• ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    Because as of yet the means of production aren’t public property. So the people who own them get to decide the structure of production and they decided we don’t get a say in how they are used.

    • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Do they need to be public property or do they need to be in the hands of those working there? I’d be more inclined towards the latter as in most cases the public as a whole is not going to have an informed or educated perspective on how specific jobs/roles/companies should behave.

      • Muad'dib@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Those are so similar to each other in comparison with capitalism that at this stage, we mostly use the same words to describe both.

        • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          24 hours ago

          No, they are not. The USSR and China (only in theory) had/has public ownership and it is quite different than the workers comtrooling their business.

          When the public owns the means of production you open up the likelihood of the state directly oppressing the workers as happened in the USSR and China.

            • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Yes and in practice public ownership isn’t any different than private ownership you just have a different boot on your neck. In the case of public ownership stopping work means going against the state so there’s even a greater incentive for oppression of the workers in some cases.

              • Muad'dib@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Nah. State ownership is only public ownership in a robust democracy. Oligarchical states aren’t public.

                • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  And thus far no state pursuing Marxist principles as been anything other than totalitarian. There is no democracy among those that seek that path only claims of it as a goal.

                  • Muad'dib@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    Many nations have been successful in creating communism. White people just tend to forget about tribal societies when they’re discussing politics.

          • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            All states oppress people, thats the point of a state. The goal of a socialist state is to oppress the bourgeois. While the workers of USSR and China did and do not have full control over means of production they had significantky more than we do

            • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              No, they did not. They had less. It turns out the totalitarian police state isn’t a freeing experience. The only people who controlled the means of production were the bosses of the factories and the state that set the production schedules. The workers had no involvement. It was just the state lying to workers.

              China has billionaires, an investor class and a stock market. There is no version of a modern Chinese state that hasn’t completely abandoned any attempt at socialism in anything other than name only. I have no idea why anyone who would claim to back any form of leftism would support China since they obviously abandoned leftist principles. You average Chinese worker has fewer rights than most.

              • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 hours ago

                You have read nothing on chinese socialism and it shows. No investigation, no right to speak. Dengism was a pragmatic solution that prevented the collapse of Chinese socialism after the USSR was dissolved. They are using capitalist forces to grow their productive capacity while maintaining a proletarian state. Unlike the US, China is actually willing to punish and reign in its bourgeois and this can be seen by how much western media flips its shit when they do. There is genuinely so much to unpack about your comment that I could not possible tackle every claim made without writing a dissertation. I encourage you to read about socialism with chinese characteristics from communists who have put in the time to understand it and I encourage you to question why such severe state power may have been necessary especially in the early years of the USSR. You will not get a pure communist society while capitalist control the world.

                • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 hours ago

                  First don’t tell people what they have and have not read. You are not telepathic and in this case you are completely incorrect. What you are reacting to is that I fundamentally disagree with the Chinese state propaganda on this subject you have seemingly decided is correct.

                  “Socialism with Chinese Principles” is insanely hypocritical when applied to real life. They have people who make money off investments. They have a bourgeoisie. They have a stock market. The wealthy control their society just like any other capitalist society. They have the same abuses of the workers that you find in pre-WWII American factories. The pursuit of socialism is in name only. They are literally the capitalist state Marxists warn you about.

                  Black Cat/White Cat theory just lead China into becoming Mouseland.

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouseland