Consider that socialism is about control over the means of production, of deposing the capitalist system, and that your dismissal of the DDR as socialist didn't address that at all. Do you think it's possible you've been lied to?

[–] ohitsbreadley@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, I think I'm far enough on the left to be aware of capitalist propaganda. In all fairness to you, my statement did not treat the subject with the appropriate nuance the subject should require.

The DDR was socialist. However, it was state socialism, which in my opinion is not ideal and not something we should strive to replicate. Yes, the means of production were "owned by the people," but the state tasks itself with protecting the people. And therein lies the problem with state socialism - the state is easily commandeered by a corrupt minority who then uses the governmental apparatus to run an authoritarian regime. Precisely what happened in the DDR and the USSR.

We should be able to recognize the imperfections in prior socialist attempts, without immediately calling it "capitalist NGO propaganda."

[–] Maoo@hexbear.net 0 points 9 months ago

There was no issue re: nuance in your statements, they were just nonsensical and revealed a lack of understand the basic ideas of the topic. This trend has continued with this reply.

The DDR was socialist. However, it was state socialism, which in my opinion is not ideal and not something we should strive to replicate.

The framing of socialism as ownership of the means of production goes hand-in-hand with control over the state. It's how it was originally formulated by Marx, Engels, etc. The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is stated in the same breaths and texts and concepts. There is no such thing as non-state socialism in this conception, the only conception that is relevant to this discussion.

This is something a person would know if they had ever read even a basic summary of this topic.

Yes, the means of production were "owned by the people," but the state tasks itself with protecting the people. And therein lies the problem with state socialism - the state is easily commandeered by a corrupt minority who then uses the governmental apparatus to run an authoritarian regime.

You're even using the liberal NGO lexicon for this description! Vague generalizations about authoritarianism and cute little stories with no grounding in reality.

We should be able to recognize the imperfections in prior socialist attempts, without immediately calling it "capitalist NGO propaganda."

It's not hard to identify a poor understanding when you have, you know, actually learned about these things. And interacted with thousands of people just like you and know why they parrot such nonsense. If you had an informed or valid criticism that would be something to talk about, but we are not in that situation. I think we are looking at a graduate of Reddit University, with all the intellectual humility that implies.