Usually both are necessary, and relying only on words and not on actual organizing and coherent force ends up costing far more human lives than just committing to revolution. Non-violence just means your enemies get to use violence on you unopposed.

Incredible levels of racism here, holy shit.

This is idealism. It’s fantasy. Nobody is trying to pursue endless power like a marvel villian, there’s an immense pursuit of profit. The crimes of the wealthiest capitalists are in pursuit of that end, if you mistake the reasons you’ll end up blundering your predictions.

I hope so, I’d love to live in a socialist country with actual infrastructure and a long term mindset.

Kinda? But not because anyone pushes the “utopia” or “dystopia” button. The US Empire is in serious decay, and is fighting to stay hegemonic. It isn’t a thinking process with the express purpose of evil, but a tremendous pursuit of profit.

I think you might benefit from reading theory, this is all more fantasy. The huge issues we have today aren’t like that, they are usually accidental and economically compelled by capitalism. There’s no “dystopia” button or “utopia” button.

I think this is more fantasy than reality.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

Trying to quantify political views is still a problem, though.

There isn’t really an “American version.” Left vs right is broadly okay if framed as collectivized ownership as principle vs privatized ownership as principle, but economies in the real world aren’t “pure,” and trying to gauge how left or right a country is by proportion of the economy that is public vs private can be misleading. The next part, “libertarian vs authoritarian,” is a false binary. The state is thoroughly linked to the mode of production, you don’t just pick something on a board and create it in real life. There’s no such thing as “libertarian capitalism,” as an example. Centralization vs decentralization may make more sense, but that can also be misleading, as centralized systems can be more democratic than decentralized systems.

This is a pretty good, if long, video on the subject. The creator of the compass is also politically biased.

As a fun little side-note, I can answer the standard political compass quiz and get right around the bottom-left while being a Marxist-Leninist that approves of full collevtivization of production and central planning. Yet, at the same time, the quiz will put socialist states in the top left, seemingly based on how the creator wants to represent things. It’s deeply flawed. Add on the fact that it’s more of an idealist interpretation of political economy than a materialist one, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

To be fair, the political compass itself is liberal nonsense designed to promote liberal worldviews. It’s a deeply flawed system that harms more than it helps.

Utopianism is a failure, but a better world is possible. Taking a scientific approach to socialism works.

The RF did try to join, Putin was a part of that movement. After the nationalist movement in Russia, there was an attempt to normalize relations with the west and join the imperialist circle now that they had become capitalist, but this fell through.

The worms take him now. Rot.

Spot-on. People will really believe anything except the idea that the DPRK is a unique but ultimately still human country that faces struggles like any other, especially due to harsh and brutal sanctions like Cuba. Claiming that it isn’t literally hell on Earth doesn’t mean it’s a perfect utopia, but westerners will insist that if you don’t buy-in to western mythologizing of the DPRK that you’re somehow claiming it’s perfect and free from any issues whatsoever.

The upper-right is better attributed to victims of imperialism. Socialism has done a remarkable job of achieving food security.

In my experience, at least here on Lemmy, it’s more frequent interacting with liberals that disavow Marxists and Marxist movements as betraying Marx. These users, though, seem to see Marx as a reformist or an anarchist that was simply misunderstood by the billions of working class revolutionaries over the last century. If Marx were so easy to fully understand without engaging with Marxist theory, then how would it be so easy to misunderstand so broadly?

The truth is that Marx wasn’t betrayed, and that Marxism is neither easy to understand nor impossibly difficult. It takes a bit of effort to begin to really grasp concepts like historical materialism, dialectical materialism, scientific socialism, the withering of the state, and we aren’t taught these concepts in school. However, that doesn’t mean it’s so easy to completely misinterpret Marxism when you run a country explicitly aligned with Marxism, and distribute Marxist works and theory, teach it in schools, etc.

For those who want to read a bit more about Marxism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. I highly recommend giving it a look! And for those who’ve seen it before, it recently got a refresh a few weeks ago!

Capitalist crisis 101

Again, very ahistorical understanding. The USSR was not this comically evil Red Scare version you seem to think it was. The bourgeois farmers, the kulaks, that burned their crops and fought the red army rather than collectivizing were directly responsible for making famine worse. The Krondtadt rebellion was led by Stepan Petrichenko, who became a White Army soldier after the failure of the rebellion. What the sailors demanded in civil war would have led to the loss of the war for everyone.

The USSR was run by the workers. For starters, kulaks were wealthy bourgeois farmers that you frame as “peasants” and paint systemic sexual abuse was weilded as punishment. The Kronstadt sailors were largely unsupported as their demands were unsustainable, and amounted to active sabotage of the war effort. Terrorists, Tsarists, and fascists were targetted, yes.

Nobody is saying the USSR was perfect, but taking the opposite approach and believing wholeheartedly every Red Scare myth is also wrong.

This is all anticommunist gish-gallop with no bearing on material reality nor an understanding of socialism. The DPRK is villianized largely the same way Cuba is, it’s doing well despite overwhelming sanctions. Stalin didn’t change the weather to cause the 1930s famine nor did he tell the kulaks to burn their crops. China is socialist, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and the proletariat is in charge of the state.

Overall, you have no clue what you’re talking about, so you parrot standard liberalism.