That’s why I am asking what counts as “world-changing,” as most people would consider the first man in space to be world-changing.

Surviving in space and successfully returning from orbit is absolutely an incredible achievement that spurred on the space race.

Vostok 1 was the capsule that contained Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space. All of these were critical advancements in space flight and science. What is the criterion for “world changing” that doesn’t include the numerous critical advancements in space?

Sputnik, Vostok, the artificial heart, the math behind modern multi-stage rocketry, and space rovers were all invented by the Soviets.

I don’t think many non-Marxists even know what they mean by the term “Dengism,” so what’s the point? Even you didn’t know.

Why not? The basis of creating such a line is to undermine and discredit the Socialist Market Economy by pretending it’s against Marxist analysis. This becomes the basis of discrediting China itself among the left.

Hoxhaists call themselves as such, it isn’t really derogatory. “Dengist” itself is meant to be derogatory as it’s meant directly to draw a line between Marxism-Leninism and Deng’s policies, when there isn’t such a line in reality.

I don’t really get your point, here.

Marxism-Leninism isn’t “whatever Stalin did.” This is a mistake Hoxhaists and the like make. It isn’t “secretly” a manifestation of the same ideas, it’s openly so. The Soviet economy was largely a wartime economy, in siege. For that, it was tremendously effective, but they ran into problems with light industry. Stalin tried to solve this with systems like the artels and cooperatives, but Khrushchev played a part in abolishing these. As a consequence, black markets emerged for gaps in the public sector.

The implication here is that where there is a need, there will be relations of production to accommodate, whether these are legally recognized or not. You can try to get rid of them, but this takes effort, and impedes development in many cases. China took the route of legally recognizing private property in controlled amounts, and uses this marketization for development into fully planned economy.

The reason people take issue with the term “Dengism” is because it is used near exclusively in a derogatory manner, to dismiss Marxist-Leninists as “revisionist” for accepting the socialist market economy as a valid and correct application of Marxism.

No, Deng Xiaoping Theory is a thing, but it isn’t treated as significant as Thought, to date there is only Mao Zedong Thought and Xi Jinping Thought (ML-MZT and ML-XJT accordingly, with ML-XJT already having all of ML-MZT included, along with DXT). Many heads of the CPC have had various individual contributions, like Deng, but these are typically applications of Marxism-Leninism to new conditions, not the invention of a new ideology.

The socialist market economy is based in classical Marxist economics, not even anything directly attributable to Lenin or Deng.

The major difference between you and me is that I’m both anti-genocide, and anti-atrocity propaganda, where evidence is manufactured and exaggerated for political use, rather than aims for justice. You are anti-genocide, while being pro-atrocity propaganda, beyond even liberal consensus.

Accepting that Russia and China are committing genocide puts you to the right of liberal consensus and shoulder-to-shoulder with Zionists and Christian nationalists. I suppose you could be anti-Zionist yourself, you would just firmly agree with what largely is reserved to Zionists, and would be supporting groups that prop up Zionism.

I assume you’re referring to the fact that private property exists in socialist countries, typically in small/medium firms, and this creates billionaires and private wealth. Nobody is saying those billionaires are “socialist billionaires,” but instead that marketization under socialism isn’t really capitalism, just like the public sector in capitalism isn’t really socialism, either.

For example, despite being state run and publicly owned, the US military exists explicitly to dominate foreign countries and open up new markets for finance capital, while protecting the gains. Even welfare in the US is largely in the service of capitalists, as it prevents revolution, and therefore maintains imperialism.

The inverse is also true with regards to marketization in socialism. Marx’s analysis of capitalism wasn’t just “capitalism bad,” he had a developed understanding that markets naturally centralize and stitch together production into larger and larger, more interconnected scales. He also saw this as the new basis for planned economy, just like decentralized production became the basis for markets and capitalism.

Markets in socialism play the progressive role of “socializing” the productive forces. You can simply decree all ownership to be collective, but without the developed and socialized industry to accomodate it, black markets and inefficiencies appear that hold back societal progress. Looking at the USSR as an example, they managed to develop heavy industry dramatically, but they ended up with large black markets for light industry. This is because there was a gap in the planned economy, and therefore the base for private production. De jure the economy was overwhelmingly publicly owned, but de facto private industry filled in the gaps.

What China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. have done is legally recognize the already existing private producers, and integrate them into the economy so as to develop them and fold them into the public sector as they grow. It’s a strategy of absorption, not cutting away. This is quite in line with the advice given by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party to appropriate all property by degrees, and focus on developing the productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Nobody has said what you claim, that’s an absurd strawman deliberately made to sound as such. In any case, MLs critique both Russia’s highly backwards social views, as well as the fact that they have a capitalist economy that has utterly failed to replicate the same heights as socialism, which makes sense considering MLs are communists. It’s pretty easy to understand.

When did I ever make the point that the far-right all believes exactly the same thing? The fact is, claims of genocide by Russia are most common among Zionists. If you don’t want to acknowledge Zionism as the fascist ideology that it is, that’s an entire conversation in itself.

I linked Jerusalem Post saying Russia is committing genocide. Either you do not believe Zionism is far-right, or you are deliberately dodging this.

As for Ukraine, yes, it was a member state. This does not mean a Ukrainian Nazi is a “soviet Nazi,” soviet is not an ethnicity. He was a Ukrainian Nazi, fighting against soviet Ukrainians and the rest of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine and Israel are strong allies with mutual agreements and material support.

Do you disagree with the idea that Jerusalem Post is far-right? It sounds like you’re saying Zionism is a neutral thing, and not entirely fascist. There are many far-right sources backing your claims, and practically no liberal ones. Liberals you know personally are not sources, it’s not uncommon for liberals to hold unsubstantiated far-right views.

As for Canada and applauding a Ukrainian Nazi, said Nazi fought against the Soviets. Soviet is not an ethnicity. Canada is a right-wing imperialist settler-colony with a deep history of supporting Nazis after World War II. The fact that far-right sources align with Israel on allegations of genocide isn’t a point in your favor.

Can’t help but notice you ignored my questions. Does the fact that Ukraine is fighting back against Russia give them the right to venerate Nazis, and actively assist with the genocide of Palestine? What about arming and training far-right militias for use in Latin America to kill off leftists?

Supporting Palestine seems to be something you think matters mentally, not materially. As in, you think it’s tragic that it’s happening, but materially you’ll do nothing, just continue supporting Israel’s allies.

Yep, this is a smear post. Even if people disagree with MLs, nobody should confuse the fact that MLs hate the ACP.

No, which is why they aren’t, and even liberal consensus agrees that Russia isn’t committing genocide, as we have established. As we discussed already, it’s largely the far-right that strongly supports Israel and its widely documented genocide of Palestine that actually believes Russia is committing genocide.

Does the fact that Ukraine is fighting back against Russia give them the right to venerate Nazis, and actively assist with the genocide of Palestine? What about arming and training far-right militias for use in Latin America to kill off leftists?

Is the fact that the right-wing has rivals within the right evidence of one of them not being right-wing? What is this non-sequitor? The fact of the matter is that Canada has a long and hidden history of caping for Nazis, and it wasn’t pure accident that one got elevated to appearing before parliament. In fact, said Nazi was a Ukrainian member of the SS, a direct connection to the modern issue of Nazis in positions of power in Ukraine, and glorifying Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera.