… and both countries are run by despots.

To the contrary, the USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.

How could they have materially been more democratic in a way that would satisfy you? Unless you’re talking about the Russian Federation, but that’s not what I was talking about in this post.

You fail to understand that the USSR ceased to exist. What remains is run by a despot, regardless of your feelings or intent.

I understand that the USSR dissolved. During its time, it was comprehensively democratic in a way that supercedes what capitalism can offer, proven in practice by the sharp decay in democratization with the reinstatement of capitalism. Is your argument that the dissolution of the USSR was unavoidable? That takes a great deal of evidence to prove.

I am attempting to point out that a document that you’re holding up as an ideal, together with what it represents and how society surrounding it was structured did not last for more than 55 years, which is less time than I’ve been on this planet.

While it might represent something that you find appealing or inspiring, it didn’t last, or said differently, it failed.

I’d also point out that countries like Australia don’t have a constitution at all and they’ve lasted longer than that.

I think that you need to find a better argument to promote a worker based economy. Perhaps the co-op based system in Italy, which has lasted longer, is a more sustainable way to go.