I did but that section definitely does not reflect what life was for a worker in the USSR after Stalin so I'm curious when he participated in that election.
I did not say that capitalists were in power what I said was that the party was in power. There aren't just 2 options, a monarchy for example is commonly neither capitalist nor socialist.
If you read your own source you will find that soviet democracy pretty much fell in 1921 and with the death of Lenin it was gone. Which was my original statement that with Stalin any hope for socialism was gone. So my point of it being bourgeoisie rule stands.
I never said a direct democracy is needed but worker control of the means of production is, in the USSR workers did not have that. Pretty much all meaningful elections in the USSR were held within the party by the party, not by the workers. The party was a bourgeoisie ruling class with vastly different class interests which is why the USSR was not socialist.
Planned by the party, not the workers. Workers lacked any voice in the party, it was no different than any other authoritarian rule in that aspect.
I grew up in the USSR, nearby farms were controlled by a kolhoos which was headed by someone important in the party, the farmers had no say in what was to be produced or to who their produce goes to, only the party decided that. The same control existed for every other industry, party gave the orders with no input from a single worker, commonly even going against workers in their orders.
I would love a system where workers actually controlled the means of production but the USSR was not that.
Workers had no control over the means of production. Those were owned by the party which was just another form of bourgeoisie rule. A good example of that was the insane amount of nepotism in the party leading to appointment of friends and relatives with no competency who went against the wishes of the workers. Trofim Lysenko for example was appointed by Stalin and his policies forced farmers to basically kill their crops leading to mass famines in the USSR and those that didn't were declared fascists, traitors or something along those lines.
It's not socialist if the workers lack any control.
While yes, a socialist country would have other priorities but let's also not forget that the USSR wasn't socialist. Before Stalin it had the potential to be sometime in the future but that got sidelined at best.
Do you mean ancaps? Because I'm pretty sure most libertarian would be for universal healthcare. I have heard Americans use libertarian for ancap which are pretty opposing ideologies, I'm not sure what's up with that.
I don't doubt it, Apple has never had good gaming performance. But a non apple laptop in the same price range with X86 aimed at gaming can run it a lot better.
I'm pretty sure the old AMD APUs from the Bulldozer era can run factorio and that's like a decade old.
Like sure, it's some metric but I'm pretty sure any computer produced currently can run factorio.
That heavily depends on what the previous machine was. Like factorio runs on my laptop without taxing the system much more than just idling and on my desktop I can't even tell it's running based on performance monitoring. So yea, I'm not sure factorio is a good indicator.
Yea, obviously, that's the case for most people. A lot of people for who a chromebook would be enough would not be effected, yea but for example software that isn't getting new updates and like all gaming would just not work on other architectures currently.
I already checked the book where the quote is from and it doesn't say when he participated in the election. At least I didn't find it but I can only assume it was before 1921.
I guess bourgeoisie does technically refer to a ruling class in a capitalist society but it's so commonly used to refer to just a ruling class or just who owns the means of production in general conversation that my usage is more colloquial. Like I would also refer to a monarch and the royal family as the bourgeoisie while the society isn't capitalist.