People could form their own communes that best reflects their values and stay united under a federation of some sorts for defense against the inevitable bourgeois aggression.

Perhaps that is what the USSR could have been.

Maybe next time.

Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds:

But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.

• Americans Can Now Expect to Live Three Years Less than Cubans
• Helping 800 Million People Escape Poverty Was Greatest Such Effort in History, Says [UN] Secretary-General, on Seventieth Anniversary of China’s Founding
• China’s Energy Use Per Person Surpasses Europe’s for First Time
• At 54, China’s average retirement age is too low
• China overtakes U.S. for healthy lifespan: WHO data

Some would still come, but much less. I personally have chosen to avoid travel in USA during trump 1. I would again if things get crazy. I know that Australia, for instance, lists USA as risky for gun violence and demonstrations. It particularly calls out election and inauguration as to be avoided. It’s still noted as safe, but not as safe as Australia due to general violent crime. https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations/americas/united-states-america

The American brand still has a lot of value and a lot of American exports are tied to that brand. A large part of that brand is Freedom™. If the USA were to go full fascist, that brand is fucked.

There is also the idea that part of America’s media strength is based on a free market for cultural output. A fascist America would likely not have the ability to pump out the quality of media that it did before due to government censors.

America exports a lot of tourism dollars and that’d likely come grinding to a halt.

Better make sure the capitol in DC has fire supression.

Is the US currently treated as a bad actor internationally?