Okay, I don't know what I expected, but I'm getting pretty tired of babysitting you here so I'll just get straight to the point.>a product of historical circumstances
Of course it is, Stalin needed to exchange class struggle for nationalism when it became obvious that Russia would not develop into a Socialist state.>because it unifies people under the pretense of class solidarity instead of ethnic or racial solidarity.
No? It's entire point is patriotism, so it obviously dosen't use class as a basis, but nationhood i.e. a form of imagined community.>If you think that soviet patriotism=russian patriotism you obviously don't know what you are talking about.>This is the same if you consider nationalism the same as patriotism.
How the fuck is referencing Alexander Nevsky, Ivan the Terrible and Russian lords not Russian patriotism? Why do you think the second Ivan the Terrible film was never shown? It was because Stalin had explicitly linked his own government with a narrative of a nationalist historical Russia - with a 'linage' from Ivan, Peter, and himself. Ofc he was well aware that any critique of Ivan the Terrible was a de facto critique of himself.
You are the one who needs to get an even basic understanding of the conceptions you talk about. Your smug ignorance is the bread and butter of ML 'argumentation'.>Stalin Constitution>Sounds great to me.
You are aware it was explicitly written to re-integrate the bourgeois into the state right? It's meant to highlight the character of Russia/Soviet Union as a imagined community, and downplay the concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The very act of calling for universal suffrage symbolized that former enemies where now welcome.>read the right of nations to self determination.>this is apparently not nationalism
No comment.>give me an example in which they allied with private holders of the means of production, or better yet give me an example of capitalists int he soviet union in the first place. The only kind of private ownership you will find pre-1952 are petit-bourgeois workshops where artisers worked lacking industry (like barrel or shoe makers)
You... are aware this is literally noted as necessity in the Mao material you gave me earlier right? That the 'contradiction' of state vs state is more important than the class distinction, Mao was literally calling for social chauvinism straight out of Kautsky. Beyond that we have the entire theory of Popular Front, the "historic compromise" in Italy. Private actors in the USSR isn't that hard to find either, I've already mentioned Koch and Fiat (hell, I mentioned them in the comment you replied to, again - do you even read my post or are you going by the Party sponsored manual?).
You don't seriously think the entire Eastern Bloc switching to Neoliberalism came out of nowhere did you?>a socialist nation cannot trade with capitalist nations, somehow this is unsocialist>the real point of communism is for socialism and capitalists to be friends :) t. Karl Marx
Oh wait no, it's meant to overthrow the Bourgeois dictatorship and establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If you're seriously arguing for the coexistence of socialism and capitalism you've admitted that you're not a communist and no attempt was made for it within ML theory.
So, you're in fact no more "socialist" than those that put National in front of it.