this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
1268 points (94.1% liked)

memes

17301 readers
1194 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] will_steal_your_username@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (8 children)

I'm not going to spend too much time debating a tankie, but I think most of these regimes kinda by definition are not socialist given how little power the workers had. When unions are suppressed and the military and the dictatorship are essentially the same thing, how could they be socialist? Socialism requires that workers own their workplaces, that they run them. This was not the case in the soviet union nor is it the case in china today, where businesses are either organized by the state (like in the soviet union) or mixed (CCP). The state organizing businesses or whatever you want to call them would be fine if the people owned the state, but again these were/are dictatorships.

The people don't control anything at all in your so called marxist states, and so therefore they are not marxist. Centralization is not something that I'm opposed to, but what does it matter how decentralized or centralized something is if it's not also democratically owned?

I would probably call myself a marxist if tankies hadn't so thoroughly stained the term.

Edit: I am also well aware that there were unions in the soviet union, hence the name. However they had little power, and mostly could only ever push for worker safety regulations.

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

I would probably call myself a marxist if tankies hadn’t so thoroughly stained the term.

So you've read Marx and Engles and agree with them?

Edit: I am also well aware that there were unions in the soviet union, hence the name

No actually. The Soviet Union was a union of national republics, hence the name.


I want to "throw" Soviet Democracy at you, but I haven't finished my epub of it yet... I should get on it.
Oh, I have This Soviet World. Doesn't go into as much detail, but does go over it.

[–] will_steal_your_username@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

No actually. The Soviet Union was a union of national republics, hence the name.

Ah, I misremembered. I thought soviet meant council as in a union.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Soviets were "units." Not the same as unions, they were horizontal units that elected delegates from among themselves to participate in soviets of soviets vertically. I have a diagram linked in my other comment.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)