Determinism

It does not mean sitting on your hands while Imperialists commit genocide. This is nihilism.

"The path that we are on worked but failed because we were unlucky" is not the same as "IT'S GENOCIDE TIME!!!!"

And for the record, I am a nihilist. I do not believe in free will. I know nihilism is supposed to be some kind of insult, but it's not.

By their analysis, Capitalism doesn't exist either, as central planning and public ownership contradicts Capitalism

The vast majority of megacorporations use some form of central planning. That doesn't make them not capitalism. And of course, public ownership does not contradict capitalism. Public owned things can still do commodity production.

yet the US has a public postal service.

The postal service seems to be a bad example, since it is self funded by people paying to use it. Commodities.

But I can continue this argument with an actual public, non-commodity based service like the fire department. Isn't it frequently stated by the Marxist Lenininsts on this instance that what determines the mode of production is not the presence of these "socialist aspects" or the "capitalist aspects" but rather which one is primary mode of production?

But basically every state in existence primarily does rely commodity production. That would make them all capitalist.

Alright I got tilted. But I do want to continue this discussion. (will edit as this goes on).

They failed what? To eliminate commodity production? How do you suggest they do so, what path should they have taken instead?

Revolution must be international. Essentially: Germany's revolution should have won, but it was crushed militarily. Oh well.

What path should they have taken instead? Essentially nothing. They were very close. But without an international, self sustaining supply chain, you end up trading commodities, and extracting surplus value from the workers, and recreating capitalism.

You could engage in imperialism as a socialist state (Trotskyism) but in order to do so, you need to either buy or make military equipment and infrastructure and buying means engaging in commodities and can very easily drag you back to capitalism. Making means getting resources to do so, which also is basically impossible to do without engaging in commodities.

Marxist analysis says that the communism is not just something that gets "brought about", but rather an inevitable step in the phases of human societal development. Worker revolutions fail, for a variety of material reasons. But the workers only really need to win once and capitalism is over.

If you have a problem with Parenti, debunk Parenti directly.

I see no need to debunk a pseudohistorian who has already been debunked. You are free to read through rationalwiki's references for the debunking, the same way I read through your theory. I agree with most of it. I just don't think AES states are socialist. They have all the problems that capitalism causes, but this discussion frequently devolves into tankies citing redshirts and blacks or calling it "Natopedia" (to refer to wikipedia) to "refute" the idea that these states have problems.

well beyond Socialism, this "siphoning" of value will persist in order to "pay" for new expansions, free public services, etc.

How? What value is there to be extracted from the worker when there is no representation of debt or value in play?

and their success in wielding Marxism in the favor of the Working Class is proof that they were correct to press onward. What use is Marxism if not to improve the lives of working people?

No. They failed.

I have seen many of your comments, and you constantly bring up blackshirts and reds, despite it being historical revisionism.

If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative

No. Capitalism is not the existence of the bourgeoisie, but rather the existence of the commodity form. When commodities are traded for their "exchange value", some of the surplus value of labor from the worker is siphoned off, and goes elsewhere, like to grow the business.

If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public

No. As long as the rubber ball factory sells balls it's capitalism.

This means that workers coops, and even other democratically ran systems, as long as items are engaged with the commodity form, are capitalism, and inherit the problems of capitalism (racism, forced labor, imperialism, etc).

The idea that "people" control capital, though a bourgeoisie class or something of the sort is idealism. Materialist analysis says that capital selects the systems and people that "control" it, rather than the other way around. Worker coops are not socialism, but rather, systems similar to bourgeoisie democracy.

This is why China and the other AES states are capitalism. They engage, primarily in the commodity form, and thus inherit the problems that capitalism causes such as racism, forced labor, and imperialism.

Theory I like (may add more as I find more):

• https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/Texts/65ThChin.htm (although I disagree with this on some parts. The idea that the revolution in Russia failed because "Stalinism betrayed everyone" is again, idealist analysis. The Russian revolution failed/Stalinism came about because the German revolution failed (again, due to material reasons), and there was a failure to bring about international communism.)