Come on Barbie lets go Party(lemmy.ml)

There are elements of capitalism there, but I wouldn’t call it a capitalist economy. Capitalism requires that private individuals own the means of production. But, in Russia does anybody outside Putin’s inner circle really own anything?

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml

9 points

9 months ago

Yes, absolutely. The Russian Federation is the direct result of a collapsing Socialist system in the hands of Capitalists, just because fewer and fewer people own things doesn’t mean it isn’t a direct result of Capitalization of the economy.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Revan343@lemmy.ca

2 points

9 months ago

just because fewer and fewer people own things doesn’t mean it isn’t a direct result of Capitalization of the economy

In fact that’s the natural progression of a Capitalist economy

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

merc@sh.itjust.works

-5 points

9 months ago

The USSR wasn’t really socialist at its core, and the new Russia really isn’t capitalist at its core.

In the former system, the theory was that the people / workers owned the means of production. The reality was that it was the leader and those close to him who really “owned” them in the sense that they had power over them. It was all about who you knew in that system. In a true socialist system, it should have been up to the people to make decisions, but in the USSR it was up to the party’s elites, and the people just had to live with it.

In the current system, it’s Putin and his close circle who own everything. While they allow capitalist type activities to happen, the capitalists don’t really own anything. If they displease Putin anything they have can be taken away on a whim. If you stay on Putin’s good side, or at least stay beneath his notice, you can operate as a capitalist. But, become too successful and you’ll be reminded who’s in charge.

Both true socialism and true capitalism require that the rule of law apply to everyone, even the leaders. If the leader can just ignore the laws and seize the “means of production” without facing consequences, it’s authoritarianism, not capitalism or communism / socialism.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml

4 points

9 months ago

The USSR was a flawed form of Socialism, but was fundamentally Socialist. The majority of the economy was run by Worker Soviets, in a process called Soviet Democracy. The Politburo, ie the highest Soviet, had a massive amount of influence and power, but day to day decisions were made locally. I would agree, I don’t think it was a particularly good form of Socialism, but I would still consider it Socialist.

Modern Russia is absolutely Capitalist at its core, that’s the entire foundation of the Russian Federation. The Capitalists are the Oligarchs! The Inner Circle are Capitalists! just because it’s a higher stage of Capitalism doesn’t mean it ceases to be Capitalism.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

merc@sh.itjust.works

-1 points

9 months ago

The USSR was a flawed form of Socialism, but was fundamentally Socialist

Was the rule of law strong enough that decisions were being made by the people, or were they being made by authoritarians? Because if key decisions weren’t being made by the people, it wasn’t socialist.