Although NATO expansion doesn’t seem to be an actual cause; notably, it didn’t matter when Baltic states joined NATO. However, the embarrassment from a failed coup with pro-Russian Yanukovych in 2004 and later him getting ousted in 2014 could be the sparks for vengeance.

Russia’s actions reflect its own imperial ambitions. Rather than supporting the Ukrainian working class in determining its future, Russia has sought to dominate Ukraine through economic pressure, political manipulation, and military force. This mirrors classic imperialist behavior, where a dominant power suppresses national self-determination to maintain its own sphere of influence. The war in Ukraine is not a struggle against the West but a competition between capitalist empires, with Ukraine caught in the middle.

State capitalism, as Lenin explained, can be a transitional phase under a proletarian state. However, AES states developed bureaucratic classes managing production, diverging from Marx’s idea of collective control by the working class (Critique of the Gotha Programme).

I do not reject evidence but consider contradictions. AES planning excluded workers from real decision-making, violating Marx’s principle of collective worker control (The Civil War in France).

I never claimed socialism must be flawless. Marx recognized contradictions exist in all stages.

Revolutions prove nothing without examining their results. AES states stabilized under bureaucratic control, sidelining the working class, which Marx and Engels warned against (The Communist Manifesto).

Marx and Engels envisioned workers directly controlling production. The USSR’s soviets were subordinated to a centralized bureaucracy, diverging from this vision (The State and Revolution).

These comments are rooted in Marxism’s principle: the working class must emancipate itself.

It might be valuable to try to be mindful of the displayed habit of repeatedly misrepresenting what is written, either purposefully or out of misunderstanding. This distorts and distracts from the actual topic and makes for a standoffish look.

Sometimes, considering a broader perspective rather than adhering to a rigid viewpoint, even when it feels like it has all the answers you’re looking for, can help break free from those cognitive dissonance patterns.

Good night.

My comments consistently reject perfectionism and dogmatism, focusing instead on grounding socialism in Marxist principles. Claiming that recognizing AES’s contradictions means believing socialism can’t exist is simply false. Whether someone agrees or not is irrelevant. This is commentary, not an effort to convert anyone.

There is no flip-flopping. AES does not align with the Marxist principles.

Marx’s vision focused on collective ownership and planning by society as a whole, not local control by individual workplaces. Workers should manage production collectively, as a class, not in isolated units, which is more in line with anarchism.

Solidarity was a workers’ movement, and its contradictions and external influences didn’t change its core goal of improving worker conditions.

Planners don’t create a new class as long as they serve collective ownership. Marx’s focus was on ensuring collective control, not creating a separate managerial class.

The purges and Cultural Revolution on paper aimed at suppressing reactionary forces, but sometimes limited workers’ ability to influence the economy. Protecting socialism doesn’t come at the expense of worker participation.

Marxism supports centralized planning by the working class, while anarchism favors local autonomy. Marx’s approach is about centralizing control for equality, not decentralizing into smaller units.

Marx did emphasize proletarian democracy over direct democracy at every level, his focus was on workers managing their own workplaces. On the other hand, concentration of power within the Party often limits workers’ direct involvement in decision-making. This centralization undermines the idea of workers having control over the means of production.

Independent unions refer to organizations that challenge the state’s control, aiming to protect workers’ interests outside the state apparatus. The suppression of Solidarity in Poland, a movement advocating for worker rights, was more about maintaining state control than about the interests of the working class. The state’s actions against Solidarity were a way to suppress independent worker power, not a defense of worker interests.

Planners and officials may come from the working class, but they hold authority over economic decisions, separating them from ordinary workers. This division has an issue where control over resources and decision-making creates a power dynamic. The problem is not with the workers themselves but with the system that centralizes control rather than allowing workers direct control over their labor.

The purges and Cultural Revolution were significant in stifling workers’ ability to shape society, as they involved the suppression of dissent and independent thought. These events were not just about removing political enemies, but about curbing the voices of those advocating for a more democratic and worker-controlled system. Marx envisioned socialism as a society in which workers could actively shape their own futures, not one dominated by a centralized authority.

Labels like Marxist-Leninist help unify political efforts, but they should not limit critical thinking or prevent independent analysis. To some labels provide clarity and structure, and there are also we adapting to changing conditions avoiding rigid dogmatism.

In AES states, decision-making was often centralized in the hands of party officials or bureaucrats, not the workers themselves. Marx wanted workers to manage their workplaces directly.

Independent unions and dissenting voices were suppressed. Examples include the USSR controlling unions and the repression of Solidarity in Poland.

An elite is a small group in power, often controlling the state and economy. Worker ownership means workers democratically managing their workplaces without a ruling class.

The state suppressed critical debate, as seen in Stalin’s purges and China’s Cultural Revolution, stifling workers’ ability to shape society.

I don’t have a need to fall under any labels. I agree on the lack of discussion and sense there’s a need to be judged for some invisible requirements which seem more vague than what I comment.

Centralization: Marx advocated for centralization to empower workers, not to create a bureaucratic elite. The issue isn’t centralization itself but the exclusion of workers from meaningful control in AES states.

Worker Suppression: While AES states achieved significant social gains, suppression refers to limiting worker autonomy, like crushing independent unions or dissent. Material gains don’t erase these contradictions.

Worker Control and Class Abolition: AES moved toward collective ownership but retained a strong ruling elite, deviating from Marx’s vision of worker-led production and the state’s gradual dissolution.

Purges and Cultural Revolution: These events suppressed debate and autonomy, both vital for Marxist progress. Proletarian agency is more than material gains, are the workers actively shaping society?

The accusative tone is unnecessary. Assuming someone isn’t “actually a Marxist” or demanding reading lists shuts down discussion. Are we here to discuss and comment or just to pass judgment?

Investigating Lenin, Stalin, and Mao applies Marxist analysis, not dogma. Their regimes centralized power, suppressed workers, and contradicted Marx’s principles of worker control and class abolition. Stalin’s purges and Mao’s Cultural Revolution harmed proletarian agency, deviating from socialism.

Equating AES states to socialism isn’t proven. This knowledge isn’t “Western” but aligns with Marxism’s demand for accountability. Marxism thrives on self-criticism; dismissing critique stifles its revolutionary potential. “Investigate” is a good guideline, and baseless assumption for the lack of aren’t helpful. Dogmatism distorts Marxism.

Marx and Engels developed communism as a scientific critique of capitalism, envisioning a classless, stateless society built on the abolition of exploitation and private property. Their revolutionary theory sought to empower the proletariat, not to impose authoritarianism.

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao departed from this vision. Lenin’s vanguard model centralized power, which under Stalin became a tool for repression. Stalin and Mao betrayed the revolutionary spirit by targeting workers, peasants, and even communists who resisted their distortions of Marxism. Their regimes prioritized the interests of the party-state over the emancipation of the working class.

Despite the harm these deviations caused to the global proletariat and the communist movement, revolutionary theory has advanced. Many contemporary movements reject the errors of authoritarianism, advocating for socialism rooted in democratic, collective power. The struggle for communism continues, undeterred by those who betrayed its principles.

Critique those regimes, which shouldn’t be conflated with the original ideals of communism as a philosophy for human equality. The horrible ones were against communists.