But do not be mistaken, this guy is not stupid and probably can negotiate better deal for Greece.
This determination to have the complete, closed story, or model, the final word, is something I cannot forgive Marx for. It proved, after all, responsible for a great deal of error and, more significantly, authoritarianism. Errors and authoritarianism that are largely responsible for the left’s current impotence as a force of good and as a check on the abuses of reason and liberty that the neoliberal crew are overseeing today.
It does seem, however, mob mentality (think the effect Hitler's speeches had, despite such insane content) combined with a dictatorship of the proletariat creates the perfect open field for totalitarianism to take hold, where even further power is taken from the working class. The fact it also creates a scapegoat in the capitalist, wealthy class is even worse.
I read Capital and some other bugs. Problem is that Marxism defined as 'class struggle' is essentially hate movement, they are defined by their enemy. Once they come to power and the 'class struggle' is solved, it does not have any more solutions. So it needs 'constant revolution'.
> For one, a dictatorship of the working class, such as direct democracy, is a cornerstone of communism but clearly did not feature in Soviet states.
It did. But 'working class' was defined as factory workers, but 90% of people were working in agriculture. Marxist solution was to convert everyone into factory worker and kill rest.
> It was a distortion by Stalin, I believe, since it's also called Stalinism.
Stalin was not distortion, there were other leaders similar to him, who would take his place if we would not exist. Also other countries followed similar fate (China, North Korea...)
He had this to say in the introduction though:
> “I do not by any means depict the capitalist and the landlord in rosy colours. But individuals are dealt with here only insofar as they are the personifications of economic categories, the bearers of particular class-relations and interests. My standpoint, from which the development of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he remains, socially speaking, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them.” (Marx, Capital Vol. I, 92)
Marx clearly opposes the personification of the conflict between classes. The aim of his Capital project was precisely to demonstrate how people's actions are determined by social relations, and not by greed or evilness. And what he wanted to replace were these social relations themselves, not the individuals affected by them.
Also, the no true Scotsmen fallacy refers to universal claims, like "Scottish people don't put sugar in their tea". Saying that Lenin had a different view of the world than Marx, and very different ideas on what needs to change and how, can be easily backed with facts. That is not a fallacy.
The entire first half of the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto, for example is one long description of how the bourgeoisie / capitalist have driven humanity forwards.
> It did.
It did not. Not past the October "revolution". The Bolsheviks played with it as long as it suited them (that is, as long as they did not have influence in the democratically elected Provisional Government, but had influence in the Soviets set up in the Moscow and Petrograd soviets), but when it was clear that most people did not support them, they quickly curtailed the power of the Soviets and hunted down and murdered thousands of leaders of opposition groups that countered their influence in them. Including Marxists.
> Stalin was not distortion, there were other leaders similar to him, who would take his place if we would not exist
After he had murdered and exiled the opposition in his own party, yes. Which against followed the murder and exile and prohibition of Marxist and other socialist groups years earlier.
[EDIT: Maybe whomever downvoted could bother replying]
The need for proletarian revolution. And I am talking about marxism, not Marx works. Marx himself mostly hated local socialists (they wanted practical stuff and found him ridiculous).
> Not past the October "revolution". The Bolsheviks played with it as long as it suited them...
Bunch of guys have this bible about how revolution is necessary, how it will solve everything, and how heaven on earth is coming. And when majority disagree with them, they just apologize, step down, and quietly leave to deserted island to build their version of Utopia alone?
> After he had murdered and exiled the opposition in his own party, yes. Which against followed the murder and exile and prohibition of Marxist and other socialist groups years earlier.
Personality cult raised in every soviet country. It is very convenient to blame everything on single person and not on the system itself. If anything famous Trockij loved 'doing paper work' even more than Stalin.
> Maybe whomever downvoted could bother replying
I upvoted and hate this on HN as well.
> Marx himself mostly hated local socialists (they wanted practical stuff and found him ridiculous).
HAH! That is the complete opposite:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ou...
'Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).'
Why did you call jwdunne's distinction between Marx's theories and marxism a "no true scotsman" when you're making the exact same difference?
From what I've read about Marx's theories and the Soviet Union, they are two separate things. It's like comparing communism to state capitalism.
Stalin also lived a life of luxury whilst many starved. This is exactly what communism was meant to prevent. This is just capitalism gone wild but where the state has a monopoly. The man at the top still eats 3 meals a day whilst enjoying movies and fine wine where a whole strata goes hungry.
Funny side note: I was born in Scotland but told I'm not Scottish. I'm literally not a true scotsman. Made me laugh.
It was explicitly an attempt to "work around" the many parts of Marx' theories that Lenins opposition in the RSDLP used against his own insistence that it would be possible to carry out a socialist revolution in Russia.
When Lenins theory proved conclusively false (the Bolsheviks only managed to get support in the big cities in the elections in 1917, hence their coup d'etat), the Bolsheviks tried a wide range of approaches to demonise and marginalize farmers, and eventually tried to force them into collectives.
Landless peasants were remainder of 'feudalism' and needed to be 'saved'. If peasants owned even small farm, that made him capitalist and enemy.
It does not say anything peasants should have any sort of voting rights, or even control.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1964/xx/collect...
> Stalin also lived a life of luxury whilst many starved.
Stalin lived very modest live compared to other leaders.
typo, but it fits.
What does this mean? It sounds like you're trying to emphasize it as something good but I can't see how anything with the word dictatorship in it can be that.
That is what Marx coined it as. Perhaps dictatorship wasn't so strongly associated with tyranny at the time of writing as it is now, which would make sense since we have much greater access to information now, especially accounts on what all the dictatorships of the 20th century were like.
This simplifies to "if you don't agree with me, you're too much of an idiot to participate in the conversation". It's a profoundly anti-democratic idea. (Again, presuming that I understand it correctly.)
Consider that Marx referred to capitalist democracies as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie: The bourgeois/capitalist class maintains the balance of power.
It's also worth pointing out that Marx did not describe the dictatorship of the proletariat as something desirable, but as a necessary temporary state. At the same time he pointed out that there's a fundamental difference: Any capitalist can become a proletarian simply by giving up his wealth.
"Communism" was the name of the system Marx advocated (the title of his work with Engels is The Communist Manifesto.)
Now, Soviet Communism is distinct from Marx's Communism in that it is based in Leninist vanguardism, which still calls itself Marxist, but radically departs from Marxism in a number of ways, both in terms of understood preconditions and program, in order to address the fact that Russia was not an developed capitalist society of the type Marx's theory was based in.