I raised two issues that are completely independent from each other. Admittedly, my first post was not adequately structured to demonstrate their independence from each other, and they became unintentionally intertwined throughout the posts. I will therefore declare them here clearly.
Issue 1
You are not listening.
AnonymousRevival made a valid argument worthy of discussion, and you refused to ackowledge its validity.
I am not claiming that AnonymousRevival's argument is correct. I merely illustrated how his/her argument is a valid response to your questions.
I have not offered my opinion on the topic when addressing this issue.
Issue 2
(This is my opinion on the topic, and is entirely independent from Issue 1. )
You seem to have an unorthodox definition for 'Soviet socialism'. If you mean Trotskyism, perhaps you should use the term 'Trotskyism'. If you mean Leninism, perhaps you should use 'Leninism'. If you do not wish to use these terms - which is perfectly okay - perhaps you should define what you mean by 'Soviet socialism'.
In the absence of explicit definition (and 'communism without errors' is not an acceptable definition), I assume you are using the default, most commonly used definition, in which case some of your statements (such as 'no country ever used it') are false.
You did provide a definition in the previous post, so I will work with that:
yes my definition is the theory trotskey gives.
it works in this way: there are tons of small businesses, but if your business gets too big, the power is then divided so you don't too powerful. There are no charities: everyone works (solves the laziness problem). Give and reward according to need, not work. Example: a pro athlete will recieve more food than I, not because he is better, but because he needs it. If I become a pro athlete, I too would get as much as he/she. This is a summary. Again it is like communism with fairness as long as you are not lazy. Another way of looking at this is capitalism without the capitalists.
Other ideas in the theory: those who know their job the best should create protocol for it. (too much to really get in detail on this part)
1.
What you described does not completely match Trotskyism. I will assume that your definition is that which you have stated, and not that which is usually described as Trotskyism.
2.
I do not understand 'capitalism without the capitalists'. Perhaps you mean capitalism without the bourgeoisie class (with the usual Marxist definition of the 'bourgeosie class').
3.
'Communism with fairness', 'communism without errors', and other similar phrases are empty without defining 'fairness', 'errors', and so on.
4.
From what you described, China practises that system.
Athletes were given more food (in the form of 'rice tickets') pre-21st century, monopolies are now closely monitored for possible conflicts with state interest, and elitism is strongly encouraged (students - at least those in the elite schools - are 'scientifically' sorted into groups from a very early age based on their strengths, and the ultra-specialization and elitism only increases as they age).
In fact, China describes its system as 'Chinese socialism', which has its roots in Maoism, which, in turn, is built upon Marxist-Leninism.
