I am explicitly arguing against reformism, and for revolution, which requires that people actually organize. If people assume that they just need to vote every once in a while and that that’s all that’s necessary, then revolution becomes much more difficult.

I know, the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc. are also genocidal settler-colonial projects.

Nobody is making that argument either. The point is that liberals see the system as fundamentally reformable, and this is incorrect. This is a real group of people that believes lesser evil voting will somehow result in an eventually good system, that capitalism just needs to be reformed from within.

And if people say that the only way to get to the moon is building a giant sandcastle, and refuse to help building the rocket, then that makes it that much harder to put food on everyone’s table, not just those not yet crushed.

No? This is nonsense Red Scare fearmongering, in socialist Cuba and Russia life expectancy skyrocketed, poverty rates plummeted, and society saw mass democratization in a unitary socialist system.

No, and this is where the metaphor falls apart, because a revolution needs to be a mass movement. Not a coup. To put so much focus on voting is a privledge reserved for those not actively crushed by the system, at home or abroad.

Revolution isn’t a thing you do, it’s something you organize for and prepare for when crisis turns to revolution. That’s the primary focus of leftist action, not voting. Voting vs. organizing for revolution is kinda like building a sand castle vs. testing and studying rocketry if your goal is to get to the moon. Sand castles aren’t really hurting anything, but they aren’t helping either, so it’s more important to actually work on what matters.

The point is that revolution is necessary, and electoralism is a dead end.

Because Israel is a genocidal settler-colonial project and it needs them to die off to exist. This is nothing like the Soviet Union, which needed developed agriculture, which is why they collectivized and stopped the worst of the famine. What is your point? Why would they intentionally starve people? Do you think every previous famine in similar conditions was also deliberate?

Answer deliberately and clearly, you seem to be allergic to making a coherent point.

What is your point? I am not trying to “debunk a study,” I am trying to see what exactly you are trying to say, because it has nothing to do with unequal exchange.

No? There was mass weather disaster, combined with kulaks destroying grain and killing livestock to sabotage collectivization. Once it became known that there were conditions for famine, grain was redirected. Why would they intentionally starve people? Do you think every previous famine in similar conditions was also deliberate?

The Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, Cuban Revolution, Vietnamese Revolution, Laotian Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Bolivarian Revolution, etc. These all saw dramatic increases in life expectancy, literacy rates, housing rates, and democratization of society. The development of technology is intrinsically tied to politics, not outside of it.

The French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, etc.

That source is just an explanation of Unequal Exchange, which is an entirely different thing that what you think it is. What is your point, exactly?

I didn’t lie about any of it. Are you saying famine wasn’t common under the Tsar, or that the 1930s famine wasn’t the last major famine in Eastern Europe outside of World War II?

It wasn’t a lie, the site links many western news sites as sources for claims. If you actually took a few minutes to engage beyond checking the links, you would have known that. No deflection or obfuscation on my part, just disappointment that you won’t even do the due diligence to refute any points. You are indeed the one being dense, sorry to say. This is kind of like that time when you were insistent that the proper term is “Marxist-Leninism” rather than “Marxism-Leninism”, which Wikipedia easily verifies.

No? What part of “famine was historically common due to feudal agriculture, so when the soviets collectivized agriculture famine was ended forever” is difficult to understand?

Yes it is, public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working class runs the state. By Marxist analysis, it’s clearly socialist.

I referenced numerous works that provide definitive accounts of anti-discrimination laws, legal protections, and administrative power and representation. You deflected, said I was wrong, and refused to engage with any of it, hand waving it as “disinformation” despite largely being sourced from places like the New York Times. You have no actual legs to stand on, and justify your own lack of developed argumentation and lack of evidence as “not taking the bait.” Anyone can see that the only people who ever side with you are the ones entrenched in the same epistemic bubble as you. In a sense, that puts you on pretty even ground with maga in my worldview, refusing to look at hard evidence and shutting your eyes and ears to uncomfortable facts.

No? Socialism didn’t cause the famine. Famine was not a “price,” it was a historically recurring symptom of underdeveloped feudal agriculture that the soviets abolished as soon as they could.