Ah yes, known liberals and fascists such as the other two people who ruled with Stalin and whoever believed in genetics. If diverse opinions were allowed, what was the entire focus on eradicating factionalism?

There’s a difference between wrecking and having different opinions.

Could you cite some sources or elaborate on fighting against bureaucracy? Why was bureaucracy established and why did it remain after the war? How wasn’t Stalin before Lenin’s death a career politician?

Losurdo’s Stalin: Critique of a Black Legend is a good book going over this. Stalin agreed with Lenin about how the beauracracy could grow, so he actively tried to combat it. He even edited records of meetings to reduce his applause and increase it for others. Stalin was elected, yes, but the beauracracy wasn’t solidified until Kruschev. The necessity of rebuilding infrastructure and a destroyed public led to a rise in opportunism.

I’d read the books I linked if I were you.

Marxism is correct and more relevant than ever.

Definitely became overly-beaurocratized after WWII, but was generally far more democratic than Capitalist states

I’m referring to the book itself, you have a lot of confused ideas about the USSR itself. Blackshirts and Reds is another great “Myth Debunker.”

I’ll explain further, then: At first, the lower body elects the upper body. The upper body decides everything.

Wrong. The lower bodies also decide things among themselves particular to issues specific to them, and elect delegates for the larger area. Imagine a soviet of a single factory, then a soviet of a city composed of delegates from all of the factories, then a regional soviet, etc. Each rung governs their respective areas with matters exclusive to them. These were workers with instant recall elections if needed.

1. Why not just skip the waste of time of the lower body voting on stuff? I can’t find any time something like jury nullification of a really awful presidium policy happened.

Because the lower bodies vote on matters pertaining to themselves that don’t affect others.

2. Since whoever disagrees with the upper body gets expelled, the lower body will perpetually elect whomever the upper body wants. While this may have enabled a dictatorship of the proletariat for a while, this behavior blocked out a ton of new ideas and became problematic after Stalin’s straight-up purging of opponents and entrenched an oppressive old guard, by whom Khrushchev got ousted trying to get rid of.

That’s not really accurate. Diverse opinions were held and discussed, what was purged was liberalism and fascism, which were dangerous currents deliberately infiltrating the USSR, as well as wreckers like Trotsky who collaborated with fascists and liberals.

Secondly, Stalin fought against beaurocracy, it wasn’t until WWII where the population was decimated and the USSR needed to be rebuilt that a beaurocratic class of “career politicians” began to take hold.

Again, I suggest reading more on the subject, you seem to be confused on the basic structure itself, causing other confusions to spring forth.

Gotta keep the reserve army of labor in squalor.

Civility is a tool to do your enemy’s job for them.

Nah, it was democratic, moreso than Capitalist countries. You can read This Soviet World if you want a look at it.

The Ratchet Effect isn’t quite correct, Dems push the Reps right and the Reps pull the Dems right. It’s like a spring linked between em.

Almost every democratic structure practices Democratic Centralism, it just means the group is bound to the democratic results.

Soviet Democracy. Workers elect delegates from among themselves, who can then be subject to instant recall elections at any time. Remove the “career politician” aspects from government.

If you earnestly believe that Kamala Harris doesn’t give a damn about children in Gaza, then I can see how you’d make such a charged statement.

It doesn’t matter if she’s laughing or crying, she has promised to always continue to supply Israel with what it’s using to commit genocide. The US supports Israel for economic reasons, not moral.

That’s a fair point, 9/11 did fundamentally change America. But then, that feels like it makes your point about FDR even less relevant - do you really think America is back to how it was pre-9/11? Do you think kicking a couple extra points to Stein leads to comparable leftward pressure to the Great Depression, in a post-9/11 America? I say, reward the leftward gains the DNC has already made so they’re incentivized to keep pushing.

The DNC specializes in pretending it’s left wing, when they’ve been sliding to the right. They only bend to pressure.

I appreciate you sourcing your argument, but this article touches on a ton of historical conflicts with very little context given to each of them. The premise is that NATO is a chief and unjustified aggressor in all of those conflicts, but I’d need to do further reading on them. This article is not a good starting point as it’s biased and doesn’t provide citations of externally collected data, e.g. on its claim that NATO is responsible for >10m deaths in 25 years (Is that just from every joint NATO operation, or from all of the fighting done by constituent countries? Who were the chief aggressors in the individual conflicts? What was the justification? There’s a lot of info to be broken down).

Everything is biased, everyone is biased. You aren’t going to find many people supportive of NATO openly talking abouy its atrocities.

If you’re talking specifically about the alleged genocide in Donbas, then that’s an unsubstantiated claim by Russia. If you’re only suggesting that Russia had interest in involving itself in the war in Donbas, started by Russia-back separatists in the first place, that still doesn’t even excuse every other region of Ukraine hit by Russia at the start of the war.

I’m referring to the fully substantiated shelling of breakaway regions of primarily Ethnic-Russians in Ukraine. I never said it justifies Russian invasion, but that it provoked it.

Even if it were justified…why make intervention conditional on NATO operations? If something truly horrifying and unjustifiable were happening in Ukraine, but NATO agreed to stop expanding, then Russia would agree to ignore atrocities in Ukraine…why exactly?

Because Russia has been targeted by NATO since NATO’s inception as an anti-Russian coalition of Imperialist nations who serve as parasited on the Global South. Russia is not acting “morally,” the RF is acting in their material interests. Russia wants NATO to back off, and NATO openly and flagrantly disprespected that wish for decades, leading to the current conflict. There is no conflict without NATO.

Why not? It absolutely did.

Those Capitalist concessions are weakening in Social Democracies, and were only ever brought about by fear of revolt. The USSR paved the way for it.

I have a PC that can push 4k120, it’s overblown and a luxury if anything.

Wow, you’re telling me the people who were brainwashed into believing their country is the best (not saying it doesn’t happen nowadays (cough cough USA), voted to retain it?

“Brainwashing” narratives are false, thought-terminating cliches. The people supported the economic system that had free healthcare and education, doubled life expectancies, dramatic improvements in science, made it to space, rapidly industrialized, and dramatically reduced inequality. The idea that they were simply “brainwashed” is an idealist, anti-materialist analysis.

In my country (Romania) the only point I hear people praising the communist regime about is infrastructure. Why? Because, as it turns out, it’s much easier to build infrastructure when you have slaves prisoners which you don’t have to pay. Of course, the corruption in our post-communist government doesn’t help either.

Even prisoners were paid in the USSR for forced labor, this is ahistorical.

I agree, capitalism is VERY far from ideal, but, please, stop glazing the USSR regime just because it was “communist”.

I don’t glaze the USSR, I dispel lies and myths about it in defense of Actually Existing Socialism.

Capitalism is changing, yes, but towards Monopoly Capitalism, aka Imperialism, not feudalism. Centralization of Capitalism isn’t the same as feudalism.

Because the Nazis were Anticommunist, antisocialist Capitalists.

The State is the weapon by which any class asserts their control, not the other way around.

No, as the Petite Bourgeoisie are proletarianized by the formation of Monopoly Capitalism, the Petite Bourgeoisie aligns with the Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat, who at the time gain class consciousness and are increasingly sympathetic to Socialism and Communism. Fascism is a defense mechanism against Communism.

Not really. Capitalism was born from feudalism, but is entirely different in character.