• Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
    5·
    16 hours ago

    You fail to understand that the USSR ceased to exist. What remains is run by a despot, regardless of your feelings or intent.

      • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
        3·
        16 hours ago

        Yes.

        However, the country that OP is discussing ceased to exist and thus its founding documents are pretty much irrelevant.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
          25·
          16 hours ago

          Do you believe the constitution created the collapse of the USSR? Are you arguing against full employment guarantees, equality of the sexes and ethnicities, etc? What specifically is your point on why the USSR dissolved, do you think the democratic process by which the constitution was drafted caused it to dissolve?

          • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
            1·
            16 hours ago

            Regardless of how or why it failed, the constitution and the society it represented, failed to secure the continued existence of the country.

            A constitution is not the only way to form a country and the two examples you gave both ended up with a despot in charge.

        • ZeroHora@lemmy.mlEnglish
          18·
          16 hours ago

          However, the country that OP is discussing ceased to exist and thus its founding documents are pretty much irrelevant.

          Agree, history is completely irrelevant today is the only thing that matter!

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
      24·
      16 hours ago

      I understand that the USSR dissolved. During its time, it was comprehensively democratic in a way that supercedes what capitalism can offer, proven in practice by the sharp decay in democratization with the reinstatement of capitalism. Is your argument that the dissolution of the USSR was unavoidable? That takes a great deal of evidence to prove.

      • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
        3·
        16 hours ago

        I am attempting to point out that a document that you’re holding up as an ideal, together with what it represents and how society surrounding it was structured did not last for more than 55 years, which is less time than I’ve been on this planet.

        While it might represent something that you find appealing or inspiring, it didn’t last, or said differently, it failed.

        I’d also point out that countries like Australia don’t have a constitution at all and they’ve lasted longer than that.

        I think that you need to find a better argument to promote a worker based economy. Perhaps the co-op based system in Italy, which has lasted longer, is a more sustainable way to go.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
          22·
          16 hours ago

          You haven’t explained why socialism was dissolved in the USSR, though, despite gesturing towards your belief that it was an inevitability of the system to do so. This is wrong, though, contemporary analysis shows that the USSR, though slowing down in development, was still positively growing and developing, and was under no real material crisis at the time of its dissolution. It was killed politically. Without understanding the context and underlying causes, you’re just hinting that it’s related to the socialist system itself.

          Why then, have the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos continued their socialist systems? How are they similar, and how are they different? Do you believe their collapse is similarly inevitable as you believe the USSR’s dissolution to have been, or is that unique to the USSR’s conditions?

          As for Italy and the cooperative movement, it’s neat, but it isn’t socialism, and is in the context of an imperialist state. If Italy had cooperative ownership as the principle aspect of its economy and had given up on its imperialism, we would have an interesting discussion on socialism vs cooperativism, but that’s not the case. Australia is a capitalist settler-colony and too depends on imperialism.