A system of government wherein a few at the top have all the power and they dictate how everyone acts is antithetical to an ideal where everyone has equal power.
There’s the inherent “fallback” to absolutist schemes, which worked well in the small communities human evolved in, but not so well for large communities.
The Soviets would have agreed that they hadn’t achieved communism but China is an example of state capitalism, not the Soviets. They were socialists, and they were also authoritarians. The means of production were collectively owned.
Whether they were good Marxists when their system created just another oppressive heirarchy is another question, but the richest Soviet kleptocrat wasn’t anywhere close to a billionaire as far as I’m aware.
If someone wants to prove otherwise they’re welcome to.
Just because someone says they represent everyone, and that what they own is owned by everyone, doesn’t make it true.
Did people have a say in what they could do with that infrastructure, or was it ultimately just up to the people in charge? If the former, it was socialism, if the latter, it wasn’t.
Be more concerned with what people do, not necessarily what they say, when ascribing ideals to them.
You sound like you know better because you were there with Lenin. That is besides the fact that in almost 80 years a lot changed in USSR and what maybe was true at first, was not so in the end
Or I’ve read books by scholars describing their systems and their evolution over time and it’s just not really worth arguing with a bunch of vaguely leftist dorks who think the fucking USSR wasn’t socialist because they were authoritarian.
Which books? I’d love to read more on this topic. Maybe I’ll get some actual insight outside of “No, you’re wrong because I know what’s right, you dork”
If a charity executive embezzles from donations, is the organization no longer a charity?
You can point to the flaws all day, but the means of production were collectively owned. It’s what happened after that where things started going wrong.
A system of government wherein a few at the top have all the power and they dictate how everyone acts is antithetical to an ideal where everyone has equal power.
There’s the inherent “fallback” to absolutist schemes, which worked well in the small communities human evolved in, but not so well for large communities.
State capitalism isn’t communism nor socialism
The Soviets would have agreed that they hadn’t achieved communism but China is an example of state capitalism, not the Soviets. They were socialists, and they were also authoritarians. The means of production were collectively owned.
Whether they were good Marxists when their system created just another oppressive heirarchy is another question, but the richest Soviet kleptocrat wasn’t anywhere close to a billionaire as far as I’m aware.
If someone wants to prove otherwise they’re welcome to.
Just because someone says they represent everyone, and that what they own is owned by everyone, doesn’t make it true.
Did people have a say in what they could do with that infrastructure, or was it ultimately just up to the people in charge? If the former, it was socialism, if the latter, it wasn’t.
Be more concerned with what people do, not necessarily what they say, when ascribing ideals to them.
Uh huh. Thanks for explaining that to me, you’re so smart and know so much about this :)
👍
You sound like you know better because you were there with Lenin. That is besides the fact that in almost 80 years a lot changed in USSR and what maybe was true at first, was not so in the end
Or I’ve read books by scholars describing their systems and their evolution over time and it’s just not really worth arguing with a bunch of vaguely leftist dorks who think the fucking USSR wasn’t socialist because they were authoritarian.
One of the two things.
Which books? I’d love to read more on this topic. Maybe I’ll get some actual insight outside of “No, you’re wrong because I know what’s right, you dork”
if by “collectively owned” you mean “owned by the government”, sure
Yes, that would be a collective meant to represent the people, good job.
“meant to” is doing some very heavy lifting there, chief
If a charity executive embezzles from donations, is the organization no longer a charity?
You can point to the flaws all day, but the means of production were collectively owned. It’s what happened after that where things started going wrong.
Actually, it is no longer a charity. It’s a scam.
I can see how someone with absolutely no idea how things work or a sense of scale that reaches beyond their immediate vision might think that.