“You falsely equate multi-party participation to democracy.”

No, I equate democracy to meaningful working-class control over power and multi-party systems can be part of that, depending on context. But democracy also includes:

Freedom to form independent unions
Freedom to organize outside of the state
Freedom of press, criticism, and theory
Accountability of leadership to the masses

Tell me: In AES systems, what institution exists to fire party leadership from below? Where is the mechanism of revocable mandates, like in the Paris Commune or Soviets pre-1921?

One-party rule doesn’t automatically disqualify a system from being democratic but when the Party cannot be criticized, no alternative policies can be proposed, and workers are disempowered from decision-making, you’re no longer dealing with worker democracy. You’re dealing with bureaucratic centralism, not socialism.

“You defend ultraleft terrorism like Kronstadt.”

Let’s clear this up: The Kronstadt sailors were not “ultraleft terrorists.” They were:

The same sailors who had supported the Bolsheviks in 1917

Demanding the re-establishment of Soviet democracy

Advocating free elections of Soviets, freedom of speech for workers, and an end to Party dictatorship

Their slogans were:

“All power to the Soviets not to parties!”

That’s not ultraleftism. That’s classical Marxism. You can argue their timing was disastrous, yes but to paint their demands as terrorism is pure historical revisionism. Even Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, who witnessed the events, condemned the repression.

And if the survival of socialism depends on liquidating the very people who created it, then something’s already gone very wrong.

“You defend western-backed fascists in Hungary.”

Another tired smear. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was:
A popular uprising, involving students, workers, and even rank-and-file Communists
Focused on demands for free unions, free speech, the withdrawal of Soviet troops, and a more democratic socialism

Led by people like Imre Nagy, who remained committed to socialism not liberalism or fascism

Yes, reactionary forces tried to infiltrate it, as they often do in any upheaval but you don’t get to erase a mass working-class revolt by pointing to a few far-right opportunists. That’s like calling every protest in France “fascist” because some far-right parties try to show up. It’s dishonest.

Also, your claim that “Nazis were released from prison and lynched Jews and communists” is not only wildly exaggerated, it’s been debunked by multiple post-Cold War historians (e.g., Johanna Granville). The majority of those killed during the uprising were workers and students, and the repression afterward saw thousands executed or imprisoned many of them lifelong Communists.

“Your material analysis works backward from your desired conclusion.”

That’s projection. What I’m doing is:
Looking at who holds power in AES states
Investigating how dissent is treated
Asking whether workers have any real sovereignty

Your position assumes the righteousness of the Party line, and justifies all repression as necessary regardless of the actual dynamics on the ground. You work backwards from the assumption that any rebellion must be capitalist or fascist which lets you label all criticism as enemy activity. That’s not analysis. That’s circular logic dressed up as discipline.

I don’t support “bourgeois democracy.” I support worker self-emancipation.
I don’t support counterrevolution. I support criticism from below the foundation of Marxism.
And I don’t support letting bureaucracies define who counts as “the people.”

You’re trying to erase real historical tensions within the socialist movement and pretend that all critiques of AES states are liberal. But history shows otherwise: many of these critiques come from Marxists, revolutionaries, and communists who believed in a deeper, freer socialism and paid the price for saying so.

If you want to argue from facts, bring them. But stop recycling slogans that have been used for decades to justify the repression of actual communists in the name of “realism.”

Liberation is not obedience.
Socialism is not silence.