• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    The USSR wasn’t really socialist at its core, and the new Russia really isn’t capitalist at its core.

    In the former system, the theory was that the people / workers owned the means of production. The reality was that it was the leader and those close to him who really “owned” them in the sense that they had power over them. It was all about who you knew in that system. In a true socialist system, it should have been up to the people to make decisions, but in the USSR it was up to the party’s elites, and the people just had to live with it.

    In the current system, it’s Putin and his close circle who own everything. While they allow capitalist type activities to happen, the capitalists don’t really own anything. If they displease Putin anything they have can be taken away on a whim. If you stay on Putin’s good side, or at least stay beneath his notice, you can operate as a capitalist. But, become too successful and you’ll be reminded who’s in charge.

    Both true socialism and true capitalism require that the rule of law apply to everyone, even the leaders. If the leader can just ignore the laws and seize the “means of production” without facing consequences, it’s authoritarianism, not capitalism or communism / socialism.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        The USSR was a flawed form of Socialism, but was fundamentally Socialist

        Was the rule of law strong enough that decisions were being made by the people, or were they being made by authoritarians? Because if key decisions weren’t being made by the people, it wasn’t socialist.

        The Capitalists are the Oligarchs!

        The Oligarchs are feudalists, not capitalists.