Sorry buddy, but you’re wrong, and trying to brush facts you don’t like under the rug by saying Russians are too stupid to know that their lives were better under socialism. Wikipedia is extremely biased, I can link sources like Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan that go far more in-depth and illustrate the democratic procedures of the soviet union.

As for all the rest - again, I just don’t have the time to unwrap this because your beliefs seem to stem from years, and years of misinformation. Might as well end this here.

The large majority of those who lived in the USSR regret its fall. When socialism was ended, poverty skyrocketed and the economy collapsed. The USSR was socialist, I never once said they reached communism (no matter how much you love inventing my words). It was not a “totalitarian dictatorship,” no matter how much you keep asserting that it was. I know people that think Donald Trump was sent by God to save the world, anecdotes don’t mean anything.

The PRC has a socialist market economy. It isn’t devoid of private property, but public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. It’s in the developing stage of socialism:

None of your points were based on anything I said, or anything other than your anecdotes. You aren’t being serious here. I’ve spoken to people with the opposite opinion from you who lived in the USSR for longer than you have, and that isn’t hard evidence either.

The large majority of communists hold similar views, especially considering everything I said was factually true. Communists do exist, that shouldn’t be “incredible” to you. I am from the US Empire, yes, I do org work, and have spoken with people from former and existing socialist states.

Not really sure what you’re trying to do, mockery doesn’t invalidate any of the points I’ve made or the sources I bring up, it just gives me the opportunity for others to see that anti-communists don’t really have any points of their own to bring to the table.

You forgot:

-Centrists pretending they see through everyone by just picking the centerpoint on an arbitrary axis, without actually considering which side is actually correct

As the spoils of imperialism dry up, conditions are getting worse in the States. The task of socialists is to organize, so that revolution can be steered in a positive, unified direction if it comes to pass. We cannot vote for socialism without capital using the state to crush that movement, but we can learn from successful revolutionaries and modify what worked for them to suit our conditions.

Democracy in the former USSR and modern PRC is solidly proletarian in character. In the USSR, they practiced soviet democracy, which was a form of council based democracy that laddered all the way up to the Politburo. It was through this method, along with the economy being publicly owned and planned, that led to immense leaps in quality of life. Life expectancy doubled, literacy rates tripled, women took huge steps into government positions, education was free and high quality as well as healthcare, working hours shortened, and inequality fell dramatically. There were privledges being high up in government, but not in any way comparable to those under the Tsarist system or under capitalism today.

As for the PRC, public ownership is the principle aspect of its economy. Socialism is not the absence of private property in total, but one where the working class is in control and the large firms and key industries are dominated by public ownership. China’s socialist market economy is permeated with strong democracy as well, with higher ratings than western countries:

The DPRK is democratic, but not because of the name. It’s because they have approval based voting, worker councils, and the working class is in charge. They are currently run by a coalition of 3 parties, the socialist WPK, as well as a social democratic party and a religious party. Cuba is about halfway between the soviet model and chinese model, and Vietnam is closer to the Chinese model of economy. Both are socialist and both are democratic.

None of these countries are perfect wonderlands, but they are all socialist and all democratic. I don’t know what you think socialism looks like, it sounds like it’s just whatever unachievable utopia exists in your head and is free from the sins associated with actually existing in real life.

Yes, both the USSR and PRC are typical examples of socialism. Public ownership is the principle aspect of both the former USSR’s economy and the PRC’s economy, same with Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Not sure what you’re getting at.

Socialist states have had a great track record in improving living conditions as compared to previous systems.

I’m aware that it exists in the fringes of anarchism, the existence of an ideology doesn’t care about how many follow it or its practical implementations. However, it remains true that anarchism historically has been dominated by leftist ideas and practice. I’m aware of the connection between individualist anarchists and the broader libertarian movement, however the influence of anarchism on the libertarian movement pales in comparison to liberalism. I’m not denying the existence of the fringes, just that the fringes matter as much as you posture.

I’m aware that they exist, being fringe implies that they do exist but are an extreme minority. Libertarianism is an extension of liberalism, and the anarchist offshoot of libertatianism is as such a more extreme offshoot of liberalism.

I’m simplifying for the sake of a Lemmy comment, sure, but just because anarchists say they don’t reject global cooperation doesn’t mean the decentralized and communalist nature of anarchism works well with that. Collectivized and planned production and distribution works because it has administration and the advantages large-scale industry and logistics brings. Trying to have a bunch of decentralized communes create, say, a smartphone, would be a nightmare.

USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

The political compass isn’t a good way to view political ideology in any way. You can’t distill ideology into 4 vaguely defined quadrants.

That was George Orwell’s view, but it’s wrong. Historically, socialist states have been dramatically effective at raising up standards of living, and it’s because the working class is quite well aware of its own interests and how to run society. You don’t need everyone to specialize in everything, that’s why political education and education in general are so valued in socialist countries.

Unity is a good thing if it’s around a good idea, like climate change. Disciplined parties that openly discuss problems internally and come to a resolute conclusion on are far more effective at meeting the needs of the people. There isn’t a “recipe for authoritarianism,” we can see that it is through disunity that the Statesian working class is divided and oppressed.

No, I mean among all anarchists. Anarcho-capitalism is fringe within anarchists, and has no real presence historically outside of a few extreme libertarians. Anarchism historically is tied to communalized production, and while I don’t personally think it has staying power practically, I also recognize it as a thoroughly left-wing ideology historically.

As the working class continues to slide into futher and further misery, more and more are awakened to the idea of radical politics, and are more understanding of socialism. Capitalism must decay, so the task of socialists is to organize and teach about socialism, not just vote in lock-step with the right-wing democrats.

Marxist analysis points towards full collectivization of production and distribution globally, it isn’t about communalization and decentralization. When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.

For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.

For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.

Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.

I don’t really think you can meaningfully consider anarchism to be more left than Marxism, more just leftism taken in the direction of communalism rather than collectivization.

Socialism is a mode of production, social programs and welfare exist in capitalism and socialism.