Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

87 comments

  • Genuinely curious about the standard by which you evaluate whether the means of production are collectively owned. For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production. Another person might say it looks like each industry being controlled by a union representing the workers in said industry. A third could say that it means anytime a person operates a machine, they own it and can decide what to do with it, until they stop using it.

    Is there any concievable physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers and in what form? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.

    • For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production.

      That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.

      Is there any physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.

      "Does socialism really MEAN anything?

      "

      Really showing the libs, I see.

      • That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.

        Are bourgeoisie liberal states democratic? Curious your thoughts.

        • Are bourgeoisie liberal states democratic? Curious your thoughts.

          To varying degrees. Certainly more than the USSR. Not really sure why anyone thinks "You can vote for the Party Approved candidate or not vote" is a real vote, other than a deep desire to throat authoritarian boots.

          • “You can vote for the Party Approved candidate or not vote”

            I don't really think its functionally different in the USA (or other liberal states). Democrats and Republicans are quite literally "Party Approved Candidates". The presence of independents is incidental, and the USSR had independents in its parliament as well. This is why I view both the USA and USSR as "democratic", but I would view neither as socialist.

            • The difference is the state does not choose who their opposition is and you are actually allowed to replace the governing system as a whole in liberal states which was not permitted in the USSR.

            • I don’t really think its functionally different in the USA (or other liberal states). Democrats and Republicans are quite literally “Party Approved Candidates”.

              Independents run in the US all the time. Democrats and Republicans both have party primaries, in which the 'party-approved' candidates are voted for and ran. I don't even remember the last time there was an uncontested national election.

              The presence of independents is incidental,

              Why? Because it's inconvenient to the point?

              and the USSR had independents in its parliament as well.

              The 'independents' were party-approved, and almost always elected uncontested as well. Contested elections, to my memory, were not even allowed between independents and Communist candidates until 8 fucking 9.

              This is why I view both the USA and USSR as “democratic”, but I would view neither as socialist.

              Neither the US nor the USSR are socialist, but the USA is much more democratic than the USSR. Fuck's sake, 19th century Britain was more democratic than the USSR, and 19th century Britain was not very fucking democratic.

87 comments