Commiunism

Because democracy is just as bad as fascism…

Fully aware you're being mockingly sarcastic, but there's some truth to that - democracy and fascism aren't some "polar opposites", but rather just a form of class rule and you get one or the other depending if times are good. If times are relatively alright, you have normal democracy and elections, and when they're not (with there being risks of severe class conflict or overthrow), that's when you get fascism to concentrate capital and suppress dissent.

Also, a "working democratic system" doesn't say much when there's nothing more to it than billions in campaign funds and media to decide who's getting elected.

The investigation was done by a private content mill, which makes the research a bit questionable given their interests - lots of potential for cherrypicking examples and so on. There aren't that many states mentioned in the article, but those that are were either blue already, or deeply-entrenched red states that wouldn't have made a difference at all in the final result even if there was an upset.

Also - would literally anything come out of this? Dems don't even have the spine to oppose monarchies (not making this shit up, look at the "few notes" section) let alone confront an active, powerful administration in a meaningful way.

Banger

UHMMM AKSHUALLY (🤓) a single man cannot own all of earth, given how liberalism is heavily propagated and maintained by concepts such as nationalism and by extension xenophobia, racism, bigotry - all that fun stuff.

If a single man or an entity tried to create some pan-cosmopolitan world where every piece of land is under a single world-wide country, you bet your ass there's gonna be countless of reactionary national liberation movements to proclaim sovereignty.

Years of Lead are so back

Yes, nothing gets me going like innocent proletarian blood spilled in bourgeois conflicts like these

Calling it right now: it's a nothingburger as nothing ever happens

I agree that the state isn't the perfect solution, I'm not some dogmatic statist and who knows - maybe dutch leftcom councillism can work really well.

Historical examples of communist revolutions who wielded the state were awful, I agree. However, using USSR in particular as anti-"withering away of the state" argument just shows a lack of understanding of the concept and history.

The state isn't some metaphysical evil that's the "big bad", no - it's the oppressive class relations, and the state is merely an instrument to enforce such class relations. For the state to start withering away, one needs to do away with classes entirely, which means building up or repurposing productive forces for socialist mode of production, suppressing counter-revolutions (like in Russian Civil War) to keep the bourgeoisie away from returning to power, etc.

USSR had a peasant and industrial underdevelopment problem, where after the revolution there was no way to quickly "build up" these forces without taking multiple decades to a decent enough state where everyone's needs could be met via a planned economic model, which is a major task of a centralized state. Without this task being completed, capitalist commodity production model persists and state cannot wither away.

But of course, all I have is a wall of materialist analysis and not some moralistic anarchist slogans. I do like Anarchists don't get me wrong, but I wish there was more materialism incorporated into your analyses, like actual material reasons for why the state should be immediately abolished and actual alternatives to seizing control and making sure revolution succeeds over moralization and pointless prose.

I was told that I was smart and great at school, that I'd get some cool job like working in a lab, but those are just platitudes when you're unable to get disciplined or function consistently at your max.

And honestly, so far in my life I feel its been a blessing in disguise - while I did go for education in a specific field, graduated and failed to get a job, working simpler uneducated jobs does give a degree of freedom. You can take up odd jobs, work in a factory or in a shop if you want - whatever doesn't require a specific degree and can switch between these jobs when you kinda feel like it going for jack-of-all-trades type of build, while if you got a well-paying specialization then it's what you're pushed to be stuck doing for the rest of your life.

Maybe that's secretly my brain coming up with cope, but experiencing new things constantly for lower pay > high pay specialized work you're doing forever.

Long walk through the park is quite nice - no cars, no pollution, just lots of birds chirping and strangers passing by

I'm a Marxist-Leninist which means I won't let the bourgeoisie exploit me but ~~the part of the proletariat~~ red bourgeoisie can go right ahead

FTFY, there's a massive difference between billionaires and people's billionaires (one of the words has people's in it)

It doesn't make a classless society, but it is necessary at least for a short while to establish the class rule and an actual path towards socialism and withering away of the state.

You can't have socialism without having all of people's needs met which requires repurposing the means of production, you can't have socialism without strong control during the post-revolutionary period given the counter-revolutionary tendencies of bourgeoisie/third-party opportunistic groups (most revolutions happen in pairs/chains, its the most volatile period) - that's the purpose of the period of transition.

Historically, countries such as USSR, China (though its a question if China's revolution was proletarian at all) and later didn't get past the transitionary period because of tens if not hundreds of millions of peasantoids and underdeveloped industry, having them to stay in this awkward period for a long time, which led to complete degeneration of ideology after opportunists took the reigns (like Stalin), who bastardized the meaning of Socialism and essentially caused the countries to become "red bourgeois".