Cowbee [he/him]

Juche is basically Marxism-Leninism, but with a focus on self-reliance.

Depends on the audience. It’s polarizing, hence the downvotes as well.

If we are strictly speaking ideological purity, the DPRK’s Marxism-Leninism with Juche influences is probably the least revisionist overall. China is the most “relevant,” of course, plus SWCC is legitimately a return to Marxism as compared to Maoism.

Cuba has some Capitalist roading, yes, it heavily depends on the tourist industry and said industry is decently privitized.

Ultimately though, a strong understanding of Dialectics and the Base and Superstructure is necessary when judging the impact of “Capitalist Roading.”

I wouldn’t say there are any “orthodox” Marxist countries, most have taken some fair bit of revisionism, but are still Socialist and practice Marxism.

Historically there have been more, such as the USSR, but currently the DPRK, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos are explicitly Marxist. There’s a lot of misinformation surrounding them, but they retain Marxism.

Marxism is Communism, yes. Communism has been proven to work multiple times, and does to this day.

I suggest reading Blackshirts and Reds if that goes against what you believe to be true, though if you have specific questions I can do my best to answer.

Great!

You added good context to what I’m saying, good comment comrade.

Democratic Centralism can be hard to swallow if analyzed through an Anarchist lense, but ultimately the results and necessity of the matter speak for itself. Diversity in thought, unity in action.

Trotskyism is especially dangerous because it’s essentially wrecker Marxism. Trotsky is often shown in a sympathetic light in western media and narratives, and prevents actual radicalization. New Leftists see a supposed Socialist with similar critiques of the USSR as the US State Department, and that’s a far more comfortable pill to swallow in the west.

And Mendelian genetics wrecks the party with the unhinged liberalism of accurate science supported by half of Pavlov’s students?

In the beginning of the USSR, there was legitimate struggle against bourgeois science, like race science. Genetics was unfortunately overly combatted in the crossfire. The USSR was still far more dedicated to scientific pursuit than Capitalist Countries, and managed to get a man to space before even the US.

As for your books, you may realize that I am a bit short on time and do not have the energy to read 4 entire novel-length books instead of specific pages or chapters.

Then just read Blackshirts and Reds. If your time is so short that you can’t read even 1 short book on the topic of dispelling myths about the USSR, then your time is too short to argue with people online about it too, no offense. Blackshirts and Reds is recommended reading for new Marxists in general because it’s short and to the point, and written in common American language without requiring having read books and books of Marxist theory to understand.

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 that was completed under Gorbachev, introducing new fixtures of government that stood against the rest, harming the centralized system and resulting in dissolution.

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.

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

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.

Cherry picking survey to support your position while ignoring overwhelming majority voting to exit Russian clown state along with every other republic.

Didn’t cherry pick at all, Socialism was better for Ukranians and every group in the former USSR. Additionally, it’s quite the opposite to say that most people wanted out of the USSR, the vast majority wished to retain the USSR in a popular vote. The USSR was dissolved illegally against the will of the people.

Saying this shit while Ukraine has to fight a war for its existance is beyond idiotic. Who do you think you covering with this?

Are you under the impression that the Russian Federation is somehow still Communist, or are you just racist against Russians? What’s your point, here? Are you saying you hate the USSR because they were Russian, not because they were Communists, or was this just a fumbled point?

Do you ever wonder why Warsaw pack states joined EU and NATO first chance they got?

Shock Therapy destroyed these countries, 7 million people died due to the collapse of the USSR. The Warsaw Pact nations flocked to the more stable western nations as the same western nations plundered the remnants of the USSR.

Must be because life under Russian boot was that great lol

Again, as we can see, life was better under Socialism, more economically stable, and more democratic, hence why people that actually lived in the USSR have a highly consistent favorable opinion.

Please, read modern history books written after the opening of the Soviet Archives, where historians were finally granted access to internal historical evidence. Right now your only argument is just that you think Russians themselves are bad, which is blatant racism.

Which part is fake, and why? Your beloved wikipedia agrees with what I’m saying here too, I just thought you might like to see direct sources. Do you have a single source?

After they killed the czars, they turned on the people.

Yea, they helped the people by ending famines, doubling life expectancy, getting to 99% literacy rates, provided free college and healthcare, and democratized government.

That’s the part tankie won’t teach you folks but a quick Wikipedia search should explain to you what they did to the peasants, esp in Ukraine and Kazakhstan

Are you genuinely under the impression that Marxists somehow spent their entire lives avoiding western narratives around the USSR, read dozens of books on history and theory, and somehow have never once seen the western point of view? Are you specifically referring to events, or their entire history?

As an example, prior to the current Russo-Ukranian conflict escalating in 2022, in 2019 62% of Ukranians said they were worse off then, than under Communism. Ukranians enjoyed being a part of the USSR more than they do being a part of the current Ukranian State. Similarly, Central Asia (including Kazakhstan) is not without Soviet Nostalgia either.

This is, of course, after you said using violence against oppressors makes you no better than them, which automatically makes you anti-Palestine, pro-Confederacy, anti-Haitian Slave Revolt, anti-French Revolution, and against all violent liberatory movements, if we assume you to be morally consistent.

If you are doing this shot at a gun point, you are no better than the regime you are fighting

Oppressed people have the right to use violence to liberate themselves. Were the Haitian Slaves wrong for killing their Masters? Was John Brown wrong for killing Slave Owners? Were the French wrong for killing the Monarchy? Were the Bolsheviks wrong for killing the Tsar? Are Palestinians wrong for killing the IDF?

Violence is a tool that should be used sparingly and carefully, yes. It should be avoided, if possible. However, if non-violence is proven to not work, then that leaves violence, or threat of violence, as the remaining path.

The idea that using violence against oppressors makes you “no better than them” is useless moralism used to justify an extremely violent system that daily beats its subjects.

What a clown take to glorify Bolsheviks’ crimes.

Was it a crime to liberate Russia from the brutal Tsars and pull Russia out of the highly unpopular and bloody World War I?

How is this anymore acceptable than “people voted for Hitler” shit?

What on Earth are you talking about? Why are you comparing liberatory violence with voting in Hitler?