while people stay busy and provided for, until a better system can be built," which is generally what successful revolutionaries have done in the past.