I don’t really think you can meaningfully consider anarchism to be more left than Marxism, more just leftism taken in the direction of communalism rather than collectivization.

Socialism is a mode of production, social programs and welfare exist in capitalism and socialism.

The right wing starts at capitalism. Fascism is capitalism in crisis, forcing austerity domestically when the fruits of imperialism dry up. Trump won because the democrats failed to meaningfully answer the problems of capitalism, alienating their base, and allowing Trump’s base an easy win, it wasn’t because of leftists sitting out of an election.

Leftists support moving onto socialism, democrats support maintaining capitalism and imperialism. This is a fundamentally irreconcilable difference, and is why leftists opposing the democrats isn’t infighting, it’s just fighting. It’s entirely different from MAGA, which also wishes to perpetuate capitalism and imperialism.

The sarcasm is in taking the common false argument against Marxism and directly showing how absurd that argument actually is by forcing it into a vignette for the viewer, ie a Marx that actually forgot human nature and suddenly realized it destroys his arguments and analysis. That absurd situation highlights the absurdity of the argument.

I’m not an anarchist, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. Not sure where you got the idea that I’m an anarchist from. Secondly, I’m not referring to what the random person thinks anarchy is, but what actual anarchists believe, and among anarchists anarcho-capitalism is fringe, and an offshoot of liberalism. Plato having talked about anarchy at one point doesn’t suddenly mean that the entirety of anarchist history suddenly doesn’t matter.

The government is tied to the mode of production, it isn’t above it. When capital owners hold sway over how society functions, it isn’t through bribes alone that this happens. Control of media, control of the state, administration, cultural hegemony, etc all influence it. As such, no direct democracy could really exist in capitalism.

It’s sarcasm, which doesn’t always land.

Sure, the base will shape the superstructure. Any levers that can be pulled within capitalism will either be destroyed or nerfed if proven too effective at gaining what workers want.

Most people are interpreting it correctly, though.

This is a deeply idealist view of production. There is no “invisible hand,” no universal Spirit of Hegel. Trade and industrialized production gives way to centralization and the death of competition, and it makes more and more sense economically to plan production and collectivize it as this competition dies out of itself. Communists aren’t “holding back” trade, trade naturally gives way to the very structures that compel communism and kill off trade.

The mode of production takes priority, capitalism with direct democracy would still fall to the same problems intrinsic to capitalism.

Anarchism is left. Anarcho-capitalism is a meme ideology that is mostly an offshoot of liberalism, while actual anarchism has a rich history on the left, as the other major umbrella of leftist thought compared to Marxism.

You are on a site maintained and developed by communists, so there are a lot of us here. We all have biases, of course, and I’d argue that presenting an anti-western, pro-communist bias on some of the most unjustly demonized figures in the world both today and historically is exactly what OP asked for.

As for the bit on “authoritarianism,” communists support the use of the state in protecting socialism and uplifting the well-being of the vast majority of society. This is often framed as “authoritarian” by western countries, stripping property owners of their spoils and focusing on collectivized production and distribition, but we communists would argue that this creates a freer society overall.

Marx was called an “authoritarian” in his time as well, yet his work has helped lead to the liberation of billions of people. The communists who gave their blood, sweat, and tears to gain the power to feed, house, and clothe the people are the ones actually fighting for freedom, even if the west calls them authoritarian.

Yes, as they have class struggle and haven’t reached communism. Once production is fully collectivized does class disappear, and then the state becomes superfluous. Until then, it’s necessary.

A good preview is looking at socialist states currently, but with fully collectivized production and distribution globally, no borders, and no oppressive forces like police to enforce property rights. It’s not that the state is killed, but that it withers due to becoming superfluous.

The state and administration aren’t necessarily the same thing, which is why I tend to stress the difference between collectivized and communalized production. Collectivized production requires the infrastructure of complex planning.

To be fair, “democratic socialism” doesn’t really mean anything either. It’s used interchangeably between a socialist economy with liberal forms of democracy and reformist approaches to establishing socialism, it isn’t really a branch of thought with solid consistency. It’s also a misnomer, in that socialism itself is democratic, it’s like saying I like cold ice cream.

SocDem.

Yes, small and medium firms do exploit workers more than collectivized industry, correct. Establishing a fully collectivized economy isn’t an overnight endeavor. I think this is where your lack of understanding of Marxism is coming into play, you claim I’m fully sold on ideological dogma but it’s because I’ve read theory and listen to Chinese economists, follow metrics and data, etc that I can see why they are taking the course they are taking and why it works.

The working class supports their system in China, because it has steadily delivered rapid improvements and continues to put the working class first. Socialism is not some moral absence of exploitation, but an economic system, and one that continues to deliver better and better results for the working class.

I don’t “cheerlead” Russia. I know it’s a dictatorship of capital, my critical support for Russia rests in that it opposes the US Empire, has a populace increasingly supportive of returning to socialism, and is a valuable ally and trade partner to socialist countries like China, Cuba, DPRK, etc, and in that respect plays a progressive role in the global transition to socialism and eventually communism.