• FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months 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 [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months 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
        ·
        6 months 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 [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months 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
            ·
            6 months 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.