Correct, item 1 does not exist in a vacuum. The other items were largely about cutting the bolsheviks out of the red army and soviets, dissolving the bolsheviks as a political entity.

The fact that they wanted to make it so that the bolsheviks could not be voted for, and then immediately elect non-bolsheviks.

The soviets did have secret ballots, and candidates were chosen by consensus building and approval voting. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is a great book to describe in detail the system the soviets used for democracy.

Even if the ideals of the rebellion were founded in good intentions by the sailors, fighting against the newborn Socialist State played into counter-revolutionary hands and aided the fascist White Army in the middle of a brutal civil war. The sailors placed their own interests over the broader soviet people. It was also led by Petrichenko, who one year prior tried to join the White Army, and joined the White Army after the rebellion failed and the sailors turned on the rebellion. In addition, 2 former capitalists were included in the council leading the rebellion, and they arrested 300 communists in their mutiny.

Had it been a time of peace with no internal or external pressure and the same measures employed, my feelings would be different on the matter, but the facts are that the stated aims and the methods employed by the rebels were at direct contradiction in the middle of a civil war.

It’s not like Lenin hated Anarchists especially, Kropotkin was given a large State funeral and the largest rail station, Kropotkinskaya, was named after him. The Kronstadt Rebellion also factored in the transition between War Communism into the NEP.

Kronstadt, in the context of a bloody and brutal civil war against a dozen invading capitalist nations and a strong Tsarist white army, their demands were suicide for the socialists:

7. To abolish all Political Departments, because no single party may enjoy privileges in the propagation of its ideas and receive funds from the state for this purpose. Instead of these Departments, locally elected cultural-educational commissions must be established and supported by the state. This is the reason for the inclusion of this document in a collection otherwise devoted entirely to official publications.

8. All ‘cordon detachments” are to be abolished immediately.

9. To abolish all Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various Communist guards at factories. If such detachments and guards are needed they may be chosen from the companies in military units and in the factories according to the judgment of the workers.

They wanted the bolsheviks to be stopped, and tie their hands and let the Tsarists and capitalists win. This was absolutely suicidal.

1. In view of the fact that the present soviets do not represent the will of the workers and peasants, to re-elect the soviets immediately by secret voting, with free canvassing among all workers and peasants before the elections.

They wanted the bolsheviks disbanded, and replaced by SRs, mensheviks, anarchists, etc. The soviets were there, they just didn’t like how they were made up. Further, the sailors that returned to the soviets were quite literally allowed to go to those meetings in 1936.

Okay, but you can’t just say it is publicly owned and then not have any actual tangible way of individual members of the public of accessing what they apparently own.

Public ownership doesn’t mean anyone can do whatever they want with it. For example, a publicly run nuclear power plant isn’t going to let random citizens walk around and do whatever they want.

By every definition of “socialism” that I can find, China is breaking virtually every rule. What specifically about their economy makes it more socialist than, say, any other economy in the world?

Can you explain this? What do you think socialism is, and how is China “breaking virtually every rule?”

Socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. China fulfills both of these requirements.

Okay, I think socialism is a little bit more than when the government does stuff, but maybe I was taught differently. I guess by that definition even India is socialist and publicly owned.

Socialism is not when the government does stuff, but socialism allows the working classes to direct production and distribution to do good stuff for the working classes more effectively.

And how do you avoid the inherent corruption issues the one-party system presents? Since anyone who is already higher up in that ladder holds power over those underneath them, and power leads to corruption.

Power does not lead to corruption, it isn’t a supernatural force turning people evil. Corruption comes from people desiring to improve their own conditions and taking advantage of their position to do so, which is contested by transparency and kicking bad actors out of the party. There is nothing about being a one-party system that makes it more corrupt.

Every western democracy on earth fits these criteria - elections for local representatives, who themselves go on to vote on the leadership (parliamentary or electoral college, take your pick). And we all have mass polling and opinion gathering.

And yet private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, meaning the capitalist class has a hold of the state and thus manipulates it as it sees fit.

Those approval rates exist only at the federal level, not the provincial or municipal.

Nope, the approval rates at local and provincial levels are also 85%+.

Not coincidentally, it’s illegal to publicly criticize the federal government in China, or accuse it of failing to adhere to socialist ideals.

Not true either. What’s punished is when groups try to undermine the socialist system for liberal ends, meaning capitalists are often punished.

Again, power leads to corruption.

Again, it does not. This is idealism, using the supernatural to explain real, material phenomena.

Is your point that having democratic elections and governments that do good things for the people makes a country socialist?

No, a country is socialist if public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes are in charge of the state. Democratic elections controlled by the working classes, and a government that uplifts the people over profits, are both outcomes of socialism, not the definition.

Because by all the criteria you’ve named, I can name a lot of countries that are even more socialist than China. Canada is more socialist than China and we don’t even call ourselves socialist.

Private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy in Canada, and capitalists control the state. Canada is not “more socialist,” it’s a capitalist settler-colony.

So what’s the difference? It sounds like just any other western capitalist country except you just call it socialist and publicly owned?

The difference is that socialist countries have public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state.

The overwhelming majority of finance is publicly owned in the PRC, and it exists because the PRC is a developing, socialist economy. Stock markets exist largely for secondary industries and medium firms, while the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and run. Public ownership presents itself in the real world via the vast, pro-social infrastructure projects, poverty alleviation campaigns, central planning, Five Year Plans, and consistent improvements in the lives of the working classes.

In China, they have direct elections for local representatives, which elect further “rungs,” laddering to the top. The top then has mass polling and opinion gathering. This combination of top-down and bottom-up democracy ensures effective results. For more on this, see Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. This system is remarkably effective, resulting in over 90% approval rates.

I’m not sure what your point is. Is your point that the presence of any private property whatsoever means a state isn’t socialist? Such an understanding isn’t based in Marxism, and would mean Capitalism doesn’t exist either as public property exists within capitalism.

Terrible article, the entire way through. The general assertion is that Russia and China have some degree of influence, and are therefore imperialist according to Lenin. This ignores the following:

1. Russia, though capitalist, has an incredibly small amount of finance capital compared to imperialist countries like the US, Germany, UK, France, etc. Without a share in the world’s monopolies, Russia cannot super-exploit the global south.

2. The PRC is socialist, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. The author treats claims of China being socialist as inherently wrong, without addressing said claims.

3. Neither the PRC nor RF have anywhere close to the number of millitary bases overseas that the west has. They cannot dominate the global south millitarily if their millitaries aren’t in the global south! The PRC has ~3 millitary bases overseas, the US Empire alone has hundreds.

All in all, a horrible butchering of Lenin’s analysis of imperialism in a manner that minimizes western imperialism and exaggerates the sins of enemies of western imperialism. It is western imperialism that has global hegenony presently, and caping for it just serves to help protect it.