3 ms·

You're pointing at a superficial similarity while ignoring the serious ideological differences. Fascism comes with a deeply stratified class hierarchy. Collect

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 1y ago
> superficial similarity You mean the actual similarity. The ideological aspect IS the superficial part when you put it into practice.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- skyyler 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
    "Soviet Union != Socialism" Lolwhat?
    - skyyler 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
        [deleted]
        skyyler 1y 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 1y 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.

dismalaf 1y ago

> superficial similarity You mean the actual similarity. The ideological aspect IS the superficial part when you put it into practice.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
skyyler 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
  "Soviet Union != Socialism" Lolwhat?
  - skyyler 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - skyyler 1y 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 1y 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.