the_dunk_tank

The whole point of Marx's analysis is that socialism is a natural consequence of the power struggle linked to capitalist production, which will irremediably lead to a proletarian revolution.

Bzzzzt WRONG. Marx's analysis is that Capitalism naturally forms monopolist syndicates over time, removing competition and replacing with association, prepping the capabilities of public ownership and central planning after revolution. From Marx himself:

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

Capitalism prepares the ground for Socialism.

Marxists that want to accelerate this phenomenon absolutely do it for moral reason. Because they consider that capitalists exploit the proletariat, and that a change is required for more justice.

I didn't say there were no moral reasons for wanting to move onto Socialism. I said Marxists believe Socialism to be the next step out of critical examination of Capitalism. This is Marxism 101.

Marxists see the use of socialism, as in the broader marxist definition, as a way to replace the capitalists in the control of these "monopolist syndicates", yes. Not because they just happen to be there, but to repair a social injustice.

More than a simple reparation of injustice, it is the only way to progress forwards. Economic structures follow the level of development of the Productive Forces. This is the basis of Historical Materialism! Socialism is necessary once these monopolist syndicates are formed to even consider progressing on.

Yes, and I never even implied that?

You did, through the implication that introducing broader markets is a deviation away from Socialism.

Indeed, which is why I specifically wrote "Democratic Centralism in practice in your MLs countries irremediably end up as a farce", which I though was pretty clear in saying that there is a stark difference between actual Democratic Centralism, and what ends up with this name.

There isn't, just gesturing and chauvanism on your part. Read Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?"

Yes, and again, I never even implied the contrary.

You did, in implying their democratic structures were farcical.

I could also point out that it strangely took Staline's death for that to happen, and that the differences between his early writings and what he actually did once in power are pretty stark.

I could also point out how these movements did not depend on Stalin.

Guess what happened to actual internationalists from Trotsky or Lenine's school of thought when Staline got into power.

Trotsky was actively hostile to the USSR, Stalin largely upheld Lenin's legacy. Stalin didn't make a stark departure from Lenin.

Once again, seems that you think tankies are actual marxists, and that you'd rather take writing as material facts than actual material facts.

I am a Marxist, you claim I am not, and in fact am a "tankie." You have no justification for this, only your own lack of understanding of Marxism, as I have time and time again explained and supported with writings. You have provided little in the way of material evidence, I have provided much.

Sure bud.

Indeed. If you don't even know what Scientific Socialism means or what Historical Materialism is, how can you claim authority over someone who has read several dozen essays, books, and more? You're deeply unserious.