Nor does it mean that the Soviet Union was the only possible form of implementing a Marxist inspired system. But to deny that it was an example of that is absurd.

You suggested that I was against the Soviet Union because  it was a "variant of Marxism."  Actually, I don't care much for "Marxism," here and now, because in this world it is largely the doctrinal property of "Marxists" (quoth Marx: "I am not a Marxist.")  Sure, the Soviet Union was a "Marxist inspired system."  Tony Cliff thought it constituted "state capitalism."  Indeed, many "Marxists" are "Marxist inspired thinkers."  Far too many of them are doctrinaire, sectarian, self-imagined foot soldiers incapable of open, freethinking dialogue, and hung up on some defense of history which has since lost its relevance.  Their potential for social change verges on zero.

I hope that says something to you about where I stand.  Btw, I do own a paper copy of the entire Marx-Engels Collected Works.

NB: The Chicago School was actually in charge of a government -- post-1973 Chile under Augusto Pinochet.  The pure application of its principles actually happened.  It was such a disaster that Pinochet himself reversed course in the early 1980s.  So to talk about how "you've never had a full blown picture perfect Chicago school neoliberal 'reform'" is a bit off the mark.

It has to do with your view that the working class' desire for higher income and less hours constitutes a false consciousness and that they will eventually 'understand' that instead they should want revolution.

You are importing the concept of "false consciousness" into your reading of what I've said.  Try to address what I actually said, rather than what you imagine it to be.  I see no point in suggesting that "consciousness" is something we ought to reduce to logical postulates of "truth" or "falsehood."  

"Imagine all the people/ Sharing all the world" -- John Lennon

It has to do with your view that the working class' desire for higher income and less hours constitutes a false consciousness and that they will eventually 'understand' that instead they should want revolution.

The desire for "higher income" is rightly understood as a desire for a greater share of the economic pie.  Of course, with the ecosystemic undertow (increasing shortages; climate change; decreasing economic and political stability) shrinking the total size of the economic pie, the mere desire for a greater share of the economic pie will only lead to smaller incomes unless we change the way in which the economic pie is produced.  

Reformism will not do this to the extent need to avert ecosystem disaster.

"Imagine all the people/ Sharing all the world" -- John Lennon