• Eldritch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    The funny thing about that is that Russia was never communist. Though many don’t understand the difference between communism and Communism. The irony being that Communism was basically cosplay of communism. But never actually communism.

    • bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean, there was a pretty solid chance of actual communism before the Bolshevik coup. I think that if the Soviets overthrew the provisional government we’d have a fully socialist government, which could have eventually became communist.

      It was still not communist, but lets remember that it could have been before the party communists made their state capitalist government in the name of communism

    • Tommi Nieminen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Adding to that, Russia was never communist or even socialist. Marx never intended ownership as a concept to be discarded, only that workers would always own what they needed to work.

    • Saledovil
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I arrived at that conclusion by analyzing what ownership means. Ownership means that you either control something, or the person who controls it is accountable to you. In a state with an authoritarian dictator, such as Stalin, the dictator controls the means of production, if not directly, then through his subordinates, who are accountable to him. Therefore, in the soviet union, the workers didn’t control the means of production, Stalin did. Basically, the Soviet Union was the endstage of capitalism.

      • freebee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes, in a similar way, north Korea is closer to being a monarchie than anything else. Totalitarian monarchy.

        • Saledovil
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Maybe “absolutist” would be a better term.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Soviet Union was a state. Therefore not stateless, therefore not communist. The Soviet Union had a separate political class. One that scapegoated, imprisoned, and even slaughtered any proletariat that dared criticize the vanguard party and it’s leaders. Therefore not classes, not communist.

        The Soviet Union nominally implemented Communism. But communism and Communism aren’t the same thing. I could name my dog Communism. And my dog would be Communism. But not communism. The soviets cosplayed communism. But never were or will be communist.