"Give me the schools, you can have the rest." -- Stalin.
@Sambob, “....until my people graduate, at any rate.”
I see no practical difference between a follower of Marxism and a follower of Maoism.
I see no moral difference between a Marxist and a Nazi.
Marxism has led to hundreds of millions of deaths. It’s a broken ideology that fails to account for human nature.
@I Are Lebo, the comparison to Hitler is twice as valid considering Marx was viciously antisemitic
@RepostSniper, to be fair, almost every politician of the time period was, including Roosevelt.
@I Are Lebo, very true. Man, Jews really have had the big oof
@I Are Lebo, “better dead than red”
@I Are Lebo, if you could just clarify this with correct referencing by listing Marxist countries and deaths caused as a direct consequence of them following Marxist ideology. Just so you dont get confused Marxist-Leninism is not at all the same as Marxism, they just used the name to gain support. That would mean counties like the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. aren't Marxist.
@JBird7337, a big example would be the dekulakization of Russia in the 30s that starved to death and executed ~5 million people.
I’d suggest you do your own research on the topic. The death toll of Marxism is larger than the death toll of Nazism.
Leninism isn’t the issue.
@JBird7337, also if you think the USSR wasn’t Marxist, you must also think that Venezuela isn’t socialist. Which would mean that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
@JBird7337, No country has ever been truly Marxist. Too many people die before they get there.
@I Are Lebo, I think the biggest problem is choice. The appeal of an entire population acting as one is real. The human body is a perfect example for many reasons. When correctly functioning, it is capable of incalculable achievements compared to each individually; but unless almost every single cell is doing exactly what it is expected to do, the system will quickly fail. Unlike cells, we are all individually sentient with unique goals, values, thoughts, and imperfections. The simplest people are still often smart enough to trick the system. Imagine if our cells could willfully rebel. Our bodies have enough problems with our cells fully engaged in what they think they are instructed to do.
@RepostSniper, we really do. When it's good to be white, we're not, when its bad to be white, we are, and we're behind every conspiracy in existence.
@I Are Lebo,can I ask for your sources on the USSR being Marxist? Also sources in regards to the deaths being attributed to the socialist system and not to other factors such as the fact that Russia has a history of tyrannical rule and food shortages regardless of their system of government? Also, why are you bringing up Leninism?
@I Are Lebo, relevance?
@Uranusisbig, so that would be a no, then?
@Empshok, our cells do rebel, though. We call it cancer.
@JBird7337, I didn’t bring up Leninism. You did. “Marxist-Leninism is not at all the same as Marxism”. Which is a fallacious argument. Specifically, it’s the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Stalin was a Marxist. The ideology of classism and inequality didn’t accidentally lead to food shortages. They intentionally starved to death an entire class of people because of their ideology. Marxism is responsible for multiple genocides.
As for sources, look at a history book. In the interim, google works fine. All you need is “Marxist countries” or “Marxist genocides” and you’ll get a wealth of information.
@I Are Lebo, Marxism-Leninism is so named in order to trick people not smart enough into actually having their own ideas into thinking it is somehow derivative of Marx's and Lenin's ideas, some basic research will give you that information. In regards to your initial point congratulations on arguing with the "Fallacy" fallacy, my initial point was not a "No True Scotsman" arguement either, I was simply trying to avoid your arguement being a "Guilt bt Association" fallacy, apparently I was not successful, so congrats on 2 fallacies!
@I Are Lebo, just to clarify your statement of saying an example of Marxism killing people is the USSR is equivalent to me blaming the United States for the English empire colonizing Africa. In conclusion, people, please do your own unbiased independent research before realising your opinions on a subject and please do not give in to generalised statements and buzzwords. That is what allows false opinions and propoganda to spread so successfully!
@JBird7337, except I was never talking about Marxist-Leninism, I was talking about Marxism. You’re moving the goalposts. You do this a lot, and it’s quite dishonest.
As for your argument regarding Leninism, that’s just like those who would argue that democratic socialism is meaningfully different from socialism. It’s a linguistic slight of hand, which is again quite dishonest.
@I Are Lebo, another fallacy fallacy, I was never moving the goalposts, you stated Marxism is responsible for millions of deaths, I asked you to back up your claim, you were not able to do that and then resorted to logical fallacies again to prove your point.
As to my statement about Leninism, that is a fact, regardless of your opinion. Leninism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Titoism are all various forms of Communist ideologies but all are different. That's like stating all variations if Christianity are identical and all are responsible for any wrongdoings of other branches.
@JBird7337, I did do that, you simply ignored any of the examples I brought up of Marxism, the big one being Stalin’s USSR.
If you’re not going to stop being dishonest, I’m just gonna walk away from the discussion.
@I Are Lebo, rebellion requires sentience. Change my mind.
@I Are Lebo, now we're at ad hom, at least it didnt happen immediately, if this is how you choose to conduct yourself I dont think there is much of a point in continuing, at least we tried, have a good rest of your day though!
I would like to reiterate my point to anyone reading this please do unbiased independent research, be wary of generalisation and propoganda, and try and educate yourselves on logical fallacies (theres an excellent illustrated book I recommend called Bad Arguements, very entertaining) and remember to remain open to other peoples ideas and beliefs!
@Empshok, strictly speaking, I agree. Cancer isn’t an actual rebellion.
@JBird7337, saying your arguing tactic is dishonest isn’t an ad hominem. I’m not attacking your character, I’m criticizing your tactics.
Marxism is an ideology based around classism. Your comparison is seriously flawed, and it sets up a No True Scotsman fallacy because any counter to the ideology you will simply dismiss as not being ‘true’ Marxism. It’s like saying that Christianity has never caused harm because there are so many different sects and tracing a particular event in history to one can’t be done.
I recommend you follow your own advice, because you haven’t been. You have presented zero evidence or counter arguments to my point, you’ve simply dismissed it. It’s also quite hypocritical of you to throw out to remain open to other people’s beliefs, because you don’t practice what you preach.
Stalin was a Marxist, he followed the ideology to cleanse the kulaks from his country, and it killed millions. The concept of overthrowing the bourgeoise is a murderously evil concept.
Not every concept should be respected, and Marxism is fairly high up that list, right alongside socialism, nazism, and Catholicism.
@I Are Lebo, well you didnt mention my tactics, you said "if you're not going to stop being dishonest", I dont about you but that sounds like a comment on my character to me.
In regards to your opinion about Marxism it seems you are getting Marxism confused with Communism, Marxism is a specific type of theory, it was not what was used to run the USSR, this is a fact. I haven't responded to your points because there is nothing for me to respond to, I merely asked a question to which you haven't answered. My comparison isnt flawed, I am not comparing Marxism to Christianty, your argument is essentially equivalent to criticising Catholicism for wrong doings committed by the Anglican church specifically. Is Catholicism wrong? Yes, but that doesn't make your criticisms valid. Your final point you made there is actually something worth discussing (congratulations for finally getting there), many countries have civil wars (look at Spain which saw the right wing violently overthrown the left)
many derivative forms of Communist theory don't agree with Marx's idea of violent revolution, and likewise many non-communists have also used violent revolution to alter their countries politics, what are your thoughts on justifications for non-Communist examples of this? And as a side note your thoughts on Communist governments that came to power without violent overthrow?
Just to elaborate as well, the meme mentioned Marx's ideas not Marxism, to make them the same (your basic premise) is unarguably guilt by association and that was my initial point, what are your thoughts on criticising all of Marx's ideas simply because of your disagreement with Marxism?
@JBird7337, the key word was “being”. You are being dishonest. I didn’t say you are a dishonest person. I really shouldn’t have to spell this out for you.
Marxism is an ideology. Communism is an economic system. I was talking about the ideology. The ideology of Marxism leads people to place other people into groups, those being the Proletariat and the Bourgeoise. The USSR under Communism was a Marxist state. Saying “this is a fact” is not a counter argument, it’s a dismissal.
I am criticizing Marxism for the results of its ideology being adhered to. It’s not like criticism Catholicism for wrong doings committed by the Anglican Church, it’s like holding Catholicism responsible for the actions of Catholics.
The ideology of Marxism is murderous because it applies blame for society’s ills on specific subsets within society instead of recognizing that the reality is always more complicated and that assigning villain status to entire cultural subsets leads to atrocity.
have brought up the biggest problem with Marxism, and it’s the focus on violent revolution. Violent revolution for the purpose of economic restructuring is evil. Pure and simple. I was not addressing the broader example of communism or the broader topic of violent revolution in general. This is what I was referring to by you moving the goalposts. I was talking about Marxism. Not communism, not revolutionaries in general. Marxism is an ideology that is flawed to the point of murderousness.
Marx’s ideas are that you can separate a populace into their individual groups and treat them collectively. His ideas are bad, and there are dozens of examples of murderous tyrants who followed them. It’s not guilt by association. Marx isn’t bad because Stalin liked him and Stalin was bad. Marx was bad because his ideology is toxic.
That’s not to say every single idea the man ever had was bad. But Marxism is.
@I Are Lebo, just to clarify, I didnt move any goalposts, in fact this would be the answer for my initial question, to the best of your ability, that because Marxism isnt an ideology any state has followed, it's a theory on social and economics reform focusing on a critique of capitalist society. If you want to be more specific what you are arguing against isn't Marxism but specifically "Classical Marxism". Again, not moving the goal posts, but this proves my whole initial point when I first questioned you, do your research, dont judge things because of their association and when debating political theory be specific (or when debating anything, establish your perspective first to avoid miscommunication (this is what I was trying to do when you accused me of 'moving the goalposts')), again this further reinforces my original point again, please do your research, dont judge ideas based on buzzwords and popular association.
Stalin was not a Marxist, nor was the USSR, however (as I rightly predicted you would) many people dont understand exactly what Marxism-Leninism is, or even Marxism. Unfortunately Marx and his idea have been subject to some terrible branding in the past century. However, I can forgive for your initial response due to a slight level redemption with an actual response which set up your perspective on the arguement, but it still doesn't prove your point entirely in regards to deaths caused by Marxism which was why I questioned you in the first place, tyrants kill people, and they seem to arrive in any system, and why should Marxism be unfairly punished for it? Equally deadly and oppressive systems are in place in the world today that are readily supported by people that blindly hate Marxism without proper research but simply because they have been told to
@JBird7337, you have already demonstrated you don’t know what you’re talking about. “Marxism isn’t an ideology any state has followed” is a demonstrably false statement. It’s just as wrong as “there has never been an actual socialist country”.
Yes there has. There have been several countries throughout history to practice Marxism in one form or another, including Russia, Germany, China, Cuba, and more.
I am talking about Marxism in the broad sense of the ideology. When you shift the conversation to subsets of Marxism, that’s called shifting the goalposts. When you bring up a subset as if it contradicts the main point, that’s a fallacy.
@I Are Lebo, in the broad sense is generalizing, that's what we call ambiguity, also a fallacy, I'm not shifting the goal posts just trying to be specific because that really matters when discussing a topic that has been butchered by fear mongering.
Russia-Stalinist and Marxist-Leninist
None of those countries are Marxist and to say they are is exactly the problem I am pointing out
@JBird7337, I’ve already answered your question as to why I single out Marxism. It’s the ideology and the way it categorizes the world. You aren’t listening, and I’m done.
@I Are Lebo, well have a good day, I hope you educate yourself more on Marxism and it's derivatives to avoid further confusion, maybe then more productive conversations can take place
@JBird7337, I hope you actually learn how to debate honestly instead of moving the goalposts and ignoring arguments that challenge your preconceptions rather than actually addressing counter arguments, especially as you clearly do not have a proper understanding of what Marxism is.
@JBird7337, Of course comrade! We can’t let a few million deaths slow our march towards the beautiful Utopia. Don’t be fooled by those who say our revolution doesn’t work. The rich got rich by plundering and nothing more. Thats why we are poor, we bear no responsibility to it. Oh yes! I can see it, a society equally divided and working voluntarily on assigned duties. Everyone receiving food and iPhones and video games. A fool’s dream!
@Uranusisbig, Haha good meme, just to clarify I am not a Marxist, or a Communist, nor do I support violent revolution. I was merely seeking to point out that people should not blindly swallow propoganda and question everything, especially what you learn in school as it can (as we have just seen) lead to disastrous mis-education of people and inherent ignorance of economic and social theories
@JBird7337, nah. I read every comment you made. You went full Derrida on your “arguments”. Very dishonest.
@Uranusisbig, mate, not my fault Lebo doesn't understand basic Marxist and Communist theory and cant differentiate between Marxism, Communism and Marxism-Lennism (which is neither Marxist nor Leninist), I never shifted my arguement, Lebo failed to provide an answer and merely cried fallacy, if you can answer my initial question go ahead
@JBird7337, okay. What is Marxist theory, according to you?
@Uranusisbig, firstly, thank you for being civil and not contentious, this I always appreciate greatly.
Marxism is a theory in regards to social reform with an emphasis on placing value on social worth as much as economic worth. It focuses on a critique of the class system, primarily in capitalism, and it's affect on economics, social change and politics.
Marxism has many derivative schools of thought and ideologies so I would say it's hard in the contemporary sense of the word to pin down one specific school of thought as the defining Marxist theory so my above description focuses primarily on "classical Marxism" as opposed to Marxism in general.
That's probably the best in short I can give off the top of my head.
@JBird7337, Can you be more concise? Most social theories offer a critique of the class system and capitalism. I ask because we can’t move forward without agreeing to a definition. I’ll give you mine for now:
I know Marxism as the theory that seeks equal treatment and equality of ownership through education and ultimately revolution. It argues that humans have been in conflict since their inception. Those who have power abused those without. This increased with the introduction of private property(Birth of capitalism) resulting in two more defined factions: Proletariat and bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, with its wealth and power, only used it to get richer while making the proletariat poorer. The solution, it is argued, can be achieved through education and revolution. This is followed by redistribution of wealth and property, and equality of treatment. Do you agree?
@Uranusisbig, Generally I would agree with your statement, partly it depends on how you move forward with some of your claims (e.g. revolution) also I think it would benefit from including mention of social worth in abuse of the workers (as you mentioned wanting to get specific, as this social worth is a highly debated part of Marxist theory and many claim it is a logical flaw while others claim ignorance of it allows oppression of the workers). I would also add that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are not the only classes in capitalism recognized by Marxian thought. But even then getting too specific is not possible with Marxist theory as I mentioned previously it isn't a confined to a single ideology so if we are deciding to make it a more specific definition we would no longer be discussing Marxism as it is thought of today but in this case likely classical Marxism. I'm not saying that would be unacceptable however just that it needs to be agreed upon before moving forward.
@JBird7337, okay. What would you define as Marxist theory then?
@JBird7337, you dodged previous arguments by saying failed communist states weren’t Marxist. So you have to tell me what is Marxist theory according to you
@Uranusisbig, I just said what Marxist theory was, most prior communist states are Marxist-Leninist (neither Marxist nor Leninist, named so for propoganda purposes, I previously explained this and it is fairly common knowledge to anyone who has read anything about Marxist theory), Marxism-Leninism is considered a type of Stalinism, Stalinism is regarded almost universally as separate from Marxism. I suggest you do some research into into the subject, your arguement is somewhat the same as the featherless bipedal if that helps you realise the flaw in your logic
@JBird7337, you’re so oblivious it’s almost funny. Your definition is wrong, your arguments are flawed, and your hypocritical jabs at me only further highlight just how thoroughly ignorant you are on this topic. You can’t even define the terms you’re talking about without resorting to the utmost vague bullshït.
@I Are Lebo, My definitions aren't the problem, these are all the widely accepted definitions of the terms in question. Resorting to insults simply because they challenge your own personal definitions and disagree with your own narrative is not the correct manner to conduct a beneficial discussion on politics. I highly suggest you look outside your own bubble and actually educate yourself on these topics so you can hold effective discussions on them in the future. As a side note I thought you had left the conversation? Or is having the last word really that important to you?
@JBird7337, you haven’t told me what Marxist theory is. I told you my definition after you said something very vague. Then you said there’s a lot of disagreement about the flaws of its premises, and that Marxist theory isn’t confined to a single ideology. But I don’t care about whether people think it works or not, I just want a definition from you.
So what is Marxism then? You need to commit if you are trying to refute I are Lebo. You cannot tell him he is wrong about calling communist countries Marxist when you cannot even define Marxism. This is where we point out your dishonesty.
@I Are Lebo, I saw how deceitful he was attempting to be, so I was hoping to help a bit and disprove his arguments. But we didn’t even pass stage 1. Heck, he couldn’t even define Marxism lol.
@JBird7337, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, and Castro’s Cuba all believed that the wealthy elite by necessity became wealthy by exploiting the poor masses. They all believed that interactions between classes is by definition a power struggle. They all believed that the only way to have a morally good nation was the forced redistribution of wealth and the destruction of the privileged class they deemed responsible for society’s ills. They were Marxist because they followed the ideology of Marx to its natural conclusion. That they disagreed on some of the minutia doesn’t make them not Marxist. That’s like saying that Protestants aren’t actually Christians because they don’t hold to the same traditions. Your argument is by definition a No True Scotsman fallacy, evidenced by your inability to actually define Marxism as a whole.
I’m not insulting you because you’re challenging me, I’m insulting you because you’re doing it in perhaps the most dishonest way possible. For you to criticize me,
saying that I’m in my echo chamber, when you refuse (or can’t) even define your own terms without resorting to vagueness and nonanswers, claiming it’s “the widely accepted definition”, is ludicrous and hypocritical. You’re so far into your echo chamber that you can’t even seem to realize you’re getting your definitions of Marxism from neo-Marxists. Step outside of your liberal arts college and you’ll see that Marxism is an ideology that has been mainstreamed in a dozen countries, always to similar atrocities.
I don’t give a flying fück about the last word of a discussion, but this argument is accomplishing nothing beyond aggravating me, because you’re a small minded troll that dismisses anything that doesn’t reinforce your preconceived notions.
Like @Uranusisbig said, you haven’t put forward an argument. At all. You’ve dismissed counterpoints and than acted as if there haven’t been any. You deflect and move the goalposts, and avoid any honest attempts at reaching an understanding,
clearly because the truth matters far less to you than your own point of view.
Marxism is a failed ideology responsible for killing millions upon millions of people. You can accept that or not, it doesn’t make any difference to the truth of the matter.
@JBird7337, if you wish to prove me wrong and are willing to make an actual argument or demonstrate how or why I’m full of shït, I’d genuinely love to hear it. Otherwise, I’m done wasting my time and getting aggravated for no reason.
@Uranusisbig, I appreciate it. It bugs me that I let him get under my skin but the nerve of him to simultaneously argue from a point of dismissing anything that doesn’t align with his preconceptions while alleging that I’m stuck in my bubble is infuriating.
I operate from an attitude that losing a debate is a good thing because I learned something. He’s presented nothing to support his side yet keeps insisting I’m wrong. It’s really annoying. He should prove me wrong or go away.
@I Are Lebo, np. I understand the frustration. I mostly troll in here but when I see someone being shifty- specially in a sensitive topic- grinds my gears.
@Uranusisbig, if someone doesn’t want to discuss something, it’s no skin off my back. But when they argue dishonestly while claiming I’M the one being dishonest, it rankles me a little.
@I Are Lebo, a better analogy would be like its saying g Protestants aren't Catholics, you seem to not be a to grasp fun fundamental fact that Marxism =/= Communism, it is not a No True Scotsman arguement because we have a word for what their governments we here and its Stalinist which, I'm sorry to say is not Marxism, that's why I asked my initual question, because there has never been a Marxist state, Stalinust countries did not follow Marxism to it's conclusion because they maintained a military government, necessary as they were under threat from Capitalism, Stalinist countries consolidated power and wealth with the government, not the people, Stalinism is also called State Capitalism, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove a negative, the burden of proof is on you, sayingyhe USSR was Marxist isn't a valid arguement as the fact is they were Stalinist
@Uranusisbig, if my definition on Marxism was vague it is because the general definition is vague, I cant give a personal definition as I do not hold my personal opinion above widely regarded fact, while there are core similarities between Marxism and Stalinism and also they are not the same thing, Marxism is a social theory as I pointed out before, Stalinism is an interpretation of that theory, for example Stalin believed that democracy wasn't fundamental to Marx's ideas whereas many other schools of that (that are classified as Marxism) believed Democracy is fundamental to Marxism, you're asking me to essentially to prove a negative according to a personal definition, you dont need a personal definition, simple look up what Marxism and Marxist countries and then prove that they existed, merely stating something is Marxist isn't a fact, it's like the Nazi's calling themselves socialist, just because you say it's true, doesn't mean it's true
Just to ensure you understood, it is agreed upon that while Stalinism was originally inspired by the teachings of Marx, it is so different from Marxism that it is classified as something separate, something core to Stalinism for example is the socialism in one country concept, this is not a marxist idea, Stalinist countries were run by the "party" as opposed to the Marxist ideas of worker control (this was actually seen to an extent in post Tito-Stalin split Yugoslavia), when people advocate for Marxism, or generally Communism, today, generally they are not talking about the Stalinism
@JBird7337, you think Stalin, a dictator that massacred his own people, was a proponent of democracy?
You are wrong, I have researched this, and you’ve got your facts ass backwards. Where did you study this stuff? Because you should get your money back. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.
Especially since I directly said earlier that Marxism isn’t communism. Communism is an economic system, Marxism is a political ideology.
@I Are Lebo, thanks for spotting my typo, I've fixed that one
May I ask where you studied it? As they seem to teach pure propoganda. I studied it at university (which I didnt pay for so dont worry about money) as well various extra-curricular teachings provided by lecturers and reading actual Marxist texts directly instead of being told about it by a propagandist
@JBird7337, you say Marxism is vague, but you continue to say that certain communist countries weren’t Marxist. You can’t do that, it’s incoherent. You either know what Marxism is or you don’t.
We are calling those countries marxist because they followed the premises of Marxism. But I can’t even walk you through them because you have no idea what Marxism is. I can’t argue about Marxism with someone who doesn’t want to tell me what he thinks Marxism is. Because then that person would be able to pull anything out of his ass throughout the argument.
And I didn’t ask you to prove a negative. I just asked you what Marxism is, which you just continue to say is a vague social theory.
@JBird7337, how is it different from Marxism dude, you don’t know what Marxism is.
@Uranusisbig, the difference is opinion vs fact, your opinion is that countries like the USSR was Marxist, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that it was Stalinist which is widely regarded as not being Marxist, did it follow some if Marx's principles yes, but it also had some fundamental differences, some of which I pointed out earlier. If you don't want to accept was is considered fact by political theorists (that Marxism and Stalinism are different) is fine by me but this conversation can't go anywhere, if you want to prove to me that Stalinism and Marxism are the same go ahead, I'm willing to hear your arguement but my personal opinion or definition on Marxism is irrelevant to this conversation as personal opinions dont change facts, despite what some people on social media might think
@JBird7337, How can we differentiate Marxism from Stalinism when YOU Don’t Know what Marxism is.
Give your head a shake, c’mon.
@JBird7337, I think you are afraid to define Marxism. Once you do it’ll be easy to point out the similarities and you won’t have anywhere else to hide.
@Uranusisbig, If you absoluty need one to finish playing whatever game you want to play now that I have some more time I'll say this, I do not consider the following a complete and absolute definition of Marxism, nor would I consider it a completely correct definition of Marxism for the reasons stated above but if you require one, a quick and dirty one is this:
A way to interpret history focusing on dialectical materialism and historical materialism and a social and political theory critiquing capitalism and stating that the natural evolution of capitalism is socialism. This change occurs from self-emancipation of the working class that exists in an industrialised capitalist society. This leads to direct democratic control of resources and the destruction of the dominating, exploiting class over workers found in the capitalist system and leading to a stateless, lawless, classless, egalitarian society.
While that does leave a lot of blanks because of the previously mentioned issues and I think to an extent represents Classical Marxism and his teachings rather than Marxism as a whole and really rather than a definition is just representative of some of the principles in Marxism. It's really the best I can do going slightly further than the top of my head and in the limited medium of the comments section on an app for memes. Regardless of the above definition I have already pointed out some key differences between Stalinism and Marxism that, regardless of definition, prohibit them from being considered the same, which is why they arent considered the same.
The reason Stalinism is not Marxist is
A ruling class remains over the workers
Self-emancipation did not occur but a forceful push for violent revolution
Requires violent revolution
Did not occur in an industrialised society but was used to aggressively industrialise
Did not occur in a matured capitalist society
Did not focus on spreading socialism in order to lead to said stateless society but instead focused on industrialising the USSR
Centralisation of power leading to a powerful bureaucracy and authoritarian state run by a group of intellectuals (vanguardism)
Require an intermediary Socialist society to exist before Communism consisting of Socialism in one country and that work and wages would operate according to the 'socialist principle' of 'he who does not work shall not eat', this distinction and idea is not found in Marx's work but an evolution of ideas in Lenin's writings
Did not feature direct democracy
In terms of fundamentals you can boil it down to (this is not a complete list, just what comes to mind between ad breaks to make it real simple)
Vanguardism and dictatorship vs direct democracy
Socialism as a separate environment
Method of instituting
@JBird7337, that was a massive load of gibberish. Applying arbitrary rules to a political ideology to ‘specialize’ it is just another way of attempting to define something into or out of existence. This is the mental gymnastics required to both promote and believe a fallacious argument.
You would do well to read 1984 by George Orwell (assuming you haven’t already). You are engaged in doublethink by both presenting Marxism as a subjective method of thought that is difficult to pin down to anything specific, while simultaneously holding a list of criteria so specific as to guarantee that no one can actually be accused of being a marxist.
You very clearly do not have a proper understanding of the topic material.
@I Are Lebo, Unfortunately again you have presented a response without a valid point, I remind you we are discussing something involved in objective fact and not subjective opinion. It appears you have a basic lack of understanding (or at least an incorrect understanding being a victim of propoganda) as to what both Marxism and an ideology is, those were not "arbitrary rules" but core tenents, which us exactly what you've been asking for this whole time. None of what I stated is my opinion but facts I have found upon research into the topic that are supported by the academic community. Apparently, no matter how many times I say this, you refuse to undertake unbiased research into the topic and continue to live with your head in the sand comfortably ingesting propoganda.
I'm gonna have to bow out after this, with someone so entrenched in their position and unable to provide a legitimate response and ignoring valid points this conversation is going nowhere. We have been unable to move past the initial stages as you are unable to substantiate your position with any objective fact and unable to respond to any point without crying fallacy. You seem to be interested in trying to play word tricks rather than using facts. If you do write any sort of half response they don't provide a counterpoint, are made up of opinion and/or generally outright ignore half of statement meaning they dont require me to respond but merely for you to go back and re-read my response. You refusing to acknowledge your position as incorrect via ignorance is an act of idiocy and really makes it impossible for me to continue this discussion further as half my responses you call a fallacy and the other half you just outright ignore and somehow seem to think that makes them invalid.
Just to end this discussion though, if we do look at the definition I provided and conclude that everything, no matter how loosely, that aligns with that is Marxism there are still several core elements to it that are incompatible with Stalinism thus proving my point. The only way someone could look at that definition and conclude that it applies to Stalinism is if (and I mean no offence with this) they had absolutely no bloody idea what they were talking about in regards to Stalinism or Marxism.
Congrats on coming back for the last word...again.
@JBird7337, it’s quite funny to me how you continue to accuse me of your own actions. You’re not a very self aware person, has anyone ever told you that before?
You can literally see them getting more and more desperate to brainwash young people by the day
Went from stupid to dangerously stupid
So what you're saying is teen vogue is just getting hotter as the years go by?
@Twatasaurusrex, I think the same could be said about Karl Marx. He really pulls of the grey look.
@Deauxx, well that beard is sexy. Gives you something to tug on whilst he's choking on your man meat.
@Twatasaurusrex, thinking about it gets me all Red in the face
He’s only relevant because a bunch of politicians are promising young voters free stuff. It’s all a scam, and if we did get that free stuff, we’d have even bigger issues on our hands...
@Soy un Ranchero, No, not really. The first thing they do in a class like World History since 1945 is have you read the Communist Manifesto not to indoctrinate, but to show just what he was saying and how influential it was. Teen Vogue is right: Marx's ideas, even when twisted, have a longstanding legacy and continue to explain current political states.
@Jdrawer, you’re an idiot (on top of being a troll). Studying the Communist Manifesto to learn it’s influence is like studying Mein Kampf. The legacy of Marx is genocidal.
Teen vogue is quite literally the worst
@Lord Stark, still not as bad as Marxism
This is actually progress.
Jonas Bros weren't around in 2002
I’m a dude and was never into boy bands but weren’t the Jonas brothers later than 2002? I thought they were like 2007, at least that’s when all the girls in my school were going crazy for them.