amen. Socialism by definition requires the workers to own the means of production, and yet all the states they support again and again suppress unions and democracy. Rather tired of being associated with them just because people are confused about most political terms
I’ve had piles of tankies try to convince me that the workers in China are in fact the ones in control of the government (no mention of the means of production though 🤔), and that shit like there being over 90 million members of the party is evidence of that (rather than of oh, I donno, a dictatorship?)…
It’s the oldest trick in the fascist book, hell, the father of fascism himself made the exact same move - started on the left, then co-opted and distorted its ideas to gain power for himself and his in group, and it’s their favourite trick because it fucking works, because as a society we have been indoctrinated by those in power for a good couple of thousands of years that we NEED someone in power to survive, which again, is completely antithetical to actual leftist ideas (and human nature).
It would be funny if it wasn’t so dangerously effective.
Technically, a sufficiently democratic state would make the workers indirectly in control (or directly in a direct democracy) if the businesses are state owned. Would make them socialist however and not communist, but that might be a bit pedantic.
I’ve had piles of tankies try to convince me that the workers in China are in fact the ones in control of the government (no mention of the means of production though 🤔),
I was referring to this. If the workers in china were actually in control of the government (which they aren’t), and the businesses were controlled by the state (which quite a few of them are, but not all), then that would be a form of socialism.
As it stands however it’s a capitalist oligarchy.
I would also like to say that I’m not arguing for this specific implementation of socialism, I’m elaborating on what is required for socialism in reference to how a tankie might deluded themselves into thinking that china is communist.
Technically, and in theory maybe, and even then only if the majority of business are actually owned by the state, but not in reality, and definitely not in China (or NK, or the USSR, or anywhere else claiming to be socialist, never mind communist) lol
They got the idea that unions don’t exist under communism, but they glossed over the fact that that is because you don’t need workers to form a block against capital when there is no capital.
The soviet union had unions or just the one involuntary one if I remember correctly, but since it was essentially controlled by the state it wasn’t all that powerful. Cuba today does the same thing.
Should be noted that the soviet union was neither fascist nor communist. Fascism is a form of capitalism, and while many “communist states” (such as china) are capitalist, the SU had a planned economy.
I had one tankie try to convince me that since there was some limited workplace democracy in the SU this meant that workplaces were democratic, but if that is all that is required then I’m happy to announce that plenty of liberal democracies today are socialist.
Edit: oh woops the fascism vs planned economy thing was intended for another comment
The Soviet Union, rather than being just a planned economy, was an empire. It was a Russian empire that used Marxism as a front for its imperialist actions.
It’s more than something they did; it’s central to understanding how their economy functioned. With no imperialism, their controlled markets wouldn’t succeed. The exertion of state violence on member states for the benefit of Russians wasn’t a bug or inefficiency, but a feature.
amen. Socialism by definition requires the workers to own the means of production, and yet all the states they support again and again suppress unions and democracy. Rather tired of being associated with them just because people are confused about most political terms
Yup.
I’ve had piles of tankies try to convince me that the workers in China are in fact the ones in control of the government (no mention of the means of production though 🤔), and that shit like there being over 90 million members of the party is evidence of that (rather than of oh, I donno, a dictatorship?)…
It’s the oldest trick in the fascist book, hell, the father of fascism himself made the exact same move - started on the left, then co-opted and distorted its ideas to gain power for himself and his in group, and it’s their favourite trick because it fucking works, because as a society we have been indoctrinated by those in power for a good couple of thousands of years that we NEED someone in power to survive, which again, is completely antithetical to actual leftist ideas (and human nature).
It would be funny if it wasn’t so dangerously effective.
Technically, a sufficiently democratic state would make the workers indirectly in control (or directly in a direct democracy) if the businesses are state owned. Would make them socialist however and not communist, but that might be a bit pedantic.
Technically, it just leads to corporate capture of the state.
You are using the term technically incorrectly :P
I was referring to this. If the workers in china were actually in control of the government (which they aren’t), and the businesses were controlled by the state (which quite a few of them are, but not all), then that would be a form of socialism.
As it stands however it’s a capitalist oligarchy.
I would also like to say that I’m not arguing for this specific implementation of socialism, I’m elaborating on what is required for socialism in reference to how a tankie might deluded themselves into thinking that china is communist.
Technically, and in theory maybe, and even then only if the majority of business are actually owned by the state, but not in reality, and definitely not in China (or NK, or the USSR, or anywhere else claiming to be socialist, never mind communist) lol
They got the idea that unions don’t exist under communism, but they glossed over the fact that that is because you don’t need workers to form a block against capital when there is no capital.
The soviet union had unions or just the one involuntary one if I remember correctly, but since it was essentially controlled by the state it wasn’t all that powerful. Cuba today does the same thing.
Should be noted that the soviet union was neither fascist nor communist. Fascism is a form of capitalism, and while many “communist states” (such as china) are capitalist, the SU had a planned economy.
I had one tankie try to convince me that since there was some limited workplace democracy in the SU this meant that workplaces were democratic, but if that is all that is required then I’m happy to announce that plenty of liberal democracies today are socialist.
Edit: oh woops the fascism vs planned economy thing was intended for another comment
The Soviet Union, rather than being just a planned economy, was an empire. It was a Russian empire that used Marxism as a front for its imperialist actions.
It certainly did a bunch of imperialism, yeah
It’s more than something they did; it’s central to understanding how their economy functioned. With no imperialism, their controlled markets wouldn’t succeed. The exertion of state violence on member states for the benefit of Russians wasn’t a bug or inefficiency, but a feature.