Scroll by new, rather than active, and scroll by Local, rather than All.

On my Hexbear account, New and Local, on Lemmy.ml New and Active, usually Local. There’s enough content but not too much when sorting that way.

There’s no such thing as having no orientation. Being honest about it is better than false neutrality.

Selected Ambient Works

I use CPC, because that’s the format that is more consistent among international Communist Parties.

Ah, was referring to the PRC, was unaware of the population demographic shifts, my apologies.

That’s certainly a liberal perspective, but leftists disagree. The left isn’t that small either, the most populous state in the world is Socialist.

That’s the Overton Window, which is only useful for analyzing medians, not for actual political discourse.

Liberalism is the ideology of Capitalism, ergo it is right wing. Conervative liberals and progressive liberals are both right wing to different degrees.

Left/right is just shorthand, the issue isn’t adding dimensions but recognizing that you can only ever describe political positions by what they actually are. Adding dimensions doesn’t necessarily help because completely different stances can occupy the same space depending on how you do it, it becomes astrology.

Juche is basically Marxism-Leninism, but with a focus on self-reliance.

Depends on the audience. It’s polarizing, hence the downvotes as well.

If we are strictly speaking ideological purity, the DPRK’s Marxism-Leninism with Juche influences is probably the least revisionist overall. China is the most “relevant,” of course, plus SWCC is legitimately a return to Marxism as compared to Maoism.

Cuba has some Capitalist roading, yes, it heavily depends on the tourist industry and said industry is decently privitized.

Ultimately though, a strong understanding of Dialectics and the Base and Superstructure is necessary when judging the impact of “Capitalist Roading.”

I wouldn’t say there are any “orthodox” Marxist countries, most have taken some fair bit of revisionism, but are still Socialist and practice Marxism.

Historically there have been more, such as the USSR, but currently the DPRK, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos are explicitly Marxist. There’s a lot of misinformation surrounding them, but they retain Marxism.

Marxism is Communism, yes. Communism has been proven to work multiple times, and does to this day.

I suggest reading Blackshirts and Reds if that goes against what you believe to be true, though if you have specific questions I can do my best to answer.

Great!

You added good context to what I’m saying, good comment comrade.

Democratic Centralism can be hard to swallow if analyzed through an Anarchist lense, but ultimately the results and necessity of the matter speak for itself. Diversity in thought, unity in action.

Trotskyism is especially dangerous because it’s essentially wrecker Marxism. Trotsky is often shown in a sympathetic light in western media and narratives, and prevents actual radicalization. New Leftists see a supposed Socialist with similar critiques of the USSR as the US State Department, and that’s a far more comfortable pill to swallow in the west.

And Mendelian genetics wrecks the party with the unhinged liberalism of accurate science supported by half of Pavlov’s students?

In the beginning of the USSR, there was legitimate struggle against bourgeois science, like race science. Genetics was unfortunately overly combatted in the crossfire. The USSR was still far more dedicated to scientific pursuit than Capitalist Countries, and managed to get a man to space before even the US.

As for your books, you may realize that I am a bit short on time and do not have the energy to read 4 entire novel-length books instead of specific pages or chapters.

Then just read Blackshirts and Reds. If your time is so short that you can’t read even 1 short book on the topic of dispelling myths about the USSR, then your time is too short to argue with people online about it too, no offense. Blackshirts and Reds is recommended reading for new Marxists in general because it’s short and to the point, and written in common American language without requiring having read books and books of Marxist theory to understand.

Ah yes, known liberals and fascists such as the other two people who ruled with Stalin and whoever believed in genetics. If diverse opinions were allowed, what was the entire focus on eradicating factionalism?

There’s a difference between wrecking and having different opinions.

Could you cite some sources or elaborate on fighting against bureaucracy? Why was bureaucracy established and why did it remain after the war? How wasn’t Stalin before Lenin’s death a career politician?

Losurdo’s Stalin: Critique of a Black Legend is a good book going over this. Stalin agreed with Lenin about how the beauracracy could grow, so he actively tried to combat it. He even edited records of meetings to reduce his applause and increase it for others. Stalin was elected, yes, but the beauracracy wasn’t solidified until Kruschev. The necessity of rebuilding infrastructure and a destroyed public led to a rise in opportunism that was completed under Gorbachev, introducing new fixtures of government that stood against the rest, harming the centralized system and resulting in dissolution.

I’d read the books I linked if I were you.