Cool, except socialism in AES has brought liberty to the working class. Sloganeering isn’t a substitute for a point.

AES states have their authority under the control of the working class, and wield it against capitalists, imperialists, landlords, and fascists. Capitalist states wield their authority against the working classes, and the imperialist west wields their authority globally against the global south to super-exploit for super profits. It isn’t that western countries have better human rights than AES countries, the opposite is true. What the west has is the spoils of imperialism, plundering the global south. AES states don’t have that.

A good example of this in action is people’s perceptions towards their democracy in China, compared to the US and UK:

No worries! 🫡

Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, USSR, etc. Cuba is similar to these other countries in economic model and democratic structure, which is why they have all seen good success, especially compared to peer countries.

Actually Existing Socialism, ie the former USSR and current Cuba, PRC, Vietnam, etc.

This is incorrect. Not only is your characterization of fascism oversimplified, it doesn’t actually apply to actually existing socialism (AES).

1. AES states have not had dictators. In all socialist states, the governmental structure has been collectivized and democratic. Holding government positions for a longer period of time than capitalist democracies doesn’t make a country a dictatorship.

2. Socialist states, with their more collectivized control, have had more evenly spread decisionmaling power than capitalist states.

3. Millitarism is correct, all lasting socialist states have had a necessity to build up at minimum defensive armies. The USSR was invaded by over a dozen countries at its inception.

4. Forcible suppression of opposition is technically correct, but fascism has always suppressed the working classes while socialist states have suppressed the capitalist class and landlords, fascists, etc. This erasure of class distinctions from the definition of fascism is a factor of wikipedia’s liberal bias.

5. The belief in class systems technically counts as a social hierarchy, but the key difference is that socialist states work towards abolishing class, while fascist states uphold class and uphold racial supremacy.

6. Subordination of the individual to the many technically applies, but for fascism it refers to submission to a capitalist dictatorship for private profits whereas for socialism it refers to working class unity to meet the needs of all.

7. Socialism is a collectivized form of economic management, fascism’s strong state control was in the interest of crushing working class organization and merging the state with corporate interests.

I believe in left wing ideology, it’s just only ever seemed to emerge successfully from non-violent system-internal populism.

Fundamentally ahistorical. All meaningful working class victories have arrived through either direct violence, ie revolution, or the threat of violence, ie mass protests and civil unrest.

No, what happens is left wing solution is successful, and the ensuing governments are thoroughly demonized and slandered via a complex propaganda apparatus.

East Germany is especially complicated considering when the Berlin Wall fell the communists were all purged from their positions, many in show trials.

Socialism (what you call communism) already stands firm, working in theory and in practice. If you’re not familiar with the theory and haven’t looked much into the practice, just adopting standard red scare views, then I don’'t see why you think yourself fit to judge them.

China is a socialist country. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, mixed forms of ownership govern the small and medium firms while massive state owned enterprises form the backbone of the economy. The State is under the control of the working class, which results in over 90% approval rates.

We should absolutely learn from their successes in creating a society controlled by the working class and directed in its interests.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, sarcasm isn’t a point. These are all examples of countries that have been dramatically successful in uplifting the lives of the working classes.

Checkmate mr mark

Is that why he’s named after German currency?! 🤔

Communists here cheer on socialist countries and communist parties partially because they’ve made massive strides in democratizing their economies, bringing it under the people’s control. No socialist system in history has been so lopsided as to hinge entirely on one person, there are obviously leaders in socialist countries but they don’t have the kind of omnipotence nor omnipresence your comment implies.

The PRC is a good place to start, considering it’s on track to becoming the world’s most developed country and advanced socialist state.

A few things, here:

1. Communist theory does work in practice.

2. Socialism/communism are democratic, and have been so historically and presebtly.

3. Socialism and communism don’t care if everyone is a “good person.” I don’t know how you came to that conclusion.

Communist parties over socialist economies, like in the USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc have all been dramatically successful in uplifting the lives of the working classes and democtatizing the economy. Communists support communism and socialism because of the effectiveness of these systems.

Not really. There were some that felt that way in the later parts of the USSR, but the broad majority still supported socialism and wished to maintain it. In socialist countried today, they are overwhelmingly crirical of capitalism and supportive of socialism. Liberals exist in socialist countries, sure, but they aren’t the mainstream.

A good intro is the prolewiki page for the DPRK! It also has a lot of further reading listed. The government section is rather minor, but links to the DPRK’s constitution. Finally, there’s a “study guide” that’s a huge compilation of resources to check out. Starting with those should help with understanding the basics, at a high level.

Incorrect on both counts. Democracy is rule by the majority, socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class is in control of the state. Libertarianism just refers to a limited state, it cares nothing about how that is achieved. Anarchism and anarchist-adjacent ideologies are almost always revolutionary as well. Pacifism is uncommon.

I’m not “brainwashed” for sharing the opinions of the majority of major communist parties. I’m a communist, and my views are consistent with that. The WPK has the overwhelming majority of seats, but is also popularly supported, and does not have direct control over who people vote for. These are “tankie,” sure, they’re views shared by the majority of communists and “tankie” is just a pejorative for us.

I encourage you to look into how the DPRK actually functions, as well as its inception as an indigenous movement against colonization by Japan and later the US.