Why Marxism failed according to Bertrand Russell

[Wilhelm44]

Its just seems so obvious that some kind of balance between capitalism and socialism would be best. 

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

 

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.

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.

Agreed.

Bureaucracy is usually the way to put power in the hands of people and regulate both corruption and dictators or oligarchs from gaining too much control. So yes, boring the system into submission is a very effective tool

Are you willing to design a framework protocol on any particular grassroots idea that can be advocated for or implemented, just the basics in a document or post? I understand you won't whip one out of your hat, and it will be inherently flawed or missing pieces, but as something for consideration and refinement.

Because I want you to understand your mind is 1 in 10,000 or more and if you can't start it, we are waiting for our philosopher king.

[BlueOak]

5 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Its just seems so obvious that some kind of balance between capitalism and socialism would be best. 

You'd think.

[BlueOak]

1 hour 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.

It depends if the ego takes the collective good into its own survival. Which BTW has examples.

Much like a good relationship will take the other's happiness and survival as part of their own.

Edited 1 hour ago by BlueOak

[Elliott]

27 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

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.

No it's not, socialism is a stage in marxism.

At this point you're just outright lying. You know nothing about Marxism, 4th grade americans know more than you. You're being a troll, perhaps unintentionally. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[BlueOak]

10 minutes ago, Elliott said:

No it's not.

At this point you're just outright lying.

Alright let's do this then. 

I'll start the sourcing:

Encyclopaedia Britannica (2026 update):
Socialism is a “social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.”

Link: https://www.britannica.com/money/socialism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (peer-reviewed academic reference):
“In contrast to capitalism, socialism can be defined as a type of society in which… the bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control.”

Link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/

Oxford Reference (dictionary/academic reference):
Socialism is “an economic and political system based on collective or state ownership of the means of production and distribution.”

Link: https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780199533008.001.0001/acref-9780199533008-e-2179

Merriam-Webster (major dictionary):
Socialism: “economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production…”
Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (academic philosophy reference):
“A socialist economy features social rather than private ownership of the means of production…”

Link: https://iep.utm.edu/socialis/

Chat GPT Quote:

None of the standard definitions of socialism define it as “taking over the world by socialist states.” That idea describes a particular revolutionary strategy associated with some Marxist-Leninist movements or state foreign policies, not the definition of socialism. The definitional core across Britannica, Stanford, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and the IEP is social/public/collective control or ownership of the means of production.

Your turn. You post any sources you have that indicate the primary core tenant of socialism is the take over of the world, or the removal of all capitalist states, or whatever wording you wish along those lines, and I will counter with three times the sourcing, all credible, all with links. Hint, focus on Leninist philosophy; it'll give you some good ones, and then you'll be stuck.

On this Elliot you provably and identifiably incorrect.

You've added a few more insults to the post, which haven't been quoted. Try to calm down a bit.
 

Edited 1 hour ago by BlueOak

[Elliott]

15 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Alright let's do this then. 

I'll start the sourcing:

Your turn.
 

Easily. You've obviously NEVER read Marx.

 

"The Socialist movement is a working class movement, a movement in the interests of the great majority. Workers support each other internationally on the industrial field during strikes. There will be no lack of mutual assistance when the greatest working class movement of all, the movement to free the toilers for ever from the domination of a master class, reaches the point that it can call upon them for international solidarity in striking the final blow."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mcclatchie/1946/transition_period.htm#:~:text=Thus some people may have,in striking the final blow.

 

Socialism cannot, structurally have borders and free trade, it would not be socialism. There's literally no difference between that and corporatism. This is basic 1+1=2 math. Just draw a new state around ExxonMobil then, a new state around X,..... blackrock,.... draw a new state around every individual, every property. This is down syndrome level coherence.

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[BlueOak]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

Easy. You've obviously NEVER read Marx.

"The Socialist movement is a working class movement, a movement in the interests of the great majority. Workers support each other internationally on the industrial field during strikes. There will be no lack of mutual assistance when the greatest working class movement of all, the movement to free the toilers for ever from the domination of a master class, reaches the point that it can call upon them for international solidarity in striking the final blow."

-Marx

Yes this supports exactly what i've been saying.  Solidarity is not the same as saying socialist states or groups take over the world.

He describes a working class movement, acting in the interests of the majority, supporting each other, aiming at ending the domination of any class.

Nowhere does he say:
Socialists must take over the world, certainly not socialist nations or states, or that nations must be conquered or replaced. The idea doesn't make sense, who is conquering them in a stateless society? He doesn't say socialism is defined by domination. Socialism at its core doesn't function this way geopolitically. Because people, not a state, are its focus.

He believed that this class struggle and transition happened automatically, rightly or wrongly this was his belief. Not that it was outward imposed, which i've already cited several times in quotes.

“At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production… Then begins an era of social revolution.”

And its continuation:
**“No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before

Karl Marx, Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)

or

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

So I am running my logic through GPT again; it raised some good definitions:
Quote start

• Socialism = social/collective control of the means of production
• Marx = analysis of class relations and predicted international worker solidarity
• Later Marxist-Leninist states = state-led revolutionary strategy

Quote end.

It takes a state, to do what you are saying. And Marx specifically didn't want a state, as you have already tried to argue. He didn't want outward conquest and believed things happened naturally.

Further Quotes on Socialism:

From The German Ideology

“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.”

-Not a state imposed plan or outward conquest.

From Capital

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”

-Social systems change because of conditions, not an ideology that conquers the world.

If you believe what you are telling me quote me Marx saying this or an approximation.

Socialism is defined as socialist states or their equivalent, replacing all nations through global conquest or imposition from an outside force.

[Wilhelm44]

45 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

You'd think.

It sounds like you want pure socialism though.

[BlueOak]

6 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

It sounds like you want pure socialism though.

Easier to argue for in the current dynamic of socialism being massively underpresented or suppressed.

As there seems to be a purity test if you say you want a combination of the best of both worlds. You get this from both sides however. Elliot earlier here told me I just want the benefits of socialism for myself, that tends to be how capitalists think. In terms of themselves.  If it was as socialist saying I am not a real socialist then, (which happens) you almost get the same thing, or you want the easy way out, convenience etc. Its amusing to get it from both sides.

I feel like saying yes I want convenience, and I want the best for myself. Is this a bad thing to want?
I also want that for everyone else.

But for now Wilhelm, we'll stick with the I am a socialist label, its easier for these discussions, they wouldn't have got this far into it had I not.  That and because in the current climate everyone would label me a socialist, so I might as well use the label given. Because I am so far to the left of them (on some key issues), it tends to apply.
 

Edited 1 hour ago by BlueOak

[Wilhelm44]

9 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Easier to argue for in the current dynamic of socialism being massively underpresented or suppressed.

As there seems to be a purity test if you say you want a combination of the best of both worlds. You get this from both sides however. Elliot earlier here told me I just want the benefits of socialism for myself, that tends to be how capitalists think. In terms of themselves.  If it was as socialist saying I am not a real socialist then, (which happens) you almost get the same thing, or you want the easy way out, convenience etc. Its amusing to get it from both sides.

I feel like saying yes I want convenience, and I want the best for myself. Is this a bad thing to want?
I also want that for everyone else.

But for now Wilhelm, we'll stick with the I am a socialist label, its easier for these discussions, they wouldn't have got this far into it had I not.  That and because in the current climate everyone would label me a socialist, so I might as well use the label given. Because I am so far to the left of them (on some key issues), it tends to apply.
 

Well there's already a massive shift happening with Mamdani elected in New York. And I think that's great. I just have one question, does pure socialism mean that you cant start your own business if you want to ? I mean is pure socialism basically exactly the same as communism ?

Edited 58 minutes ago by Wilhelm44

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Nowhere does he say:
Socialists must take over the world, certainly not socialist nations or states, or that nations must be conquered or replaced. The idea doesn't make sense, who is conquering them in a stateless society? He doesn't say socialism is defined by domination. Socialism at its core doesn't function this way geopolitically. Because people, not a state, are its focus.

Bruh, it's on every socialist flyer, essay, t-shirt.

 

The Communist Manifesto (1848): "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries unite!". -Marx and Engels

 

Just take your concept to its logical end. It would be no different than the UK being a corporation in a capitalist world. Corporatism, YOU would now be the bourgeois! Indians and Africans or whatever, YOUR proletariat. That's "socialist" to you? YOU being bourgeois, that's what your concept is. An imaginary border makes "exploitation" okay in your "socialism". YOU'RE A CORPORATIST. This is no different than what Musk does to people like you, "we're separate". Your concept is no more ethically superior than Musk's, you just want YOU in his circle. 

Edited 6 minutes ago by Elliott