I like most of his analysis, which is why I like listening to his rambling while doing other stuff (in this case, I listened to it while putting up some shelves in my parents' garage). I think my biggest problem with his analysis of the Soviet Union et al is that he really clings to this idea that the global socialist movement today would be in better shape if the movements of the 20th century didn't happen.

From the point of view of western socialist parties, that seems to be true - the idea of Stalin as this mustache-twirling evil dictator is constantly hung over every leftist - but my feeling is that if the socialist movements of the 20th century hadn't happened then the socialist movements of the 21st century would have exactly zero ground to stand on.

Richard Wolff points out when he talks about the Soviets that they were literally only the second people in history to try to do what they did, with the first being the Paris Commune. Of course they were going to fuck some things up, but I think that every mistake made by those movements was basically guaranteed to happen at some point of another. Would it be better for socialism if the mistakes of the 20th century happened in the 21st century instead?

And even if in the Soviet Union or any of these other countries it was impossible to build socialism, the influence of socialist leaders on their development is impossible to deny. When the industrial revolution came to Europe and America, children were sent into the textile mills and coal mines to work. When the industrial revolution came to the Soviet Union, children were sent to creches, daycares and schools, in a universal childcare system that remains the fucking gold standard that few other countries have matched.