Russia and China are both anti-imperialist countries. Russia is run by nationalists that kicked out the western imperialists that were plundering their country in the 90s, and are thus anti-imperialist strategically. China is a socialist country, and has no financial oligarchy. Because of this, it has been the most important player in undermining imperialism globally, and providing an alternative to bypass unequal exchange.

It isn’t the US or EU that countries in the global south go towards in breaking free of the cycle of underdevelopment, it’s Russia and China. Russia isn’t exterminating anyone, and China isn’t preparing to do that either. You have a very chauvanistic view of the enemies of the west, as though you can’t accept that their villians aren’t as evil as them.

This is ridiculous, lmao. It was the neo-Nazi Banderite regime in Kiev that was ethnically cleansing Russians, murdering 13,000 civilians over the course of a decade of shelling. Russia went in to support Donetsk and Luhansk at their request. Russia isn’t exterminating anyone.

You have a serious problem with believing seemingly every lie the west tells about its adversaries.

Russia, by virtue of being run by nationalists that kicked out the western imperialists plundering their country in the 90s, is strategically aligned with the global south against imperialism. The west winning over Russia means the anti-imperialist countries lose a strong ally. What leftists should want is the CPRF taking power, they are the second most powerful party behind United Russia right now and are gaining in support.

No, the genocidal empire is telling you that the non-genocidal nascent socialist power is actually a genocidal empire so that you sit on your hands due to lacking a real alternative.

I don’t care much for the opinions of liberals on what they think constitutes socialism or capitalism, which is what you mean by “traditional.” There’s no reason to take liberal words any more seriously than socialists, especially on socialism.

You’re fundamentally treating capitalism differently from socialism, which is your error. Socialism isn’t when the government does stuff, just like capitalism isn’t when private property. As for definitions, here’s Prolewiki on State Capitalism and on Socialist Market Economy.

I did. The fact that private capital exists in China does not make it capitalist. Capitalism, as a mode of production, refers to a broad system, not private ownership in general. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, you cannot slice out private ownership as a static, disconnected thing and call it capitalism, it must be judged within the context of its existence. It isn’t just that the state owns a significant amount, but that the state owns the commanding heights of industry, the large firms and key industries, finance sector, and more, with the working class in control of said state.

State capitalism refers to capitalist states, run by capitalists with private ownership as the principle aspect, but with large degrees of state control. Nazi Germany is another good example of state capitalism, a strong bourgeois state is not the same as a socialist market economy.

Marx railed against equalitarians. Equality isn’t the goal, but reducing disparity while focusing on improving the lives of the working classes. If that means billionaires existing as a tactical contradiction, then this isn’t a mark against socialism, but instead a contradiction that requires solving down the line. As China remains integrated into the world market, billionaires do exist, but they hold no political power.

The goal of socialism is not equalitarianism, but to improve the lives of the working classes and work towards collectivizing all production and distribution to satisfy the needs of all. Further, state capitalism is a better descriptor for the US Empire, Singapore, ROK, etc, not for a socialist market economy like China.

Long live the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism!

Yep, agreed! That’s why I said principle aspect, not majority, and referenced the large firms and key industries, ie the commanding heights. Having a state-run bank alone isn’t socialism either, it’s important to recognize all of it, and which direction it’s going. Though, thanks for adding, if it was unclear for you then doubtless it was unclear for others!

No problem!

Lenin’s great, both theoretically and from an entertainment perspective. His hate is pure!

They are correct in saying that the end result of socialism is communism, though they imagine that’s a bad thing. Communism is the result of socialism working out its various contradictions, just like socialism comes as a result of capitalism’s contradictions. Capitalist decay is built into it as a system, but this very same decay is what prepares the ground for socialism.

If you’re interested, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, feel free to give it a look.

The presence of private property does not mean China is capitalist, just like the presence of public property does not mean the US Empire is socialist. What matters is which aspect is principle, and the class character of the state. In China, the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned, and the state is run by the working classes. No mode of production has ever truly been “pure,” and thus treating socialism like some magical, special mode of production is absurd.

Over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system, yes. It isn’t “deception,” and you keep trying to paint China as especially duplicitous and evil, which is borderline chauvanism. In China, capitalists are regularly persecuted, executed, and otherwise kept in control by the socialist state.

It’s a bit deeper than that, though you’re close! What actually is going on is that people license themselves to believe that which benefits them is good, effective, etc. Education is critical, yes, but people’s receptiveness to new ideas depends on their material conditions.

People are actually very smart, and education works well. The problem is with systems run by capital is that they culturally reinforce bourgeois ideology and the state is ultimately run in their interests. Socialism on the other hand works for the people, and history has proven the people fully capable of grasping complex problems.

Assuming you mean preserving capitalism but increasing social safety nets, I disagree. The “nicer” social democracies all rely on imperialism to fund their safety nets, and are subject to the same dictatorial control capital has in capitalist systems. Moving beyond systems dominated by capital into ones where we collectively plan and direct production for the satisfaction of need is a historic necessity, and one economically compelled by the centralization and monopolization of capitalism over time.

I absolutely love Lenin’s writing, and how he always takes any chance he can to shit on Kautsky lmao

Socialist societies run by communist parties do exist, and as such we can look to their struggles and successes as representative of achieving socialism and communism.

Communism is just the natural result of a socialist society working through and resolving its contradictions. Socialism is of course necessary before communism, socialism is the transition between capitalism and communism. There’s nothing about communism that’s impossible or a dream.