Why do people always misrepresent Marxism?

Why do people always define Communism and/or Socialism as "A totalitarian system where the State controls everything" when Marx himself advocated a Stateless, classless society wherein the workers control the means of production?

>inb4 someone brings up past "examples"

The only examples of Marxism working the way it is supposed to in theory is in Revolutionary Catalonia in Spain during the 1930's, and to be honest, even though I'm not a Marxist, it wasn't that bad.

George Orwell describes it in his text 'Homage to Catalonia':
>"It was the first time I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivised and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal."

Look, I'm no Marxist (in fact, I'm quite right-wing), but could you at least pretend to know what you're talking about?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CWF_0lkBhjY&list=PLvoAL-KSZ32f2WAqejJdLM2ByZWKpREt8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

how fucking retarded do you have to be to still believe in this shit?

jesus. fuck off

>Billionth "but REAL marxism was never implemented" topic
Get over it. Marxism is a Jewish cabal.

This is the third Irish shitposting thread I see today. Are you trying to take Canada's throne?

The same reason every facial tissue is called Kleenex. Marx got his brand ruined.

gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8

>stateless, classless society
You're right. Marx was just pro-degeneracy and wants everyone to be part of a degenerate society and to make sure everyone is equally held down. So make sure the rich are just as poor as the poor.

It's been attempted, but just not in the way Marx wanted. In fact, it was implemented in the exact opposite way to what he wanted.

>Revolutionary Catalonia in Spain during the 1930's

And look how well that turned out for them.

They got crushed by military forces. Not exactly the system failing of its own accord.

Again, I'm no Marxist, but we have to be fair to them.

Not OP here - the OP literally said he doesn't agree with it and that he's right-wing.

Reading the post would have remedied your misunderstanding

In Spain everything was controlled by worker unions. Don't fall for memes. Workers didn't voluntarily accepted them - they were forced to because they needed to eat. Shortly after, you had the union's magazines and publications criticizing workers for being lazy and for exploiting the system they had set up. Shit was starting to crumble and then they lost the war.

Just look at people like CommunismKills. They actually believe that Marxism = Soviet Russia/Cuba because everybody, even the russians themselves, proclaimed themselves to be communists. Five minutes of actual wikipedia reading can tell you that communism as Marx proposed it would have never actually succeeded in an oligarchic society like Russia

Marxism is built, as libertarianism, on the pretense that you can free man from all external constraints - that once you do that, he will finally be free and happy. That's bullshit. Such attempts will only degenerate your character and destroy your community. Stop falling for autistic memes.

>not reading the actual post

Shilling, shilling so hard

>Look, I'm no Marxist

Marxism in a nutshell

1. "Hey guys, I bring you freedom and equality. Trust us, we are god's chosen."
2. When seizing power, killing and genociding anything in sight.
3. Afterwards: "Actually Marxism was a good thing, only Stalin fucked it up a little."

He never had a job in his life. He lived off Engels' misguided, self-loathing patrician charity. I'm supposed to believe that his ideas aren't hopelessly naive and self serving?

I disagree. Communes have been shown to work, as in the example of Edinburgh communally-owned student housing with democratic elections.

Catalonia actually had improved literacy rates and increased rates of production too.

I'm a Conservative, but I don't think freeing a man from societal constraints would necessarily lead to the dissolution of society, only the degeneration of the moral values of the society as in the atomised individualism proposed by Ayn Rand and her ilk.

I'm not. That doesn't mean I can't be fair to them. I like to respect ideologies I disagree with, and not strawman them.

>taking socio-economic advice from some jew who never held a job in his entire life and just mooched off his friend's parents

That is a very believable story.

The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is a Marxist ( and a Marxist-Leninist ) concept.

Marx advocated a group to become 'enlightened' who would then take charge and turn everything nice and anarchist and the 'perfect society' would--somehow--evolve.

He was blinded by his own ideological beliefs, of course, and could not face basic maxims of human nature. Communism is just so much magical thinking in the end.

Moreover--during his own lifetime, Marx was 'quite profoundly astonished' that a largely non-industrialised state like Russia could have a revolution. Russia still had hordes of serfs and kulaks and was not 'ready' or 'ripe' for revolution, according to his theories.

Basically, despite his hopes for a better system and a better world for working people, he only created a totalitarian system that people like Lenin, Trotsy, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and others could exploit and use as a galvanising agent to seize power for themselves.

Marx had completely unreasonable expectations of humanity and could not confront the realities of private property, production and distribution and the differences in temperament, intelligent and motivations people might have. His belief system constrained him, caused great misery in the world and--at one remove--is still causing ideological nightmares today in Western countries.

We just got rid of one US administration that was beset with magical thinking and a socialist ideology that was hostile to free thought, private property and sovereign government. They were no more realistic about the world or human nature than he.

>Edinburgh communal housing
Communes only work in small groups and they need to very strong norms. Even with those, pass the 50-150 barrier and you'll start having problems; start having layers upon layers of representation and you'll start having problems.
Also, most student housing in Portugal has democratic elections which can control activities and lobby hard the university to change stuff in it. They suck because they don't have strong norms or the people don't identify with it, like the bunch of leftists in those Edinburgh houses do.

>Catalonia
Catalonia improved literacy rates because they focused on it. If you think that's literally the most important thing in the world it's pretty hard to not do it, right?
They improved the rates of production compared to what? The base is important.

>freeing man from societal constraints
You literally said it does not lead to the dissolution of society, only that it leads to the dissolution of society.

'Dictatorship' in his time meant something different to what it does now. Our current definition of 'dictatorship' is largely based on 20th Century totalitarianism.

'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' in Marxist theory simply means 'Workers' control'

>"Institución libre de enseñanza"
Catalonia implemented educational programs and improved literacy rates in just 2 years? can you really believe that?
During the most unstable recent period of Spain's history?
Check it out

From Catalunya.

Marxisim was probably the reason we lost the war. If we would of had hitler on our side, things would of been different.

It was a revolt agains't the established bullshit, they used Marxisim as propaganda and an excuse to burn everything down.

I suppose they don't talk about the deep poverty that the country was in.

>when Marx himself advocated a Stateless, classless society

Literally impossible given human nature. Humans operate with leaders. If a leader is not present, another group of humans under a leader will come in and conquer the divided community. It is not possible for a human society to be leaderless, because a leader will always present themselves. Whether this is in the form of a council or a single ruler, the idea of a completely equal community is nonsense because humans are not equal.

Marxism isn't just the exact things that he imagined, it also refers to the logical derivations from his economic and social theories.

Isaac Newton didn't invent an airplane, but when one is flying around you can't say "this isn't really Newtonian physics."

>reality didn't match my fantasy again. better steal liberty and opportunities from others until we get it right. FORWARD!

>marxism doesnt work the way its supposed to but if we just try MY brand

fucking kill yourself 12 year old

automation will kill us all off and there is no stopping it, but keep dreaming itl give you a free living wage you delusional worthless faggot

I agree.

>Not exactly the system failing of its own accord.
Failure to provide for the common defense is failure of the state (or in your case failure of the people to organize into effective militia).

Still see the word failure in there though...

>Finally we have rid ouselves of the bourgeois and seize X the means of production!
>let us restart the factory that we now own
>We need materials, where is the purchase agent?
>We shot him.

>I suppose they don't talk about the deep poverty that the country was in
Why would they ever mention that?

Then why are you trying to defend an ideology that you agree can never work? There is no "honor" in understanding the stupid...

I think you need to re-read the communist manifesto (faggot). Marx said the Socialism required on the the path to Communism and eventually the state would step aside and labour would self organise.

>the state would step aside

If you believe this, congrats, you are exactly the kind of pleb that is required for Socialism to take root.

The state NEVER steps aside. Thus Communism is a fallacy sold to the proletariat to allow the state total control.

Couldn't you just do it the same way the Anarchists did in Spain?

>and said advice has resulted in a massive catastrophe costing hundreds of millions of human lives EVERY SINGLE TIME ITS BEEN TRIED

Just how stupid does one person have to be to keep putting their hand on the stove?

>Why do people always misrepresent Marxism?

1. Because they are retards who never read a book
2. Because Marx was such a shit writer even those interested needed to go through few suicide attempts before finishing Das Kapital

So, if people were smarter and Marx made his ideas more accessible, we would've had a different world.

Here's this youtube faggot explaining the basics:

youtube.com/watch?v=CWF_0lkBhjY&list=PLvoAL-KSZ32f2WAqejJdLM2ByZWKpREt8

I think you mean for anarcho-syndicalists. Different system.

Well, it was workers controlling the means of production and the abolition of class. What else would you call that if not Marxism?

Oh, god I didn't even read what you said OP you're a fucking retard.

Marxism isn't a political system, it's philosophy of Karl Marx, or in other words it's what he thought the world is and is going to be like inevitably.

Communism is a political system.
The reason communism will arise inevitably is because of the contradictions inherent in the capitalistic system that Marx was the first to notice and describe.

read this, it's for children I'm sure you'll understand then

Move to Venezuela you faggot, go bitch about "state capitalism" there. It's so retarded to say that criticism of your ideological method achieving your goals illegitimate criticism.

Bartering has also been shown to work in small communities as well. As soon as you hit industrialization and complex societies, everything goes to shit and those systems are done away with for accountability purposes.

I don't think it would dissolve society either; it would fracture and splinter it into 100 different pieces, each try to hold others accountable to their standards, until:
A- One consumes the others and a tyranny forms
B- The system collapses and is replaced
C- A and B

Society can never truly dissolve unless we wipe ourselves out in war, which I guess is a possibility.

No, it didn't. No takes you seriously because you engage in these stupid word games. Private property as it commonly used becomes personal property + factories and land, which for retarded reasons can't be owned now.

the reason Venezuela is having hard times is because 95% of their GDP was from selling oil. They literally did nothing else. When the price of oil dropped, it caused a turmoil for the country.

>They got crushed by military forces. Not exactly the system failing of its own accord.
If you can't protect yourself you will die, that is the story of life.

Your hugs and kisses equal society will be crushed by any hierarchical society worth a shit, you'll be murdered and raped and you won't be able to stop it, you do not have the efficiency or the will to survive as a collective.

Hierarchy is man's natural tendency, the tribe is man's natural society, this is inescapable.

>I disagree. Communes have been shown to work, as in the example of Edinburgh communally-owned student housing with democratic elections.
So we can with small groups regress to how hunter-gatherer societies work, so what?

>Catalonia actually had improved literacy rates and increased rates of production too.
North Korea has the worlds highest literacy rate now, no-one believes them. The second claim begs the question, if the production was so high, why was Catalonia so poor? If the peasants had it so much better than before, why did splinter groups form? Why did the reactionaries find it so easy to recruit people when they attack the anarchists?

>OP is Irish
No surprises there....

Collectivism requires force. Who is going to force people to behave the way communists wish if there's no authoritarian government forcing them to do so?

that's the Bourgeoisie narrative
that's what you have been thought your whole life, that's why you believe in it.

without Bourgeoisie indoctrination people wouldn't behave like that

How are you supposed to enforce strict market regulations and all that without a government. How is a collective supposed to make decisions when lots of people have different opinions on how to implement something.

It might work if everyone agreed on everything, but they don't, so it doesn't.

funny things is that people on cuba live as long as in united states

small commie state > capitalistic paradise
kek

I know, this should give people a pause when considering voting in a totalitarian state. When that have history of doing things that are that retarded. Remember none of then thought this was a stupid set-up until it backfired

Explain how collectivism works without force, then.

The only people I would be willing to voluntarily collectivize with are my family and friends. If some stupid nigger wants my stuff he better bring heat.

Because every single political party that called themselves communists used/seized the state apparatus and decided to stay in power, instead of "de-legitimizing" or removing the state apparatus itself.

Also, I haven't read the Manifesto (yet), but how far does the degree of collectivization go?

Because:

1) If workers seize the means of production, who or how are production decisions made?

2) If production decisions are made democratically, and the degree of collectivization extends to the national level (hence to all means of production inside the nation's territory), why would a state not be the legitimate national production decision-taker?

>without Bourgeoisie indoctrination people wouldn't behave like that
What kind of conspiracy theorist are you?

Marxism is shit and Communism is shit. The philosophy itself is riddled with half baked thought concepts, meaningless truisms, and things that literally don't mean anything. Dialectics is a perfect example. Anything concrete in the philosophy has been proven to be untrue or ripped apart by later philosophers.

Communism, being based on Marxism completely fails as a result. It has no virtues, no morals, only a failed and destructive ideology to wreak havoc on human life.

I wish that Communism and Marxism were treated with as much prejudice as Nazism is in the United States. It is a shame that our education system is infested with these twisted people.

Nah m8 they are having problems because the government expropiated 90% of business and now that they dont have oil mony to compensate the sheer inefficiency of the government operated businesses.

See? They seized the means of productions lel-

serbbro wants new yugoslavia
i totally support that

and "das kapital" even on german is a fucking trouble reading.

Why does Marx always misrepresent human behavior and history?

Because it's the most monstrous form of governance ever conceived of. Anyone that supports anything even resembling Marxism is worse than a Nazi.

READ THE BOOK

This, at least the Nazis looked out for a sub-group of their population. Marxism destroys everyone.

>I wish that Communism and Marxism were treated with as much prejudice as Nazism is in the United States.

Because they were one of the 'good guys' in WW2. If we had sided with the Germans, then Sickle and Hammer would be the Swastika of today.

OY VEY, THE 100 GAZZILION
go fuck yourself faggot

>If I pretend this holocaust wasn't real I get to keep on being a pseudointellectual championing a failed 1850's economic model

Wake up. You're in a complete fantasy world.

randroid calm your tits, go back to philosophy basics then come here to talk

>collectivize with are my family and friends

that us vs them attitude is a product of bourgeoisie too, as is the family unit, monogamy and so on...

in truth there's no reason why you should put your own family above anyone else, if you were a rational human being and I know you're not given that you followed this by some nice racism which is a product of bourgeoisie too.

Mainly a product of the process called Racialization where the sovereign state uses some physical characteristic(such as skin color) to racialize the unruly (people that it can't rule, or who it perceives as a treat) and pit them against the majority, AND at the same time use this process to control its own population by telling them they should fear some minority that is coming to get them(such as muslims, blacks, homosexuals, transsexuals raping your children blah blah).

It's irrelevant whether the race is a biological or a social construct(all scientists agree that it is not biological), what's more relevant is that race is a construction of power. And race identity directly is born in the unruly from the process of racialization of the unruly.

Read pic related

>Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

That one's funny because it was basically a bunch of university students in Kabul who thought they could make their country communist and atheist. Apparently they didn't realise they were in fucking Afghanistan.

>just not in the way Marx wanted

Because it's not possible. There is no way for "Stateless" and "workers control the means of production" can exist at the same time.

>What kind of conspiracy theorist are you?

You don't believe that you are indoctrinated from birth to be a consumer? To believe in monogamy, marriage and the family unit? To believe that your life should be centered around making profits from your boss who will then give you crumbs? That's not what your life is right now, right??

Really makes you think, doesn't it. You're nothing but cattle to the bourgeoisie...

lmao

And then the hill people that had successfully resisted control from about a dozen empires for over 2,000 years kicked their shit in

>in truth there's no reason why you should put your own family above anyone else, if you were a rational human being

>If I ignore millions of years of evolution that have produced a tight family unit then my failed ideology works

There's a reason that every major religion that has ever existed has had some kind of marriage, because it's human nature to favour relatives over strangers.

>that us vs them attitude is a product of bourgeoisie too, as is the family unit, monogamy and so on...
Dear God.

This is why Hitler genocided communists, this is why. You oppose everything natural and good in mankind, you oppose the family, you oppose marriage, you oppose loyalty to your significant other, you oppose friendship, you are quite literally a product of Satan.

the short version:
for communism to work you have to abolish the market. now, what a lot of people do not understand is that the market is not some abstract concept that is created by deliberate will, but it is actually a side effect of human behaviour. now if you want to get rid of that market, you have to fundamentally restrict human behaviour - and this can only be done by coercion. In the end, no matter what you are trying, you will have a bloody totalitarian system, because people's freedom opposes your vision.

he was an armchair philosopher with an aversion to masculinity and hard work. He stayed inside and chatted with the girls about oppression while men were out working. Pure cuck.

marxism is the most evil and satanic ideology ever created. no wonder all the minds behind this monstrosity were jewish

Those things are hallmarks of CIVILIZATION. If you want to go back to living in small tribes and kill literally billions of people in the process then please, go on ahead.

To be fair, the Soviets and the PDPA did much more ideological damage to themselves than the Mujihadeen ever did to them.

>Why do people always define Communism and/or Socialism as "A totalitarian system where the State controls everything"

Because it requires coercion in order for that system to exist.

>randroid calm your tits, go back to philosophy basics then come here to talk
NOT

AN

ARGUMENT

>What else would you call that
A failure who have not survived the first crisis it encountered.

Interesting, I hadn't considered that. I'll have to look into what policies the PDPA actually tried to implement

>the path to communism doesn't start with extreme state control wherein the national economy must capitulate.

k

Hey faggot, how about you stop ignoring the truth?
I'd like to see you come with a counter argument to actual facts.

This is literally what your dear Marx would have wanted

The book 'Afgantsy' is very very good. It was written by the British ambassador to Moscow and also tells of some very interesting things that happened during the war, like Op Storm-333. 9/10 would highly recommend.

It's also very non-biased.

I just knew you were one...

Let me ask you and Stef something, do you know where the capital comes from? There's only one way to make capital. Through exploitation.
The very birth of capitalism is found in colonization, slavery and exploitation of countless people all over the world. So you didn't have an issue with that use of force but now you suddenly do?

You know, the world actually existed before you... And what happened before you has consequences even today, consequences you're benefiting from.

If you go far back in time, you'll find that the origin of all private property is theft and violence, in one form or the other.

Well done outing yourself as an unread moron.

Anyone who has read anything by Marx would know he would've deplored Stalin and Lenin.

>inb4 Marxism means state control
Marxism is where the workers control the means of production.

The Bolsheviks hijacked Marxism/Communism due to its positive connotations (worker control, end of alienation etc.), while actually implementing a form of state totalitarianism.

based leaf

Most of the first part of the book is actually about the Afghan Communists and their rise to power.

>Why do people always define Communism and/or Socialism as "A totalitarian system where the State controls everything" when Marx himself advocated a Stateless, classless society wherein the workers control the means of production?

Because Lenin and the Bolsheviks misappropriated the mantle of "official" Marxism and socialism, thereby discrediting it forever. They were an opportunist elite that stole the revolution away form the people. The Red Sailors - the best revolutionaries - realised this too late which is why they revolted in Kronstadt 1921.

Marx had a saying about some of the groups that claimed to be his followers in his own lifetime: "If these are Marxists then I'm not a Marxist"

its vanguardism, retard

>Marxism is where the workers control the means of production.
how do you think this is supposed to work but by state control, you moron?

Self-hating Franco-lover detected.

Because in his utopia, the whole civilization forms a hive mind where they agree on everything. There will never be disagreement on how to allocate resource/production.

>There's only one way to make capital. Through exploitation
Another non-argument.

>The very birth of capitalism is found in colonization, slavery and exploitation of countless people all over the world.
The birth of capitalism is found when one guy wanted something the other had so he traded something to the other person for it.

>So you didn't have an issue with that use of force but now you suddenly do?
I do have an issue with it.

>You know, the world actually existed before you... And what happened before you has consequences even today, consequences you're benefiting from.
There are many things that happened and will happen that are out of my control that a may benefit or suffer from.

Dumb ideologue.

Thanks, man, I'm currently reading 'The Gulag Archipelago'. I'm only a couple hundred pages but I can already recommend it to anyone who wants to learn not only the scale of atrocity committed by the USSR to its own citizens but how the atrocity was *essential* to their philosophy. I'll be sure to check out 'Afghansty'.

>you'll find that the origin of all private property is theft and violence, in one form or the other

So your argument boils down to the necessity of theft and violence for a government to function. Then why on earth would you pick the inferior version of theft and violence?

You've defeated yourself.