1921, Lenin justified the introduction of state capitalism controlled politically by the dictatorship of the proletariat to further central control and develop the productive forces, making the following point: Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory. Lenin argued the state should temporarily run the economy which would eventually be taken over by workers. To Lenin, state capitalism did not mean the state would run most of the economy, but that state capitalism would be one of five elements of the economy: By the left As a term and concept, state capitalism has been used by various socialists, including anarchists, Marxists, Leninists, left communists, Marxist–Leninists and Trotskyists. Anarchists Perhaps the earliest critique of the Soviet Union as state capitalist was formulated by the Russian anarchists as documented in Paul Avrich's work on Russian anarchism. The Russian anarchists' claim would become standard in anarchist works. Of the Soviet Union, the prominent anarchist Emma Goldman wrote an article from 1935 titled "There Is No Communism in Russia" in which she argued: Such a condition of affairs may be called state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it in any sense Communistic [...] Soviet Russia, it must now be obvious, is an absolute despotism politically and the crassest form of state capitalism economically. When speaking about Marxism, Murray Bookchin said the following: Marxism, in fact, becomes ideology. It is assimilated by the most advanced forms of state capitalist movement — notably Russia. By an incredible irony of history, Marxian 'socialism' turns out to be in large part the very state capitalism that Marx failed to anticipate in the dialectic of capitalism. The proletariat, instead of developing into a revolutionary class within the womb of capitalism, turns out to be an organ within the body of bourgeois society [...] Lenin sensed this and described 'socialism' as 'nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people'. This is an extraordinary statement if one thinks out its implications, and a mouthful of contradictions. While speaking about Leninism, the authors of An Anarchist FAQ say: Rather than present an effective and efficient means of achieving revolution, the Leninist model is elitist, hierarchical and highly inefficient in achieving a socialist society. At best, these parties play a harmful role in the class struggle by