• squaresinger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Tbh, I don’t even think the first two points apply.

    Ownership by the state, especially a state that the people have no control over, isn’t really ownership of the people. The main point of ownership (also under communism) is control. If I own something, I control it. I can decide what happens with it. Under capitalism the worker doesn’t own the factory, because the worker has no control over it. The worker has no say over what or how or when the factory produces, so the worker doesn’t own the factory.

    Under the USSR system, the worker also has no say over anything regarding the work. The only difference is that the owner isn’t another person but the state.

    Something like the early stock corporations would be closer to communism. There each worker owns stock in the company and thus can vote on what the company does.


    Same goes with social classes. There certainly was a class difference between party member (or at least high ranking party member) and non-party-members.

    Private property also still existed, just on a lower scale. People still owned their cars, their stereo systems and all the other items of daily usage.

    (I’m not disagreeing with you, just trying to reinforce the point)

    • Zombie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Aye that’s fair. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” and all that.

      Just to clarify though, owning your own car and stereo falls under personal property, not private property. See my comment here for a brief distinction of the two: https://feddit.uk/comment/18187961