I think that Marx never addressed how the post-capitalist communist society would specifically be organized and turn from the proletarian dictatorship to full communism as the dictatorship was just a transitory phase. — ssu

That is true, but Marx left little written about the form of that dictatorship of the proletariat. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party he speaks of a dictatorship concerning the means and relations of production only. In The Civil War in France Marx had praised the participatory structure of the French Commune of 1871.

It seems to follow that he was thinking of some form of workers' participation in the power of the state.

This left the door open to different interpretations within Marxism. The most immediate, that of Frederick Engels in A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891: "If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat".

You see that things are far from being settled as you think.

You seem to want to argue that authoritarianism is always right-wing — jamalrob

This really depends on how we construct the left-right spectrum. In its earliest form, the left was for the liberty and equality of the commoners, against the authority and hierarchy of the aristocrats. By that construction, authoritarianism is inherently right-wing.

Since then, largely due to Marx and the backlash to him and the propaganda wars waged by both sides, it’s become common to construct the left as being for equality at the expense of liberty and the right as being for liberty at the expense of equality.

Splitting the difference between the original and Cold War era notions of left and right, we’ve now often got a notion of the left being for equality and the right being for hierarchy, with authoritarian and libertarian strands within each.

As as libertarian socialist, I stand by the original notion of left and right, with the left being for both liberty and equality and the right being opposite both, because I think you can’t sacrifice one for the other, as both laissez faire capitalism and soviet state socialism have shown. A lack of equality breeds a kind of authority (as in laissez faire capitalism, where the rich have all the political power), and a lack of liberty breeds a kind of hierarchy (as in soviet state socialism, where the politically powerful live richer lives than the rest). So either authority or hierarchy are inherently right-wing, even if the purveyors of it also claim to support the complement left-wing value too.

As as libertarian socialist, I stand by the original notion of left and right, with the left being for both liberty and equality and the right being opposite both — Pfhorrest

The "right-wing" during the French revolution was where the conscientious defenders of the constitution sat. Don't think that the supporters of the Ancien Régime sat there during the French Revolution.

Liberalism from the Age of Enlightenment was against absolute monarchy, divine rights of kings, hereditary privilege, state religion, the mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, and promoted representative democracy and the rule of law and free trade. Adam Smith is hardly a leftist philosopher, just as the American experiment isn't either a leftist endeavor.

Liberalism from the Age of Enlightenment was against absolute monarchy, divine rights of kings, hereditary privilege, state religion, the mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, and promoted representative democracy and the rule of law and free trade. — ssu

Yes, and liberalism was considered a leftist endeavor, until the redefinition of left and right post Marx. The original socialists and the original libertarians were the libertarian socialists, the true heirs to classical liberalism. Both those who said inequality was an acceptable cost for “liberty” and those who said authoritarianism was an acceptable cost for “equality” are deviations from the original left/liberal cause.

You seem to have ignored the word "just". Was this a mistake? — jamalrob

Yes.

"Generally, your entire response is based on either (1) ignoring the definition of right-wing that I gave, quoted above, or (2) implicitly holding that the Soviet Union satisfied that definition."

Are you sure this is what I'm doing, because it seems to me I'm making an empirical argument that legitimately bypasses the presumption of formal authority?

The real question is why this is an invalid or inferior way to approach the topic?
I follow Fromm on this,

"The question of the socialist character of the Soviet Union can be
decided only by making a comparison between Marx’s vision of socialism and the reality of the Soviet system." Ibid. pg.68

However, that being said, I think there is a large school of thought associated with your position, and that I am most certainly in the minority (this does not make my position false). I think most people would say that the Soviet Union was a form of Leftist-totalitarianism. I do not accept this for several reasons, the Soviet Union functioned like a monarchy under Stalin, which is the preferred system of Right wing politics; the system was hostile to libertarian freedom, there was no democracy. These are serious empirical considerations that do much to support my premise.

"I conceded that the Soviet Union sometimes had a conservative and even reactionary character, but argued that the self-consciousness of the regime as a socialist one on the way to communism and the government's actions to destroy the old social structure and institute a completely new one, show that the the Soviet Union cannot be called right-wing."

I am not sure, maybe you can cite some concrete actions that Stalin and the party took that legitimately moved the Soviet Union in the direction of a democratic, liberal society? I do not see this.

"Would you claim that Lenin and the original Bolsheviks were also right-wing?"

Yes, I think so. All I have to go by here is their actions. Lenin is a hard figure, not as hard as Stalin, but difficult because he was exceedingly intelligent. It should be noted that one cannot move a society into communism, as Lenin tried to do, this is not the way it works. Communism is not an ideology in this sense, Marx understood it to be an organic development that would emerge from the contradictions of capitalism. Lenin departed from this and embraced state revolution, he was going to bring communism to the earth through the forces of a capitalist state. (The quote you cited proves this).  

Tragically when it comes to revolution one usually only hears one side of the story. The ruling class is desperate to hold onto its power, they will do anything to keep it. This means, when the people peacefully gather to democratically change the system, to resist exploitation, the rulers respond with violence in order to suppress the resistance, this leads to counter-violence. But the real problem is that the rulers will not yield to democracy! I think this is probably the most serious problem of revolution because it sparks so much violence.

"They were Marxists. You seem to be under the impression that to be a Marxist is to be merely a faithful follower of Marx, but this is not what it meant to be a Marxist in the early twentieth century."

That they used elements of Marx's thought to secure their power and justify oppression and tyranny, I do not deny, but the Soviet Union can no more be called a Marxist society than can North Korea. I am under the impression that Marxism is not state tyranny, not a monarchy, aristocracy, not state capitalism, but the democratic emancipation and empowerment of the working class by the working class itself. The question is whether this is possible, but even more so, if it is, would this really result in a better society? One thing is for sure, the working class is the concrete agent of all human progress. There is no way to get around this because it is the class that produces everything. 

"A Revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is."

I think Lenin is wrong about this, I think counter-revolution is probably the most authoritarian thing there is.

"If you wish to say that radical undemocratic politics is bad per se, and that politics is like a circle on which extreme left and extreme right meet, then I can respect that, but to label this meeting-point as right-wing is merely tendentious: if the circle of politics is true, then the meeting-point can be either left or right."

What we label the Soviet Union depends on its policies and actions, form and system of government.

However, it seems to me you are searching for some kind of admission on my part regarding the existence of Left-wing extremism*, well, what I can tell you is that as a matter of empirical fact, this is a very small threat and usually takes the form of isolated actors targeting infrastructures of power:

"Most left-wing terrorist groups that had operated in the 1970s and 1980s disappeared by the mid-1990s. One exception was the Greek Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17N), which lasted until 2002. Since then, left-wing terrorism has been minor compared with other forms, and is mostly carried out by insurgent groups in the developing world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism   

The very serious threat to our species comes from the Right, it has always come from the Right. One can only play with this fire for so long.

"In roleplaying situations, authoritarians tend to seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive instead of cooperative. In a study by Altemeyer, 68 authoritarians played a three-hour simulation of the Earth's future entitled the Global Change Game. Unlike a comparison game played by individuals with low RWA scores which resulted in world peace and widespread international cooperation, the simulation by authoritarians became highly militarized and eventually entered the stage of nuclear war. By the end of the high RWA game, the entire population of the earth was declared dead."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

"That Marx’s idea was deformed and corrupted into its very opposite, both by the Communists and by the capitalist opponents of socialism, is a remarkable—though by no means unique—example of man’s capacity for distortion and irrationality. However, in order to understand whether the Soviet Union and China represent Marxist socialism, and what might be expected from truly socialist societies, it is important that we have an idea of what Marxism means. That Marx himself would not have considered the Soviet Union or China a socialist state follows from the following statement: “This [vulgar] communism, which negates the personality of man in every sphere, is only the logical expression of private property, which is this negation. Universal envy setting itself up as a power is only a camouflaged form of cupidity which re-establishes itself and satisfies itself in a different way. The thoughts of every individual private property are at least directed against any wealthier private property, in the form of envy and the desire to reduce everything to a common level; so that this envy and leveling in fact constitute the essence of competition. Crude communism is only the culmination of such envy and leveling-down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. How little this abolition of private property represents a genuine appropriation is shown by the abstract negation of the whole world of culture and civilization, and the regression to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and wantless individual who has not only not surpassed private property but has not yet even attained to it. The community is only a community of work and of equality of wages paid out by the communal capital, by the community as universal capitalist. The two sides of the relation are raised to a supposed universality; labor as a condition in which everyone is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.” Ibid. Fromm pg.73-74 


* I am open to it, but cannot confess to it in the case of the Soviet Union because it is such a violent antithesis of Marx's position.

Fair enough. Being some kind of libertarian leftist myself I also tend to emphasize the inherent libertarianism of leftist politics (sadly this might often be just a silly one-upmanship in which I try to convince leftists that I'm more left-wing than they are).

However (and this can function in reply to @JerseyFlight as well), if we're going to carry on using "Left" and "Right", we need some way to make sense of what has happened since the Assemblée nationale in those terms. I believe we can see a Leftist authoritarianism even just a couple of years later, in the form of the Committee of Public Safety and the Reign of Terror--but I'm on firmer ground with Russia: the Russian Civil War was fought by the Bolshevik Red Army against (1) those who wanted to restore the monarchy or the traditional hierarchy; (2) those who wanted a liberal democratic capitalist society; and (3) other socialists. How are we going to talk about this? Leaving aside (3) (Lenin characterized these socialists as ultra-leftists suffering from an "infantile disorder"), the war can surely be said to have been between the Bolshevik Left and the monarchist or liberal Right, even though the Bolsheviks were authoritarian. I mean, I'm open to other ways of seeing these conflicts, but I'm not convinced that Left-Right can be just done away with (not that you're arguing for that position).

So I think we have to take account of what self-consciously Leftist movements have actually done since the early days of the French Revolution, when the Left had not yet gained the power to make fundamental changes to society, and why they did it. So we need to look at means and ends. To me, if the conscious desired end of a political movement or party is liberty and equality, then this makes it Left-wing.

As as libertarian socialist, I stand by the original notion of left and right, with the left being for both liberty and equality and the right being opposite both — Pfhorrest

And yet we seemingly can't stop talking about Left and Right even when referring to political movements that are for liberty more than equality or vice versa. I think it's easily resolved in the way I suggested above, by saying that politics aiming at equality and liberty that nevertheless uses authority as a means to these ends is Left-wing. Accordingly, the early Soviet Union was Left-wing (and how much it became Right-wing later is debatable and complicated). I think this matters more than it might seem to.

I guess what worries me here is the desire to describe Left vs Right as Good vs Bad guys*. I've recently seen some commentators defining the Left as being nice to people or something similar. This vapid definition does an injustice to the complexities and conflicts that characterize the history of socialism and will continue to be a part of these struggles in the future.

As it happens, I think it does an injustice to the richness of conservative thought as well, but I'm not here to defend conservatism: the conservatives can do that themselves.

*I'm not accusing you of this @Pfhorrest

I guess what worries me here is the desire to describe Left vs Right as Good vs Bad guys*. — jamalrob

It can indeed become a blindness, ideological. It seems a bit too one sided and suspect simply to claim that all the tyranny in the world proceeds from the Right, and I would certainly not claim this. I think the present Left is quite dangerous (not as dangerous as the Right), but dangerous nonetheless. Guilt by identity is indeed a fallacy. I try to do my best to carefully think through things as dispassionately as I can. I would certainly not identify with the Left movement in America, of course, I am even further away from the Right, they truly frighten me because their first recourse is essentially violence. They seem to think strength can solve anything, and yet it is intelligence that accounts for the quality of life.

:up:

Liberalism from the Age of Enlightenment was against absolute monarchy, divine rights of kings, hereditary privilege, state religion, the mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, and promoted representative democracy and the rule of law and free trade. — ssu

That was 18th century liberalism. Later, liberalism has become the doctrine that accepts any junk dictatorship as long as it allows capital to do business. What matters to the new (?) liberal is the market, and if that requires a police state in order to eliminate a few thousand opponents, it does not make him sick. (Pinochet, Videla, etc.)

So there is a conclusion:
There cannot be a true liberalism that does not defend the conditions of equality that make possible the real exercise of freedom. That is why some liberals (Mill) ended up convinced that there can be no liberalism without socialism. I subscribe to this opinion.

They seem to think strength can solve anything, and yet it is intelligence that accounts for the quality of life. — JerseyFlight

What counts is that no one spits out blood so that another can live better. (Atahualpa Yupanqui) And we will talk about the greater or lesser intelligence later.

I am not sure, maybe you can cite some concrete actions that Stalin and the party took that legitimately moved the Soviet Union in the direction of a democratic, liberal society? I do not see this. — JerseyFlight

What I actually referred to was the Soviet government's conscious aims, and its actions to destroy the monarchy and the old social hierarchy. The whole point was to say that even without moving in a more "democratic, liberal" direction, it was Left wing. I mentioned...

... the government's actions to destroy the old social structure and institute a completely new one — jamalrob

Anyway, to answer your question it might be fun to look at the things the Soviet government did that together make it hard to characterize it as anything close to fascism, or anything like the hierarchy that had existed before the revolution:

• Women's rights: women's equality in employment, abortion on demand, and divorce on demand.
• Ethnic minorities: two-thirds of the Bolshevik leaders were from ethnic minorities, they opposed all forms of racism, and the suppression of Islam was brought to an end. And despite a low point for minorities in the 1940s, racism continued to be socially extremely unacceptable in the Soviet Union.
• Withdrawal from the First World War
• National self-determination for countries of the Russian Empire: the Bolsheviks supported the principle of national self-determination.
• Free education and health care.
• Workers' rights: mistreatment of workers by bosses banned and heavily punished, paid vacations, etc.
• Support for anti-colonial movements around the world
• In the very early years of the Soviet state, avant-garde art was encouraged, in contrast to fascism.
• And of course, the desctruction of capitalism, monarchy, the suppression of the powerful Orthodox Church, and massive socioeconomic changes in the countryside designed to eliminate class distinctions.

In this list I've mixed up policies that were introduced at different times, I'm very aware that several of them were later reversed, especially under Stalin, and I'm not even saying that they were all unreservedly good or true to their stated ideals in practice. I think you're right that Stalinism in particular was very far from being progressive, and you're right that democracy and liberty were lacking. But to simply label the Soviet Union as a fascist tyranny just won't do.

@ssu Before you rush to tell me that, for example, the Soviet Union's support of anti-colonial movements was cynical and strategic, or that their socioeconomic changes in the countryside led to the starvation of millions, or that Stalin wasn't very nice to the Finns: yes, I know all that. It's not the point.

That was 18th century liberalism. Later, liberalism has become the doctrine that accepts any junk dictatorship as long as it allows capital to do business. — David Mo

Actually the 19th Century was when liberalism had it's major successes. Yet once the objectives had been achieved, classic liberalism became part of what is now part of conservatism.

I know all that. It's not the point. — jamalrob

Have to say a lot of references to Stalin from many people here.

Yet the Soviet Union lasted after Stalin for nearly 40 years. Surely when Nikita Khrushchev came into power the Russian Civil War was ancient history and the Communist Party was firmly in control. Krushchev denounced Stalin, relaxed the repression and cencorship in an era which is called the "Krushchev Thaw".

Wouldn't that have been the perfect moment to have this democratic Marxism as surely Khrushchev was a confident marxist-leninist?

Wouldn't that have been the perfect moment to have this democratic Marxism as surely Khrushchev was a confident marxist-leninist? — ssu

Communism is not an ideology. One cannot force it to come about, if Marx is correct the contradictions of capitalism will lead to it.

More to the point, the desperation of this strawman is unrelenting. You have attacked, attacked, attacked the Soviet Union and tried to assign it to every person you disagree with on this thread. The challenge for you is to get serious, try interacting with the ideas of Marx!

Yet once the objectives had been achieved, — ssu

What liberal objectives had been achieved?

Have to say a lot of references to Stalin from many people here.

Yet the Soviet Union lasted after Stalin for nearly 40 years. Surely when Nikita Khrushchev came into power the Russian Civil War was ancient history and the Communist Party was firmly in control. Krushchev denounced Stalin, relaxed the repression and cencorship in an era which is called the "Krushchev Thaw".

Wouldn't that have been the perfect moment to have this democratic Marxism as surely Khrushchev was a confident marxist-leninist? — ssu

I'm not sure. I've been arguing against the idea that the Soviet Union was a Right wing or fascist tyranny, and I think you're on my side in that debate. Otherwise, maybe you want to suggest that the Soviet Union was both Left-wing/Marxist, and had no potential to become democratic. Well, I agree with that. Or perhaps you want to say that democratic Marxism is an oxymoron. You might be right about that too, in some sense.

But, taking your last question seriously, here's the way I see it. The thinking of the party at that time was that there could be no democracy or true communism in the Soviet Union until western Europe and the rest of the world had their own proletarian revolutions, or rather Soviet-style, Soviet-dominated Communist rule for mutual security. Before that happened, democratization wasn't on the cards. Krushchev denounced Stalin and eased up on the repression because he wanted to be the one to do what everyone knew had to be done to ensure the country's survival. He was very far from being a democrat or humanitarian.

The challenge for you is to get serious, try interacting with the ideas of Marx! — JerseyFlight

The challenge for you is to understand that Marxism-Leninism has something to do with Marxism and that Marx did have influence on history. Hence we indeed can reflect how the theory has worked in reality.

And then of course we could start talking about another country, quite sidelined from this discussion btw, where it's present leader gives a speech about Karl Marx in 2018 with the following quote:

Comrades,

Today, we gather here filled with reverence to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx, remember his strong character and historical achievements, and review his eminent spirit and brilliant ideas.

Marx is the revolutionary leader of the proletariat and the working people the world over, the principal founder of Marxism, the founder of Marxist parties and of the international communist movement, and the greatest thinker of the modern era. Two centuries have passed, during which human society has undergone massive and profound changes. However, Marx’s name continues to be met with respect around the world, and Marx’s theories continue to emanate their brilliant rays of truth.

-

Today, Marxism firmly advances the progress of human civilization; to this day it continues to provide theoretical and discursive systems of major international influence, and Marx to this day continues to be acknowledged as the “number one thinker of the millennium.”

-

I once said that China’s great social transformation is not a masterplate from which we simply continue our history and culture, nor a pattern from which we mechanically apply the ideas of classic Marxist authors, nor a reprint of the practice of socialism in other countries, nor a duplicate of modernization from abroad. There is no orthodox, immutable version of socialism. It is only by closely linking the basic principles of scientific socialism with a country’s specific realities, history, cultural traditions, and contemporary needs, and by continually conducting inquiries and reviews in the practice of socialism, that a blueprint can become a bright reality.

The vitality of theory is in its continued innovation, and promoting the continued development of Marxism is the sacred duty of Chinese Communists. We need to be persistent in wielding Marxism to observe and decipher the world today and lead us through it, applying the lively and plentiful experiences drawn from contemporary China to drive the development of Marxism, and utilizing an extensive worldview to draw on the civilizational achievements of all of humankind. We need to be persistent in protecting our foundations while constantly innovating to continually outdo ourselves, and learning widely from the strengths of others to continually improve ourselves. Finally, we need to continually further our understanding of the laws that underlie governance by a communist party, the development of socialism, and the evolution of human society, and open up new prospects for the development of Marxism in today’s China and the 21st century.

But if I would start talk about this country above and their belief in Marxism, likely you, JerseyFlight, would disregard it and not even think of them as true Marxist. Yet in my view the above quote comes from person that holds dear Marx in a way he could be argued to be a Marxist.

What liberal objectives had been achieved? — David Mo

Many.

Starting from things like representative democracy and universal suffrage, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the ending of mercantilism and feudalism. Or starting from things like a conservative will not say that the monarch has supreme power because he or she is anointed by God and because the Bible says so.

Nope, your present day conservative will utter something that 18th and 19th Century liberalism fought for and won. And as a conservative, guess that fight was long ago.

I've been arguing against the idea that the Soviet Union was a Right wing or fascist tyranny, and I think you're on my side in that debate. — jamalrob

Yes. We really have to stick to the real definitions as otherwise they become just derogatory adjectives without any clear meaning.

Otherwise, maybe you want to suggest that the Soviet Union was both Left-wing/Marxist, and had no potential to become democratic. — jamalrob

Had it the potential? It is actually a good question. "No potential" might be too narrow minded. Remember that Western economists were indeed worried of Soviet Union, led by Khrushchev, really passing the US. Sputnik did dent that feeling of American technological superiority.

But, taking your last question seriously, here's the way I see it. The thinking of the party at that time was that there could be no democracy or true communism in the Soviet Union until western Europe and the rest of the world had their own proletarian revolutions, or rather Soviet-style, Soviet-dominated Communist rule for mutual security. Before that happened, democratization wasn't on the cards. Krushchev denounced Stalin and eased up on the repression because he wanted to be the one to do what everyone knew had to be done to ensure the country's survival. He was very far from being a democrat or humanitarian. — jamalrob

And are Marxist-Leninists humanitarians and democrats? Let's remember that Khrushchev did face a Stalinist opposition and faced a challenge with the Hungarian uprising. The historical fact is, if a country has had a totalitarian system and that then is tried to do away with, you do have to have all that bread and butter to keep the people happy. Just giving people a voice but not anything else is destined to create trouble.

In a way this question can be put to the present with modern day China. The Communists are in power and yes, they have transformed their country. The did get the economy going (and of course, sacrificed a lot in doing so). As I above showed to JerseyFlight, the Chinese leaders do have a lot of good to say about Marx, so much that they actually sound like Marxists. Even if the economic system is more closer to classic fascism than theoretical marxism.

The thing is that once people take to heart an ideology, they take it literally. How Marx said it is considered truth by some, not useful views that one can the use to mold something else at the present. That's the problem with ideologies: the hard-core believers try to dominate the discourse and accuse others of being sell-outs.

Starting from things like representative democracy and universal suffrage, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the ending of mercantilism and feudalism. Or starting from things like a conservative will not say that the monarch has supreme power because he or she is anointed by God and because the Bible says so. — ssu

None of that had been achieved in the 19th century, as you said, but in a very limited and formal way.Cf. the strong criticism of Engels and Dostoevsky from the left and from the right. Even in the twenty-first century, these ideals cannot be said to have really triumphed. Unless you consider the standards of Putin's Russia or Erdogan's Turkey to be sufficient. Or do you consider them to be fulfilled in the United States of America?
What really happened is that the liberals - a few exceptions aside - became conservative as soon as they got a sufficient dose of market freedom. The rest was left ad calendas graecas or to the mercy of rhetoric and propaganda.

As the President (counselor) said, "It's the economy, stupid!" He would know what he was saying, wouldn't he?

Even if the economic system is more closer to classic fascism than theoretical marxism. — ssu

The Chinese leaders are not Marxists, nor do they have a moustache. They long ago gave up Marxist rhetoric for pure capitalism. In other words, they are as Marxist as Putin is a Democrat. Or less so.
The comparison with fascism is superficial. They have in common that they are capitalist police states and state interventionism in the economy. So does nationalism. Some comparison can be made, as long as it is not attributed to Marx, whose basic theory was the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and workers' internationalism. That is, quite the contrary.

They long ago gave up Marxist rhetoric for pure capitalism. — David Mo

Apparently not, just look at the speech from Xi Jingping. So quoting Marx and Engels is giving up Marxist rhetoric?

The comparison with fascism is superficial. They have in common that they are capitalist police states and state interventionism in the economy. — David Mo

Well, A. James Gregor thought otherwise of fascism as "a variant of classical Marxism", but as I've argued here that Stalin was a leftist dictator, I'll go with the mainstream definition of fascism being right wing. Here are some definitions:

form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy

Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community.

As obviously China is OK with the capitalist market economy, the Chinese Communist Party still controls quite largely the economy through the five year plans (now 13. is going) and huge like the projects as the "One Road, One belt initiative" started in 2013. In free market capitalist societies there isn't anything like that.

Apparently not, just look at the speech from Xi Jingping. So quoting Marx and Engels is giving up Marxist rhetoric? — ssu

It is rhetorical. Because they limit themselves to generalities and avoid entering into the fundamental concepts of Marx's thought, which would leave them with their asses in the air, as they say in my country. For them Marx is a fetish. This usually happens with almost all religions and ideologies. I also know many democrats who are only democrats in name.

Well, A. James Gregor thought otherwise of fascism as "a variant of classical Marxism", — ssu

You can play with words as much as you want. The socialization of the goods of production or the dictatorship of the proletariat were the devil for the fascists. That's why they fought and fought violently.

form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy


Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. — ssu

These characteristics serve the Chinese regime, Mussolini's fascism and all dictatorships that have always existed. To talk seriously about fascism, we need to refine it a little more.

It is rhetorical. Because they limit themselves to generalities and avoid entering into the fundamental concepts of Marx's thought, which would leave them with their asses in the air, as they say in my country. — David Mo

They did try, didn't work, then changed things.

But do you imply that the Chinese Communist Party wasn't before Marxist?

Or does this mean that Marx is beyond criticism to Marxists? Marxists really put him on a pedestal for worship with anyone straying of the path of wisdom is a heretic?

But do you imply that the Chinese Communist Party wasn't before Marxist?

Or does this mean that Marx is beyond criticism to Marxists? Marxists really put him on a pedestal for worship with anyone straying of the path of wisdom is a heretic? — ssu

On the first question I do not have enough information about the history of the Chinese Communist Party. I am talking about the current Chinese Communist Party.

On the other questions: I believe that the criticism of Marx is perfectly legitimate. I have raised some in this forum.
But you confuse criticizing Marx with saying that you are following Marx's theory when you are not following it. In any case, I know Marxists who do not put Marx on a pedestal. They simply think that he was fundamentally right. That's why they consider themselves Marxists.

I know Marxists who do not put Marx on a pedestal. They simply think that he was fundamentally right. That's why they consider themselves Marxists. — David Mo

Ummm....Ok. :smirk:

In my view thinking a philosopher/economist was fundamentally right is the definition of putting him on a pedestal.

But isn’t social housing a form of socialist delegation/distribution of property with social welfare and basic human needs at its core? Sure perhaps the residents don’t necessarily own the property but the governing body ensures that they have housing and also can pay off the purchase of the house at a highly competitive rate. Some Instanced even getting the deeds without paying.

In my view thinking a philosopher/economist was fundamentally right is the definition of putting him on a pedestal. — ssu

Then the world is full of pedestals.

Seriously, it is very different to say "I think X is right" than to say "X is infallible in everything he says or does".

Seriously, it is very different to say "I think X is right" than to say "X is infallible in everything he says or does". — David Mo

:up:

Come on, let's be honest here. ssu, you are something of an anti-Marx fanatic, and you don't comprehend the first thing about his philosophy. Even professors who disagree with Marx recognize his genius. With you it's all poison of the well.