Cowbee

Which part do you disagree with? This isn't genocide denial, not even western historians believe the USSR's 1930s famine was genocide. Please explain what you mean, before resorting to libel.

While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made,[10][11] it remains in dispute whether the Holodomor was directed at Ukrainians and whether it constitutes a genocide, the point of contention being the absence of attested documents explicitly ordering the starvation of any area in the Soviet Union.[12] Some historians conclude that the famine was deliberately engineered by Joseph Stalin to eliminate a Ukrainian independence movement.[c] Others suggest that the famine was primarily the consequence of rapid Soviet industrialisation and collectivization of agriculture. A middle position, held for example by historian Andrea Graziosi, is that the initial causes of the famine were an unintentional byproduct of the process of collectivization but once it set in, starvation was selectively weaponized and the famine was "instrumentalized" and amplified against Ukrainians as a means to punish Ukrainians for resisting Soviet policies and to suppress their nationalist sentiments.[13]

Straight from Wikipedia, are you accusing them of genocide denial too? Archival evidence points to the second, it was a consequence of collectivization and the reaction against collectivization, combined with natural factors.

You're conflating disparate factors. Ukraine was the breadbasket of the USSR, that doesn't mean there was a targeted famine towards them.

Kulaks were a group of bourgeois farmers that opposed collectivization. Many of these Kulaks burned their own crops and killed their livestock to avoid handing it over to the Red Army and the Communists.

The famine in Ukraine and parts of Russia was a separate but linked matter. The Kulak resistance to collectivization was multiplied by drought, flood, and pests, making an already low harvest spiral into crisis. The idea that it was an intentional famine and therefore a genocide actually originated in Volkischer Beobatcher, a Nazi news outlet, before spreading to the west. It isn't "genocide apologia," it was a horrible tragedy caused by a combination of human and environmental factors.

Pretty sure its fishing.

Do you think Kulaks were an ethnicity, and not a bourgeois class? Collectivization of agriculture was poorly done, yes, but it wasn't what powered industrialization. This is a misanalysis of the USSR.

The notion that ideas create matter, rather than the opposite, is anti-scientific.

So what does a blend of capitalism and socialism look like to you? I'm saying that sectors which can lead to unfair control over necessary resources should be solely controlled by the government.

There isn't really such thing as a "blend," systems are either controlled by the bourgeoisie or proletariat. A socialist country with a large market sector is still socialist, a Capitalist country with a large public sector is still Capitalist. I recommend reading Socialism Developed China, not Capitalism.

And you say monopolization. Monopolization of what exactly? I don't think you care too much for the monopolization of the gaming industry or the video streaming industry do you?

Monopolization paves the way for socialization. Large, monopolist syndicates make themselves open to central planning and democratic control.

Also, you emphasize wealth concentration. What exactly do you dislike about it? Especially considering that under a social democracy wealth is only at that point luxury since there is welfare available.

Wealth concentration leads to influence, which results in further privitization and erosion of social safety nets, like we see in the declining Nordic Countries.

Trends.

Meshed, as in together form an overall system, 2 aspects of it.

If you are big daddy owner, centralized state permits you to have access to the top guy who can do anything.

It is a lot easier to corrupt one guy, then it is to do one guy in every state for example is the logic here.

This is inherent defect of centralization. Sure we can get a lot of shit done effectively if everybody is good faith actor. And progress has been made but it was done with a ton of grift that we just accept

This isn't really accurate, though, this is just an argument against democracy. Recall elections are standard Marxist practice, which pretty much eliminates this problem outright. It seems like you haven't engaged with Marxist organizational theory.

Capitalism and socialism are economic system for property. We are talking about the state in of itself here.

They are always present linked. You can't divorce them, the Base creates and supports the Superstructure.

I would posit the issue not economic system choice but rather corruptions of the ruling class.

This is generally unfounded.

I bet any properly set up system would work as long as it was designed to work properly.

You can't "design" a system, that's utopianism.

If you notice the best systems we currently have are actually a mix of both.

No, the best systems currently are Socialist. There are no "mixes." Or, at least, everything is a mix, no system has made it to Communism yet, but the best systems are run along Marxist lines.

There is a strong correlation between quality of life of the working class and corruption.

Countries with low corruption are able to deliver high quality of life because they don't a lot of blatant looting.

I bet this will be the down fall of the US empire, the parasite class taking too much and it is causing serious social issues for Americans. They know something is wrong bit they jerk politics without realizing it is a futile exercise.

This is more correlation and not causation.

It's one and the same.

Idealism is wrong, though, so focusing on it is useless IMO.

It reversed industrialization and shifted internationally.