You did not actually follow the terms, though. It's trivial to extrapolate the data and compare to population sizes. Using the latest data and napkin math, over 51% of people total disapprove of the dissolution of the USSR, and we also know that those who lived in socialism tend to rate it higher based on separate polling targeting age groups, so it's logical to assume this number is a lowball.

Communism is I think fragile. When it works then not so much but it's almost impossible to build that big and stable community.

Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance:

Page# 178 - Soviet Union
"The
subsequent articles in this chapter spell out what each of these terms
meant in practice, including the process of nominating candidates, who
would come from “public organisations and societies of the working
people: Communist Party organisations, trade unions, cooperatives,
youth organisations and cultural societies” (Supreme Soviet 1936a,
article 141, 1936b, stat’ia 141)."

Page# 181 - Soviet Union
"The drive for electoral democracy did not long live up to its lofty
aims, with the most embarrassing retreat being from multi-candidate
contested elections to single-candidate elections. At the same time,
there was an even greater effort to ensure democratic accountability
through elections internal to the Party."

page# 208 - DPRK
"there are also distinct emphases in light of the DPRK’s
concrete conditions. In terms of electoral democracy: while there is
only one decision-making body, the Supreme People’s Assembly (along
with regional people’s assemblies), there is also the Democratic Front
for the Reunification of the Fatherland. This is not a governing body per
se, but it plays a crucial role in the electoral process. Made up of all
political parties, mass organisations, and religious groups, it proposes
multiple candidates, debates their suitability, and approves one
candidate for elections."

Page# 379 - China
"Election to the position of Party branch secretary takes place at a
plenary or general members meeting, although the election also needs
to be approved by the regional Party committee"

Regarding the USSR, they pivoted to a system of approval voting. Candidates were selected through consensus, and voted on accordingly, rather than in contested elections.

Regarding the DPRK, candidates are selected through consensus, then approved or not.

Regarding the PRC, you are writing about an internal party election, rather than a broader societal election.

Please be serious and read the book, rather than quote farming. You're already misrepresenting and misinterpreting the book.

Communism has not existed yet, so I see no reason for you to believe it to be almost impossible to build.

"Capitalists do not merely “hold the levers of production,” they outright own it. My entire point is that control and ownership are different."

• what is the difference? the qualifier of owning something is the sole right to manipulate that thing in anyway
  definition of own: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/own

"Socialist democracy does not remove the ability for people to hold administrators accountable. You invented this."

• how to workers peacefully remove administrators they don't like at any level of the communist party strata without explicit approval from the communist party?

it's all right there in black and white.

show me a definitive source that shows soviet, Chinese, and DPRK elections did/do not need approval from their respective communist parties.

Maybe you could link to your argument. If it's so interesting I would like to read it.

"The only thing missing is the element of randomness, which only makes the people making decisions less accountable and leaves the possibility of someone who’s views don’t represent what the people want getting into power."

• hence the vote-of-not-confidence I suggested and the randomness is intended to keep one group from being over represented in government than it's demographic make-up in the populace.
  but yeah that sounds great. I'm not against socialism, I'm against unrepresentative forms of government and obviously a socialist nation can find ways to be more representative and ensure the power ultimately derives from the people.
  very cool, and thanks for sharing that!

Managers in a McDonalds do not actually have the ability to sell or make total calls over what to do with it, the owners do. Administrators are similar, they are joint owners with the entire working class.

As for your second question, recall elections. Read the book.

I did, you didn't read it.

Maybe you could think about it like that: capitalists are the class that, in order to exist, is forced to continuously take capital and invest it to make profit or they are outcompeted by other capitalists. It's not that they are all evil or "corrupted by power", they are not just incentiveized, but forced to act in destructive ways: steal surplus value from workers, increase exploitation above what people can take, chase profits on an exponentially expanding mass of capital in a finite world destroying the planet, cause a crisis about every seven years, cannibalize their own state and infrastructure that they rely on for short term profit, etc.

They inevitably run into these contradictions due to living on a finite planet and having to put individual interests above all else while the modern economies distribution of work and global value chains absolutely require working together.

What you are worried about is real too in a way, but it's not a class. In a socialist state, a managerial part of the working class is not forced by competition to continuously pursue personal gain, but some of them still might become corrupt and do so anyway. At that point, they have betrayed the working class and they might even do so in favor of real capitalists domestic or abroad who haven't yet completely disappeared as a class. It's a possible problem, but other than the class conflict between workers and capital, it's not inevitably the dominating principle of society.

Rather than worrying about a hypothetical future betrayal of fellow workers in thriving and prospering China, we should focus on how many western workers have already often betrayed the rest of the global working class and continue to do so by supporting terrible imperialist wars, mostly in turn for cheap goods at Walmart.

you said you read it, you should be able to find the proof you say is in there easy. if you read it you likely already know what chapter it's in.

nationalized industry under a capitalist mode of production just turns the state into a collective capitalist

Besides the fact that Engels saw "state capitalism" as he defined it as a positive, final stage of capitalism (he was wrong on that since the transition to socialism has always occurred in feudal countries, not in the core countries where capitalism is strongest, but that discussion is better suited to lemmygrad or hexbear), as Lenin and later socialist leaders noted, state capitalism has different potential definitions:

“For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly”

• Marx

“The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.“

• Lenin

None of these socialist thinkers meant the term to be used in the ultraleft definition you're using, as a tool to demonize actually exist socialist states and decry them as "not socialist enough".

China's economy still runs on wage labor, commodity production, capital accumulation,

Good, developing the productive forces, building a thriving socialist market economy and putting that capital to use to serve the whole people, is the goal of every current socialist state.

massive billionaire class extracting surplus value

As I linked below, the PRC is a mixed economy, where the publicly owned and planned sector predominates, and there is also a restricted private / capitalist sector. I don't expect an ultraleft to be familiar with the "bargain" strategy, but having a capitalist sector within an overall planned economy, has resulted in the export of tech and production to China, with it becoming an economic powerhouse and primary trading partner for most of the world, and real wages rising 4x in the past 30 years alone. The limited and short term wage exploitation in the private sector (in reality, its a small expense to buy off private capital and keep them operating within the socialist legal framework), has under a socialist government resulted in those incredible economic gains, whereas the capitalist 3rd world is still writhing in poverty, and completely at the mercy of western finance capital.

Plus, you can't claim the working class controls the state when independent unions are banned, strikes are suppressed,

False. The PRC even supports more strikes than nearly any other country, which clearly irks the western finance rag I linked. Also, people don't have much reason to strike because of the people's congresses in nearly every workplace, and the wages rising so much recently. They of course don't allow US-sponsored strikes and slowdowns, which do happen occasionally.

private CEOs literally sit in the national legislature

A small number of them do, which of course is a good thing if you want to make sure that they're working towards the betterment of the country, and to avoid them organizing an opposition. Regardless, they do not control the state, and capital has no enshrined rights, especially to organize.

If you're going to demonize socialist countries in the future, at least post sources for your claims.

your negative experiences here are from your deliberate prodding, cherrypicking and trolling by ignoring everything said to you.

If dissent in echo chambers is "prodding" and "trolling," I'm guilty as charged.

But that same kind of unwanted dissent in echo chambers saves a great many impressionable people from silly and awful lines of thought, including younger versions of myself, so I'm not planning on stopping.

If we were federated with fascist instances I'd be there telling them when they're wrong too.

"Managers in a McDonalds do not actually have the ability to sell or make total calls over what to do with it, the owners do. Administrators are similar, they are joint owners with the entire working class."

• why did no one recall stalin during his great purge, or Mao during the great famine?

Don't forget what they said earlier

I’m gonna just drop the truth nuke here so that I can get closer to my “banned from .ml award” quicker:

As usual, people with a lot of hate towards .ml reveal themselves to be chauvinistic and racist. EVERY TIME. Probably going to make a stink over on yet another .world feudposting about .ml and crying about how much of a victim they are.

fascist apologists like yourself have no place here. As usual, you lot are projecting a lot with the echo-chamber accusations. We can see your modlog dummy

And also other liberals.

Shut up bubble boy!

• liberals, probably

It's almost as though you don't have anything worthwhile to say.

"What you are worried about is real too in a way, but it’s not a class. In a socialist state,"

• oh no, im not against socialism, im against non-representative governments. and this isn't hypothetical, we see it all over the world including the US right now with voter suppression and super PACs.
  I just argue that the single-party rule that many communists espouse is not a great solution to the ills of capitalism, which themselves are very real.
  I'm all for the state owning the means of production at what ever breadth is required to provide dignity, safety, and health to the people, but the people must wield ultimate power to turn the government without having to resort to violence.

I'm definitely not a fascist apologist, no.

One mod in the Memes community decided I'm an imperialist apologist because I said liberals like soviet bloc housing.

Old Guard/corporate liberals, maybe.

Otherwise known as the big, historic players in the DNC.

"Liberal" is a pretty wide net that includes some people that fit your description and some people that do not.

I have speed-read through this one and can affirm it, and I gave you added context when you brought out specific passages. I'm sorry, but sometimes you need to do in-depth study of a subject if you are to understand the whole. Read the entire section on the PRC, for example, it doesn't take long compared to the entire book.

Because the people widely supported the purges and Stalin himself, and Mao did not create the famine but instead responded to one, with the people widely supporting him.

Can you name one pro-communism liberal?

EDIT: I will respond with one of either "that's not a liberal" or "they're not in favor of communism"

you speed read a 407 page book in 25 minutes? impressive

What flavor of "communism?" I've been told various definitions.

For starters, are you the type to say communism and socialism are synonyms? If so, then I'd point to AOC/Bernie/etc. of the DSA.

No, I read it before, that's why I linked it for you and could tell you what each paragraph was referencing.

then it should be easy for you to post the context you're referring to

Neither Bernie nor AOC are pro-communism.

Also communism is not socialism.

I dont care if Mao didn't cause the famine, he fumbled it hard and would have been removed by his people if they had the power to do so. millions died.

Lemmy comments have character limits, I suggested reading the chapters on the PRC as a compromise. I have already summarized how socialist democracy functions, and you rejected that, so now I am directing you to scholarly research.

No, that's you altering reality in your mind. You did more than that.

one of the of my posts you responded to is 5388 characters, plus I posted clips from the book.

and dont be mistake me, I am going to read that book.

No he would not have been removed, lmao. Mao was incredibly popular until deep into the Cultural Revolution, where he began to be less influential.

his mismanagement killed millions.

if the communist party apparatus gave the people the ability to do so, and had not conformed the entire culture around party loyalty by removing dissenting political views, he would have been removed.

Here's one such clip:

How do elected delegates to the people’s congresses enable and participate in the mass line? To begin with, many of them are locals, drawn from the masses. Thus, enriching and expanding engagement with the masses means that delegates should not lose touch with their roots. Or rather, they should enhance this background to empathise with the people’s concerns, pool their wisdom, and enhance their well-being. Further, the “line [路线 luxian]” in question has a number of connotations. The word includes two characters, with 路 lu meaning path or road, and 线 xian a thread or string. Thus, 路线 luxian can mean a line on a map or route to follow, an ideological direction, but also a connecting thread. It is a small step to the metaphor of a “bridge” between the Party and the state, a bridge that is constituted by deep “connections with the masses [联系人民群众 lianxi renmin qunzhong].”

8.4.2 Democratic Supervision

A second emphasis of the speech—in relation to the people as masters of the country—concerns democratic supervision. In a socialist system, such supervision or oversight entails a number of substantial components: supervision by the common people through the mass line; the robust practices of consultative democracy; the Communist Party’s substantial practices of criticism and self-criticism; and rigorous rule-of-law procedures. In terms of mass line supervision and the pervasive role of consultative democracy, Zhou Enlai had already pointed out in 1957 that the exercise of state power has the not insignificant risk of becoming divorced from the masses and becoming “dizzy with success.” The best solution: supervision by the masses: “without the people, what can the Communist Party do? … If you do right, the people will support you. If you do wrong, the people will not support you” (Zhou 1957, 348–349). Or as Xi Jinping puts it in the speech under consideration, the inescapable need is for the people to “supervise power [监督权利 jiandu quanli]” and that power should function “in the sunshine [在阳光下 zai yangguang xia]” or transparently (Xi 2022b, 3).
However, the main focus in this speech is on how democratic supervision relates to the rule of law. There are two main dimensions: on the one hand, power should be controlled by the “cage of institutions” and driven by the “reins of the rule of law”; on the other hand, oversight power needs to function “in accordance with the law.” The two are obviously related: if supervision is embodied in rule of law, the exercise of supervision must be subject to the rule of law. Thus, oversight is granted to governing bodies by the constitution and the system of laws. This entails that those given such powers must undertake the supervision of the various organs of state power in accordance with the law, but they must also work to ensure that the unity, dignity, and authority of the laws themselves are safeguarded. The best way to do so is to ensure that resolutions, decrees, and laws themselves are implemented in a strict conformity with the law and with transparency.

By now I have moved into the subject matter of the next section, so let me conclude with a personal note. A requirement for foreigners arriving in China is to register with the local public security office. This office is far more than a simple police station. It oversees and supervises all local concerns relating to safety, stability, and harmony. Here residential permits (户口 hukou) for Chinese citizens are managed, as well as those for foreigners. Whenever I need to re-register after being away for a while, I return to the local public security office within 24 hours. In large letters on the wall over the reception desk is a motto, which makes the point that everyone who works in the office adheres strictly to the guidelines, duties, and laws to which they are subject in carrying out their tasks. Why make this point? Perhaps more than any other place in the world, they know that they need both to enforce the laws of the state and to follow the laws as to how they should be enacted—with absolute strictness.

8.5 Comprehensively Governing the Country According to Law

Among the many achievements of the decade since 2012, Xi Jinping has arguably made the greatest contribution to developing and strengthening the rule of law, or governing the country according to the rule of law (依法治国 yifazhiguo). To set the scene, Xi speaks of upholding rule of law in all respects or comprehensively. The items mentioned are indeed comprehensive, speaking of the path followed, the need for construction, ensuring the spirit of a socialist rule of law, of ensuring that all undertakings and work follow the rule of law, and of promoting social fairness, justice, and human rights within a socialist framework. In short, the agenda over the last decade, from 2012, was to “realise a rule of law transformation [法治化 fazhihua] of all work of the state” (Xi 2022b, 2). Since that time, a significant amount of material by Xi Jinping and the CPC Central Committee has been produced, all of it with a resolute focus on seeking to bring about a “rule of law transformation” (Xi 2014a; 2015; 2019; 2021a; 2022a; CPC Central Committee 2014; 2021).9

8.5.1 From Legal System to Rule of Law

In order to understand these developments, some longer historical background is needed (Boer 2021, 209–216). Three terms indicate three periods in the development of rule of law. The first is “legal system [法制 fazhi],” which was found in the preamble to the constitution up until 2018: “improve and perfect the socialist legal system [健全社会主义法制 jianquan shehuizhuyi fazhi].” Given the term’s ancient pedigree,10 it has a fully developed semantic field, with three main senses: its widest meaning refers to all the laws (written and unwritten) of a state and the many political, economic, and cultural components; its more restricted sense designates a legal system and a legal order; and its narrowest meaning refers to the legal system itself (法律制度 falü zhidu). The most common usage understands the term in this narrow sense, with two dimensions. The first is a more static meaning, with reference to the existing laws and regulations of a country; and the second is a dynamic sense, which includes the formulation of legislation, revision, enforcement, and supervision (Xia and Chen 2009, 560). Clearly, “legal system” is rich in meaning and practice in China, and it should be no surprise that this term appeared in the constitution and was emphasised by earlier leaders, especially Deng Xiaoping.

However, in 2018 the constitution was amended and the phrase in question became: “improve and perfect the socialist rule of law [健全社会主义法治 jianquan shehuizhuyi fazhi].” Why the change? Surely the fully-rounded “legal system” was enough. At this point another term becomes important, marking another distinct period: “rule of a person [人治 renzhi].” The period in question is the disruptive decade of the “Cultural Revolution,” during which the “two whatevers [两个凡是 liang ge fanshi]” came to dominate: “we will resolutely uphold whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave.” Proposed by the circles around the Gang of Four soon after Mao’s death,11 the “two whatevers” embody—somewhat paradoxically for communists—a tendency in Confucianism to emphasise that all depends on the will of the virtuous ruler.12 This notion that “a person of virtue rules the country [贤人治国 xianren zhiguo]” came to be known as “rule of a person.”13 As debate developed around the problem after the tumultuous decade, it became clear that a legal system on its own was not sufficient, for it could be used by a small group or a person to advance their own agenda. Indeed, it was during this debate that “legal system” also gained the connotation of “rule by law.”

In this context the third term came to the fore: rule of law (法治 fazhi). Since I have dealt elsewhere with the immense debates of the late 1980s and especially the 1990s (Boer 2021, 212–214), I do not need to repeat that material here, save to point out that the conclusion reached was as follows: a legal system requires a rule of law to prevent the former’s deployment under rule by a person.14 More positively, rule of law provides the framework, goal, and value of the legal system, while the legal system is the concrete embodiment and thus foundation of the rule of law (He and Qi 2018, 11).

Most of this will be less comprehensible if you do not have surrounding knowledge, hence the importance of the whole of the text.

Your personal opinion on the man does not mean he would have been removed, he was and still is a beloved and popular figure whose tenure saw the end of famine in China and a doubling of life expectancy. Stop assuming your own views represent those of Chinese workers and peasants under Mao, this is naked chauvanism. Either provide evidence backing your claim that the people would have removed him or stop this pointless claim.

the Communist Party’s substantial practices of criticism and self-criticism; and rigorous rule-of-law procedures. In terms of mass line supervision and the pervasive role of consultative democracy, Zhou Enlai had already pointed out in 1957 that the exercise of state power has the not insignificant risk of becoming divorced from the masses and becoming “dizzy with success.” The best solution: supervision by the masses: “without the people, what can the Communist Party do? … If you do right, the people will support you. If you do wrong, the people will not support you” (Zhou 1957, 348–349). Or as Xi Jinping puts it in the speech under consideration, the inescapable need is for the people to “supervise power [监督权利 jiandu quanli]” and that power should function “in the sunshine [在阳光下 zai yangguang xia]” or transparently (Xi 2022b, 3)

the only thing even close to stating a power over the government inherent in the people is the above. it simply states a mandate that the people should observe the government and the government should be transparent. everything else mentions how they put up quotes and aspire to work towards bettering the rule of law at every level and party members should stricktly adhere to the rule of law and goes on to define what their concept of rule of law is.

it in no way describes their process for approving political candidates or whether a candidate needs to be a communist party member or been approved by the communist party.
in fact, this seems to do the opposite and suggest that party loyalty is paramount to political success.

"he was and still is a beloved and popular figure whose tenure saw the end of famine in China"

• a famine he mismanaged and lead to the deaths of millions.

any functioning democracy would have removed that man.

I linked this section because it directly proves that the people are not subservient to the party. If you want to just read Chinese electoral law, just read their legal code. Article 3, 29, and 31 are directly relevant, and state that candidates do not need to be members or approved by the party to stand for election and be elected.

So chauvanism is your strategy, got it. Chinese democracy functioned and did not remove him.

I'm willing to believe that there's a grain of truth in this at face value, but from what I've seen, most communities will ban people for inflammatory disagreement. A lot of people here approach such discussions from other instances in bad faith (even I did above), but those outside of the instance are generally the ones more likely to be banned for it. These discussions will start somewhat heated, eventually degrade when one or both parties get frustrated, bans are issued, and then people will recall this discussion later as being 'banned for having a different opinion'. I'm sure it happens but it's not as common as people claim imo.

Imo, the capitalist economy isn’t fair for the majority, communism doesn’t work as intended but if you do true socialism it works best. Still have to deal with have and have nots but it should be way less in theory then what we got now

China has a communist government and they seem to be doing fine, no?

you're right, should have pressed the big "communism now" button instead of dealing with complex processes, such as the development of the productive forces, silly commies

The most rabbid anti communist I know is French