• Cowbee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Who in the party represented another class? Workers, and who else? As the USSR liberalized towards the end, there were bourgeois elements added, but for most of the USSR’s existence there was no other class.

    Calling correcting your misconceptions “ad hominems” is goofy, lmao.

    • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The Wikipedia article you started with had this info. The party was more interested with remaining in power and benefitting it’s members than the working class after Lenin. They banned any dissenting voice and cracked down on the working class. They became closer to a royal family in a monarchy with Stalin. And I do repeat that the workers had no control of the means of production after 1924, potentially even after 1921.

      • Cowbee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        So it still had elections, and workers still participated, got it. Via having elections and participating in government, workers can direct production.

        What royal family is as large as the USSR’s Communist Party and allowed new membership?

        Flawed Socialism is still Socialism.

        • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Are you being purposely optuse or bad faith? The elections were symbolic with no effect on production as I already said and provided sources for. It’s not socialism if workers have no control over the means of production.

          • Cowbee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            You did not provide sources. There are facts that they existed, and differing opinions on the extent to which workers controlled the Means of Production. The elections did not disappear under Stalin, opposition parties were banned. This means it was flawed, but ultimately still existed, which is my point.

            You cannot say that the Means of Production were state owned, and elections regularly practiced, and still say it was not Socialist. We are not arguing with whether or not the USSR was Socialist, but its effectiveness in carrying out the will of the Working Class. That much is obviously not 100%, the party was corrupt, you will not find pushback from me there, but it was Socialist.

            You are arguing off of vibes.

            The Communist Party was fundamentally not a new class. They did not own the Means of Production any more than the average worker, any worker could join, and the party was massive. A royal family would have engaged in feudalism, but that wasn’t the case.

            • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I guess you missed the link I provided: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union

              During those elections you were voting for local party picks that all had the same instructions from the party. Who won had no effect on how things were run. The high ups in the party controlled how the means of production were used, not the workers. As you may recall from your own link factions in the party were banned meaning dissent got you ousted.

              Elections that don’t give workers any control over the means of production are meaningless and not socialism. How many times do I have to repeat this?

              • Cowbee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Your source backs me up, I read it.

                Workers did have control. It was not ironclad, but there also wasn’t a separate class, and the interests of the workers were advanced, such as free education, healthcare, etc.

                You can repeat that you believe 7 to be equal to 0 all you want, repeating it won’t make you correct.

                You are arguing off of vibes.

                • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  No it doesn’t, I read it too. If this has degraded to you just going nuhuh we can call it a day, that’s no longer fun.

                  • Cowbee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    I think you should look in the mirror before you attack me, lol