Wether or not the SU handed the means of production to the workers or just transferred them to a different previleged class is debatable. But it surely did not abolish the commodity form.

From a theory standpoint, Russia didnt really fullfill the prerequisites for a transition to communism. The social structures were still too aligned with serfdom. In such an environment it is difficult to actually transition from state capitalism to socialism in a functional way, and most critiques of the Soviet Union seem to stem from this problem.

[–] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I replied to someone who said the soviets were fascists. Does failing to achieve communism make them fascist or what's your point exactly?

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

SU wasn't fascist per se. It was a militaristic authoritarian dictatorship that overlapped with fascism on a lot of issues, but technically fascism means a different thing, yes.

[–] Historical_General@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

militaristic authoritarian dictatorship

That's a gross over-generalisation, to the point of being misleading.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago

Militaristic might be not technically correct, it was more of a police state than a military state, after the WWII Stalin put a lot of effort to make sure that military will remain a tool and not have agency on itself. All the police-adjacent organisations though were so powerful that they didn't have to be militaristic to exert all the power.
Everything else is absolutely correct though, complete, absolute power was in the hand of an unelected individual and the people he empowererd, as much as power was concentrated. So as much as authocracy and dictatorship could overlap, USSR was an embodiment of that.