... was an ideology that gave 200 million of people universal healthcare, universal childcare, public housing and increased luteracy rates but took away democracy and national self determination, unleashed genocide and allied with literal Hitler

Most ideologies are terrible in those regards. The various forms of democratic capitalism have been pretty big on genocide and oppression too. Most of them were were pretty unconcerned with Hitler until after the marxist-leninists were already fighting him.

Not sure what point you're trying to make.

>Most of them were were pretty unconcerned with Hitler until after the marxist-leninists were already fighting him.

Britain, France and allies were fighting Hitler in 1939. Russia was allied with Hitler until 1941, when Hitler attacked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...

And outside of Europe, a huge number of capitalist democracies didn't join in or pick a side until late 1941 (6 months after the invasion of the USSR), at the same(ish) time as the US joined.

Just i know there were preferred trading partners and aide packages from countries to one side or the other, but if Perl Harbor hadn't happened, it was by no means certain the US and many other countries would have entered the war and instead just let it settle itself.

Of course Europe was involved in the European war. Turns out Europe is only a small part of the world tho.

I love this link about a treaty, which the Soviets broke quickly, that was the direct result of a different treaty between Nazi Germany, the UK, France, and Italy that was signed a year earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

It seems like the signatories to that treaty had no issue with the Nazis annexing particular bits of Europe at the time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Britain and France's abandonment of Czechoslovakia was a pretty shameful episode all round.

How did it take away national self-determination exactly? The Soviet model regarding self-determination was definitely better than what any other nation had. I probably don't have to mention that Lenin wrote a whole book on national self-determination, defending the right to self-determination on the condition that it does not harm the socialist project.

Although one may call it superficial, a mere formality no indicator of self-determination in the Republic, it is remarkable that the Soviet ruble had 15 local languages printed on the banknote.

Well, in large part by murdering those that were actually trying to self-determinate...

My view is that Lenin probably meant well, but he made fatal mistakes with "democratic" centralism and the vanguardist approach, which allowed for both his own consolidation of power but also Stalins. And Stalin did not give a shit about self-determination, not just within the USSR, but within the whole Soviet bloc.

If you have a vanguard with special privileges then congrats, you've replaced the inequality of Capitalism with another inequality. This is the exact challenge GP is talking about; it's hard to avoid the tendency for power to accumulate.

What about the quantity of the inequality? If our equality at the moment is 1 to 60, certainly 1 to 6 is better, no?

I cannot see a way out other than socialism, unfortunately.

Why unfortunately? Because under current conditions a revolution seems very unlikely, and if you really decide to become a socialist, committed and organized, you risk a lot.

You risk imprisonment, getting beaten by the police, going to prison for quite some time. And by investing your time and energy studying Marxist theory, Lenin, matters regarding the unique material conditions of the country you are revolting in, you risk your 'field', by field I mean you risk your occupation or profession. For example, you are a biologist, and you can't see a way out of this capitalist predicament, and feel a strong responsibility towards the world, you are now robbed of your time because you have to study socialist theory.

The other person in your field is indifferent (not a moral judgment) about politics, and will outperform you.

>You risk imprisonment, getting beaten by the police, going to prison for quite some time.

That's very true, especially if the revolution succeeds. Only few OG Bolsheviks survived purges by their own comrades, for example.

this is presumably why Jefferson mentioned the whole watering the tree of liberty with blood of patriots and tyrants.

or why Mao was all about continuous revolution.