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 Friday at 11:50 AM 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

Oh and silly me, i almost forgot to mention his book. You can very easily find it via google search. I highly recommend it.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 12:27 AM by Sandroew

[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 Friday at 07:43 PM 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 Friday at 08:19 PM 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]

20 hours 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 lying 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 a utopian idea, which makes it even more nonsensical. Again, you're resorting to meaningless labels to avoid the actual topic.

Edited Saturday at 05:04 PM by Elliott

[Leo Gura]

On 2/6/2026 at 2:56 AM, Sandroew said:

We can clearly build a better system than capitalism

If we could we would.

It looks easy in your head.

[Ulax]

On 04/02/2026 at 0:36 PM, BlueOak said:

United States

Twin Oaks Community – Virginia
East Wind Community – Missouri
The Farm – Tennessee
Acorn Community – Virginia
Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage – Missouri
Amana Colonies – Iowa

Israel

Degania – Israel
Ein Gev – Israel
Kibbutz Lotan – Israel
Kibbutz Ein Harod – Israel

Spain

Marinaleda – Andalusia
Mondragon Corporation – Basque Country

Denmark
Christiania – Copenhagen

France / Switzerland / Austria

Longo Maï – Multiple countries

Germany

Kommune Niederkaufungen – Hesse

United Kingdom

Findhorn Foundation – Scotland

Italy

Damanhur – Piedmont

Japan

Yamagishi Movement – Multiple locations

Canada

Windward Community – British Columbia

Netherlands

Vrije Gemeente – Netherlands

 

Always a pleasure.

Thing is though by quoting these as case studies, you are arguing from a higher quality place than many socialists ever will.

Its good you do this though, in my opinion.

[Ulax]

On 06/02/2026 at 10:56 AM, 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.

My issue with this is that you speak with certainty that we can build a better system regarding logistics.

However, your argument is purely theoretical here.

The issue with theorising is that much theorising is based on what intuitively makes sense. However, much of ho reality works is counter-intuitive. So, often theories are wrong.

Now it may well be that your theory turns out to contain much truth to it. However, I'd argue that you are much too certain about your theory's accuracy. If you real world evidence to support the theory, then that is another matter.

[Sandroew]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If we could we would.

It looks easy in your head.

Pragmatically speaking, its clearly our biggest challenge yet. But the two roadblocks are culture and politics. Not that capitalism works so well that we dont see its pain points.

[Hardkill]

13 minutes ago, Sandroew said:

Pragmatically speaking, its clearly our biggest challenge yet. But the two roadblocks are culture and politics. Not that capitalism works so well that we dont see its pain points.

It has to be a good mix of capitalism and socialism. That’s why I still support either social democracy or democratic socialism—unless someone comes up with a genuinely new economic system that is proven to work even better than either of those two.

[Sandroew]

@Ulax @Hardkill The problem is that we are so indoctrinated into the system that the issue doesnt even get mainstream.

Are we really incapable of solving the socio-economic failures of capitalism, while we are capable of sending robots to Mars ? All this automation and robotics and yet people need multiple jobs just to survive ? 70 years into the age of information by the way...

The issue isnt that we could not figure it out scientifically. Its politics.

How are we going to expect ordinary people who work 40 hours a week and then barely have time or energy to tend to their family to research and learn beyond the mainstream media ? Which is full of bullshit.

Edited Sunday at 12:22 PM by Sandroew

[zazen]

On 05/02/2026 at 5:57 PM, Elliott said:

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. 

If egalitarianism is a value or principle, socialist principles are just a method of achieving it. I think it depends how everyone is defining socialism and capitalism ie is socialism erasure of property rights/ownership or simply disciplining the market for social benefit. Today we largely have mixed economies but there are leanings where one side dominates.

Blueoak is correct to critique the market as the only means to produce or provide something:

On 06/02/2026 at 8:43 PM, BlueOak said:

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.

@Elliott Markets naturally have short time horizons and lean to profit maximization. Some fundamentals / public goods need long time horizons / heavy upfront investment or are too critical to allow monopolistic control over leading to monopoly pricing.

Norway has complete ownership or large stakes in many critical industries / public goods compared to UK for example where things have been privatized and prices have increased a lot. Norway also has a sovereign wealth fund - the key word there being sovereign.

The main issue in the West and particularly UK/US more so is that they allowed capital to become too sovereign / autonomous and didn't maintain a hierarchy where the state is the apex authority / power center. Capital should be sub-ordinate to the state and national interest / development.

The glamorised ''rugged individuals'' who built America - industrialist capitalists - had to be broken up due to becoming to powerful. Capitalists / libertarians attribute the golden era of of the US to them to justify capitalism but in reality the golden era came after them laying the foundation (literally tracks and rail roads). Even that was only enabled by massive land grants by the state so it wasn't just some lone individualist capitalists building the US. It's the equivalent of being given land by the state today - anything you build and the value you add is captured without the major upfront cost of acquiring the land eating into your profits.

''The golden era (roughly 1945–1970) only emerged after the state intervened to rebalance power.

The state did three critical things:

Broke monopolies (antitrust)

Regulated finance tightly (Glass-Steagall, capital controls)

Invested massively in infrastructure, education, and industrial capacity

This subordinated capital to national development.

Capital became productive and constrained.''

 

That was a anomaly. Things reverted back to extractive, speculative rentier oligarchy. Feudalism just became financialized and hollowed out the nation.

The solution obviously isn't to go full socialist either because it messes incentives / pricing etc. Going by your reply to Blueoak I don't think he'd want to have the value of his labor re-distributed to you lol. Families in-fight over inheritance, friends get pissed for not splitting the bill fairly if they ate an extra chip - let alone scaling this to an entire nation. ''Toil for me comrade'' - doesn't work brother.

The ego is undefeated and bhuddahood doesn't scale - not even in our era of internet access to gurus or Leo's body of work. Maybe we need state directed enforcement of airlines needing to only show high conscious material like Leo's youtube - but then libs will scream authoritarian for taking away their ''fReEdOM''. ''I wanna watch homeland and Kardashians yaaaas''

 

Edited 18 hours ago by zazen

[Elliott]

35 minutes ago, zazen said:

If egalitarianism is a value or principle, socialist principles are just a method of achieving it. I think it depends how everyone is defining socialism and capitalism ie is socialism erasure of property rights/ownership or simply disciplining the market for social benefit. Today we largely have mixed economies but there are leanings where one side dominates.

Blueoak is correct to critique the market as the only means to produce or provide something:

@Elliott Markets naturally have short time horizons and lean to profit maximization. Some fundamentals / public goods need long time horizons / heavy upfront investment or are too critical to allow monopolistic control over leading to monopoly pricing.

Norway has complete ownership or large stakes in many critical industries / public goods compared to UK for example where things have been privatized and prices have increased a lot. Norway also has a sovereign wealth fund - the key word there being sovereign.

The main issue in the West and particularly UK/US more so is that they allowed capital to become too sovereign / autonomous and didn't maintain a hierarchy where the state is the apex authority / power center. Capital should be sub-ordinate to the state and national interest / development.

The glamorised ''rugged individuals'' who built America - industrialist capitalists - had to be broken up due to becoming to powerful. Capitalists / libertarians attribute the golden era of of the US to them to justify capitalism but in reality the golden era came after them laying the foundation (literally tracks and rail roads). Even that was only enabled by massive land grants by the state so it wasn't just some lone individualist capitalists building the US. It's the equivalent of being given land by the state today - anything you build and the value you add is captured without the major upfront cost of acquiring the land eating into your profits.

''The golden era (roughly 1945–1970) only emerged after the state intervened to rebalance power.

The state did three critical things:

Broke monopolies (antitrust)

Regulated finance tightly (Glass-Steagall, capital controls)

Invested massively in infrastructure, education, and industrial capacity

This subordinated capital to national development.

Capital became productive and constrained.''

 

That was a anomaly. Things reverted back to extractive, speculative rentier oligarchy. Feudalism just became financialized and hollowed out the nation.

The solution though isn't to go full socialist either though because it messed incentives / pricing etc. Going by your reply to Blueoak I don't think he'd want to have the value of his labor re-distributed to you lol. Families in-fight over inheritance, friends get pissed for not splitting the bill fail if they ate a extra chip - let alone scaling this to a entire nation. ''Toil me for comrade'' - doesn't work brother.

The ego is undefeated and bhuddahood doesn't scale - not even in our era of internet access to gurus or Leo's body of work.

I agree with most of that. I disagree with the socialist definition, saying capitalists claim individualism built the country, and the flight video mandate. The nation was built collectively, military intervention is as collective action itself that built the country.

 

My main disagreement would be the insuinated helplessness of the common man under capitalism. People don't take responsibility for who they buy from or work for. Buy and work local, join BlueOaks commune. It's an obvious example of how socialism would not work in this culture, it takes a collective effort either way.

 

Socialism would be completely unnecessary if the culture was mature enough for socialism. This is why socialist politics is inherently authoritarian.

35 minutes ago, zazen said:

Maybe we need state directed enforcement of airlines needing to only show high conscious material like Leo's youtube - but then libs will scream authoritarian for taking away their ''fReEdOM''. ''I wanna watch homeland and Kardashians yaaaas''

 

Reread Brave New World.

Edited 17 hours ago by Elliott