Was Soviet Union socialist?

Okay so recently I got into an argument with a friend. He was arguing that the SU was never even Socialist but rather "State Capitalist" because the state owned the means of productions, not the workers and peasants. Specifically, the type of Socialism that the SU practiced was Marxism-Leninism or "Stalinism", the belief that social ownership of the means of production is government ownership, and that government will be ruled by a vanguard party. He then went on to the so-called successful socialist societies like the Paris Commune, Rojava and the Revolutionary Catalonia because people actually had control over the means of productions.
So was he right, Sup Forums? or just another excuse for "not real socialism"?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

State capitalism.

The only answers your going to get here is yes and hate communism forever along with muh Jews. Look up state capitalism yourself and what real communism is then decide what you believe and expand on it with conversations with other capitalist and communist in real life.

Right. So Marxism-Leninism can also be called state capitalism?

He's right about state capitalism, but this is ALWAYS what communism leads to, so his ideology as a whole is totally wrong.

I do but having conversations with capitalists and communists IRL doesn't mean I can't go talking to people in here about it.

what is the means of production of more human beings

the goal of socialism is communism.

Depends on who you talk to, some idealist will of that specific ideology will deny that it was because their authoritarians and want other "socialists" to join them to be under their rule. But anybody who actually looks at what was going on can see it wasn't real Communism no pun intended but people here don't like to hear that because one, it gives Communists the right to try it again and no capitalist would want to see it succeed because it denounces everything they believe in. And two the death toll tends to be outrageous. But to be intellectually honest about the whole situation, yes it wasn't real communism, but communism unto itself is impossible in our modern age. Maybe in a coupe hundred years or a thousand but I personally feel people aren't ready for a state-less utopia yet.

Socialism is state capitalism.

The state part is what us, the pro capitalism, hate.
If the workers and peasants get to dictate what people do, then that's still state capitalism. It's just that the state is run by factory workers and farmers. I don't trust the judgment of factory workers and farmers. Their are brain dead people who repeatedly do the same task every day.
I don't think anyone would argue that farmers and factory workers are in anyway capable of accounting budget and make business deals.

Back to the main root of the problem here, centralized planning. The problem with socialism is it attempts to micromanage everything. Have you tried playing "Cities: Skyline"? How quickly does it get out of hand when you micromanage everything? Quite quickly. No man or institution is in anyway capable of micromanaging everything in the world. That's why the most successful corporations outsource their jobs to different firms. They hire other people to do IT, they hire another for janitorial work, and they hire different people for catering.

The super structure centrally planned organizations rarely ever succeeds. I can think of Google perhaps, even they hire other corprations from time to time.

Oh, and if "real socialism" is such a great system, why does it always lead to someone to come and easily take charge and full authority?

>people aren't ready for a state-less utopia yet.
A lot of socialists claim that kind of society is not a utopia.

lmao progrom
lmao gulag
WHERE MY POGROMS AT NIGGA?

I get what you are trying to say but the thing here is the MEANS OF PRODUCTIONs, as long as the working class don't have that. Socialists will never admit it was real socialism

Like I said depends on who you ask but most Human beings give arbitrary opinions as it is, all in all I try to avoid serious decisions over the internet because it's the internet. The more you look into things the more you'll find there isn't objective truth and everything is just a big word game, everything trying to force their opinions on others. Find a ideology you like and defend it, because that's the best anybody can do in this world.

lol no. it was more like communism that went horribly wrong

>Paris Commune
Lasted less than stomach pain
>Rojava
classless society with forced conscriptions, enforced by a class of armed thugs
>revolutionary Catalonia
You could do whatever you wanted with your means of production as long as what you wanted was exactly the thing that the unions in charge have ordered you to do

>The more you look into things the more you'll find there isn't objective truth and everything is just a big word game

Unnecessary to say since that's pretty obvious, just looking for some pol's opinions on this.

>never even Socialist
>but rather State Capitalist

>there isn't objective truth and everything is just a big word game
2 plus 2 is 4

It shouldn't matter if some sexually frustrated NEET admits it or not. I don't want to tell you what to do but don't waste your time trying to convince OTHER PEOPLE wrong. That will actually "trigger" them to defend their own position no matter how wrong they are because at this point you aren't arguing about ideas, you are attacking them personally.

This might explain things better.

youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU

It depends how you define ownership. The Soviet Union, if it was still around, would define itself as a union that held stake in means of production. Therefore as a sort of shareholder in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, you would be an owner of the means of production.

Really, the problem is your friend wouldn't be able to actually find an example of anything otherwise without simply falling into anarcho-communism/primitivism. For instance, the Paris Commune was virtually much arguably the same system; the government controlled the means of production with consent of the workers.

Until Stalin's death it was a slave owning tyranny. After that, it morphed into a half-feudal, half-state capitalist oligarchy.

Oh, with the significant nuance that the state was the only slave-owner, of course.

or rather socialism is so wildly impractical that it requires the total state control of communism to even attempt

communism has never been tried

>the government controlled the means of production with consent of the workers.
Some people would call it Democratic Socialism.

what kind of retarded logic is this lol?

Reminder that real market capitalism has never been tried.

The problem has always been state capitalism. In the USSR and around the world today.

subhuman slavs and all others under russias borders managed to achieve more during the short years of Stalin's slave owning tyranny than they had throughout the rest of their history.

you work best under an iron fist

>There are no Gandalfs in the real world.

Nigga we just elected one.

Your friend is both right and wrong. 25% of the economy was in the black market (aka capitalism), allowing people to survive.

You can always recognize not-real socialism by the survival of human beings. If anybody is still alive, it wasn't real socialism.