Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

The USSR wasn't communist. It was a socialist country that was aspiring towards communism.

5 comments
Jackie 🌹

@Radical_EgoCom @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

I dispute this.

The USSR should be understood the way it was, not the way it claimed to be. Isn't that the spirit of historical materialism anyways?

Given the historical development of the USSR, it would be most accurate to say it was distinct from socialism, state capitalism, and communism. It was a hierarchical, state society where the working class had essentially no power over the economic process. The process of accumulation in the USSR was significantly different from both socialism and capitalism.

The USSR was the result of a Blanquist coup by a developmentalist and fierce clique of highly dedicated revolutionaries, and from the start was a perversion of the democratic vision of proletarian rule envisioned by Marx and Engels.

@Radical_EgoCom @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

I dispute this.

The USSR should be understood the way it was, not the way it claimed to be. Isn't that the spirit of historical materialism anyways?

Given the historical development of the USSR, it would be most accurate to say it was distinct from socialism, state capitalism, and communism. It was a hierarchical, state society where the working class had essentially no power over the economic process. The process of accumulation in the USSR was significantly...

𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

I understand the USSR the way it was, and it was socialist. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange either directly or through the state, and the USSR had collective ownership of those things through the state, making them socialist. There are many different versions of socialism. Just because the USSR didn't adhere to your specific preferred version of socialism doesn't make it not socialist.

Jackie 🌹

@Radical_EgoCom @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

Is America even a little socialist for owning the public libraries and parks?

𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 replied to Jackie

@burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

Parks and libraries aren't means of production, so no.

Homem-Povo :v_com: replied to 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@Radical_EgoCom @burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @FisherPeter I think there's more to this than that, because there can be public companies that actually own the means of production in capitalism, and that wont make it "a little socialist". Take public transportation, water and sewer systems, electricity, schools, etc.. All of those can be run by the State when there is no private initiative to endeavour in those areas, but if it's just to fill the gap, then it is still very much capitalism.

I guess besides the objective fact/requisite of owning the means of production, a socialist State must aim to evolve to communism. Perhaps we can say it is a subjective requisite of the concept? I'm not saying that the USSR wasn't socialist in those terms, I'm just adding to your point.

@Radical_EgoCom @burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @FisherPeter I think there's more to this than that, because there can be public companies that actually own the means of production in capitalism, and that wont make it "a little socialist". Take public transportation, water and sewer systems, electricity, schools, etc.. All of those can be run by the State when there is no private initiative to endeavour in those areas, but if it's just to fill the gap, then it is still very much capitalism.

Go Up