Moved from D1 forum

[FireIceTalon]

There seem to be No True Scotsmen left in your world. If Lenin, Castro, Trotsky, Mao, Stalin, Tito, Ceausescu, Pol Pot, and so on are *all* excluded from "true" Marxism, then we have been left with nothing but an ahistorical husk, an idea entirely severed from its body.

What Marx believed is not difficult to track down. While an interesting and original, if somewhat muddled thinker, he was not a pleasant man. A violent uprising followed by an indeterminate period of dictatorship by the working class and their (self-)appointed representatives (of which he was one himself), accompanied by a gradual disassembly of capitalism, is exactly what he called for. It is also what was tried, over and over, in Russia, in China, in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Yugoslavia. It has never worked. It has never come close to working. It has nearly always been accompanied by astounding bloodshed, extraordinary repression, and perhaps most hilariously, income inequality surpassing most modern capitalist democracies.

We can wait for our Communist New Jerusalem if we like, but we can't jettison its history, and the history is ugly.

-Jester

Incorrect, good sir. Again, you are confusing Marxism with Totalitarianism. I don't want to turn this into a discussion of semantics, but dammit, people need to know what things mean and differentiate between concepts before they talk about it. Also, your post seems to imply that the exploitation and alienation of lower classes is justified and thus goes against everything in Marxism.

The history of feudalism and capitalism is much uglier than Marxism, which is a mere reactionist idea on the part of the common citizens to free themselves from the financial elites (or aristocracy in the case of the pre-French Revolution era) which control their labor that they see no benefit from. As for him being unpleasant, this is a Red Herring, and even if it wasnt, it just helps my argument further since it goes hand in hand on how his theory reflects the perspective of the economically disenfranchised (aka the majority). Anyway, probably best if we agree to disagree. You have a better chance at finding a cure for cancer than you do convincing me that capitalism is an ideal, fair and just system.

And btw, Marx didn't necessarily so much hate capitalism and endorse communism so much as he said both systems simply represent the historical development of economics. In fact, he said an era of capitalism is NEEDED so that society is advanced and stable enough so that enough goods are produced and technology advanced enough when the inevitable transformation into state-sponsored socialism occurs, then finally into utopian communism in which then the people (NOT the state), control the means of production. There is no time limit on these eras given either, and considering feudalism lasted some 700 years or so, its impossible to say when capitalism will turn into socialism and then communism. Not likely to happen in our lifetime, but to say it will never happen, eh, thats not a bet i would take to Vegas. The USSR and China were not Marxist in the context of his theory of historical determinism, not even close. If anything, I think Stalin much more resembled a fascist, rather than a Marxist, heh. Him and Hitler, for as much as they hated one another, had much in common besides economic views. I consider myself a to be a moderate Marxist, and dont endorse the policies or actions of Stalin or Mao by any means, nor do any other objective Marxist enthusiasts I know. Just as im sure those who love Adam Smith and his theories do not approve of what is taking place, especially in the US, today (at least I hope not). If we use your argument and logic by linking Marxism in its actual context with Russia and China, and say it has failed based on these as true examples, than one could make the same argument about America and capitalism being as equally big of a failure. For the wealth and prosperity of a nation means little, if that wealth and prosperity is concentrated in the top 5% of the population and they own more then the bottom 95% COMBINED, resulting in the greatest income AND class disparity of a so-called advanced democracy. And whats worse, that gap continues to widen. Your post defeats itself. Good day sir.