Karl Marx was never “in charge.” He developed a framework for analyzing Political Economy in a manner useful for the Proletariat to identify the manner in which we are exploited, and how we may go about defeating the Bourgeoisie. There are no rich oligarchs replacing Marx.

Belief systems certainly can be exploited, but that isn’t the point you are making here. Your point is that we should disregard analysis of Political Economy in favor of vibes-based action. If you don’t do the effort of studying Political Economy, any conclusions you come to will be based on shaky foundations, rather than throwing theory aside, we need to weild it to guide correct practice.

Funny enough, Mao described your error over half a century ago, in On Practice:

The second point is that knowledge needs to be deepened, that the perceptual stage of knowledge needs to be developed to the rational stage – this is the dialectics of the theory of knowledge.[5] To think that knowledge can stop at the lower, perceptual stage and that perceptual knowledge alone is reliable while rational knowledge is not, would be to repeat the historical error of “empiricism”. This theory errs in failing to understand that, although the data of perception reflect certain realities in the objective world (I am not speaking here of idealist empiricism which confines experience to so-called introspection), they are merely one-sided and superficial, reflecting things incompletely and not reflecting their essence. Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherent laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories – it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge. Such reconstructed knowledge is not more empty or more unreliable; on the contrary, whatever has been scientifically reconstructed in the process of cognition, on the basis of practice, reflects objective reality, as Lenin said, more deeply, more truly, more fully. As against this, vulgar “practical men” respect experience but despise theory, and therefore cannot have a comprehensive view of an entire objective process, lack clear direction and long-range perspective, and are complacent over occasional successes and glimpses of the truth. If such persons direct a revolution, they will lead it up a blind alley.

That’s not a solution, though. Cooperatives within Capitalism are subject to the same rules as other firms, only without firm control of the state. These cooperatives will either grow or die, and you end up at the same necessary point, revolution and Socialism, or barbarism. Centralization is a fact of markets that sustain over a long period of time, ergo we should master those laws to make it as democratic and equitable a system as possible. In other words, Socialism.

This is even more reductive than your original argument. If you really feel this way, why haven’t you committed suicide yet? Its the only way, in your version of reality, that you personally aren’t a genocidal nazi.

which one(s) haven’t been and why weren’t they?

Estimates on the exact distribution of millitary vs Civilian deaths are not known, though millions died in total. That’s just from direct involvement in the war, and not the results of sanctions and embargo or other inflicted terror. I use “hundreds of thousands” because it’s

1. Undeniably correct, even with bourgeois sources alone, and
2. Still gets across the sheer brutality of the US’s genocide on Korea

It’s quite possible that civilian casualties do reach the millions, especially if you include the South Koreans killed by the US and the ROK government in areas like Jeju Island.

The first half of your comment is attributing a static and supernatural quality to the concept of “greed” in a manner that obfuscates the underlying material structures, and why greed is expressed in different ways and degrees depending on the system. This is wrong.

Secondly, Social Programs are not Socialism. Socialism is an economy where Public Ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, while Capitalism is where Private Ownership is the principle. Whichever has firm control of the state, large firms, and key industries is the principle aspect. A cooperative in the US is not a single fragment of Socialism, just like a market in the PRC is not simply Capitalism.

Now, for your five points:

1. This is not a problem with Socialism in any capacity. I truly don’t understand what you mean by saying standardization is an issue with Socialism.

2. Price fixing is not Socialism itself, but a tool. Socialist systems can and do employ price fixing on some goods, but this is a tool that works well in some situtations and not so well in others, and as such Socialist systems can apply them where needed.

3. Markets are not Capitalism. Markets work well at lower stages in development, but gradually monopolize and centralize over time, making it more effective to publicly own and plan. You agree with Marx when you say you can’t wish them away, but you imply they will always be useful based on a biological need to trade, which does not exist.

4. Regulations and oversight exists within Socialism, directly breaking the law can be punished and audited. This point is silly.

5. Checks and balances can be better implemented in Socialist systems where private individuals do not weild massive armies of influence. This is another silly point.

I recommend you read up on Marxism, I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list you can check out. If you haven’t investigated a subject, why speak as though you have?

Cowbee is mostly correct so I’m not going to address everything but there are 2 pieces I want to respond to.

Greed is rewarded in every economy.

That doesn’t seem to be true. Like an economy that doesn’t funnel money into individuals. Or even moneyless economies like Library or Gift. (Though moneyless economies imply we’re achieving actual communism, going beyond socialism)

No, socialist systems like free housing, healthcare, education can exist alongside capitalism. Worker owned systems like cooperatives still operate in a market.

Are you talking about free housing (etc) programs being managed as a cooperative, alongside a commodities market of cooperatives? If yes, that’s not capitalism, that’s socialism. If no, then you must be talking about a welfare state like what’s in Scandinavia, which isn’t socialist.

Kind of relevant to both points, there are a few different schools of socialism so you could see if any make more sense to you.

What about not enslaving people?

And of course people in weaker economies get paid less, they also need less since everything is cheaper.

I’m not saying that was good either, but middle European countries started with a similar situation and got much farther.

No they didn’t.

but that doesn’t mean it’s good.

K. Your line for what counts as “good” is completely arbitrary and vibes based.

while other countries went paths that lead to 8/10

No they didn’t

1. Wrong, actually, if you trust internal CIA reports.

2. Anecdotes, especially familial ones, are not a replacement for expansive data taking. I have no idea what your great-grandfather was sent to prison for, nor is a single case like that representative of the entire USSR.

3. The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semetic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists.

"The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, “coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways.”

“But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing.”

“Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements’ …” (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)

“The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary.”

"A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:

During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”

Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."

Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:

Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements.

I’m not making any accusations here, I want you to elaborate more, but legitimately it sounds like you’re saying your family members were fascists or fascist sympathizers. I want you to clear their names, because Hungary absolutely fought on the side of the Axis in World War II, and the 1956 counter-revolt was against the Communists.

Read the book.

Stalin ‘planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact’

As if they were ever going to.

The Cold War & Its Origins, Vol. I, Denna F. Flemming, 1961, Chapter V:

Final Procrastination. This explicit warning did not increase the tempo in London. It was not until July 31 that Chamberlain finally announced the naming of a military mission to Moscow, to arrange the concrete terms of the proposed alliance. Molotov had named his top military men to negotiate, but instead of Lord Gort and General Gamelin the British-French delegation was headed by an obscure British Admiral, Sir Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, and by a French General of comparable obscurity. Nor did this mission fly to Moscow as fast as planes could take it, to concert measures with desperate speed against the pitiable crucifixion of Poland which was boiling up on the horizon. While the sands were running out for Poland by the minute, the Allied mission took a slow Baltic boat, on August 5, and did not reach Moscow until August 11. Then it transpired, once again, that these men had no power to conclude an agreement.