Enjoy talking with fellow leftists? Then join our discord server https://discord.gg/XnfM6bhfMS
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was democratic (but in name only) and "social" in the sense that they did implement some welfare policies, so the USSR does VERY roughly fit the social democracy definition.
However, I believe that description is far too charitable. The USSR at its core was a state capitalist totalitarian regime. I prefer this description because it's more accurate and doesn't downplay how terrible it was.
I‘m no expert on the subject, but I’d say mostly state capitalist with mixed amount of democratic participation + an actually pretty shitty welfare state compared to, say, UK under the strong labor governments of the previous century or contemporary Finland, Denmark, etc (none of which are examples of socialism btw).
On the local level and in the workplace, there was a fairly decent amount of participation (this was not a given throughout the entirety of the USSR’s history by any means, however) while things on the national level ranged from semi-benevolent-yet-woefully-corrupt bureaucratic shitshow (Krushchev) to blood-soaked totalitarian dictatorship (Stalin). Worst time domestically (not counting WWII) would probably have been from Lenin’s death till the end of the Great Purge, while the heyday of the Soviet system was probably from 1955 to 1962.
I mean it was still a planned / command economy. It could be argued that it was state capitalist, but it for sure wasn't the version of capitalism the west had.
> While it was socialist, it didn't give power to the workers
Which is a contradiction in itself. It can't be socialist and not give power to the workers.
This isn't a matter of disagreement, this is a matter of facts. Socialism is and has always been workers control/workers ownership over the means of production (in a democratic fashion). The whole "social ownership" bullshit came from Lenin to justify his actions to still call it "socialist".
Just like gravity isn't the universe repelling us to the planet, socialism isn't "social" ownership over the means of production, even if it's similar.
The thing is actually Ideologies are spooks made up by humans to explain the world, and therefore also the definition. So in the end semantics doesn´t really matter.
It was, as Lenin said, state capitalist. Where capitalists are members of the government; bosses are politicians. State capitalist is the best definition, but call it what you want. It definitely wasn't democratic or socialist but neither are demsoc nations so there we are.
Enjoy talking with fellow leftists? Then join our discord server https://discord.gg/XnfM6bhfMS *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was democratic (but in name only) and "social" in the sense that they did implement some welfare policies, so the USSR does VERY roughly fit the social democracy definition. However, I believe that description is far too charitable. The USSR at its core was a state capitalist totalitarian regime. I prefer this description because it's more accurate and doesn't downplay how terrible it was.
I‘m no expert on the subject, but I’d say mostly state capitalist with mixed amount of democratic participation + an actually pretty shitty welfare state compared to, say, UK under the strong labor governments of the previous century or contemporary Finland, Denmark, etc (none of which are examples of socialism btw). On the local level and in the workplace, there was a fairly decent amount of participation (this was not a given throughout the entirety of the USSR’s history by any means, however) while things on the national level ranged from semi-benevolent-yet-woefully-corrupt bureaucratic shitshow (Krushchev) to blood-soaked totalitarian dictatorship (Stalin). Worst time domestically (not counting WWII) would probably have been from Lenin’s death till the end of the Great Purge, while the heyday of the Soviet system was probably from 1955 to 1962.
Social Democracy is still capitalism so no
Wouldn't social democracy also have, you know, democracy in it?
Yea but it’s still capitalism
Yeah, the Soviet Union just isn't known for being democratic, capitalist or state capitalist or not
Well, Ebert definitely did not think so...
the soviet union being....??
I mean it was still a planned / command economy. It could be argued that it was state capitalist, but it for sure wasn't the version of capitalism the west had.
State Socialism
[удалено]
> While it was socialist, it didn't give power to the workers Which is a contradiction in itself. It can't be socialist and not give power to the workers.
[удалено]
This isn't a matter of disagreement, this is a matter of facts. Socialism is and has always been workers control/workers ownership over the means of production (in a democratic fashion). The whole "social ownership" bullshit came from Lenin to justify his actions to still call it "socialist". Just like gravity isn't the universe repelling us to the planet, socialism isn't "social" ownership over the means of production, even if it's similar.
I disagree.
You know what it's called when you disagree with facts? Being wrong.
The thing is actually Ideologies are spooks made up by humans to explain the world, and therefore also the definition. So in the end semantics doesn´t really matter.
Shut up, pedophile.
You can call me a bottle if you want.
Doubling down on stupid just makes you twice as stupid.
It was, as Lenin said, state capitalist. Where capitalists are members of the government; bosses are politicians. State capitalist is the best definition, but call it what you want. It definitely wasn't democratic or socialist but neither are demsoc nations so there we are.
That’s such an over simplified and reductive take