Not really, and I say this being a communist myself. Capitalism just requires to extract the maximum profit from the capital investment, sometimes it leads to what you said, sometimes it leads to the opposite (e.g. no difference between i5 1st gen and i5 8th gen)

Funnily enough, I’m Spanish and the meme is somehow also accurate here?

As an empire, yes. That doesn’t mean we want American people to suffer (I say this as a European who also thinks European imperialist countries should suffer the same fate)

No gambling though

If you don’t wanna be insulted, don’t simp for the oppressors. I’d insult you if you said “I love absolutist monarchy!”

Whataboutism? Sure, fuck the illegal invasion, but why the need for whataboutism?

Blood is an ingredient in many other countries. We have blood sausages (morcilla) in Spain, and they’re common in many other places too

Why no mention to the democratic participation in Cuba in your response?

Who do you think makes such decisions in a capitalist context?

Markets make those decisions in a capitalist context, surely not a committee of experts consulting the unions.

According to Worshiping Power by Peter Gelderloos, decentralized structures have an advantage in self-defense but a disadvantage beyond their base territory. That’s why both the Spanish Civil War and the Makhnovshchina were lost once the popular front strategy were implemented.

I’d have to read that book to give an actual answer to why that analysis is made. My point is that the coup was allowed to happen to that degree in the first place due to the failure of anarchists of arming the working class and stewarding it against the increasing threat of fascism.

Once everything belongs to the state, it really belongs to those who rule the state.

Again, not that easy. Khruschev didn’t decide that the iron in the factory #3 would be used in the steel beam factory #7. The planning of the productive forces was an incredibly complex process in which thousands of bureaucrats union members were involved. Calling that amalgam of workers an “owning class”, especially when they’re not extracting surplus value at all from the workers seems a big stretch to me.

Centralism is never democratic.

The fact that the USSR wasn’t as democratic as ideal, doesn’t mean that the existence of a state can’t be democratic. “Centralism” is an umbrella term covering many different possibilities of governance, and a single party ruled by elected leaders of worker councils is a recipe of some sort of centralism that can provide a very reasonable degree of democracy. I’m not arguing this was the case for the USSR. If you want to read on a practical case of the existence of democracy within a Marxist-Leninist single-party regime, I recommend you have a look at a book called “How the worker’s parliaments saved the Cuban revolution”, from Pedro Ross, which describes this exact form of functioning of back and forth between the central government and the worker councils in which millions of Cubans participated to overcome the worst consequences of the “periodo especial” after the illegal and antidemocratic dissolution of the USSR.

I myself am from a country with a rich history of anarchism in the 20th century: Spain. By the 1930s, the CNT, a union of workers which proposed some sort of anarcho-syndicalism (which I bet you’d be happy to agree is a good method of governance), had more than a million members, which for the population of the country at the time was absolutely huge. The lack of centralization of sorts initially among the leftists, and their consequent weakness to respond to threats, is actually the very reason why fascism could trump the democratic government in many places of the country and destroy this anarchist movement and all social progress for the following 40 years. Funnily enough, the dictatorial USSR was the only country which assisted the republicans in their civil war against fascism, other than the admittedly heroic volunteer corps from the brigadas internacionales.

Nobody in their sane minds argues that there wasn’t overbureaucratisation in the USSR. That’s a well established truth. The question is, if people aren’t only allowed but encouraged to join the party, and if there’s no exploitation of the working class, what’s the argument to suggest that the “bureaucrats were the new owning class”

Id rather wait for you to answer my comment instead of deflecting

Ok, so in the USSR, the country with no exploitation of labor and which promoted membership of party and unions, the owning class was the working class, right? Or are you gonna do some mental gymnastics to say it was the politician class?

I wouldn’t say that an American mainstream economist from the mid 20th century is part of the pipeline to radicalization, but sure

communist party

private property owning class

If there’s no exploitation, and if everyone can voluntarily join the communist party and the unions (and is encouraged to do so), how can you say there was an owning class?

John Maynard Keynes isn’t Marxist though

Spain

Orwell literally fought on the side of anarcho-communists in the Spanish civil war though. Doesn’t that tell you a bit about what type of system he was criticising with the book?

Gaddafi actively turned his country from a backwards, exploited, standard north-african country, into the country in Africa with the highest living standards… I’m sorry but you can’t compare him with Trump.

While you can say Gaddafi had some authoritarian tendencies, Libya had a democratic parliament in no way less functional than the one in the US.

So in 1945… what happened to Poland… since they legally succeeded from the USSR they were a free country again right?

In 1945, the soviets installed a friendly communist government in Poland, while granting it again the right to be an independent country, kind of proving that the objective from the start wasn’t “to conquer Poland because Russians are so evil”, but to not have enemies in their borders. There were purges of anticommunists as everywhere else in the soviet block.

Now I’ll ask you: in 1989 and forwards, with the Solidarity movement. Do you believe that’s a grassroots movement which spawned purely in Poland, with the only goal of freedom and democracy, and wasn’t in any way influenced by other countries? Hint: USA? The 1989 “revolution” was completely autonomous and legitimate and now Poland is finally a completely free state?

So actually it looks like Russia propaganda in the 1940s thanks to De Gaulle’s personal opinions on the matter

Funny how the purported opinion of polish citizens about Russia isn’t affected by propaganda, but the french polls are somehow.

You seem to be under some belief that the USSR never committed atrocities

I never claimed anything like that. I’m aware of the Katyn massacre and the purges of anticommunists in the USSR on a widespread level, just not particularly against Poland.

genocide levels of damage to Poland

Sorry, only Polish people actually believe that. There’s no international body as far as I know which makes any claim of genocide towards Polish by the USSR.

Tell me one I’m defending