I think the main argument
I think the main argument it’s very simple and it’s a question of basical insctint of class. The URSS was without doubt a society of opresion, where the surplus value produced by proletariat was at control of a burocracy. Such a thing like “objective needs” of society doesn’t exist, production were plannified according interests of burocracy that not were tha same as common people. For instance, the high inversion in military industry and the few on goods of consume for the people. And as a whole the superstructure as a totalitarian state can’t be independent of the tipus of society.Maybe, if we are comparing USSR with “normal” capitalism there are peculiarities. But, even in the most extreme resolution may be consider the “bureaucratic colectivism” hipothesis. But thats implies another case of State of opresion and explotetion, thus no “critical support” can be given by an authentical socialist organizacions.I conceed we have to examine the positions of Cockshott in order to clarify the situation and thus have a better understanding as marxists of the details of the situations. Theoretical fight is a way of study and to get a better socialist formation.But the position of principles, like I have argued, is very simple.