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.
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.