I am a Marxist-Leninist, and my analysis of the soviet union and imperialism in general is aligned with the overwhelming majority of Marxists. Whether or not you want to call me a “tankie” is irrelevant to the conversation, there is no cognitive dissonance on my part. The Soviet economic model worked tremendously well, as I already proved earlier, and as I also proved earlier the majority of those who lived in former Soviet socialism regret the fall of the USSR. The Soviets did not imperialize anyone.

As for socialism being the cause of soviet disollution, no, this is incorrect. The Soviet economy had slowed down a bit towards the end, but it was never in danger of collapsing. This is backed up by data I already linked and you promptly ignored. The largest reasons for Soviet disollution were the coup by Yeltsin, and the policies from people like Gorbachev that weakened internationalist unity within the Soviet Union, leading to a rise in nationalist movements. After the disollition, the west took advantage of the shock doctrine, buying up tremendous parts of the former Soviet economy, and then in Russia a nationalist movement took place, leading to the west getting kicked out and the modern Russian nationalist bourgeoisie taking power.

As for China, the backbone of the economy is in the public sector, in huge State Owned Enterprises. The large firms and key industries in China are overwhelmingly publicly owned, while private ownership is relegated to small industry and highly competitive industries. As for working hours, the average is between 40 and 48 hours, usually hovering around 44-46. 996 is illegal, was largely in big tech firms, and is overall rare.

The PRC is a socialist state, not a state capitalist state like the Republic of Korea, US Empire, or Singapore. China being socialist has nothing to do with the name of the party in control, and everything to do with the mode of production and distribution in China. Rather than a neoliberal paradise, it’s closer to a nightmare for neoliberals. This editorial from The Guardian explains it quite well, actually:

But Xi’s support for mixing private and public ownership structures was purely pragmatic. It had value, he said in another forum, because it would “improve the socialist market economic structure.” Xi’s assessment is echoed by Michael Collins, one of the CIA’s most senior officials for Asia. “The fundamental end of the Communist party of China under Xi Jinping is all the more to control that society politically and economically,” Collins argued earlier this year. “The economy is being viewed, affected and controlled to achieve a political end.”

…

The party’s overarching aim, though, has remained consistent: to ensure that the private sector, and individual entrepreneurs, do not become rival players in the political system. The party wants economic growth, but not at the expense of tolerating any organised alternative centres of power.

…

“[Capitalists] act as if they are being chased by a bear,” wrote Zhang Lin, a Beijing political commentator, in response to these comments. “They are powerless to control the bear, so they are competing to outrun each other to escape the animal.”

How then, does China’s economy work? Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy. This means that public ownership governs the large firms and key industries, and is what is rising in China, as private ownership is kept to small and medium non-essential industries. No system is static, meaning identifying the nature of a system depends on identifying what is rising and what is dying away. Cpitalists are held on a tight leash, and are prevented from gaining political power as a class. The reason private ownership is allowed at all is because China has very uneven development due to their rapid industrialization, and private ownership does help with filling in gaps left by the primary aspects of the economy like SOEs.

The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:

The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.

I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.

China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes and the state, run along the lines of a common plan, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:

The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.

Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.

In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized.

Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.

To dogmatically collectivize the entire economy would actually be a move undesirable by Marxist standards. Certain economies like the DPRK and USSR have had to do so in order to develop military deterrence, China managed to negotiate itself into the global economy and take advantage of the utility of markets in socializing the small industries, making them ripe for central planning. Your understanding of Marxism is painfully shallow. You erase historical materialism from Marxism, reverting it from scientific socialism back to the very utopianism Marx and Engels criticized of their predecessors!

I don’t know why you think the revolution has been “disappointing,” Marxists understand that the progress to socialism and communism is long and protracted, winding and uneven, with temporary setbacks and strategic retreats. The fact that Marxists correctly predicted this is the opposite of Marx being wrong!

As for social democracies “redistributing wealth,” this is purely from the global south to the global north. Framing imperialism, where the west plunders the global south and shares the spoils among its people, as “wealth redistribution” is an utterly tortured use of the English language.

You’ve proven nothing, only that you don’t understand imperialism or Marxism. Russia and China are allies, and the Russo-Ukrainian war is not a matter of imperialism on Russia’s part, but instead the west using Ukraine as they use Israel.

That’s absolutely terrible. I hope they can find everyone under the rubble and save as many as they can.

It’s perfectly possible, it just requires the downfall of imperialism as committed by the west at mass scale, and the adoption of renewables and smarter city planning, combatting desertification, etc. as seen in countries like China.

Nope, I am not confusing correlation with causation. Industrialization and development is what drives the increase in life expectancy, as this is directly related to access to medical equipment, food, housing, and more. The west achieved this by exploiting the global south, which is why the global south did not see the same leaps in life expectancy. The Soviets achieved this via pro-social policies and central planning, on their own labor. The soviets were anti imperialist and de-colonial.

As for the disollution of the USSR, it’s complicated. In any case, it was the adoption of capitalism and the ensuing plunder by the imperialist west that created the economic devastation that caused the skyrocketing prostitution. Socialism did not cause it, capitalism did.

As for the PRC, no, it is not “hybrid state capitalism.” By “most economists,” you mean purely western liberal and neoliberal economists. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. This is true of the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, and former USSR. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production, and has not yet existed. Rather than being behind China, communism is in the future.

As for Marx, his predictions are coming to pass, and he has not been “debunked.” I’ve seen the nonsense neoliberals and liberals allege against him plenty, I’ve been a Marxist for years. It has not been capitalism that has uplifted the proletariat, but instead capitalism that has systematically underdeveloped the global south, swelling the welfare states in the imperialist west, while socialist countries like China have been lifting billions from poverty.

You are erasing imperialism from the equation because it immediately causes your argument to fall apart. Many countries around the world have gone through revolution, as Marx correctly predicted, and billions now live in socialism.

As for Russia, it was imperialist under the Tsar. The Soviets abolished the Russian Empire, and the Russian Federation has no colonies nor neo colonies. The Russo-Ukrainian war is not imperialist in nature, it’s resolving the conflict between the Donbass region and Kiev as sparked by the Banderite coup in 2014, backed by the west.

As for China and Russia, they have great relations and mutually benefit.

Not a single one of my points was bullshit. Life expectancy increasing in the imperialist west was largely due to said imperialism, plundering the global south of resources and labor power while exporting contradictions and violence. Life expectancy increased in the imperialist west off the backs of the global south, life expectancy increased in socialist countries due to pro-social policies and industrial development.

As for prostitution, it skyrocketed because poverty skyrocketed. Women’s employment was dramatically harmed, and many were forced to sell their bodies or else end up homeless and on the streets. Regardless of your view of sex work, certainly you can see that being forced into it by a lack of social safety nets is akin to socially compelled sex slavery.

As for Marxism being correct, Marx’s major predictions are all coming to pass. The fact that we do not instantly live in global communism does not contradict Marx in any way. Capitalism has continued to centralize, and imperialism has grown, causing revolutions around the world. The imperialist west is now collapsing under its own weight, and socialist countries like China are rapidly rising. Marxism has carried forward into new conditions by Marxists since Marx, such as Lenin, Rodney, Cheng Enfu, and more.

You have not explained how Marx “does not add up.” Georgism was debunked long ago as having an incomplete and insufficient view of political economy, overly focusing on land while ignoring the contradictions within capitalism itself necessarily leading towards a collapse in capitalism. No amount of land value tax can prevent the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.

As for Russia being an “empire,” it is not. It is governed by nationalists and a national bourgeoisie that is largely industrial in character. Russia has a pitiful amount of finance capital, and does not base its economy on capital export but instead commodity export, like oil and natural gas. A country cannot be imperialist if it isn’t imperializing.

As for Russia being a vassal of China, it is not. It is certainly weaker than China, but the two are strong allies. This is certainly unthinkable for a westerner, but it turns out having shared interests and not being dominated by finance capital means countries can genuinely ally.

I limit social media to certain times and places. Kills doomscrolling!

Who is included in “our entire modern civilization?” Some parts of the world are in decline, some are rising and are stronger every day.

No, my comment is not confusing correlation with causation. You never explained this point, you just stated it as though it counters all of the hard evidence I brought supporting how well socialism works and how poorly capitalism has done in its place. Further, I never said prostitution did not exist in the Soviet Union, I said it skyrocketed after socialism was dissolved, which is uncontestably true.

As for Marx and numbers not adding up, he made minor mistakes here and there. Engels and other Marxists have corrected the figures and they do not change the points Marx made, nor do they disprove Marxist economics. That’s like suggesting that if a scientist makes a mistake in calculating gravity, that the law of gravity is wrong.

It’s also telling that, again, you never give examples, and entirely ignore the part where Marx debunked Henry George. You’re incapable of actually countering anything I say, so instead you make a thesis statement and confuse that for an argument itself. You aren’t going to convince any onlookers that way, and you sure as hell aren’t going to convince me, so why even try?

As for Putin being an enemy of the working classes, this is partially true. He is, after all, a nationalist leader and a billionaire. However, nationalist Russia still plays an internationally progressive role in undermining imperialism, which is positive.

Your latter comment is just racism, assuming hordes of Asians are going to conquest Russian land if Russia cannot defend itself from China and India. This was already true a decade ago, and yet no Chinese invasion of Russia seems plausible.

I definitely agree that latter administration was weaker, but it was still socialist up until it was dissolved, and still a better system than capitalism. That was my real point. As for the dissolution of the USSR, it’s more complicated than that, but not in a way that dooms socialism.

Ah, you’re a Georgist! Makes sense, that’s why you keep claiming Marx has been “debunked,” Marx already debunked Henry George long ago. It seems to be more of a vendetta of yours. Either way, what communists want and what happens in reality are far closer than you allude, you maintain a bourgeois line on existing socialism and make unbacked claims of Marx being “debunked.”

To be fair, the USSR was the best thing to happen to Eastern Europe. Their points on the Soviets were terrible, but I do think the Soviets were better than modern capitalism in Eastern Europe.

The soviet union was a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets brutalized the capitalists, tsarists, fascists, landlords, and kulaks, while liberating the workers and peasants. The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.

Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.

The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.

When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.

The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.

Death rates spiked:

And wealth disparity skyrocketed alongside the newly impoverished majority:

Capitalism brought with it skyrocketing poverty rates, drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, crime rates, and lowered life expectancy. An estimated 7 million people died due to the dissolution of socialism and reintroduction of capitalism, and this is why the large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall. A return to socialism is the only path forward for the post-soviet countries. A lot of Eastern European countries were swarmed with western capital during the destruction of socialism, which is what temporarily caused the rise of the far-right in these countries, but in time their problems will no longer be able to be ignored.

I do agree that we should not merely emulate soviet socialism, but not in the way you are making the point. Each country has its own unique circumstances, and thus each country will have its own socialist construction process. Dogmatically emulating the Soviet Union is not what we should do, we should learn from their successes and problems while applying Marxist-Leninist thought to our own conditions.

I also have no idea what you mean when you say Marx’s numbers and theories do not stand up to critical scrutiny. This is a throwaway line you never justified, but treat as a complete point. I also have no idea why you believe me to be Russian (I’m not), nor why you call me “friend” while wishing for Balkanization of Russia. It’s clear that you’re more of an enemy of the working classes than a supporter, and again ignored that the population crisis facing Ukraine is far more devastating than Russia. It’s best for the war to end swiftly, for both parties, and it’s clear that Ukraine does not hold the cards.

The simple fact is that Russian oil production hasn’t actually been impacted the way Kiev is posturing. Rather than “Putin math,” the idea that production is in shambles is “Kiev math.”

I don’t know why you think communists are submissive and simply want powerful people to tell us what to do. Communists want the working classes to control and direct society, not a tiny class of wealthy capitalists. I also don’t get what you mean by “Russia’s loss,” it’s a war of attrition and at this point, even if Kiev surrendered right now, they are facing immense population collapse and crisis and an unstable government.

Hexbear.net is pretty chill most of the time! The News megathread is always more sobering, but the culture is goofy and fun.

Nah, southern Koreans are pissed, if highly divided on Yoon. It’s southern Korean tradition to kill or imprison presidents at this point. Yoon will likely serve most if not all of his sentence.

Czechoslovakia was 1968, well after Stalin’s death. You’re referring to Khrushchev in Hungary in 1956, which is indeed the incident that led to the split in the CPGB, but when people use the term today they use it against those who generally support socialist states.

People that support existing socialist states.

Kiev has been murdering civilians in the Donbass region since the Banderite coup in 2014. Pointing out the reverance the modern Kiev regime has for Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera, and their far-right politics, is just highlighting an uncomfortable truth for westerners that rely on fascists. Despite your hatred of communists, we aren’t going anywhere.

Who sets those terms? And why don’t the people living in Donetsk and Luhansk get a say?