this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
395 points (90.9% liked)

Comic Strips

12960 readers
1987 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 58 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Imagine thinking Soviet Union was communist

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 14 hours ago

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.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

State capitalism isn't communism nor socialism

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

if by "collectively owned" you mean "owned by the government", sure

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"meant to" is doing some very heavy lifting there, chief

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Actually, it is no longer a charity. It's a scam.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social -5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

So we're doing ad hominem now, eh. Not unexpected, but somewhat disappointing.