Actually I find that it allows more range of Socialism strains to be discussed. A lot of Marxists tend to look rather poorly at any mixed Socialism blends as either heretical or as liminal states with Communism as a complete end goal instead of being legitimate in their own right.
The PRC is an example of a Socialist Market Economy, it isn’t fully socialized. What Marxists take issue with is Dictatorships of the Bourgeoisie vs Dictatorships of the Proletariat.
Marx may have coined the term
Marx did not coin the term. Marx was simply the most relevant and influential Socialist, and history has proven his ideas to be correct.
It depends on what ideas you deem to be “correct”. He was very good at elucidation of the nature of how European models of property rights were impacting large swaths of the population at large… But its difficult to say if he had everything figured out because his “dictatorship of the proletariat” doesn’t seem to ever actualize in a lasting fashion. It usually ends up as an authoritarian state arguably because the system is vulnerable to the first group that decides to break faith with the covenant. A lot of Communist hopefuls tend to either take the examples of this happening as “not true Communism” or try to minimize the bad aspects of regimes that adopted the principles… It does seem once power is too laterally spread it becomes weak to any hierarchy that as long as they can talk a good game and use Marxist language.
In either case a lot of us would not call those outcomes “proven correct”. I would say he had some very lasting ideas which are useful tools… But the fact that none of the places where attempted enactment have particularly lived up to his hype means that like a lot of philosophy of his time that the answers are a lot more complex and nuanced than he could have forseen.
But its difficult to say if he had everything figured out because his “dictatorship of the proletariat” doesn’t seem to ever actualize in a lasting fashion. It usually ends up as an authoritarian state arguably because the system is vulnerable to the first group that decides to break faith with the covenant
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the DotP and Communist history in general. The PRC has a DotP, the USSR did, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, etc. All have a DotP. Read Why do Marxists fail to bring about the “Worker’s Paradise?” You have an odd, idealistic idea of Marxism that even Marx would deny.
A lot of Communist hopefuls tend to either take the examples of this happening as “not true Communism” or try to minimize the bad aspects of regimes that adopted the principles… It does seem once power is too laterally spread it becomes weak to any hierarchy that as long as they can talk a good game and use Marxist language.
This is just a bunch of gestures. The reality is that AES states are truly guided by Marxism, and are true attempts at Communism, but haven’t made it to the Communist stage of development.
In either case a lot of us would not call those outcomes “proven correct”. I would say he had some very lasting ideas which are useful tools… But the fact that none of the places where attempted enactment have particularly lived up to his hype means that like a lot of philosophy of his time that the answers are a lot more complex and nuanced than he could have forseen.
They have absolutely lived up to the hype, coming with drastic reductions in poverty, wealth inequality, increases in life expectancy, housing rates, ending famines, free healthcare and education, democratization, and more. Please, read Blackshirts and Reds.
This is just a bunch of gestures. The reality is that AES states are truly guided by Marxism, and are true attempts at Communism, but haven’t made it to the Communist stage of development.
Why are you including things which have not yet made it to the Communist stage of development as examples of success of Marxist theory? That isn’t a proof that Communism is great yet. It’s calling the experiment before actually seeing if it works.
And I am not quick to call the USSR or Cuba particularly Dictatorships of the Proletariat. They became actual Dictatorships that carried forward the heirachy of the paramilitary organizations that spawned them never ceeding them to the workers councils like they were supposed to do instead creating new dynasties of career politicians…Career politicians of a one party state are not “working class”.
Why are you including things which have not yet made it to the Communist stage of development as examples of success of Marxist theory?
Because Marxism isn’t Utopian. Marxism isn’t a grand idea of a just society, but a theory of historical development. Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, this is basic Marxism.
That isn’t a proof that Communism is great yet. It’s calling the experiment before actually seeing if it works.
No. Communism is not an “experiment.” Marx didn’t come up with Communism as a grand society to implement, but saw how one Mode of Production gives way to the next, ie how Capitalism monopolizes into socialized syndicates over time, reaching central planning after proletarian revolution.
And I am not quick to call the USSR or Cuba particularly Dictatorships of the Proletariat. They became actual Dictatorships that carried forward the heirachy of the paramilitary organizations that spawned them never ceeding them to the workers councils like they were supposed to do instead creating new dynasties of career politicians…Career politicians of a one party state are not “working class”.
They were not dictatorships.
Cooperarives aren’t Marxism.
I suggest reading Why do Marxists fail to create the “Worker’s Paradise?” You have an anti-Marxist idea of what Socialism and Communism are. I also suggest reading Blackshirts and Reds to debunk anticommunist myths. I know I recommended both texts, and I know you didn’t read them. You really should!
The PRC is an example of a Socialist Market Economy, it isn’t fully socialized. What Marxists take issue with is Dictatorships of the Bourgeoisie vs Dictatorships of the Proletariat.
Marx did not coin the term. Marx was simply the most relevant and influential Socialist, and history has proven his ideas to be correct.
It depends on what ideas you deem to be “correct”. He was very good at elucidation of the nature of how European models of property rights were impacting large swaths of the population at large… But its difficult to say if he had everything figured out because his “dictatorship of the proletariat” doesn’t seem to ever actualize in a lasting fashion. It usually ends up as an authoritarian state arguably because the system is vulnerable to the first group that decides to break faith with the covenant. A lot of Communist hopefuls tend to either take the examples of this happening as “not true Communism” or try to minimize the bad aspects of regimes that adopted the principles… It does seem once power is too laterally spread it becomes weak to any hierarchy that as long as they can talk a good game and use Marxist language.
In either case a lot of us would not call those outcomes “proven correct”. I would say he had some very lasting ideas which are useful tools… But the fact that none of the places where attempted enactment have particularly lived up to his hype means that like a lot of philosophy of his time that the answers are a lot more complex and nuanced than he could have forseen.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the DotP and Communist history in general. The PRC has a DotP, the USSR did, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, etc. All have a DotP. Read Why do Marxists fail to bring about the “Worker’s Paradise?” You have an odd, idealistic idea of Marxism that even Marx would deny.
This is just a bunch of gestures. The reality is that AES states are truly guided by Marxism, and are true attempts at Communism, but haven’t made it to the Communist stage of development.
They have absolutely lived up to the hype, coming with drastic reductions in poverty, wealth inequality, increases in life expectancy, housing rates, ending famines, free healthcare and education, democratization, and more. Please, read Blackshirts and Reds.
Why are you including things which have not yet made it to the Communist stage of development as examples of success of Marxist theory? That isn’t a proof that Communism is great yet. It’s calling the experiment before actually seeing if it works.
And I am not quick to call the USSR or Cuba particularly Dictatorships of the Proletariat. They became actual Dictatorships that carried forward the heirachy of the paramilitary organizations that spawned them never ceeding them to the workers councils like they were supposed to do instead creating new dynasties of career politicians…Career politicians of a one party state are not “working class”.
Because Marxism isn’t Utopian. Marxism isn’t a grand idea of a just society, but a theory of historical development. Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, this is basic Marxism.
No. Communism is not an “experiment.” Marx didn’t come up with Communism as a grand society to implement, but saw how one Mode of Production gives way to the next, ie how Capitalism monopolizes into socialized syndicates over time, reaching central planning after proletarian revolution.
They were not dictatorships.
Cooperarives aren’t Marxism.
I suggest reading Why do Marxists fail to create the “Worker’s Paradise?” You have an anti-Marxist idea of what Socialism and Communism are. I also suggest reading Blackshirts and Reds to debunk anticommunist myths. I know I recommended both texts, and I know you didn’t read them. You really should!