Comment on Title

• tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Ah yeah that fits way better haha

  source
• Maeve@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The thing they have in common aren’t left/right things—that’s most people in most nations. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism. And governments, like people, can be left/right socially and the opposite, economically.

  source

  • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    They’re not economically left wing though: State capitalism is still capitalism. Bourgeois don’t cease to be bourgeois because they control everything and you have to call them comrade.

    source

    • Maeve@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Maybe! It looks like state capitalism imo, but I’d really need to have this discussion with people who are well versed in economics, and not USA style economics, since we’ve basically messed up the meanings of everything. I’m wondering what Picketty might say?

      source

      • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It’s actually more sociology I’d say as we’re talking more about class and class relations than how the economy upholds them: MLs don’t have state power upholding economic relations to uphold class relations they hold up class relations by direct state power.

        Anyway “state capitalism” is the term Lenin coined to describe what he did, precisely because the Bolsheviks didn’t move to a classless society but replaced nobility and bourgeois with the nomenklatura: Still a ruling class in control of everything. Say what you want about the man but he wasn’t dishonest. The whole thing was done under Marx’ theory that capitalism first has to bring about productivity enhancements etc. before actual communism is possible which is bullshit in general but was probably accurate in its historical and geographic context, question of course being a) did you really need to replace an authoritarian hellhole with another authoritarian hellhole, in that regard Russia has only made a modicum of progress in the last, what, 800 years and b) why would centrally-planned capitalism be more, or even just as, effective at technological and productivity progress than at least some semblance of a market and competition. They took the worst aspect of historical capitalism and removed all the parts which actually bring about progress.

        source

        • -> View More Comments