>>409395Yep. Like I said, contemporary (especially Western) accounts are often tainted by anti-communist bias (or otherwise, the lack of general scrutiny against anti-communist bias; what I mean by that is that because latent, largely emotional, anti-communism is the norm in the West, it creates a blind spot where bias against "communism", which can mean anything from actual Marxist theory to particular socialist governments and figures therein, is usually not clocked except by communists, and of course, why would you believe a communist telling you a paper is excessively uncharitable towards communism) and seek to paint Stalin as a blanket murderer, liar, egotist, and lunatic, all of which he was to some degree or another, but:
1. Not at all times
2. Regardless, his conduct is not reflective of the merits of socialism, the ideology.
That's her point, but what makes me think she's a larper is it goes beyond "Stalin wasn't as bad as the establishment says" and into "Stalin wasn't that bad" - two entirely distinct statements.
As far as the merits of the command economy goes, I, and many others, as I'm sure you know, don't necessarily believe in the application of the Soviet-style economy. I think a far more realistic principle of operation is that the market may exist unhindered, so long as its operation is neutral or positive in its effects on "humanity" - being the strength of community bonds, the rate of addiction to factors controlled by markets (think, gambling, pornography), the environment, and human rights as understood internationally, and perhaps less definably, but intuitively, that is, labor conditions. Provided a business meets all those conditions, I see nothing wrong with it. The issue is, of course, the business owner sees how much more money they could make by abusing human rights here and introducing addiction there, and that pretty little picture falls apart, especially given how gung-ho politicians are on just letting them do it.
That said, global communism would objectively be ideal. Everything you need is provided to you for free, you work a (perhaps assigned, but ideally not) job for reasonable hours, then you go home and are free to pursue whatever you'd like in the comfort of your friends and family. You never worry about rent, food, or medicine, and of course, there are still certain small businesses; pubs, theaters, the like, although they would operate as co-ops; there may be a manager or a founder, but they are paid according to what the workplace democratically decides, rather than assigning their own paycheck. Fun fact, take this with a grain of salt, but I heard co-ops actually perform extremely well compared to traditional businesses, within their weight class, of course. If you're looking for an investment, consider that.
The issue there is I think democratic socialism is the closest the human race will ever really get, as any shift to proper communism would need to be extremely rapid and worldwide in order to avoid getting strangled out, as any nation simply choosing not to partake immediately gains leverage; if you have a community where everyone shares just because, and then one guy says "I'm not giving you X unless you give me Y", he immediately gains leverage. So I don't think Trotskyist global communism will ever happen, but it's a nice idea.
