▲ 781 ▼ Uyghurs and Ukraine are great filters for figuring out who's actually a fascist (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by PugJesus@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world 250 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (4 children) The funny thing about that is that Russia was never communist. Though many don't understand the difference between communism and Communism. The irony being that Communism was basically cosplay of communism. But never actually communism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 years ago I mean, there was a pretty solid chance of actual communism before the Bolshevik coup. I think that if the Soviets overthrew the provisional government we’d have a fully socialist government, which could have eventually became communist. It was still not communist, but lets remember that it could have been before the party communists made their state capitalist government in the name of communism permalink fedilink source parent [–] Legisign@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago Adding to that, Russia was never communist or even socialist. Marx never intended ownership as a concept to be discarded, only that workers would always own what they needed to work. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I arrived at that conclusion by analyzing what ownership means. Ownership means that you either control something, or the person who controls it is accountable to you. In a state with an authoritarian dictator, such as Stalin, the dictator controls the means of production, if not directly, then through his subordinates, who are accountable to him. Therefore, in the soviet union, the workers didn't control the means of production, Stalin did. Basically, the Soviet Union was the endstage of capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, in a similar way, north Korea is closer to being a monarchie than anything else. Totalitarian monarchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago Maybe "absolutist" would be a better term. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) well yeah, because it was the soviet union that was communist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago The Soviet Union was a state. Therefore not stateless, therefore not communist. The Soviet Union had a separate political class. One that scapegoated, imprisoned, and even slaughtered any proletariat that dared criticize the vanguard party and it's leaders. Therefore not classes, not communist. The Soviet Union nominally implemented Communism. But communism and Communism aren't the same thing. I could name my dog Communism. And my dog would be Communism. But not communism. The soviets cosplayed communism. But never were or will be communist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 years ago I mean, there was a pretty solid chance of actual communism before the Bolshevik coup. I think that if the Soviets overthrew the provisional government we’d have a fully socialist government, which could have eventually became communist. It was still not communist, but lets remember that it could have been before the party communists made their state capitalist government in the name of communism permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Legisign@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago Adding to that, Russia was never communist or even socialist. Marx never intended ownership as a concept to be discarded, only that workers would always own what they needed to work. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I arrived at that conclusion by analyzing what ownership means. Ownership means that you either control something, or the person who controls it is accountable to you. In a state with an authoritarian dictator, such as Stalin, the dictator controls the means of production, if not directly, then through his subordinates, who are accountable to him. Therefore, in the soviet union, the workers didn't control the means of production, Stalin did. Basically, the Soviet Union was the endstage of capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, in a similar way, north Korea is closer to being a monarchie than anything else. Totalitarian monarchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago Maybe "absolutist" would be a better term. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, in a similar way, north Korea is closer to being a monarchie than anything else. Totalitarian monarchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago Maybe "absolutist" would be a better term. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago Maybe "absolutist" would be a better term. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) well yeah, because it was the soviet union that was communist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago The Soviet Union was a state. Therefore not stateless, therefore not communist. The Soviet Union had a separate political class. One that scapegoated, imprisoned, and even slaughtered any proletariat that dared criticize the vanguard party and it's leaders. Therefore not classes, not communist. The Soviet Union nominally implemented Communism. But communism and Communism aren't the same thing. I could name my dog Communism. And my dog would be Communism. But not communism. The soviets cosplayed communism. But never were or will be communist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago The Soviet Union was a state. Therefore not stateless, therefore not communist. The Soviet Union had a separate political class. One that scapegoated, imprisoned, and even slaughtered any proletariat that dared criticize the vanguard party and it's leaders. Therefore not classes, not communist. The Soviet Union nominally implemented Communism. But communism and Communism aren't the same thing. I could name my dog Communism. And my dog would be Communism. But not communism. The soviets cosplayed communism. But never were or will be communist. permalink fedilink source parent
