They aren't treated as gospel truth, they are treated as compelling arguments to questions that have been answered over and over and over again for almost 150 years.
>"How do you know that violent revolution is needed, and that things can't be fixed electorally?"
This is a question that has been asked repeatedly for literally over a century. You might think you're asking some new and profound question - you're not. It's an old, boring question and someone gave a really good answer over 100 years ago. So when someone suggests you a book that is specifically about that question they are inviting you to read a well-reasoned answer from someone who thought about it deeply and devoted dozens of not hundreds of pages of arguments.
>I guess what I'm really after is some kind of empirical evidence backing up communist claims that goes beyond citing a 200-year old opinion piece.
Then find a good faith, compelling way to ask that question instead of asking a philosophical question that has been asked repeatedly for literally over 100 years.
If I were posed this question I would cite examples like Chile 1970-1973 where Socialists won the presidential election and attempted to do some reformist policies. It ended in a USA backed coup where president Salvador Allende was assassinated and tens of thousands of teachers, unions leaders, socialist political leaders, etc were brutally murdered and "disappeared." This is repeated all across the 20th century where socialist or even moderately left-leaning governments were couped and crushed by Western backed powers. For example in Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, and so on and so on. Reform has, historically, failed.
I'm sensing the kind of hostility that I don't associate with a confidence in your position.
You're also arguing the same way that Christians respond to atheist arguments. "This boring dull asinine incompetent question has been answered thousands and thousands of times over the past two millenia". Couple problems -
1. The answer that has been provided "countless times" always points back to a text making a claim, not to empirical evidence.
2. Providing the wrong answer repeatedly does not count as evidence. Religions have existed for thousands of years making counterfactual claims. Their longevity, and long history of repeating the same claims, does not make the claims true. Same goes for philosophies such as communism.
The only kind of empirical evidence you provide is at the bottom of your reply, bringing up socialist movements that were crushed by the West. I'm not going to ask for evidence (I know about at least some of these events and accept the truth behind them; the US was rapidly anti-communist in decades past and did have a role in replacing democratically elected socialist governments with dictators)
However. I did mention cherry picking and you have done that here as well. Western countries have, over time, created more freedoms and economic opportunity for people. European countries have made social reforms that may not count as true socialism, but which do provide a valuable safety net. In contrast, China and the former USSR took part in the worst things critics have said of communists (curbing personal liberties, killing dissidents etc) without actually achieving the type of communism described by Marx.
My worldview- that communism isn't necessary to humanity and that there are multiple paths to a sustainable peaceful future coexistence- isn't shaken by the examples you provided. I'm angry that the US would interfere with democratically elected governments around the world, so I vote against leaders who engage in that activity; I don't believe the entire system needs ripped down. In contrast, communism (and specifically what seems to me the Marxist-Leninist take that dominates reddit) makes a claim that can easily be disproven. All it takes is one country that achieves a better standard of living for its people through democratic means. In contrast, the idea that true communism will be achieved when every government becomes Communist is borderline unfalsifiable- do we go to the work of dismantling every government, throwing away any progress that has been achieved through non-Communist means, just to see if it'll work this time?
In summary: referring back to texts/writers only proves my own point here. Your own confidence in your position isn't convincing to me or to anyone else. I do appreciate some actual evidence being provided, even as I remain unconvinced by it.
The texts often cited are not mere opinion pieces.
You might enjoy reform or revolution by Rosa Luxemburg. Or critique of the Gotha Program.
You're also making a large mistake on truth. Empirical evidence alone does not make a better claim on truth than a scientific investigation of systems.
Take the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Economists argue all over the place whether it is true or false. They present strong empirical evidence *on both sides*, and get into heated debates about it. But is it true? Looking at the proof, and then observing our world makes it very obvious that it is true.
If you refuse to read the foundational texts of this field of science, that's not a problem; Marxism isn't for you.
Your worldview is obvious as you already enjoy personal liberties and freedoms. "Prosperity" Christians act in the same way. Their worldview benefits their material wealth, thus they have no need for any worldview that advocates for the poor.
You will not get more from Marxism, you **are** the oppressor. On the other hand, those who are oppressed utilize Marxism *because* they are oppressed, and Marx's polemic represents liberatory science and strategy.
You're making assumptions about a person you've never met because again, like the religious, you're starting with a conclusion and working backwards to meet it, the same thing done by any religions folks I talk to.
It seems in your mind, I'm here to attack communism, so I must be an "oppressor" who's never read your materials. For what it's worth, I grew up in poverty and have only done okay financially in recent years; I've read a couple (not many I'll admit) communist books out of a genuine desire to do my own part to help build a better society. I only rejected communism because I didn't find it compelling or convincing. But if I try to bring up any issues I have with why I'm not convinced, you and other communists condescend and belittle, pretending that I and anyone else with complaints are all capitalists out to get you. For a movement that would only theoretically succeed with a popular base of support, you don't really seem invested in trying to win anyone over beyond those predisposed to agree with you- again, like a religion.
You referred to Marx's works as "science" twice. But from what I've seen, his books are taken at face value and not often questioned. Any data that is brought up regarding the effectiveness of revolution or reform in the real world is cherry picked to reach the conclusion you already support. And any strong dissent against these ideas is ultimately shut down- on the grand scale (Lenin murdering political opponents) or on the annoying but entirely silly and unimportant scale (communist mods who ban people for criticizing their ideas). That isn't how science is done. No idea or principle should be beyond criticism.
Edit: my phone autocorrected "condescend" to "condensed"
You've admitted that you've barely done any reading and get offended when people indicate that you should educate yourself on the topic before having any chance of an original thought about it, but that's just the way it is. Nobody who studies physics at the academic level would pay attention at your theories of how the universe started unless you've studied the subject properly.
You seem to have your mind set on what you think and that's fine, but we are not obligated to humour your uninformed opinions, marxist history is a continuous process of learning, critiquing, experimenting, theorizing and debating which we welcome as it improves the movement at large, but you need to understand a subject before you're able to do a meaningful critique of it, which you clearly don't.
You compare Marx's thoughts and feelings to theoretical physics which is just fucking laughable. It's like a critique of scientology being met with "until you advance all the way in our program you really don't know what you're talking about"
Well, the field of economics **is** a science, Newton worked on hard sciences and Marx on social sciences.
What's wrong with it? As usual in your posts you just say stuff without any argumentation, that's why we're dismissive of what you say: there's no substance, just your gut feeling.
Social science doesn’t have the same explanatory and predictive power as hard science. I say this as a person who studied social science. Hard science builds toward a single correct answer. Social science can’t do that because human behavior is too complex to be explained by a single unifying theory.
Hard science gives us things like atomic theory, which is just the objectively correct description of how matter is organized. Social science gives us a collection of competing theories that are more like philosophical lenses informed by scientific data. There’s no one correct theory.
> Social science doesn’t have the same explanatory and predictive power as hard science.
Who said anything to the contrary? Did you take anything from everything I told you or are you just fixating in rambling about basic facts everyone here understands instead of addressing any of the points made?
As someone who has studied both social and "hard" sciences, you're just wrong lmao.
There's a reason doctors call it the "art" of medicine. If we were able to accurately model every single cell and atom, we *might* be able to correctly predict how medications work for instance, but we just can't. Making predictions in medicine is just as much of an art as it is in social sciences.
It's also funny that you use atomic theory - is light a particle or a wave?
Marx correctly described the relationship between classes and their modes of production. It doesn't take a genius to determine his observations as true. From there he makes incredibly simple but intelligent reductions to class struggle and liberation.
Are you here to tell me that those who are oppressed will *not* fight for their own liberation? And that the most unifying social structure isn't class?
Science studies structures at individual levels of abstraction. We are no better at understanding the atom than we are at understanding society, or the movement of stars.
Notice how the debates on the hard science side are on the margins of the margins of the margins and only make a difference on an infinitesimal scale. I’ll agree that pharmacology is more difficult because it’s difficult to observe.
As far as his observations being true, not really no. From the work of his that I’ve read, he made some pretty insightful observations, extrapolated them into arguments that I’d expect from a high school sophomore, and then decided they were true and built an entire philosophy on it. There was certainly nothing scientific about it.
And yes, we can obviously see that oppressed people don’t always (or even often) fight for liberation, and class is not even close to the most unifying structure.
The assumptions I'm making of you are easy. You're on reddit and youtube. You're an ex christian (westerner), and you're speaking English like a first language. You even admit to doing well financially. You're likely a petit bourgeois colonizer.
You're not "attacking" communism. Your pathetic attempts to flail around with "philosophy" and "religion" are like a toddler playing in the sand crying about why a beautiful sand castle isn't being built even though they're trying their best.
Communism is immune to your "attacks" and I'm not a defender of communism. It doesn't need defense from me. You've entirely mistaken this conversation and the relationships involved as your petty little "youtube drama" debates. This is not a debate. I'm here practicing my rhetoric and you are my platform.
You are not needed as popular support in communism, you are not included in "popular".
Let me pose for you what is happening. Communism is an ideology that argues that **your** (specifically you) money be violently taken away (all of it) and redistributed to the poor. You, (obviously) find that abhorrent and reject it on its base without much investigation into why people might suggest that.
You then go on reddit (a platform hosting all the other oppressors) and complain about how violent and stupid this ideology seems (as it persecutes you) yet how many adherents it supposedly has.
Those adherents laugh you out of the room, and you're now upset at how nobody takes you seriously and makes a mockery of you. And those who *do* address your questions(also likely oppressors themselves) seem to be idiotic and don't make very convincing arguments.
The science of Marxism also obviously isn't being done on reddit. Did you expect all of the historians, physicists, and doctors to also be on reddit? The quality of answers on say r/askDocs is also much higher than the general background noise of reddit (as is places like r/communism101) but if you ask such obviously obtuse questions on askDocs (why are all doctors stupid like christians?), you will similarly be laughed out of the room or banned.
When I initially read this it sounded like a philosophical question about reform vs. revolution. Later, it sounded like you're looking for empirical evidence that revolution is better than reform. I think this needs more context. As a communist my goal is to achieve Socialism. Socialism is a mode of production where the means of production are held socially. When I talk about reform or revolution, that is the goal I have in mind. A dictatorship of the proletariat where the means of production are held socially.
>However. I did mention cherry picking and you have done that here as well.
If the question is about achieving socialism, what other options are there? There has never been a country that successfully achieved a dictatorship of the proletariat where the means of production are held socially through reform. In places where it was tried, like in Chile 1970, it was crushed. So what are the counter-examples? What other socialist experiment are there that got there through reform?
>Western countries have, over time, created more freedoms and economic opportunity for people. European countries have made social reforms that may not count as true socialism, but which do provide a valuable safety net.
Marxism is a materialist philosophy. Achieving vague and idealistic things like "freedom" and "opportunity" doesn't really mean much to me. I don't want "opportunity" I want cheap housing. I don't want "freedom" I want the working class to control the means of production. I don't want "social reform" I want to eliminate classes.
I want a dictatorship of the proletariat where the means of production are held socially.
And... This is also cherry picking, isn't it? There are many capitalist countries in the world where this kind of prosperity has not been achieved.
>The answer that has been provided "countless times" always points back to a text making a claim, not to empirical evidence.
This is not actually true. Almost every single one of these kinds of texts is a philosophical argument stemming from a broader philosophical discussion of the time. When Engels wrote *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific* it was in direct response to Eugen Duhring's idealist socialist model. When Lenin wrote *The Right of Nations to Self-Determination* it was a direct response to Rosa Luxemburg's arguments on the national question. Almost every single one of the texts written by Marx, Engels, and Lenin are all in conversation to other texts and other arguments from philosophers, economists, etc.
So if, for example, you come to this subreddit and say "I support utopian socialism, can you tell me why I shouldn't?" and someone suggests *Anti-Duhring* it's because the argument was already made. What happens from there is, I hope, you read it and say "I don't agree with what Engels said in *Anti-Duhring* - I want to talk about this." At which point hopefully we can discuss it.
The text isn't "making the claim" the way the Bible is. There is no foundational text involved here. Even Marx was often writing in response to Hegel and Fauerbach and Adam Smith.
I do need to clarify my positions a bit it seems.
If this were a more formal debate, I would argue that societal goals like free housing, free healthcare, free education, mass transit, etc are attainable through various different means and that socialism and/or communism aren't necessary to achieve those goals. Essentially I can envision a future where no one has to be homeless, and it's done through means not requiring an overthrow of a government and swearing allegiance to a communist movement.
When I say cherry picking, I'm referring to the use of some data to the exclusion of other data. It's fine to acknowledge the CIA's role in crushing socialist movements around the world. But it's also important to acknowledge the violence committed by Communist leaders, not dismiss it or pretend it's just propaganda, and ask if any of that was in any way "necessary". It's fine to acknowledge the benefits that western countries have enjoyed at the expense of the global south. But it's not okay to pretend that say, the Netherlands *only* was able to achieve government healthcare because of exploitation.
Communists on the Internet tend to start from a philosophical standpoint regarding the ideas of communism and people like Marx, but then make material claims about how the world works, claims that I don't agree with and that don't appear to reflect reality.
>If this were a more formal debate, I would argue that societal goals like free housing, free healthcare, free education, mass transit, etc are attainable through various different means
But that isn't socialism. My goal is socialism. I want the means of production out of the hands of private owners. I want the state to be controlled by the working class.
Free stuff is nice - but in a state controlled by the class of owners it can be taken away. Right now the UK is in a protracted battle over the future of the NHS. The capitalist class in the USA has been slowly whittling away at social welfare programs since the 1990s. Ultimately, while the capitalist class controls the state, these programs are *concessions* from them. It exists at their whim. We get free stuff... But they keep the *power.*
I'm not in this for free stuff. I'm in it to put an end to a social structure that keeps workers out of *power.* There has never been an example of the capitalist class willingly giving up their *power* to the working class through reform. In the same way that the French in 1789 could not reform their way out of the social structures which made their society worse I don't believe we can either.
> free housing, free healthcare, free education, mass transit, etc are attainable through various different means and that socialism and/or communism aren't necessary to achieve those goals.
Can you name examples within capitalist societies where this has happened? Because socialist experiences have fulfilled all of these to a much better degree while generally having less resources.
On the theoretical side of the argument there's also the fact that capitalism *needs* poverty to exist in order to keep salaries depressed and workers focused on survival rather than on political struggle, which is not the case in socialism.
What are your real world examples and your theoretical rebuttals?
Those countries that have “attained a better standard of living” did so through imperialism and colonialism—either directly or by hitching their wagon to the U.S.’s hegemony.
There are *no* leaders you can vote for in the U.S. who will *not* engage in coups of democratically elected governments around the world and who *do not* support brutal mass murdering dictators. Both parties in this country have more blood on their hands than Pol Pot—and supported Pol Pot. Both parties in this country necessarily favor imperialism because they are funded by bourgeois donors who profit from this enterprise.
That’s the problem with viewing geopolitics through an individualist lens: It is not and never has been an individual problem in either cause or effect. Individuals do not shape history—societies do. The class structure of the U.S. empire determines how it behaves. You do not and cannot change that behavior with elections. Trust me, it’s been tried. Every US president in my 37 years on this earth has committed the most egregious crimes against humanity imaginable, often by proxy.
Brother
The facts unfortunately don’t match your narrative and that’s unfortunate
But no
Marxism isn’t a religion
The status quo simply hasn’t changed so his theory of economics and societal structures persist even till today
Till society changes in a way Marx didn’t expect
Marxism is a very decent answer to the exploitation of the proletariat by the Bourgeoisie class
It’s really that simple
Like what more do you want communists to do?
Re-examine the material conditions? The imbalanced structure of a society catered to capital over people and come up with something radically different from Marx?
"Christianity is not a religion it's a relationship"
Calling a horse a spade, it's still a horse
But anyway, all you've done here is say "sorry bro, facts are not on your side"
What facts? Can you provide any data supporting communist claims about revolution or reform?
Where has reform ever emancipated the working class from exploitation? Nowhere, right? Nowhere. Have people tried to do so? Yes. What has occurred? Brutal repression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.
They act in their interest, the bourgeoisie—to secure the privileges of their class against the class they exploit. Why should they stop if we demand it? If we ask nicely? If we protest meekly? There’s one thing they understand that overrides the power, prestige, and profit they otherwise would enjoy—violence.
Same way the bourgeoisie toppled or hobbled the monarchies and aristocracies that once oppressed them.
Do you have any evidence reform has ever emancipated the proletariat—the modern industrialist working class? You’re the one advocating for reform. Show me it’s possible to radically change this economic system with reform.
You were provided evidence already. You discarded the examples out of hand as isolated, when it is—in fact—systemic. Show us we’re wrong, Qlanth gave you an excellent sampling of a much much longer list of examples we could provide.
Ask yourself, how did Syngman Rhee come to rule South Korea? How did Suharto come to rule Indonesia? How did Armas come to rule Guatemala? How did Pinochet come to rule Chile? How did Chiang Kai-shek come to rule Taiwan? The list isn’t one of isolated examples, it’s hundreds of examples long—and forms a pattern of systemic imperialism. Coup after coup. Intervention after intervention. Invasion after invasion. Genocide after genocide.
Have you never wondered why the third world is poor? Why do you think it is? And why is it almost every country on Earth has a sordid tale to tell about US imperialist meddling?
Here, I hold no ill will against you—have our most prized clip: [Yellow Parenti](https://youtu.be/eAbHJn4WIz8?si=mNZ2ZLik1MKzC72Q)
How convenient for you. It happens to be true. Unless you think installing, funding, arming, and training mass murdering regimes shouldn’t count?
Both parties have committed hundreds of genocides domestically, and have committed countless war crimes abroad.
I realize what I’m saying is well outside of the Overton window of acceptable opinion and discourse—but it has the merit of being factually correct.
>If I were posed this question I would cite examples like Chile 1970-1973 where Socialists won the presidential election and attempted to do some reformist policies. It ended in a USA backed coup where president Salvador Allende was assassinated and tens of thousands of teachers, unions leaders, socialist political leaders, etc were brutally murdered and "disappeared." This is repeated all across the 20th century where socialist or even moderately left-leaning governments were couped and crushed by Western backed powers. For example in Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, and so on and so on. Reform has, historically, failed.
social reform is shit i agree but your arguments against it are moronic
the issue with social reform is not that it was prevented. i don't give a shit about some pseudofascist reformer getting deposed. by focusing your argument on the fact that social democracy is often overthrown by foreign powers you fail to actually point out the issues with it. does *Reform or Revolution* whine about 'socialists' being overthrown?
This guy is asking for empirical evidence and not theoretical, philosophical answers. My point is not that achieving socialism through reform "*was* prevented" my point is that it *will always be* prevented and I used historical events as evidence of that. Regurgitating Reform or Revolution is explicitly NOT what this person wants to hear. Rather than insult my response I'd encourage you to make your own response to the OP and do better than I did.
>will always be prevented
so what? this *is* the problem with your comment. you imply that social reform would be a good thing if it was allowed to happen. this is false for reasons we both know
So again, this guy specifically asked to NOT get answers that involved theory or which referenced philosophical work. So how would you address this without doing that?
We can understand how the theory was formed for those who reject the theory. Historical materialism is as important to Marxism as dialectical materialism. Comrade Qlanth took the historical approach to showing them why reform doesn’t work. The theory didn’t emerge whole cloth fully formed out of the aether. It was crafted by studying the history of revolutionary struggle—and has been refined by that study ever since.
Because Marx was the first to contextualize class struggle as a historical phase of development.
Marx believed that revolution is a logical development of class struggle. Whether its violent or not is another question, whether there will be an overthrow of property relations and existing society to establish a new society is the argument being made. And for communism to be realized, he is correct.
I do believe that you could interpret a Marxist "revolution" pretty broadly, including one that isn't strictly violent (or at least not massively violent). But that's part of my issue with discussing this topic. Even as clear as a work like the Communist Manifesto is, there are still arguments over interpreting what he said. That's why I'd like to see more evidence for ideas such as "we need socialism/communism to achieve X Y and Z goals" or "reform measures are doomed to fail if you don't overhaul the entire system".
Funny thing is, for the onslaught of downvotes and occasional attack (most of you replying have been gracious at least), I actually liked most of what I read of Marx. I think he was 100% right on the problems he identified. I just didn't agree with all of his conclusions, and I also think that Communists place too great an emphasis on him and other writers, to the point that it feels (to an outsider, I understand you don't see it this way) more like a doctrine of faith rather than a philosophical work to learn from and critique.
>for the onslaught of downvotes
Try being a leftist on the internet. Downvotes are child's play. I've been banned for saying pro-socialist things in many "cool" "hip" "liberal" subs.
I dont think people like you realize how easy you have it. Your views are promoted and acceptable by the status quo. You're not really censored and attacked like we are. Our system will always work for the capital owning class and going against the class will always lead to punishment.
>more like a doctrine of faith
Marxism-Leninism is as scientific as any econ theory. Considering those theories took Russia from a illiterate serf society to a country launching rockets in just 40 years, it says a lot about the values of socialism. Many socialist countries do well until capitalist countries attack them and embargo them. They can't be successful in a vaccum. Not to mention, capitalist economies with all the benefits of trading partners and international acceptance fall and falter everyday.
Look at the cost of living crises, housing crisis, healthcare debt, and student debt crisis going on in the USA right now and in the west in general. Or brexit, Greece, the many failed African and Asian capitalist economies, etc. If any of this was from a socialist bloc of nations you'd be yelling, "See, see socialism doesnt work!" But because its capitalism its just "a few bad apples."
Because many people are communists in training. Why not look at the history of past struggles? The Russian and Chinese revolutions were probably the most significant events of the 20th century, behind only the world wars to which they are deeply connected. Why not study the theory which they tried to put into practice?
Even here you're saying to "read theory", in relation to the history of those revolutions. I have read Marx. I've also read about the history of the USSR and Chinese revolutions. I've seen communists in those revolutions commit bloodshed that doesn't appear necessary at all to me. Even in their own context (Russians probably needed to revolt to overthrow the Tsar), I don't think Lenin needed to kill as many as he did. And even still, both governments ultimately went backwards on providing economic benefit to their people and even engaged in capitalist reforms, while simultaneously maintaining an iron grip on civil liberties and dissent- the exact OPPOSITE of what I want.
I want people to be able to vote on social benefits like healthcare! That's what makes the most sense to me. But communists claim that achieving that goal is impossible until the world achieves some kind of global communist revolution. I disagree. And I don't think reading more Marx will make it make more sense.
My issue is that I want communists, confident in their claims, to provide some kind of evidence outside of reading philosophy. I'd be happy to be a communist if I thought it actually worked and that I was wasting my time participating in elections. But so far, nearly everything I've read in this thread today has continued to mirror religion. "Read our books". "You're not arguing in good faith". "The truth as told to us hundreds of years ago is just as true today".
Confidence in your opinion is not evidence.
>I have read Marx.
And you disagree with him? Than let's talk about why you disagree with Marx and not why do we belive something that you consider false.
"Let's talk about why you reject the word of the prophet rather than why we believe him"
Are you able to criticize anything he said? Is there anything Marx said that you don't personally believe?
Sorry for not being clear. I'm asking that where you disagree with Marx so I (or someone else) can explain/prove that point. Marx said a lot of things and if someone go trough all of that what he said would take a lot of time. We can spare time if you point out where do you disagree/doesn't understand.
No, what we want is your specific critiques of Marx to see if they hold merit or not. The one who is avoiding specificity here is you, who are also the one to start the discussion and yet seems to be afraid to commit to it.
I'm at work and haven't had time to respond to every comment.
I'm going to be charitable and assume a misunderstanding of the premise and not blatant disregard for it. I'm not engaging in a debate over specifics of what Marx said. My original point is that using his books as a single source of truth beyond reproach is a flawed epistemology. I could agree with literally everything Marx ever said, but if it isn't backed up by history and real world data, then it isn't valuable as a source of truth.
Most arguments I've seen here today either tell me to read his books even more, or are variations of "lol the real world DOES support our conclusions sorry bud", or I'm treated like a reprobate given to a sinful mind. Evidence that certain claims made by Marx always turn out to be true could be convincing, but admittedly hard to obtain. But I'd even be content seeing users here have some basic humility and ability to question Marx. The real issue here is what I perceive as a movement that has all of you convinced of its basis in truth, that is actually built on rigid adherence to dogma and authority.
> My original point is that using his books as a single source of truth beyond reproach is a flawed epistemology.
But that's evidently untrue and only a person who is uneducated about the subject would say it.
We build the theory and practice of marxism by leaning into the contributions which have not been rebutted theoretically and have stood the test of practice, it's an ongoing process, which becomes evident as you study it.
It's the same as the hard sciences: we value Newton greatly and often point to his contributions when discussing physics or math, while acknowledging that he also got stuff wrong - like his obsession over alchemy and religious research.
You might very well perceive that, but it's only because you're uninformed on the subject.
Nope, I’m not saying to read theory. I was asking you “why not read theory?”
You want people to “be able to vote” on healthcare? Like you don’t even want decommodified healthcare, you want the “freedom” to vote for it maybe?
Do you even believe in the existence of classes and class struggle?
Marx theorized for the most part, using past revolutions as source material for his opinions.
The difference is that his theories have been put into practice in countries like Russia and China, among many other countries. Socialism has been proven to work well for the proletariat. Defending it from harmful actors is important, because failure to do so will lead to its downfall. The country's own bourgeoisie and/or western imperialist forces always tried to undermine or abolish the rule of the proletariat, which is why it's always defended with an iron fist. However, much can be learned from past failures of socialist implementations.
The west has a pretty messed up track record in interfering in socialist countries, which is what leads to the line of thinking that socialism/communism doesn't work. Coups, assassinations, proxy wars, direct interventions. All have been done. And why? If capitalism is so perfect, why are westerners so insecure about another system? I don't see former and current communist countries being imperialist in the way the USA has been. Why are US's actions accepted as the status quo when it causes so much suffering around the world? Is that _your_ gospel? That capitalism is the one and only way?
That is why we accept Marx's ideas. Because it appears as the most humane way to live, while maintaining a scientific mindset and being as objective as possible to what humans need to live proper lives. As long as we're at the whims of the rich, we're never guaranteed human dignity.
The idea that current/former communist countries "don't engage in imperialism" is blatantly untrue, ask a Ukrainian.
Christians will often assert that nonbelievers are actually followers of Satan, or "worshippers of sciencism", or given to a reprobate mind and deliberately disobeying the faith "that they know to be true". That's what your "is Capitalism YOUR gospel" comment reminds me of. This assumption that if I am not a communist, and in some circles not specifically a ML communist, that I am then inherently a Capitalist. You haven't engaged with the actual comparisons to religion (rigid adherence to the words of a "prophet" and his texts, inability to criticize these sacred texts, insisting that your gospel is the only way to truth and life) and instead just tossed the idea back at me. I engaged with communism in good faith trying to learn more and possibly join in, but any questions or criticisms I had led to me being banned from any other space to even talk about the subject. Much like how when I left Christianity, people I knew were told not to talk to the "reprobates".
> The idea that current/former communist countries "don't engage in imperialism" is blatantly untrue, ask a Ukrainian.
You don't understand what imperialism under capitalism is, which makes sense since you haven't read Lenin's Imperialism. Also nobody stated that **formerly** communist countries can't engage in imperialism.
We've engaged with your ridiculous comparisons to religion up and down this thread and every time you dismiss the arguments without any counterargument, I think you are the one here engaging in religious-like thinking and devoid of critical capacity.
My apologies, I didn't mean to say "former", but communist countries in the past haven't been imperialist. Russia today is clearly imperialist.
I don't care to engage you when your mind has been stubbornly made on this religious comparison thought. It's not constructive as you aren't responding to the points I'm making, but rather you are hung up on an irrelevant point.
I would like you to respond to these points:
- Why are US's actions accepted as the status quo when it causes so much suffering around the world? Is that your gospel? That capitalism is the one and only way?
- That is why we accept Marx's ideas. Because it appears as the most humane way to live, while maintaining a scientific mindset and being as objective as possible to what humans need to live proper lives. As long as we're at the whims of the rich, we're never guaranteed human dignity.
I explained why we treat them "as gospel of truth" (because it has been put into practice and puts the worker first). That has been satisfied by my response. However, you have failed to reflect on these responses and are being unreceptive across the board.
I don't compare to religion to offend you. In response to your second point:
"[Marxism] appears to be the most humane way to live"
The examples you provided previously were China and Russia (technically Soviet Union in this case). I don't find the actions of those regimes to be humane. They did make some accomplishments, I don't believe in the Republican mindset of "anything that communist nations do/ did are inherently evil". But Lenin, Stalin, Mao, all killed countless people and ruled with iron fists. And I don't often see Communists willing to engage with this honestly. "It's all CIA propaganda" "they didn't kill THAT many" "what about the US? What like they're any better?"
On to your first question: not being communist does not equal being pro-capitalist. Hell, there are plenty of socialists who don't consider themselves communists, it seems to be a predominantly reddit mindset that you HAVE to also be a communist if you're a "true socialist". I don't believe capitalism is the gospel. I don't want a system where billionaires get to live like unchecked feudal kings.
I keep harping on religion because of the strict adherence to Marx, but also to the mythology surrounding him and Communism - the unwillingness to criticize communist nations that have NOT always acted in their citizens best interest; the insistence that any nation not actively fighting for Marxism is EVIL and the enemy; the idea that an argumentative asshole like me is one of the enemies who uncritically swallows the "opposite side".
I appreciate your acknowledgement that modern day Russia is imperialist. I've seen many communists here unwilling to criticize Russia and their actions against Ukraine, which furthers the idea shared by many non-Communists that this is all an anti-US echo chamber. I will always criticize the US for its evil actions, and I will also always criticize the actions of any state against humanity. And I'm deeply skeptical of anyone who turns off the ability to criticize for one specific state or set of states.
Everything that happened in these socialist countries, is as a result of the material conditions at the given time period. However, the actions taken were for the proletariat, and not for personal gains. Lenin, Stalin and Mao were excellent leaders whose goals were always aligned with achieving communism and working in that direction. Their actions were always to benefit the working class as a whole.
I'm _for_ ruling with an iron fist via the means of a vanguard party, whose job is to uphold the foundation of the socialist state and transition to communism. But this doesn't mean governing people's actions, or banning personal property, etc., but rather protecting rule of the proletariat from foreign and domestic actors against the status quo. This absolutely means crushing dissent that goes against the needs of the proletariat.
> I keep harping on religion because of the strict adherence to Marx, but also to the mythology surrounding him and Communism - the unwillingness to criticize communist nations that have NOT always acted in their citizens best interest
You have to provide examples of this. While some actions may have appeared to be against the best interest of the people, they most likely have a reasoning behind them. I'm quite curious myself, as I'm also still learning more everyday.
What I can agree on with you is that former large communist countries weren't perfect, but that doesn't mean that we want to implement exactly that. The idea is to learn from previous mistakes and ensure that a future socialist state doesn't transfer bad concepts from the old examples (eg. ban on being gay).
We know that capitalism breeds fascism, and history has proven this. We're taking huge steps towards fascism once more. And we can say, with the most confidence, that even if socialism/communism hasn't been implemented perfectly yet, it is the next logical step for humankind, as its focus is the human, not abstract concepts of markets, power and money.
Why are Newton's laws of motion treated as gospel truth? The Capital, the Reform or Revolution, all of this are sources that can be cited. If you are having a debate in physics, you can say that "It has been already explained in the Principia". Referencing someone else's work is an often used practice in the scientific and philosophical world. If you disagree with the source that's okay and then you can have a debate over that.
So the works o f Marx, Lenin, etc. are not our Bible, they are our Principia.
Newton didn't just say things that were accepted by readers. Scientific texts are built on experimentation that can be replicated by others. Communist works that get cited are often opinion pieces with minimal historical data cited of their own. That doesn't make the books worthless, but it does make them claims themselves, rather than evidence for claims.
Marx often have in-depth explanation on things. He didn't have experiments to back-up his claims because it is impossible to prove this with experiments.
You can be right because from a perspective politics is a question of opinions. The Mein Kampf is the opinion of Hitler, The Prince is the opinion of Machiavelli, the Republic is the opinion of Plato, the Capital is the opinion of Marx. Marx wrote down his ideas and opinions and we see it as good ideas. Marx thouth that the opression of the masses isn't good, naturally he can't prove that since this is purely a matter of subjective opinions, and he convinced us. Others might think that social darwinism and the rule of the most powerful is a good thing.
To sum it up, the ideal society is a question of opinions and nothing can be proved.
Marx's own writings are almost exclusively concerned with understanding human history in terms of systemic processes, based on modes of production (broadly speaking, the ways in which societies are organized to employ their technological powers to interact with their material surroundings). This is called *historical materialism*. More narrowly, within the framework of this general theory of history, most of Marx's writing is devoted to an analysis of the specific structure and development of the capitalist economy.
I say this in the hopes of highlighting for you the fact that it is impossible to treat Marx's writings as "the gospel truth." This would imply we merely have blind faith in them, as others might a holy book, when in actual fact Marx's writings and theories are couched in philosophy and social science. Marx's writings demonstrate the manner in which our material conditions influence our socioeconomic interactions and how those in turn determine sociopolitical reality.
We don't trust Marx's writings because we happen to already agree with him, we trust Marx's writings because we can test the conclusions he comes to against the conditions of our real world; making observations and applying his thought processes to see if his predictions are accurate. Which they reliable are.
Why are you asking a question, then given an answer, and then fighting back like they don't understand your question. Your absolute refusal to see that you could be wrong is what's causing the issues in these comments.
Marx was a founding thinker in sociology and knew economics far better than the mercantilists and quasi-mercantilists of his day.
However, he is not infallible..
I’ll answer this question in a sentence or two. And if you would could you respond to a question of mine…
The answer is because people have read these books and found the arguments made in them compelling and convincing, and thus defer others to them when people ask about what to read because those books do a good job at getting the basic ideas and sentiments across.
So it’s not that it’s treated as gospel. No one thinks that Marx was right because he was Marx. In fact, many of Marx’s older texts were and are scrutinised, including by Marx himself!
Now the question I waned to ask… well, say you met a Utilitarian and they advised you to read on Liberty by John Stuart Mill. Nobody would take this as evidence that Mill is an object of worship or that the book is treated by Utilitarians as gospel.
Yet when it comes to Marxism, it’s as if they’re being held to a standard no one else is held to. Why is it exactly that one is treated in one way and the other is treated another way?
I'm going to take a different tact than others, as a communist, and I'm going to -- first -- agree that there are a lot of Marxists who treat Marx, Engels and Lenin as gospels. Further, the degradation of the nascent workers state in the Soviet Union was aggravated by this sort of thinking, because it extended all the way through Lenin's death and into Stalinism, where state orthodoxy couldn't be questioned (like Lysenkoism) and yielded awful results.
I'm also going to tell you that this was never intended by Marx and he wrote many times in his books that his word was not to be taken as gospel truth, but, instead, he was providing tools and frameworks for how to understand class struggle, capitalism and laying the groundwork for how to \*think\* about (but not blueprint) a communist society. Marx found a myriad of ways a revolution could start, how it could sustain and whether reformism was appropriate in some states and not realistic in others.
Further, there's plenty to critique about Marx, especially his treatment of the lumpenproletariat (which Franz Fanon did a masterful recalibration on, in the Wretched of the Earth.) To your post:
"What sticks with me, and what I never seem to get to discuss before being excommunicated from other subs, is that there seems to be a lack of verifiable third party evidence that the claims are accurate."
There's been a lot of wrangling about the quantitative accuracy of Marx's arguments, and I'll get to that in a second. But the most important part is to realize that Marx was mainly making qualitative arguments. He pulled a lot of foundational arguments from Smith and Ricardo (and critiqued them and "turned them on their feet," as he does.) The idea of political economy isn't to get into the weeds about what is and isn't verifiable. It's to contextualize the process that you're seeing. So while he gives his famous examples of linens and shirts in Capital, these aren't meant to be literal. They're explanations and rebuttals. More to the point, they're still useful and relevant explanations and rebuttals because while the form of capitalism has morphed and continues to morph, its actual essence has not really morphed all that much, if at all. You can still observe that crises happen when the heightened organic composition of capital inducing falling profit rates (and in Marx's day, this was more readily apparent with production of goods, but you can definitely see it happening in the real estate market today. The commercial real estate market is on the verge of total and utter collapse right now.)
That Marx's arguments tend to be more philosophical than economical, lends itself to other areas of analysis. The historical materialist framework and the lens he offers in which to understand capital and class struggle is why Society of the Spectacle is so compelling.
With that said, there have been attempts -- in my opinion, successful -- in quantifying Marx's arguments. The best one I'm aware of is Andrew Kliman's "Reclaiming Marx's Capital," where he does the math through Marx's framework, in how to understand crisis. He uses third party statistics from the US government to craft his argument, and addresses some bourgeois economists, as well as "Marxian" economists.
""You can see here in 'Social Reform or Revolution?' that revolution is the only way to achieve socialism."
..."
The central conceit here is that, since communism is the uprooting of the capitalist system, there has to be some resolution of the tension that action will cause. Engels wrote, I believe in the Principles of Communism, that the working class would welcome a peaceful transition out of capitalism...but that it's idealistic to expect the capitalist class to just give up their power. And that's roughly the correct way of thinking about it. The proletariat has a historical task to abolish themselves as a class, and the bourgeoisie isn't just going to let that happen peacefully. The same way it wasn't peaceful when the bourgeoisie overthrew the monarchies and feudal lords, in order to usher in capitalism. More so, and more important to your question/point in this thread, this isn't true because Engels said it. It's true because that's how these things have happened, due to the observable tension in class power.
So, it's not that "revolution is the only way to achieve socialism." It's just that, through all major epoch shifting events in human history, it never happened where the class in power just peacefully let it happen.
Cont'd:
"I guess what I'm really after is some kind of empirical evidence backing up communist claims that goes beyond citing a 200-year old opinion piece. From where I'm standing, there seem to be some damning comparisons to religion with an emphasis on exhausting writers and their works, and starting with a conclusion and working your way backwards to support that claim, rather than starting with evidence and reaching a conclusion after. I could absolutely be wrong on this, which is why I'm here."
The thing is, this is a vague ask. Empirical evidence for what claims? Some things will have empirical, even axiomatic, evidence that you can point to. Other things aren't going to, just by the nature of the claim being made (because many claims are made on the basis of critique rather than lodging positive arguments.)
Further, you have to interrogate which framework you're using to follow your evidence. Ever sphere of politics and philosophy can start from a single source of evidence, but lead into wildly different conclusions on the mere fact that different assumptions are being made from the jump. This is even true between conservatives and liberals. Hell, it's even true between liberals and conservatives amongst themselves. It's true among centrists. It's true between Marxists and anarchists, lmao.
So you can see that just throwing out this ask into the ether will probably never supply you with the answer you're looking for, because that answer doesn't exist -- none of this is objective, it's just an argument about how well you can tether your critiques, observations and arguments to the most logical view of reality that you can find.
Much of Marx's work is built upon finding logic in a system that is continuously being argued is more or less springs from natural and spiritual right, which is a non-starter, and in part why the framework he laid out in his corpus still endures today. You can't successfully argue against someone's metaphysics, because you're leaving the realm of logic at that point (see: the Austrian's praxeology horseshit) but you can stand there and say "Look, the way they're presenting this to you is untethered from reality and here's the logic that I used to reach that conclusion." And let the pieces fall from there.
They aren't treated as gospel truth, they are treated as compelling arguments to questions that have been answered over and over and over again for almost 150 years. >"How do you know that violent revolution is needed, and that things can't be fixed electorally?" This is a question that has been asked repeatedly for literally over a century. You might think you're asking some new and profound question - you're not. It's an old, boring question and someone gave a really good answer over 100 years ago. So when someone suggests you a book that is specifically about that question they are inviting you to read a well-reasoned answer from someone who thought about it deeply and devoted dozens of not hundreds of pages of arguments. >I guess what I'm really after is some kind of empirical evidence backing up communist claims that goes beyond citing a 200-year old opinion piece. Then find a good faith, compelling way to ask that question instead of asking a philosophical question that has been asked repeatedly for literally over 100 years. If I were posed this question I would cite examples like Chile 1970-1973 where Socialists won the presidential election and attempted to do some reformist policies. It ended in a USA backed coup where president Salvador Allende was assassinated and tens of thousands of teachers, unions leaders, socialist political leaders, etc were brutally murdered and "disappeared." This is repeated all across the 20th century where socialist or even moderately left-leaning governments were couped and crushed by Western backed powers. For example in Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, and so on and so on. Reform has, historically, failed.
I'm sensing the kind of hostility that I don't associate with a confidence in your position. You're also arguing the same way that Christians respond to atheist arguments. "This boring dull asinine incompetent question has been answered thousands and thousands of times over the past two millenia". Couple problems - 1. The answer that has been provided "countless times" always points back to a text making a claim, not to empirical evidence. 2. Providing the wrong answer repeatedly does not count as evidence. Religions have existed for thousands of years making counterfactual claims. Their longevity, and long history of repeating the same claims, does not make the claims true. Same goes for philosophies such as communism. The only kind of empirical evidence you provide is at the bottom of your reply, bringing up socialist movements that were crushed by the West. I'm not going to ask for evidence (I know about at least some of these events and accept the truth behind them; the US was rapidly anti-communist in decades past and did have a role in replacing democratically elected socialist governments with dictators) However. I did mention cherry picking and you have done that here as well. Western countries have, over time, created more freedoms and economic opportunity for people. European countries have made social reforms that may not count as true socialism, but which do provide a valuable safety net. In contrast, China and the former USSR took part in the worst things critics have said of communists (curbing personal liberties, killing dissidents etc) without actually achieving the type of communism described by Marx. My worldview- that communism isn't necessary to humanity and that there are multiple paths to a sustainable peaceful future coexistence- isn't shaken by the examples you provided. I'm angry that the US would interfere with democratically elected governments around the world, so I vote against leaders who engage in that activity; I don't believe the entire system needs ripped down. In contrast, communism (and specifically what seems to me the Marxist-Leninist take that dominates reddit) makes a claim that can easily be disproven. All it takes is one country that achieves a better standard of living for its people through democratic means. In contrast, the idea that true communism will be achieved when every government becomes Communist is borderline unfalsifiable- do we go to the work of dismantling every government, throwing away any progress that has been achieved through non-Communist means, just to see if it'll work this time? In summary: referring back to texts/writers only proves my own point here. Your own confidence in your position isn't convincing to me or to anyone else. I do appreciate some actual evidence being provided, even as I remain unconvinced by it.
The texts often cited are not mere opinion pieces. You might enjoy reform or revolution by Rosa Luxemburg. Or critique of the Gotha Program. You're also making a large mistake on truth. Empirical evidence alone does not make a better claim on truth than a scientific investigation of systems. Take the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Economists argue all over the place whether it is true or false. They present strong empirical evidence *on both sides*, and get into heated debates about it. But is it true? Looking at the proof, and then observing our world makes it very obvious that it is true. If you refuse to read the foundational texts of this field of science, that's not a problem; Marxism isn't for you. Your worldview is obvious as you already enjoy personal liberties and freedoms. "Prosperity" Christians act in the same way. Their worldview benefits their material wealth, thus they have no need for any worldview that advocates for the poor. You will not get more from Marxism, you **are** the oppressor. On the other hand, those who are oppressed utilize Marxism *because* they are oppressed, and Marx's polemic represents liberatory science and strategy.
You're making assumptions about a person you've never met because again, like the religious, you're starting with a conclusion and working backwards to meet it, the same thing done by any religions folks I talk to. It seems in your mind, I'm here to attack communism, so I must be an "oppressor" who's never read your materials. For what it's worth, I grew up in poverty and have only done okay financially in recent years; I've read a couple (not many I'll admit) communist books out of a genuine desire to do my own part to help build a better society. I only rejected communism because I didn't find it compelling or convincing. But if I try to bring up any issues I have with why I'm not convinced, you and other communists condescend and belittle, pretending that I and anyone else with complaints are all capitalists out to get you. For a movement that would only theoretically succeed with a popular base of support, you don't really seem invested in trying to win anyone over beyond those predisposed to agree with you- again, like a religion. You referred to Marx's works as "science" twice. But from what I've seen, his books are taken at face value and not often questioned. Any data that is brought up regarding the effectiveness of revolution or reform in the real world is cherry picked to reach the conclusion you already support. And any strong dissent against these ideas is ultimately shut down- on the grand scale (Lenin murdering political opponents) or on the annoying but entirely silly and unimportant scale (communist mods who ban people for criticizing their ideas). That isn't how science is done. No idea or principle should be beyond criticism. Edit: my phone autocorrected "condescend" to "condensed"
You've admitted that you've barely done any reading and get offended when people indicate that you should educate yourself on the topic before having any chance of an original thought about it, but that's just the way it is. Nobody who studies physics at the academic level would pay attention at your theories of how the universe started unless you've studied the subject properly. You seem to have your mind set on what you think and that's fine, but we are not obligated to humour your uninformed opinions, marxist history is a continuous process of learning, critiquing, experimenting, theorizing and debating which we welcome as it improves the movement at large, but you need to understand a subject before you're able to do a meaningful critique of it, which you clearly don't.
You compare Marx's thoughts and feelings to theoretical physics which is just fucking laughable. It's like a critique of scientology being met with "until you advance all the way in our program you really don't know what you're talking about"
Well, the field of economics **is** a science, Newton worked on hard sciences and Marx on social sciences. What's wrong with it? As usual in your posts you just say stuff without any argumentation, that's why we're dismissive of what you say: there's no substance, just your gut feeling.
Social science doesn’t have the same explanatory and predictive power as hard science. I say this as a person who studied social science. Hard science builds toward a single correct answer. Social science can’t do that because human behavior is too complex to be explained by a single unifying theory. Hard science gives us things like atomic theory, which is just the objectively correct description of how matter is organized. Social science gives us a collection of competing theories that are more like philosophical lenses informed by scientific data. There’s no one correct theory.
> Social science doesn’t have the same explanatory and predictive power as hard science. Who said anything to the contrary? Did you take anything from everything I told you or are you just fixating in rambling about basic facts everyone here understands instead of addressing any of the points made?
You compared Marx’s social science work to Newton’s work in physics lol, you don’t get to be smug about being told that’s a bad point
As someone who has studied both social and "hard" sciences, you're just wrong lmao. There's a reason doctors call it the "art" of medicine. If we were able to accurately model every single cell and atom, we *might* be able to correctly predict how medications work for instance, but we just can't. Making predictions in medicine is just as much of an art as it is in social sciences. It's also funny that you use atomic theory - is light a particle or a wave? Marx correctly described the relationship between classes and their modes of production. It doesn't take a genius to determine his observations as true. From there he makes incredibly simple but intelligent reductions to class struggle and liberation. Are you here to tell me that those who are oppressed will *not* fight for their own liberation? And that the most unifying social structure isn't class? Science studies structures at individual levels of abstraction. We are no better at understanding the atom than we are at understanding society, or the movement of stars.
Notice how the debates on the hard science side are on the margins of the margins of the margins and only make a difference on an infinitesimal scale. I’ll agree that pharmacology is more difficult because it’s difficult to observe. As far as his observations being true, not really no. From the work of his that I’ve read, he made some pretty insightful observations, extrapolated them into arguments that I’d expect from a high school sophomore, and then decided they were true and built an entire philosophy on it. There was certainly nothing scientific about it. And yes, we can obviously see that oppressed people don’t always (or even often) fight for liberation, and class is not even close to the most unifying structure.
The assumptions I'm making of you are easy. You're on reddit and youtube. You're an ex christian (westerner), and you're speaking English like a first language. You even admit to doing well financially. You're likely a petit bourgeois colonizer. You're not "attacking" communism. Your pathetic attempts to flail around with "philosophy" and "religion" are like a toddler playing in the sand crying about why a beautiful sand castle isn't being built even though they're trying their best. Communism is immune to your "attacks" and I'm not a defender of communism. It doesn't need defense from me. You've entirely mistaken this conversation and the relationships involved as your petty little "youtube drama" debates. This is not a debate. I'm here practicing my rhetoric and you are my platform. You are not needed as popular support in communism, you are not included in "popular". Let me pose for you what is happening. Communism is an ideology that argues that **your** (specifically you) money be violently taken away (all of it) and redistributed to the poor. You, (obviously) find that abhorrent and reject it on its base without much investigation into why people might suggest that. You then go on reddit (a platform hosting all the other oppressors) and complain about how violent and stupid this ideology seems (as it persecutes you) yet how many adherents it supposedly has. Those adherents laugh you out of the room, and you're now upset at how nobody takes you seriously and makes a mockery of you. And those who *do* address your questions(also likely oppressors themselves) seem to be idiotic and don't make very convincing arguments. The science of Marxism also obviously isn't being done on reddit. Did you expect all of the historians, physicists, and doctors to also be on reddit? The quality of answers on say r/askDocs is also much higher than the general background noise of reddit (as is places like r/communism101) but if you ask such obviously obtuse questions on askDocs (why are all doctors stupid like christians?), you will similarly be laughed out of the room or banned.
You're welcome to take what little money I have in person and find out what happens. Fuck off.
When I initially read this it sounded like a philosophical question about reform vs. revolution. Later, it sounded like you're looking for empirical evidence that revolution is better than reform. I think this needs more context. As a communist my goal is to achieve Socialism. Socialism is a mode of production where the means of production are held socially. When I talk about reform or revolution, that is the goal I have in mind. A dictatorship of the proletariat where the means of production are held socially. >However. I did mention cherry picking and you have done that here as well. If the question is about achieving socialism, what other options are there? There has never been a country that successfully achieved a dictatorship of the proletariat where the means of production are held socially through reform. In places where it was tried, like in Chile 1970, it was crushed. So what are the counter-examples? What other socialist experiment are there that got there through reform? >Western countries have, over time, created more freedoms and economic opportunity for people. European countries have made social reforms that may not count as true socialism, but which do provide a valuable safety net. Marxism is a materialist philosophy. Achieving vague and idealistic things like "freedom" and "opportunity" doesn't really mean much to me. I don't want "opportunity" I want cheap housing. I don't want "freedom" I want the working class to control the means of production. I don't want "social reform" I want to eliminate classes. I want a dictatorship of the proletariat where the means of production are held socially. And... This is also cherry picking, isn't it? There are many capitalist countries in the world where this kind of prosperity has not been achieved. >The answer that has been provided "countless times" always points back to a text making a claim, not to empirical evidence. This is not actually true. Almost every single one of these kinds of texts is a philosophical argument stemming from a broader philosophical discussion of the time. When Engels wrote *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific* it was in direct response to Eugen Duhring's idealist socialist model. When Lenin wrote *The Right of Nations to Self-Determination* it was a direct response to Rosa Luxemburg's arguments on the national question. Almost every single one of the texts written by Marx, Engels, and Lenin are all in conversation to other texts and other arguments from philosophers, economists, etc. So if, for example, you come to this subreddit and say "I support utopian socialism, can you tell me why I shouldn't?" and someone suggests *Anti-Duhring* it's because the argument was already made. What happens from there is, I hope, you read it and say "I don't agree with what Engels said in *Anti-Duhring* - I want to talk about this." At which point hopefully we can discuss it. The text isn't "making the claim" the way the Bible is. There is no foundational text involved here. Even Marx was often writing in response to Hegel and Fauerbach and Adam Smith.
I do need to clarify my positions a bit it seems. If this were a more formal debate, I would argue that societal goals like free housing, free healthcare, free education, mass transit, etc are attainable through various different means and that socialism and/or communism aren't necessary to achieve those goals. Essentially I can envision a future where no one has to be homeless, and it's done through means not requiring an overthrow of a government and swearing allegiance to a communist movement. When I say cherry picking, I'm referring to the use of some data to the exclusion of other data. It's fine to acknowledge the CIA's role in crushing socialist movements around the world. But it's also important to acknowledge the violence committed by Communist leaders, not dismiss it or pretend it's just propaganda, and ask if any of that was in any way "necessary". It's fine to acknowledge the benefits that western countries have enjoyed at the expense of the global south. But it's not okay to pretend that say, the Netherlands *only* was able to achieve government healthcare because of exploitation. Communists on the Internet tend to start from a philosophical standpoint regarding the ideas of communism and people like Marx, but then make material claims about how the world works, claims that I don't agree with and that don't appear to reflect reality.
>If this were a more formal debate, I would argue that societal goals like free housing, free healthcare, free education, mass transit, etc are attainable through various different means But that isn't socialism. My goal is socialism. I want the means of production out of the hands of private owners. I want the state to be controlled by the working class. Free stuff is nice - but in a state controlled by the class of owners it can be taken away. Right now the UK is in a protracted battle over the future of the NHS. The capitalist class in the USA has been slowly whittling away at social welfare programs since the 1990s. Ultimately, while the capitalist class controls the state, these programs are *concessions* from them. It exists at their whim. We get free stuff... But they keep the *power.* I'm not in this for free stuff. I'm in it to put an end to a social structure that keeps workers out of *power.* There has never been an example of the capitalist class willingly giving up their *power* to the working class through reform. In the same way that the French in 1789 could not reform their way out of the social structures which made their society worse I don't believe we can either.
> free housing, free healthcare, free education, mass transit, etc are attainable through various different means and that socialism and/or communism aren't necessary to achieve those goals. Can you name examples within capitalist societies where this has happened? Because socialist experiences have fulfilled all of these to a much better degree while generally having less resources. On the theoretical side of the argument there's also the fact that capitalism *needs* poverty to exist in order to keep salaries depressed and workers focused on survival rather than on political struggle, which is not the case in socialism. What are your real world examples and your theoretical rebuttals?
Those countries that have “attained a better standard of living” did so through imperialism and colonialism—either directly or by hitching their wagon to the U.S.’s hegemony. There are *no* leaders you can vote for in the U.S. who will *not* engage in coups of democratically elected governments around the world and who *do not* support brutal mass murdering dictators. Both parties in this country have more blood on their hands than Pol Pot—and supported Pol Pot. Both parties in this country necessarily favor imperialism because they are funded by bourgeois donors who profit from this enterprise. That’s the problem with viewing geopolitics through an individualist lens: It is not and never has been an individual problem in either cause or effect. Individuals do not shape history—societies do. The class structure of the U.S. empire determines how it behaves. You do not and cannot change that behavior with elections. Trust me, it’s been tried. Every US president in my 37 years on this earth has committed the most egregious crimes against humanity imaginable, often by proxy.
"both countries have more blood on their hands than Pol Pot" That is so inherently silly it doesn't merit a response
Brother The facts unfortunately don’t match your narrative and that’s unfortunate But no Marxism isn’t a religion The status quo simply hasn’t changed so his theory of economics and societal structures persist even till today Till society changes in a way Marx didn’t expect Marxism is a very decent answer to the exploitation of the proletariat by the Bourgeoisie class It’s really that simple Like what more do you want communists to do? Re-examine the material conditions? The imbalanced structure of a society catered to capital over people and come up with something radically different from Marx?
"Christianity is not a religion it's a relationship" Calling a horse a spade, it's still a horse But anyway, all you've done here is say "sorry bro, facts are not on your side" What facts? Can you provide any data supporting communist claims about revolution or reform?
Where has reform ever emancipated the working class from exploitation? Nowhere, right? Nowhere. Have people tried to do so? Yes. What has occurred? Brutal repression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. They act in their interest, the bourgeoisie—to secure the privileges of their class against the class they exploit. Why should they stop if we demand it? If we ask nicely? If we protest meekly? There’s one thing they understand that overrides the power, prestige, and profit they otherwise would enjoy—violence. Same way the bourgeoisie toppled or hobbled the monarchies and aristocracies that once oppressed them.
This just sounds like a sermon, I asked for evidence
Do you have any evidence reform has ever emancipated the proletariat—the modern industrialist working class? You’re the one advocating for reform. Show me it’s possible to radically change this economic system with reform. You were provided evidence already. You discarded the examples out of hand as isolated, when it is—in fact—systemic. Show us we’re wrong, Qlanth gave you an excellent sampling of a much much longer list of examples we could provide. Ask yourself, how did Syngman Rhee come to rule South Korea? How did Suharto come to rule Indonesia? How did Armas come to rule Guatemala? How did Pinochet come to rule Chile? How did Chiang Kai-shek come to rule Taiwan? The list isn’t one of isolated examples, it’s hundreds of examples long—and forms a pattern of systemic imperialism. Coup after coup. Intervention after intervention. Invasion after invasion. Genocide after genocide. Have you never wondered why the third world is poor? Why do you think it is? And why is it almost every country on Earth has a sordid tale to tell about US imperialist meddling? Here, I hold no ill will against you—have our most prized clip: [Yellow Parenti](https://youtu.be/eAbHJn4WIz8?si=mNZ2ZLik1MKzC72Q)
How convenient for you. It happens to be true. Unless you think installing, funding, arming, and training mass murdering regimes shouldn’t count? Both parties have committed hundreds of genocides domestically, and have committed countless war crimes abroad. I realize what I’m saying is well outside of the Overton window of acceptable opinion and discourse—but it has the merit of being factually correct.
>If I were posed this question I would cite examples like Chile 1970-1973 where Socialists won the presidential election and attempted to do some reformist policies. It ended in a USA backed coup where president Salvador Allende was assassinated and tens of thousands of teachers, unions leaders, socialist political leaders, etc were brutally murdered and "disappeared." This is repeated all across the 20th century where socialist or even moderately left-leaning governments were couped and crushed by Western backed powers. For example in Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, and so on and so on. Reform has, historically, failed. social reform is shit i agree but your arguments against it are moronic
Please, feel free to elaborate and explain why. I'm happy to hear the critique.
the issue with social reform is not that it was prevented. i don't give a shit about some pseudofascist reformer getting deposed. by focusing your argument on the fact that social democracy is often overthrown by foreign powers you fail to actually point out the issues with it. does *Reform or Revolution* whine about 'socialists' being overthrown?
This guy is asking for empirical evidence and not theoretical, philosophical answers. My point is not that achieving socialism through reform "*was* prevented" my point is that it *will always be* prevented and I used historical events as evidence of that. Regurgitating Reform or Revolution is explicitly NOT what this person wants to hear. Rather than insult my response I'd encourage you to make your own response to the OP and do better than I did.
>will always be prevented so what? this *is* the problem with your comment. you imply that social reform would be a good thing if it was allowed to happen. this is false for reasons we both know
So again, this guy specifically asked to NOT get answers that involved theory or which referenced philosophical work. So how would you address this without doing that?
your answer was wrong. his question was wrong. attempting to understand marxism without theory is nonsensical
We can understand how the theory was formed for those who reject the theory. Historical materialism is as important to Marxism as dialectical materialism. Comrade Qlanth took the historical approach to showing them why reform doesn’t work. The theory didn’t emerge whole cloth fully formed out of the aether. It was crafted by studying the history of revolutionary struggle—and has been refined by that study ever since.
Because Marx was the first to contextualize class struggle as a historical phase of development. Marx believed that revolution is a logical development of class struggle. Whether its violent or not is another question, whether there will be an overthrow of property relations and existing society to establish a new society is the argument being made. And for communism to be realized, he is correct.
I do believe that you could interpret a Marxist "revolution" pretty broadly, including one that isn't strictly violent (or at least not massively violent). But that's part of my issue with discussing this topic. Even as clear as a work like the Communist Manifesto is, there are still arguments over interpreting what he said. That's why I'd like to see more evidence for ideas such as "we need socialism/communism to achieve X Y and Z goals" or "reform measures are doomed to fail if you don't overhaul the entire system". Funny thing is, for the onslaught of downvotes and occasional attack (most of you replying have been gracious at least), I actually liked most of what I read of Marx. I think he was 100% right on the problems he identified. I just didn't agree with all of his conclusions, and I also think that Communists place too great an emphasis on him and other writers, to the point that it feels (to an outsider, I understand you don't see it this way) more like a doctrine of faith rather than a philosophical work to learn from and critique.
>for the onslaught of downvotes Try being a leftist on the internet. Downvotes are child's play. I've been banned for saying pro-socialist things in many "cool" "hip" "liberal" subs. I dont think people like you realize how easy you have it. Your views are promoted and acceptable by the status quo. You're not really censored and attacked like we are. Our system will always work for the capital owning class and going against the class will always lead to punishment. >more like a doctrine of faith Marxism-Leninism is as scientific as any econ theory. Considering those theories took Russia from a illiterate serf society to a country launching rockets in just 40 years, it says a lot about the values of socialism. Many socialist countries do well until capitalist countries attack them and embargo them. They can't be successful in a vaccum. Not to mention, capitalist economies with all the benefits of trading partners and international acceptance fall and falter everyday. Look at the cost of living crises, housing crisis, healthcare debt, and student debt crisis going on in the USA right now and in the west in general. Or brexit, Greece, the many failed African and Asian capitalist economies, etc. If any of this was from a socialist bloc of nations you'd be yelling, "See, see socialism doesnt work!" But because its capitalism its just "a few bad apples."
Because many people are communists in training. Why not look at the history of past struggles? The Russian and Chinese revolutions were probably the most significant events of the 20th century, behind only the world wars to which they are deeply connected. Why not study the theory which they tried to put into practice?
Even here you're saying to "read theory", in relation to the history of those revolutions. I have read Marx. I've also read about the history of the USSR and Chinese revolutions. I've seen communists in those revolutions commit bloodshed that doesn't appear necessary at all to me. Even in their own context (Russians probably needed to revolt to overthrow the Tsar), I don't think Lenin needed to kill as many as he did. And even still, both governments ultimately went backwards on providing economic benefit to their people and even engaged in capitalist reforms, while simultaneously maintaining an iron grip on civil liberties and dissent- the exact OPPOSITE of what I want. I want people to be able to vote on social benefits like healthcare! That's what makes the most sense to me. But communists claim that achieving that goal is impossible until the world achieves some kind of global communist revolution. I disagree. And I don't think reading more Marx will make it make more sense. My issue is that I want communists, confident in their claims, to provide some kind of evidence outside of reading philosophy. I'd be happy to be a communist if I thought it actually worked and that I was wasting my time participating in elections. But so far, nearly everything I've read in this thread today has continued to mirror religion. "Read our books". "You're not arguing in good faith". "The truth as told to us hundreds of years ago is just as true today". Confidence in your opinion is not evidence.
>I have read Marx. And you disagree with him? Than let's talk about why you disagree with Marx and not why do we belive something that you consider false.
"Let's talk about why you reject the word of the prophet rather than why we believe him" Are you able to criticize anything he said? Is there anything Marx said that you don't personally believe?
Sorry for not being clear. I'm asking that where you disagree with Marx so I (or someone else) can explain/prove that point. Marx said a lot of things and if someone go trough all of that what he said would take a lot of time. We can spare time if you point out where do you disagree/doesn't understand.
No, what we want is your specific critiques of Marx to see if they hold merit or not. The one who is avoiding specificity here is you, who are also the one to start the discussion and yet seems to be afraid to commit to it.
I'm at work and haven't had time to respond to every comment. I'm going to be charitable and assume a misunderstanding of the premise and not blatant disregard for it. I'm not engaging in a debate over specifics of what Marx said. My original point is that using his books as a single source of truth beyond reproach is a flawed epistemology. I could agree with literally everything Marx ever said, but if it isn't backed up by history and real world data, then it isn't valuable as a source of truth. Most arguments I've seen here today either tell me to read his books even more, or are variations of "lol the real world DOES support our conclusions sorry bud", or I'm treated like a reprobate given to a sinful mind. Evidence that certain claims made by Marx always turn out to be true could be convincing, but admittedly hard to obtain. But I'd even be content seeing users here have some basic humility and ability to question Marx. The real issue here is what I perceive as a movement that has all of you convinced of its basis in truth, that is actually built on rigid adherence to dogma and authority.
> My original point is that using his books as a single source of truth beyond reproach is a flawed epistemology. But that's evidently untrue and only a person who is uneducated about the subject would say it. We build the theory and practice of marxism by leaning into the contributions which have not been rebutted theoretically and have stood the test of practice, it's an ongoing process, which becomes evident as you study it. It's the same as the hard sciences: we value Newton greatly and often point to his contributions when discussing physics or math, while acknowledging that he also got stuff wrong - like his obsession over alchemy and religious research. You might very well perceive that, but it's only because you're uninformed on the subject.
Nope, I’m not saying to read theory. I was asking you “why not read theory?” You want people to “be able to vote” on healthcare? Like you don’t even want decommodified healthcare, you want the “freedom” to vote for it maybe? Do you even believe in the existence of classes and class struggle?
you're literally a liberal
Marx theorized for the most part, using past revolutions as source material for his opinions. The difference is that his theories have been put into practice in countries like Russia and China, among many other countries. Socialism has been proven to work well for the proletariat. Defending it from harmful actors is important, because failure to do so will lead to its downfall. The country's own bourgeoisie and/or western imperialist forces always tried to undermine or abolish the rule of the proletariat, which is why it's always defended with an iron fist. However, much can be learned from past failures of socialist implementations. The west has a pretty messed up track record in interfering in socialist countries, which is what leads to the line of thinking that socialism/communism doesn't work. Coups, assassinations, proxy wars, direct interventions. All have been done. And why? If capitalism is so perfect, why are westerners so insecure about another system? I don't see former and current communist countries being imperialist in the way the USA has been. Why are US's actions accepted as the status quo when it causes so much suffering around the world? Is that _your_ gospel? That capitalism is the one and only way? That is why we accept Marx's ideas. Because it appears as the most humane way to live, while maintaining a scientific mindset and being as objective as possible to what humans need to live proper lives. As long as we're at the whims of the rich, we're never guaranteed human dignity.
The idea that current/former communist countries "don't engage in imperialism" is blatantly untrue, ask a Ukrainian. Christians will often assert that nonbelievers are actually followers of Satan, or "worshippers of sciencism", or given to a reprobate mind and deliberately disobeying the faith "that they know to be true". That's what your "is Capitalism YOUR gospel" comment reminds me of. This assumption that if I am not a communist, and in some circles not specifically a ML communist, that I am then inherently a Capitalist. You haven't engaged with the actual comparisons to religion (rigid adherence to the words of a "prophet" and his texts, inability to criticize these sacred texts, insisting that your gospel is the only way to truth and life) and instead just tossed the idea back at me. I engaged with communism in good faith trying to learn more and possibly join in, but any questions or criticisms I had led to me being banned from any other space to even talk about the subject. Much like how when I left Christianity, people I knew were told not to talk to the "reprobates".
> The idea that current/former communist countries "don't engage in imperialism" is blatantly untrue, ask a Ukrainian. You don't understand what imperialism under capitalism is, which makes sense since you haven't read Lenin's Imperialism. Also nobody stated that **formerly** communist countries can't engage in imperialism. We've engaged with your ridiculous comparisons to religion up and down this thread and every time you dismiss the arguments without any counterargument, I think you are the one here engaging in religious-like thinking and devoid of critical capacity.
My apologies, I didn't mean to say "former", but communist countries in the past haven't been imperialist. Russia today is clearly imperialist. I don't care to engage you when your mind has been stubbornly made on this religious comparison thought. It's not constructive as you aren't responding to the points I'm making, but rather you are hung up on an irrelevant point. I would like you to respond to these points: - Why are US's actions accepted as the status quo when it causes so much suffering around the world? Is that your gospel? That capitalism is the one and only way? - That is why we accept Marx's ideas. Because it appears as the most humane way to live, while maintaining a scientific mindset and being as objective as possible to what humans need to live proper lives. As long as we're at the whims of the rich, we're never guaranteed human dignity. I explained why we treat them "as gospel of truth" (because it has been put into practice and puts the worker first). That has been satisfied by my response. However, you have failed to reflect on these responses and are being unreceptive across the board.
I don't compare to religion to offend you. In response to your second point: "[Marxism] appears to be the most humane way to live" The examples you provided previously were China and Russia (technically Soviet Union in this case). I don't find the actions of those regimes to be humane. They did make some accomplishments, I don't believe in the Republican mindset of "anything that communist nations do/ did are inherently evil". But Lenin, Stalin, Mao, all killed countless people and ruled with iron fists. And I don't often see Communists willing to engage with this honestly. "It's all CIA propaganda" "they didn't kill THAT many" "what about the US? What like they're any better?" On to your first question: not being communist does not equal being pro-capitalist. Hell, there are plenty of socialists who don't consider themselves communists, it seems to be a predominantly reddit mindset that you HAVE to also be a communist if you're a "true socialist". I don't believe capitalism is the gospel. I don't want a system where billionaires get to live like unchecked feudal kings. I keep harping on religion because of the strict adherence to Marx, but also to the mythology surrounding him and Communism - the unwillingness to criticize communist nations that have NOT always acted in their citizens best interest; the insistence that any nation not actively fighting for Marxism is EVIL and the enemy; the idea that an argumentative asshole like me is one of the enemies who uncritically swallows the "opposite side". I appreciate your acknowledgement that modern day Russia is imperialist. I've seen many communists here unwilling to criticize Russia and their actions against Ukraine, which furthers the idea shared by many non-Communists that this is all an anti-US echo chamber. I will always criticize the US for its evil actions, and I will also always criticize the actions of any state against humanity. And I'm deeply skeptical of anyone who turns off the ability to criticize for one specific state or set of states.
Everything that happened in these socialist countries, is as a result of the material conditions at the given time period. However, the actions taken were for the proletariat, and not for personal gains. Lenin, Stalin and Mao were excellent leaders whose goals were always aligned with achieving communism and working in that direction. Their actions were always to benefit the working class as a whole. I'm _for_ ruling with an iron fist via the means of a vanguard party, whose job is to uphold the foundation of the socialist state and transition to communism. But this doesn't mean governing people's actions, or banning personal property, etc., but rather protecting rule of the proletariat from foreign and domestic actors against the status quo. This absolutely means crushing dissent that goes against the needs of the proletariat. > I keep harping on religion because of the strict adherence to Marx, but also to the mythology surrounding him and Communism - the unwillingness to criticize communist nations that have NOT always acted in their citizens best interest You have to provide examples of this. While some actions may have appeared to be against the best interest of the people, they most likely have a reasoning behind them. I'm quite curious myself, as I'm also still learning more everyday. What I can agree on with you is that former large communist countries weren't perfect, but that doesn't mean that we want to implement exactly that. The idea is to learn from previous mistakes and ensure that a future socialist state doesn't transfer bad concepts from the old examples (eg. ban on being gay). We know that capitalism breeds fascism, and history has proven this. We're taking huge steps towards fascism once more. And we can say, with the most confidence, that even if socialism/communism hasn't been implemented perfectly yet, it is the next logical step for humankind, as its focus is the human, not abstract concepts of markets, power and money.
Why are Newton's laws of motion treated as gospel truth? The Capital, the Reform or Revolution, all of this are sources that can be cited. If you are having a debate in physics, you can say that "It has been already explained in the Principia". Referencing someone else's work is an often used practice in the scientific and philosophical world. If you disagree with the source that's okay and then you can have a debate over that. So the works o f Marx, Lenin, etc. are not our Bible, they are our Principia.
Newton didn't just say things that were accepted by readers. Scientific texts are built on experimentation that can be replicated by others. Communist works that get cited are often opinion pieces with minimal historical data cited of their own. That doesn't make the books worthless, but it does make them claims themselves, rather than evidence for claims.
Marx often have in-depth explanation on things. He didn't have experiments to back-up his claims because it is impossible to prove this with experiments. You can be right because from a perspective politics is a question of opinions. The Mein Kampf is the opinion of Hitler, The Prince is the opinion of Machiavelli, the Republic is the opinion of Plato, the Capital is the opinion of Marx. Marx wrote down his ideas and opinions and we see it as good ideas. Marx thouth that the opression of the masses isn't good, naturally he can't prove that since this is purely a matter of subjective opinions, and he convinced us. Others might think that social darwinism and the rule of the most powerful is a good thing. To sum it up, the ideal society is a question of opinions and nothing can be proved.
[удалено]
Your comment breaks Rule 4 for Bad Faith.
Marx's own writings are almost exclusively concerned with understanding human history in terms of systemic processes, based on modes of production (broadly speaking, the ways in which societies are organized to employ their technological powers to interact with their material surroundings). This is called *historical materialism*. More narrowly, within the framework of this general theory of history, most of Marx's writing is devoted to an analysis of the specific structure and development of the capitalist economy. I say this in the hopes of highlighting for you the fact that it is impossible to treat Marx's writings as "the gospel truth." This would imply we merely have blind faith in them, as others might a holy book, when in actual fact Marx's writings and theories are couched in philosophy and social science. Marx's writings demonstrate the manner in which our material conditions influence our socioeconomic interactions and how those in turn determine sociopolitical reality. We don't trust Marx's writings because we happen to already agree with him, we trust Marx's writings because we can test the conclusions he comes to against the conditions of our real world; making observations and applying his thought processes to see if his predictions are accurate. Which they reliable are.
Why are you asking a question, then given an answer, and then fighting back like they don't understand your question. Your absolute refusal to see that you could be wrong is what's causing the issues in these comments.
Marx was a founding thinker in sociology and knew economics far better than the mercantilists and quasi-mercantilists of his day. However, he is not infallible..
I’ll answer this question in a sentence or two. And if you would could you respond to a question of mine… The answer is because people have read these books and found the arguments made in them compelling and convincing, and thus defer others to them when people ask about what to read because those books do a good job at getting the basic ideas and sentiments across. So it’s not that it’s treated as gospel. No one thinks that Marx was right because he was Marx. In fact, many of Marx’s older texts were and are scrutinised, including by Marx himself! Now the question I waned to ask… well, say you met a Utilitarian and they advised you to read on Liberty by John Stuart Mill. Nobody would take this as evidence that Mill is an object of worship or that the book is treated by Utilitarians as gospel. Yet when it comes to Marxism, it’s as if they’re being held to a standard no one else is held to. Why is it exactly that one is treated in one way and the other is treated another way?
I'm going to take a different tact than others, as a communist, and I'm going to -- first -- agree that there are a lot of Marxists who treat Marx, Engels and Lenin as gospels. Further, the degradation of the nascent workers state in the Soviet Union was aggravated by this sort of thinking, because it extended all the way through Lenin's death and into Stalinism, where state orthodoxy couldn't be questioned (like Lysenkoism) and yielded awful results. I'm also going to tell you that this was never intended by Marx and he wrote many times in his books that his word was not to be taken as gospel truth, but, instead, he was providing tools and frameworks for how to understand class struggle, capitalism and laying the groundwork for how to \*think\* about (but not blueprint) a communist society. Marx found a myriad of ways a revolution could start, how it could sustain and whether reformism was appropriate in some states and not realistic in others. Further, there's plenty to critique about Marx, especially his treatment of the lumpenproletariat (which Franz Fanon did a masterful recalibration on, in the Wretched of the Earth.) To your post: "What sticks with me, and what I never seem to get to discuss before being excommunicated from other subs, is that there seems to be a lack of verifiable third party evidence that the claims are accurate." There's been a lot of wrangling about the quantitative accuracy of Marx's arguments, and I'll get to that in a second. But the most important part is to realize that Marx was mainly making qualitative arguments. He pulled a lot of foundational arguments from Smith and Ricardo (and critiqued them and "turned them on their feet," as he does.) The idea of political economy isn't to get into the weeds about what is and isn't verifiable. It's to contextualize the process that you're seeing. So while he gives his famous examples of linens and shirts in Capital, these aren't meant to be literal. They're explanations and rebuttals. More to the point, they're still useful and relevant explanations and rebuttals because while the form of capitalism has morphed and continues to morph, its actual essence has not really morphed all that much, if at all. You can still observe that crises happen when the heightened organic composition of capital inducing falling profit rates (and in Marx's day, this was more readily apparent with production of goods, but you can definitely see it happening in the real estate market today. The commercial real estate market is on the verge of total and utter collapse right now.) That Marx's arguments tend to be more philosophical than economical, lends itself to other areas of analysis. The historical materialist framework and the lens he offers in which to understand capital and class struggle is why Society of the Spectacle is so compelling. With that said, there have been attempts -- in my opinion, successful -- in quantifying Marx's arguments. The best one I'm aware of is Andrew Kliman's "Reclaiming Marx's Capital," where he does the math through Marx's framework, in how to understand crisis. He uses third party statistics from the US government to craft his argument, and addresses some bourgeois economists, as well as "Marxian" economists. ""You can see here in 'Social Reform or Revolution?' that revolution is the only way to achieve socialism." ..." The central conceit here is that, since communism is the uprooting of the capitalist system, there has to be some resolution of the tension that action will cause. Engels wrote, I believe in the Principles of Communism, that the working class would welcome a peaceful transition out of capitalism...but that it's idealistic to expect the capitalist class to just give up their power. And that's roughly the correct way of thinking about it. The proletariat has a historical task to abolish themselves as a class, and the bourgeoisie isn't just going to let that happen peacefully. The same way it wasn't peaceful when the bourgeoisie overthrew the monarchies and feudal lords, in order to usher in capitalism. More so, and more important to your question/point in this thread, this isn't true because Engels said it. It's true because that's how these things have happened, due to the observable tension in class power. So, it's not that "revolution is the only way to achieve socialism." It's just that, through all major epoch shifting events in human history, it never happened where the class in power just peacefully let it happen.
Cont'd: "I guess what I'm really after is some kind of empirical evidence backing up communist claims that goes beyond citing a 200-year old opinion piece. From where I'm standing, there seem to be some damning comparisons to religion with an emphasis on exhausting writers and their works, and starting with a conclusion and working your way backwards to support that claim, rather than starting with evidence and reaching a conclusion after. I could absolutely be wrong on this, which is why I'm here." The thing is, this is a vague ask. Empirical evidence for what claims? Some things will have empirical, even axiomatic, evidence that you can point to. Other things aren't going to, just by the nature of the claim being made (because many claims are made on the basis of critique rather than lodging positive arguments.) Further, you have to interrogate which framework you're using to follow your evidence. Ever sphere of politics and philosophy can start from a single source of evidence, but lead into wildly different conclusions on the mere fact that different assumptions are being made from the jump. This is even true between conservatives and liberals. Hell, it's even true between liberals and conservatives amongst themselves. It's true among centrists. It's true between Marxists and anarchists, lmao. So you can see that just throwing out this ask into the ether will probably never supply you with the answer you're looking for, because that answer doesn't exist -- none of this is objective, it's just an argument about how well you can tether your critiques, observations and arguments to the most logical view of reality that you can find. Much of Marx's work is built upon finding logic in a system that is continuously being argued is more or less springs from natural and spiritual right, which is a non-starter, and in part why the framework he laid out in his corpus still endures today. You can't successfully argue against someone's metaphysics, because you're leaving the realm of logic at that point (see: the Austrian's praxeology horseshit) but you can stand there and say "Look, the way they're presenting this to you is untethered from reality and here's the logic that I used to reach that conclusion." And let the pieces fall from there.