You keep ignoring large parts of my argument. Think about how wrong the understanding of biology that doctors had in the 1860-70s compared to what we do now. Marx had the equivalent lack of knowledge about human psychology. His theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level.
Marx did not understand the psychological and sociological needs that religion fulfills (I.e. fear of death). He confuses properties of Judeo-Christian religions as being universal to religion itself. Did most pre Columbian Native American faiths struggle with the exploitation of the proletariat? No. If anything several were closer to the Marxist ideal of a classless society than any attempts at communism.
The working classes do not control bourgeois elections,
I have asked you several times to explain how Marx’s theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level, not to simply restate your thesis over and over. There’s nothing to work with here. As for how religion works, Marx was analyzing the context of contemporary (to him) religion, not historical religion, with respect to the proletariat. Plus, Marx analyzed what he called “primitive communism,” the very early communalist societies you’re referencing here. These are not the same as communism, the future fully collectivized global system, but they do “rhyme” with it. Further, pointing out that the working classes do not actually control anything in capitalism isn’t an excuse, it’s a core denial of your central idea.
I am not ignoring your argument, it’s abundantly clear that you don’t actually have the familiarity with Marx to be able to make blanket claims about the viability of his theories.
I am not going to explain to you the entire history of modern psychology which developed since Marx lived. He didn’t incorporate any of it because it didn’t fucking exist! How hard is that to understand?
I understand your point, it’s just wrong. None of the development of human psychology undermines Marxism, just like advancements in physics doesn’t suddenly mean gravity is wrong. It’s as simple as that, you haven’t disproven Marxism in any way.
Newton understood that gravity was a natural force. He didn’t understand where gravity came from. We later learned that gravity is created by time itself. In the same way Marx didn’t understand why people acted the way they do which limited his ability to accurately predict behavior. That is largely why so few of his theories work in practice.
You’re continuing to be excessively vague. Marx did understand broadly why people act the way they do. People act in their own perceived self-interest, and the way they view the world is determined largely by the material conditions they find themselves in, how they live, produce, and distribute the gains of production. Further, Marx’s theories absolutely do work in practice, what are you getting at by saying they don’t? This is another vague statement that flies in the face of empirical evidence.
No, they don’t. That is where he is wrong. People frequently act against their perceived self interest out of fear, hate, mental instability, or any number of other reasons.
Further, Marx’s theories absolutely do work in practice
Ah, like the USSR? Nope. Venezuela? Nope. Cuba? Nope. China? Trick question, they adopted state capitalism in the 70s and are a totalitarian state domestically.
People do not act against their perceived self-interest as a class. You’re ignoring the perceived part as well, the self-perception is a key point. Self-perception can run against real self-interest.
As for the USSR, Cuba, and PRC, the answer is a resounding yes. Marxism works and worked in all 3 examples (Venezuela isn’t Marxist, it’s Chavista).
The soviet union was a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets brutalized the capitalists, tsarists, fascists, landlords, and kulaks, while liberating the workers and peasants. The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.
Death rates spiked:
And wealth disparity skyrocketed alongside the newly impoverished majority:
Capitalism brought with it skyrocketing poverty rates, drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, crime rates, and lowered life expectancy. An estimated 7 million people died due to the dissolution of socialism and reintroduction of capitalism, and this is why the large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall. A return to socialism is the only path forward for the post-soviet countries. A lot of Eastern European countries were swarmed with western capital during the destruction of socialism, which is what temporarily caused the rise of the far-right in these countries, but in time their problems will no longer be able to be ignored.
The PRC has what is called a Socialist Market Economy. In short, public ownership is the principal, ie dominant and rising, aspect of the economy, hence socialism, while there exists marketization and competition for small and competitive industries, hence market. The theoretical basis of this economy is in classical Marxism, which views private property and markets as progressive with respect to underdeveloped, disparate, disconnected production, and planned production as progressive once markets have centralized, as the path forward once large industry is constructed.
The scientific basis of Marxist socialism is in the understanding that markets centralize over time, stitching together the entire national and then international economy. Markets turn disconnected production of towns into connected production with huge logistical chains and mass industry. Central planning is best accomplished with this already developed industry, where competition dies out and markets become less efficient, while central planning becomes not only more efficient, but required for further economic growth. The previously mentioned work by Roland Boer also goes over Chinese democracy.
The PRC is a developing country. Large swathes of land and production is still underdeveloped, while huge state owned enterprises dominate the economy, with the working class at the driver’s seat via the CPC. This process of gradually folding private property into the public sector as it grows is called the “birdcage model,” and is how China keeps capitalists and private property in check. It’s also why they do not have a fully collectivized economy yet. See the diagram by Chinese economist Cheng Enfu’s diagram on stages of socialism:
Cuba similarly has achieved incredibly high literacy rates, life expectancy, and more despite intense embargo. Again, this is proof of socialism absolutely working. Socialism works, and works astoundingly well, with or without your knowledge of it.
You’re ignoring the perceived part as well, the self-perception is a key point.
Convenient. Any time people look like they are acting against their self interest, you can just say that people don’t “perceive” it that way and still look like you are right.
The soviet union was a dictatorship of the proletariat.
A dictator cannot be part of the proletariat by definition and the USSR failed. Communism failed.
China is run by a corrupt elite and their chosen pet oligarchs. It has an abhorrent civil rights record. It is no way a success story of a proletariat state.
Cuba’s Soviet-style command economy lowers productivity and prevents the country from fully participating in the global economy. Monetary reforms have caused massive inflation and currency devaluation. People have been abandoning the island in droves for decades because the quality of life is poor. It in no way represents a successful Communist state.
Socialism when implemented alongside capitalist policies can work. Communism has not and cannot work.
You keep ignoring large parts of my argument. Think about how wrong the understanding of biology that doctors had in the 1860-70s compared to what we do now. Marx had the equivalent lack of knowledge about human psychology. His theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level.
Marx did not understand the psychological and sociological needs that religion fulfills (I.e. fear of death). He confuses properties of Judeo-Christian religions as being universal to religion itself. Did most pre Columbian Native American faiths struggle with the exploitation of the proletariat? No. If anything several were closer to the Marxist ideal of a classless society than any attempts at communism.
Excuses excuses.
I have asked you several times to explain how Marx’s theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level, not to simply restate your thesis over and over. There’s nothing to work with here. As for how religion works, Marx was analyzing the context of contemporary (to him) religion, not historical religion, with respect to the proletariat. Plus, Marx analyzed what he called “primitive communism,” the very early communalist societies you’re referencing here. These are not the same as communism, the future fully collectivized global system, but they do “rhyme” with it. Further, pointing out that the working classes do not actually control anything in capitalism isn’t an excuse, it’s a core denial of your central idea.
I am not ignoring your argument, it’s abundantly clear that you don’t actually have the familiarity with Marx to be able to make blanket claims about the viability of his theories.
I am not going to explain to you the entire history of modern psychology which developed since Marx lived. He didn’t incorporate any of it because it didn’t fucking exist! How hard is that to understand?
I understand your point, it’s just wrong. None of the development of human psychology undermines Marxism, just like advancements in physics doesn’t suddenly mean gravity is wrong. It’s as simple as that, you haven’t disproven Marxism in any way.
Newton understood that gravity was a natural force. He didn’t understand where gravity came from. We later learned that gravity is created by time itself. In the same way Marx didn’t understand why people acted the way they do which limited his ability to accurately predict behavior. That is largely why so few of his theories work in practice.
You’re continuing to be excessively vague. Marx did understand broadly why people act the way they do. People act in their own perceived self-interest, and the way they view the world is determined largely by the material conditions they find themselves in, how they live, produce, and distribute the gains of production. Further, Marx’s theories absolutely do work in practice, what are you getting at by saying they don’t? This is another vague statement that flies in the face of empirical evidence.
No, they don’t. That is where he is wrong. People frequently act against their perceived self interest out of fear, hate, mental instability, or any number of other reasons.
Ah, like the USSR? Nope. Venezuela? Nope. Cuba? Nope. China? Trick question, they adopted state capitalism in the 70s and are a totalitarian state domestically.
People do not act against their perceived self-interest as a class. You’re ignoring the perceived part as well, the self-perception is a key point. Self-perception can run against real self-interest.
As for the USSR, Cuba, and PRC, the answer is a resounding yes. Marxism works and worked in all 3 examples (Venezuela isn’t Marxist, it’s Chavista).
The soviet union was a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets brutalized the capitalists, tsarists, fascists, landlords, and kulaks, while liberating the workers and peasants. The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.
Death rates spiked:
And wealth disparity skyrocketed alongside the newly impoverished majority:
Capitalism brought with it skyrocketing poverty rates, drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, crime rates, and lowered life expectancy. An estimated 7 million people died due to the dissolution of socialism and reintroduction of capitalism, and this is why the large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall. A return to socialism is the only path forward for the post-soviet countries. A lot of Eastern European countries were swarmed with western capital during the destruction of socialism, which is what temporarily caused the rise of the far-right in these countries, but in time their problems will no longer be able to be ignored.
The PRC has what is called a Socialist Market Economy. In short, public ownership is the principal, ie dominant and rising, aspect of the economy, hence socialism, while there exists marketization and competition for small and competitive industries, hence market. The theoretical basis of this economy is in classical Marxism, which views private property and markets as progressive with respect to underdeveloped, disparate, disconnected production, and planned production as progressive once markets have centralized, as the path forward once large industry is constructed.
The scientific basis of Marxist socialism is in the understanding that markets centralize over time, stitching together the entire national and then international economy. Markets turn disconnected production of towns into connected production with huge logistical chains and mass industry. Central planning is best accomplished with this already developed industry, where competition dies out and markets become less efficient, while central planning becomes not only more efficient, but required for further economic growth. The previously mentioned work by Roland Boer also goes over Chinese democracy.
The PRC is a developing country. Large swathes of land and production is still underdeveloped, while huge state owned enterprises dominate the economy, with the working class at the driver’s seat via the CPC. This process of gradually folding private property into the public sector as it grows is called the “birdcage model,” and is how China keeps capitalists and private property in check. It’s also why they do not have a fully collectivized economy yet. See the diagram by Chinese economist Cheng Enfu’s diagram on stages of socialism:
Cuba similarly has achieved incredibly high literacy rates, life expectancy, and more despite intense embargo. Again, this is proof of socialism absolutely working. Socialism works, and works astoundingly well, with or without your knowledge of it.
Convenient. Any time people look like they are acting against their self interest, you can just say that people don’t “perceive” it that way and still look like you are right.
A dictator cannot be part of the proletariat by definition and the USSR failed. Communism failed.
China is run by a corrupt elite and their chosen pet oligarchs. It has an abhorrent civil rights record. It is no way a success story of a proletariat state.
Cuba’s Soviet-style command economy lowers productivity and prevents the country from fully participating in the global economy. Monetary reforms have caused massive inflation and currency devaluation. People have been abandoning the island in droves for decades because the quality of life is poor. It in no way represents a successful Communist state.
Socialism when implemented alongside capitalist policies can work. Communism has not and cannot work.