Why hasn't Marxism ever worked?

Lol I hope that was a rhetorical question because that's never happening.

And just to clarify, not everything would be commonly owned, just the means of production.

Economies aren't linear systems and jigging them around until a contradiction appears doesn't actually do anything.

>See: every socialist country ever
If you mean soviets, they didn't have a dictatoship of the proletariat.

Source?

>they didn't have a dictatoship of the proletariat

Leninists would argue that they did: Lenin or Trotsky weren't aristocrats or capitalists.

Marxism isn't something that can just be forced to happen. Marx theorized the course and natural end of capitalism.

And a good deal of his predictions have actually been fairly on point.

Well, the argument is ridiculous. Proletariats didn't have any power since virtually the start of the ussr, the original class of their oppressors is irrelevant.

SERF
>LANDLESS PEOPLE FORCED TO WORK
now what do buildings entail... landless people...

because it is based on bad anthropology

Russia/Area
Image result for area of russia
6.602 million mi2

Russia/Population
143.5 million (2013)

Germany/Area
Image result for area of germany
137,903 mi2

Germany/Population
80.62 million (2013)

yet no slave commie blocks in kaisereich or bundesrepubliks.

if commies built castles for every citizen then the people of the world would die to immigrate to there :DDD but that is not the case of bolshevism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau

Not even a commie apologist btw

Which ones?

I'm not even baiting I would really like to know.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau
Berlin-Marzahn, the largest East German Neubaugebiet (1987).

You didn't read the article did you.

>Source?
No source, it is what logically derives from his statements.

>1. The revolution will begin in a industrialized country (He thought germany)
>2. They will form a proletariat dictatorship (see his communist manifesto for his policies)
>3. The state is a tool to carry on the appropiation of the means of production
>4. Since imperialism is a superior phase of capitalism, the capitalist countries will try to restore the ruling class on the new country
>5. Due to 3 and 4, the dictatorship is the tool to protect the revolution and to defeat the global capitalist countries,
>6. Since they can't dismantle institutions like the army due to the threats from foreign capitalist, they must either destroy them or be destroyed.

Lets equally distribute all the land to each citizen :DDD
what are you crazy?
We want slaves, exactly as intended by Marx.

...

Imperialism is a leninist concept, and the state being useful to avoid internal counterrevolution in the revolutionary stage doesn't logically imply that it is necessary to face external threats after the revolution.

>Imperialism is a leninist concept,
You got me there.
>the state being useful to avoid internal counterrevolution in the revolutionary stage doesn't logically imply that it is necessary to face external threats after the revolution
If there are external threats, how will the now stateless territory respond to that threat?

The same way they are supposed to be able to organize themselves for economic planning and production, or any other kind of decision making, without paternalist autocrats.

>The same way they are supposed to be able to organize themselves for economic planning and production, or any other kind of decision making, without paternalist autocrats.
I guess you are right.

Now i'm remembering an episode in which the URSS tried to form a military without hierarchy and failed miserably. So yeah, they actually thought that they needed no state.

>Is there something wrong with humans

Is this rhetorical?

Reality isn't materialist, that why marxism didn't work.

Globalism, increasing automation of production, centralization of market power, and consumerism.

Implying capitalism works

it is dependent on criticism of the existing societal norms, so if it comes to prominence in forms of authority it will try to ban others from criticizing it, that is a state that not many ideologies can maintain at this time and century purely due to the propagation and spread of information. That is why they are after internet and the media. But in the long run they will loose because 90% of the planet is against their understanding of the world and the moment white people become a negligable people in the next 100 years it will become equally ignored as more traditional and religion based ideals will take its place.

What is good is good for me, the overarching evolutionary idea that you matter, regardless off the circumstances.

Thanks Nature!

It's anti competitive, and thus incentivises mediocrity instead of success. People therefore become disenchanted since their "means" becomes defined for them and they remain stuck.

It's elitist, or at least Leninism is. The vanguard of the revolution become the new elite and thus it becomes hypocritical, the people naturally perceive this.

It contradicts modern economics, as more control and regulations tend to stifle rather than promote growth. If achieves equality only by capping the successful.

It's invasive and meddling, as most Marxist ideologues seek to redefine words and instill propaganda, eventually leading to fascist like states.

It's confrontational with differing systems, notably capitalism, leading to a constant threat of war and justification for militarism.

In general Marxist activism (but not necessarily Marxist history, which is a plagiarism from Hegel) appeals to naive people easily persuaded by emotional arguments and appeals to their morality rather than reason. It's a form of sophistry that deliberately targets an altruistic person's will to act for good rather than their rational sense of reason. It's the most studied ideology and despite this it's the most easily rebuked. In order to be a believing Marxist, you must be deliberately ignorant of reality and history.

Capitalism got me a nice house, good amount of food, an internet connection, a car and the ability to go on an expensive vacation twice a year.

Communism would have given me some shitty commieblock apartment, a piece of rotten bread, stale vodka and a government cock in my ass.

The biggest threat to the ruling class of the world was the rise of the working class therefore it had to be destroyed, demonized, lied about, sabotaged in every means possible.

Can someone enlighten me whether it is the changing modes of production that causes class struggle, or is it class struggle that changes the modes of production?

If it is the former, could the reason why communism hasn't worked is because we don't have the adequate technologies yet (advanced robotics, etc) to support a communist state?

Perhaps one day when robots do all the work, we will live in a socialist utopia.

As far as I understand, both can be said to be true.

But real Marxism has never been tried.

>most Marxist ideologues seek to redefine words

curious about this

Not him but they do it constantly.

They redefined the word "bourgeois" from "urban middle class" to "owners of the means of production", "fascism" to "any non-socialist authoritarian movement" (pic related), etc.

>Oh look, another Marx thread.
Since we are on the topic anyway, what do you guys think of this screencap?

>10/10
Excellent post.

Makes every point needed for a thorough rebuttal without going into a tl:dr consisting of 1000+ words

can we get a screen cap?

If you transition straight to anarchy nobody is gonna give you free shit Bernie, it would go ancap and you would have true economic improvement while the left anarchists would try to take credit for it

It's not supposed to work. Marxism is a tool in the arsenal of international Jewry to break down the nation state.

>ancap
grow up .

Pretty much this.

But nation state is a creation of liberal Jew freemasons of the French revolution, it didn't exist before that.

I disagree. If we accept the google definition of a nation state, then the Roman Empire would be a good example prior to the French Revolution of a nation state as only Romans were granted citizenship and they spoke a common Latin tongue.

Not an argument you retarded commie faggot

That's not true at all, even Paul of Tarsus (a Jew) was a Roman citizen, it even got him out of jail.

you don't have to be a commie to realize ancap is a fucking joke.

While it may increase inequality, you'd have to be functionally retarded to not accept the fact that an ancap society would achieve incredible economic growth and standard of living

Judaism is not necessarily mutually exclusive with Roman identity.

Here's a free (You)

no, I would have to be a functionally retarded like you to acept that an ancap society would achieve incredible economic growth.

I would have preferred an argument but thanks anyway.

All modern day economists (marxist "economists" aren't actual economists) would agree that free trade, no taxes or regulations, and no state monopolies or subsidies on industries will create high increases in both growth and standards of living and all the evidence points toward this

>free trade
nice utopy that will never be a reality.

The USA came to power on the international stage due to its light hold on the economy, allowing it to flourish. For the majority of its history the USA had only a minimum of regulation.

It worked for the USA why would it not work for another state which has intensified the same? Assuming the society creates the proper bodies and infrastructure needed to allow such growth. (Such as a private central bank.)

>For the majority of its history the USA had only a minimum of regulation.

bullshit.

2008 isn't exactly when the USA became great. Look at the history of the USA. It has traditionally been a state with minimum economic regulation+high tariffs+a central bank+government spending on public works/infrastructure.

That's the traditional American System.

Pretty spot on, but a bit too timid. It leaves over lots of horrid stuff like bloody party infighting, practically inevitable civil war, overwhelming propaganda, crackdown of press.

source: born in a communist country

They wouldn't. The Austrian school is arguably even more heterodox than Marxian economics.

No you look at USA history. Because you have no clue.

Also notice how the most shitty countries have the less protectionist measures.

Most would prefer to have government set up to prevent pollution, low wage labor, crime, etc. but they will still admit that a lack of regulation would achieve higher growth

>Cultural Marxism
>Not Cultural Neoliberalism

Marxist revolution and dialectics dictate that change is bottom up. The "Cultural Marxism" is all top down. There were no Trans Martyrs, no cops beating up trannies for protesting, it was Obama and the congressional Democrats.

There is nothing Marxist about cultural Marxism

As for OP's question on Marxism not working, it hasn't been tried as it's a post-capitalist mode of economy and capitalism hasn't run it's course.

Neoliberalism is already starting to make capitalism self-destruct, we're getting closer to it actually coming to fruition.

The closest thing to Marxism was probably Yugoslavia, but their flaw was that they were spooked by nationalism and their government bureaucracy was shit. But in economic control of the means of production it's the only country that existed for more than a year that almost had something resembling the "democratic control of the means of production"

Yugoslavia's flaw was that there was still too much nationalism and wealth disparity by region, their government was haphazardly put together and they doomed themselves by their post-Tito government structure to only kindle more nationalism

The problem with the Rotating presidency between the nations is that when everything turns to shit which it did for much of the non-Western countries in the 80s die to a mixture of Neoliberal leaders like Maggie and Ronnie of the countries that make up the IMF and World Bank demanding neoliberal reforms.

So the economy turned to even more shit and a government that was already on the edge of debt due to the fact that they never got the tax base down and there was high unemployment because of reasons that had little to do with the way the economy was run and was a general trend among middle income countries in the 80s.

they have the least protectionist measures because they can't afford them because they stifle economic growth so much.

Not exactly true.

The US hasn't been able to pass 800 things since 2008 let alone protectionist measures that would only hurt the international bourgeoisie

>Government ownership of enterprise
>Marxism

wew

It's about the questions you ask and what the person asking the question wants to elicit. If you said "Popular ownership of the means of production" or "Democratic control of the means of production" you'd probably get a different response.

All these things are only possible in a stable society. You think everyone in Anarcho Capitalism is going follow the Non-Aggression Principle? It would result in roving criminals, bandits, and most likely the establishment of new quasi-fuedalism, where those with the arms rule over those who do not.

Nigga, this isn't push-polling some college students about Bernie Sanders, you're asking economists about policy.

They aren't completely fucking stupid.

> For the majority of its history the USA had only a minimum of regulation.

Complete nonsense.

For a majority of its history the US was highly isolationist, and in economic terms this meant protectionist policies with other countries.

It wasn't until the 70s or so, the dawn of the neoliberal era, that deregulaiton and free-trade came to be espoused as the orthodox way of doing things.

We're living in the fallout of that now, after decades of pillaging that the middle class has experienced.

The argument you're making is a prime example of historic revisionism by the ruling ideology.

Why do people assume crime would be rampant without a government police force? People have morals and EVEN WITH the police poor people and especially niggers are going to kill each other. But the average person won't experience any difference. (Gun control would be abolished so thieves might assume I would carry a sawn off shotgun in my pants, which I probably would)

The average person didn't even pay income taxes until the 1950s, which there were still an incredibly high amount of loopholes

i question whether there is any one thing that 'all modern day economists' agree upon, without resorting to a no-true-non-marxist-economist line of argument

except Orwell loved it and it was the biggest impact on his personal politics
actually read his books before you talk about them you tremendous fucking idiot

because application of coercive force is necessary to maintain systematic differential access to resources.

like a dam failing, i think your ancapistan'd be like the purge for a few months and then things would calm down

Maybe it's because Marx was wrong.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Fix your shit, you are obviously wrong about something, otherwise Marxism wouldn't be as worthless as it is.

That depends on what point of the roman empire you're talking about.

Caracalla granted all free men in the empire citizenship.

For the most part only local romans spoke Latin while provincials, even those of roman heritage spoke the local language. Latin was only used for legal documentation to keep uniformity. And Greek was still the preferred language of the upper class in Rome for centuries.

I never understood why this man is so influent in modern history for pretty much no reason. At this point he's basically a 19th century Jesus, Muhammad or Sidharta.

Again Marxism isn't something that can be fixed. It's not an established system. All Marx did was make predictions about the future of capitalism.

Then 20th century revolutionaries took his predictions, conflated them with governments and monarchies and tried to force what Marx had said the future would be. Which ultimately didn't work as it really was nothing that Marx had predicted.

Marxism is something that has to come about naturally, or else it's not keeping with what Marx actually said. Maybe it'll be right, maybe it'll be wrong. There are factors I don't think Marx could've predicted.

Because most individuals are stupid and prefer to have there individual merit based on money than on merit as it is easier.
As well as centralised economies not being able to function due to corruption that occurs in such a large planned economy.

it doesn't matter that thieves would think that you will be carry because they will be many more than you and then you will be fuck.

cause people are proud and greedy and stubborn and opinionated and they dont want to submit or trust each other ( sometimes )