You're describing one group of bourgeoisie resisting a takeover by a different group of bourgeoisie. This is not a meaningful resistance to capitalism, this is the maintenance of a capitalist state.
Who are you talking about? AOC? If your definition of a democratic socialist is a left-leaning Democrat then it is thoroughly incompatible with mine, because I would require at a minimum that anybody classified as any kind of "socialist" be staunchly opposed to Capital.
IDK what country you're from, but in America at least, a democratic socialist has about as much likelihood of being elected to any given office as a communist does, so if you're looking for "realistic" policies you should look elsewhere.
I would say Lenin was more instrumental in the creation of Marxism-Leninism, Stalin was just the guy who happened to be in charge when they named it. It's also a tendency that has evolved a lot from what it was in the 40s.
I wonder if half the agita about this comes from not understanding how federation works. Federated lemmy instances behave almost like a single website, your posts are our posts and vice versa.
Which Communist regimes would say are the "real" communists? Because if you think (as many do) that every single mass movement that described itself as "communist" was bad, then I suspect you're not a communist at all.
I forget the exact numbers on this, but net worth correlates pretty strongly with happiness until about $200k and then the correlation drops off. If we were a rational society, we would make bringing everyone up to that level of economic comfort the goal and take away everything above that.
You misunderstand. When liberals violently overthrow the aristocracy, that's a liberation movement. When socialists violently overthrow the capitalists, that's authoritarian tankie red fascism.
You're describing one group of bourgeoisie resisting a takeover by a different group of bourgeoisie. This is not a meaningful resistance to capitalism, this is the maintenance of a capitalist state.