Full fascism.

Hell yea, as much as I wish I could live on the Red Planet I’ll have to settle for centrism.

Based on my extremely limited Korean skills, your translation seems to be correct in conveying intention, though there may be context or subtext I don’t understand.

Harris would also have been furthering fascism, she specifically said under her the US Empire’s millitary would be the most lethal in the world, and that she would continue the genocide of Palestine. Leftists have been building alternatives to the democrats for decades, and they can only continue to grow when people abandon the two major fascist parties in power. You don’t fight fascism with the same finance capital creating fascism.

A much better world.

There are 2 major points here:

1. How do you believe it’s possible to end the state without ending class struggle? Alternatively, how do you end class struggle globally overnight? One of these two must be possible to even begin speaking of a stateless, immediate communism. Socialist states in real life, as well as attempts at anarchism, have both affirmed the Marxist position thus far.

2. Why do you believe the working classes controlling the state will inevitably harm the working classes, just because it has the capacity for violence? Experience has shown that this isn’t the case, and instead dramatic uplifting of working class life metrics has happened.

I don’t really see how you can either speedrun class struggle or believe a class will work against itself when running the state in its own interests.

The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it.

The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality.

I think it’s a good thing for the working classes to wield the state against fascists, landlords, capitalists, etc. This is called “authoritarian” by non-communists yet it increases personal liberty for the working classes, who no longer have to worry as much about housing, employment, healthcare, education, and more, and can democratically run society.

Calling it an “authoritarian” position makes it seem like this is not the norm, but even anarchists wish to build up structures Marxists would recognize as a state in order to combat the former ruling classes. See what they built in Catalonia, for example.

Closest would probably be Claudia De La Cruz from PSL.

If Stalin was in Obama’s shoes, we’d have had free healthcare, an end to homelessness, the end of the US Empire, and the adoption of a socialist economy. I don’t know what you are specifically referring to when saying Stalin “killed millions,” if you’re blaming Stalin for famine then you should also laud him for the fact that life expectancies doubled following the collectivization of agriculture and an end to famine:

If you mean the purges, the number sentenced to death was in the 700,000s, not millions, and the total number of executions carried out was significantly lower. Further, there was absolutely conspiracy against the socialist state in the USSR, they didn’t just randomly execute people. If you mean the Nazis killed during World War II, then this was a good thing.

Obama continued US imperialism, and destroyed countries like Libya for corporate profit while the working classes suffered. Stalin would have been much better.

The problem is that socialist systems do have higher access to housing, but proponents of capitalism see the system through the eyes of those privledged under it.

Sure, but socialism has little to do with taxes directly. That’s my point.

I know this has been driven home before, but the idea that socialism is just spending other’s money is absurd.

You’re implying that the DPRK being Hell on Earth is a fact as self-evident as self-harm being bad, without any need for investigation or a care for the facts at hand beyond pure instinct.

Agreed!

As far as I know it wasn’t grown for recreational use, but for the utility in the plant for textiles and potentially medicinal use.

Not sure what you mean, if you don’t live in China, Vietnam, Laos, the DPRK, Cuba, or potentially Venezuela, then I don’t think your country is really socialist. Either way, my point is that universal conscription isn’t at all the same as slavery.

You may oppose it, but you also likely do not live in a socialist country. Understanding why socialist countries have the policies they do requires understanding their situations. For example, in Cuba, sending doctors to the rural areas helped provide medical access to people who never had it before. These programs are not at all comparable to slavery, but are pro-social policies decided within a class, not imposed by one class onto the rest.

In an ideal world, no country would even have a reason to have universal conscription. We do not live in an ideal world, though, we live in the era of dying imperialism, where the US Empire could lash out at any moment. In these circumstances, the decision to implement universal conscription is entitely rational. Further, I am not purely speaking of children, but also full adults getting their medical degrees and having to give back to the system by going to the areas most in need for a time.

As for democracy, the book I linked is the best source I’ve found.

Slavery is largely forced labor to achieve economic ends, universal conscription is similar to how people are forced to go to school in most societies, or how doctors and other educated fields are sent to rural and underdeveloped areas in socialist systems upon graduating. There isn’t a class of exploiters and exploited, it’s the proletariat organizing itself in self-defense during the passive phase of an active war. Calling it slavery equates it to slavery in the Statesian south, where slave owners brutally exploited a class of slaves. The reason I bring up other countries is to show that this isn’t simply a policy preference, but something decided upon because of its practical necessity in real, existing conditions.

As for stats on those who lose elections, I don’t have any. I wouldn’t imagine it would be a high number given that it’s essentially an approval round for candidates, rather than their first exposure.