You haven’t read the sources I linked either. We have a western academic, state funded, and based on your arguments here there’s what you believe evidence that causes you to describe the USSR not as socialism, but a kleptocracy. This is why I’m heavily skeptical, because I have read on the structure of the USSR, I know how it functioned, and it was unquestionably socialist. I’m not saying no corruption ever existed, I’m saying that corruption was nowhere near relevant enough to be the base mode of production, because that’s an absurd statement to begin with.

The advent of socialism in Russia democratized the economy, doubled life expectancy, dramatically reduced poverty, provided free, high quality healthcare and education, had assured jobs and free or low cost housing, over tripled literacy rates, and turned a feudal backwater into a spacefaring nation in just a few short decades. Wealth disparity, which you seem to place an over-emphasis on, was dramatically lowered as compared to the Tsarist era and the capitalist era. The economy was based on collectivized production and distribution, and fulfilling the needs of everyone.

When you have all of that undeniably true, then statements like “Russia wasn’t socialist, it was a kleptocracy” become silly. Of course there was some degree of corruption, every country has some level of corruption. The USSR wasn’t a perfect utopia, as the first socialist state there were missteps and struggles. However, it was absolutely socialist, and because of that it delivered incredible results for the working classes.

Not just any public university employee:

Financial support for this research was provided by a number of foundations and organizations, including the National Endowment of the Humanities (NEH), the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research (NCEEER), the Archives and Library of the Hoover Institution for War and Peace at Stanford University, the Kennan Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the Open Society Archive (Budapest). His first book was Inventing a Soviet Countryside: State Power and the Transformation of Rural Russia, 1917-1929 (2004).

There’s a concerted effort within western academia to keep demonizing socialism, and funding is one of the ways the state keeps that going. I provided more than plenty sources given an alternative view. None of this is about me trying to “out-socialist” you, nor virtue signal nor purity test. It’s about trying to come to a consistent understanding grounded in reality, from a proletarian point of view, rather than accepting liberal framing of socialism.

Yes, you indeed linked a US Federally funded liberal historian that is paid to present a certain view of the USSR. If you want sources on the socialist economy of the USSR, and how it was run, here are some great ones:

1. Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union Today

2. Soviet Democracy

3. Russian Justice

4. This Soviet World

5. Blackshirts and Reds

All much better sources.

I don’t own Marxism, correct. I also study it a great deal, organize in real life with a communist party. I do acknowledge real faults with the USSR and PRC, but I don’t acknowledge fake ones. You should read the essay I linked called China Has Billionaires, it explains China’s position as an early socialist economy and its process of gradually collectivizing production and distribution. The class that controls the state and holds the principle aspects of the economy in China is the proletariat, as it was in the USSR, as it is in Cuba.

You defining Cuba as more correctly socialist because its rich people are poorer is what I mean by you being anti-Marxist, this poverty fetishism isn’t Marxist in the slightest.

I’m not being absurd, you are. You’re defining the mode of production of a majority collectivized and planned economy that was oriented towards satisfying the needs of everyone as a “kleptocracy.” This is ridiculous and requires an extreme level of evidence explaining why such a focus was both put on satisfying everyone’s needs, and on this “kleptocracy” you claim. You’re confusing the capitalists that rose from the ashes of the USSR with the USSR’s mode of production. I’m aware that China has billionaires, and again, you seem to be under the impression that Marxism is about equalitarianism and not about gradually collectivizing production and distribution to satisfy the needs of everyone.

Good reading for you would be China has Billionaires. Marxists don’t deny the struggles of the USSR and PRC, we do learn from them, what we don’t do is dismiss their successes or take liberal perspectives on them like you’re doing here.

I’m aware that you consider yourself a socialist, but your analysis is far from that of a socialist.

Socialism is not the absence of wealth. Every state has mixed forms of ownership, but the principle aspect is what’s dominant. The USSR did not have “oligarchs who stole from the people,” they had a socialist economy oriented towards satisfying the needs of everyone. Free education and housing, healthcare, dramatic improvements in infrastructure, huge increases in living standards, all came from the socialist system. Same for the PRC, though their safety nets aren’t as strong. This idea that socialism is about equalitarianism is exactly why you’re being anti-Marxist, Marx railed against equalitarians.

Cuba has a very similar structure and economy to the USSR and PRC, with their own characteristics. The main difference is that they are much smaller and much more cut off.

It’s the opposite, I’m a dialectical materialist, and am focused on pragmatism. Your assessment of the USSR, PRC, etc is idealist in nature and looks at the state not as by its class character, but as something beyond class. This confusion leads you to see administration in a socialist economy as “kleptocracy.” Same with your analysis of the PRC, conflating the presence of private property with the absence of socialism. Erasure of dialectical materialism, and looking at components of an economy outside of their context within said economy is closer to metaphysics and a rejection of Marxism.

Libertarianism often arises organically, though, not just from the outside. It arises due to class interests. People can manipulate this, and do, but the origins are ultimately petty bourgeois ideology.

As for the USSR, it was a socialist economy, not an “oligarchical kleptocracy.” The economy was democratically run and centrally planned, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. This is straightforwardly socialist.

The PRC does not celebrate “capitalism.” The usage of markets and mixed forms of ownership for small and medium firms subservient to the public sector is a form of socialist market economy. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes democratically control the state.

Latin American socialism is great. Cuba is a standout example, and Venezuela and Nicaragua are increasingly socializing. They are under constant siege, but are nevertheless rising.

Ultimately, I’m not sure what you think socialism is for you to have this view so contrary to Marxism.

Libertarianism isn’t driven by the haute bourgeoisie though, that’s currently more neoliberalism and fascism. Libertarianism is primarily driven by people that own HVAC companies with a dozen people, and these people can be steered by Thiel types but ultimately by numbers its the small business owners pushing it.

As for Marxism, Germany post-reunification was a return to fascism, not socialism. The gains achieved by the socialists in the East were erased, officials excised in show trials, and erased. Socialism has been achieved already, in the former USSR, and today in the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies, and the working classes are in control of the state. I think you’re dramatically misanalyzing socialism right now.

It isn’t just academic, and the fact that you can find self-professed libertarians among the wealthiest capitalists doesn’t mean they agree with the actual ideas of “small government capitalism.” The wealthiest aren’t libertarians, by and large, but at this moment more fascist than anything. What drives someone to be a libertarian? Someone who feels crushed by the state while also disapproving of social services, ie the small business owners.

The fact that libertarianism is primarily driven by small business owners doesn’t mean they are the only libertarians. Marxism-Leninism is a proletarian ideology, but also has class traitors. The boutique libertatianism you speak of isn’t just the conventions, but people you run into in real life from time to time, and they usually are in that sole proprietor/small business owner class.

As for Marxism, Marx outlined the law of value, dialectical and historical materialism, as well as scientific socialism. He didn’t create a model, correct, but he did arm us with how we should go about creating a socialist state. Marxism has been put into practice by groups like the bolsheviks, creating Marxism-Leninism, which then has been put into practice around the world. Marx was helpful not just for the why of capitalism being bad, but how to end it and begin socialism.

First off, you’re a bit confused here. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, my critiques are from that framework.

As for the libertarian movement in the States, I was referring to who makes up the basis of that movement. The wealthiest capitalists are usually not libertarians, they enjoy strong state control and regulations that they can fix in their favor. The basis of libertarianism is in the small business owners, the petite bourgeoisie, who see little of the systems benefits while trying to retain their privledged positions over others.

I’m well-aware of what you define as “actual” libertarians, and my critique of them is from a Marxist point of view. I’m not an anarchist, while I enjoy working with anarchists and share a common enemy, our strategies and analysis end up in fundamentally different areas.

The reason I broke them up as I did was because OP was vague enough that they could be asking for either, so I answered both.

If you mean the Statesian, pro-capitalist kind, it’s mostly a silly ideology pushed by small business owners and other highly individualist classes that are nonetheless pushed towards the working classes by competing against ever-growing monopolies.

The left wing version, I disagree with as you can’t dismantle the state without removing the basis of the state, class, and you can’t remove class without collectivizing production and distribution. Small, local cells loosely organized in a decentralist fashion would still result in class struggle and thus a form of state to hold one class over the others. That said, the leftists are valuable allies at times despite disagreements.

I happened to connect with an amazing person, and I love being married to them. I would have been fine had I been single, or dated casually for the rest of my life, but nevertheless the person I met has changed both me and my life completely.

Try shopping around for different instances, the one you’re on can actually see a huge number of communities that accounts on Lemmy.world can’t see, as an example. One of the better ways to use Lemmy is to either scroll an instance you vibe with locally, or by using a broad account and browsing by subscribed communities.

Have a great day to you too!

Nah, I just checked your modlog when you said people can get banned “for disagreeing with North Korea.” You can do it for anyone, on the default web viewer just click the 3 dots then “XYZ Moderation History.” No stalking necessary.

I do argue about politics, sure. I don’t stalk people to do it, though. I do touch grass, and my spouse and I hug plenty, thanks for worrying though. Not a CPC agent either, though that would be cool.

I am a Statesian, and they certainly didn’t teach me how to think critically about the system I live in nor how it lies about its geopolitical enemies. That’s something that came with living and working in a brutal system gradually. I sincerely doubt you were taught by the system you live in to be genuinely critical of the system you live in, Statesian or not.

Also, don’t call me babe.

Complaining about “violent antifa psychos” isn’t really constructive discussion, it’s just open admission to being against antifascism.

Leftists don’t really have “rigid” worldviews, but consistent ones. It takes a great deal of confronting the status quo ideologically, as well as study, in order to definitively say that capitalism has to go. Liberals tend to just be born into their liberalism, and thus often hold extremely contradictory or irrational views.

You called countries like China “shitholes,” and were taking issue with the fact that the US Empire has been a constant source of pain and misery for the entire planet, yet the DPRK is labeled as a “terrorizing rogue state.” It isn’t because you don’t agree with the DPRK, it’s because you were being chauvanist and minimizing the fact that the DPRK is a very peaceful country internationally (since the Korean War) while the US Empire has been committing vast amounts of genocide and imperialism the world over.

Lemmygrad.ml has been defederated from Lemmy.world, dbzer0, blahaj, etc, but such defederations are one-way. Lemmygrad.ml doesn’t block them, so Grad users can see all that content too.

Nobody thinks mass murder and war crimes are acceptable “as long as their friends are doing it.” We communists do support revolution, and using force against fascism, landlords, capitalists, etc, because that’s what’s sadly often necessary for working class liberation. We don’t simply give “mass murder” a pass, that’s like saying it’s bad to support the defeat of the Nazis in World War II because a lot of Nazis died.

Not all disagreements are “purity testing.”