Socialism and capitalism is about who controls the means of production. In authoritarian countries that would usually be the state or ruling party making it no better than the bourgeoisie of a capitalist country and in socialist ones it would be the workers. I know of no country where the workers control the means of production. Workers having democratic control over the means of production is absolutely essential for socialism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm guessing you aren't an anarchist because that's mostly about unjust hierarchies, not conflating the word authoritarian.

I'm a Communist that works with and speaks with Anarchists.

Socialism and capitalism is about who controls the means of production. In authoritarian countries that would usually be the state or ruling party making it no better than the bourgeoisie of a capitalist country and in socialist ones it would be the workers. I know of no country where the workers control the means of production. Workers having democratic control over the means of production is absolutely essential for socialism.

Then you need to study up on AES countries, as there have been and continue to be Socialist countries, despite them not being Anarchist.

A state largely governed by a Communist Party that practices strong central planning and works against bourgeois control is Socialist. As an example, the USSR, where there were large implementations of democratization:

And large reductions in wealth disparity:

Despite overall GDP growth:

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hah, I grew up in the soviet occupied Estonia, democracy did not exist and neither did socialism. Advocating for anarchist ideas also got you locked up. I know enough about countries dressing themselves up as socialist to not fall for it. Socialism does not exist without workers democratically controlling the means of production.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are you capable of addressing what I said without resorting to anecdotes?

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I did, you claimed that you only need to fight the bourgeoisie and practice central planning to be socialist which I absolutely disagreed with. Like I said you need democratic worker control for socialism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

you claimed that you only need to fight the bourgeoisie and practice central planning to be socialist

I did not.

Like I said you need democratic worker control for socialism.

The USSR did, as I proved and you simply said "no."

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, you also said you need a central party control for socialism.

You said they had socialism, I said they didn't. You didn't prove anything. If you wanna go into how elections were run and how candidates were chosen then we can but the picture you provided was accurate for just a brief period in the USSR. I can't remember if worker councils were dismantled during Lenin or Stalin but by the time they occupied Estonia they weren't a thing. In the USSR the higher ups in the party controlled the means of production, they also controlled who people can vote for while making sure that vote didn't change anything.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, you also said you need a central party control for socialism.

I did not.

You said they had socialism, I said they didn't. You didn't prove anything. If you wanna go into how elections were run and how candidates were chosen then we can but the picture you provided was accurate for just a brief period in the USSR. I can't remember if worker councils were dismantled during Lenin or Stalin but by the time they occupied Estonia they weren't a thing. In the USSR the higher ups in the party controlled the means of production, they also controlled who people can vote for while making sure that vote didn't change anything.

The Soviets were never disbanded until the end of the USSR. You have no idea what you're talking about, nor what constitutes Socialism. It's clear that you're anti-Marxist.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Calling the USSR Marxist is an insult to Marxism. Especially what Stalin made it into. Hearing how people claim that was Marxism would have Marx rotating in his grave so bad it could generate power for the whole world.

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

Citation needed.