p0is0n

Yes, a Soviet-styled command economy is inherently flawed, but it's worlds apart from planning under the conscious control of immediate producers and consumers, which is socialism. So basically:
Central planning = state management and planning of capital
Social planning = socialist production and distribution

It'll be done by planning. I honestly have no idea where I criticised economic planning in general, only a specific form of state planning of capital.

A deeply reactionary organization whose presence only mystifies our understanding of the conflict: The true conflict is not between the Islamists and the Israeli state (Israel had helped establish Hamas in the 1980's) but between their paradoxically apparent conflict and the potential for emancipator politics to take hold in Palestine.

The U.S. ideologically, despite it's less progressive standards on many politically correct issues as well as the absence of a less advanced and traditional militant working class, is not nearly as reactionary as Europe in many ways. There are no nation states here, American workers are not bound by ethnic sentiments or centuries long traditions. The remnants of feudalism, even aesthetically are non-existent within the U.S., it is like a new Rome, a clean state by which class struggle can be conducted without the problems it faces in Europe.

I think that Stalin was "a good communist," yes. He presided over the construction of socialism in the USSR and opposed both Trotskyism and Bukharinism, as well as other revisionist trends such as Titoism.

As for Beria, I do not know how legitimate the claims that he was a rapist are, but according to Molotov's memoirs Beria boasted to him and others that he poisoned Stalin. Some sources also claim that Stalin's opinion of Beria was in decline by the time of his death. He apparently had a lot of clout compared to other members of the Politburo, since he headed the security services, which is why a conflict quickly developed between Beria and everyone else (from "Stalinists" like Molotov and Kaganovich to revisionists like Khrushchev and Mikoyan) as soon as Stalin died.

They are inherently religious concepts. Even the most conservative of bourgeois intellectuals recognize this.

Ironically, the so-called cold-hearted mass murderer with no regard for life, did things like make it his personal prerogative to start a campaign of sheltering Moscow's homeless children, when he held an administrative position there. In the midst of almost conquering Poland, he volunteered to serve as a minister of education. Dzerzhinsky was an exceptionally skilled counter intelligence officer, and he was thus given his position in accord with his skills, not his personal desires. Like the Jacobins, Dzerzhinsky was a face of terror for the enemy, a dark inquisitor, but a noble and heroic champion of the oppressed masses throughout the world, for it was on their behalf that he crushed the enemy.

Firstly it should be known that materialism is not a weapon, but a means by which the relationship between consciousness and the 'material world' exists, not simply on a metaphysical level, but on a social level. Dzerzhinsky may have been "harsh", but he was no excessively cruel, actually the magnitude of the Cheka's alleged cruelty is greatly exaggerated by reactionary historians. Dzerzhinsky may have had the blood of the enemy on his hands, but his heart and spirit was among the purest of revolutionaries, Dzerzhinsky who was incorruptible, who dedicated the entirety of himself, at risk of historical damnation, the entirety of his identity to the revolution.

It is indeed absolutely a sub conscious, or ideological phenomena. It is ridiculous to think that liberals are aware of the various mechanisms of class society and actively sustain the power of the ruling class. It is ridiculous to assume even capitalists do this, to a certain extent. But we cannot assume liberals have good intent in the first place, neither their minds or their hearts are with us. Most workers who are "liberals" are not passionately liberals, they simply casually side with them. Once they are introduced to class struggle, it will not be difficult to destroy their Liberalism.

It is no surprise that liberals tremble at the very thought of the utilization of political violence. It is because their primary ideological function is to preserve the current existing order. Which leads us to our very obvious conclusion, which Hegel came to long before Marx: It is only through violence that political and social change is possible, because violence is not simply an imposition on our current, peaceful society in order to morph it to our will, violence is a logical result of change because a revolution tears down the structures which mystify our inherently violent society, and the violence