this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
1249 points (89.4% liked)
Memes
45609 readers
962 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, absolutely. The Russian Federation is the direct result of a collapsing Socialist system in the hands of Capitalists, just because fewer and fewer people own things doesn't mean it isn't a direct result of Capitalization of the economy.
In fact that's the natural progression of a Capitalist economy
The USSR wasn't really socialist at its core, and the new Russia really isn't capitalist at its core.
In the former system, the theory was that the people / workers owned the means of production. The reality was that it was the leader and those close to him who really "owned" them in the sense that they had power over them. It was all about who you knew in that system. In a true socialist system, it should have been up to the people to make decisions, but in the USSR it was up to the party's elites, and the people just had to live with it.
In the current system, it's Putin and his close circle who own everything. While they allow capitalist type activities to happen, the capitalists don't really own anything. If they displease Putin anything they have can be taken away on a whim. If you stay on Putin's good side, or at least stay beneath his notice, you can operate as a capitalist. But, become too successful and you'll be reminded who's in charge.
Both true socialism and true capitalism require that the rule of law apply to everyone, even the leaders. If the leader can just ignore the laws and seize the "means of production" without facing consequences, it's authoritarianism, not capitalism or communism / socialism.
The USSR was a flawed form of Socialism, but was fundamentally Socialist. The majority of the economy was run by Worker Soviets, in a process called Soviet Democracy. The Politburo, ie the highest Soviet, had a massive amount of influence and power, but day to day decisions were made locally. I would agree, I don't think it was a particularly good form of Socialism, but I would still consider it Socialist.
Modern Russia is absolutely Capitalist at its core, that's the entire foundation of the Russian Federation. The Capitalists are the Oligarchs! The Inner Circle are Capitalists! just because it's a higher stage of Capitalism doesn't mean it ceases to be Capitalism.
Was the rule of law strong enough that decisions were being made by the people, or were they being made by authoritarians? Because if key decisions weren't being made by the people, it wasn't socialist.
The Oligarchs are feudalists, not capitalists.
Yes, it actually was. The Politburo had outsized power, but the local Soviets ran most things. Again, incredibly flawed, but still Socialist.
Oligarchs are not land owners that take a portion of what food is grown by the Russian people, the Oligarchs are Capitalists.
Oligarchs control the exploitation of Russia's natural resources. Can't get much more "land owner" than that.
Capitalists can do that as well, without being feudalists. You're tying an ancient peasant-aristocrat structure to modern Capitalism just to avoid acknowledging that Capitalism has failed Russia.
You're trying to pretend that an oligarchy / dictatorship has something to do with capitalism because you hate capitalism.
On the contrary, I'm acknowledging that Capitalist business owners have swelled and looted Russia very effectively.
Except it has nothing to do with capitalism.
It has everything to do with Capitalism. When the USSR collapsed and the Russian Federation came into place, Capitalists got much of the Capital, and are now the "oligarchs."