Anonymous
7/25/2025, 7:09:20 PM No.17871294
Did workers in the USSR ever directly own the means of production?
Replies:
Thread 17871294 - /his/
Anonymous
7/25/2025, 7:11:51 PM No.17871300
>>17871294 (OP)
If the workers owned it then why did they peacefully hand it all over to a bunch of Jewish oligarchs?
If the workers owned it then why did they peacefully hand it all over to a bunch of Jewish oligarchs?
Replies:
Anonymous
7/25/2025, 7:14:11 PM No.17871304
>>17871294 (OP)
Well the state owned everything, so if you consider the state to be a true representative organization of the workers then yes they owned the means of production. It all hangs on whether you acknowledge the legitimacy of the Soviet state as an organ of the workers.
Well the state owned everything, so if you consider the state to be a true representative organization of the workers then yes they owned the means of production. It all hangs on whether you acknowledge the legitimacy of the Soviet state as an organ of the workers.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/25/2025, 7:14:57 PM No.17871306
>>17871300
Why do you answer a question with another question?
Why do you answer a question with another question?
Anonymous
7/25/2025, 7:16:12 PM No.17871309
>>17871300
Gorbachev literally gave quasi-ownership of the state run factories to the managers of the factories during perestroika and that kickstarted the true end of the USSR.
Gorbachev literally gave quasi-ownership of the state run factories to the managers of the factories during perestroika and that kickstarted the true end of the USSR.
Anonymous
7/25/2025, 7:33:11 PM No.17871359
>>17871304
>whether you acknowledge the legitimacy of the Soviet state as an organ of the workers.
I'd consider it as such if they didn't suppress dissenting opinions from the workers against the party
>whether you acknowledge the legitimacy of the Soviet state as an organ of the workers.
I'd consider it as such if they didn't suppress dissenting opinions from the workers against the party
Anonymous
7/25/2025, 7:35:49 PM No.17871369
>>17871294 (OP)
Yes. When the USSR ceased to be every worker was given these very valuable papers.
Yes. When the USSR ceased to be every worker was given these very valuable papers.
Anonymous
7/25/2025, 7:50:33 PM No.17871397
>>17871294 (OP)
The Communist Party was the party of the officers working in the name of the soviets (assembly of workers). Hence yes
The Communist Party was the party of the officers working in the name of the soviets (assembly of workers). Hence yes
Replies:
Anonymous
7/25/2025, 7:53:38 PM No.17871405
>>17871294 (OP)
No, thats not what communism is. Communism is when the state owns the means of production on behalf of the workers.
The state is a one party state which is run by a vanguard communist party that has totalitarian control over it on behalf of the workers.
No, thats not what communism is. Communism is when the state owns the means of production on behalf of the workers.
The state is a one party state which is run by a vanguard communist party that has totalitarian control over it on behalf of the workers.
Anonymous
7/25/2025, 8:02:03 PM No.17871418
>>17871397
The means of production were owned by Soviet Republic (the state) itself. This is stated in the Soviet Constitution, Article 1, Chapter 2, Section 3.a
The means of production were owned by Soviet Republic (the state) itself. This is stated in the Soviet Constitution, Article 1, Chapter 2, Section 3.a
Anonymous
7/26/2025, 5:40:49 AM No.17872796
>>17871294 (OP)
You could argue workers of tsarist russia did sieze the means of their own production when the bolshevik vanguard took over the government but the USSR was a transitionary socialist state for it's entire existence so no not really. There has never been a a state to truly establish communist, aka dissolve the state as it is finally no longer needed and no socialist project has even gotten close enough to that point in which each is provided according to their need which is to say none have yet been able to create the material reality where the worker owns the means of his own production equally according to their labor they provide.
The only real life example of the proletariat having collective ownership of the means of production and full value of their own labor would be like certain anarchist formations throughout history, all of which quickly collapsed due to lacking the power of authority that the state can provide
You could argue workers of tsarist russia did sieze the means of their own production when the bolshevik vanguard took over the government but the USSR was a transitionary socialist state for it's entire existence so no not really. There has never been a a state to truly establish communist, aka dissolve the state as it is finally no longer needed and no socialist project has even gotten close enough to that point in which each is provided according to their need which is to say none have yet been able to create the material reality where the worker owns the means of his own production equally according to their labor they provide.
The only real life example of the proletariat having collective ownership of the means of production and full value of their own labor would be like certain anarchist formations throughout history, all of which quickly collapsed due to lacking the power of authority that the state can provide
Anonymous
7/26/2025, 5:50:24 AM No.17872812
>>17871397
So no, they didn't own the means of production. Thanks for clarifying.
So no, they didn't own the means of production. Thanks for clarifying.
Anonymous
7/26/2025, 3:03:40 PM No.17873526
>>17871294 (OP)
There were some Co-Ops early on but that's it
There were some Co-Ops early on but that's it
Anonymous
7/26/2025, 5:47:55 PM No.17873787
Anonymous
7/26/2025, 6:19:46 PM No.17873834
>>17871294 (OP)
What retard puts a watermark on the soviet flag?
What retard puts a watermark on the soviet flag?