Why Marxism failed according to Bertrand Russell

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, BlueOak said:

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.

The ego might tell itself that, but when the rubber meets the road the ego will not be able to stomach that much self-sacrfice.

Socialism would work is we were all Awakened, egoless saints.

[Sandroew]

@Leo Gura We can clearly build a better system than capitalism regarding logistics. Capitalism doesnt account for actual human needs and wants, nor the environment. Capitalism only cares about increasing profit and human well-being is a side product at best. Its the equivalent of solving a maze by letting mold expand in every direction. You can get away with brute forcing something only for so long. Sooner or later you want to build a conscious system, no ? Your concerns are legit, but we had to outgrow feudalism in order to get to capitalism. Once we have to face outgrowing capitalism as well.

[Alexop]

39 minutes ago, Sandroew said:

@Leo Gura We can clearly build a better system than capitalism regarding logistics. Capitalism doesnt account for actual human needs and wants, nor the environment. Capitalism only cares about increasing profit and human well-being is a side product at best. Its the equivalent of solving a maze by letting mold expand in every direction. You can get away with brute forcing something only for so long. Sooner or later you want to build a conscious system, no ? Your concerns are legit, but we had to outgrow feudalism in order to get to capitalism. Once we have to face outgrowing capitalism as well.

There is no such thing as "we work now on capitalism". There is always a combination between socialism and capitalism. Scandinavia has more socialism than USA. Is Scandinavia socialist? Hell no. It only has more powerful and efficient socialist elements.

Amazon, Facebook, Tesla-> capitalism

Public roads, FDA, IRS, anti-monopoly laws, labor unions and laws -> socialism.

 

You cannot have a fully socialist country nowadays, it will just fail on the global market.

Edited 10 hours ago by Alexop

[Elliott]

@BlueOak

 

 

[Sandroew]

@Alexop i didnt get into details in my comment. I think my best option to provide an explanation for now is to rely on Peter Joseph's work.

A good entry point is his Revolution Now! podcast, if you just want a quick intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E_R-dRlV_I&t=4315s

His talking style is quite loquatious, so you can just start at 37 minutes.

Alternatively you could watch his movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mboDCYyFxW0

The third installment is the best of the series imo. You might need to watch the second one first to get a better understanding. But you would probably wont regret starting with the first movie either. But you have to understand his movies are designed to get a rise from you rather than a scientific breakdown of facts and solutions.

If you want to deep dive into his solutions, he published a white paper recently.

A Federated, Post-Monetary, Cybernetic Cooperative Economic System

 

 

[BlueOak]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The ego might tell itself that, but when the rubber meets the road the ego will not be able to stomach that much self-sacrfice.

Socialism would work is we were all Awakened, egoless saints.

This is extremely easy to challenge. How many fathers would step in front of a bullet for their own child.

But we are not talking bullets or children. We are talking collective good, a much more loosely defined term, and with a much lower bar for the ego than the cost of your life. If the country is in a pure survival state, nothing works well. The average joe isn't taking a bullet for a random person, maybe a child. If the country is reasonably well off, and survival needs have been met, its easier to think of others.

But here is the kicker: The way to meet the survival needs of the worst off in society, starts with the improvement of social programs.

>>Socialism would work is we were all Awakened, egoless saints.

Yep. But it'll work okay if we are pretty good people. Flawed and all. Not perfect, nothing is.
It'll also work okay on those that need it and would value it most, because they are bought into its success. 
You are right, its the people in it that matter, and the amount of people ripping it down.

Edited 3 hours ago by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

@Bjorn K Holmstrom

I'm going to go over this in detail over the weekend when I am rested, thank you for being bold.

[BlueOak]

On 05/02/2026 at 5:28 PM, Elliott said:

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

I said Trade.

One is capable of picking trade partners, and this issue is far more nuanced than you are allowing for. Countries positively improving the conditions of their workforce can be factored in, as can countries already treating their workers well, and appropriate and equal trade can be given to them. Exploitation of a workforce, is probably the most incorrect angle of argument against socialism that I have ever seen proposed. The workforce runs the country in such a system, it, as you have repeatedly pointed out, seeks unity amongst the world's workers for better conditions.

[BlueOak]

On 05/02/2026 at 4:11 PM, Wilhelm44 said:

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 ?

Its dependent on the type of socialism.

Democratic and/or Liberal socialism: Yes, you can.
Market Socialism: Cooperative Businesses are usually allowed for but not individual ownership. (In a perfect world I would be here.)
State Socialism or Communism usually no. 
 

[Elliott]

31 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

I said Trade.

One is capable of picking trade partners, and this issue is far more nuanced than you are allowing for. Countries positively improving the conditions of their workforce can be factored in, as can countries already treating their workers well, and appropriate and equal trade can be given to them. Exploitation of a workforce, is probably the most incorrect angle of argument against socialism that I have ever seen proposed. The workforce runs the country in such a system, it, as you have repeatedly pointed out, seeks unity amongst the world's workers for better conditions.

Then, you admit that your idea of socialism is authoritarian and exploitive, because: who decides?

Honestly, you have no grasp of marxism.

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[BlueOak]

14 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Then, you admit that your idea of socialism is authoritarian and exploitive, because: who decides?

Honestly, you have no grasp of marxism.

'Who decides' doesn't mean authoritarianism. 

You are acting as if only markets can decide or a dicator. Typical left right oversimplistic division in American politics. Which happens when a country excludes all other opinions from even discussion for a generation or two.

Here are some socialist examples that could make such a decision.
Democratic institutions and groups.
Worker Unions
Worker Councils.
Or just open publicly accountable governance,  better representation of working people's views.

Unequal trade under capitalism is what causes exploitation. Socialism is all about enforcing labor laws and workers rights. If workers decide something collectively there is no middle or upper class involved.

The problem you have, Elliot, is you live in a country that has so rejected part of itself, that it cannot even grasp what it's arguing against.  You are so desperate to demonise an ideology that you end just grasping at straws or attempting one-line gotchas. There are many problems with a pure socialist viewpoint, not least of which are self-interest, billionaire resistance and greed, but you haven't even lined one up yet.

Collective decision making is not authoritarian; certainly democratic collective decision-making, pretending it is, is looking through this lens as a capitalist would and applying capitalist values to it.




 

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

'Who decides' doesn't mean authoritarianism. 

You are acting as if only markets can decide or a dicator. Typical left right oversimplistic division in American politics. Which happens when a country excludes all other opinions from even discussion for a generation or two.

Here are some socialist examples that could make such a decision.
Democratic institutions and groups.
Worker Unions
Worker Councils.
Or just open publicly accountable governance,  better representation of working people's views.

Unequal trade under capitalism is what causes exploitation. Socialism is all about enforcing labor laws and workers rights. If workers decide something collectively there is no middle or upper class involved.

The problem you have, Elliot, is you live in a country that has so rejected part of itself, that it cannot even grasp what it's arguing against.  You are so desperate to demonise an ideology that you end just grasping at straws or attempting one-line gotchas. There are many problems with a pure socialist viewpoint, not least of which are self-interest, billionaire resistance and greed, but you haven't even lined one up yet.

Collective decision making is not authoritarian; certainly democratic collective decision-making, pretending it is, is looking through this lens as a capitalist would and applying capitalist values to it.




 

You think every individual will agree? That's authoritarian when you have no other option, by definition. Authoritarian does not mean just one person decides, it can be a majority of people even, it's authoritarian when there's no other choice. Is China not authoritarian?

 

So, not the workers actually working, in the other countries, actually doing the labor, its not their decision? That's exploitive. You said the u.s. exploits it's people, and that you would trade with them.

Shut up with this labelling things "nuance" to cover up your obvious stupidity instead of just explaining it. You keep labelling things, "oversimplification, nuance" just.... explain it. You can't because you're a liar.

I did not say only markets or dictators, I said socialism is a stateless ideology, all workers of the world are included. A trade-isolated socialist state would not be inherently authoritarian. A messy open trade one would be, no way around it, and exploitive.

Marx supported free trade because he lived in a capitalist state, he was an accelerationist, he thought it would harm workers, actually. He supported it for his time during capitalism, you have to consider context. Lenin, after the revolution, was a protectionist, no free trade. I don't "demonize" socialism, I'm saying you have no idea what you're talking about. Socialism is not bad, it would be a utopia.

Edited 7 minutes ago by Elliott