this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
766 points (97.8% liked)

Memes

45895 readers
1095 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
766
I'm beginning to notice a pattern (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 months ago by sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Calling something state capitalist when capitalism heavily relies on the state by default

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this, but perhaps you should look things up before pompously trying to diss people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Perhaps you should read theory. The USSR was State Capitalist with respect to the NEP, but was Socialist for its entire existence

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

People's theory is just fine. The problem for you is that they kept reading theory that was written after thr 1970s.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I can only read 2 pages from what you linked, and am not paying 40 dollars to read the rest, certainly not when they already display a gross oversimplification and anti-Marxist definition of Capitalism (critically leaving out competition, Capital accumulation, and so forth), and therefore take a vulgar revisionist stance. There's no analysis of class dynamics, just an over-reliance on the presense of Wage Labor.

Please read theory, I can make recommendations for the basics if you'd like.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There’s no analysis of class dynamics

We do not think there was a struggle between capitalism and communism across the twentieth century. For us, communism never ended in that century because it never arose there. Our conclusion is built on the fact that communism –if understood as a distinct, non-capitalist class structure– was neither a significant, nor a sustained part of the history of any of the nations conventionally labeled communist.

emphasis mine, their entire argument is based on the fact that the USSR lacked the class dynamics of communism, thus weren't communist.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

Nobody, not even the USSR, claims they reached upper-stage Communism. They were Communist in ideology, and Socialist in structure. Their argument is a left-anticommunist argument against a claim nobody made.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

Wikipedia