Conservative doesn’t mean what you think it does. Conservative means not changing the state at all. Capitalism is the status quo. Communism is something new, something untried, that resolves to break the status quo. Conserving the environment means to stop whatever actions we are doing to change it. Usually people mean stopping the destructive actions towards the environment, so it has eventually come to mean saving the environment/biodiversity, etc. That still doesn’t change the meaning of the word conservative, which means upholding the prevailing state of things.

If a train is heading towards a cliff, hitting the brakes is conservative in the literal sense

Using your example, letting the train run is conservative, and hitting the brakes to stop it (changing the state) is radical.

Lenin wrote his most critical theory before the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing socialism, for example, Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism was published in 1916, and built on his previous studies of imperialism via the Marxist method. Marxism-Leninism is the living Marxism carried forward to the era of imperialism, and is not a deviation from Marxism but a continuation of it. Marx never became a reactionary, it was the anarchist faction that failed to counter Marx and was thus expelled from the First International. Marx has no weaknesses with respect to materialism as far as I know.

It would help your points tremendously if you gave any examples of the flaws Marx supposedly has, or the ways Marxism-Leninism is a deviation, rather than a continuation. Instead, this seems to follow your strategy of subjectivism, just labeling things you don’t like as counter-revolutionary without critically analyzing them. If you could verbalize how and why you disagree with Marxism-Leninism and Marxism, it would help your arguments enormously, as it stands there’s 0 chance you’re convincing anyone here, who already largely agrees with Marxism-Leninism, or anyone looking on who can see the MLs bring receipts while you refuse to provide any.

Usurped control of the state from…who?

I think the texts written by socialists building socialism are valuable insights into the actual struggles run into when building socialism. I also believe labeling them “counter-revolutionaries” without demonstrating how and why this is the case is an entirely ineffective means of argument, I’ve already made it clear that I consider socialist states to be real, and I back up those claims with historical and theoretical evidence when needed. Simply saying “no” is not an argument, and telling me I’m removed from praxis and reality when I know this isn’t the case is naked Ad Hominem.

Do the people of Donetsk and Luhansk have a right to defend themselves against the Banderite regime in Kiev? That’s what the modern war spiraled out from, a Banderite coup spilling into a civil war.

As for state capitalism, I don’t support Singapore or the Republic of Korea. I support socialist market economies and socialist planned economies, as I support socialism in general, and there’s a wide gulf between state capitalism and socialism when it comes to which class is on top.

Oh, but you do support a government in tangible terms because you support the war the regime is fighting and the atrocities it commits against its people. The regime literally kidnaps people off the street and forces them into fighting. You’ve openly stated many times that you support continuation of the war and that you stand on the side of a openly fascist regime. That makes you a fascist.

Also, imagine being over the age of 13 and using terms like authoritarian. 🤡

The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.

The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.

What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in so-called authoritarian regimes, the ruling party serves the working class as seen in countries like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and they enjoy broad support from the masses.

To add to that, the whole idea of state capitalism is a misnomer. It basically says that while you have state owned enterprise, the internal capitalist relations within it remain largely the same. While that’s true, there is a fundamental difference here. Capitalism is a system where people who own capital hire workers to exploit there labor with the purpose of increasing their capital. The goal of capitalist enterprise is to create wealth for the owners with any social benefits being strictly incidental. On the other hand, the purpose of state enterprise is to provide social value. Workers in state owned companies are producing things that the society needs. They are working for their own benefit and those of others around them. Therefore, the nature of work itself is fundamentally different from actual capitalism.

I guess I shouldn’t be expecting much from somebody who equates a socialist state where means of production are publicly owned with fascism.

the Ukranian people to defend themselves against imperial aggression.

The Ukranian people want an end to the war, and it’s only the US imperial puppet regime the live under that has decided to aggressively kidnap them into vans at gunpoint instead.

Full support to the brave Ukranians who kill draft officers.

authoritarian state-capitalist regimes

Dictionary: libspeak to english

non-western socialist governments

You’re referring to a famine at the outset of the USSR coming from civil war, referring to the 1930s famine as 3 separate famines, and blaming the famine caused by Nazi invasion on the Soviets. There’s good reason that’s all you have to bring up.

Question: “what famines occurred because the Soviets didn’t learn from the 1933 famine?”

Answer: A famine from -before- that famine, the famine you’re being asked to name one after, TWO OTHER FAMINES THAT HAPPENED THE SAME YEAR, and the one that happened because the fucking nazis invaded

What a mixture of bad faith and just plain stupid

So, to summarize, there was exactly one famine after the 32-33 one, and it came immediately after the USSR was devastated by ww2

• 4 million dead in the Bangal Famine caused by the British in 1943
• 1 million people died in a drought in the Sahel region
• 1.5 Million died in Bangladesh from floods in 1974
• 1 million died in Ethiopia famine between 1983- 84
• 70,000 people died in 1998 in Sudan from Famine
• 2.7 million people died in the Second Congo War between 1998 - 2004 mostly from starvation and disease

All have something in common: The capitalist core ignored people, caused wars or restricted economic at their periphery and let millions them die.

The death toll by the capitalist empires are way higher and going way more recent in history.

Which book?

I agree never a one size fits all situation. I do not have much confidence in central planning, since that has the longest track record in failure. Both in governments and in corporations.

A natural disaster would be handled by regional or national disaster response agencies. Much like it is now in western countries.

Regarding wealth or resource imbalance between poorer and richer areas, this is where I think the current status quo is the problem. Since after the industrial revolution, the high productivity of cities has been subsidizing the wealth of the suburbs and rural areas to the significant detriment of overall productivity.

We need to rethink the infrastructure standards outside of cities. Right now the suburb sprawl of single homes with large yards, malls and massive parking lots and roads are utterly unsustainable.

Its are hampering the productive capacity, food quality and security provided by rural land. What this looks like is a lot like older european villages. People live relatively densely surrounded by farmland and pasture. Car ownership is low since you can walk or bike anywhere, or there is a tram or bus to where you need to go. I would also point out that much of this infrastructure was developed and maintained locally with little to no central government.

Once you stop the subsidization and change the role to be something more sustainable, you will find that the wealth and productive density per person will balance according to the inherit environmental factors to a much larger degree.

I also want to highlight is that a lack of central control and planning does not prevent collaboration and coordination from occuring between entities. Our modern communication technology makes this possible to a degree that the founders of socialism and communism could never have anticipated.

Much like industrialization has changed the world order, the communication revolution has done the same. The political and economic sciences are still playing catchup.