744
Tis a silly place (media.piefed.ca)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
833 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
Tis a silly place
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 10 months ago (14 children)

Modern Russia is capitalist, I don't think anyone thinks it's socialist anymore. The USSR dissolved over 3 decades ago. Ownership of property is protected by the state, be it public ownership or private ownership. Trying to abstract an analogy doesn't actually work the same way at a societal level.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    You said larger firms and key industries. In Russia small firms are more private, but larger firms and industries range from heavily state influenced to fully nationalized.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Russia

    4/5 the top 5 companies are transparently state owned

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (12 children)

    Russia has a larger portion of state-owned industry as a holdover from the soviet era as compared to most capitalist countries, but they aren't socialist and are dominated by capitalists. They do not have a working class state any longer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    But it does not meet the definition of capitalism you gave. I agree its also not entirely socialist. It's almost like its not a binary, most economies are mixed. The US is also not purely capitalist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    Capitalism and socialism are determined by what's principle. All economies have elements of private and public property, what matters is which is principle, and which class is in control. The US is capitalist, "purity" has nothing to do with that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (9 children)

    Except that is not the principle in either country. There are plenty of cases where the state is in principle in control, or actually in control. Russia, similar to other economies, such as fascist Italy or China is structured in such away where you can exist as a "private" company as long as you ultimately bow to the state. You could also put many of the gulf states into that club. If socialism is not "when government does stuff" then capitalism is not "when rich people"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    In China, the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, and the working class is in control of the state. I never once said capitalism is "when rich people" or that socialism is "when the government does stuff."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned

    To not too dissimilar an extent as modern Russia

    the working class is in control of the state.

    Do you believe this for North Korea? If so, why not Russia?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    To a very dissimilar extent. The capitalists are in charge of the Russian state, and private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Russia has more state-owned firms than some other capitalist countries, but that's about it, capitalists are thoroughly in control and private ownership is dominant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    If the capitalists are in charge of the state, they are the state. So it is not privately owned, it is state owned, the state just doesn't serve the populace. That's not capitalism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    It's absolutely capitalism. All capitalist countries have capitalist power over the state.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Then is an absolute monarch capitalist? It is fundamentally a different system to have a state merged with corporation as compared to have them divorced. To deny that is to be intentionally obtuse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Feudalism is its own mode of production.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I didn't say feudalism. Though I agree, but why is it different from capitalism?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Feudalism is based on lordship of land, and peasantry paying rent in kind, ie agricultural produce and a portion of their production. Capitalism is based on wage labor and flow of commodities, industrialized production, etc. Feudal farming vs capitalist farming is quite stark, as an example.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent