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.

Marxism is correct and more relevant than ever.

Definitely became overly-beaurocratized after WWII, but was generally far more democratic than Capitalist states

I’m referring to the book itself, you have a lot of confused ideas about the USSR itself. Blackshirts and Reds is another great “Myth Debunker.”

I’ll explain further, then: At first, the lower body elects the upper body. The upper body decides everything.

Wrong. The lower bodies also decide things among themselves particular to issues specific to them, and elect delegates for the larger area. Imagine a soviet of a single factory, then a soviet of a city composed of delegates from all of the factories, then a regional soviet, etc. Each rung governs their respective areas with matters exclusive to them. These were workers with instant recall elections if needed.

1. Why not just skip the waste of time of the lower body voting on stuff? I can’t find any time something like jury nullification of a really awful presidium policy happened.

Because the lower bodies vote on matters pertaining to themselves that don’t affect others.

2. Since whoever disagrees with the upper body gets expelled, the lower body will perpetually elect whomever the upper body wants. While this may have enabled a dictatorship of the proletariat for a while, this behavior blocked out a ton of new ideas and became problematic after Stalin’s straight-up purging of opponents and entrenched an oppressive old guard, by whom Khrushchev got ousted trying to get rid of.

That’s not really accurate. Diverse opinions were held and discussed, what was purged was liberalism and fascism, which were dangerous currents deliberately infiltrating the USSR, as well as wreckers like Trotsky who collaborated with fascists and liberals.

Secondly, Stalin fought against beaurocracy, it wasn’t until WWII where the population was decimated and the USSR needed to be rebuilt that a beaurocratic class of “career politicians” began to take hold.

Again, I suggest reading more on the subject, you seem to be confused on the basic structure itself, causing other confusions to spring forth.

Nah, it was democratic, moreso than Capitalist countries. You can read This Soviet World if you want a look at it.

Almost every democratic structure practices Democratic Centralism, it just means the group is bound to the democratic results.

Soviet Democracy. Workers elect delegates from among themselves, who can then be subject to instant recall elections at any time. Remove the “career politician” aspects from government.

I have a PC that can push 4k120, it’s overblown and a luxury if anything.

The Steam Deck is absolutely strong enough for “proper gaming,” whatever that means.

If only Prisoners were being taught Marxist theory.

That pretty much sums them up nicely. Both represent the two sides of dying Empire.

Trump is a bit of a wrecking ball, his far-right populist rhetoric appeals to rising material frustrations with the Petite Bourgeoisie, ie small business owners and the like, along nationalist lines. Strong aesthetic patriotism, lack of consistency or coherence, promises of restoring grander times and power. General far-right nonsense that sees dying Empire as it is, but blaming it on immigrants and minorities instead of addressing material conditions.

Harris is plucked straight from the stock-standard Empire maintainers. Her policies are largely Biden’s promises carried over, with firm Imperialist support for Israel and “the most lethal military in the world.” She isn’t attempting to appeal to fascists, but she is trying to appeal to those with vested interest in maintaining Imperial Hegemony. Small concessions and frequent doublespeak - claiming Climate Change is an existential threat in one breath, then boldly taking pride in record gas production and promising to never ban fracking in the next. She’s more coherent, which ironically makes the double-speak stand out clearer.

It would be funny if it wasn’t tragic.