this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
81 points (76.5% liked)

Memes

50419 readers
704 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zloubida -5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

No. I defined what's socialism for me (owning of the mean of production by the workers), and all can see that the USSR and friends weren't that. Then I gave Marx's definition of socialism, even if I'm not Marxist (a mode of production were the usefulness replaced the price as value), and all can see that the USSR and friends weren't that. Thus they're something else, and I used a term that Lenin himself used: state capitalism (which wasn't limited to the NEP). Please stop with your strawmen.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You did not give "Marx's definition of Socialism," you erased dialectics from his analysis of the transition from one mode of production to the next. Marx frequently referenced commodity production even remaining in lower-stage Communism, the goal is to abolish it but the presence of it alone does not disqualify a system from being Socialist. State Capitalism was a descriptor for the NEP by Lenin, and he still considered the USSR to be Socialist in that it was a transitional state towards Communism.

It's extremely condescending when you act like you know more about a subject while admitting to not studying it.

[–] zloubida -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

admitting to not studying it.

Where did I admitted that?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You said you aren't a Marxist, and you've claimed things about Marxism that are undeniably false. If I'm mistaken and you have studied Marxism, then I apologize for misunderstanding you, though that doesn't validate your misconceptions.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If your definition of socialism is "ownership by the workers, but they can't form any kind of representative body to administrate production (ie. a state)", then you've just defined socialism out of existence. Unless the expecting the entire population to come together and form a consensus on every decision, ("what color should we make the wall paper? Oh well time to get all eight billion humans on a group call").