Calling something state capitalist when capitalism heavily relies on the state by default shows you need to hit the books on how capitalism actually functions.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Pretending something that was never stateless, classless, and moneyless but rather quite the fucking opposite (E: and was never going to end up there, either) was communism, shows you need to hit the books on how communism is actually intended to function.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

The USSR never pretended it was Stateless, Classless, or Moneyless.

You have no clue what you're talking about, how Communism is "supposed" to function, how Marx, Engels, Lenin, and so forth believed it to come into function, or how the USSR functioned.

If you want basics on how the USSR functioned, I can recommend some books, or if you want a basic intro of Marxism I can recommend some works as well.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

I didn't call it communism, and neither did the ruling communist parties. Transitional socialism is the proper word.