It's 8ch m8, we're all spergs here, even you.
I'll have you know I sleep quite well. I do only have so much time between work and sleeping though. these posts take less time than you might think, I'm a very quick typist.
People want to go back because of the stability and economic safety-net that the USSR provided. There was much lower inequality, great job stability, and many social welfare benefits. However, when competing with other capitalist countries, this system proved unsustainable. Certainly, the economic research that's been done on the subject shows that there were many inefficiencies with the planning system, and that smaller decentralized production and distribution wouldn't have been more helpful in at least some cases. The biggest failures in the USSR was often the small stuff, spare parts for washing machines and refrigerators were always in shortage, there wasn't good maintenance for infrastructure, ect. That it broke up, however, was ultimately due to the satellite states being more expense to keep than they were worth to Moscow. Indeed, it was incapable of going beyond, and the lack of accountability to the workers probably had a large part of that. Look at what, in all the crisis in the collapse, was most well preserved: the nomenklatura. What had become central to the soviet system was not an economic system, but the power of a class of bureaucrats.
I have no problem with them because I like what I hear of their theory. I wish more did exist on this board, I've seen a handful on twitter at least.
I don't consider bordigists leninists or MLs leninists either. Lenin himself wasn't half bad, although there were better. I consider MLs though to be a pretty self defeating joke, I don't see how anyone could take most of them seriously. It's always just muh anti-imperialism and despot apologetics. To the extent people like Cockshott talk about theory that isn't related to vanguards, I appreciate it. I'm not about to shit up the soviet cybernetics thread as I think talking about cybernetics is a useful endeavor.
I'm literally asking for something like economic analysis m8, anything that isn't muh class party autism or constant complaining.
You're not a libertarian socialist if you believe in their vision of despotism.
right back at ya.
Except you're missing the point completely.
The point is not that some serious of level of centrism and authoritarianism is required to militarily defend a revolution from its enemies, this is well established and true. The question is what happens when the fighting stops. The capitalists hardly needed a class party, much less a one party state to defend their new system. And every time socialists have tried this approach of one party states, it has ended in miserable failure.