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 5 hours 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 4 hours 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 4 hours 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 4 hours 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 4 hours 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 4 hours 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 3 hours ago by Elliott

[BlueOak]

43 minutes ago, Elliott said:

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

You are using attractive slogans to hook young people or those disatisfied and natural wish for rebellion as a definition of an ideology. No doubt it appeals to a teen or someone who is politically ignored, i'm sure it did to me at one time when my focus was more anti establishment.

World to win does not mean socialist states or groups conquering nations.

For Marx it meant:
The subject is the workers not the state. The WORKERS. Its about focus.
The action is to unite not to invade. The goal was ending class rule.

You still aren't getting that he believed this happens automatically and cannot be initiated by an outside force. You still don't get his words. He wanted the focus on the people not states, nations, or groups.

For some reason you keep ignoring all these parts of the ideology. As if they are incovenient to the point you want to make.

Marx never describes a world government or a plan of state conquest or socialism dominating as a state or governing body.

International solidarity doesn't mean a global empire. There are many groups that want unity or solidarity with each other, that do not have imperial or aspirations on conquest.

43 minutes ago, Elliott said:

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. 

Socialism is not a country acting like a corporation.  That would be the opposite of socialism. You are bringing capitalism back and calling it socialism.

In Marxist theory:

The Bourgeoisie are owners of the means of production
The Proletariat are those who sell their labor

These are class relations, not national identities. A country cannot be the Bourgeoisie, if so it is no longer a socialist country. A border doesn't turn exploitation into socialism; if expolitation of workers exists the country would no longer be socialist.

In your example the means of production would remain local, owned and run by those within it not be outsourced to India. Because that is the most important part, as I have repeatedly said, about socialism. That the means of production remain public, not outsourced, not done by another.

Marx explicitly rejected corporate or class rule. His entire framework or belief system was anti nationalist and anti corporate. 
Marx did not believe the exploitation of another countries workers was socialism. Nor does any socialist i've ever met. Quite the opposite, if work was done overseas and traded, they'd want and likely only trade with those in good working conditions because that's their entire ideology.

You are still confusing a class struggle with state domination or in this exploitation of other states.

Socialism isn't any old group calling itself socialist, even if it exploits workers. Musk calling himself green does not make him an environmentalist; corporations calling themselves your friend (like insidious banks do these days) or worse families, does not abolish class relations or struggles.

You are describing capitalism to me.  The system socialism abolishes. 

[zazen]

2 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

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

This.

“The question is whether “True Communism” much like “True Capitalism” can ever be implemented in their purest forms by a human nature that isn’t 100% pure.

Communism demands we not be greedy for the sake of community and assumes others will fend for us - capitalism demands we be greedy enough to fend for ourselves and assumes doing so will have a trickle down effect on those less able to compete with us.”

Utopianism doesn’t scale - bhudaahood doesn’t scale to where people can and will be egoless enough to work and not see the fruits of their labour - but see those fruits distributed to the community within which some people don’t work as hard or well. Fucks up the incentives.

Life is complex and wiggly - any ism trying to force life into straight lines will fail (got that from Alan Watts).

 

[Elliott]

You guys conflate socialism for egalitarianism. Egalitarianism(including in regard to resources and government action)exists in capitalist society, that's not "socialism in capitalism"(there's no such thing).

[Elliott]

11 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

You are using attractive slogans to hook young people or those disatisfied and natural wish for rebellion as a definition of an ideology. No doubt it appeals to a teen or someone who is politically ignored, i'm sure it did to me at one time when my focus was more anti establishment.

World to win does not mean socialist states or groups conquering nations.

For Marx it meant:
The subject is the workers not the state. The WORKERS. Its about focus.
The action is to unite not to invade. The goal was ending class rule.

You still aren't getting that he believed this happens automatically and cannot be initiated by an outside force. You still don't get his words. He wanted the focus on the people not states, nations, or groups.

For some reason you keep ignoring all these parts of the ideology. As if they are incovenient to the point you want to make.

Marx never describes a world government or a plan of state conquest or socialism dominating as a state or governing body.

International solidarity doesn't mean a global empire. There are many groups that want unity or solidarity with each other, that do not have imperial or aspirations on conquest.
 

Socialism is not a country acting like a corporation.  That would be the opposite of socialism. You are bringing capitalism back and calling it socialism.

In Marxist theory:

The Bourgeoisie are owners of the means of production
The Proletariat are those who sell their labor

These are class relations, not national identities. A country cannot be the Bourgeoisie, if so it is no longer a socialist country. A border doesn't turn exploitation into socialism; if expolitation of workers exists the country would no longer be socialist.

In your example the means of production would remain local, owned and run by those within it not be outsourced to India. Because that is the most important part, as I have repeatedly said, about socialism. That the means of production remain public, not outsourced, not done by another.

Marx explicitly rejected corporate or class rule. His entire framework or belief system was anti nationalist and anti corporate. 
Marx did not believe the exploitation of another countries workers was socialism. Nor does any socialist i've ever met. Quite the opposite, if work was done overseas and traded, they'd want and likely only trade with those in good working conditions because that's their entire ideology.

You are still confusing a class struggle with state domination or in this exploitation of other states.

Socialism isn't any old group calling itself socialist, even if it exploits workers. Musk calling himself green does not make him an environmentalist; corporations calling themselves your friend (like insidious banks do these days) or worse families, does not abolish class relations or struggles.

You are describing capitalism to me.  The system socialism abolishes. 

BRUH, YOU SAID YOU WOULD BE OKAY WITH FREE TRADE, THAT MEANS YOU WOULD BE EXPLOITING THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES.

[zazen]

2 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You guys conflate socialism for egalitarianism. Egalitarianism(including in regard to resources and government action)exists in capitalist society, that's not "socialism in capitalism"(there's no such thing).

True - if I get it then egalitarianism is a value (reducing unfair disparities),  socialism is a property and power arrangement (eliminating ownership to reduce inequalities and classes all together? 

[Elliott]

23 minutes ago, zazen said:

True - if I get it then egalitarianism is a value (reducing unfair disparities),  socialism is a property and power arrangement (eliminating ownership to reduce inequalities and classes all together? 

Ya. Is it necessary for the government to be the ones in charge of production(socialism), to achieve what you want? Is the Norwegian government in charge of making cars?

Acknowledging that resources belong to everyone, including government action as a resource(like building highways is no different than welfare), is just egalitarian. 

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

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.
 

@BlueOak Challenge accepted, but I need to admit: I didn't design this right now. I've been building it for the last year.

The protocol you're asking for exists: the Bioregional Autonomous Zone (BAZ), but there's a design choice I'd like your feedback on:

BAZ isn't designed as a framework. It's an emergent institution.

Instead of creating a monolithic "BAZ handbook," (although looking back, I did create a 'bioregional compass' as possible easier path in), I designed it as the natural outcome when several foundational protocols intersect:

1. The sovereignty layer (indigenous framework + FPIC 2.0). Defines how communities can claim bioregional stewardship. Provides veto power (Free, Prior, Informed Consent 2.0. The result is that BAZs can't be imposed top-down, they emerge from communities choosing to claim authority over their watershed/ecosystem

2. The economic engine (adaptive UBI + dual currency). Hearts currency for care work (eldercare, teaching, community support). Leaves currency for verified ecosystem restoration. Both non-tradable, creating closed-loop local value circuits. Intended result: Money circulates locally instead of draining to Wall Street.

3. The coordination layer (meta-governance framework). BAZs can form federations without surrendering sovereignty. Trade using verified ecological metrics (race to the top). Crisis protocols that can activate/deactivate based on conditions. The result should be neither isolated communes nor centralized control

4. The commons transition (hearthstone protocol). Legal tools for transitioning land from private extraction to community stewardship. Stewardship trusts instead of private title. The outcome is that land can be managed for regeneration without waiting for revolution

The design question I'm asking you (and others reading about):

By making BAZ emergent rather than defined, we avoid the "one size fits all" trap : a fishing village BAZ will look different from a mountain farming BAZ. The protocols provide the grammar, not the sentence.

But this also means you can't just "download and install" a BAZ. You need the underlying infrastructure (AUBI, land transition legal tools, sovereignty protocols).

Is this the right tradeoff? Should we instead create a "BAZ-in-a-box" that's simpler but less adaptive? Or is the emergent approach actually the feature, not the bug?

I think we are seeing this trade-off play out in real-time. I've been pitching 'civil defense upgrades' (components of this) to Swedish municipalities. The friction we are finding is exactly what you hinted at: Emergence scares bureaucrats. They want a predictable product to buy, not a process to trust. This might be why the uptake is slow, not because the mechanics fail, but because the interface might be too open-ended for the current governance operating system.

I'll DM you the full documentation. It's extensive (50+ frameworks across 4 tiers), but the indigenous sovereignty, bioregional governance/meta-governance, and AUBI sections are the load-bearing structures.

My hope is that the work bears fruit, just waiting for the right seed conditions and intelligent critique to improve it.
 

Quote

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.

I appreciate the words, but I need to be transparent: My mind isn't 1 in 10,000, or at least maybe not in the way you might think it is. It is just augmented. I use AI as cognitive scaffolding to handle the complexity. What I bring is a heartfelt intent, the ethical compass to keep the machine pointed at life. We don't need a philosopher king; we just need humans with clear intent using the right tools.

Edited 19 minutes ago by Bjorn K Holmstrom

[Sandroew]

To think capitalism is the best system we will ever be able to create is insane. It is a step in organizing humanity, but instead people treat is as an end goal. I think we are well overdue to start working on a system that consiously handles modern humans instead of blindly following the economic principles we created to handle medieval scarcity. Scarcity does not have to exist anymore. It is purely artificial by an outdated system. We are not evolving capitalism only because we are still trying to dominate other people. It is a very effective tool at that.