On Marxism [Closed]

[What Drealoth forgot to mention is that he’s a supporter of the Canadian Green Party.  G’bye. – NS]

[Skanderbeg adds: Well, I came late to the party.

But I dare the meathead who created this diary to go to Albania and give his schpiel.

What would be left of him would be so atomized that the worms wouldn’t even have to chew.

This is the usual claptrap – that “Marxism” was never really tried, was bastardized by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, and that Marx was really a social genius who explained everything.

The reality is that Marx was a fringe idiot who wrote about things he knew nothing about. He never set foot inside a factory or a real workplace (hmm, sound familiar?), and clearly had a troubled relationship with reality.

Marx imbibed the 19th century foolishness that got in everywhere – of “borrowing” Carnot’s description of steam engines and the basic principles of near-equilibrium thermodynamics. This gave fools the veneer of “science” in their own inferior minds.

“A communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” – Ronald Reagan]

Barack Obama has been frequently called a Marxist, and although perhaps not entirely undeserved, I think that many people view Stalinism (and by extension Maoism) and Marxism as interchangeable, a misconception which bothers me greatly. My great grandparents fled starvation from Stalinist USSR, and so I feel uneasy when I hear someone call Obama a communist – not because I agree with him in any way, I must add (read my profile to start to understand this strange grey matter of mine) – but because I feel I have some roots in “true” communism.

So my goal here is to clear up what Marxism is, and perhaps later I will post about my understanding of Stalinism and Maoism. Of course, this is my understanding of it, so correct me as needed.

Marxism 101:

In spite of my history, I have to admit that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a smart man. He was, in many ways, a psychologist. His theory was thus:

Marx saw that wealth was being shifted upward. He saw the wealthy, generally educated and with strong family connections, as hiring the uneducated proletariat to create value (through manufacturing consumer goods), and the wealthy as taking a disproportionate amount of the goods and generally taking advantage of these people. He saw that people created more value than was necessary for them to survive, with most of the excess being taken by the upper class. Eventually, he said, the people would get fed up and form unions as a way of taking back the power. The catch was that these people had no choice but to work, with the alternative to work being a slow death in abject poverty, and so these unions were a way for the proletariat to take back control. This, he argued, was a response to the workers feeling of alienation from the upper class, the feeling that the wealthy were overwhelmingly born into their wealth and that there was no way for them to obtain it.

Thank you for reading my post. I know that this is a touchy subject, and I hope to be as non-partisan as possible (and hopefully to inform rather than enrage), and so please do not interpret this as trolling or the like. I must also emphasize that this is how Karl Marx interpreted communism, not how it was implemented by Stalin or Mao or the scores of other villains of history.

Some thoughts:

1. Is Marx wrong in his interpretation of the causes? That is, is the upward shift in wealth real, and a problem for a capitalist society? How can we deal with this?

2. Where does the middle class fit into Marx’s theory?

3. There is an undeniable shift toward socialism in today’s society. What is the cause of this section of society’s malcontent?

4. Stalin – Great Leader, or GREATEST Leader?