The withering of the state is also nice and all, but was pretty much put into the backseat when Stalin adapted Lenin's work about Marx's work too, which he also did for anything related to auto-determination rights. This kinda started the split between classical/traditional marxism and state socialism, not sure why you're mixing up everything here, nor what point you're trying to make.

This is exactly why you have no idea what you're talking about. The State, in Marx's terms, is the structure that supports class oppression. It isn't the same as a government. Marx, Lenin, and so forth all operated on the same understanding of a state. From Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientitic:

When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

It is frustratingly evident that you have mere cursory knowledge of Marxism, and haven't even read the basics. You should also read The State and Revolution.

I'm not talking about "being more left", but about ruining other leftist revolutionary movements to cement yours as the only alternative, while at the same time destroying the core values of communism to end up an authoritarian state capitalist societies with as much exploitation as any other capitalist country, while in the meantime making "communism" a bad word.

The USSR supported other revolutionary movements. It was a Socialist state upt until its dissolution, the idea that a centrally planned, democratically operated, publicly owned economy would be Capitalist beyond the NEP is perfect evidence of just how little you understand about Marxism.

Sure.

Do you doubt that Communists organize? That's core to Communist belief.

That is not what you asked tho. "Who forms their political ideology around supporting use of authority, and not based on analysis of material conditions and who modern structures serve"

I was also talking about tankies.

You, indeed, tankies, support authoritarians regimes that lost what they could have of "communist" decades ago, while trying to paint any critic as propaganda or counter-revolutionaries.

You have demonstrated fundental and critical misunderstandings of Marxism, which I have carefully and thoroughly pointed out, and yet you sit on a high horse believing yourself to know better. This is absurd. Pray tell, what do you believe a Marxist is, if not a supporter of Marxist movements and an applicant of Marxist theory and practice?

Tankies side with them because on the opposite side, it's the US, by contrarianism.

We have explained to you that Marxists side with oppressed groups, as is in line with the Marxist theory of National Liberation and self-determination. Your claim is that we are contratians, and that is the sole factor, but yet have nothing to say when we point you to what we actually believe and why.

When it's not the US or its allies, then it doesn't matter, which is my point, and what I called performative earlier.

It's performative because we use Marxist analysis and are consistent with our views? Nonsense.

Actual marxists, trots, or even leninists would side with national liberation movements for what they are though, but would also side with the Xinjiang liberation movement. If I wanted to be funny, I'd say that even Staline was supporting Xinjiang independence, but we both know that was for control over the natural resources of the region, which is also why the PRC does not want it to secede.

You, again, have no idea what the people of Xinjiang want. Independence and national liberation are not as simple as creating as many states as there are ethnic groups.

This is you again thinking that tankies are actual marxists and not just cosplayers, and thinking I put both in the same bag.

You have failed to demonstrate why we are not Marxists and Communists, and in fact showed that you have critical misunderstandings of Marxist theory.

Same remark as above.

Same remark as above.

Yes, after negotiating a split of Europe with them, because it was in their material interest to do so ... They did it because they didn't really have the option of doing nothing anymore, else they'd have both fascists and capitalist going against them. They allied by material interest.

For the, what, fourth time now? Read Blackshirts and Reds, if you aren't going to read Marx, at least read a short history book on how Communism and fascism were diametrically opposed since the beginning. The Nazis started attacking the Communists both inside and outside Germany, and the Soviets attacked the Nazis and tried to get thr Western Powers to notice the threat. During WWII, the Soviets were the largest anti-Nazi force, with 4/5ths of the total Nazi deaths at their hands.

I mean this is kind of the consequence of Stalin's death, nobody in the party really wanting to be associated with Stalinism and what he did anymore, Khrushchev openly admitting that capitalist countries had better standards of living and promising to reach parity, while slowly having the communist sphere of influence reducing due to the cold war efforts to undermine communist regimes.

It's famously known that Kruschev lied, confirmed with the opening of the Soviet Archives.

You cannot compete against a globalizing capitalist economy when you're not self sufficient and are losing allies, especially when your plan is to pretty much to build a modern country from the bottom.

Alienating China was pretty much the last domino that lead to the USSR having to implode sooner or later. Their "liberalization" was the last breath of their agony.

This is actually more correct analysis than anything else, though the USSR was not doomed, it was murdered from the top down in the final years.

State owned, yes, not sure what is your underlying question. If you're asking why they are not a liberal capitalist country, I'd add "yet" to the question.

I'm asking you to analyze the PRC from a Marxist lens.

The economical rise of China is pretty recent, and they're starting to produce billionaires that might still not have had the time to corrupt the whole political system like they did in western economies centuries ago.

The economic rise of China started under Mao. It stabilized under Deng. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.

Also, saying "reintroducing foreign capital" is a pretty dishonest way to present it.

Is it? That's what they did.

The recent rise in economic power of China is born from the foreign capital of greedy western capitalists that saw China as an infinite source of cheap labor.

Partially, yes. This was the strategy employed by Deng, while the PRC had favorable agreements and a birdcage model over Capital. Read The Long Game and its Contradictions.

I'd like for China to not become another imperialist capitalistic parasite but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in a few generations.

Why not? It's trending towards more public ownership and control. All this shows is that you aren't in touch with how China operates or where it is trending.

Mostly because they represent nothing as far as geopolitics are concerned, that they are an island that make them more able to isolate themselves from international interference compared to large coutries like the USSR or China, and also using the military to keep the current power structure intact.

It couldn't be the high government approval rates and democratization, could it?

There is pretty much no will since the fall of the USSR to fuck even more with Cuba from the west, and no possibility to "leave" socialism if they ever wanted to, that's why. I'll also make clear that I'm not implying that Cubans want to change their government, just to defuse the incoming strawman, just that the material reality is that they can't.

Cuba absolutely could pivot to a free market economy if they wanted. The US has continued to brutally sanction them to this very day.

Sure, not sure why you're then citing unrelated shit after that but you do you.

All of what I said is related.

For someone that is proud to be knowledgeable about Marxism theory, I'm a bit surprised by that statement.

Shocker, the one who doesn't understand Marxism is surprised when encountering a Marxist that takes theory seriously.

Cont.