I think you're conflating ecological conservation and political conservatism. This seems like an argument that wouldn't exist in a language that created a meaningful distinction between the two.

An individual that is protecting the rights of capital to cause rapid ecological damage, is doing so by seeking to preserve the power of private capital.

A leftist seeking to abolish the power of capital to conserve the environment is the radical in that case.

Communism through conservatism as I think you are describing it isn't wrong, but it is at the very least confusing due to the clashing definitions of radical, conservative, and the targets of both changes and preservation of the structures.

Once again for the sake of clarity

Ecologic conservation, cultural/sociatal conservation ≠ economic conservatism.

Sticking the terms together is kinda just confusing

You're playing on semantics

You did not provide arguments, you provided categorical declarations without backing them up or contextualizing them. Do you not see how enormously unproductive this is for bringing someone over to your side? Asserting that I simply "don't understand" your supposed arguments is also not going to hold any water, everyone can see plain as day that I have carefully responded exactly to what you've been declaring.

As for materialism being disproven, again, you don't explain how or why, you just say that it has been, and reference "a hundred plus years of literature" without giving any examples, or explaining how it's supposedly wrong. Who are you trying to convince? Even for the sake of hypothetical, even if it was wrong, if your goal was to convince anyone of your argument, you've given them absolutely nothing to go off of to see if you're correct. All you've done is legitimize Marx, Lenin, and myself with this level of logic.

As for Lenin's theory, you still haven't actually attacked it. You made the claim that it was all post-hoc, and when this was proven false, you deflected. This is just running away from the argument.

I ask you again: for what purpose are you commenting? Is this how you try to gain comrades in real life? Do you even try to do so?

The provisional government was a liberal, pro-capitalist government. The counter-revolutionary thing to do would be to protect the provisional government. Further, it was not a black and white case of the Bolsheviks losing elections, the various parties of the time formed coalitions, which legitimized the Bolshevik coalition, as well as the peasant elections that you're ignoring.

I agree that simple claims do not make a state socialist. I never made claims to the contrary. What makes a state socialist is proletarian control of the state, and public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. All practical reality, contrary to your position, backs up this position.

State capitalism refers to a bourgeois economy with heavy state planning, yet capitalist control of the state and the social surplus. Think the Republic of Korea, Singapore, etc. The NEP, China's and Vietnam's socialist market economies, all of these are largely differentiated from state capitalism through the class character of the state, and having public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. Calling these "state capitalist" despite clear differences with the ROK, Singapore, etc. in form, direction, and results erases class from the state.

Socialist planned economies take this further, having been farther along in eliminating private property. The DPRK, Cuba, and mid-late USSR are all examples of this form of socialist economy. This is where it makes even less sense to describe these as "state capitalism," you're just using capitalism to refer to industrial production at this point. Such a clear mislabeling makes utter mud of how we view socialism.

This is not mere phraseology, but a practical investigation of what makes a class, which is defined by relation to ownership of the means of production. Administrators in socialism are not a "tiny ruling elite," they are a subsection of the broader proletariat, and share equal ownership of the means of production in practical terms, not merely formal phrasemongering.

If the CPSU were a "tiny ruling elite," they certainly sucked at being so! Certainly you can see the clear difference between salaried workers and capital owners entitling themselves to the near entirety of the social surplus?

Regarding the Russian revolution, I have read a great deal about it, as well as the period of early socialist construction, industrialization, collectivization, preparation for World War II, and the post-War economy, including reforms that weakened the socialist system and contributed partially towards its disollution. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were by no means counter-revolutionaries, even if you considered the NEP to be state capitalism, they abolished this and collectivized the economy.

There's absolutely nothing backing what you've claimed. The Germans allowed Lenin to go to overthrow the Russian government precisely because they sought chaos, and even then it was dangerous for Lenin to do so as many people hated the idea. He had to travel covertly.

Regarding the Ad Hominem, no, I did no such thing.