4 ms·

> Socialism is collective ownership of capital Collective ownership in practice means state ownership. And state control. Fascism has state control as well.

skyyler 2y ago
You're pointing at a superficial similarity while ignoring the serious ideological differences. Fascism comes with a deeply stratified class hierarchy. Collective ownership in the socialist sense is incompatible with this.
- dismalaf 2y ago
  > superficial similarity You mean the actual similarity. The ideological aspect IS the superficial part when you put it into practice.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - skyyler 2y ago
    No, I mean a superficial similarity. The ideological aspect drives all aspects of government. Did you come to the understanding you have through careful consideration and thought? Are you open to re-consideration of the ideas you have about this?
- mike_ivanov 2y ago
  "deeply stratified class hierarchy" - you have no idea how it was in the Soviet Union, it was nothing short of a cast system. It was so normalized you can see it clearly in the movies of that period.
  - skyyler 2y ago
    I wasn't talking about the Soviet Union, I don't think. Soviet Union != Socialism The government in China isn't the same as the government in Vietnam isn't the same as the government in Cuba. I don't know how close any of them are to the socialist goal of collective ownership. China seems particularly far from that.
    - mike_ivanov 2y ago
      "Soviet Union != Socialism" Lolwhat?
      - skyyler 2y ago
        Is every attempt at socialism the same to you? Do you not see a meaningful difference between Laos and the Soviet Union? Or China and the Soviet Union?
        mike_ivanov 2y ago
        Are all they same to you? The Soviets were as close to socialism as it gets. It WAS the socialism in its purest possible form. This is what you get when you take the ideal marxist socialism AND mix in the actual human nature. See, to you these things are some abstract ideas, a beautiful theory. To me it is practice - this is what I lived in and lived by. So yes, I can tell the difference between SU and Laos. Laos has never been even close.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        skyyler 2y ago
        >This is what you get when you take the ideal marxist socialism AND mix in the actual human nature. That's quite an interesting take. So to you, China and Laos aren't socialist?
        mike_ivanov 2y ago
        The official position was that China (along with Yugoslavia) wasn't truly socialist (they were referred as "opportunists" - google that), a kind of socialist-capitalist-feudalist hybrid. Vietnam, Laos, and DDR were considered developing semi-socialist. Romania, Bulgaria and to some extent Albania were the "true" socialists though. The arguments were pretty solid. I think it was a fairly correct classification as it was based on who owned and managed the means of production. Only USSR, Romania and Bulgaria (and Albania) had a nearly total ban on private ownership. Again, it wasn't about who was "better" or "purer" in some superficial sense, but there was a formal criterion: who owns the means of production.
vidarh 2y ago
Many socialist and communist ideologies are explicitly opposed to even the existence of a state, and/or want a weak state. Some of them see state control of capital as inherently instituting class rule, and so consider it inherently a threat to their goals. In other words, while you will find ideologies that call themselves socialist that favor a state, the a strong state or even the existence of one is not a defining feature of socialism. It is, however, an inherent, defining feature of fascism.
- dismalaf 2y ago
  How exactly would a stateless socialism work? No matter what you call it, it'll always end up looking like a national state.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    At least a dozen different socialist ideologies have entirely different answers to that. First you'll need to decide what you consider a state. Some - e.g. anarchists and other libertarian socialists reject the state outright, and don't want anything to replace it. Others reject "only" top down/involuntary authority, or want any replacement to be minimal in scope (e.g. communes). A defining trait of a national state is sovereignty over a territory and control of the use of violence in that territory, and those are both traits that multiple socialist ideologies explicitly reject. Whether or not you believe any of the variations can work is orthogonal to the point that socialism is not a singular ideology, but a spectrum of ideologies that where many reject the state, and so the existence of one is not a defining trait of socialism. Insisting that it is, is a bit like insisting that capitalism is the same as fascism because capitalism too relies on a state (to enforce property rights). If anything, capitalism is inherently tied to the existence of a state because of the need to enforce property rights that many socialist ideologies reject. But very few socialists would equate capitalism with fascism (some would).

skyyler 2y ago

You're pointing at a superficial similarity while ignoring the serious ideological differences. Fascism comes with a deeply stratified class hierarchy. Collective ownership in the socialist sense is incompatible with this.

dismalaf 2y ago
> superficial similarity You mean the actual similarity. The ideological aspect IS the superficial part when you put it into practice.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- skyyler 2y ago
  No, I mean a superficial similarity. The ideological aspect drives all aspects of government. Did you come to the understanding you have through careful consideration and thought? Are you open to re-consideration of the ideas you have about this?
mike_ivanov 2y ago
"deeply stratified class hierarchy" - you have no idea how it was in the Soviet Union, it was nothing short of a cast system. It was so normalized you can see it clearly in the movies of that period.
- skyyler 2y ago
  I wasn't talking about the Soviet Union, I don't think. Soviet Union != Socialism The government in China isn't the same as the government in Vietnam isn't the same as the government in Cuba. I don't know how close any of them are to the socialist goal of collective ownership. China seems particularly far from that.
  - mike_ivanov 2y ago
    "Soviet Union != Socialism" Lolwhat?
    - skyyler 2y ago
      Is every attempt at socialism the same to you? Do you not see a meaningful difference between Laos and the Soviet Union? Or China and the Soviet Union?
      - mike_ivanov 2y ago
        Are all they same to you? The Soviets were as close to socialism as it gets. It WAS the socialism in its purest possible form. This is what you get when you take the ideal marxist socialism AND mix in the actual human nature. See, to you these things are some abstract ideas, a beautiful theory. To me it is practice - this is what I lived in and lived by. So yes, I can tell the difference between SU and Laos. Laos has never been even close.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        skyyler 2y ago
        >This is what you get when you take the ideal marxist socialism AND mix in the actual human nature. That's quite an interesting take. So to you, China and Laos aren't socialist?
        mike_ivanov 2y ago
        The official position was that China (along with Yugoslavia) wasn't truly socialist (they were referred as "opportunists" - google that), a kind of socialist-capitalist-feudalist hybrid. Vietnam, Laos, and DDR were considered developing semi-socialist. Romania, Bulgaria and to some extent Albania were the "true" socialists though. The arguments were pretty solid. I think it was a fairly correct classification as it was based on who owned and managed the means of production. Only USSR, Romania and Bulgaria (and Albania) had a nearly total ban on private ownership. Again, it wasn't about who was "better" or "purer" in some superficial sense, but there was a formal criterion: who owns the means of production.

vidarh 2y ago

Many socialist and communist ideologies are explicitly opposed to even the existence of a state, and/or want a weak state. Some of them see state control of capital as inherently instituting class rule, and so consider it inherently a threat to their goals. In other words, while you will find ideologies that call themselves socialist that favor a state, the a strong state or even the existence of one is not a defining feature of socialism. It is, however, an inherent, defining feature of fascism.

dismalaf 2y ago
How exactly would a stateless socialism work? No matter what you call it, it'll always end up looking like a national state.
- vidarh 2y ago
  At least a dozen different socialist ideologies have entirely different answers to that. First you'll need to decide what you consider a state. Some - e.g. anarchists and other libertarian socialists reject the state outright, and don't want anything to replace it. Others reject "only" top down/involuntary authority, or want any replacement to be minimal in scope (e.g. communes). A defining trait of a national state is sovereignty over a territory and control of the use of violence in that territory, and those are both traits that multiple socialist ideologies explicitly reject. Whether or not you believe any of the variations can work is orthogonal to the point that socialism is not a singular ideology, but a spectrum of ideologies that where many reject the state, and so the existence of one is not a defining trait of socialism. Insisting that it is, is a bit like insisting that capitalism is the same as fascism because capitalism too relies on a state (to enforce property rights). If anything, capitalism is inherently tied to the existence of a state because of the need to enforce property rights that many socialist ideologies reject. But very few socialists would equate capitalism with fascism (some would).