• Deme@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Ownership means control. If you own something, that means that you have control over it. Obviously with something as large as a country, most of what that asset produces will go into sustaining said asset. A factory owner doesn’t invest the full revenue of his enterprise into personal luxuries, he has to first pay all the running expenses.

    And even then, that person doesn’t need to be fond of luxuries in order to still be an owner. I haven’t looked into what luxuries Stalin enjoyed and I don’t much care. My point is that he had power over everything in the country, and the proletariat had little power over the supposed “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

    • plyth@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      How else would you do it? As long as everybody can join the party and rise in ranks I would say that it can’t be more open.

      • Deme@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Less centralized control. Lenin sowed the seeds for Stalinism when he centralized the political system after the revolution. Selfish actors seek power, and the selfless find themselves corrupted by it. The position being open for everyone just means that anyone can become a tyrant.

        • plyth@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          How do you want to deal with the overhead of decentralization in case of war?