I’m listening to what you’re saying, I just disagree with it. I’m not overthinking it, either. “Democracy” within the confines of a system where capitalists control the economy cannot be used to overturn their rule. You cannot ask them politely to give up their power, and they hold the state as well, even if the working classes were to win electorally, as Allende did in Chile and was coup’d shortly after for it. Revolution is necessary.

The rate is massive at this point, considering how long it has been going on, especially due to imperierialism. You’re referring to the labor aristocracy exclusively when you say 13,000 isn’t life changing.

Nope, democracy depends on the class character of the state, which is not outside of the context of the economy but deeply embedded within it. Capitalists select the parties we can vote for, their representatives, and use the state to overturn any meaningful change.

We cannot use the tools of capitalism for our advantage. Capitalist “democracy” is democracy for the capitalist class. The class that controls the means of production controls the state, and controls democracy. That is why the capitalist state needs to be smashed, and replaced with a socialist one.

Oh, most definitely real then!

That works!

We aren’t at all saying the same thing. You’re saying that the system is fine, but workers need to simply realize their chains and it will all be good. I’m saying that that’s deliberate, and that even if everyone wanted socialism it wouldn’t happen without revolution.

The burden of proof is on you, all I was doing was contextualizing what you posted.

The IWPR is based in Washington D.C., the U.K., and the Netherlands, and seems to be especially concerned about manufacturing consent for backing the Banderite regime in Kiev, and supporting the ovethrow of socialism and Chavismo in Venezuela.

I don’t trust the statistics of a state that let millions inhabitants starve to death.

They didn’t “let” millions of inhabitants starve to death, they did everything they could to alleviate it. Russia was notorious for frequent famine and starvation prior to collectivization of agriculture, and ended famine once and for all once it had. That’s a major contributor to the doubling of life expectancies in Russia:

Moreover, contemporary historians rely on statistics provided by the soviets, fact-check them, and find them to be very reliable.

How exactly was the normal worker in control of production? Wasn’t it more like production was in the hand of the state, which in fact was very hierarchical?

As I explained earlier, and will copy again, the state was run by the working classes. Socialism is not the absence of hierarchy, you’re thinking of anarchism. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action (as I’ll show at the end). 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.

Several elections which I attended will show concretely how soviet democracy functions. Four election meetings were held simultaneously in different hamlets of Gulin village, which had no assembly hall big enough for all. One of these meetings threw out the Party candidate, Borisov, because they felt that he neglected their instructions; they elected a non-Party woman who had displayed energy in improving the village and were praised by the election commissioner—himself a Party member—for having discovered good government timber which the Party had neglected. The central meeting in Gulin expected 235 voters; 227 appeared and were duly checked off by name at the door. There ensued personal discussion of every one of nine candidates, of whom seven were chosen. Mihailov “did good work on the roads.” The most enthusiasm developed over Menshina, a woman who “does everything assigned her energetically; checks farm property, tests seeds, collects state loans.” Dr. Sharkova, head of the Mothers’ Consultation, was pushed by the women: “We need a sanitary expert to clean up our village.” The incoming soviet was instructed to “increase harvest yield within two years to thirty bushels per acre, to organize a stud farm, get electricity and radio for every home, organize adult education courses, football and skiing teams, and satisfy a score of other needs.

• Anna Louise Strong

All in all, the version of the Soviet Union that exists in your head is a work of fiction.

Most communists support the secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, that have been fighting the Banderite regime in Kiev since 2014, when their democratically elected president was ousted in a western-backed, far-right coup. The Russian Federation is aiding the secessionists, and destroying NATO equipment and resources that otherwise are used to threaten the global south into bending the knee to western imperialism.

Socialism is a mode of production, characterized by public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. It isn’t something to be “found,” or something already present in capitalist society, it’s something to be realized by overthrowing the capitalist state and replacing it with a socialist one. Even if every single working-class individual agreed that socialism is necessary, you still need to organize, and you still need to overthrow capitalism.

Fair, but my point is that the lion’s share expands exponentially, not linearly, nor is it all consumed every year.

That’s pure profit, not counting surplus re-invested into production and expansion, and moreover this wealth extends year over year as reproduction occurs on an expanded scale.

There are many parasitic classes historically, such as the feudal lords, slave owners, patriarchs, landlords, etc. The capitalists are the present dominant parasitic class.

No “tankie” thinks Putin is a communist, far more liberals think Putin is secretly a communist than communists think so, both by ratio and total.

Actually not the worst way I’ve seen him taught, far from it in fact.

Loving your Parenti-series of posts as of late! For anyone that hasn’t read or listened to the late Michael Parenti before, I highly recommend the “Yellow Parenti” Speech on US interventionism, the third world, and the USSR and Blackshirts and Reds | Audiobook. His lecture on “Inventing Reality” is also excellent.

Michael Parenti’s Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media has always been better than Manufacturing Consent, which is what Chomsky is most known for anyways. Chomsky has always been terrible as a leftist. Highly recommend On Chomsky. For learning about Marxism-Leninism in general, I recommend my intro ML reading list.

Implementing a socialist mode of production is not the same as extracting the surplus and natural resources of a country to the detriment of their development and economic health. The Baltics gained unequally from the soviets, not the inverse. Capitalists and fascists were censored and repressed, yes, but this is often necessary for any revolutionary society to do with those who would support reversion to the previous system, just like those who wish to bring back feudalism following bourgeois revolutions.

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.

How could they have materially been more democratic in a way that would satisfy you?

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.

In what way were they more repressive than their peers?

When you seem to cry about supposed “colonialism,” where the “colonized” gained more than they produced, it reeks of malformed analysis.

Colonialism also requires extraction of surplus, and if you read my edited comment you can see that the opposite was the case. There was real frustration in the Baltics specifically, but ultimately the socialist system was uplifting and democratic, while British colonialism was the opposite.