Asklemmy

You haven't read the sources I linked either. We have a western academic, state funded, and based on your arguments here there's what you believe evidence that causes you to describe the USSR not as socialism, but a kleptocracy. This is why I'm heavily skeptical, because I have read on the structure of the USSR, I know how it functioned, and it was unquestionably socialist. I'm not saying no corruption ever existed, I'm saying that corruption was nowhere near relevant enough to be the base mode of production, because that's an absurd statement to begin with.

The advent of socialism in Russia democratized the economy, doubled life expectancy, dramatically reduced poverty, provided free, high quality healthcare and education, had assured jobs and free or low cost housing, over tripled literacy rates, and turned a feudal backwater into a spacefaring nation in just a few short decades. Wealth disparity, which you seem to place an over-emphasis on, was dramatically lowered as compared to the Tsarist era and the capitalist era. The economy was based on collectivized production and distribution, and fulfilling the needs of everyone.

When you have all of that undeniably true, then statements like "Russia wasn't socialist, it was a kleptocracy" become silly. Of course there was some degree of corruption, every country has some level of corruption. The USSR wasn't a perfect utopia, as the first socialist state there were missteps and struggles. However, it was absolutely socialist, and because of that it delivered incredible results for the working classes.