This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism. While a communist society is indeed classless, it can only be achieved when there is no need for a state to defend the people from capitalist reaction, ie when communism is the globally dominant system. Until then, communist counties practice socialism, where the state is controlled by the working class, with the goal of increasing global worker power and eventually achieving the conditions where communism can exist.
Marxism has never existed outside of mental exercise. Every single time it has been imposed it has failed to do anything but act as a rhetoric for power and control. We desperately need something modern to look up to and we should drop Marxism in the dustbin of failed historical movements. A great idea for its time.
“Marxism has never existed outside of mental exercise. Every single time it has been imposed it has failed to do anything but act as a rhetoric for power and control.”
This, as the last commenter said, is completely ahistorical and incorrect. Every society in which Marxists have come to power was previously unequal, impoverished, unindustrialized, and most of the time a colony of another power. Every time this has happened the countries end up industrializing and eliminating severe poverty within a few decades, as well as providing housing, healthcare, food, transportation, work, and every other basic necessity for each one of their citizens. This can be seen with a simple look past the cold war rhetoric and into the actual history of the world.
Communism was also the primary force which defeated fascism everywhere that it popped up up until the 80s or 90s.
I am not counting a bunch of olgiarchy’s that used communist rhetoric to enrich themselves while never even getting close to actual communism or socialism. Please try again. Where is the shinning example of any of these nations? What is that, they all failed and became fascist… That is right kiddo!
Defeated fascism, oh wow you have got to be fucking joking me right? By what measure has fascism ever been defeated and please do not list Germany or Italy as the US industrialists helped bankroll both countries before WWII. Fascism has never been defeated. Some nations that are fascist have fallen, but not specifically because of fascism.
So liberal democracies promised universal rights and utopia. Instead each Liberal state produced between 100 and 150 years of abject poverty, massive wars, and domestic repression of labor movements with the military or paramilitary police.
Communism promised universal rights and utopia. Instead they produced about 10 - 30 years of major famines and poverty and displacement and then after that initial period eliminated abject poverty while speed running industrialization without creating a class of robber barons that ran the government.
Fascism was defeated in its objective of destroying the world’s first workers’ state. The US and UK supported the rise of the Third Reich and Germany fielded the most powerful military ever fielded at that time. The USSR lost 7M people fighting all the way across Europe to sack Berlin and end the Nazi project. And for that, they will never be forgiven.
Thanks for that. I think you are well spoken/read, but I do view a few things slightly differently.
Liberal Democracy is just a window dressing for ogliarchy. A convincing bit of propaganda that centers around a false sense of political choice. Choice always exists, even in a totalitarian regime, so liberalism has always been a belief system built on a false premise.
Communism has never existed. Some oligarchies used a more centralized planning approach under the guise of communism or socialism. The USSR definitely accomplished a lot but it was not due to communism unless you believe they were doing it in the spirit of communism in a failed effort to create it.
What either rose out or put people into poverty was how the surplus of industrialization was distributed. A great example of this is with China’s embrace of capitalism and the subsequent raising up of hundreds of millions of people living in poverty. A counter example is found in several nations like the UK that saw income inequality increase as productivity skyrocketed from the use of machinery.
It just so happens that governments that enact socialist inspired policies try to do a better job at this distribution. It is almost like intent matters. I don’t want to totally disparage countries attempting to create communism, even if they failed miserably. There is no doubt that the US and other countries did everything they could to sabotage communism.
You point out the ugly fascist truth that the UK and US support of fascism in Europe was a major factor in WWII. Certainly Nazi Germany greatly benefited from industrialists like Ford. It is ironic that the US tries to claim to be the good guys when they supported the Nazi and showed up at the end of the European WWII theatre after Russia had done all the hard work to claim victory.
A nation guided first and foremost by Marxist philosophy (with a lot of modern development for sure) is currently #2 by GDP and is poised to be the main driver of human development in the next half-century at least. But sure, it’s only a mental exercise.
Oh fuck, I hope to God your not talking about China who has pumped out more billionaires than the US for the third straight year. The one that used a planned economy to corner the global markets. They are so far from Communism or Socialism it isn’t funny.
China who has pumped out more billionaires than the US for the third straight year
They also have about 4x the population.
China’s mixed model does unfortunately still allow haute capitalists to spring up in certain industries. However the worst offenders are regularly captured and imprisoned, their wealth redistributed.
When was the last time a US or EU billionaire went to prison for any serious length of time and got their wealth confiscated?
The one that used a planned economy to corner the global markets
Oh no, a centrally planned & industrialized economy works better than unplanned, de-industrialized and over-financialized economy. Evil asians are cornering the market!
They are so far from Communism or Socialism it isn’t funny.
They are really far from communism as Marx defined it still. But they do have a working “mixed” system, with workers principally in control of the state, the state planning the economy, and the state directly controlling most important industries including finance, with regulated&limited capitalist development strategically allowed in some sectors of economy in order to advance the productive forces. This is consistent with (initial stages of) socialism in the most commonly understood Marxist-Leninist sense, similar to NEP if you’re familiar with the history of USSR. It is not socialism in the Stalinist or classical Maoist sense but I don’t think you are advocating for either of those.
China is verifiably a socialist country in Marxist-Leninist sense. Unless you also want to claim that USSR under NEP was not a socialist country in a Marxist-Leninist sense in which case cool, you know Marxism-Leninism better than Lenin, congrats.
If you want to critique China there are hundreds of ways to do so, from human rights to urbanism to policing issues, but the economic equality or non-adherance to socialist principles is far down the list.
Also, bad when US corners market on China but good when China does similar. Pure garbage.
US “corners” the market by bombing countries and/or forcing them into forever austerity traps via IMF’s policies.
China “corners” the market by subsidizing national industry and development.
Neither is particularly great but the two are not identical.
You are speaking of it being more along the lines of religion. I reject this. He had some interesting things to say for his time and that is about it. We desperately need something modern and frankly Marxism fanatics are never going to move the needle.
the fact that something was written 150 years ago doesnt make it outdated, you have to prove with facts as to why you think its outdated. Something isnt always something better
But it does, listen to yourself. 150 years ago still relevant to this day! A lot has changed since then and no one cares about Marx except fanatics. The time has passed and you need something new to remain relevant.
Buddy. People are still invoking John Locke’s concepts of private property that he penned in the 1600s. What are you talking about Marx is irrelevant because a lot has changed in 150 years. You think Marx’s arguments are based on the level of technology at that time? Hell, the US constitution is 250 years old and it runs the country. The Doctrine of Discovery is based on the papal bulls from the 1400s and RBG cited them in the mid 2000s to explain how the USA’s claim to territory is fundamentally based on those documents.
But Marx is relevant for more reasons than just that his writing is recent. Hundreds of millions of people in China study Marx every year. It’s part of the core curriculum, it’s part of business theory, it’s part of their economics writing, their political writing, it’s part of party entrance exams.
Yes the books Marx wrote are dead and old. But the ideas are very much alive and adapting today just like the ideas of Locke and Burke.
I know it’s hard for Americans because their country is so young, but ideas don’t become irrelevant just because they age. Ideas that maintain their life despite their age are the most relevant ideas of our society. And Marx’s ideas inform so much from politics and economics to psychology to sociology to media and journalism.
Communism promised abolishing classes, but failed.
Capitalism promised protecting the elite class above all else, and succeeded.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism. While a communist society is indeed classless, it can only be achieved when there is no need for a state to defend the people from capitalist reaction, ie when communism is the globally dominant system. Until then, communist counties practice socialism, where the state is controlled by the working class, with the goal of increasing global worker power and eventually achieving the conditions where communism can exist.
Marxism has never existed outside of mental exercise. Every single time it has been imposed it has failed to do anything but act as a rhetoric for power and control. We desperately need something modern to look up to and we should drop Marxism in the dustbin of failed historical movements. A great idea for its time.
Ahistorical and incorrect. Marxism has never been more relevant.
Sure whatever you say /s
“Marxism has never existed outside of mental exercise. Every single time it has been imposed it has failed to do anything but act as a rhetoric for power and control.”
This, as the last commenter said, is completely ahistorical and incorrect. Every society in which Marxists have come to power was previously unequal, impoverished, unindustrialized, and most of the time a colony of another power. Every time this has happened the countries end up industrializing and eliminating severe poverty within a few decades, as well as providing housing, healthcare, food, transportation, work, and every other basic necessity for each one of their citizens. This can be seen with a simple look past the cold war rhetoric and into the actual history of the world.
Communism was also the primary force which defeated fascism everywhere that it popped up up until the 80s or 90s.
I am not counting a bunch of olgiarchy’s that used communist rhetoric to enrich themselves while never even getting close to actual communism or socialism. Please try again. Where is the shinning example of any of these nations? What is that, they all failed and became fascist… That is right kiddo!
Defeated fascism, oh wow you have got to be fucking joking me right? By what measure has fascism ever been defeated and please do not list Germany or Italy as the US industrialists helped bankroll both countries before WWII. Fascism has never been defeated. Some nations that are fascist have fallen, but not specifically because of fascism.
So liberal democracies promised universal rights and utopia. Instead each Liberal state produced between 100 and 150 years of abject poverty, massive wars, and domestic repression of labor movements with the military or paramilitary police.
Communism promised universal rights and utopia. Instead they produced about 10 - 30 years of major famines and poverty and displacement and then after that initial period eliminated abject poverty while speed running industrialization without creating a class of robber barons that ran the government.
Fascism was defeated in its objective of destroying the world’s first workers’ state. The US and UK supported the rise of the Third Reich and Germany fielded the most powerful military ever fielded at that time. The USSR lost 7M people fighting all the way across Europe to sack Berlin and end the Nazi project. And for that, they will never be forgiven.
Thanks for that. I think you are well spoken/read, but I do view a few things slightly differently.
Liberal Democracy is just a window dressing for ogliarchy. A convincing bit of propaganda that centers around a false sense of political choice. Choice always exists, even in a totalitarian regime, so liberalism has always been a belief system built on a false premise.
Communism has never existed. Some oligarchies used a more centralized planning approach under the guise of communism or socialism. The USSR definitely accomplished a lot but it was not due to communism unless you believe they were doing it in the spirit of communism in a failed effort to create it.
What either rose out or put people into poverty was how the surplus of industrialization was distributed. A great example of this is with China’s embrace of capitalism and the subsequent raising up of hundreds of millions of people living in poverty. A counter example is found in several nations like the UK that saw income inequality increase as productivity skyrocketed from the use of machinery.
It just so happens that governments that enact socialist inspired policies try to do a better job at this distribution. It is almost like intent matters. I don’t want to totally disparage countries attempting to create communism, even if they failed miserably. There is no doubt that the US and other countries did everything they could to sabotage communism.
You point out the ugly fascist truth that the UK and US support of fascism in Europe was a major factor in WWII. Certainly Nazi Germany greatly benefited from industrialists like Ford. It is ironic that the US tries to claim to be the good guys when they supported the Nazi and showed up at the end of the European WWII theatre after Russia had done all the hard work to claim victory.
A nation guided first and foremost by Marxist philosophy (with a lot of modern development for sure) is currently #2 by GDP and is poised to be the main driver of human development in the next half-century at least. But sure, it’s only a mental exercise.
Oh fuck, I hope to God your not talking about China who has pumped out more billionaires than the US for the third straight year. The one that used a planned economy to corner the global markets. They are so far from Communism or Socialism it isn’t funny.
They also have about 4x the population.
China’s mixed model does unfortunately still allow haute capitalists to spring up in certain industries. However the worst offenders are regularly captured and imprisoned, their wealth redistributed.
When was the last time a US or EU billionaire went to prison for any serious length of time and got their wealth confiscated?
Oh no, a centrally planned & industrialized economy works better than unplanned, de-industrialized and over-financialized economy. Evil asians are cornering the market!
They are really far from communism as Marx defined it still. But they do have a working “mixed” system, with workers principally in control of the state, the state planning the economy, and the state directly controlling most important industries including finance, with regulated&limited capitalist development strategically allowed in some sectors of economy in order to advance the productive forces. This is consistent with (initial stages of) socialism in the most commonly understood Marxist-Leninist sense, similar to NEP if you’re familiar with the history of USSR. It is not socialism in the Stalinist or classical Maoist sense but I don’t think you are advocating for either of those.
They are not socialist or communist period. They have some socialist policies but they are ruled by an oligarchy and are more fascist than the US.
Also, bad when US corners market on China but good when China does similar. Pure garbage.
China is verifiably a socialist country in Marxist-Leninist sense. Unless you also want to claim that USSR under NEP was not a socialist country in a Marxist-Leninist sense in which case cool, you know Marxism-Leninism better than Lenin, congrats.
If you want to critique China there are hundreds of ways to do so, from human rights to urbanism to policing issues, but the economic equality or non-adherance to socialist principles is far down the list.
US “corners” the market by bombing countries and/or forcing them into forever austerity traps via IMF’s policies.
China “corners” the market by subsidizing national industry and development.
Neither is particularly great but the two are not identical.
Cool, you deny they are a fascist oligarchy. Good job with the bullshit propaganda.
I did critique China just now. You offered nothing to counter except lousy rhetoric. Have a good day sir.
Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is scientific and hence it is the TRUTH.
You are speaking of it being more along the lines of religion. I reject this. He had some interesting things to say for his time and that is about it. We desperately need something modern and frankly Marxism fanatics are never going to move the needle.
the fact that something was written 150 years ago doesnt make it outdated, you have to prove with facts as to why you think its outdated. Something isnt always something better
We either go marxist, or we perish.
But it does, listen to yourself. 150 years ago still relevant to this day! A lot has changed since then and no one cares about Marx except fanatics. The time has passed and you need something new to remain relevant.
Buddy. People are still invoking John Locke’s concepts of private property that he penned in the 1600s. What are you talking about Marx is irrelevant because a lot has changed in 150 years. You think Marx’s arguments are based on the level of technology at that time? Hell, the US constitution is 250 years old and it runs the country. The Doctrine of Discovery is based on the papal bulls from the 1400s and RBG cited them in the mid 2000s to explain how the USA’s claim to territory is fundamentally based on those documents.
But Marx is relevant for more reasons than just that his writing is recent. Hundreds of millions of people in China study Marx every year. It’s part of the core curriculum, it’s part of business theory, it’s part of their economics writing, their political writing, it’s part of party entrance exams.
Yes the books Marx wrote are dead and old. But the ideas are very much alive and adapting today just like the ideas of Locke and Burke.
I know it’s hard for Americans because their country is so young, but ideas don’t become irrelevant just because they age. Ideas that maintain their life despite their age are the most relevant ideas of our society. And Marx’s ideas inform so much from politics and economics to psychology to sociology to media and journalism.
We can definitely agree on this. Cheers!