Or be it colonialism?

which lands?

Eastern Europe and all her peoples, any countries in South America and Africa, promotion of revolutionary movements in Asia and elsewhere

Lenin and Stalin respected the right of nations to self-determination

Would not an emperor subvert his neighbors and colonize foreign barbarians who-do-not-know-the-true-way

they both wrote about it

of course they have to promote revolutionary movements when possible

they're not doing coups, they're helping revolutionaries

Incorporating sovereign nations into a singular unions doesn't sound much like self determination, neither does the suppression of nationalist movements.

@Deleted User inti-imperialism may look like imperialist to an uneducated eye.

Yes I am uneducated because I can see a system for what it is

>helping revolutionaries

@Deleted User you see only the outside.

the working class can achieve total liberation only in world socialism; the capitalist bloc won't let them have peace

Yes and we were helping revolutionaries during the Afghan war

The end goal is not communism? Socialism is not a transition state to utopia?

yes the end goal is communism

but first you need world socialism

what did she mean by this

So you wish to consolidate the world under one state. What of those who do not wish for this?

no, the union is voluntary and only possible after world socialism

And do you see a corrupt neo-bourgeois run union of unwilling and brutally subverted states as 'world socialism'?

if they're bourgeois they can't be socialist

the bourgeoisie are the ones owning the means of production

they can be petit, big...

on the other side the proletariat, those who don't own them

And if the workers control the means of production are they not the bourgeois in place of the old?

Not to say the workers as the bourgeois is what I am criticizing

Quite the opposite really

no, because they can't exploit other workers with the means

since they're collectively owned not privately owned

Promising sovereignty through a representative union to the court is not my idea of a prole dictatorship

Bourgeois means to control the means of production

Have you not read Marx?

it is, dictatorship of the proletariat means the proletariat having power over the bourgoisie, at the contrary that the dictatorship of the capital

The collective becoming the bourgeois and eliminating their oppression is the very essence of communism

no

that would be distributism

the economy isn't privately owned

the means