• WillStealYourUsername@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The soviet union and the CCP today famously committed a number of genocides, killed dissenters, and are one party states. You seem to think I mean liberal democracy when I say democracy. I mean democracy.

    Soviet Democracy by Priestland seems to disagree with you on how democratic the worplaces were. The power of the unions was greatly dialed back very quickly, with managers being reintroduced and the economy becoming more hierarchical as time went on.

    Incorrect. You are referring to cooperatives,

    Socialism being when the workers own the means of production is kinda essential, be it directly or indirectly. This is the basis on which I state that tankies are not socialists. I’m guessing you think that the workers indirectly own the means in the soviet union, or that the direct democracy you seem to think existed there for any meaningful amount of time counted (it did count, but again, only briefly).

    Anything you’ve said about china is just flat out wrong. The soviet union is certainly complicated, and much could be debated there, especially since the power of the unions fluctuated with time, but workers have literally zero power under the ccp.

    But we clearly disagree on reality, no further debate is necessary. Have a nice day I guess.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      The soviet union and the CCP today famously committed a number of genocides, killed dissenters, and are one party states. You seem to think I mean liberal democracy when I say democracy. I mean democracy.

      Having a one party state is not anti-democratic. What matters is what you can vote on, which the Soviet system allowed for moreso than liberal democracy.

      Soviet Democracy by Priestland seems to disagree with you on how democratic the worplaces were. The power of the unions was greatly dialed back very quickly, with managers being reintroduced and the economy becoming more hierarchical as time went on.

      Again, hierarchy and managers are not against Marxism, nor is direct worker self management Marxism.

      Socialism being when the workers own the means of production is kinda essential, be it directly or indirectly. This is the basis on which I state that tankies are not socialists. I’m guessing you think that the workers indirectly own the means in the soviet union, or that the direct democracy you seem to think existed there for any meaningful amount of time counted (it did count, but again, only briefly).

      I highly recommend reading Why do Marxists fail to bring about the “Worker’s Paradise?”, it’s an excellent article on economic democracy with respect to Historical Materialism.

      Anything you’ve said about china is just flat out wrong. The soviet union is certainly complicated, and much could be debated there, especially since the power of the unions fluctuated with time, but workers have literally zero power under the ccp.

      I literally linked you a wikipedia article, I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. There’s workplace democracy in China, and public property is entitely state planned. I wish you’d throw me a bone here we can work with, you just denied everything outright.

      But we clearly disagree on reality, no further debate is necessary. Have a nice day I guess.

      I really implore you to have an open mind, and again, read Marx regarding Historical and Dialectical Materialism. Elementary Principles of Philosophy is my personal favorite overview of the concepts.