…what?

Having a parent as a politician and then being elected is not a “class.” The alternative is to bar descendents from holding office, which is just trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

The USSR had problems we can analyze, but through collective farming methods became food stable in a country that frequently had famines. Further, we can see food stability in countries like the PRC.

We should not ignore right-wing proletarians. We should thoroughly correct their poor analysis and promote correct political lines. We should see fascists and the bourgeoisie, landlords, etc as enemies.

The upper class plays up division to distract, this is correct, but Socialism remains the correct path. There isn’t a “perfect” Socialism, but that doesn’t mean advocating for Socialism locks in the current situation. To the contrary, Socialist revolution has already happened in many areas.

I’d like to know what you mean by saying “Socialism has ro for improvement” as a general rule, and not as countries building Socialism iterating and working to resolve the problems that come with nation building in general.

No problem!

Reading theory helps me understand the world around me. It keeps me realistically optimistic, without spiraling into doomerism or naive optimism. Reading scientific articles on space, tech, etc keep me curious and ever-learning.

Working out makes me feel better, have more mental clarity, and more energy. It’s self-satisfying. It isn’t necessary for everyone, but I enjoy it and the feelings it gives me. My attitude and mood improves with it.

Administration and management are necessities in complex and large-scale systems. This does imply power imbalance, but it does not imply the same character of class dynamics as in Capitalist states.

Social Democracy doesn’t work, but Socialism does. We have seen this in practice quite effectively. There isn’t a mythical “perfect” system, all Socialist states have faced internal and external struggles, but we have seen remarkable resiliance and success from them in a quantitatively and qualitatively different level from Capitalist states.

Self-study and exercise. I read Marxist-Leninist theory (as well as scientific articles and other non-fiction that interests me) every day, and work out 4 times a week. Both have significantly improved my life.

What do you mean by “stuck?” Globally, conditions are rapidly changing, and moving steadily in favor of the Proletariat. Socialist countries like the PRC are overtaking the US, which is weakening in Imperialist power.

Desires based on inaccurate analysis are invalid. If someone wants to limit government because of problems sprouting from Capitalism, not the government, then these aren’t desires that need to be addressed. They can be better informed and corrected, but not entertained.

Strengthening the government under Capitalism isn’t Left either, rather the Leftist (specifically Marxist) solution is to smash the state and replace it with a Proletarian one. Historically, the bourgeoisie has been suppressed by Proletarian States, your hypothesis isn’t accurate.

Hegel’s Dialectics are idealist, and thus wrong. He advanced Dialectics, but it was Marx that stood them upright and made them Materialist. The idea of trying to synthesize a new ideology of left combined with right historically is Social Democracy, which ends in the same problems under Capitalism and in the Nordics, for example, relies on Imperialism to sustain itself. With the global weakening of Imperialism, conditions are decaying in the Nordics.

Right-wingers misanalyzing the issues felt by the whole proletariat don’t validate that analysis by virtue of the consequences being real. The proletariat being divided is indeed one method of upholding Capitalism, but the answer isn’t to abandon Leftist analysis, which is correct.

Further, Dialectical Materialism doesn’t “miss that people care about other things.” I think you’re confusing DiaMat for Class Struggle, which is merely one analysis of DiaMat.

The Left also isn’t all about “respecting people and their emotions and desires.” Not all desires are valid, nor are all viewpoints. There are correct conclusions and correct analysis, and there are incorrect conclusions and incorrect analysis. A right-winger blaming government as the issue when really it’s the fault of Capitalism and the state being of bourgeois character is wrong, and those ideas should be fought.

The “right” is made up of those who want to retain the current Capitalist system, or turn the clock “back,” to earlier days. The “left” is made up of Socialists that want to progress onwards. The left and right “values” you list aren’t really indicative of right or left, but vibes.

The proletariat should unify, but this would make them left. Abandoning the reactionary position of being right-wing doesn’t mean the leftists get less left, it’s unifying around correct analysis.

Mind elaborating?

Liberals aren’t stopping the revolution or fascism. Liberals generally just support the status quo, with tweaks or not. Fascism and liberalism are both based on the same underlying base, when a liberal society finds itself in decay and dire circumatances, it often becomes fascist.

On “Purity Testing” within the Left

All countries are “authoritarian,” all states exert authority. When analyzing them, it’s important to find which class is represented, which class is exerting its authority. The USSR was authoritarian towards the bourgoeisie, monarchists, and fascists, but empowering for the proletariat.

Further, fascism is just Capitalism in different circumstances. Dire circumstances, where it needs to violently and brutally defend its class dynamics.

I don’t think there’s much the left can gain from the right.

There’s absolutely empirical proof of steady monopolization and concentration of production in fewer and fewer hands, it happens in all countries as industry develops. Growing larger and more complex is a necessary aspect of lowering supply chain costs, and thus chasing profits. As for your specific questions:

Why are there capitalist countries that don’t see a rise in inequality?

These don’t exist. There are countries where large influxes of concessions from Capitalists have lowered inequality temporarily, but there is still rising inequality over time.

Where is housing in your analysis, which makes up more than 50% of all wealth (up from 15-20% 100 years ago).

I don’t even agree with your numbers, if you could source them that would be great, but even if we take them at face value as true, rent and land are key aspects of Marxist analysis. Land is finite, as population grows and supply is constrained, monopoly prices can be extracted. It’s usury, landlordism is parasitic. The land factories are on also plays a part in the cost of finished goods, rent is tied to commodity pricing.

Georgists seem to think they are the only ones to have noticed the problems with private land ownership, but the truth is that Marxists have a more comprehensive understanding of it. See China, Cuba, and other countries run by Marxists to see what Land Reform under Marxists looks like. I think you’ll probably like the PRC’s model.

Why is the capital to income ratio not rising when housing is taken out of the equation?

Citation needed, and you need to narrow the scope. You need to take Imperialism into account as well, workers in the Global North are paid “bribes” won by international plundering.

Why is every productivity gain in society accompanied by equally rising housing rents?

It’s not always equal, but often is. Worker wages are largely depressed to the cost to reproduce them, and rents rise accordingly. Productivity isn’t coupled with wages in Capitalist countries as a rule, the landlords and Capitalists swallow all of the gains up.

Overall, you seem to think you have a grand insight into land. You’re certainly above the average liberal, who sees no real problem with it, but Marxists have a more multi-sided understanding of land, and have regularly enacted successful land reform. Georgists also have no real way to implement their policies without adopting a revolutionary stance, where they are far outnumbered by the Marxists and Anarchists.

Georgism is more correct than standard liberalism, but is too focused on one aspect of the failures of Capitalism, too one-sided, too insufficient even if it were enacted, and has no path to actually be enacted. Marxism has none of those faults.

Liberals often call Leftists excluding liberals from the Left “purity testing,” as though the difference is merely in quantitative degrees, rather than qualitative. If the difference between Leftists and libetals is indeed merely quantitative, wanting the same thing but in greater or lesser extents, then the Liberals would be correct, however opposition to Capitalism itself and support for Socialism fundamentally represents a qualitative shift.

For Leftists, Social Democracy, or Welfare Capitalism, isn’t actually a solution. The countries seen as “success stories” like the Nordics rely on Imperialism, they aren’t closed loop economies. Further, their conditions are deteriorating as wealth concentrates. Leftists therefore aren’t letting “perfect” be the enemy of “good,” it’s that Liberalism is built on a brutal system of international plunder, and is on a death spiral as liberal countries increasingly pivot more to the right. Climate Change is still an existential threat. Liberalism isn’t a solution.

That’s why there’s friction between progressive liberals and Leftists.

Different industries and sectors gradually scale differently, but all move towards concentration. This is consistent and graduated. Every Capitalist country has regularly seen this gradual concentration over time, even if temporary shifts against this trend happen.

Again, without an analysis of political power and taking an agnostic attitude towards production, you have what can sound to liberals as a good idea but is ultimately not a real answer. If the Proletariat cannot wrest control, all regulations and taxes will be enacted in a manner that suits the Capitalists in control if you get far enough in the first place. Wealth will continue to accumulate, as the entire M-C-M’ circuit is based on growth in scale of profit, not steady cashflow.

The Marxist position isn’t that moving towards full public ownership immediately is a practical solution, but that this is a gradual process that starts with the proletariat siezing control. I recommend you actually engage with Marxist theory.

Based on analyzing wealth concentration, and how much large firms control over smaller ones. Marx explains why it happens in Capital, but an easy way to think of it is because large firms have more financial power to create large and complex chains of production, lowering costs overall and outcompeting small firms.

Competition kills itself over time, by the mechanisms you describe, and government can’t truly be a meaningful check on business unless it’s a proletarian government, which requires proletarian control of the base. Competition cannot exist forever.

Why ia “balance” a good thing? It wouldn’t make sense to jump straight to a fully publicly owned economy over night, but gradually fold in more sectors and firms as they develop, starting with all of the large firms and key industries. If you don’t take control of those, then you won’t have actually risen above the Capitalists.

Your fundamental argument relies on it even being possible to peacefully go against the ruling class and bend the state in the favor of the Proletariat. This assumption leaves your analysis dead in the water. Combining that with a failure to analyze Capital to any meaningful degree, and the failure of analysis as regards the ever-increasing complexity of production and the benefits of central planning, means you’re left with the equivalent of universal healthcare in a Capitalist economy.

A good idea, no doubt, but will always be undermined by the ruling class, and thus is both incomplete and not a real solution.