That is literally what you're saying. The (stated) goal of all socialist countries is to give the workers ownership over the means of production, but this cannot be achieved until there is a strong enough coalition capable of and willing to stand up against capitalist interference. The moment a capitalist state catches wind of a country even saying that sort of stuff is the moment they begin plotting its destruction - the surplus value of labor (at least, part of it) must be used for the common good - ie building up productive forces, purging reactionary elements, and creating a military sufficient not only to defend the country itself but to discourage interference with allies and neighbors. It's not ideal, by all means, but it is the only way forward. If China, or Cuba, or Vietnam, or North Korea were to not use its surplus value doing the previously stated things, the US and other NATO aligned countries would've crushed them decades ago, and replaced their leadership with neoliberal or fascist puppets.
This is not an uncritical defense of AES, but rather an explanation as to why just because they have not achieved the socialist mode of production and distribution does not mean they are not building towards it. This also isn't proof that they will, or even desire to, transition to the socialist mode of production and distribution, but again, simply saying that they aren't NOW isn't proof that they won't later. If you wish claim that say, China does not wish to move to socialism, that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, once backed with an argument and evidence
This is not an uncritical defense of AES, but rather an explanation as to why just because they have not achieved the socialist mode of production and distribution does not mean they are not building towards it. This also isn’t proof that they will, or even desire to, transition to the socialist mode of production and distribution, but again, simply saying that they aren’t NOW isn’t proof that they won’t later. If you wish claim that say, China does not wish to move to socialism, that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, once backed with an argument and evidence
I agree with all of this, maybe our differences lie somewhere else. I do not blame countries or leaders or parties or whatever else for 'not pushing the socialism button', I think history plays out of material conditions.
Obviously there are material factors that explain the current conditions, I'm just not willing to call countries socialist if they don't have a socialist mode of production. Dictatorships of the proletariat - fine. Socialist experiments - fine. Actually existing Socialism? - I think that's just empirically not true and a fundamental deception.
This is not an uncritical defense of [actually existing socialism], but rather an explanation as to why just because they have not achieved [actual existing socialism] does not mean they are not building towards it.
See how this is a facially absurd sentence? How you literally go from saying "it is socialism" to "it isn't" in the course of like a dozen words? This is the essence of my problem with idealist definitions of AES that emphasize intentions over actions and material circumstances.
Idealist definitions of AES? Socialism isn't something you just get overnight, it's something that will take years, decades to build WITHOUT capitalist interference. You're the fucking idealist, thinking that you can just institute socialism the moment you get into power
That is literally what you're saying. The (stated) goal of all socialist countries is to give the workers ownership over the means of production, but this cannot be achieved until there is a strong enough coalition capable of and willing to stand up against capitalist interference. The moment a capitalist state catches wind of a country even saying that sort of stuff is the moment they begin plotting its destruction - the surplus value of labor (at least, part of it) must be used for the common good - ie building up productive forces, purging reactionary elements, and creating a military sufficient not only to defend the country itself but to discourage interference with allies and neighbors. It's not ideal, by all means, but it is the only way forward. If China, or Cuba, or Vietnam, or North Korea were to not use its surplus value doing the previously stated things, the US and other NATO aligned countries would've crushed them decades ago, and replaced their leadership with neoliberal or fascist puppets.
This is not an uncritical defense of AES, but rather an explanation as to why just because they have not achieved the socialist mode of production and distribution does not mean they are not building towards it. This also isn't proof that they will, or even desire to, transition to the socialist mode of production and distribution, but again, simply saying that they aren't NOW isn't proof that they won't later. If you wish claim that say, China does not wish to move to socialism, that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, once backed with an argument and evidence
I agree with all of this, maybe our differences lie somewhere else. I do not blame countries or leaders or parties or whatever else for 'not pushing the socialism button', I think history plays out of material conditions.
Obviously there are material factors that explain the current conditions, I'm just not willing to call countries socialist if they don't have a socialist mode of production. Dictatorships of the proletariat - fine. Socialist experiments - fine. Actually existing Socialism? - I think that's just empirically not true and a fundamental deception.
See how this is a facially absurd sentence? How you literally go from saying "it is socialism" to "it isn't" in the course of like a dozen words? This is the essence of my problem with idealist definitions of AES that emphasize intentions over actions and material circumstances.
Idealist definitions of AES? Socialism isn't something you just get overnight, it's something that will take years, decades to build WITHOUT capitalist interference. You're the fucking idealist, thinking that you can just institute socialism the moment you get into power