[Krasnol]

> While there was still something left after the fall of the USSR (such as free healthcare and education, something rich countries such as the US don't offer, and that most post-USSR countries promptly removed)

The US is no good example for anything related with Socialism besides the paranoia maybe. Free healthcare and education is not something unusual on the continent. No matter what political/economic system you have.

> I agree the Soviet Union left behind a quite terrible legacy. I also believe, however, that it is wrong to argue that every socialist country will share the Soviet fate

This is because you assume that the SU was in control everywhere. In the Warsaw Pact countries it was the local government that was to blame here primary. Their versions of the ideology were what caused the problems. Not often they were even in conflict with the SU line.

> Even then, your choice removes from the discussion quite a few altogether different societies, based on radical democracy, such as Republican Spain during the civil war, and the Free Territory of Ukraine during the Russian Civil war.

The first existed for 3 years the second was an anarchist movement. Both fall much better in your category of societies developed in an environment of extreme hostility from other nations and did not show to be a relevant model to run a country.

> I'm sorry, but I rarely hear someone cheering for the DDR, or for the USSR in general.

I was able to vote for at least 2 parties who either completely or represented by a strong wing do cheer the DDR pretty much (die Linke, MLPD). There is a strong and relevant movement within the left in Germany to do just that.

[legatus]

I don't want to make this longer than needed; I don't know anything about die Linke and MLPD to speak about those. I would disagree about the relationship between the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries, since while they definitely had some autonomy, in any case where they were against the USSR interests their leaders were promptly changed. What I find most unclear is your third point. I already noted they lasted for really short periods, and I agree, the FTU was an anarchist state (Republican Spain, with the CNT-FAI can be considered an in-between). Why did they, however, show not to be a relevant model to run a country? The fact that both were grassroots based, and democratically organized would make me think the opposite. Is it because they weren't able to defend themselves?

[Krasnol]

FYI: die Linke is what remained of the former DDR ruling party. Today they are "THE left party" in Germany The MLPD is...well weird but they have wealthy supporters so they've been there quite a while now.

> Is it because they weren't able to defend themselves?

No, it's because they did not run a state. Running a state is the whole thing. Sure protecting your borders is one thing but: economy, law, diplomacy, etc. you know, all the stuff you do as a country if you exist long enough.

What the anarchists did (and yes, I think there is a huge difference if you are an anarchist or someone who calls himself socialist) is something that already works on small scale in several projects or small regions. If this works out on a country-scale remains unproven yet.

[legatus]

Then you can agree with me when saying that it is something worth attempting. It may be a great alternative, or another failure. We won't know unless we try!

(It was nice to have this discussion with you :) )