114
submitted 3 days ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago

"koala bears are bears, even if they're pretending they're marsupials"

[-] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

It's more: koala bears are marsupials, even if they're called bears.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago

Yes, that was my point. Socialism doesn't become capitalism just because you call them "state capitalism". Just like koala bears don't become bears just because you call them that.

[-] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

And state capitalism doesn't become socialism just because you call it that.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago

Your only argument was essentially "it has capitalism in the name!".

Now you just have "nuh-uh"

[-] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

admitting to not studying it.

Where did I admitted that?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago

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").

[-] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

If you think workers had anything to say in the USSR, you're delusional.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

You can drop the ableism, and the proletariat ran the government in the USSR. The democratic structure looked like this:

[-] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago
[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

It's factually true, but you don't like it, so time to deploy the thought terminating cliche

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago

You can also read historical texts like Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan, as well. There's also tons of information from the Soviet Archives, we know quite well that this is accurate information. Labelling everything that goes against your understanding as "propaganda" without doing the legwork to prove it is shallow.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

K. Very compelling point. "If you disagree with me you are mentally unwell."

But you've already condemned any representative representative body administrating things, so I'm not sure what your point is anyway.

[-] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Disagreements on opinions and beliefs are sane, normal and even cool. I love a good debate! Disagreements on facts aren't.

But you've already condemned any representative representative body administrating things

No, I never did that.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

Well the fact is that you're wrong. So if you try to say you're right, it means you're insane.

No, I never did that

Yes, you did. That's a fact, by the way, so you claiming otherwise is just you being unwell.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
114 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

50413 readers
614 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