Why Marxism failed according to Bertrand Russell

[BlueOak]

11 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Do you consider yourself to be familiar with Marxism?

Yes, but its not my primary ideology. I am more centralist on the socialist spectrum. I prefer to bring all four poles into a balance but focused on the people living in a country over anything else.

To answer the obvious gotcha you are likely building up to:

Marxism does not argue trade should cease. The ideology recognizes trade predated capitalism. Exchange between societies is inevitable if we want a stable world.

Edited 5 hours ago by BlueOak

[Elliott]

8 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Yes, but its not my primary ideology. I am more centralist on the socialist spectrum. I prefer to bring all four poles into a balance but focused on the people living in a country over anything else.

To answer the obvious gotcha you are likely building up to:

Marxism does not argue trade should cease. The ideology recognizes trade predated capitalism. Exchange between societies is inevitable if we want a stable world.

My gotcha was not about trade. Marxism is a stateless ideology. You're confusing pre "revolution" trade policy with post. Lenin was a protectionist, not free trader.

Edited 5 hours ago by Elliott

[BlueOak]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

My gotcha was not about trade. Marxism is a stateless ideology.

Marxism does not claim the state immediately disappears. There is obviously a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. If we are talking hundreds of years from now when I am long dead, sure.

Socialism in a broader context, however, does not have this end goal within it. I think if you talked to 100 socialists, you'd get 5 that envisioned a stateless future, at least anywhere soon, but that's just my experience.

 

[Elliott]

20 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Marxism does not claim the state immediately disappears. There is obviously a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. If we are talking hundreds of years from now when I am long dead, sure.

Socialism in a broader context, however, does not have this end goal within it. I think if you talked to 100 socialists, you'd get 5 that envisioned a stateless future, at least anywhere soon, but that's just my experience.

 

Marxism does not recognize states, it's proletariat vs bourgeois, every person on earth.

This is basic socialism. Listen to any socialist essay, "workers of the WORLD unite".

This is why I call it a cult, you people literally don't even know what you're spreading.

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[BlueOak]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

Marxism does not recognize states, it's proletariat vs bourgeois, every person on earth.

No, Marxism recognises states and the struggle within them, especially the period of transition.
I'll GPT some quotes for you rather than open a bunch of books.

Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875):

“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877):

“The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away.”

Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848):

“The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.”

Same text, same section:

“Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle.”

----

End Quotes

It concludes with a better line than I had.
That Marxism argues class is more fundamental than nationality, which I personally believe to be true. Not that states exist or don't matter.

[Elliott]

Just now, BlueOak said:

No, Marxism recognises states and the struggle within them, especially the period of transition.
I'll GPT some quotes for you rather than open a bunch of books.

Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875):

“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877):

“The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away.”

Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848):

“The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.”

Same text, same section:

“Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle.”

----

End Quotes

It concludes with a better line than I had.
That Marxism argues class is more fundamental than nationality, which I personally believe to be true. Not that states exist or don't matter.

So... do you agree Marxisms goal is that the entire world be socialist. "Transition period" is meaningless in this discussion, what's the goal.

[BlueOak]

24 minutes ago, Elliott said:

So... do you agree Marxisms goal is that the entire world be socialist. "Transition period" is meaningless in this discussion, what's the goal.

Do I agree an ideology likes to engage with a similiar ideology? Yes. Because people like to interact with others who share their beliefs. Though Marx didn't argue this, or that mixed systems shouldn't exist. Marxism as a whole believes capitalism would be superseded with socialism, but never that other forms of governance could not exist. I tend to agree that more socialism will be brought in to a balance, but it'll take another 1,000 years. 

Do I agree this ideology wants to impose this over others? No. Marxism does not dictate a program to impose itself on the entire world. It doesn't claim this achievable either, because it wouldn't be.

Marx's goal was to say capitalism had contradictions, which created a class struggle. He believed that advanced enough capitalist societies might shift into socialist ones. I tend to agree, with caveats, that they become closer to being system based, rather than ideological, integrating all elements of existance, which is superior. He believed socialism might become the global means of production, which is somewhat naive given human nature. As I said I am not a Marxist.

Here is another Quote:
The German Ideology, Marx & Engels:

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.”

This explicitly states the opposite for you. He also stated:

A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:
“No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed.”

Meaning societies cannot be made socialist. Though you dismiss transition, its a critical phase in his ideology.

The Communist Manifesto:
“The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.”

A single imposed global order doesn't fit his own words. 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by BlueOak

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

29 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Would you apply this to more liberal, decentralised forms of socialism?

Yes, this absolutely applies to decentralized/liberal socialism, in fact, it requires it. I share your preference for a federal model where power resides at the bioregional level.
 

30 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

What is the factory incentivized to do?

Is good, but to include all elements, you cite UBI, local currencies, local concerns etc, economies need to be modelled on the local level to address the actual concerns people face. Doing this top-down as you suggest can be flawed from the start, UBI might work well for a local economy or hurt it.

There are downsides to local or regional control, more arguments, increasing bureaucracy, independence movements, and regions risking becoming more imbalanced in relation to their neighbors (but this last one happens anyway in a system favoring national governance).

I don't mean a central committee deciding the price of bread in every village. I mean setting a shared protocol, like the Internet (TCP/IP): Everyone agrees on how, so the network works. Everyone decides what content to share.
In my work, I call these bioregional units 'BAZs' (Bioregional Autonomous Zones), a fractal model where the global layer sets the metric standard, the local layer decides implementation. One region might use UBI, another job guarantees. One might be high-tech another agrarian.
Instead of forcing regions to adapt, we can offer an incentive for adapting a regenerative protocol, a global liquidity pool. Think of it like how the EU structural funds work, but tied to regenerative metrics instead of GDP growth. Regions that adopt regenerative practices get access to shared resources, creating incentive alignment without forcing uniformity. This creates a race to the top for regeneration instead of a race to the bottom for extraction.

[BlueOak]

You edited this in afterwards:
 

40 minutes ago, Elliott said:

This is basic socialism. Listen to any socialist essay, "workers of the WORLD unite".

This is why I call it a cult, you people literally don't even know what you're spreading.

1, People chant all kinds of crap.
2, Marx implicitly rejected what you are assigning to his ideology. He called it a national struggle.
3, Now you are moralising.
I'll give it a go, it should reduce the discussion to purely state green and below, which means I can switch off my brain.

You're in a liberal cult.
Liberal say things like: “Free markets”

In practice liberals interfere in markets all the time. Bailouts, subsidies, trade protections, IP protections and patents, interest rates manipulation etc. I am not arguing against this either.
Slogans are not reality. If this is your definition of a cult, the entire world is a cult, because I guarantee you everyone on this forum has as contradictory slogan in their own head. Including you.

Edited 4 hours ago by BlueOak

[Elliott]

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

You edited this in afterwards:
 

1, People chant all kinds of crap.
2, Marx implicitly rejected what you are assigning to his ideology. He called it a national struggle.
3, Now you are moralising.
I'll give it a go, it should reduce the discussion to purely state green and below, which means I can switch off my brain.

I can't believe you just choose to read over the most commonly stated and basic part of socialism.

 

Essentially, you personally don't want socialism, you just want benefits for yourself personally, you actually don't care about people in general. 

You're the perfect example as to why marxism is idiotic, and socialists are completely contradictory.

"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains," -concluding The Communist Manifesto, Marx

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[BlueOak]

41 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I can't believe you just choose to read over the most commonly stated and basic part of socialism.

 

Essentially, you personally don't want socialism, you just want benefits for yourself personally, you actually don't care about people in general. 

You're the perfect example as to why marxism is idiotic, and socialists are completely contradictory.

I want a balanced system where socialism is considerably more integrated than it is now. This isn't the insult you think it is to me, as I am not strongly ideological; I am more systems-based.

At the moment socialism is vastly underrepresented, so I advocate for it. In an alternative reality, if capitalism was ignored, suppressed and sidelined I'd propose more of it within the system.

Of course I want the benefits for me personally, but also collectively for the poor and homeless, who are not only neglected by society because socialist values are vilified, but in the American mindset, criminalized and actively loathed by many fanatical capitalists.

You see contradiction; I see compromise, integration, and a better-functioning society, filling the gaps that exist within it.

But then you advocate for isolationism and division at every opportunity, which is increasingly the American way. Attacking other perspectives different from yours and trying to vilify them.
 

Edited 3 hours ago by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

28 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I can't believe you just choose to read over the most commonly stated and basic part of socialism.

The most basic meaning of socialism is to replace the means of production. Taking it from private to public.

Edited 3 hours ago by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

38 minutes ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

Yes, this absolutely applies to decentralized/liberal socialism, in fact, it requires it. I share your preference for a federal model where power resides at the bioregional level.
 

I don't mean a central committee deciding the price of bread in every village. I mean setting a shared protocol, like the Internet (TCP/IP): Everyone agrees on how, so the network works. Everyone decides what content to share.
In my work, I call these bioregional units 'BAZs' (Bioregional Autonomous Zones), a fractal model where the global layer sets the metric standard, the local layer decides implementation. One region might use UBI, another job guarantees. One might be high-tech another agrarian.
Instead of forcing regions to adapt, we can offer an incentive for adapting a regenerative protocol, a global liquidity pool. Think of it like how the EU structural funds work, but tied to regenerative metrics instead of GDP growth. Regions that adopt regenerative practices get access to shared resources, creating incentive alignment without forcing uniformity. This creates a race to the top for regeneration instead of a race to the bottom for extraction.

I honestly thought TCP/IP protocol was regulated, but on investigation, its only regulation comes about because its the most popular and if people don't want to isolate, they connect to it. That's interesting, I wonder if something similiar can be adopted before the below is even considered, as that's more 'my doubts' based on the current reality we live in.

Focusing on protocols is certainly a smarter way of addressing division. There are certainly hurdles to this, self-interest and ideological purity being two relevant to the discussion.

I do like the carrot approach. If we had leaders of sufficient development and media institutions supporting him/her, then this could be done. I am not sure it can be done without a governing authority, but it was with TCP/IP. I suppose a big enough collective or group of companies could do it for job guarantees for example.

It requires influence, either billionaires, a collective will from businesses and/or at the moment acceptance by the media holding people in a sort of divisive stasis based on lack rather than abundance, extraction rather than regeneration. Although on a smaller level it could be done, and might spread by example. Without a larger backing, it may be held in place or suppressed. If someone shouts the word "socialism," there is an instant army ready to attack an idea, even if its designed as a capitalist system.

Still maybe a larger focus on protocol will yield better outcomes.

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

 

11 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

If someone shouts the word "socialism," there is an instant army ready to attack an idea, even if its designed as a capitalist system.

Yes, if we call this anything related to socialism, the media immune system will kill it. The 20th-century ideological triggers are too strong.

The solution is to instead of framing this as Ideology, framing it as civilizational risk management. Systemic resilience and anti-fragility makes people listen, as opposed to redistribution.

We can perhaps 'bore' the system into submission, using the language of insurance, accounting, and engineering to install a system that generates justice and regeneration as a byproduct.

14 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

I do like the carrot approach. If we had leaders of sufficient development and media institutions supporting him/her, then this could be done. I am not sure it can be done without a governing authority, but it was with TCP/IP. I suppose a big enough collective or group of companies could do it for job guarantees for example.

It requires influence, either billionaires, a collective will from businesses and/or at the moment acceptance by the media holding people in a sort of divisive stasis based on lack rather than abundance, extraction rather than regeneration. Although on a smaller level it could be done, and might spread by example. Without a larger backing, it may be held in place or suppressed. 

We can't wait for a philosopher king to save us, the protocol must lead. We don't need a benevolent billionaire to run it, we need a working pilot (a seed). Instead of convincing the global media, demonstrate proof of concept. If one region adopts the protocol and suddenly has measurably lower crime, better food security, and higher community wellbeing scores, the demonstration effect begins, making the neighbors jealous enough to follow.

[Elliott]

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I want a balanced system where socialism is considerably more integrated than it is now. This isn't the insult you think it is to me, as I am not strongly ideological; I am more systems-based.

At the moment socialism is vastly underrepresented, so I advocate for it. In an alternative reality, if capitalism was ignored, suppressed and sidelined I'd propose more of it within the system.

Of course I want the benefits for me personally, but also collectively for the poor and homeless, who are not only neglected by society because socialist values are vilified, but in the American mindset, criminalized and actively loathed by many fanatical capitalists.

You see contradiction; I see compromise, integration, and a better-functioning society, filling the gaps that exist within it.

But then you advocate for isolationism and division at every opportunity, which is increasingly the American way. Attacking other perspectives different from yours and trying to vilify them.
 

You literally don't know what socialist means.

"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains," -concluding The Communist Manifesto, Marx

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Alex M]

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

[Leo Gura]

Marxism fails because it fundamentally misunderstands human nature. It fails to take survival seriously.

The ego will not surrender its survival for the benefit of a collective good. The Marxist's own ego will not do it.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Wilhelm44]

37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Marxism fails because it fundamentally misunderstands human nature. It fails to take survival seriously.

The ego will not surrender its survival for the benefit of a collective good. The Marxist's own ego will not do it.

And it's also like the opposite of freedom. The fact that you dont have the freedom to start your own business if you want to, is just silly.

[Kid A]

52 minutes ago, Alex M said:

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

"European attitude: We may be oppressed today, but if we work together, one day we will all be free.
US attitude: I may be a work slave today, but if I work hard, one day I will be the slave owner."
- Random youtube commenter

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

You literally don't know what socialist means.

"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains," -concluding The Communist Manifesto, Marx

Firstly your conflating marxism with socialism. It's one branch of it.

However, Marx did not propose a plan to “take over the world” or replace all countries as socialist states. He analyzed capitalism; he was not a geopolitical strategist. This is a call for solidarity, not an overthrow of governments or a change to the world order. 
The idea of a coordinated global revolution was a Leninist idea. Had you set off on that or quoted him, this would be a different discussion. This is a 20th-century concept, not a 19th-century one.

Marx's belief was the class struggle was an inherent struggle in all capitalist societies. Not something that needed outside interference. That it would occur naturally, which is somewhat idealistic.

Secondly i've given you what socialism means:

The most basic meaning of socialism is to replace the means of production. Taking it from private to public.

This is the most core tenet of socialism. Do you honestly dispute this? Because we can but its not an argument you can win.

Socialism is extremely fragmented and multifaceted and someone who hasn't done a lot of reasearch always risks getting details wrong. I do too, because there are so many opinions and branches in it. Stating its fragmentation is a much better angle of attack or its viability than the one you are currently pursing. Labelling good and bad, cults and psyops, its just not going to get this conversation anywhere.