You are conveniently omitting the fact that the Soviet Union had nearly identical programs running in parallel to the US.

But they weren’t identical that’s the whole point I’m making please actually read what I said. I know reading might be hard but you are just wasting your time typing nonsense because you seemingly can’t grasp what I’m saying

In this case it’s cartoonishly obvious by the fact that your argument is so completely one-sided.

In the case of the Nazis and fascism reality was “cartoonishly onesided”. Again as I said the USSR for its many faults was absolutely antifascist whereas the US/Europe were categorically not. Look into operation gladio. Look into the history of Ford and IBM with regards to the Nazis not just pre war but during the war. Look at the difference between operation Paperclip and Osoaviakhim.

If you think an accurate portrayal of reality is propaganda you really should do some introspection on what you believe, where you learned it etc. You have been embarrassingly wrong in basically every comment I’ve seen.

The people of Ukraine don’t want to be part of Russia.

National sentiment follows material conditions. The Donbas has resisted Kyiv since 2014 after facing systemic discrimination and artillery strikes. That resistance exists because NATO expansion and Western capital transformed Ukraine into a buffer zone for imperialist competition. The workers and peasants there fight against a comprador regime backed by foreign finance.

Maybe if all the ruling class would fuck off, we would finally have a nice world.

What no class analysis does. The state is the organized power of the dominant class. Liberation requires the proletariat to seize state power, dismantle bourgeois ownership, and direct production toward social need. Only then does class distinction disappear (when only one class remains after the rest are destroyed inthe class struggle).

Fuck America. Fuck China. Fuck Russia. Fuck Israel. Fuck every ruler.

This is petty bourgeois fantasy. It mistakes states for abstract oppressors instead of analyzing which classes control them and for what purpose. Actually existing socialist states break Western capital monopoly, defend national sovereignty, and create material conditions for working class organization. Lumpen condemnation of all states without class analysis serves imperialist narratives, not revolution. Real transformation comes through mass organization, state power, and socialist construction. Please try move beyond the tyranny of bedtime.

You realise we have democracy in China right? Just not western style liberal democracy.

Uyghur “genocide”, double genocide theory, the holodomor

This is basically just propaganda speak, for “my side can’t do bad things, only your side can”

No it’s the historical record of what actually happened. The fact you don’t like it and wish all countries and systems were equally bad when it comes to fascism doesn’t change that. The USSR for it’s many faults was absolutely antifascist pre, during and post war.

You are exhausting. So arrogant and so utterly wrong. You should be embarrassed I’m surprised the embarrassment hasn’t won out and stopped you from spouting nonsense at least for a bit but I suppose you’re still in the denial phase.

Did you actually read what I wrote or just skim for a keyword?

Yes, the USSR ran Operation Osoaviakhim. They relocated German specialists. And then those specialists were forced to worked in research institutes under massive scrutiny and supervision for minimum wage where they would be executed if they refused to work. Not one of them was made head of the Soviet rocket program. Not one was given a seat on the Central Committee. Not one was appointed to command Warsaw Pact forces.

The Soviet system used their technical labor under massive constraint and threat. The Western system restored their class power. Wernher von Braun didn’t just “work” for NASA. He was a leader. Adolf Heusinger didn’t just “consult” for NATO. He chaired its Military Committee. These weren’t technicians in a lab. They were architects of policy, strategy, and rearmament.

You call that “identical.” That’s not analysis. That’s surrendering to bourgeois propaganda. One system subordinated former fascists to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The other subordinated the postwar order to former fascists. If you can’t grasp that distinction, no amount of facts will help you. But please, keep typing. It’s instructive. I personally couldn’t imagine being so arrogant and idiotic as to embarrass myself to the level you have throughout this thread. You really are showing how you have somewhere between 0 and a negative understanding of history and honestly reality and might possibly be illiterate.

Oh you must be Amerikkkan. Is reading more than a few sentences too tough for you? It’s not your fault that you are unfortunate enough to fall in with the 21% of your countrymen who are functionally illiterate. You don’t have to rush or push yourself I’m sure you’ll get there one day.

Again with the assymetry games.

Again? I have replied to you three times. Once to ask a clarifying question, once with a full substantive argument that you still have not actually addressed, and once to point out that you were ignoring it. Calling that “asymmetry games” is just a way of dodging the fact that you were given a response and chose not to engage with it.

I have lived in former communist countries, spent a great deal of time in Serbia, Hungary, and Poland. I have spent time in China. I experienced life in those countries personally.

You take a set of travel experiences and personal impressions and inflate them into civilizational authority. Spending time in post-socialist countries does not make you an expert on socialism, and it certainly does not refute the argument I already made and you refused to answer. As I said in my earlier reply, many of the defining problems of the post-Soviet space were not some natural flowering of “authoritarian culture.” They were imposed through shock therapy, privatization, IMF-style restructuring, Western-backed market reforms, and the rapid liquidation of public wealth into private hands. The social collapse, oligarchic looting, immiseration, and institutional corruption that followed were not acts of God. They were produced. To point to the wreckage after that process and then smugly declare it proof of your worldview is either ignorance or dishonesty.

And “I have spent time in China” does not help you nearly as much as you seem to think it does. What does that mean exactly? A visit? A posting? A few months in a city twenty years ago? I am a born and raised rural Chinese minority. I know my country better than you do. That is not mysticism or identity politics. It is a simple fact, and it highlights the arrogance behind the way you assume a limited outside experience entitles you to lecture others on a society you do not actually understand. That is chauvinism.

I’ll take life in a liberal democracy any day over an authoritarian regime.

Good for you. Personal preference is not an argument. It is certainly not a rebuttal to the point I made, which is that so-called liberal democracies are structured around elite power while dressing that domination up in procedure, legality, and polite rhetoric. You keep confusing the style of rule with its substance.

Democracy is not perfect, but authoritarianism is perfectly horrible and soul crushing.

This is just sloganizing. “Authoritarianism” is the empty pejorative stupid people reach for when they do not want to do any actual analysis of class power, state structure, or material outcomes. Every state uses coercion. The question is which class benefits from it, how power is organized, and what social results follow from it. You have no interest in answering that, so you retreat into moral theater.

And on democracy, we do in fact have democracy. I would argue a better democracy than the West’s in many respects, especially if democracy is supposed to mean responsiveness to public needs rather than ritualized elections inside systems where capital sets the boundaries in advance. Even by the standards of Western institutional research, public satisfaction with the Chinese system has remained extremely high. Harvard’s own long-term survey work put it above 90 percent. That fact alone should force at least a little humility from people who keep insisting on describing over a billion other people’s political lives with the vocabulary of Cold War propaganda.

So no, your anecdotes do not settle anything. Your time in post-socialist countries does not erase the role of the US and EU in producing the disasters you now point to as proof or the fact they are structurally predicated on massive corruption and and infallible rule of capital. Your brief appeal to having “spent time in China” does not outweigh the views of people who actually know the country from the inside or have studied the real statistics and history. And your repeated use of “authoritarian” is not analysis. It is a substitute for analysis, and not a very intelligent one.

I’ve already laid out a full argument to you in another comment you chose to ignore (likely due to the fact you can’t refute it because I’m right).

Being so uneducated and talking with such arrogance. It truly is amazing every time I see it.

Lol! Wut? The Soviets didn’t form an “anti-Nazi alliance”…they were allied with the Nazis. They made a deal with them to carve up Eastern Europe between their two empires. This was literally the same cynical opportunism that led the Americans to give sanctuary to Nazi scientists after the war. If this means that Liberals are somehow naturally aligned with fascism, in your mind…then so are Communists, by the same criteria. It simply isn’t true, either way.

It’s amazing that every comment you post is so embarrassingly wrong.

The USSR spent years trying to build an anti-Nazi alliance. 1933 they proposed collective security at the League of Nations. 1935 they signed mutual defense pacts with France and Czechoslovakia. Spring 1939 they sat in Moscow for months begging Britain and France for a real triple alliance. The West stalled. Refused to guarantee the Baltics. Refused to let the Red Army cross Poland to actually fight Hitler. Poland’s elite, more scared of workers than of Nazis, said no too and instead joined Hitler in attacking Czechoslovakia. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact happened because liberals handed Hitler Eastern Europe rather than work with socialists.

When Soviet troops entered eastern Poland September 17 1939, the Polish state had already collapsed. Government fled to Romania September 15. Warsaw was burning. The army was broken. The lands the USSR moved into? Not Poland proper. Territories Poland had seized and occupied by force in 1919-1921 from Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania.

And spare me the nonsense about liberals and fascists. They share a foundation: defense of capitalist property. When capital feels threatened, liberalism drops the mask. Chile 1973. Indonesia 1965. Greece 1967. The Soviet Union abolished the capitalist class. That is a total category difference.

Then there is denazification. The contrast couldn’t be clearer. In the Soviet zone, former Nazis went to labor camps. They worked. They earned minimum wage like other inmates. In the West? Operation Paperclip handed over 1,600+ Nazi scientists, officers, and spies. Wernher von Braun, who used slave labor to build V-2 rockets, became head of NASA’s Apollo program. Adolf Heusinger, Hitler’s Chief of the General Staff, became Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. Johannes Steinhoff, Nazi ace, also chaired NATO’s military committee. Heinz Reinefarth, who massacred civilians in Warsaw, became a respected mayor in West Germany.

I genuinely cannot fathom how someone can be this historically, politically, and materially illiterate and still type with such confidence.

Historical illiteracy and false equivalence.

Your framing rests on a fundamental idealism that treats law as floating above material relations. Law in any society reflects the interests of its ruling class. When you praise Western systems for “striving for facts and just outcomes” you ignore that their legal architecture is designed to protect capital first. Lobbying is not an aberration in the system, it is the system. Campaign finance law has codified bribery as speech, ensuring that policy outcomes align with donor interests rather than public need. That is not an imperfect system striving for justice. That is a system functioning exactly as designed, instituted long before Trump. It is funny how you and so many others use Trump as a kind of scapegoat, a Jesus-like figure through which you can launder the horrific abuses of capitalism while pretending the rot began with one man. Much like many did with Hitler before him.

China’s anti-corruption work since 2012 has investigated over two million officials, prosecuted more than 250,000, and recovered tens of billions in assets. The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and National Supervisory Commission operate with institutional reach that targets both high-level “tigers” and grassroots “flies”. When Alibaba’s leadership was reined in for attempting to push klarna esque financialisation to the detriment of the public, it was not political opportunism. It was a material check on capital’s power to shape markets and data infrastructure. When was the last time the US or EU disciplined a corporation for harming public interest with any level of real consequence? The answer is never, because their legal frameworks treat corporate power as a protected class. And just to preempt the tired deflection: “oh so you admit China’s corrupt”. Corruption will exist so long as class society exists. What makes China’s system different is the action taken to constantly fight back against that contradiction rather than base the entire system on it like the capitalist states in the EU and the US.

You like the rest of the western world know nothing of the DPRK beyond stories from the defector industrial complex and ROK tabloids that have repeatedly fabricated executions, ridiculous laws about haircut mandates, and other absurdities. This is not analysis. It is propaganda consumption presented as knowledge. If your standard for judging a country is Western media output, you have already surrendered the premise of factual inquiry.

Russia’s oligarchic corruption did not emerge from some inherent cultural flaw. It was manufactured. Western leaders advisors imposed shock therapy that privatized public wealth overnight, enabling a small group to loot state assets through schemes like Loans for Shares. The result was the creation of a kleptocratic class. To then point at that outcome and say “see, authoritarianism” is to blame the victim of economic warfare for the wounds inflicted by that war.

As for the US and EU “striving for just outcomes”: Julian Assange was prosecuted for exposing war crimes, whatever you think of him as a person. Edward Snowden lives in exile for revealing mass surveillance. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo operated with legal impunity. Pro-Palestinian dissent is criminalized across Europe while state violence escalates. These are not bureaucratic errors. They are features of a legal order that protects imperial power. The separation of powers you praise does not prevent injustice when all branches serve the same material interests.

Authoritarian is a meaningless slur used by the stupid and uneducated to avoid class analysis. Every state exercises coercion. The question is which class benefits. China’s legal system has demonstrably reduced corruption and constrained capital’s excesses in ways Western systems have not. That is not perfection. It is a different material trajectory. If your ideal of justice cannot account for who holds power and how law serves that power, then your ideal is simply fantasy.

Out of curiosity do you have any examples in mind of imperfect systems and corrupt systems?

If Trump had gone through the correct channels, and gotten congressional approval for the “strategic combat operations” weve been involved in, nobody would have anything to complain about

I don’t know I think killing hundreds to thousands of innocents is still bad even if the US pedo elite signs off on it collectively.

This is why most of the world hates you btw.

Thank you always happy to hear when people enjoy and/or find my comments insightful.

No

Personally, I feel that being in either of the extremes when it comes to reports of satisfaction is a bad sign. I feel a healthy relationship always requires acknowledging the failures of its own government and being critic on the things that are not being done right… and there’s always something not being done right…

So satisfaction and critique are mutually exclusive now? By that metric every government ever scores zero. Convenient logic when you need to dismiss data that inconveniences your worldview. High approval isn’t delusion. It’s people seeing poverty eradicated, infrastructure built, living standards rise. Problems exist. Work continues. That’s not denial that’s materialism. Maybe try analyzing from actual conditions instead of importing liberal anxiety about what “healthy” dissent should look like. The fairytale of insisting legitimacy requires perpetual dissatisfaction.

I get it. Watching a system deliver for its people while refusing to perform your brand of performative self flagellation and despair must feel unsettling. But projecting your need for cathartic “criticism” and unrest onto 1.4 billion of us is cope of the purest form.

Bernie is absolutely a liberal. Calling him anything else ignores what he actually proposes. He wants to regulate capital, not expropriate it. He wants to blunt capitalism’s worst edges at home while leaving the imperial core intact. That is social democracy at best, a liberal ideology. His own platform accepts the basic framework of private ownership of the means of production. He seeks to manage the crisis, not resolve its root cause. That is precisely the reformism Luxemburg critiqued a century ago in the work I already recommended. You really should read it.

Electoralism under liberal democracy is not a path to socialism. It is a containment strategy. The ballot box is designed to channel dissent into harmless rituals that leave property relations untouched. You think stacking votes can overcome capital’s structural power. But capital does not rule through votes. It rules through ownership of production, control of credit, domination of media, and monopoly on organised violence. When the vote threatens those foundations, the mask comes off. The courts block, the capital strikes, the media smears, the state represses. This is not conspiracy. It is the normal functioning of the bourgeois state. Expecting otherwise is like expecting a wolf to vote itself vegetarian.

Your entire argument rests on idealist assumptions. You treat consciousness as primary and material conditions as secondary. You think changing minds at the ballot box changes the balance of class forces. That is backwards. Social being determines social consciousness, not the other way around. You mistake the form of democracy for its content. You ignore that the two-party system is a mechanism to limit political competition to factions of capital, not to enable working-class rule. You cite 2016 and 2020 as if they were isolated failures of strategy, not expressions of a system that structurally excludes anti-capitalist politics. You blame the left for “quitting” instead of asking why the electoral arena absorbs and neutralises radical energy every single time. This is not analysis. It is moralising.

I am Chinese, not American. We had our revolution. We broke the bourgeois state and built a system where the vote actually means something because it is embedded in democratic centralism and whole-process people’s democracy, not trapped in a ballot box ritual that changes nothing. These electoralist squabbles about which faction of capital should manage the American empire are none of my concern outside of the theoretical interest I take in educating and engaging in dialogue with comrades in a much different situation.

I know it sounds cliché to say “read theory,” but genuinely, every idealist assumption you are recycling has been academically addressed and refuted for decades.

The best alternative liberal Zionist Bernie Sanders who even if he had received all the votes you wanted would have just been undermined and sabotaged again by the DNC establishment like in 2016. You can’t vote the fascism away. The ruling class is not going to politely expropriate themselves. You should read Luxemburg’s “reform or revolution”.