authoritarian state-capitalist regimes

Dictionary: libspeak to english

non-western socialist governments

Do the people of Donetsk and Luhansk have a right to defend themselves against the Banderite regime in Kiev? That's what the modern war spiraled out from, a Banderite coup spilling into a civil war.

As for state capitalism, I don't support Singapore or the Republic of Korea. I support socialist market economies and socialist planned economies, as I support socialism in general, and there's a wide gulf between state capitalism and socialism when it comes to which class is on top.

Oh, but you do support a government in tangible terms because you support the war the regime is fighting and the atrocities it commits against its people. The regime literally kidnaps people off the street and forces them into fighting. You've openly stated many times that you support continuation of the war and that you stand on the side of a openly fascist regime. That makes you a fascist.

Also, imagine being over the age of 13 and using terms like authoritarian. 🤡

The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.

The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.

What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in so-called authoritarian regimes, the ruling party serves the working class as seen in countries like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and they enjoy broad support from the masses.

To add to that, the whole idea of state capitalism is a misnomer. It basically says that while you have state owned enterprise, the internal capitalist relations within it remain largely the same. While that’s true, there is a fundamental difference here. Capitalism is a system where people who own capital hire workers to exploit there labor with the purpose of increasing their capital. The goal of capitalist enterprise is to create wealth for the owners with any social benefits being strictly incidental. On the other hand, the purpose of state enterprise is to provide social value. Workers in state owned companies are producing things that the society needs. They are working for their own benefit and those of others around them. Therefore, the nature of work itself is fundamentally different from actual capitalism.

I guess I shouldn't be expecting much from somebody who equates a socialist state where means of production are publicly owned with fascism.

Cats can be flipped to dogs if you don't give a shit what's real, but most people do.

Lenin wrote his most critical theory before the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing socialism, for example, Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism was published in 1916, and built on his previous studies of imperialism via the Marxist method. Marxism-Leninism is the living Marxism carried forward to the era of imperialism, and is not a deviation from Marxism but a continuation of it. Marx never became a reactionary, it was the anarchist faction that failed to counter Marx and was thus expelled from the First International. Marx has no weaknesses with respect to materialism as far as I know.

It would help your points tremendously if you gave any examples of the flaws Marx supposedly has, or the ways Marxism-Leninism is a deviation, rather than a continuation. Instead, this seems to follow your strategy of subjectivism, just labeling things you don't like as counter-revolutionary without critically analyzing them. If you could verbalize how and why you disagree with Marxism-Leninism and Marxism, it would help your arguments enormously, as it stands there's 0 chance you're convincing anyone here, who already largely agrees with Marxism-Leninism, or anyone looking on who can see the MLs bring receipts while you refuse to provide any.

Usurped control of the state from...who?

I think the texts written by socialists building socialism are valuable insights into the actual struggles run into when building socialism. I also believe labeling them "counter-revolutionaries" without demonstrating how and why this is the case is an entirely ineffective means of argument, I've already made it clear that I consider socialist states to be real, and I back up those claims with historical and theoretical evidence when needed. Simply saying "no" is not an argument, and telling me I'm removed from praxis and reality when I know this isn't the case is naked Ad Hominem.