Reddit has long been compromised by zionists and hasbara accounts. It is not a safe space for leftists.

Perhaps Alexander Bogdanov’s notion of Proletarian Culture can be of value here?

Only a few of his works were translated from Russian, but there are academic articles available online written about this:

James D. White (2013) Alexander Bogdanov’s Conception of Proletarian Culture, Revolutionary Russia, 26:1, 52-70, DOI: 10.1080/09546545.2013.806081.

Maja Saboleva (2021) The Culture as System, the System of Culture: Aleksandr Bogdanov on Proletarian Culture and Proletarian Art, Cultural Science Journal 13(1), 2021, DOI: 10.2478/csj-2021-0016.

I’ve read “historical” fiction books that mentioned languages that were not invented yet and economic enterprises not feasible yet.

I used to like historical fiction, but most of the kitsch produced today is badly researched.

And you people wonder why you get banned.

Refer to United States involvement in regime change.

Marx on Capital as a Real God by Ian Wright.

Your arguments rely on the sole premise that socialism was either not achieved or failed in the Soviet Union and China. But the historical facts prove otherwise.

1. The Bolsheviks succeeded in their revolution and managed to establish a socialist state. The “collapse” of the USSR seventy years later is irrelevant and does not change this fact.

2. Marxism-Leninism is realistic and not idealistic. It prioritizes the consolidation of the revolution and building socialism at home before getting drawn into volatile revolutions abroad.

3. The soviet workers did have democratic control over their production. Not as individuals, but as a collective. This control was exerted through so-called Primary Party Organizations present in factories, farming collectives and neighbourhoods. Similarly, China has enterprise party branches which are crucial for management.

4. China has shown the opposite of backpedaling into private enterprise. Since the start of this century, the state has been stricter in regulating non-public enterprises and directing them towards the social goals that are set up by the five year plans.

All of these points can be fact checked and there is plenty of academic research done on them. I can recommend for starters Roland Boer’s works.

What happens when your revolution successfully topples the government, the corporations, how do you coordinate production and distribution?

Just like other socialist states have done in the past and presently: you let the workers control and manage the existing factories, farms and enterprises according to what they seem fit; you organize them and provide them with enough training and education. There are plenty of lessons from history in that regards which one can learn from. I don’t know why you seem to think this to be a difficult matter.

Well, history until now has favored revolutions over electoral campaigns. Should the socialists get elected into power, what would guarantee that the reactionaries do not interfere and overthrow you? (I have Chile’s Allende in mind here, or Jan 6th). It doesn’t matter how socialists get to power really, be it through elections or revolution, the point is that it is imperative and inevitable that they need to consolidate their power or else no socialist project can outlast them.

The USSR achieved quite a lot, but I don’t think they achieved socialism period

Socialism is by definition a transitional period between capitalism and communism, so in that sense they did achieve it. The whole point is to gradually transition into communism without disrupting citizens’ livelihood.

Sure, but such reform must come after the revolutionary party overthrows the ruling class and cements its rule. The Soviet Union, for example, did not achieve socialism overnight (see the New Economic Policy), however the Bolsheviks had to consolidate their power first and foremost against the reactionary and counterrevolutionary forces. The goal is to impose reforms ourselves, and not beg and demand it from the bourgeoise, or else such reform cannot be guaranteed. If you agree with this stance, then you may be a Marxist-Leninist.

It compresses historical complexity going back millenia

it’s a very ancient idea

Historical illiteracy disguised as intellectualism. There is no better way to trivialize settler colonialism than to reduce it to an ancient, biblical conflict.

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself.

Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Democratic socialism implies that socialism is not inherently democratic. The whole ideology sprouted from Western leftist critique of existing socialist systems in countries like the Soviet Union because of their supposed authoritarianism. Marxists-Leninists rather speak of “socialist democracy” which is “the rule by and expresses the will of the rural and urban workers, who comprise the vast majority that had been exploited by and excluded from the benefits of capitalist democracy.” (See Boer, Socialism in Power, Chapter 4). How this is achieved is through the "dictatorship of the proletariat” which makes of the workers the masters of their own country. The employment of the term “dictatorship” may seem antithetical to democracy at first glance, but the reality is that the dictatorship of the proletariat aims to suppress the former ruling class while simultaneously ensuring mass participation in democracy for the formerly suppressed classes. In practice, this has been ensured through both participatory and consultative democratic systems in local and national levels, while preserving the leadership of the communist party to avoid the resurgence of counter-revolutionary outbursts. This is the case in all existing socialist countries, such as the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam and so forth.

The merits of Democratic Socialism on the other hand can be assessed by asking one simple question: has it historically ever succeeded in establishing a socialist state? No. That is because democratic socialist parties on the ground have been more concerned with creating guardrails for capitalism rather than progressing the revolution. While reform is always appreciated, the reality stays the same: as long as there is capitalism, the working class will remain exploited, and no amount of reform can fix this crucial component. Revolution, despite its violence, remains the only path forward towards socialism because of the inherent contradiction between the interests of the working class and those of the ruling class who’s unwilling to give up the benefits it gets from oppression domestically and abroad.

You hit the nail on the head. Reading Orwell’s writings as a late teenager had stunted my political growth for a while.

Listening to the podcast really is a long-term project. I’ve been listening to a few episodes weekly for the last four years, and now I’m shy of 300 episodes (out of 500).

The Making of the Islamic World is a good one. It’s a short series done by the hosts of the Ottoman History Podcast. It’s very academic and absolutely not orientalistic or eurocentric.

Mr. Francis, I beg you please end history once and for all.

Yeah, because his library is full of Islamist and Salafi literature.

You could open gmail inside a separate firefox container. As long as you don’t use the email beyond school purposes it would be fine.

I’d like to imagine him gleefully watching people having fun in bed.