Waiting for you to reach a stage in your political education where you either realize the lib “humanitarian” concerns about the Soviets are manufactured out of rage over the colonized world rebelling or you revert to a bloodthirsty lib braying for palestinian blood.

The humanitarian concerns you’re parroting are the same manufactured concerns brought up every time there has been a rebellion of colonized, enslaved and indigenous peoples since the Haitian slave revolt.

Reactionaries create fantasies to justify why any resistance to capital should be crushed. Why there can surely be no good example to threaten the liberal model.

There will never be successful implementation of socialism if that’s the kind of system we support.

Sorry but that’s also a fairy tale. Socialism isn’t hard, surviving the reaction is.

You think it’s hard to plan production and have an egalitarian distribution of resources? You’re saying 90% of human history is impossible.

Tell me with a straight face that GOSPLAN or CYBERSYN would not be able produce consumer goods if they weren’t needed to produce ICBMs.

GOSPLAN can smash the Third Reich, send the first men into space, build the first space stations, build thousands of ICBMs, erect tens millions of houses and eliminate homelessness but it can not run a Walmart?

Lol, lmao.

“Communist state” is oxymoronic. It was socialist, as socialism is the stage of transition toward stateless classless communism.

it is not an ideal communist state.

It doesn’t need to be “ideal”, that’s where the “critical” in “critical support” comes in.

Is it that much to ask that we recognise the failures of what has come before?

Where exactly are all these people who supposedly believe that the USSR and other socialist experiments are flawless and therefore above criticism? It’s almost like they only exist in your imagination.

just because it was the most influential communist nation (socialist might be more accurate)

Dude, shut the fuck up. The way communists use these words to describe affiliation, they are interchangeable, and no one is saying the USSR was a classless society (the other sense of communism).

I do appreciate that you aren’t hating on democracy,

The position of communists is that liberal democracy is farcical and only by suppressing and eventually annihilating the bourgeoisie as a class can democracy exist in a more proper sense. Not one Marxist hates democracy, their ideology is based upon making democratic power the most central power rather than capital, hence the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” i.e. “the vast majority of the population ruling society without constraint by the tiny minority, the bourgeoisie”.

One party ‘democracy’ absolutely is not democracy, it’s a dictatorship.

How? You can still have competitive elections in one party states. Arguably moreso because there isn’t a bourgeois media apparatus picking winners.

The inability to establish new political parties is inherently anti-democratic.

No, it isnt. For example, banning the formation of a nazi party isn’t undemocratic. They literally have a different threshold of the paradox of tolerance that extends to all of the right wing, not just fascism.

From our point of view, working class people have a singular set of interests in opposition to the capitalist class. Capitalist nations have multiple parties because the ruling classes there are unified except in regards to maintain capitalism. Otherwise their interests conflict.

In America, the domestic bourgeoisie are more catered to by the Republicans, and the international bourgeoisie more the Democrats. That’s an exaggeration and broad strokes, but historically the reason they’re separate have been because they had separate sets of patronage networks and catered to different regions of the countries. Democrats in the late 19th century were represented by southern land owners and banks. Republicans were more the party of northern manufacturing.

So while the capitalist classes have separate interests requiring different sets of political interests, the working class aren’t in conflict with ourselves. We all want the same things. Higher wages, better healthcare, housing, fewer labor hours. And we can get all of that without splitting ourselves into competitive parties. Why would you form a party contrary to the interests of socialism in the first place?

Multiple parties in a socialist country is like inviting foreign capitalists to come in and sabotage democracy. It gives them a wedge with which to run their own little puppet candidates to weaken broad, unified socialist interests

The inability to establish new political parties is inherently anti-democratic

Why? I can find you probably a dozen liberal thinkers (liberals in the original meaning of the word) who disagree with this assertion, and who thought the opposite actually. But this is more of a question for you, to help you start questioning things you might not have questioned before. Why is plurality automatically more democratic?