When Karl Marx was actively writing Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto, he was living in London. He was a German who moved to London and saw first hand the opening stages of the industrial revolution.
He was a very smart man and his predictions were logical and sound. During his lifetime there were virtually no trade unions, child labour was rampant, and people would often die on the job with no compensation given to their family. A few very rich captains of industry(robber barons) ruled entire sectors of the economy with a monopoly. Therefore wages could be kept artificially low, and there was enough of a labour pool that unskilled workers could be replaced by desperate people moving to the cities from the countryside. (This is much like what is occurring in China in modern times.)
To be a poor cog in this economic machine (a proletariat) was very depressing and there was very little room for upward mobility in a very class oriented society.
With this sad social landscape it is no wonder why Marx theorized a social upheaval that would spread prosperity and equality among all workers. I empathize with anyone who shares this vision in theory. However, every time that Marxism(communism) has been implemented on a nation wide scale it has been an unmitigated disaster. The reason for this is that it creates a climate of stagnation, paranoia and uncertainty.
When all products are to be shared, it takes away the incentive to work hard in order to succeed. The ambitious are punished, and the lazy and corrupt are rewarded.
Here is a partial list of large scale communist states that failed dramatically. Russia(and most of Eastern Europe), Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea etc...
China is communist in name only. They have a controlled market, but they have embraced free trade and capitalism and they are now prospering.
I know that many people are very passionate about Marxism one way or the other, but the death toll caused in its name over the past century is truly staggering and terrible.
on top of that you did not cite any sources for any of your information, which is the making of a bad post based only on imaginations and no understanding of the topic whatsoever
You also used the informationwar tag, which I had not banned but it is run by reactionaries.
I respect your passion regarding this topic. I am happy to peacefully debate you on these issues. I have a history degree and I have travelled throughout the world, including a very long visit to Cuba. As a student I was a big fan of Marxism. I even was very active in Occupy Wall Street(Occupy Toronto) I realize that the strongest argument in favour of Marxism is that it has never really been implemented properly. All attempts at this have been thwarted due to the greed and corruption. I have read much of the Communist Manifesto and tempered that by reading much of the Gulag Archipelago.
As stated in the first part of my post, I think we both agree that more equality is needed in the world. There is clearly much good in what Marx wrote over 150 years ago.
For more context: I have run for office previously as an independent candidate on the major premise of fighting corruption and inefficiency. (I’ll send you a link if you wish) I will be happy to watch the video links that you sent. I will also be rereading this book from my shelf.
The fact that you and I both have educated views and are politically active mean in a roundabout way that we are allies. The apathetic complainers of the world are the true unfortunate ones. Education (not state run indoctrination) and understanding are the ideals that I hold most sacred.
If everyone was as passionate about their beliefs as you are the world would be a much better and smarter place.
I look forward to reading more of your content.
you didnt read my other comments did you? Saying you are educated but making no argument, or ones without citations, does not lead me to believe you.
I did and I respect the passion that you have on the topic. As I stated before, as a teacher( I have taught students from kindergarten to college), a local organizer of food and clothing drives for the homeless and a volunteer who teaches English to newly arrived immigrants I think that I have bona fides to say that I (like you) am doing my part to help the poor, marginalized and disenfranchised people both locally and globally.
As to the specifics of your other points, they are acknowledged.
As a side note, it’s astonishing that after so long since Marx’s death, the debate over his work is still so passionately discussed.
I wish you peace and happiness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
I recommended starting with the wikipedia article for a reason, stop speaking from ignorance and read something next time.
Marxism
Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Marxism uses a methodology, now known as historical materialism, to analyze and critique the development of capitalism and the role of class struggles in systemic economic change.
According to Marxian theory, class conflict arises in capitalist societies due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed proletariat—a class of wage labourers employed by the bourgeoisie to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class that owns the means of production and extract their wealth through appropriation of the surplus product (profit) produced by the proletariat.
actually that sounds more like capitalism to me, as all profit comes from control of people. All difference under capitalism is punished unless it is exploitable. Albert Einsteins essay, "Why Socialism?" Goes into detail on why that statement is absolutely incorrect, money is not the only reason people do things. Link below.
https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
Well, what do we have here to dispel today? Let's check right now, shall we?
"The reason for this is that it creates a climate of stagnation, paranoia and uncertainty."
First of all, I like to see the evidence for these claims. Albeit you provide some for stagnation, it was just more claims that lacks empirical proof and lacks sound reasoning. Because you failed to provide proof for this, I will denote that this is merely an unbacked claim.
Let's unpack this fuckery right here.
First of all, just because all the products in society is shared means not that people will lose incentive to work hard. You're connecting to unrelated threads with each other: those being products being shared and incentive to work. What you mean to say is that everyone will have equal access to it, but that doesn't imply people won't want to work at all!
Second of all, as Karl Marx puts it from the "Critique of the Gotha Programme": "from each according to his ability to each according to his labor." So in a Communist society, people work in order to get what they need because they can provide for society. But if a person is handicapped or something, then society will have the means to support the person so they can be fully operational again or can be able to find work in accordance to their handicap.
Third of all, ambitious people will be rewarded because, as Friedrich Engels puts it in the "Principles of Communism": "Instead of generating misery, overproduction will reach beyond the elementary requirements of society to assure the satisfaction of the needs of all; it will create new needs and, at the same time, the means of satisfying them. It will become the condition of, and the stimulus to, new progress, which will no longer throw the whole social order into confusion, as progress has always done in the past."
Last of all, the lazy and the corrupt can't exist because they won't be rewarded, as seen in the second point, and they don't contribute towards Communist society. Regardless, the conditions for the "Lazy" and "Corrupt" won't exist under Communist society because they won't be our material conditions that we live in today and because overproduction is valued in a Communist society.
"Here is a partial list of large scale communist states that failed dramatically. Russia(and most of Eastern Europe), Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea etc..."
Russia and Eastern European states didn't collapse but merely fell victim to revisionism. The earliest being the USSR with Khrushchev, but the actual decline happening around Brezhnev. Rest of Eastern Europe were forced to adopt Revisionist policies after the USSR went revisionist and abandoned Marxism-Leninism.
Vietnam is an interesting case in that the USA literally bombed the living shit out of Vietnam, economically blockaded them and had agent orange sprayed everywhere and damaged their nature and people. Imagine if that was all done in the USA, the USA would struggle to recover forever, only a few havens would exist if they were untouched by bombings. Also regardless, Vietnam fell to revisionism after Ho Chi Min died.
Cuba barely did any revisionism at all with Raul Castro, only implementing such because of US economic blockades that was harming the country and would destroy a Capitalist country if they were put under the same stress. Regardless, Cuba is veering away from Revisionism under Miguel Díaz-Canel, a Marxist-Leninist that won't obey under pressure. In fact, that's why the media went quiet after he became president - because the USA can't extort their successes by showing how Cuba is crumbling to US demands.
As @anarchyhasnogods already shown, I don't want to repeat for them. So let's go to the DPRK, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They still waive Juche, an application of Marxism-Leninism that already agrees with the majority, if not all of, Marxism-Leninism and isn't revisionist to both ML and Marxism. But you are probably talking about Songun, they dropped it a long time ago as they finally reached nuclear capabilities and don't need to expand their military. It shows with how the economy has fared well recently - but of course you'll say something Orientalist like the people are brainwashed and are robots. In that case, I like to see you prove that by actually talking to them - they possess every emotion and have unwavering feelings towards the Worker's Party of Korea. Because, idk, maybe because charismatic leaders in general make people feel good about the party they represent and also the fact that the party didn't betray them or their interests as human beings. If you want to talk about cults of personality, then denounce every monument towards an American hero ever, from the founding fathers to John F. Kennedy to Ike (Eisenhower) to even Reagan. Because certainly people would die to even shake their hands and have a photo with them, because maybe they were just that charismatic and benefited people's interests for their time period. Sort of like how the Kim family has been benefiting the people's interests and see them as a steadfast, charismatic group of people. Regardless to even that fact, the DPRK has been setting for ages to slowly abolish the powers that president has in the DPRK and make it more and more to the people, because maybe they don't have to worry about being constantly invaded and can breathe for one second. Though economic blockades will persist as the USA doesn't want a Socialist state to even succeed, which makes you think how Capitalism doesn't want competition across ideologies.
"China is communist in name only. They have a controlled market, but they have embraced free trade and capitalism and they are now prospering."
Though I will get unto this point very soon, your point of the death toll has been answered by @anarchyhasnogods. I suggest you watch the video she linked.
Now unto this point, China (PRC, People's Republic of China) had been under a market economy when Deng took ever and was hellbent with his revisionism. Albeit Mao did went senile at a very old age, Deng would do far worse and kill off any anti-revisionist in the country that wouldn't be in line with Deng. In fact, the Tienanmen Square was a protest full of Maoists, MLs and Students that didn't agree to Deng's rule and policies in the PRC. He would allow Capital to flow into the country, destroy the communes and allow foreign Capital to dictate the whims of the people, that'll eventually help generate a Capitalist class in the PRC.
Years later that trend would be reversed under Xi Jingping's leadership, setting into motion with his fourteen points firmly established: trends like the killing off billionaires if they had gotten to rich, excluding them from the Party function, imprisoning corrupt party officials if they mismanaged funds for their ends, help combating poverty created thanks to Deng and Co.'s policies and expanding democracy back towards the proletarian path and ridding China of foreign Capital. Xi Jingping also is a staunch ML and is continuing to return China back on the revolutionary path with the proletarian masses. The PRC may still have remnants of Capital inside its country, but it has mercilessly, for the past few years, been forcing it to be under proletarian control and eliminating foreign control over the PRC.