Theyāll actually cheer on for those death squads. If they had their way, they would have their own death squads. Marxists are infamous for their tyranny, genocide, forced deportations, engineered famines, purges, labor camps, hate, and secret police death squads.
Marxism and fascism are sister ideologies because they ultimately want the same things but just from slightly different angles.
Marxism: History is defined by material conditions and value comes from appropriated labour which workers are entitled to. Thus society should be oriented around collective ownership of the means of production in order to elevate the material conditions of the worker and usher in a new age of history. It is inevitable that the owning class will resort to violence to maintain their position and so this change will be a violent struggle. Eventually the state itself should be abolished once the transition is complete. Also this is inevitable because umm science wand wave.
Fascism: Power should be centralised on strong men wiling to make hard choices, everyone else should live subservient to the state. Military power, an ethnonational identity, and autarchy are the highest pursuits. Concession and concensus are weakness, might is the ultimate expression of power and violence for the glory of the nation is beautiful. Modernity is degenerate and we should idolise a mythologised past based around an ethnic group we claim the mantle of.
Thatās stupid, thatās not what I implied. I said that theyāre sister ideologies that desire the same things just with different approaches, and thatās objectively true.
Fascism was started by Mussolini, who was an infamous Marxist for most of his early life. He used to write for Marxist papers, be an avid Marxist activist, attend Marxist meetings, and even got arrested for rioting for Marxist causes. He, like many other socialists at the time, was against war. However, over time he came to the conclusion that war might not be a bad thing. If wars happened more frequently, it could bring about the social climate necessary for revolutions to happen that would end European monarchies and replace them with socialist systems. However, his ideas were rejected by the other socialists and he was shunned by them.
Mussolini started shifting away from other socialists over what unites men. Socialists believe itās class, but Mussolini started shifting towards the nation. He and his supporters starting gravitating towards revolutionary nationalismā¦ Professor Anthony Gregor from UC Berkely described Mussoliniās nationalism as the following:
Mussoliniās revolutionary nationalism, while it distinguished itself from the traditional patriotism and nationalism of the bourgeoisie, displayed many of those features we today identify with the nationalism of underdeveloped peoples. It was an anticonservative nationalism that anticipated vast social changes; it was directed against both foreign and domestic oppressors; it conjured up an image of a renewed and regenerated nation that would perform a historical mission; it invoked a moral ideal of selfless sacrifice and commitment in the service of collective goals; and it recalled ancient glories and anticipated a shared and greater glory
Mussoliniās Fascism was very clearly heavily influenced by Marxism. He used a lot of the same ideals, a lot of the same terminology, similar rhetoric, and similar types of analytical lenses. In fact professor Gregor notes that Mussoliniās viewed Fascism as a type of socialism, or rather as the successor of socialism:
āFascism was the only form of āsocialismā appropriate to the proletarian nations of the twentieth centuryā
Even though Mussolini eventually parted ways with Marxism all together. His opposition to them wasnāt because they were socialists but because they were anti-nationalist. Despite declaring Marxism a failure and socialists as opposition, he still thought and constantly talked about how Fascism was about poor nations rising up against the plutocrats.
When I say theyāre sister ideologies, they literally are.
Itās almost like someone who was a Marxist made a new ideology that was not Marxism, had separate goals to Marxism, aligned itself against Marxists, didnāt adopt the social or economic policies of Marxism, but clothed itself in the language of Marxism.
Did you know that Marx was once just a random journalist? Does that mean Marxism is a sister ideology to newspaper businesses? Marxists do write stuff afterall!
Itās almost like someone who was a Marxist made a new ideology that was not Marxism, had separate goals to Marxism, aligned itself against Marxists, didnāt adopt the social or economic policies of Marxism, but clothed itself in the language of Marxism.
Yeah no shit, theyāre different ideologies. Iām just pointing out that theyāre similar, Iām not saying theyāre exactly the same.
Did you know that Marx was once just a random journalist? Does that mean Marxism is a sister ideology to newspaper businesses? Marxists do write stuff afterall!
Theyāre not at all similarā¦ Likeā¦ wtf. All you can say is one violent thug followed Marxism and then stopped follow Marxism, did something completely different, while saying stuff that sounded like Marxism because he knew it sounded good.
Just dot point me, pick idk 5 core areas and just write what fascists proposed vs what Marxists proposed.
I legit cannot thing of anything with overlap except
violence is sometimes good (literally even pacifists believe this)
and
people united in purpose can wield power (again not at all at unique hypothesis)
Authoritarianism is not only acceptable but is encouraged. In fascism this comes in the form of a totalitarian dictatorship and in Marxism it comes in the form of an tyrannical transitional government that rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to realize communism (dictatorship of the proletariat).
Ideology revolves around common enemies - In fascism this comes in the form certain ethnicities or nationalities while in Marxism it comes in the form of classes.
Bitterly oppose materialism - Fascism opposes materialism because it is deemed to lack acknowledgement of the role of the spirit, while Marxism opposes materialism because it is deem to be a key engine in class warfare.
Bitterly oppose individualism - Both ideologies revolve around the concepts communality and unity, and so they see individualism as a threat to their core ideological views.
Explicit support of political violence - Youāre trying to water it down, but both support widescale poltical violence. Marxism calls for a violent revolution that overthrows capitalism by burning down the capitalist system and institutions (literally and metaphorically) as well as killing the entirety of the bourgeoisie (democide). Fascism calls for political violence as legitimate way to gain power and achieve aims, which includes getting rid of undesirable national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups (genocide).
Authoritarianism is not only acceptable but is encouraged. In fascism this comes in the form of a totalitarian dictatorship and in Marxism it comes in the form of an tyrannical transitional government that rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to realize communism (dictatorship of the proletariat).
Marx proposed a temporary state wherein proles, collectively, use the apparatus of the state in an authoritarian manner to manage a transition to a non authoritarian non state. The vanguard party stuff is all Lenin. If you want to compare ML to fascism thatās a separate discussion, iirc Marx is actually pretty vague on what precisely the DotP would actually look like. Fascism proposes an indefinite centralisation of power with the goal of ultimate preservation of the state.
The significant debate and purging around the formation of, for instance, the USSR should be a hint that endorsement of authoritarianism is not really something everyone takes away from a reading of Marx. Incidentally, have you? read marx?
Everything except the most radical anarchist ideologies makes some use of authority in certain circumstances, I think itās somewhat farcical to draw parallels between crisis and the proposed status quo.
Ideology revolves around common enemies - In fascism this comes in the form certain ethnicities or nationalities while in Marxism it comes in the form of classes.
Wat? This is so ludicrously broad as to apply to everything. Westminster democracy aligns itself against a common enemy of absolute monarchy, republics unite themselves against a nobility, tribes unite themselves against non kin outsidersā¦ Is there an ideology that doesnāt declare itself against some enemy which is protects against?
Bitterly oppose materialism - Fascism opposes materialism because it is deemed to lack acknowledgement of the role of the spirit, while Marxism opposes materialism because it is deem to be a key engine in class warfare.
Sure I guess. Again this is hardly unique to the two. I mean Buddhism does this along with monastic Christianity and new age smoothie cults /shrug
Bitterly oppose individualism - Both ideologies revolve around the concepts communality and unity, and so they see individualism as a threat to their core ideological views.
Ah, you have not read Marx! I can see how you might get this stance but no. This is just false. Marx imagined a utopia where people, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, could pursue individual fulfilment. If I may pretentiously quote:
āFor as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.ā
Seems pretty clearly individualistic to me!
Explicit support of political violence - Youāre trying to water it down, but both support widescale poltical violence. Marxism calls for a violent revolution that overthrows capitalism by burning down the capitalist system and institutions (literally and metaphorically) as well as killing the entirety of the bourgeoisie (democide). Fascism calls for political violence as legitimate way to gain power and achieve aims, which includes getting rid of undesirable national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups (genocide).
Actually Marx said it was magically scientifically inevitable that capitalism would collapse in violence. Not that people should set out to do it. Also Marx didnāt want to āburn down the capitalist system and institutionsā actually in a straight reading of Marx capitalism is a necessary step to communism. Marx didnāt think it was good, he thought the bourgeoisie would never willingingly surrender power because of their material interest and thus the only way for proles to avoid mass death was instead to unify and take power through violence.
This sounds a lot like āBoth involve violence therefore the sameā but thatās extraordinarily reductive. I mean literally all governments make themselves governments through control of violence.
So in summary I think you have as similarities:
Donāt like materialism, authority features, has an enemy, and violence features. Which ok, if that makes stuff sister ideologies then itās a broad tent with literally everything from Liberation Theology Christianity, to westminster democracy, to Peelan Policing sharing sisterhood with Marxism and Fascism.
Marx proposed a temporary state wherein proles, collectively, use the apparatus of the state in an authoritarian manner to manage a transition to a non authoritarian non state.
The issue here is that the ānon authoritarian non stateā is communism, and communism for all intents and purposes is just a utopia. It was Marx and Engels vision of a perfect society. Itās nothing more than a fantasy. Utopias donāt exist and never will. When these types of violent revolutions happen and the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, itās going to remain there indefinitely because communism is an unachievable goal. The theory itself is flawed.
The significant debate and purging around the formation of, for instance, the USSR should be a hint that endorsement of authoritarianism is not really something everyone takes away from a reading of Marx. Incidentally, have you? read marx?
Marx laid out what he meant by dictatorship of proletariat in his short work, Critique of the Gotha Programme. In this critique he went after the German Social Democratic Party program for being too pragmatic, pacifist, and wanting reform which he deemed didnāt go far enough in overthrowing capitalism and establishing communism. As a part of his critique, he explained what a post revolution dictatorship looks like. Thereās a lot to it but it could more or less be summed up in these points
He saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessary transitional phase between capitalism and communism. During this phase, the proletariat will hold all the political power and use it to reorganize society and the economy.
He doubled down on the idea that the proletariat must seize political power through revolution in order to exert control over the state apparatus, which he thought was a tool of class oppression under capitalism.
He emphasized that the dictatorship of the proletariat is aimed at dismantling capitalist relations of production, including private ownership of the means of production, and replacing them with collective ownership.
He viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as a form of state in which the working class, organized as the ruling class, actively suppresses the resistance of the bourgeoisie and other counter revolutionary forces (read: democide).
He thought that once the conditions for communism have been established, the need for a state will slowly wither awayā¦ which would ultimately lead to communism
This is pretty well defined and not nearly as vague as youāre trying to make it out to be. Points 1 and 5 wonāt ever happen as previously explained, and points 2-4 are pure violence and authoritarianism. This is fascism levels of violence and tyranny. His idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is flawed as well because of the way he framed it. He wants the proletariat to rule with an iron fist as a collective, however, thatās not really feasible. You would need to have something like a one party state that āacts on the behalf of the workersā to make it workā¦ which is what the Soviet Union went with as itās the most obvious implementation of such an ideaā¦ and that ended up being a disaster. While the ideology does leave room for interpretation, all the attempts of Marxism ended up being authoritarian. This is not a coincidence, itās an integral part of the ideology.
Everything except the most radical anarchist ideologies makes some use of authority in certain circumstances, I think itās somewhat farcical to draw parallels between crisis and the proposed status quo.
This is a pretty disingenuous take. The type of authority that Marx wished for is not anywhere near the realm of reasonable. Itās silly to try and present this false dichotomy between tyranny and pure anarchy. Whatās interesting is that Marxism wanted both of these extremes at different stages of his ideology, but not anything in the middle. Itās like that man was allergic to anything that wasnāt extreme.
Wat? This is so ludicrously broad as to apply to everythingā¦ Is there an ideology that doesnāt declare itself against some enemy which is protects against?
Perhaps I worded myself poorly there. When you look at the more pragmatic ideologies around, youāll notice that they donāt have enemies that define the ideology. Take for example, modern day social democracy. Who are itās enemies? It doesnāt really have any. The ideology is more focused on specific values and approaches to issues rather than trying to define an enemy group as the root cause of everything. The same goes for liberalism. You could say that the ideology views monarchies in such a light, but thatās only true in a historical sense. Monarchies are mostly no more, but the ideology is still alive despite that. This is because this is another ideology that doesnāt really have enemies, itās revolves around approach and adherence to a few principles.
Itās not as core to the ideology as it is to radical ideologies Marxism or islam or Nazism or anarchism. islam as an ideology revolves around fighting the nonbelievers because they are ignorant sinners, Nazism revolves around killing all the Jews because they control everything, Marxism revolves around eradicating the bourgeoisie because theyāre the cause of everything wrong with society, anarchy revolves around blaming the state or any kind of authority for all the problems in the world. Do you see the difference Iām trying to point out? These radical ideologies wouldnāt function without their perceived enemy, while pragmatic ideologies can. Marxism without itās hatred of the bourgeoisies used to justify a lot of itās unpleasant elements is a pretty hollow ideology.
Sure I guess. Again this is hardly unique to the two. I mean Buddhism does this along with monastic Christianity and new age smoothie cults /shrug
I mean none of these similarities are exclusive to Marxism or Fascism, theyāre all found in a lot of different ideologies. Their similarity stems for their aggregate commonalities.
Seems pretty clearly individualistic to me!
Lol individualism in this context doesnāt mean having a personality. Collectivism isnāt about turning people into identical drones with no personalities, it just means that the well being and cohesion of the collective take precedence over the individual and personal pursuits. Thatās literally the whole point of Marxism. Both Fascism and Marxism are collectivist ideologies, something like liberalism is individualist.
Actually Marx said it was magically scientifically inevitable that capitalism would collapse in violence.
Itās good to know with power of hindsight that he was wrong on this.
Not that people should set out to do it. Also Marx didnāt want to āburn down the capitalist system and institutionsā actually in a straight reading of Marx capitalism is a necessary step to communism. Marx didnāt think it was good, he thought the bourgeoisie would never willingingly surrender power because of their material interest and thus the only way for proles to avoid mass death was instead to unify and take power through violence.
You contradicted yourself here. Marx doesnāt want a violent overthrow of capitalism because he thought that capitalism was a necessary step to communism, therefore, he just wants a violent overthrow of capitalism to prevent mass violence by using mass violence. This is some grand logic lol
This sounds a lot like āBoth involve violence therefore the sameā but thatās extraordinarily reductive. I mean literally all governments make themselves governments through control of violence.
What youāre doing here is extraordinarily reductive. What youāre doing here is like trying to equate a paper airplane and a real airplane because theyāre both technically airplanes that can fly. Marxism and Fascism donāt just use violence to maintain control, they view violence as a perfectly acceptable way of achieving political goals. Is there a system you donāt like? You violently overthrow it. You have group of dissenters you donāt like? You just call them bourgeoise or counterrevolutionaries and kill them all. Are there people who donāt want to give up their private property? You go there and violently seize the property by force. You get the idea. This is vastly different than a government having a monopoly of violence to ensure law and order.
I think someone with a violent streak a mile long even as a child who became fascinated with populist revolutionary ideologies creating a new populist revolutionary ideology does not really make it inherently twinsies with previous populist revolutionary ideologies other than that they are both exactly that. I think itās pretty clear in hindsight that what Mussolini was really interested in was gaining power in a populist revolution, no matter the cost or method.
Obviously, with the power of hindsight, we can see that Mussolini didnāt end up being the socialist that he was in his early days. However, itās still interesting to the influences of Marxism on Fascism as an ideology. They do share a lot of characteristics despite their many differences. This is why the claim that these two ideologies are polar opposites isnāt true. Theyāre different? Sure. Polar opposites? Not exactly.
There have been a lot of killings and deaths that were intentionally to further goals that were claimed to be Marxist; Lenin and Stalin both had a lot of blood on their hands, as did Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro (after the revolution, I mean), and so on.
Authoritarian communism ends up being pretty bad for people that communist in the wrong way, along with everyone that isnāt communist.
Feels like colonialist capitalism has been pretty bad for an awful lot of people that arenāt the owning class tooā¦ What with the MANY genocides and the CIA
Sure, it absolutely has, and the CIA and American foreign policy has done some truly awful things. But thereās scale and scope as well; the American govāt, by and large, hasnāt been jailing political dissidents solely for political dissent since the 30s or so. Political dissidents donāt tend to end up committing suicide by falling out of 1st floor windows, or drowning in bathtubs. We donāt arrest or dissappear anyone running against the president. We havenāt had concentration camps for our own citizens since the 40s (and hoo boy, those were pretty fucking awful, and we should be ashamed of them).
Not true at all, I have zero issues with people who think differently. However, I do take big issues with these two failed authoritarian ideologies that ended killing tens of millions each and brought nothing but misery everywhere they went. As it turns thereās more to politics than these two shitty ideologies
So naturally you realize that, despite authoritarian ācommunismā as practiced by the Soviet Union and China, inspired by Marxist-Leninist thinking and then by Stalin and Mao are just one interpretation of Marxism (which is one interpretation of communism/socialist theory) that diverged significantly in embracing something more resembling state capitalism and enduring dictatorship, whereas Marx viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as simply describing the revolutionary transition to a classless society.
Actually, not true. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were both notorious authoritarians, and it reflects pretty heavily in their ideology. They were both well known for being very pro violence and pro power grabs, so much so that they were infamous for it. Theyāre pretty well documented for the ways they used to mock pacifist socialists at the time for not being as extreme and violent as they are. Socialism as a concept has a lot of different interpretations, but Marxism? Not so much.
Potentially violent revolution =/= authoritarian. Also Marx believed that in more democratic and free nations that nonviolent ways of achieving communism was actually plausible, he just didnāt believe so for most of the world. He just had very little faith in existing power structures allowing the proletariat majority to take power away from them nonviolently, especially outside of a few already very āleftā leaning democracies.
Damn dude, stop making me argue in favor of pure Marxism, Iām not even a communist, Iām just a bit left of social Democrats personally.
Marxism didnāt stop at the revolution though. Marxism can be simplified to 3 overarching steps:
A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
Actually realize communism
Since step 3 is a utopia that wonāt ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two. Thatās why every single Marxist attempt that hasnāt failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves. All the tyrannical regimes weāve seen arenāt coincidences, theyāre an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when itās implemented down to the letterā¦ and it aināt pretty. Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isnāt some secret, itās pretty well documented.
Yet I have. Marx shitty writings arenāt some holy scripture. He was shitty authoritarian philosopher who poorly analyzed the society he lived in and came up with a shitty ideology that failed in both theory and practice. Everything that I said comes from his works. If you have actual criticism then voice them otherwise donāt waste my time.
A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself. Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary. Thirdly, āCapitalist Institutionsā being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed. This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America. The idea of it being āauthoritarianā is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people. The phrase āiron fistā is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase āby any means necessary,ā itās just fearmongering.
Actually realize communism
Sure, this is correct.
Since step 3 is a utopia that wonāt ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two.
Thatās unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isnāt an impossibility but it also isnāt a utopia like you claim. Itās certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
Thatās why every single Marxist attempt that hasnāt failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government ādecidingā to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
All the tyrannical regimes weāve seen arenāt coincidences, theyāre an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when itās implemented down to the letterā¦ and it aināt pretty.
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between ātyrannicalā and āfair and democratic?ā Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isnāt some secret, itās pretty well documented.
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself.
This is like a bully punching their victim and then telling them āwhy are you hitting yourselfā. No, a violent revolution is an integral part of Marxism. No society is going to destroy itās functioning system willingly. Even if capitalism failed, which it hasnāt, Marxism is not the logical replacement. Literally only Marxists believe that it is, and most people arenāt Marxists.
Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary.
Killing the bourgeoisie is not a step, but itās a pretty implicit part of process. Under his class definition, somebody like a lawyer owning their own firm and hiring a couple secretaries makes them a part of the bourgeoise. Thatās not a billionaire, thatās an average person who made good choices in their life. The same goes for someone who owns their own convivence store and hires a couple of part timers. These type of people arenāt going to give up their livelihoods in the name of some brain dead ideology. Why would they? So what the Marxist solution for this? You canāt just let these people be because the ideology revolves around total control of a society. If people can opt out of Marxism then most people would and the ideology would collapse. The only viable solution is to forcefully seize their life work. Thatās if they cooperate, what if they donāt? What if they resist Marxist tyranny? Well itās simple, if they resist then theyāre counterrevolutionaries who ought to be killed.
Thirdly, āCapitalist Institutionsā being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
Marx thought of the state as tool of the ruling class, which is a very flawed view in itās own right, but I digress. In his view, the institutions of the state, aka the state apparatus, are all tools used by bourgeoisie to maintain class domination. He had the state apparatus split into two categories, the first is the ārepressiveā institutions such as the government, police, courts, and military and the second is the āideologicalā institutions like schools, media, churches, etc. If a Marxist revolution were to happen all these institutions, ranging from a state run university all the way to the supreme court would be on the chopping block. The job of a government is maintain the status quo, the job of the police is to enforce the current laws, the job of the courts is to uphold the current laws, the job of the military to protect all these institutions from existential threats. Perhaps not all of them will be literally burnt down, but the point remains that the ultimate goal of Marxism is to get rid of these institutions all together because thatās what communism seeks to establish, a stateless society.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed.
Calling it democratic is a pretty big stretch because the idea itself is flawed. Marx wanted the proletariat to be directly involved in the decision making process but also have the decision making process be centralized. The only way thatās possible is via direct democracy but thatās not feasible in any society thatās not on the scale of a small tribe. The alternative would be to do it by representative democracy, which would mean a one party dictatorship similar to the CPSU or the CCP.
Why a one party dictatorship? Because thatās the only way it would work in this context. A Marxist revolution will never be a result of civil unrest, it will always be a result of a political faction trying takeover the government. That faction will have leaders who will lead the violent revolution. That faction will become dictatorship of the proletariat. Since politics is divisive by itās nature, itās safer for the revolution for that faction to claim to be the one and only legitimate one and all other attempts are counterrevolutionary. That way they get to enjoy all the power, silence dissents, avoid civil war or coups, and implement all the tyrannical policies as they see fit.
This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America.
That is not what is found in America. If youāre trying to be fictitious and hyperbolic then okay I guess, but if youāre trying to pass this off as some sort of fact then youāre off the rails.
The idea of it being āauthoritarianā is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people.
Democratic for who exactly? Take the US as an example. Around 66% of Americans are homeowners. Around 58% own stocks. About 17 million own their own business. Around 99.9% of businesses in the country are small businesses which employ around 46% of the workforce, 80% of those are mom and pop business that have 0-9 employees (a good chunk of which are family members). All these people and many more are going to be quite pissed to have their property seized. Putting the majority of society in a worse position by force isnāt democracy, thatās tyranny.
The phrase āiron fistā is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase āby any means necessary,ā itās just fearmongering.
Both of those phrases are perfectly accurate descriptions of the proposed transitional government. You simply not liking them because youāre a Marxist doesnāt invalidate their use here.
Thatās unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isnāt an impossibility but it also isnāt a utopia like you claim. Itās certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
Wtf are you talking about? Communism is a utopia by definition. It is an imaginary society where everything works perfectly. Communism is about a perfect society where thereās no money, no state, no exploitation, no classes, no scarcity, no property, no disagreements on the idea of common ownership, an abundance of everything that will be distributed accordingly from ability to need, and everybody gets to hold hands while they dance, singe, and fart rainbows. Marx and Engles, and their followers can pretend that their utopia is not like the other girls all they want, but it ultimately is. Utopias arenāt realistic you canāt have a perfect or near perfect society in a non perfect world. Thereās a reason why these brain dead utopia driven ideologies always fail while more pragmatic ideologies always succeed. You canāt run societies off of fantasies.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government ādecidingā to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
In order for that to happen, the government has to actively work on dismantling itself and itās institutionsā¦ and that doesnāt happen. Governments donāt give up their power. The communist utopia will always be just right around the corner, but never actually there. Also Marx defines the government as one of the institutions in the state apparatus, which would eventually get dismantled and āwither awayā. Even if there was a government under communism, it literally cannot function without the other institutions of the state like the police to enforce itās laws, courts to uphold itās laws, the military to protect it, itās own media to promote it, and so on.
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between ātyrannicalā and āfair and democratic?ā Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
Ah yes, weāre running socities based off of vibes. Iām sure those 40 to 80 million Chinese who were murdered under Mao were totally not vibing with his tyrannical Marxism. Do you even hear yourself? Governments donāt exist in a binary states of tyrannical and free, the levels of authoritarianism exist in a spectrum. But the levels of tyranny and freedom are measurable, and we do have stats for them. But even if there werenāt it really easy to tell the difference between the extremes. Anybody with a shred of common sense can see that New Zealand and Norway are free and democratic countries while Iran and North Korea are tyrannical. All Marxist attempts have been on the more extreme end of tyranny than anywhere near the free and democratic end.
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
This doesnāt disprove my point. Whether Allende took power democratically or by force, the result was going to be the same. So no, Marx and Engles were not right. Not to mention, that the cold war wasnāt just the US, the USSR was the other superpower who was also overthrowing governments, starting civil wars, invading countries, and so on. The only difference is that history proved that capitalist societies to be more resilient.
Theyāll actually cheer on for those death squads. If they had their way, they would have their own death squads. Marxists are infamous for their tyranny, genocide, forced deportations, engineered famines, purges, labor camps, hate, and secret police death squads.
Marxism and fascism are sister ideologies because they ultimately want the same things but just from slightly different angles.
Marxism: History is defined by material conditions and value comes from appropriated labour which workers are entitled to. Thus society should be oriented around collective ownership of the means of production in order to elevate the material conditions of the worker and usher in a new age of history. It is inevitable that the owning class will resort to violence to maintain their position and so this change will be a violent struggle. Eventually the state itself should be abolished once the transition is complete. Also this is inevitable because umm science wand wave.
Fascism: Power should be centralised on strong men wiling to make hard choices, everyone else should live subservient to the state. Military power, an ethnonational identity, and autarchy are the highest pursuits. Concession and concensus are weakness, might is the ultimate expression of power and violence for the glory of the nation is beautiful. Modernity is degenerate and we should idolise a mythologised past based around an ethnic group we claim the mantle of.
SleezyDizasta: Could these be the same? š§
Thatās stupid, thatās not what I implied. I said that theyāre sister ideologies that desire the same things just with different approaches, and thatās objectively true.
Fascism was started by Mussolini, who was an infamous Marxist for most of his early life. He used to write for Marxist papers, be an avid Marxist activist, attend Marxist meetings, and even got arrested for rioting for Marxist causes. He, like many other socialists at the time, was against war. However, over time he came to the conclusion that war might not be a bad thing. If wars happened more frequently, it could bring about the social climate necessary for revolutions to happen that would end European monarchies and replace them with socialist systems. However, his ideas were rejected by the other socialists and he was shunned by them.
Mussolini started shifting away from other socialists over what unites men. Socialists believe itās class, but Mussolini started shifting towards the nation. He and his supporters starting gravitating towards revolutionary nationalismā¦ Professor Anthony Gregor from UC Berkely described Mussoliniās nationalism as the following:
Mussoliniās Fascism was very clearly heavily influenced by Marxism. He used a lot of the same ideals, a lot of the same terminology, similar rhetoric, and similar types of analytical lenses. In fact professor Gregor notes that Mussoliniās viewed Fascism as a type of socialism, or rather as the successor of socialism:
Even though Mussolini eventually parted ways with Marxism all together. His opposition to them wasnāt because they were socialists but because they were anti-nationalist. Despite declaring Marxism a failure and socialists as opposition, he still thought and constantly talked about how Fascism was about poor nations rising up against the plutocrats.
When I say theyāre sister ideologies, they literally are.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_nationalism
Itās almost like someone who was a Marxist made a new ideology that was not Marxism, had separate goals to Marxism, aligned itself against Marxists, didnāt adopt the social or economic policies of Marxism, but clothed itself in the language of Marxism.
Did you know that Marx was once just a random journalist? Does that mean Marxism is a sister ideology to newspaper businesses? Marxists do write stuff afterall!
Yeah no shit, theyāre different ideologies. Iām just pointing out that theyāre similar, Iām not saying theyāre exactly the same.
This isnāt even logically coherent.
Theyāre not at all similarā¦ Likeā¦ wtf. All you can say is one violent thug followed Marxism and then stopped follow Marxism, did something completely different, while saying stuff that sounded like Marxism because he knew it sounded good.
Just dot point me, pick idk 5 core areas and just write what fascists proposed vs what Marxists proposed.
I legit cannot thing of anything with overlap except
and
What have you got?
Okay here you go:
Authoritarianism is not only acceptable but is encouraged. In fascism this comes in the form of a totalitarian dictatorship and in Marxism it comes in the form of an tyrannical transitional government that rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to realize communism (dictatorship of the proletariat).
Ideology revolves around common enemies - In fascism this comes in the form certain ethnicities or nationalities while in Marxism it comes in the form of classes.
Bitterly oppose materialism - Fascism opposes materialism because it is deemed to lack acknowledgement of the role of the spirit, while Marxism opposes materialism because it is deem to be a key engine in class warfare.
Bitterly oppose individualism - Both ideologies revolve around the concepts communality and unity, and so they see individualism as a threat to their core ideological views.
Explicit support of political violence - Youāre trying to water it down, but both support widescale poltical violence. Marxism calls for a violent revolution that overthrows capitalism by burning down the capitalist system and institutions (literally and metaphorically) as well as killing the entirety of the bourgeoisie (democide). Fascism calls for political violence as legitimate way to gain power and achieve aims, which includes getting rid of undesirable national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups (genocide).
Thereās more, but you asked for 5.
Quibbles:
Marx proposed a temporary state wherein proles, collectively, use the apparatus of the state in an authoritarian manner to manage a transition to a non authoritarian non state. The vanguard party stuff is all Lenin. If you want to compare ML to fascism thatās a separate discussion, iirc Marx is actually pretty vague on what precisely the DotP would actually look like. Fascism proposes an indefinite centralisation of power with the goal of ultimate preservation of the state.
The significant debate and purging around the formation of, for instance, the USSR should be a hint that endorsement of authoritarianism is not really something everyone takes away from a reading of Marx. Incidentally, have you? read marx?
Everything except the most radical anarchist ideologies makes some use of authority in certain circumstances, I think itās somewhat farcical to draw parallels between crisis and the proposed status quo.
Wat? This is so ludicrously broad as to apply to everything. Westminster democracy aligns itself against a common enemy of absolute monarchy, republics unite themselves against a nobility, tribes unite themselves against non kin outsidersā¦ Is there an ideology that doesnāt declare itself against some enemy which is protects against?
Sure I guess. Again this is hardly unique to the two. I mean Buddhism does this along with monastic Christianity and new age smoothie cults /shrug
Ah, you have not read Marx! I can see how you might get this stance but no. This is just false. Marx imagined a utopia where people, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, could pursue individual fulfilment. If I may pretentiously quote:
āFor as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.ā
Seems pretty clearly individualistic to me!
Actually Marx said it was magically scientifically inevitable that capitalism would collapse in violence. Not that people should set out to do it. Also Marx didnāt want to āburn down the capitalist system and institutionsā actually in a straight reading of Marx capitalism is a necessary step to communism. Marx didnāt think it was good, he thought the bourgeoisie would never willingingly surrender power because of their material interest and thus the only way for proles to avoid mass death was instead to unify and take power through violence.
This sounds a lot like āBoth involve violence therefore the sameā but thatās extraordinarily reductive. I mean literally all governments make themselves governments through control of violence.
So in summary I think you have as similarities:
Donāt like materialism, authority features, has an enemy, and violence features. Which ok, if that makes stuff sister ideologies then itās a broad tent with literally everything from Liberation Theology Christianity, to westminster democracy, to Peelan Policing sharing sisterhood with Marxism and Fascism.
The issue here is that the ānon authoritarian non stateā is communism, and communism for all intents and purposes is just a utopia. It was Marx and Engels vision of a perfect society. Itās nothing more than a fantasy. Utopias donāt exist and never will. When these types of violent revolutions happen and the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, itās going to remain there indefinitely because communism is an unachievable goal. The theory itself is flawed.
Marx laid out what he meant by dictatorship of proletariat in his short work, Critique of the Gotha Programme. In this critique he went after the German Social Democratic Party program for being too pragmatic, pacifist, and wanting reform which he deemed didnāt go far enough in overthrowing capitalism and establishing communism. As a part of his critique, he explained what a post revolution dictatorship looks like. Thereās a lot to it but it could more or less be summed up in these points
He saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessary transitional phase between capitalism and communism. During this phase, the proletariat will hold all the political power and use it to reorganize society and the economy.
He doubled down on the idea that the proletariat must seize political power through revolution in order to exert control over the state apparatus, which he thought was a tool of class oppression under capitalism.
He emphasized that the dictatorship of the proletariat is aimed at dismantling capitalist relations of production, including private ownership of the means of production, and replacing them with collective ownership.
He viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as a form of state in which the working class, organized as the ruling class, actively suppresses the resistance of the bourgeoisie and other counter revolutionary forces (read: democide).
He thought that once the conditions for communism have been established, the need for a state will slowly wither awayā¦ which would ultimately lead to communism
This is pretty well defined and not nearly as vague as youāre trying to make it out to be. Points 1 and 5 wonāt ever happen as previously explained, and points 2-4 are pure violence and authoritarianism. This is fascism levels of violence and tyranny. His idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is flawed as well because of the way he framed it. He wants the proletariat to rule with an iron fist as a collective, however, thatās not really feasible. You would need to have something like a one party state that āacts on the behalf of the workersā to make it workā¦ which is what the Soviet Union went with as itās the most obvious implementation of such an ideaā¦ and that ended up being a disaster. While the ideology does leave room for interpretation, all the attempts of Marxism ended up being authoritarian. This is not a coincidence, itās an integral part of the ideology.
You can read the full critique here btw:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
This is a pretty disingenuous take. The type of authority that Marx wished for is not anywhere near the realm of reasonable. Itās silly to try and present this false dichotomy between tyranny and pure anarchy. Whatās interesting is that Marxism wanted both of these extremes at different stages of his ideology, but not anything in the middle. Itās like that man was allergic to anything that wasnāt extreme.
Perhaps I worded myself poorly there. When you look at the more pragmatic ideologies around, youāll notice that they donāt have enemies that define the ideology. Take for example, modern day social democracy. Who are itās enemies? It doesnāt really have any. The ideology is more focused on specific values and approaches to issues rather than trying to define an enemy group as the root cause of everything. The same goes for liberalism. You could say that the ideology views monarchies in such a light, but thatās only true in a historical sense. Monarchies are mostly no more, but the ideology is still alive despite that. This is because this is another ideology that doesnāt really have enemies, itās revolves around approach and adherence to a few principles.
Itās not as core to the ideology as it is to radical ideologies Marxism or islam or Nazism or anarchism. islam as an ideology revolves around fighting the nonbelievers because they are ignorant sinners, Nazism revolves around killing all the Jews because they control everything, Marxism revolves around eradicating the bourgeoisie because theyāre the cause of everything wrong with society, anarchy revolves around blaming the state or any kind of authority for all the problems in the world. Do you see the difference Iām trying to point out? These radical ideologies wouldnāt function without their perceived enemy, while pragmatic ideologies can. Marxism without itās hatred of the bourgeoisies used to justify a lot of itās unpleasant elements is a pretty hollow ideology.
I mean none of these similarities are exclusive to Marxism or Fascism, theyāre all found in a lot of different ideologies. Their similarity stems for their aggregate commonalities.
Lol individualism in this context doesnāt mean having a personality. Collectivism isnāt about turning people into identical drones with no personalities, it just means that the well being and cohesion of the collective take precedence over the individual and personal pursuits. Thatās literally the whole point of Marxism. Both Fascism and Marxism are collectivist ideologies, something like liberalism is individualist.
Itās good to know with power of hindsight that he was wrong on this.
You contradicted yourself here. Marx doesnāt want a violent overthrow of capitalism because he thought that capitalism was a necessary step to communism, therefore, he just wants a violent overthrow of capitalism to prevent mass violence by using mass violence. This is some grand logic lol
What youāre doing here is extraordinarily reductive. What youāre doing here is like trying to equate a paper airplane and a real airplane because theyāre both technically airplanes that can fly. Marxism and Fascism donāt just use violence to maintain control, they view violence as a perfectly acceptable way of achieving political goals. Is there a system you donāt like? You violently overthrow it. You have group of dissenters you donāt like? You just call them bourgeoise or counterrevolutionaries and kill them all. Are there people who donāt want to give up their private property? You go there and violently seize the property by force. You get the idea. This is vastly different than a government having a monopoly of violence to ensure law and order.
Dialectical Materialism is literally a product of Marx and Engels. Granted they didnāt call it that, but they very much called it Materialism.
And everyone who took after M&E used D.M. Lenin wrote Materialism and Empirio-criticism. Stalin wrote Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Mao wrote On contradiction. George Pulitzer, a teacher at the Workersā University (which taught marxism), had a student write up notes from his class into a book: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Elementary_principles_of_philosophy
I think someone with a violent streak a mile long even as a child who became fascinated with populist revolutionary ideologies creating a new populist revolutionary ideology does not really make it inherently twinsies with previous populist revolutionary ideologies other than that they are both exactly that. I think itās pretty clear in hindsight that what Mussolini was really interested in was gaining power in a populist revolution, no matter the cost or method.
Obviously, with the power of hindsight, we can see that Mussolini didnāt end up being the socialist that he was in his early days. However, itās still interesting to the influences of Marxism on Fascism as an ideology. They do share a lot of characteristics despite their many differences. This is why the claim that these two ideologies are polar opposites isnāt true. Theyāre different? Sure. Polar opposites? Not exactly.
Iām not sure you know what Marxism or Fascism areā¦ I think you just think everyone who doesnāt think like you is pure evil.
There have been a lot of killings and deaths that were intentionally to further goals that were claimed to be Marxist; Lenin and Stalin both had a lot of blood on their hands, as did Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro (after the revolution, I mean), and so on.
Authoritarian communism ends up being pretty bad for people that communist in the wrong way, along with everyone that isnāt communist.
Feels like colonialist capitalism has been pretty bad for an awful lot of people that arenāt the owning class tooā¦ What with the MANY genocides and the CIA
Sure, it absolutely has, and the CIA and American foreign policy has done some truly awful things. But thereās scale and scope as well; the American govāt, by and large, hasnāt been jailing political dissidents solely for political dissent since the 30s or so. Political dissidents donāt tend to end up committing suicide by falling out of 1st floor windows, or drowning in bathtubs. We donāt arrest or dissappear anyone running against the president. We havenāt had concentration camps for our own citizens since the 40s (and hoo boy, those were pretty fucking awful, and we should be ashamed of them).
Yesā¦ No argument with that part.
Not true at all, I have zero issues with people who think differently. However, I do take big issues with these two failed authoritarian ideologies that ended killing tens of millions each and brought nothing but misery everywhere they went. As it turns thereās more to politics than these two shitty ideologies
So naturally you realize that, despite authoritarian ācommunismā as practiced by the Soviet Union and China, inspired by Marxist-Leninist thinking and then by Stalin and Mao are just one interpretation of Marxism (which is one interpretation of communism/socialist theory) that diverged significantly in embracing something more resembling state capitalism and enduring dictatorship, whereas Marx viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as simply describing the revolutionary transition to a classless society.
Actually, not true. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were both notorious authoritarians, and it reflects pretty heavily in their ideology. They were both well known for being very pro violence and pro power grabs, so much so that they were infamous for it. Theyāre pretty well documented for the ways they used to mock pacifist socialists at the time for not being as extreme and violent as they are. Socialism as a concept has a lot of different interpretations, but Marxism? Not so much.
Potentially violent revolution =/= authoritarian. Also Marx believed that in more democratic and free nations that nonviolent ways of achieving communism was actually plausible, he just didnāt believe so for most of the world. He just had very little faith in existing power structures allowing the proletariat majority to take power away from them nonviolently, especially outside of a few already very āleftā leaning democracies.
Damn dude, stop making me argue in favor of pure Marxism, Iām not even a communist, Iām just a bit left of social Democrats personally.
Marxism didnāt stop at the revolution though. Marxism can be simplified to 3 overarching steps:
A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
Actually realize communism
Since step 3 is a utopia that wonāt ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two. Thatās why every single Marxist attempt that hasnāt failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves. All the tyrannical regimes weāve seen arenāt coincidences, theyāre an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when itās implemented down to the letterā¦ and it aināt pretty. Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isnāt some secret, itās pretty well documented.
Itās painfully obvious youāve never really engaged with Marxās writings.
Yet I have. Marx shitty writings arenāt some holy scripture. He was shitty authoritarian philosopher who poorly analyzed the society he lived in and came up with a shitty ideology that failed in both theory and practice. Everything that I said comes from his works. If you have actual criticism then voice them otherwise donāt waste my time.
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself. Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary. Thirdly, āCapitalist Institutionsā being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed. This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America. The idea of it being āauthoritarianā is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people. The phrase āiron fistā is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase āby any means necessary,ā itās just fearmongering.
Sure, this is correct.
Thatās unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isnāt an impossibility but it also isnāt a utopia like you claim. Itās certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government ādecidingā to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between ātyrannicalā and āfair and democratic?ā Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
This is like a bully punching their victim and then telling them āwhy are you hitting yourselfā. No, a violent revolution is an integral part of Marxism. No society is going to destroy itās functioning system willingly. Even if capitalism failed, which it hasnāt, Marxism is not the logical replacement. Literally only Marxists believe that it is, and most people arenāt Marxists.
Killing the bourgeoisie is not a step, but itās a pretty implicit part of process. Under his class definition, somebody like a lawyer owning their own firm and hiring a couple secretaries makes them a part of the bourgeoise. Thatās not a billionaire, thatās an average person who made good choices in their life. The same goes for someone who owns their own convivence store and hires a couple of part timers. These type of people arenāt going to give up their livelihoods in the name of some brain dead ideology. Why would they? So what the Marxist solution for this? You canāt just let these people be because the ideology revolves around total control of a society. If people can opt out of Marxism then most people would and the ideology would collapse. The only viable solution is to forcefully seize their life work. Thatās if they cooperate, what if they donāt? What if they resist Marxist tyranny? Well itās simple, if they resist then theyāre counterrevolutionaries who ought to be killed.
Marx thought of the state as tool of the ruling class, which is a very flawed view in itās own right, but I digress. In his view, the institutions of the state, aka the state apparatus, are all tools used by bourgeoisie to maintain class domination. He had the state apparatus split into two categories, the first is the ārepressiveā institutions such as the government, police, courts, and military and the second is the āideologicalā institutions like schools, media, churches, etc. If a Marxist revolution were to happen all these institutions, ranging from a state run university all the way to the supreme court would be on the chopping block. The job of a government is maintain the status quo, the job of the police is to enforce the current laws, the job of the courts is to uphold the current laws, the job of the military to protect all these institutions from existential threats. Perhaps not all of them will be literally burnt down, but the point remains that the ultimate goal of Marxism is to get rid of these institutions all together because thatās what communism seeks to establish, a stateless society.
Calling it democratic is a pretty big stretch because the idea itself is flawed. Marx wanted the proletariat to be directly involved in the decision making process but also have the decision making process be centralized. The only way thatās possible is via direct democracy but thatās not feasible in any society thatās not on the scale of a small tribe. The alternative would be to do it by representative democracy, which would mean a one party dictatorship similar to the CPSU or the CCP.
Why a one party dictatorship? Because thatās the only way it would work in this context. A Marxist revolution will never be a result of civil unrest, it will always be a result of a political faction trying takeover the government. That faction will have leaders who will lead the violent revolution. That faction will become dictatorship of the proletariat. Since politics is divisive by itās nature, itās safer for the revolution for that faction to claim to be the one and only legitimate one and all other attempts are counterrevolutionary. That way they get to enjoy all the power, silence dissents, avoid civil war or coups, and implement all the tyrannical policies as they see fit.
That is not what is found in America. If youāre trying to be fictitious and hyperbolic then okay I guess, but if youāre trying to pass this off as some sort of fact then youāre off the rails.
Democratic for who exactly? Take the US as an example. Around 66% of Americans are homeowners. Around 58% own stocks. About 17 million own their own business. Around 99.9% of businesses in the country are small businesses which employ around 46% of the workforce, 80% of those are mom and pop business that have 0-9 employees (a good chunk of which are family members). All these people and many more are going to be quite pissed to have their property seized. Putting the majority of society in a worse position by force isnāt democracy, thatās tyranny.
Both of those phrases are perfectly accurate descriptions of the proposed transitional government. You simply not liking them because youāre a Marxist doesnāt invalidate their use here.
Wtf are you talking about? Communism is a utopia by definition. It is an imaginary society where everything works perfectly. Communism is about a perfect society where thereās no money, no state, no exploitation, no classes, no scarcity, no property, no disagreements on the idea of common ownership, an abundance of everything that will be distributed accordingly from ability to need, and everybody gets to hold hands while they dance, singe, and fart rainbows. Marx and Engles, and their followers can pretend that their utopia is not like the other girls all they want, but it ultimately is. Utopias arenāt realistic you canāt have a perfect or near perfect society in a non perfect world. Thereās a reason why these brain dead utopia driven ideologies always fail while more pragmatic ideologies always succeed. You canāt run societies off of fantasies.
In order for that to happen, the government has to actively work on dismantling itself and itās institutionsā¦ and that doesnāt happen. Governments donāt give up their power. The communist utopia will always be just right around the corner, but never actually there. Also Marx defines the government as one of the institutions in the state apparatus, which would eventually get dismantled and āwither awayā. Even if there was a government under communism, it literally cannot function without the other institutions of the state like the police to enforce itās laws, courts to uphold itās laws, the military to protect it, itās own media to promote it, and so on.
Ah yes, weāre running socities based off of vibes. Iām sure those 40 to 80 million Chinese who were murdered under Mao were totally not vibing with his tyrannical Marxism. Do you even hear yourself? Governments donāt exist in a binary states of tyrannical and free, the levels of authoritarianism exist in a spectrum. But the levels of tyranny and freedom are measurable, and we do have stats for them. But even if there werenāt it really easy to tell the difference between the extremes. Anybody with a shred of common sense can see that New Zealand and Norway are free and democratic countries while Iran and North Korea are tyrannical. All Marxist attempts have been on the more extreme end of tyranny than anywhere near the free and democratic end.
This doesnāt disprove my point. Whether Allende took power democratically or by force, the result was going to be the same. So no, Marx and Engles were not right. Not to mention, that the cold war wasnāt just the US, the USSR was the other superpower who was also overthrowing governments, starting civil wars, invading countries, and so on. The only difference is that history proved that capitalist societies to be more resilient.