What do you think imperialism is? Is it a vibe, or is it something we can measure? Marxists have a coherent and measurable working theory of imperialism, but I want to know what you’re claiming here.

Several things are important to acknowlegde here, thanks for providing a new study.

First, there is a stark gender divide:

Most men (62.2%) say yes. But among women, only 44.1% chose the positive answer. Nearly a third of women (30.2%) even think that society is worse off than before the revolution. The other 25.7% of women do not lean either side.

That’s not a very good indication for the poll. It seems the Czech Republic is now far more socially regressive, and far harsher towards those without privledge.

Second, there is further proof that the privledged in society have benefited more, while the underprivledged have been held back:

The opinion on whether society was better or worse under socialism is clearly related to the education of respondents. The more schools they have, the better they perceive the post-November development. Two-thirds (65.3%) of undergraduates think that society is better off than before 1989, while 38.8% of people with an apprenticeship certificate (more precisely with a high school education without a high school diploma) think the opposite.

The poll is interesting, in that it reveals that the Czech Republic is now more striated. Not only has time passed, allowing the economy to grow a decent bit and improve from the utter disaster that was the 90s period, but those privledged in society have benefited more while those underprivledged have been thrown under the bus.

Ultimately, this new information reframes our analysis, and if anything leads to pro-communist conclusions. Further still, the arguments for socialism vs capitalism still hold, even if the Czech Republic is currently in a more reactionary phase of its existence.

The 1930s famine in the USSR was certainly a tragedy, but after collectivization of agriculture, the food supply in the USSR was stabilized, and famine eliminated (outside World War II) in a region where famine was common pre-collectivization.

Yes, generally. Socialist countries like the PRC, where the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, rely more heavily on economic planning. However, even capitalist economies, where the large firms and key industries are privately owned, frequently the state is heavily involved in planning. This is especially true in post-WWII US, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, or even Bismark’s Germany. This is sometimes called “state capitalism.”

The USSR was more publicly owned and planned than the large majority of economies in history, though, so it’s a useful case study.

Wtf is this

If it’s something completely different, like the electoral results you’ve already shown, deleted, then shown again repeatedly, then no, I won’t agree. I do agree that it’s a comicated subject, especially because a small number of people have benefited massively due to the reintroduction of capitalism, and these people have control of the state and the media. However, even if you were able to prove that about the Czech Republic, there’s still all of the other states, plus the fact that the PRC is currently at over 90% approval rates.

No, again, the original comment:

The majority of people that lived in the Soviet Union want it back.

Additionally, over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system.

No, again, the original comment:

The majority of people that lived in the Soviet Union want it back.

Additionally, over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system.

The majority of people who lived in the USSR think it was a better system than today. The vast majority of the PRC is happy with their system. Personal anecdotes does not trump actual facts and statistics.

No, again, the original comment:

The majority of people that lived in the Soviet Union want it back.

Additionally, over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system.

I don’t know how many times you need to read these stats, but socislism is popular among those who live in it.

What irks me about sexual insults is that they require sex to be seen as shameful in order to work.

Spot-on. It requires sex to be negative. Those who use sexual insults often confuse destigmatizing sex in general with taking a sex-positive stance, just because you use sex in conversation doesn’t get rid of the regressive overtones.

Us communists and socialists, anarchists, etc. don’t normally call ourselves “progressives,” progressive is usually something social democrats call themselves.

You too!

Well, I’ll take that as a sign that the time we spent wasn’t wasted effort.

Fair enough. As of the time I write this comment, I have actually expanded the comment and fleshed it out more with good articles to explain some nuances I left hanging that can be confusing without a background in Marxism, so I recommend re-checking it.

Both of us are ideological, whether that ideology be easily labeled or not. The truth is coming out, in my opinion, my point is that it’s better accomplished when both sides engage equally.

I mean, I’ve made it clear that I think those have all applied to you thus far, yet I’ve still played my part in the game because I know it’s more useful for onlookers to see the arguments than just dismissing the opportunity. If you truly believe me to be deluded and full of shit, bad-faith, etc, and know you’re on a thread where more people will agree with me than disagree, then the only way your strategy works is if you engage with the arguments and win so thoroughly that they have to be acknowledged.

In the absence of pushing back against my arguments, all you’ve done thus far is give me a free platform to share my views, and good sources for those who wish to see them.

I’m not really trying to escalate or de-escalate. My goal is to either get you to walk away with a more nuanced understanding, one that adheres closer to reality, or to give onlookers good information. That’s why I usually include a good amount of links and resources, even if I don’t expect everyone I talk to to go in and read them. I’ve been directly thanked by other users for doing what I do and giving them new perspective or changing their minds, including users I have never spoken with previously, so I know my strategy has teeth to it. I may stumble in some conversations or do well in others, but as a net result, I can take pride in knowing thay my strategy is sound.

Either way, I would certainly hope you look at Marxist sources critically. All sources are biased, so it’s better to be honest about it. One of Mao’s more important texts that absolutely holds up today is Oppose Book Worship. A dogmatic comrade is more of an enemy than an ally, dogmatism leads to errors in judgement, and these errors in judgement lead to taking those who aren’t actually enemies and are in fact potential allies as enemies.

For an example of this disastrous method in practice, see the Communist Party of Peru - Shining Path, who took the peasantry as reactionary and murdered 69 people in the Lucanamarca massacre due to the CPP-SP’s adoption of the Gonzaloist tendency “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.” This is not to be confused with Marxism-Leninism/Mao Zedong Thought, which is the ideology of the CPC (or, currently, Marxism-Leninism/Xi Jinping Thought, which synthesizes Mao Zedong Thought with Deng Xiaoping Theory for Socialism With Chinese Characteristics), “Maoism” is an Ultraleft tendency. “Ultraleftism” is taken very seriously as a threat to the communist movement.

Either way, I recommend reading ProleWiki, Qiao Collective, Red Sails, Liberation News, Fight Back! News, Comrade’s Library, and, of course, the theoretical texts written by Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. (here collected on ProleWiki). There are of course many more sources you can check, but these are all explicitly Marxist-Leninist sources, from theory to essays to news articles to encyclopedia entries from a leftist perspective.

Read them critically, but check the cited sources, look for holes and gaps, don’t just blindly reject or accept them. Critical reading is important for everyone, not just leftists. Any reading where you aren’t engaging with the text and just uncritically absorbing it is book worship, and should be opposed strongly.

I fail to understand how trying to come to a better understanding through opposed argument works if you reject making arguments, but you do you.

If it’s for yourself, then you would do well to engage more with the arguments, rather than dismiss them outright. The point of the dialectical method is to come to a higher understanding by engaging with opposition, not avoiding it.

Either way, I answered the other thread.

Re: “tankies”

I support AES, like the overwhelming majority of Marxist-Leninists, who in turn make up the overwhelming majority of Marxists, to begin with. I don’t know what you mean by “full-throated.” Do you mean I am loudly supportive, or uncritically supportive? If it’s the former, I should hope so! A better world is possible! I refuse to cede ground to those whose stances align more with bourgeois narratives about AES states than proletarian narratives.

If it’s the latter, then I disagree vehemontly. Criticism and self-criticism are core principles of Marxism-Leninism. The CPC, the largest Marxist-Leninist party in the world at ~96 million members, paints both Stalin and Mao at “70% good, 30% bad.” That’s hardly uncritical support. What is opposed is dogmatic rejection of socialist leaders. Critique based on dogma cedes the narrative to the bourgeoisie.

As far as examples, I already noted early Cuba’s homophobia, the same applies to the Soviet Union (though some areas like the GDR became more progressive over time, and the USSR in general was extremely progressive from a feminist point of view compared to its peers), and the PRC as well, as an example. Socially, the PRC is behind Cuba and Vietnam, despite having a better economic model. Things are improving steadily, but they have a long way to go.

Does that satisfy, or are you just going to endlessly move the goalposts?

Re: “authoritarianism”

Marxist-Leninists are anti-authoritarian too. Hear it straight from Lenin:

While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State.

Since all states are authoritarian, we need to abolish the state. But, we can only do that once class ceases to exist, and we can only do so once everyone’s social relation to production is interchangeable and the same, ie a classless society based on collectivization. The goal of socialism is to accomplish this, and until all property is sublimated there will be class, and as such until then the state will remain, as it must.

If you’re actively inquiring into socialist thought, then you owe it to yourself to explore Marxism-Leninism. It’s the most significant and largest branch of Marxism, which in turn is the most significant and largest umbrella under the “socialist” banner. Here’s an introductory ML reading list I made, check it out if you wish. If you’re “anti-authoritarian,” then you should explore what that actually means, beyond just supporting systems when they aren’t in crisis and going back on that when they are (see the Nazi Germany vs. Modern Germany example for what I mean, both are equally “authoritarian” in that their class structure is the same but the extent of oppression was based on circumstance)

Re: Critique

I don’t purely trust data from AES, I trust data that has significant historical evidence. This is hard to prove without specific examples, but in absence of that, here’s my critique of the Gang of Four period of the PRC:

Theory must meet practice, and practice must inform theory. The PRC tried to establish Communism without developing the Means of Production adequately, readjusted, and has now rapidly developed. Holding an ultra-Maoist line like the Gang of Four that insisted it is better for the Proletariat to be poor under Socialism than rich under Capitalism is Revisionism. Maoist Theory regarding Class Struggle did not meet practice, therefore the correct choice was to take a gradualist approach while maintaining CPC control so that when the Means of Production are more developed, they can be more Socialized in turn as Socialism emerges from Capitalism.

That should cover it, I think?