the idea that Marxism was constructed by Marx for personal gain and power is inexcusably idiotic. — Maw

Masterfully understated.

Just read Marx — Maw

I have. I can't find consistent definitions for any of the Marxist/Marxian concepts I've mentioned here and on the other thread. And it looks like nobody else can either. Believe me, I've asked university professors.

By the way, Capital is about economic theories, it doesn't say anything about the system Marx wanted to replace capitalism with. So, basically, nobody knows what Marx's revolutionary movement was trying to achieve.

In any case, it doesn't look like Marxism is a philosophy. Whatever it is, it isn't even logically consistent. Strange that it should take idiots like Kolakowski and others to notice that.

I have. — Apollodorus

Then quote the parts you take issue with. I don't see the point in objecting to an argument nobody is arguing with except yourself. Or if there are these other people, quote them as well.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Then quote the parts you take issue with. — Valentinus

“Socialists from Marx and Engels onwards have always held that with the establishment of Socialism the State will disappear”

The Withering Away of the State – From Marx to Stalin, Marxists Internet Archive

Withering away of the state, Wikipedia Article

Original German text in Marx-Engels Werke (MEW), Vol. 20, p. 262:

“An die Stelle der Regierung über Personen tritt die Verwaltung von Sachen und die Leitung von Produktionsprozessen. Der Staat wird nicht »abgeschafft«, er stirbt ab.

English translation in Marx-Engels Collected Works (MECW), Vol. 23, p. 268:

“State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself: the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away”

A state that assumes an administrative function can't "wither away"

The OP provides links to articles by historians discussing the inconsistency of concepts like "the withering away of the state". It isn't something that I've made up.

Well, the text written by Marx was addressed in your other thread, particularly by boethius.

The critics of Marx you assembled are only interested in the question of how a revolution plays out.
There is merit in struggling with what one rejects or finds interesting in his work. Your proposition that it was a rhetorical ruse at its very heart is odd. Such a point of view does not actually give one much leverage to oppose what one might object to.

If the guy was that flaky in your view, why bring him up at all?

If the guy was that flaky in your view, why bring him up at all? — Valentinus

It all began with threads like "Democracy vs Socialism" (started by others) where some comments seemed to suggest that socialism, including Marxism is some sort of panacea to all societal ills. In my view, which is supported by historians and other scholars, this is far from being the case. On the contrary, Marxism, in particular, has a lot of inconsistencies in many of its central theories and concepts.

As already stated, the question that I asked myself was "how is it possible that somebody who had a degree in philosophy, was very well-read and experienced in philosophical and political debate, developed a "political philosophy" that doesn't hold water?" Was this accident or intention? I think it is hard to argue that it was entirely accidental in view of the fact that as noted by historians like Adamiack and others, Marx and Engels sometimes deliberately used suggestive, ambiguous or misleading language that contradicts the claim that their system was "scientific".

I brought up the issue here because I wanted to find out what others think of the matter and because I thought that a philosophy forum would be more "philosophical" and less argumentative than one where people tend to discuss politics in a more partisan or biased way.

I agree that @boethius addressed one of the points I was making and I appreciate that he agreed with me. However, there are many other points which, when objectively addressed, might actually lead to the same conclusion. In which case the topic would be justified.