I think maybe we can agree that we’re talking about different thing re libertarianism. But I will say…show me one of these supposed small business owners, and I’ll show you an employee or a liar. Yes, I predicted we’d have a different view of the world…like I said…two leftists can always be trusted to radically disagree about everything. I look at early reunification Germany as a “victory” for the moderation of capitalism…but I will agree that the fascists put what they needed to in place to destroy the socialists that the “liberals” accepted, at first. I’ll never agree that Russia was socialist…nor will I agree that China is. They had/have very heavy socialist elements…but Russia was ultimately an oligarchical kleptocracy and China is a weird hybrid that celebrates capitlmalism at the party level…and uses socialism to control the masses. If I were to view a state as a socialist success…I’d need to see the party/power apparatus less entrenched, and the leaders of the day living like the people. I believe that Latin American socialism could have been great…had it not been perpetually obfuscated and corrupted by the US.

Libertarianism often arises organically, though, not just from the outside. It arises due to class interests. People can manipulate this, and do, but the origins are ultimately petty bourgeois ideology. As for the USSR, it was a socialist economy, not an “oligarchical kleptocracy.” The economy was democratically run and centrally planned, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. This is straightforwardly socialist. The PRC does not celebrate “capitalism.” The usage of markets and mixed forms of ownership for small and medium firms subservient to the public sector is a form of socialist market economy. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes democratically control the state. Latin American socialism is great. Cuba is a standout example, and Venezuela and Nicaragua are increasingly socializing. They are under constant siege, but are nevertheless rising. Ultimately, I’m not sure what you think socialism is for you to have this view so contrary to Marxism.

I think you’re an idealist :) Contrary to Marxism? I think you misread what I’ve said. I think Marx was a visionary, and I’d like to live in his world…I think I’m just more practical than you are.

It’s the opposite, I’m a dialectical materialist, and am focused on pragmatism. Your assessment of the USSR, PRC, etc is idealist in nature and looks at the state not as by its class character, but as something beyond class. This confusion leads you to see administration in a socialist economy as “kleptocracy.” Same with your analysis of the PRC, conflating the presence of private property with the absence of socialism. Erasure of dialectical materialism, and looking at components of an economy outside of their context within said economy is closer to metaphysics and a rejection of Marxism.

Yeah…I just don’t see either state like you do. Both states feature(d) too many wealthy/powerful people for me to consider them entirely socialist. They’re both hybrids…like every state. The USSR heavily featured oligarchs who stole from the people, and who worked against the peoples’ interest on a mass scale. China features a party system that does the same, to a lesser degree.  I think Cuba is a pretty good example of what I’d like to see in a socialist state, minus the ongoing American “meddling”. I wish they didn’t have to rely on tourism to survive, tho…don’t like the classes it creates. Would be much better if they could trade efficiently.

Socialism is not the absence of wealth. Every state has mixed forms of ownership, but the principle aspect is what’s dominant. The USSR did not have “oligarchs who stole from the people,” they had a socialist economy oriented towards satisfying the needs of everyone. Free education and housing, healthcare, dramatic improvements in infrastructure, huge increases in living standards, all came from the socialist system. Same for the PRC, though their safety nets aren’t as strong. This idea that socialism is about equalitarianism is exactly why you’re being anti-Marxist, Marx railed against equalitarians. Cuba has a very similar structure and economy to the USSR and PRC, with their own characteristics. The main difference is that they are much smaller and much more cut off.

The USSR absolutely had oligarchs, don’t be absurd. I’m not strictly talking about the Politburo…who stole plenty and took the fall, I’m talking about the oligarchs - who didn’t blink into existence out of the ashes of the USSR - but rather came to be because of what they amassed at the expense of the people during the USRR. The savvy middle managers, the smugglers, the entire KGB. The Art of the Bribe is an excellent book that methodically outlinines how these proto-oligarchs came to be and how they destroyed and corrupted socialism. Telling me about the idealistic version of the USSR isn’t interesting…I’m more interested in reality. Meh…save the “Marx wasn’t an egalitarian” stuff for the people who aren’t socialists. There absolutely was a very large wealth and power class in the USSR as there is in China now…both would be abhorrent to Marx. There’s a difference between being somewhat better off because you work harder and/or are responsible for administering a novel concept…and literally never working because you have so much power and influence you don’t need to: those people were lousy in the USSR, and exist to a lesser extent in China. It’s an apples and oranges conversation because it can be argued that the Chinese billionaires hurt their people less than the oligarchs/kleptocrats did in the USSR…but you first must acknowledge they exist - if you want to move past the mass intentions of their systems and have the conversation about how the classes in communist were/are bad and why. The reason I prefer Cuba isn’t because their system is a superior application of socialism…but rather because Cuba is so small and their rich people tend to be more enmeshed in the population and steal less. I’m not saying all this because I don’t like socialism and dismiss The USSR and China as failures out of hand - quite the contrary - I’m saying it because socialism is a project that we need to achieve and we have to learn from what’s been done/being tried to achieve it.

I’m not being absurd, you are. You’re defining the mode of production of a majority collectivized and planned economy that was oriented towards satisfying the needs of everyone as a “kleptocracy.” This is ridiculous and requires an extreme level of evidence explaining why such a focus was both put on satisfying everyone’s needs, and on this “kleptocracy” you claim. You’re confusing the capitalists that rose from the ashes of the USSR with the USSR’s mode of production. I’m aware that China has billionaires, and again, you seem to be under the impression that Marxism is about equalitarianism and not about gradually collectivizing production and distribution to satisfy the needs of everyone. Good reading for you would be China has Billionaires. Marxists don’t deny the struggles of the USSR and PRC, we do learn from them, what we don’t do is dismiss their successes or take liberal perspectives on them like you’re doing here.