Where are your militias against government Tyranny?
American Militia Members. Where the hell are you? THIS is what you exist for and you are doing NOTHING!
Edit: I've only heard "defense against tyranny" as justification for these militias by these militia
Essentially, your entire comment relies on the following errors:
Capitalism is a Mode of Production by which Private Property forms the principle aspect of the economy. Examples of Capitalist economies include the Russian Federation, United States, France, Norway, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, the UK, Germany, Canada, etc. Calling the US a "plutocracy" or whatever you want doesn't change that it's Capitalist, and relies on Private Property as the driving factor of the economy. The government bailing out wealthy Capitalists is Capitalism in action, the state is subservient to the Private Sector in Capitalist systems.
Socialism is a Mode of Production by which Public Property forms the principle aspect of the economy. Examples of Socialist economies include the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, etc. Socialism is not when the government does stuff or provides safety nets, the US is not a "hybrid" because it has a post office. The government in Socialist countries often lets business owners fail, see the Evergrande collapse in China, or the punishment of Jack Ma.
Capitalism is right-wing. Violence perpetuated in the interest of Capitalist aims, such as the United States massacring countries that go against its Imperialism, is righwing violence. An easy example is the US slaughtering 1 million Iraqis in order to gain access to their oil.
As for the "making numbers up" part, you said you "did the math yourself." You provided no sources of any of that, basically meaning you made it up, and redefined what left and right mean in a political context. It's deliberately dishonest.
Now to address your claims:
I already showed how the economy grew rapidly in the USSR, yet disparity lowered. Do you think these economic gains vanished into thin-air? No. Instead, it came to the people, which is why life expectancy doubled in Russia and China after adopting Socialism. They did not immediately get to compete with the US Empire's stolen wealth, but their lives rapidly improved over the Tsarist system and the nationalist system.
The government in the USSR was not a "ruling class." See the wealth disparity metrics, they lowered. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest was about a factor of 10 in the USSR, unlike Tsarist Russia and the Russian Federation, where that number is in the many, many, many thousands and millions. Poverty went drastically upward in the Russian Federation, and 2/3rds of Russians wish Socialism had remained. By far the biggest elimination of poverty in human history came from the USSR and PRC, and it isn't close, while Capitalism perpetuates poverty and Imperialism.
Again, I can help you learn more if you want, but making numbers up and trying to redefine words into something else in order to prove a point doesn't help anyone. You aren't convincing anyone here, and you'll never convince me either when I've done the effort of actually digging into the facts, like finding the 15 million figure you just ignored. You're welcome to learn, again I have plenty of sources and have done the time to read them and read up on Marxist-Leninist theory and history.
Considering all anyone seems to produce here are news articles and blatant propaganda journals, I don't think it's worth my time to produce a peer reviewed level of detail.
I produced peer reviewed sources, news articles, primary sources, and more, and you produced none. It was worth my time, though, so if anyone wanders in they can learn, even if you're determined not to.
You produced journals and books that are blatant propaganda. Not science or fact.
Not at all, I provided peer reviewed sources and primary accounts. You provided exactly nothing. If you're going to throw a fit about sources even Wikipedia uses, the least you could do is find a source of your own.
Or, here me out, you could stop trying to fight facts that are uncomfortable for you to learn. Much better for you in the long run, I'll say.
Those sources might be good enough for you, but I assessed at best two of your sources to be credible.
For the record, Wikipedia is NOT considered a credible source by the scientific community. I'd have been laughed at if I even tried to use that in a paper, which I did when I saw you use it.
Wikipedia isn't a source, Wikipedia references sources. I frequently use Wikipedia links instead of the source itself because it's western controlled, and therefore less likely to be seen as pro-Communist "propaganda" by people like yourself. Either way, though, the sources I linked are still sound, you've done nothing to disprove them and have provided no sources of your own, other than numbers you admitted to have found "on your own," ie they came to you in a dream.
Out of curiousity, why are you continuing this conversation? You're only further making my argument look better. Is it for self-satisfaction? A genuine wish to debate? Then why not bring at least one source, or try to counter anything that I've said. As it stands, based on the upvotes and downvotes, you're the only one being laughed at here.
Because I'm hoping people read this and have the wherewithal to actually review the validity of your BS Wikipedia links before they go down a rabbit hole of starvation and misery.
Also you may want to re-read your 2/3 link again for some of the other stats there, and then verify how the polling was done. That was already way more work than I intended to put into this.
Well, seems like your intentions have backfired, and by not putting in any effort, even if you were right, you ended up making my points look more valid. I do recommend people read and look into my sources, hopefully your advice to do so helps create more Socialists.
Yes, I know how the 2/3rds data was gathered, and I am aware of the other countries listed there. It doesn't invalidate my point, and the data is still sound.
On one final question, what do you mean by a rabbit hole of "starvation and misery?" Countries adopting Socialism got more food secure after doing so. Take the PRC, for example, which recently eliminated extreme poverty in a Socialist economy. If 15 million people per year are dying due to poverty, sounds like we need to move beyond Capitalism and into Socialism.
We don't agree on much, but I am not against the kind of socialism China employs. The PRC is a great example of a hybrid between socialism and capitalism.
Their party system is a farce dictatorship and the level of surveillance they conduct on their people, the social credit system, etc. are blatant violations of human nature, and I can't support that. But the concept of a their mix of the two systems is excellent. But that is not actual communism by any stretch. That's what I would call a perfect hybrid system that I was eluding to earlier.
I really don't think you're in a position to tell China what their economic model is. They aren't a hybrid between Capitalism and Socialism, but firmly Socialist, because their large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, while the Private Sector is dominated by small industry and self-proprietors. This is straight from Marx, who believed that markets themselves centralize and therefore build up the large industry public ownership thrives on.
Again, if you want to learn more about Socialism and Communism, I am more than willing to walk you through theory. That would be a much more productive conversation, I would think. However, you have a very clear tendency to speak confidently on matters you have not studied, such as claiming China is a "hybrid system" just because it follows classical Marxism.
You also rapid-fired more unsourced claims, so I'll address those:
So, to return, China is Socialist. The presence of markets are only with respect to where Marxists would want markets, as Marxists believe you must develop out of markets, not simply make them illegal and punish them. If you approve of this system of publicly owning and planning firms as they get larger and leaving small businesses and cooperatives free to develop into these large firms before aquiring them, you might just be a Communist!