Socialism

5252 readers

283 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

dessalines@lemmy.ml

What is your opinion of Joseph Stalin? (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 week ago by AnonomousWolf@lemm.ee to c/socialism@lemmy.ml

139 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I believe in socialism, but I feel Stalin shouldn't be idolised due to things like the Gulag.

I would like more people to become socialist, but I feel not condemning Stalin doesn't help the cause.

I've tried to have a constructieve conversation about this, but I basically get angry comments calling me stupid for believing he did atrocious things.

That's not how you win someone over.

I struggle to believe the Gulag etc. Never happened, and if it happened I firmly believe Stalin should be condemned.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I do agree that no system is static. But I do not agree that because all systems are dynamic, that all systems must veer to public ownership or are regressing.

I do not believe that all products, markets, niches, and so on are in the interest, nor supported by the entire public, but that some products, irregardless of the public interest can still be deeply important or wanted by a minority of people. Thus they should have a route to still be created, but the public not obligated to support it.

In an example, Potentially over time that once niche minority product becomes of such importance and dominance that the public begins to gain control and wishes to support and dedicate public resources to it.

This churning is what keeps the system dynamic, but it also does not conform to some ideal where all products and ideas must be started and filtered by the public interest and consensus.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

Systems must veer towards their trajectories. Markets naturally centralize and develop their own internal methods of planning, at which point it is more efficient to fold them into the public sector and centrally plan them. There's no such thing as a company that stays the same size, nor is there a reason to not have them in the public sector when it is more efficient to do so and integrate with the rest of a planned economy.

Furthermore, being desired by a minority of the population doesn't mean cooperatives are more effective at accomplishing said goal. They can just as easily be folded into the public sector, the profit motive is unnecessary.

Further, even in centrally planned economies, there does not need to be such an even filter across the entire economy. Public ownership does not mean the end of choice. All in all, I think you're confused on what Central Planning and Public Ownership actually looks like.