• DragonTypeWyvern
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Zorque@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • DragonTypeWyvern
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        1 month ago

        Uh huh. Thanks for explaining that to me, you’re so smart and know so much about this :)

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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

          • DragonTypeWyvern
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            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.

            • Zorque@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              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”

              • DragonTypeWyvern
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                Go to your library

                Search for “Politics and economy of the Soviet Union”

                Start reading

      • DragonTypeWyvern
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes, that would be a collective meant to represent the people, good job.

          • DragonTypeWyvern
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            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.