I mean… I kinda get it, but nowadays it’s starting to get absurd.

(EDIT: This was supposed to be a “blow air out my nose and get on with my life” meme…)

  • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    By that definition there are no socialist countries.

    When people talk about socialism in the real world it doesn’t mean owning the means of production

    • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      25 days ago

      Only because the very concepts of ownership and the collective-individual dichotomy are necessarily vague and subjective. China considers themselves socialist because they equivocate the people with the state. If the people are collectively represented by the state and the state owns (some of) the means of production, then at least transitively the people own (some of) the means of production.

      As an anarchist I don’t believe the state adequately represents the interests of the people, nor do I think it could even if it were radically democratic and egalitarian, though I would still certainly prefer that to the existing status quo. Somewhere a line must be drawn arbitrarily and I prefer to draw it on the other side of authoritarian state control.