Cowbee

No, it has not. Read Blackshirts and Reds, which I already linked. Communist movements served the Proletariat, not the Bourgeoisie. They also were by no means perfect "worker's paradises." Another good article is *Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" if you can only spare 20 minutes and not read a whole book.

Y'all should focus instead on how socialism is incompatible with authoritarianism

You should read On Authority, Marx and Engels were constantly hounded as "authoritarian" for advocating for central planning.

Because you are just as exhaustingly childish, naive and deluded as the Randistanis, who believe destroying the government will suddenly lead to perfect freedom and prosperity.

I don't believe any of that, actually. I do believe revolution is necessary for Humanity to move forward, but not that it would immediately lead to perfect freedom and prospertity. That needs to be built, and it can only start by the proletariat siezing the Means of Production and wiping away the old Capitalist state.

The rest of your comment is gish-gallop historical revisionist nonsense.

It isn't, it has a Socialist Market Economy. Marx and Engels repeatedly stated that Private Property cannot be abolished all at once in lower-stage Communism (which modern Marxists call Socialism). The economy of China is over 50% publicly owned and centrally planned, and there is a cooperative sector as well, meaning the Private Sector is a minority. On top of this, the Private Sector is still centrally planned.

The PRC employs a "birdcage model," where competition in the markets eventually leads to monopolization into large syndicates, which the CPC then folds into the public sector steadily as it increases control by degree.

This is exactly why I linked you the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. If you aren't going to read Marx and Engels, and you aren't going to study Historical Materialism, surely you can read a 20 minute article, right?

I'll leave you with an excerpt from The Principles of Communism:

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

I bolded the section where Mao made an error in judgement and socialized the economy dramatically before the productive forces were developed enough.

I mean, depends on the day. I see tons of very socialist/leftist memes and content posted to world.

Leftist messaging is increasingly popular as Capitalism decays, but that doesn't mean everyone has read theory. Lemmy.world is largely populated by liberals sympathetic to an idealistic form of Socialism that is pure fantasy, and denounce AES as a betratal of Socialism. Blackshirts and Reds has an entire chapter dedicated to western "left" anticommunism.

That being said, how many times do you need to circle jerk about socialism in the comments section on Lemmy?

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I believe Marxism to be correct and try to get others to read theory. I get deep satisfaction whenever someone changes their mind or reads theory because of what I comment and post.

It's not like anyone is actually going to do a proletariat revolution

On what grounds do you say this? Revolution is happening all around the world every few years in different states, as Capitalism decays more people become sympathetic to leftism. It will likely happen latest in Imperialist countries like the US, where living standards are inflated by hyper-exploitation of the Global South, and happens all the time in the Global South. Trends exist, systems aren't static, Capitalism cannot last forever. That would be like believing water could be continuously heated and never boil.

At this point, it would just be Marxists "ackshually"-ing each other. I'm super bored of the lack of progress made in the discussions.

To be clear, most Marxists don't need to "ackshually" each other, just towards liberals. Liberals often have the same misconceptions, that doesn't mean they aren't changing their minds individually.

Read Blackshirts and Reds, Socialism and Fascism are entirely incompatible and serve entirely different classes.

Maoists are ultraleftists, they generally deviate from Marxism to an idealist, rather than a materialist degree. I recommend checking out my comment responding to them.

The Vanguard concept isn't flawed, it has real basis in materialist understanding. The idea that AES states have "devolved into Capitalism" is wrong as well (except the USSR into the various post-Socialist states). I recommend reading both Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. The Dengist reforms were a reversion back towards Marxism, Mao had tried to achieve Communism through fiat without enough development of the productive forces and as such there were struggles and recessions.

Public Ownership and Central Planning works best on monopolist syndicates aquired by the State, that's the entire reason why Marxists say Capitalism creates Socialism and that the bourgeoisie produces its own gravediggers first and foremost, this monopolization into internally planned syndicates makes Socialism a natural evolution on Capitalism, not a "better society" to force into existence.

Yep! You got it. Cuba, PRC, the USSR (pre-dissolution), Vietnam, Laos, etc.

Ultraleftism, found in the author's Maoist leanings, is also dogmatic. I really like the articles Socalism Developed China, Not Capitalism as well as Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" as both help recontextualize AES from a materialist lens, specifically from the frame of Historical Materialism.

Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic book, but the other 2 articles are 20 minutes each and Blackshirts and Reds is a full book.

Also, for what it's worth, you have defended Zionism and believe Israel as a Settler-Colonial project should remain. Not exactly Marxist analysis, is this? Marxists hold firm that Israel cannot exist without its settler-colonialism, and isn't a "nation," hence the unwavering support for Palestinian National Liberation (especially the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine).

That's fine, like I said! If someone wants an Anarchist server and doesn't really want Marxists, dbzer0 is probably pretty comfy. Marxists tend to be on Lemmygrad.ml, Lemmy.ml, or Hexbear.net, which is also good. If someone wants to avoid Marxists, it's better to be on a different instance, one that isn't federated with them.

I wouldn't describe it as "neutral," it's definitely Anarchist dominant and the admins and users tend to be anti-Marxist. That's fine for its audience, but if someone wants a Marxist instance dbzer0 isn't really it.

The "social credit score system" is largely made-up. There is a credit system, but it mostly targets businesses, meanwhile the US has a far more impactful credit score system. The PRC isn't perfect, but the dystopian nightmare the West portrays it as is largely projection.

What the heck is a "political class?" I get what it's trying to say, but people just use the word class to refer to any group of people, and not what it's meant to be used for (relations to production).