• Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 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.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          24 hours ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            24 hours ago

            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.

              • lad@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                You sound like you know better because you were there with Lenin. That is besides the fact that in almost 80 years a lot changed in USSR and what maybe was true at first, was not so in the end

                • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  12 hours ago

                  Or I’ve read books by scholars describing their systems and their evolution over time and it’s just not really worth arguing with a bunch of vaguely leftist dorks who think the fucking USSR wasn’t socialist because they were authoritarian.

                  One of the two things.

                • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  23 hours ago

                  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.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      the soviet union was socialist, which is supposed to be a slow transition to communism as opposed to anarchism.