You're viewing part of a thread.
Potentially violent revolution =/= authoritarian. Also Marx believed that in more democratic and free nations that nonviolent ways of achieving communism was actually plausible, he just didn't believe so for most of the world. He just had very little faith in existing power structures allowing the proletariat majority to take power away from them nonviolently, especially outside of a few already very "left" leaning democracies.
Damn dude, stop making me argue in favor of pure Marxism, I'm not even a communist, I'm just a bit left of social Democrats personally.
Marxism didn't stop at the revolution though. Marxism can be simplified to 3 overarching steps:
-
A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
-
The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
-
Actually realize communism
Since step 3 is a utopia that won't ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two. That's why every single Marxist attempt that hasn't failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves. All the tyrannical regimes we've seen aren't coincidences, they're an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when it's implemented down to the letter... and it ain't pretty. Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isn't some secret, it's pretty well documented.
It’s painfully obvious you’ve never really engaged with Marx’s writings.
Yet I have. Marx shitty writings aren't some holy scripture. He was shitty authoritarian philosopher who poorly analyzed the society he lived in and came up with a shitty ideology that failed in both theory and practice. Everything that I said comes from his works. If you have actual criticism then voice them otherwise don't waste my time.
Okay then tell me, what have you actually read by the guy? Everything you’ve said just tells that at best you skimmed the Communist Manifesto without the patience or curiosity to understand why Marx wrote it and the context under which it was written. You seem so ready and willing to casually dismiss him even though his work is foundational to much of modern sociology right alongside Max Weber.
This person is so confidently wrong it's actually gotten under my skin. I wouldn't call myself a Marxist, anyway his ideas have been built on and corrected in places in the ~180 years since he wrote them down, but his work is massively influential and it has been represented so badly here.
It's baffling to lie about a theory because it's not written by someone "on your team" or something. Like a fuckload of his work is dry as shit historical analysis and economic theory which still shapes thought today and the poster is acting like all Marxism entails is a few pamphlets about taking power.
It's as weird to me as someone being like "Adam Smith loved violence and poverty" because the wealth of nations talks about thr impotance of military control and some of the causes of poverty.
It really shouldn't but it's gotten under my bloody skin with how irrational and fervent they are being.
I've studied the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital in college, which is pretty standard. I've also read a few of his shorter works like the Critique of the Gotha Programme and On the Jewish Question (which is interestingly one of the more antisemitic works I've ever read despite him having Jewish heritage). I also read a few newspapers that featured him during his time, but I don't really count those.
There's no denying that his work is influential. This is evidenced by the fact that we're talking about it right now. But just because it's influential that doesn't mean it's right, or even good. His analysis was flawed and criticized quite a bit, even during his time. But today? A lot of analysis is just irrelevant because it's a product of a bygone era. You could make an argument that his analysis led to some objectively good things, and that would be true to an extent, however, this is overshadowed by all the disasters that his views led to. What he envisioned for communism and how to get there was a failure in both theory and practice, and this evidenced by the fact that every implementation of his ideas has resulted in catastrophes.
Okay then Marx expert, let’s get into the weeds here. What exactly do you think is wrong with utopian socialism?
The fact that it's a utopia? What kind of question is that? A utopia by definition is an imaginary place where everything is perfect. It will never exist because the world is imperfect. You can't run societies on fantasies, especially through violence and tyranny. The ends don't justify the means, especially when the ends are impossible to achieve.
I’m just trying to figure out what your perspective is. So you think Marx basically touted how great such a utopia could be and spent a lot of time describing it in great detail without actually considering how or if it would be possible to implement?
My perspective isn't really that complicated, I think Marxism is pretty flawed and this is evidenced by the logical gaps in the theories and the constant failure in practice. You're talking as if Marxism is the truth and it is beyond criticism. Marxists treat Marxism, for all intents and purposes, like a religion. Marx is treated like a prophet, his theories are treated like holy scriptures, the communist utopia is like the promised afterlife, critics are attacked and dismissed, and so on. Obviously, I'm not saying Marxism is a religion, but you're acting no differently than a muslim or a Christian whenever somebody criticizes their religion. Why is hard to accept that Marx was a imperfect person from a bygone era with theories that have many flaws? He and his work are not above criticism. Marx dedicated his whole life to his ideology, of course he thought about it as much as he could, but what I am saying is that despite that the end result is still not that great. Communism remains a utopia in the mainstream sense that won't ever be achieved.
You’re clearly lying about having read Marx. If you knew anything about the subject you would understood exactly why your responses to my questions betray your complete and utter ignorance. To be clear there are well informed critiques of Marx out there. However, you’re incapable of making those arguments because you have no idea what the man actually said. You should really stop embarrassing yourself.
- A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself. Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary. Thirdly, "Capitalist Institutions" being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
- The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed. This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America. The idea of it being "authoritarian" is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people. The phrase "iron fist" is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase "by any means necessary," it's just fearmongering.
- Actually realize communism
Sure, this is correct.
Since step 3 is a utopia that won't ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two.
That's unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isn't an impossibility but it also isn't a utopia like you claim. It's certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
That's why every single Marxist attempt that hasn't failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government "deciding" to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
All the tyrannical regimes we've seen aren't coincidences, they're an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when it's implemented down to the letter... and it ain't pretty.
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between "tyrannical" and "fair and democratic?" Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isn't some secret, it's pretty well documented.
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself.
This is like a bully punching their victim and then telling them "why are you hitting yourself". No, a violent revolution is an integral part of Marxism. No society is going to destroy it's functioning system willingly. Even if capitalism failed, which it hasn't, Marxism is not the logical replacement. Literally only Marxists believe that it is, and most people aren't Marxists.
Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary.
Killing the bourgeoisie is not a step, but it's a pretty implicit part of process. Under his class definition, somebody like a lawyer owning their own firm and hiring a couple secretaries makes them a part of the bourgeoise. That's not a billionaire, that's an average person who made good choices in their life. The same goes for someone who owns their own convivence store and hires a couple of part timers. These type of people aren't going to give up their livelihoods in the name of some brain dead ideology. Why would they? So what the Marxist solution for this? You can't just let these people be because the ideology revolves around total control of a society. If people can opt out of Marxism then most people would and the ideology would collapse. The only viable solution is to forcefully seize their life work. That's if they cooperate, what if they don't? What if they resist Marxist tyranny? Well it's simple, if they resist then they're counterrevolutionaries who ought to be killed.
Thirdly, “Capitalist Institutions” being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
Marx thought of the state as tool of the ruling class, which is a very flawed view in it's own right, but I digress. In his view, the institutions of the state, aka the state apparatus, are all tools used by bourgeoisie to maintain class domination. He had the state apparatus split into two categories, the first is the "repressive" institutions such as the government, police, courts, and military and the second is the "ideological" institutions like schools, media, churches, etc. If a Marxist revolution were to happen all these institutions, ranging from a state run university all the way to the supreme court would be on the chopping block. The job of a government is maintain the status quo, the job of the police is to enforce the current laws, the job of the courts is to uphold the current laws, the job of the military to protect all these institutions from existential threats. Perhaps not all of them will be literally burnt down, but the point remains that the ultimate goal of Marxism is to get rid of these institutions all together because that's what communism seeks to establish, a stateless society.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed.
Calling it democratic is a pretty big stretch because the idea itself is flawed. Marx wanted the proletariat to be directly involved in the decision making process but also have the decision making process be centralized. The only way that's possible is via direct democracy but that's not feasible in any society that's not on the scale of a small tribe. The alternative would be to do it by representative democracy, which would mean a one party dictatorship similar to the CPSU or the CCP.
Why a one party dictatorship? Because that's the only way it would work in this context. A Marxist revolution will never be a result of civil unrest, it will always be a result of a political faction trying takeover the government. That faction will have leaders who will lead the violent revolution. That faction will become dictatorship of the proletariat. Since politics is divisive by it's nature, it's safer for the revolution for that faction to claim to be the one and only legitimate one and all other attempts are counterrevolutionary. That way they get to enjoy all the power, silence dissents, avoid civil war or coups, and implement all the tyrannical policies as they see fit.
This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America.
That is not what is found in America. If you're trying to be fictitious and hyperbolic then okay I guess, but if you're trying to pass this off as some sort of fact then you're off the rails.
The idea of it being “authoritarian” is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people.
Democratic for who exactly? Take the US as an example. Around 66% of Americans are homeowners. Around 58% own stocks. About 17 million own their own business. Around 99.9% of businesses in the country are small businesses which employ around 46% of the workforce, 80% of those are mom and pop business that have 0-9 employees (a good chunk of which are family members). All these people and many more are going to be quite pissed to have their property seized. Putting the majority of society in a worse position by force isn't democracy, that's tyranny.
The phrase “iron fist” is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase “by any means necessary,” it’s just fearmongering.
Both of those phrases are perfectly accurate descriptions of the proposed transitional government. You simply not liking them because you're a Marxist doesn't invalidate their use here.
That’s unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isn’t an impossibility but it also isn’t a utopia like you claim. It’s certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
Wtf are you talking about? Communism is a utopia by definition. It is an imaginary society where everything works perfectly. Communism is about a perfect society where there's no money, no state, no exploitation, no classes, no scarcity, no property, no disagreements on the idea of common ownership, an abundance of everything that will be distributed accordingly from ability to need, and everybody gets to hold hands while they dance, singe, and fart rainbows. Marx and Engles, and their followers can pretend that their utopia is not like the other girls all they want, but it ultimately is. Utopias aren't realistic you can't have a perfect or near perfect society in a non perfect world. There's a reason why these brain dead utopia driven ideologies always fail while more pragmatic ideologies always succeed. You can't run societies off of fantasies.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government “deciding” to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
In order for that to happen, the government has to actively work on dismantling itself and it's institutions... and that doesn't happen. Governments don't give up their power. The communist utopia will always be just right around the corner, but never actually there. Also Marx defines the government as one of the institutions in the state apparatus, which would eventually get dismantled and "wither away". Even if there was a government under communism, it literally cannot function without the other institutions of the state like the police to enforce it's laws, courts to uphold it's laws, the military to protect it, it's own media to promote it, and so on.
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between “tyrannical” and “fair and democratic?” Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
Ah yes, we're running socities based off of vibes. I'm sure those 40 to 80 million Chinese who were murdered under Mao were totally not vibing with his tyrannical Marxism. Do you even hear yourself? Governments don't exist in a binary states of tyrannical and free, the levels of authoritarianism exist in a spectrum. But the levels of tyranny and freedom are measurable, and we do have stats for them. But even if there weren't it really easy to tell the difference between the extremes. Anybody with a shred of common sense can see that New Zealand and Norway are free and democratic countries while Iran and North Korea are tyrannical. All Marxist attempts have been on the more extreme end of tyranny than anywhere near the free and democratic end.
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
This doesn't disprove my point. Whether Allende took power democratically or by force, the result was going to be the same. So no, Marx and Engles were not right. Not to mention, that the cold war wasn't just the US, the USSR was the other superpower who was also overthrowing governments, starting civil wars, invading countries, and so on. The only difference is that history proved that capitalist societies to be more resilient.
This is like a bully punching their victim and then telling them "why are you hitting yourself". No, a violent revolution is an integral part of Marxism. No society is going to destroy it's functioning system willingly. Even if capitalism failed, which it hasn't, Marxism is not the logical replacement. Literally only Marxists believe that it is, and most people aren't Marxists.
Marxism is not destroying a system, but replacing it and moving beyond. Capitalism is failing and continues to see increased disparity over time.
Killing the bourgeoisie is not a step, but it's a pretty implicit part of process. Under his class definition, somebody like a lawyer owning their own firm and hiring a couple secretaries makes them a part of the bourgeoise. That's not a billionaire, that's an average person who made good choices in their life. The same goes for someone who owns their own convivence store and hires a couple of part timers. These type of people aren't going to give up their livelihoods in the name of some brain dead ideology. Why would they? So what the Marxist solution for this? You can't just let these people be because the ideology revolves around total control of a society. If people can opt out of Marxism then most people would and the ideology would collapse. The only viable solution is to forcefully seize their life work. That's if they cooperate, what if they don't? What if they resist Marxist tyranny? Well it's simple, if they resist then they're counterrevolutionaries who ought to be killed.
Petite bourgeoisie have more to gain under Socialism than they would under Capitalism, typically. Secondly, managing to be a lawyer with a firm is not simply "a good choice," it takes luck and a safety net that allows for that. The idea that most people would opt out of Socialism is historically inaccurate as well. All in all, you're deeply goofy here.
Marx thought of the state as tool of the ruling class, which is a very flawed view in it's own right, but I digress. In his view, the institutions of the state, aka the state apparatus, are all tools used by bourgeoisie to maintain class domination. He had the state apparatus split into two categories, the first is the "repressive" institutions such as the government, police, courts, and military and the second is the "ideological" institutions like schools, media, churches, etc. If a Marxist revolution were to happen all these institutions, ranging from a state run university all the way to the supreme court would be on the chopping block. The job of a government is maintain the status quo, the job of the police is to enforce the current laws, the job of the courts is to uphold the current laws, the job of the military to protect all these institutions from existential threats. Perhaps not all of them will be literally burnt down, but the point remains that the ultimate goal of Marxism is to get rid of these institutions all together because that's what communism seeks to establish, a stateless society.
You're inserting your own conclusions here, yet again. These instutitions would be removed or replaced, sure, but not firebombed. You can see historical Marxist revolutions to know that wasn't accurate.
Calling it democratic is a pretty big stretch because the idea itself is flawed. Marx wanted the proletariat to be directly involved in the decision making process but also have the decision making process be centralized. The only way that's possible is via direct democracy but that's not feasible in any society that's not on the scale of a small tribe. The alternative would be to do it by representative democracy, which would mean a one party dictatorship similar to the CPSU or the CCP.
Representative democracy is still democracy, I cannot believe you are genuinely suggesting otherwise.
Why a one party dictatorship? Because that's the only way it would work in this context. A Marxist revolution will never be a result of civil unrest, it will always be a result of a political faction trying takeover the government. That faction will have leaders who will lead the violent revolution. That faction will become dictatorship of the proletariat. Since politics is divisive by it's nature, it's safer for the revolution for that faction to claim to be the one and only legitimate one and all other attempts are counterrevolutionary. That way they get to enjoy all the power, silence dissents, avoid civil war or coups, and implement all the tyrannical policies as they see fit.
Oh, more historical inaccuracy. Marxist revolutions have been because of civil unrest, which is why they were supported by the mahority of people. Secondly, you're asserting that a party cannot be controlled democratically by the general public, and that the general public cannot enter the party, which is also wrong.
That is not what is found in America. If you're trying to be fictitious and hyperbolic then okay I guess, but if you're trying to pass this off as some sort of fact then you're off the rails.
America is a dictatorship of the bourgeoise as described by Marx. The state is run by parties that are nearly entirely funded by wealthy Capitalists, with media funded by wealthy Capitalists that manufacture consent in the general public. This is basic Marxism here, not understanding what Marx meant has been a core issue with your entire argument.
Democratic for who exactly? Take the US as an example. Around 66% of Americans are homeowners. Around 58% own stocks. About 17 million own their own business. Around 99.9% of businesses in the country are small businesses which employ around 46% of the workforce, 80% of those are mom and pop business that have 0-9 employees (a good chunk of which are family members). All these people and many more are going to be quite pissed to have their property seized. Putting the majority of society in a worse position by force isn't democracy, that's tyrann
Democratic for the people. Owning stocks doesn't make you bourgeois, neither does owning your home. Petite bourgeoisie are suppressed by larger bourgeoisie into the proletariat.
Secondly, the idea that the average worker with a 401k would be upset to not have to worry about saving for retirement ever again, with higher wages and free healthcare, education, and shorter work weeks is silly.
Both of those phrases are perfectly accurate descriptions of the proposed transitional government. You simply not liking them because you're a Marxist doesn't invalidate their use here.
"It's accurate because I say it is."
Wtf are you talking about? Communism is a utopia by definition. It is an imaginary society where everything works perfectly. Communism is about a perfect society where there's no money, no state, no exploitation, no classes, no scarcity, no property, no disagreements on the idea of common ownership, an abundance of everything that will be distributed accordingly from ability to need, and everybody gets to hold hands while they dance, singe, and fart rainbows. Marx and Engles, and their followers can pretend that their utopia is not like the other girls all they want, but it ultimately is. Utopias aren't realistic you can't have a perfect or near perfect society in a non perfect world. There's a reason why these brain dead utopia driven ideologies always fail while more pragmatic ideologies always succeed. You can't run societies off of fantasies.
You're certainly adding on a lot of shit that Communists have never suggested. Communism would have scarcity, public property, disagreements on ideas, and more. You're correct in saying it would no longer have the oppressive elements of the state, nor would it have Money or classes, but the way that works is via tracking labor inputs and outputs. Marx makes it pretty clear in Critique of the Gotha Programme. You added on a bunch of unsupported baggage and said your fantasy version of a proposed society can't exist.
In order for that to happen, the government has to actively work on dismantling itself and it's institutions... and that doesn't happen. Governments don't give up their power. The communist utopia will always be just right around the corner, but never actually there. Also Marx defines the government as one of the institutions in the state apparatus, which would eventually get dismantled and "wither away". Even if there was a government under communism, it literally cannot function without the other institutions of the state like the police to enforce it's laws, courts to uphold it's laws, the military to protect it, it's own media to promote it, and so on.
No, government does not need to actively work on dismantling their institutions. Withering away does not mean the government eating parts of itself. Redundant systems get phased out over time in the modern day all the time. Communism would have police, courts, and so forth as well.
Ah yes, we're running socities based off of vibes. I'm sure those 40 to 80 million Chinese who were murdered under Mao were totally not vibing with his tyrannical Marxism. Do you even hear yourself? Governments don't exist in a binary states of tyrannical and free, the levels of authoritarianism exist in a spectrum. But the levels of tyranny and freedom are measurable, and we do have stats for them. But even if there weren't it really easy to tell the difference between the extremes. Anybody with a shred of common sense can see that New Zealand and Norway are free and democratic countries while Iran and North Korea are tyrannical. All Marxist attempts have been on the more extreme end of tyranny than anywhere near the free and democratic end.
You still didn't answer the question, where is the definitive metric that something becomes authoritarian or not? Mao's cultural revolution was largely a failure, and he was democratically removed for it. Secondly, economies which have democratic participation are more democratic than Capitalist economies, which are governed by essentially warlords.
This doesn't disprove my point. Whether Allende took power democratically or by force, the result was going to be the same. So no, Marx and Engles were not right. Not to mention, that the cold war wasn't just the US, the USSR was the other superpower who was also overthrowing governments, starting civil wars, invading countries, and so on. The only difference is that history proved that capitalist societies to be more resilient.
It does disprove your point, Allende got couped by the US. Secondly, putting the USSR and the US as equal evils and simply saying it's fine because the USSR voted to balkanize late in its life is silly. The US is absolutely hated by the global south, while Marxist revolutions were popping up all the time during the cold war, and still do at a lower rate today. There was a clear difference in which society was better for the global south. The USSR collapsing via vote wasn't due to lack of resiliance, it didn't crumble or fail to support itself, it was killed off.
All in all, you need to check your history, and read Marx if you want to have such strong yet wrong understandings of Marxism. Even reading Critique of the Gotha Programme would help you a lot.
Marxism is not destroying a system, but replacing it and moving beyond. Capitalism is failing and continues to see increased disparity over time.
This is a dumb statement. How do you replace a "failing" system without destroying it? Especially when the replacement is prescribed in the form of violent revolution.
Also I'm going to insert a little counter to add up how many times you try to pass your opinion as fact.
Counter++
Count = 1
Reason: Capitalism isn't failing, that's just your opinion.
Petite bourgeoisie have more to gain under Socialism than they would under Capitalism, typically.
By losing their livelihoods and their life's work? Actually delusional.
Secondly, managing to be a lawyer with a firm is not simply “a good choice,” it takes luck and a safety net that allows for that.
You could say that about everything in life.
The idea that most people would opt out of Socialism is historically inaccurate as well. All in all, you’re deeply goofy here.
I'm the goofy one? You're literally making stuff up because you can't come with any evidence based rebuttals.
Counter++
Count = 2
Reason: Most people not wanting socialism is not historically inaccurate, hence why so much violence is necessary. You just simply think that is the case.
You’re inserting your own conclusions here, yet again.
No, my argument is logically sound. In fact, it's common sense.
These instutitions would be removed or replaced, sure, but not firebombed. You can see historical Marxist revolutions to know that wasn’t accurate.
This is just the red herring fallacy. I already said that I was being hyperbolic with that, even though the statement does hold some truth to it. Regardless, you're intentionally dodging the actual point made with this.
Representative democracy is still democracy, I cannot believe you are genuinely suggesting otherwise.
Authoritarianism and democracy aren't opposite concepts. If you consider CPSU and the CCP examples of democracy then your threshold for what a democracy is not right.
Oh, more historical inaccuracy. Marxist revolutions have been because of civil unrest, which is why they were supported by the mahority of people.
You make this claim twice now without any evidence. In Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the list goes on all resulted in civil wars where the majority of the population, or the very least around half, did not support the Marxists. In all these cases, the Marxists groups tried to instigate coups or civil wars with the aim of grabbing power. These aren't civil unrest turned revolution like the French revolution.
Counter++
Count = 3
Reason: Marxist revolutions have not been supported by the majority of people. You just think that's the case.
Secondly, you’re asserting that a party cannot be controlled democratically by the general public, and that the general public cannot enter the party, which is also wrong.
/>sees a claim
/>calls it wrong
/>refuses to elaborate
Winning formula you got there. But no, this is not what I said. I said that the volatility and fragility of a post revolution society controlled by the Marxist faction that initially took control won't allow any dissent or a diversity of opinion because it's threatens their newly found authoritarian powers and the fate of the revolution they fought for. There's a reason why every single Marxist revolution ended up being either an authoritarian dictatorship or an authoritarian one party state dictatorship.
America is a dictatorship of the bourgeoise as described by Marx. The state is run by parties that are nearly entirely funded by wealthy Capitalists, with media funded by wealthy Capitalists that manufacture consent in the general public. This is basic Marxism here, not understanding what Marx meant has been a core issue with your entire argument.
You know what? Let's use basic Marxism to disprove your ridiculous claim. While Marx didn't have a specific definition of what a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is, he did talk a lot about it was through his works. It could be boiled down to these five points:
- Marx thought that an integral part of the the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie was the use of the state apparatus such as government institutions, the legal system, police, and military to protect their dominance and interests.
Is this true here? No, from Teddy Roosevelt all the way up to today, the state apparatus has constantly stood alongside the American people, and especially the American workers. There's a tug of war that pulls one way or another, but the state is not a tool of the bourgeoisie as Marx defined it.
- Marx viewed the enforcement of capitalist Interests as a key part of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie refers where the bourgeoisie use state power to impose their economic and political interests on society. This includes protecting private property, enforcing laws that benefit capitalists, suppressing dissent and resistance from the working class, and maintaining social order favorable to capitalist accumulation.
Is this true here? Sort of. It true that bourgeoisie as defined by Marx do impose their economic and political interests on society to their benefit. This isn't exactly a big secret and it is why a lot of people are calling for stronger economic regulations and accountability in political discourse. However, at the same time, Marx viewed objectively positive things like protecting private property, promoting capitalism, or maintaining social order to be examples of the state doing the bidding of the bourgeoisie when that's not true, these things are to the benefit of everybody.
- Marx constantly argued that the bourgeoisie would resort to authoritarian measures, such censorship, repression of political opposition, and the use of state violence to maintain its rule and protect its privileges.
Is this true here? No, the US has pretty strong laws that ban such practices and punishes those who do. Not to mention that most of these actions would be protected by the 1st amendment of the constitution. This Actually used to be more true during the gilded age, but that stopped being a thing in the early 20th century.
- Marx saw the bourgeoisie as a historical phase that emerged with the rise of capitalism where the bourgeoisie replaced the feudal nobility as the ruling class and reshaped society according to capitalist principles.
Is this true here? No, the US was never a feudalist society. It was always capitalist liberal democracy.
- One of the things that Marx kept harping on is the idea that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie would eventually give way to the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Is this true here? Lol no, Americans overwhelmingly reject Marxism, and no this isn't a result of propaganda like you keep telling yourself to cope. It's an objectively bad ideology that most people reject on the basis of it's own atrocious history and bad merits that don't hold up. If Marxism didn't take hold back during the gilded age where things were wayyyyyyy worse and Marxism was way more popular, then it's not going to happen any time soon.
So let's tally up how many of these points apply... and the results are? 1/5, maybe. The US today is not a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as Marx defined it. Do you know what was? 19th century Britain, France, and Prussia... the place he's from. This is because his ideology is a result of the location where he lived and of era when he lived. But Prussia is no more and so is the 19th century, Marxism is irrelevant.
Democratic for the people. Owning stocks doesn’t make you bourgeois, neither does owning your home. Petite bourgeoisie are suppressed by larger bourgeoisie into the proletariat.
What people dingus? Saying for the people is meaningless when most people will end up suffering and being in a worse position.
Secondly, the idea that the average worker with a 401k would be upset to not have to worry about saving for retirement ever again, with higher wages and free healthcare, education, and shorter work weeks is silly.
Ah yes, everybody also gets free ponies, genies, and a state of the art AI powered sex robots. You're actually out of touch. For the record, I am actually in favor of all of those things, but none of these are going to be brought by Marxism. Do you know how I know? Because every Marxist attempt in history has brought the opposite. In the situations where these were implemented, the results abysmal and conditions actually got worse. The real irony here is that all the things you listed exist under capitalism, and they are implemented best under capitalist societies.
Counter++
Count = 4
Reason: Writing as delusional wish list of what you think Marxism would bring doesn't actually mean Marxism will bring those things, it doesn't even promise or advocate for those things.
“It’s accurate because I say it is.”
Uhhh that's what you're doing, not me. You're the one who claimed that my phrases were loaded, wrong, fearmongering, and a bunch of other nonsense without providing any arguments to support claims whatsoever. That is literally "you're wrong because i said so". I merely pointed out the fact that your opinions on my descriptions don't invalidate them. You not liking them does not make them any less true or valid, especially when you don't even have an argument to go off of. Trying to pull a "no u" is not going to work here.
1/2
You’re certainly adding on a lot of shit that Communists have never suggested. Communism would have scarcity
Your understanding of Marxism is limited and it shows here, which is ironic for a Marxist. One of the biggest selling points of communism that Marx and Engels kept bringing up was that communism would either greatly mitigate or entirely eliminate scarcity. They argued that the technological advancements brought by the transitional phase would generate a rapid development in advanced technologies that would increase production and efficiency, and this technology would be one of the things that characterizes communism. They also argued that
public property
I actually meant to write private property, but that's besides the point.
disagreements on ideas, and more.
Let's suppose in a hypothetical world where the communist utopia is possible and is achieved, okay? Okay, now let's suppose there's a significant group of people who don't like it and want to reimplement capitalism. What would happen to those people? Can they voluntarily opt of communism? If that's the case then what's the point of the violent revolution and the tyrannical transitional state? If it was on voluntary basis, then there wouldn't be a need for those. So the face that they are integral part of the ideology proves that communism is not voluntary. If that's the case then communism then who's going to keep these people in line? The military? Perhaps the police? Well, it can't be either because both got "withered" away.
The reality is that there would be no state enforcement, so any significant degree of disagreement would snap the utopia in half. Marx envisioned a communist society to be governed by decentralized, participatory decision-making by local communities... that's not going to be effective against wide scale disagreements. Unless the majority of people decide to abandon the communist utopia to bring back the transitional state to squash the disagreements, the idea will simply break. Communism is a flawed idea to its very core.
You’re correct in saying it would no longer have the oppressive elements of the state, nor would it have Money or classes, but the way that works is via tracking labor inputs and outputs. Marx makes it pretty clear in Critique of the Gotha Programme. You added on a bunch of unsupported baggage and said your fantasy version of a proposed society can’t exist.
Wtf are you talking about? The idea of communism is ultimately have labor and resources to be distributed from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The idea might in a very technical sense get rid of classes or money, but it is NOT a replacement for things like not having social order. Just apply basic common sense here:
Carl: murders someone
Paul: Caaaaaaarl why did murder that person
Carl: "because I felt like it"
Paul: "I'm going to report you to my local direct democracy communist council"
Paul: goes to the council and explains the murder
The council: "We hear what you're saying Paul, but check out these spreadsheets of our labor inputs and outputs"
Like what? Are you actually out of touch enough to think this is a proper way to run a society? The idea is like a comedy skit, except nobody's laughing.
No, government does not need to actively work on dismantling their institutions. Withering away does not mean the government eating parts of itself. Redundant systems get phased out over time in the modern day all the time. Communism would have police, courts, and so forth as well.
You absolute dingleberry, what the fuck do you think phasing out means? Do you honestly think that the police or the courts are going to literally wither away like a rotting plant? No, the government would have to take steps to dismantle itself in order to get rid of the state apparatus. That's the only way it can happen, the state is not going to magically disappear on it's own.
Counter++
Counter = 5
Reason: Communism is not going to have police, courts, and the like. This is just what think communism is like due to your ignorance of it, this is not actually what it's like. The communist utopia is anarchist in nature and won't any elements of the state apparatus which includes the police and courts. There won't be anything to maintain social order. The idea of communism is obviously stupid, but this is still very basic communism theory. You know for a MUH THEORIES guy who keeps accusing me not understanding Marxism, you sure know very little about it.
You still didn’t answer the question, where is the definitive metric that something becomes authoritarian or not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
You're more than welcome to go to any of these indices and read their methodologies.
Mao’s cultural revolution was largely a failure, and he was democratically removed for it. Secondly, economies which have democratic participation are more democratic than Capitalist economies, which are governed by essentially warlords.
What the fuck are you talking about? Mao ruled until his death in 1976. He was never at any point removed from his position as ruler, he wasn't even challenged by anybody to step down.
Counter++
Counter = 6
Reason: How you imagine Mao's reign to have gone does not reflect how his reign has actually gone in reality.
It does disprove your point, Allende got couped by the US.
No, it doesn't. You saying it is doesn't actually make it true. This is just the proof by assertion fallacy. Keep in mind, this was the original claim:
"Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform."
In what way is the coup that ousted Allende in any way prove that they were right? Whether Allende got voted in or took over via violent revolution, the results would have been the same as he would have been ousted either way. The only difference is that if he was violent, he would've killed a lot more people before his ousting. Where's the logical jump from the original claim to this? It's just a non sequitur.
Secondly, putting the USSR and the US as equal evils and simply saying it’s fine because the USSR voted to balkanize late in its life is silly.
I didn't say they were equals, I just said that the cold war wasn't a one way street. It was a competition between two superpowers vying for influence and power. With that being said, when it comes to being evil, the USSR was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more evil. It's not even a competition. The USSR is one of the most evil regimes in human history. It's on par with Nazi Germany and the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan. From torture to gulags to genocides to engineered famines to tyrannical censorship and oppression to democide to imperial conquest to ecological disasters to forced deportations of entire ethnic groups to so many more, and all of this was inside the Soviet Union against their own people. Outside the Soviet borders they started civil wars, overthrew governments, invaded countries, committed mass rapes, launched massive propaganda campaigns, brutally oppressed half of Europe, and the list goes on and on. Stalin literally had death battalions to genocide people, including women and children in the Baltics.
The sheer amount of genocides and massacres committed by the Soviet Union is so great that it's both horrifying and leaves in awe at it's scale. They might rival the British Empire or the French Empire, the only difference is that it took these empires centuries to rack up their numbers, the Soviet Union did just as much in less than a century. Russia already has a long and extensive history of genocide before the Soviet Union era, but during they just went into maximum overdrive.
The US is absolutely hated by the global south,
According to what? Where's your source?
while Marxist revolutions were popping up all the time during the cold war, and still do at a lower rate today.
That's because the Soviet Union was funding and propping virtually all of them. This is pretty common knowledge.
There have two Marxist insurgencies since the fall of the Soviet Union, one in Nepal and the other in Myanmar, both of which are China's neighbors whom the Chinese been eyeing them for quite some time.
There was a clear difference in which society was better for the global south.
Yes, capitalism proved to be way, way, wayyyyy better. The global south is currently the richest it has ever been thanks to free market capitalism and the globalized economy.
The USSR collapsing via vote wasn’t due to lack of resiliance, it didn’t crumble or fail to support itself, it was killed off.
What planet do you live in? The Soviet Union collapsed precisely because it's crumbled and it couldn't support itself. The dissolution was just the cherry on top, but Marxism collapsed before the the oppressed had the opportunity to escape. The Soviet economy towards the end completely collapsed, the oppression and tyranny was reaching a breaking point with the people, and when Gorbachev showed that he wasn't a cold blooded psychopath like the Soviet leaders before him... the dam finally broke.
Counter:++
Counter = 7
Reason: Your ignorant misconception of the how the USSR collapsed does not actually align with reality.
All in all, you need to check your history, and read Marx if you want to have such strong yet wrong understandings of Marxism. Even reading Critique of the Gotha Programme would help you a lot.
You make me so tired...
2/2
-