• Alloi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Modern Russia’s elite and government are about as Marxist as a billionaire cosplaying as a factory worker for a photo op. Marxism is about the abolition of class hierarchies, worker control of production, and a stateless, moneyless society. Putin’s Russia? It’s an oligarch-run, state-capitalist machine where wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few, and the state operates more like a mafia than a workers’ paradise.

    Instead of “dictatorship of the proletariat,” they’ve got a dictatorship of the oil tycoons and ex-KGB buddies. Instead of “seizing the means of production,” they privatized them into the hands of a few ultra-rich insiders. It’s not Marxism—it’s authoritarian crony capitalism wrapped in Soviet nostalgia.

    as for the PRC, thats simply a similar version of state controlled capitalism, not “traditional communism” its just rebranding. nothing like what marx describes in action, unless this would be considered the necessary evil portion of the grand master plan by the powers that be, to honour a dead author and create a post scarcity communist utopia.well… i find that hard to believe, but if the people under it believe in it, i guess thats enough for them to keep the gravy train on its tracks a bit longer.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Someone who’s so ignorant of geopolitics that they don’t know about the fall of the USSR should not be so arrogant

      • Alloi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 minutes ago

        i really shouldnt have to explain to you the difference between marxism, marxist leninism, and stallinism, and how those differentiate, and how the bastardisation of marxism lead to a different form of “communism” and the beaurocratic centralisation of power in the USSR, and how that corruption lead to the fall of the USSR. the very fact that they did not operate under the pure principals of marxism, but used it as a cover to centralise power, using it as propaganda for the people to feel united, drives my point further.

        the USSR did not operate off of pure marxism. please read into this before making swathing statements about my “ignorance”

        marx wanted the means of control, controlled by the proletariate, not the state. which is what happened in the USSR. so, not marxist communism, just a bastardised alternative to convince the people to hand over power to the state.

        however we are talking about modern russia. not the USSR.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      We weren’t talking about the Russian Federation, but Soviet Union. The RF is Capitalist, sure, but the USSR was absolutely Socialist.

      As for the PRC, it *is" Socialist, and does follow what Marx described. Are you getting this from actually reading Marx, or second-hand?

      For starters, Marx described the economy of a post-revolutionary state to nationalize the large trusts and gradually fold the smaller firms once they get large enough. This is mentioned many times, from the Manifesto of the Communist Party, to my favorite concise explanation in Engels’ Principles of Communism:

      Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

      No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

      In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

      The PRC mirrors this. The vast majority of large firks are under public control, and the vast majority of the private sector is made up of self-employed people or small firms. If the CPC attempted to forcibly acquire them without letting them develop, they would be committing an error by Marxist standards, unless they truly had good reason.

      Key industries like finance and steel are publicly owned as well, if you control the rubber factory you control the rubber ball factory without needing to own it directly.

      What would you have the PRC do instead?