It’s a good idea and countries started that with Russia though it’s still continuing. USA would just follow that model

Democracy is demagogue-prone. That’s a disease to which electoral systems are vulnerable. Yet demagogues are easy to identify. They gesture a lot and speak with pulpit rhythms, using words that ring of religious fervor and god-fearing sincerity.

The practice can always be detected by anyone who learns the signs: Repetition. Great attempts to keep your attention on words. You must pay no attention to words. Watch what the person does. That way you learn the motives.

They create a system where most people are dissatisfied, vaguely or deeply. This builds up widespread feelings of vindictive anger. Then they supply targets for that anger as they need them—as distraction. Don’t give time to question.

They bury mistakes in more laws. Traffic in illusion. Bullring tactics. Wave the pretty cape. People will charge it and be confused when there’s no matador behind the thing. That dulls the electorate just as it dulls the bull.

Fewer people use their vote intelligently next time.

There appears to be a rule of nature that says it’s almost impossible for self-serving groups to act enlightened, flowing with the forces of life, adjusting your actions that life may continue. With the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number, of course.

The risks of democracy and how to prevent them paraphrased from Dune.

Apparent everywhere, Trump is just one in this path of centuries.

Focus on actions, not promises, and unite against inequality and division. Systems should be simple, transparent, and work for everyone, not just the wealthy or powerful. Educating and organizing workers, holding leaders accountable, and building solidarity across all groups are essential for achieving fairness. Lasting change comes from addressing root causes, not chasing temporary fixes.

Maybe the next century will show results somewhere.

Thank you for acknowledging this is going nowhere. As said multiple times, there are no perfection requirements, only an emphasis on aligning with Marxist principles. Beyond that, this has always been just forum posting, not a debate to win.

One thread is enough

The state is supposed to wither away as the working class takes control of production. Engels and Marx argued that the state, under capitalism, is a tool for maintaining class divisions, and this should end in socialism.

Socialism requires large-scale planning, but the key difference is that it must be managed democratically by workers, not a central bureaucracy. Lenin criticized the Soviet bureaucracy because it hindered true worker control.

The USSR state managed the economy without giving workers control. Even after the NEP, the state still controlled production without real worker participation.

For Marx, socialism means the working class collectively controls the economy, which wasn’t realized in the Soviet system. While there were gains, they came from a centralized authority, not workers themselves.

Despite state planning, the Soviet system concentrated power in the hands of a few.

Socialism is direct rule by the working class where the state fades away, as Engels described. A state acting as a proxy concentrates power in a minority and keeps workers from controlling production. Marx argued that the proletariat must destroy the old state machinery, not rely on it to act for them. The Soviet state kept a hierarchical structure that directed workers rather than enabling their control.

Material benefits do not prove workers were in control. Marx warned that state capitalism could produce growth while keeping power out of workers’ hands. Lenin himself criticized the growing Soviet bureaucracy after 1917. By the 1920s, workers’ councils had lost power to the Party and state officials. Gains can exist under exploitation if workers do not democratically run production.

Dialectical analysis means critically studying contradictions in a system. The USSR had contradictions like inequality and bureaucracy, which Marx predicted under state capitalism. Marxism evolves through testing theory against reality, not just following the majority, even when it challenges what many believe as socialism.

Marx differentiates between workers directly managing production and a state acting as their proxy. Material improvements alone don’t prove proletarian control, as state capitalism can achieve similar outcomes while concentrating power in a minority.

Marxism prioritizes dialectical analysis over majority opinion. Experience matters, and it must be tested against material conditions and theory. The opinions of the majority cannot substitute for class analysis. Even Lenin argued that revolutionary theory develops.

One of the key aspects of Marxism isn’t just about state control or central planning, it’s about the active involvement of the working class in managing production and society. If a state is controlled by a small elite, even if it calls itself socialist, it risks becoming a form of state capitalism rather than true worker control.

This isn’t about rigid, dogmatic labels which I can’t help but notice in your assumptions of me. What is interesting is understanding material conditions and power structures. Discussing any state, does it give the workers control or whether it serves a centralized elite.

I’m not claiming that any state is “false” without evidence. It’s an examination of how power operates in those states and whether it matches the idea of socialism where workers are in control. Doesn’t Marxist analysis require questioning these things, not simply accepting a label?

In Marxist theory, socialism isn’t just about government ownership or central planning, it’s about proletarian control. For a state to be socialist, the working class must actively manage production and society, rather than being ruled by a separate elite or bureaucracy acting “on their behalf.” State ownership can be a tool for socialism, but only if the state is democratically controlled by workers at all levels. Otherwise, it risks becoming state capitalism, managing production from above without true worker empowerment.

As for beliefs, Marx’s critique of religion as “the opiate of the masses” doesn’t dismiss ideas but warns against illusions that obscure material reality and class struggle. Critical analysis means questioning whether a state truly represents the working class or functions as a new ruling class. A socialist economy would feature collective ownership of the means of production and democratic planning to meet human needs. The key question is whether the PRC fulfills this vision of socialism or prioritizes state power over worker control.

As for the spammy demands for credentials or a reading list, Marxism doesn’t hinge on gatekeeping or appeals to authority. Marx emphasized praxis, to analyze material conditions and power structures. The “true Marxist” argument doesn’t address the substance: does the PRC align with Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and emancipation, or does it serve a centralized state elite? The answers requires evidence, not dismissive rhetoric or an insistence on orthodoxy.

The PRC being socialist would require that it aligns with the Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and revolutionary progress. Evidence suggests that the PRC’s actions often prioritize state control and compliance instead of working-class emancipation. We shouldn’t fall to beliefs, religion is the opiate of the masses after all

I’m not sure I understand the disconnect. I don’t see my discussions as being lecture. I’ve only thought to participate and hope I haven’t broken some taboo.

In the PRC, the Communist Party leads the state, but Marxism tells us to go beyond labels and focus on material reality. The ruling class is defined by who holds and uses economic and political power. If the Party and state genuinely reduce exploitation, improve living conditions, and build socialism, they fulfill a proletarian role. But if they prioritize maintaining power or allow inequality to grow, they act as a ruling class.

For the proletariat in China, their actions depend on their material conditions. If the system serves their interests, they should work to strengthen and improve socialism. But if exploitation exists, workers must organize, critically engage with the Party, and demand reforms that align with Marxist principles of dismantling class oppression.

It’s difficult to fully understand the proletariat’s sentiment in a context where opinions may need to be hidden and opportunities for agency could be limited. This makes critical analysis even more important to ensure that socialism actually serves the people.

Marxism doesn’t see education as some abstract idea of ‘truth’ but as a tool shaped by material conditions. The question isn’t whether education is ‘true’ but who it serves. Does it serve the status quo, teaching workers to accept their place in the system. In socialism, education should aim to empower the working class and build a society free of exploitation.

Marxism encourages critical thinking, not blind allegiance. If education in any state doesn’t help people understand and challenge class oppression, it risks serving those in power instead of the people.

I haven’t researched how Americans talk about these topics specifically, but what I can say is that in a Marxist context, it’s essential to analyze how education serves the interests of the ruling class, regardless of the country. In reactionary states, the government controls the narrative to ensure stability and maintain political power, even if the education system appears progressive. Theory argues that true education should challenge existing power structures and develop class consciousness, but state-controlled education often aims to preserve the current system. So is there fostering of critical thinking, or merely reinforcing a controlled worldview, as any state does to maintain its authority?

Educated people won’t stay obedient. That’s why reactionary powers historically avoid aiming for truly educated masses—they prefer a controlled education system that reinforces their ideology, not one that fosters critical thinking or revolutionary action.

China’s ambitious education plan seems to promise quality and accessibility, but we must ask: what kind of education will it promote? True education awakens class consciousness and challenges power structures, but education shaped by the state can become a tool for reinforcing conformity, obedience, and the status quo.

As Marxist theory teaches us, the ruling class controls not just the means of production but also the means of ideas. The flex here is not in building ‘education power,’ but in demonstrating the capacity to shape minds for the future workforce, ensuring stability within their system of production and governance. In this context, the plan isn’t just about making smarter citizens; it’s about making a more compliant society under the guise of progress.