Why it is so common for self-identyfing Marxists to idolize certain leaders...

In the USA there's an expat community dedicated to calling him a terrorist and war criminal. Everyone else has basically no opinion of him, even leftists.

To be honest, and this is simply based off my discussions with friends who live in Latin/South America, it seems like people deify him not for his politics but for standing up to the United States and seemingly 'winning.'

I agree. But ask any average joe Marxist and they will say he is indeed Marxist.

Why would I ask american college students about what Marx meant when he specifically said nationality is a government spook and the workers of the world should unite to overthrow warmongering governments and redistribute the land according to need, not past large scale violence?

He wasn't exactly subtle in his anti-nationalist message, and neither was Castro about being a nationalist.

Chairman Mao is the very red sun that shines most brightly in our hearts. He is the great teacher, great leader, great supreme commander and great helmsman selected by the proletariat and the revolutionary’ people of China and the world in the course of their protracted revolutionary struggles. He is the authority of the world proletarian struggle in the present era. ... He has the most profound Marxist-Leninist wisdom and the richest experience in struggle. ...Chairman Mao is the greatest Marxist-Leninist, the most outstanding proletarian leader and the greatest genius of our era. ...
Comrade Lin Piao says that a genius like Chairman Mao appears in the world only once in hundreds of years, or in China only once in thousands of years. Chairman Mao is the world’s greatest genius. ... Chairman Mao will always be our supreme leader, our supreme commander and the red sun shining most brightly in our hearts. Without him, there would not be the great Party we now have, nor our great army and great country; the Chinese people would have nothing, and the people of the world would find it impossible to achieve their liberation. ...We will always follow him closely and thoroughly establish the absolute authority of our great supreme commander Chairman Mao. We pledge our lives to defend Chairman Mao’s position as the supreme leader. Anyone who opposes Chairman Mao stands condemned by all of us, the whole Party; he will be denounced by all of us, the entire nation.

Well, the most obvious example is the ubiquitous Che tee, a commodity forged from the labor of some overseas proletariat:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara_in_fashion
thechestore.com/

Mao was undoubtedly a genius. In a way he was the Last Chinese, in the same way we refer to certain figures as the 'Last Spartan' or the 'Last Roman'. His chief sin, to me, is ensuring that he would be the Last Chinese by destroying all that made him in the first place.

Communism is about the collective of the masses and Castro is supposed to be the image of Cuba and of Marxism. Also he's had a cool life and demeanor.

This only proves his fans aren't Marxists.

He was a Nationalist and a Marxist at once.

Ah so thats the angle, self-professed marxists are in fact something else. Fair enough I guess, better to term them Communists, Stalinists, Leninists to appease your autism.

But as that user said Marx was a globalist.

He was an economic Marxist who used the Socialism in One Country/ Dictatorship of the Proletariat theorized by Lenin.

If he was a Marxist why wasn't he against the cult of personality bullshit? Hell, they even celebrated his birthday in Cuba.

Self-professed Napoleon reincarnate are usually not Napoleon also.
If you would just tell me what your believes are, I am sure I can easily name someone who says he is such a person too, yet you'd be quick to dismiss that.

You could ask the same of Lenin, Stalin, Kim Sung Il, Mugabe, Mao, the list goes on...

>Socialism in One Country
This just means "I want all my population's best and brightest to go live abroad where they can be rich and exploit, and all of my neighbor's dumbest shits to come leech off our welfare".
Socialism in one country doesn't exist.

I am not saying otherwise.

The point being they're all people who read Marx's works and agreed they would go about the most reasonable ways to being it about. Thus they're Marxists.

Can you explain what do you mean about the most rational way?

Marx wrote how it would come about. Big workers unions, syndicates, strikes and so on.
The workers have the power, if they all stop working and the bosses have no choice but to submit.
This requires global strategy, since when in the UK workers stopped working, the bosses just fired them and imported temporary workers from the continent, and the strike failed. All workers must unite.

Also it is strictly not about war, and strictly not about states. Marx was opposed to war, and states.
So how the fuck is a warmongering state a Marxist idea?

I didn't say I agreed with them nor that it was considered rational by most people but what they believed. I said they were followers of Marx and thus were Marxists.

>they believed the opposite of what marx wrote, thus they were followers of marx and marxists

>confusing Marx with Bakunin

Have you read Marx's work? He is strictly anti-state and anti-war.

Faggots who say that communism misrepresented Marx are no different that faggots who say that scientology misrepresented Hubbard

All your old failed systems are gross and you should stop parading them around with lipstick to cover the pig

The past is gone and those old people are dead. We need new ideas for a new reality.

Stop veiwing Marxism as an ideology and start viewing it as a religion. It has it's central book (Das Kapital), it's clergy (The academics who interperate it) its salvation myth (the Revolution) and its saints (Trotsky, Allende, basically any Marxist who never got power).

Then why have all his followers tried to seize a state and cause an internal war?

They believed what Marx wrote but redid some things depending on their circumstances.

Are you the kind of person who says we don't have free market, this is crapitalism or crony capitalism, not real liberty market and so on?

You can make this same argument for anything, from dieting to sports to custom car jobs.

Why do you assume people who don't follow his word to be his "followers"?

Why do you think people who do things the opposite of what Marx wrote to be Marxists?

Coz Lenin happened. Does anyone actually bothered to read the history of the left?

>Does anyone actually bothered to read the history of the left?

There was this guy Carlin Marxist, who was a jewish alien, and he traveled to England and kidnapped an angel, and from there they invaded Russia and killed the tzar, and forced russian farmers at gunpoint to walk towards Berlin until the germans ran out of bullets, and then they invaded China, South America, East Europe, Cuba, Africa and half of the world, so America had to liberate it and kill the communists, and now Putin is up to their old tricks again.

No mostly we just tell our children horror stories so that they reject communism.

Like using the bubonic plague to get your kids to wash hands.

We have a general idea that it flopped fantastically in every place to carry the name and often led to disastrous results and loss of human life.

Realizing it could have all been stopped by labeling all commies as seditious enemies of the state and executed is a bitter pill.

Don't forget Cambodia. That was the result of the jewish alien and his angel too.

Thank God for Senator Joe McCarty for preventing a communist coup in America.

"I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out."

>this thing was attempted, so 2/3 of the world embargoed and fought against it, and it failed
>thus it is a flawed concept

I mean, it clearly doesn't work, but the reason for it not working is that you aren't allowed to make it work.
Instead we are slowly getting there, with 90% of what Marx wanted already being common sense and accepted everywhere, like max working hours, minimum wage, retirement funds, workers unions, syndicates, gender equality, legalizing homosexuality, more open borders, progressive tax, and so on, and so on.

A hundred years from now people will insist Marx "won", and it was Lenin who prematurely ejaculated instead of waiting for things to happen.

Plausible theory. Needs more conspiracy elements though......have you tried reptilians?

>gender equality

>implying feminists groups aren't working to turn the gender inequality in favor of women instead of working for equality and have succeded in some aspects

Dude stop.

Your system requires EVERYONE at once to come to the same conclusion and then agree to cooperate.

It's poetic idealistic nonsense.

You have to provide for system rejection on a way that isn't mass murdering everyone who isn't a communist.

Building your utopia on top of a pile of corpses is never going to work out.

The dead don't speak they scream.

He wasn't the only one talking about those things everyone as using those canards for political reasons.

It was the age of western humanism and the rejection of industrialized labor.

Which is why we send our industrialized labor far overseas so no one can see it.

Everyone was talking about those social programs.

Did Marx really wanted a minimun wage? I think he wanted something like an universl wage.

>implying feminists groups aren't working to turn the gender inequality in favor of women
They are, and there is already backlash, it will not work. We are leaning towards equality.

>Your system requires EVERYONE at once to come to the same conclusion and then agree to cooperate.
We already came to the same conclusion on the issues listed in the post you quote. Nobody is mad that child labor is banned and that there are laws regulating working conditions so that people don't literally die on the job. That wasn't the case in Marx's day.

>He wasn't the only one talking about those things everyone as using those canards for political reasons.
Many agreed with him, many opposed him. You can look up contemporary academic literature saying that child labor is the rational result of free market at work and should be left alone, as those children make money their own children wouldn't need to work from such an early age, it builds character and so on.

>Did Marx really wanted a minimun wage? I think he wanted something like an universl wage.
Marx said that a minimum wage and a bunch of other things like trade union is the next concession that the capitalists will give the workers, as a way to bribe them away from revolution. He wanted it, and it did happen, and it did delay the revolution as people weren't as mad.
Concession after concession, bribe after bribe, and today we are in a state that Marx dreamed of, with workers being able to sue their bosses, having set hours, mandatory vacations, solid contracts, unions and syndicates to back and defend them, and so on.
In Japan its almost impossible to get fired even, it turned into workers oppressing the bosses by refusing to work knowing they can't get fired in some fringe situations. The honor system there only prevents that.

>Fidel
>Idolization
There's no statue of Fidel in Cuba

>statues are the only way to idolize people

>Nobody is mad that child labor

Arguably since them the age of common adulthood has also risen a decade. Instead of individual first occupation experiences, parents teaching children their craft, child apprentiships etc. we have everyone who has never truly worked a day in their life at the age of 16 or even 18 in some cases having to secure daily employment.

With varying results. We are actually too soon I to the childless labor system to tell if it's better in the long run for society or for emotional health.

Oh wow, an actual child labor proponent.
Consider that all the great people produced by that time were professional rich people, and didn't work anything they didn't want to.
While they were learning the ancient greeks and reading latin, 95% of children were poisoning themselves with fine dust particles in mines or with chemicals gluing shoes together in an unventilated basement.

Do you think Marx would be okay in a world in wich everybody have their basic needs covered, but some people have money for luxuries while others don't?

>It's just human nature......

I think Marx would prefer this to the world he grew up and lived in. Certainly he'd be surprised at the large scale charity going on these days, with billionaires sending cheap shirts and drugs to Africa.

We are getting there, and cursing Marx all the way while fulfilling his wishes.

Define what you mean by "okay"

Because what you described is pretty much what he laid about about socialism (lower level communism) in his Critique of the Gotha Program.

>95% of children were poisoning themselves with fine dust particles in mines or with chemicals gluing shoes together in an unventilated basement

That's a gross obfuscation. 95% of children were not impoverished immigrants living in coastal urban centers of industry.

You act as if there were no enjoyable jobs and that every parent was a heartless task master.

This is the problem with emotional reaponse.

You hear 10 year old working a full day and your emotional mind races to beaten waifs in coal mines.

Labor in itself is not brutality

If a job is easy and dignifying, adults would be racing to do it, and it wouldn't be available for children.
When children are forced to work, it is always the worst jobs. Travel and know the world. You can't talk like that from your apartment.

I was finding my own labor since I was old enough to realize adults would pay me to clean out their ashtrays at my Dad's office.

$.50 for cleaning an ashtray? Candy money nigga!

Either way all the childless labor force has done is prolonged childhood another decade.

>manchildren
>why won't millenials marry
>why no millennial home ownership

Because adulthood has been postponed

You are clearly deluded by your childhood games and confuse your experience playing around with that of children having to sell their assholes to buy bread.
I won't comment further and I hope you educate yourself on the matter.

>children having to sell their assholes to buy bread

See? You just take it straight to 100. You're an extremist on this issue.

For you there is no sensible middle ground even though I have outlined clear flaws.

I mean, what the fuck was his ideal. What was his definition of Equality? People living in houses of the same size, with the same working hours, with the same amount of free time? Did he ever said anything about censoring art and media to only reflect non-violent communist values?

Was he okay with income inequality during socialism? I though income equality should be achieved during socialism and the only difference between communism and socialism was the existance of the State.

Millenials aren' marrying because women don't need marriage to survive anymore and everyday more men are realizing women are shit anyway.

Was Marx against hypergamy?

>mfw I recognized that quote

>what the fuck was his ideal

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
You do what you can, and you take what you need.

Consider your average family.
The father produces the most, but spends the least. The young child produces the least, but spends the most.
Yet everyone is okay with that. Everyone does what they can, and everyone takes what they need. Wealth is shared.
If you need a spoon, you don't buy a spoon from your father, who paid for all the spoons in the kitchen. You just take any spoon. You don't own it either, you can take a different one tomorrow.

This economy internal to the average family, stretched over large amounts of people, is what Marx wanted.
Everyone does what they can, no lazy bums or leeches, and everyone takes what they need, no hoarding and no gluttony.

>tfw the only reason women cooked and cleaned and were obedient and bred with men is because they would starve without one

>no lazy bums or leeches
>no hoarding and no gluttony

How is this enforced? Seems like a nice tale to tell.

>hey kids one day no one will be lazy or greedy haha let's try communism just one more time

And what Marx proposed to do with lazy people? They can't be killed in a Humanist society. I think the main problem of your explanation is the "need" part. Everybody have a different definition of what they need.

>How is this enforced?

People who don't do what they can, don't get what they need.
Stop helping them, stop giving them your services and goods that you produce, stop associating with them. If they turn violent, put them down in self defense.

How does the father deal with a child that is a lazy bum who takes all the cake to his room to eat over the next day instead of sharing?

So, does that mean women have to actually share their vaginas instead of giving them only to Chad?

What is shared is stuff like rivers, meadows, large farms, bridges, roads, factories, stadiums, opera houses, beaches, power stations, and so on.
You don't share your toothbrush, your pen or your vagina unless you want to. Those are personally yours, and not common use.

We must seize the means of production.

Or as a great modern statesman puts it grab them by their pussies.

So there is private property?

Using violence and killing them if they don't wan't to? But that isn't what you expect from a humanist society.

Meant to quote

But we must abolish private property. Leave the gynocentrism and female privilege to the Capitalist society.

>hey comrade get out in the field and pick some damn cotton
>no. I feel like doing something else. Wanna look a clouds.
>*picks up rifle*
>comrade you Will pick cotton now
>spend entire day with rifle guarding cotton picking comrade so that other people can profit from his labor
>you no longer pick any cotton
>just threaten these lazy cotton pickers

You are now the state

Personal property. You are arguing semantics here.
Read the source material, it is made very clear what property must be common and what can remain personal.

Im fucking drunk.

Do you live like that now?

Following the uh, source material? Or is it just sort of a hobby you interested from old people?

Are you saying that because I don't practice communism in a capitalist system, this means Marx was wrong all along?
Seems like a stupid statement to make.

Are you saying anything is preventing you from living according to Marx?

Seems doubtful to me.

>aaayyy we can't do it as long as there is just one capitalist

Literally no one cares if you want to live how you want. It's when your desires affect me that our system steps in.

>Are you saying anything is preventing you from living according to Marx?
>Seems doubtful to me.

Well for one, I am being asked to pay money to use housing, roads, water, and so on.
This forces me to work so I can access these goods I need, and because other people are also forced to work, we compete.

You can't "live like a Marxist" when you have to pay rent. It can't happen in the current system.
Just think about it for more than 2 minutes.

So, living in a mansion is still technically permitted in socialism and comunism?

And if Marx didn't proposed the redistribution of vagina then I will make my own branch of socialism that preaches it.

>So, living in a mansion is still technically permitted in socialism and comunism?
If a mansion already exists, why waste it? Might as well make it a house for as many people as need housing in the region, and can comfortably fit.

>And if Marx didn't proposed the redistribution of vagina then I will make my own branch of socialism that preaches it.
Marx preached equality of the genders, in the face of sexism of his day. You know, actual "man owns woman" sexism thats unthinkable today.

Then I suggest you escape capitalism.

Wanting to live your way is grand and noble. Wanting to subvert, attack and destroy my system is ignoble.

I'm not stopping you from gathering comrades and living how you want to live.

Don't stop us.

Women's liberation is too new to know if it's going to pan out.

The western birth rates just are not sustainable.

But my socialism doesn't want to take advantage of the labor of women, just redistributing their vaginas once in a while instead of giving it only to Chad.

>I'm not stopping you from gathering comrades and living how you want to live.

It is literally illegal since you have to pay tax to even exist in a state.

Why should the elites live in pussy luxury while the hoi polloi who RUN this society go without?

Fuck the kitchen we need to chase women back into the bedroom.

Muhammad married a 40 year old widow while his youngest wife led an army. England has had queens for centuries.

Well yeah YOU have to leave the STATE.

It's so obvious. You're in revolt. You don't want to live like us.

There is literally nothing chaining you here.

The state is supposed to be in submission.

>just live where there is no state, nobody is forcing you to live in a state

So do I go live on the Moon or what?

Objectively speaking Queen Victoria has been the worst Monarch England has ever had.

She lost the entire Empire and now her people are being invaded by economic migrants greedy for their social programs.

Anyhow where are the birth rates? Show them to me children are actually CRITICAL for a civilization to persist