"Passy", I really have no wish to insult you anymore, because I have no doubt that you are well-read and educated. However, you really are tedious. Being well-read, in itself, does not make one wise. Your claim that the Soviet Union and Cuba were not, and are not, Socialist would certainly be disputed by a great many citizens there who grew up reading Marx, Lenin AND Stalin. I know, I've asked many of them. Your definition is YOUR definition . . . not theirs. You keep asking me why I have not dissected your article piece by piece. It's because I have heard it all many times before. I became a Marxist when I was 17 years old, and remained so for many years. Do you think I haven't previously made the same claims, read many of the same books, and, repeated the same slogans as you, many times while witnessing the same arguments being dissected by Marxist REALITY . . . as opposed to Marxist theory? Every time I have had an argument with Marxists about the constant failures of Marxist experiments, the typical answer is, "But it doesn't have to be that way . . . in 'our' revolution . . . the 'next' revolution, we will do better." . . . Just like all those failures who went before them. How many times do a group of people have to try the same ideas, over and over, while expecting DIFFERENT results, before they realize what they are . . . INSANE!
It is largely GOVERNMENT legislation that creates corporate monopolies . . . by legislation favoring one enterprise over another. TRUE free-enterprise, regulated by democratic law, is not perfect, anymore than socialism or theocracy are perfect. It was not meant to be, because it was not meant to be utopian. It was meant to be a practical device for promoting individual liberty and creative entrepreneurship with the context of the recognized imperfections of human nature.
I would recommend a review of Hayek and von Mises. Have a nice day.

Thanks Son of Eire.

Of course given the history of the USSR the ruling class there was always going to portray the Stalinist system as some sort of socialist/Marxist/communist paradise.

Ruling classes everywhere do it. The US is a similar example. All this celebration of revolution is designed to hide the truth of the revolution. In fact the political tradition I come out of was one of the first groups Stalin suppressed or killed.

You say in relation to my definition of socialism )ie the working class democratically running society to satisfy human need, not to make a profit) that, in relation to people you know from the Stalinist era, "Your definition is YOUR definition . . . not theirs."

Actually my definition is also Marx's definition. He talks about the self-emancipation of the working class. I don't see any of that under Stalinism. I see the exploitation and oppression of workers, which is why I and many other Marxist thinkers (oops, i am not a Marxist thinker, but you get the drift, I hope) describe Stalinism as state capitalist. Tony Cliff on State Capitalism in Russia is a good start. Sandra Bloodworth on How Workers took power: the 1917 Russian revolution is a good rebuttal of the Lenin equals Stalin analysis and explains cogently the reasons for the defeat of the Russian revolution and the democratic ideals which drove millions of Russian workers and peasants and soldiers to support the Bolsheviks.
The lessons of 1917 are as relevant today as then, I believe.

If you want to disagree, then there are some sort of OK books out there, which of course I disagree with. Even Noam Chomsky disagrees with my views about the Bolsheviks. Others like Pipes ignore historical records but are OK as anti-Bolshevik propaganda. Hayek I've read. Not much more I can say really.