I’m not being absurd, you are. You’re defining the mode of production of a majority collectivized and planned economy that was oriented towards satisfying the needs of everyone as a “kleptocracy.” This is ridiculous and requires an extreme level of evidence explaining why such a focus was both put on satisfying everyone’s needs, and on this “kleptocracy” you claim. You’re confusing the capitalists that rose from the ashes of the USSR with the USSR’s mode of production. I’m aware that China has billionaires, and again, you seem to be under the impression that Marxism is about equalitarianism and not about gradually collectivizing production and distribution to satisfy the needs of everyone.
Good reading for you would be China has Billionaires. Marxists don’t deny the struggles of the USSR and PRC, we do learn from them, what we don’t do is dismiss their successes or take liberal perspectives on them like you’re doing here.
I’m aware that you consider yourself a socialist, but your analysis is far from that of a socialist.
I gave you evidence…and you ignored it. I can provide additional evidence beyond ‘54, if you acknowledge those archives.
You believe Marxism allows for the billionaire and political classes in China that control the means of production? Bold.
You don’t “own” Marxism, btw. Most Marxists I know at least acknowledge and criticize the very large problems in the USSR and China. I mean…I also could be considered a Marxist…but I consider myself a post-Marxist because he’s been improved on. I also think we can do better than Marx the man as a foundation - don’t get me started on Lenin, lol. The weird thing is I like Stalin (but Che all the way).
This isn’t zero sum: I’m not saying either is all bad because they have kleptocrats and billionaires. We haven’t even broached the topic of what I think about the USSR and China as a whole (because you’re so hung up on denying their systematic problems in favour of focusing on the positives?) in contrast to what we see in the western democracies (for example) you’re typing as if i condemn them and I prefer the USA, or something…not a thing.
Yes, you indeed linked a US Federally funded liberal historian that is paid to present a certain view of the USSR. If you want sources on the socialist economy of the USSR, and how it was run, here are some great ones:
I don’t own Marxism, correct. I also study it a great deal, organize in real life with a communist party. I do acknowledge real faults with the USSR and PRC, but I don’t acknowledge fake ones. You should read the essay I linked called China Has Billionaires, it explains China’s position as an early socialist economy and its process of gradually collectivizing production and distribution. The class that controls the state and holds the principle aspects of the economy in China is the proletariat, as it was in the USSR, as it is in Cuba.
You defining Cuba as more correctly socialist because its rich people are poorer is what I mean by you being anti-Marxist, this poverty fetishism isn’t Marxist in the slightest.
I’m not being absurd, you are. You’re defining the mode of production of a majority collectivized and planned economy that was oriented towards satisfying the needs of everyone as a “kleptocracy.” This is ridiculous and requires an extreme level of evidence explaining why such a focus was both put on satisfying everyone’s needs, and on this “kleptocracy” you claim. You’re confusing the capitalists that rose from the ashes of the USSR with the USSR’s mode of production. I’m aware that China has billionaires, and again, you seem to be under the impression that Marxism is about equalitarianism and not about gradually collectivizing production and distribution to satisfy the needs of everyone.
Good reading for you would be China has Billionaires. Marxists don’t deny the struggles of the USSR and PRC, we do learn from them, what we don’t do is dismiss their successes or take liberal perspectives on them like you’re doing here.
I’m aware that you consider yourself a socialist, but your analysis is far from that of a socialist.
I gave you evidence…and you ignored it. I can provide additional evidence beyond ‘54, if you acknowledge those archives.
You believe Marxism allows for the billionaire and political classes in China that control the means of production? Bold.
You don’t “own” Marxism, btw. Most Marxists I know at least acknowledge and criticize the very large problems in the USSR and China. I mean…I also could be considered a Marxist…but I consider myself a post-Marxist because he’s been improved on. I also think we can do better than Marx the man as a foundation - don’t get me started on Lenin, lol. The weird thing is I like Stalin (but Che all the way).
This isn’t zero sum: I’m not saying either is all bad because they have kleptocrats and billionaires. We haven’t even broached the topic of what I think about the USSR and China as a whole (because you’re so hung up on denying their systematic problems in favour of focusing on the positives?) in contrast to what we see in the western democracies (for example) you’re typing as if i condemn them and I prefer the USA, or something…not a thing.
Yes, you indeed linked a US Federally funded liberal historian that is paid to present a certain view of the USSR. If you want sources on the socialist economy of the USSR, and how it was run, here are some great ones:
Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union Today
Soviet Democracy
Russian Justice
This Soviet World
Blackshirts and Reds
All much better sources.
I don’t own Marxism, correct. I also study it a great deal, organize in real life with a communist party. I do acknowledge real faults with the USSR and PRC, but I don’t acknowledge fake ones. You should read the essay I linked called China Has Billionaires, it explains China’s position as an early socialist economy and its process of gradually collectivizing production and distribution. The class that controls the state and holds the principle aspects of the economy in China is the proletariat, as it was in the USSR, as it is in Cuba.
You defining Cuba as more correctly socialist because its rich people are poorer is what I mean by you being anti-Marxist, this poverty fetishism isn’t Marxist in the slightest.