I think OP is trying to say that he also believed in Marxist ideology when he was twenty years old, but since then he has grown up. I’ve never been a fan of Marxist ideology, although I like it on paper, but we can’t exclude the human factor. It’s far more dangerous to centralize power in the state than in individuals (as in capitalism, where companies are ultimately bound to individuals), and history has proven just that.
That said, I’m not trying to start an argument with you guys here at .ml, because I think we’d just end up going in circles. I just wanted to get this off my chest. I hope you guys can find a country with a Mao or Lenin in power… or you could just move to Cuba, which hasn’t changed since Castro’s rule.
I know you said you weren’t looking to start an argument, so I’m fully okay with you not continuing this, but you dropped a bunch of assertions that deserve to be challenged and not just left hanging.
Marxism fully accounts for the “human factor.”
History has by no means proven private ownership superior to public, in fact socialism has been consistently liberating for the people. Companies are bound to profits, not individuals, even capitalists are at the mercy of the profit motive and the winds it takes. It is much better to democratize the economy.
There are many other socialist countries than Cuba, which itself has developed and grown during and after Castro. The PRC and Vietnam are other quick examples of socialism that are rapidly developing.
I’m only going to address [3], which requires some explanation of why I made my last statement. It was a direct response to the pictures shared in the comment I replied to, and I’m well aware that none of those leaders ever passed the proletariat phase.
I understand now that you were referring to that comment, my apologies for misunderstanding. I do have another question though, what the heck is a “proletariat phase?” Do you mean socialism, where there is still class society, but headed by the working class, ie the proletariat?
If I understood correctly from my reading of The Communist Manifesto, the proletariat or dictatorship of the proletariat is the transitional stage before true communism takes place.
The proletariat is the wage-laboring working class, it isn’t a phase. The dictatorship of the proletariat is contrasted with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the former being socialist democracy for the working class against the ruling class, the latter being capitalist dictatorship over the working class. This phase is essentially socialism, and it will last until all property has been fully sublimated and collectivized, all classes abolished.
I understand what OP is saying, but I’m pointing out that it’s silly to take a philosophically rich, globe spanning, radical tradition and throw it aside as “a thing stupid children believe”, and use that as a thought terminating cliche to not engage with the tradition as it exists in the real world.
You don’t have to ascribe to Marxism. I happen to, but I would have posted the same bit if OP was ragging on Anarchism like that as well.
Side note, Cuba has changed quite a lot since Castro. I would encourage you to read up on the rewriting of the Cuban constitution, and the implementation of the new Family Code, both of which happened a few years ago, and are at the very least, interesting.
Liberals and baseless condescension, name a better duo. Forget that the overwhelming majority of practicing Marxists are working adults, the stereotypical minority of Marxists as represented by well-meaning college students is somehow more relevant.
Your anecdotal, presumably western experience doesn’t outweigh the fact that by far the largest number of practicing Marxists are working adults. The CPC alone has 96 million members, and the vast majority of Marxists overall are in the global south. Even then, in parties like PSL and FRSO, membership trends to working adults onwards. Genuinely, do you presume reality perfectly reflects the random chance that your individual myopic experience would imply, in all cases?
Again, though, you just have this entirely unearned smugness, and no actual point to back it up other than personally knowing Marxists in their 20s. That isn’t a substitute for data and statistics, if you simply extrapolate your personal anecdotes for everything and refuse to believe hard data, then going through life must be a nightmare.
The only thing I presumed was that you were western, as you had a viewpoint very common to westerners. Everything else was based on reality. Or are you trying to say, for example, that the CPC doesn’t have 100.4 million members as of 2024?
Ah, I remember my 20’s.
Yep, just a bunch of guys in their 20s…
I think OP is trying to say that he also believed in Marxist ideology when he was twenty years old, but since then he has grown up. I’ve never been a fan of Marxist ideology, although I like it on paper, but we can’t exclude the human factor. It’s far more dangerous to centralize power in the state than in individuals (as in capitalism, where companies are ultimately bound to individuals), and history has proven just that.
That said, I’m not trying to start an argument with you guys here at .ml, because I think we’d just end up going in circles. I just wanted to get this off my chest. I hope you guys can find a country with a Mao or Lenin in power… or you could just move to Cuba, which hasn’t changed since Castro’s rule.
I know you said you weren’t looking to start an argument, so I’m fully okay with you not continuing this, but you dropped a bunch of assertions that deserve to be challenged and not just left hanging.
Marxism fully accounts for the “human factor.”
History has by no means proven private ownership superior to public, in fact socialism has been consistently liberating for the people. Companies are bound to profits, not individuals, even capitalists are at the mercy of the profit motive and the winds it takes. It is much better to democratize the economy.
There are many other socialist countries than Cuba, which itself has developed and grown during and after Castro. The PRC and Vietnam are other quick examples of socialism that are rapidly developing.
Just needed to address these points.
I’m only going to address [3], which requires some explanation of why I made my last statement. It was a direct response to the pictures shared in the comment I replied to, and I’m well aware that none of those leaders ever passed the proletariat phase.
I understand now that you were referring to that comment, my apologies for misunderstanding. I do have another question though, what the heck is a “proletariat phase?” Do you mean socialism, where there is still class society, but headed by the working class, ie the proletariat?
If I understood correctly from my reading of The Communist Manifesto, the proletariat or dictatorship of the proletariat is the transitional stage before true communism takes place.
The proletariat is the wage-laboring working class, it isn’t a phase. The dictatorship of the proletariat is contrasted with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the former being socialist democracy for the working class against the ruling class, the latter being capitalist dictatorship over the working class. This phase is essentially socialism, and it will last until all property has been fully sublimated and collectivized, all classes abolished.
I understand what OP is saying, but I’m pointing out that it’s silly to take a philosophically rich, globe spanning, radical tradition and throw it aside as “a thing stupid children believe”, and use that as a thought terminating cliche to not engage with the tradition as it exists in the real world.
You don’t have to ascribe to Marxism. I happen to, but I would have posted the same bit if OP was ragging on Anarchism like that as well.
Side note, Cuba has changed quite a lot since Castro. I would encourage you to read up on the rewriting of the Cuban constitution, and the implementation of the new Family Code, both of which happened a few years ago, and are at the very least, interesting.
Liberals and baseless condescension, name a better duo. Forget that the overwhelming majority of practicing Marxists are working adults, the stereotypical minority of Marxists as represented by well-meaning college students is somehow more relevant.
Not in my experience. Please, continue to tell me my reality.
Says you, having just told everyone that they’re in their twenties regardless of the actual reality of their age
Your anecdotal, presumably western experience doesn’t outweigh the fact that by far the largest number of practicing Marxists are working adults. The CPC alone has 96 million members, and the vast majority of Marxists overall are in the global south. Even then, in parties like PSL and FRSO, membership trends to working adults onwards. Genuinely, do you presume reality perfectly reflects the random chance that your individual myopic experience would imply, in all cases?
"Your anecdotal, presumably western experience "… I’m Russian. smh.
I said “presumably” because I figured it wasn’t a sure bet, not because I required it to be true for my point. Support for the Soviet Union is higher among older generations, while KPRF membership is surging even among younger people. Again, the CPC has 96 million members, and working class orgs tend to be filled with those that work! Who woulda thought?
Again, though, you just have this entirely unearned smugness, and no actual point to back it up other than personally knowing Marxists in their 20s. That isn’t a substitute for data and statistics, if you simply extrapolate your personal anecdotes for everything and refuse to believe hard data, then going through life must be a nightmare.
Everything you have said is presumptuous. It;s your signature temperature.
The only thing I presumed was that you were western, as you had a viewpoint very common to westerners. Everything else was based on reality. Or are you trying to say, for example, that the CPC doesn’t have 100.4 million members as of 2024?