Meet the new Marxism, the same as the old Marxism
By: Mike Gonzalez
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
An activist at a recent anti-Israel march performed a valuable service when he revealed what the real goal of the protest was. Spoiler alert: it was not "liberating" Gaza, a speck of land that most of today's radicals would have trouble finding on a map.
Remonstrating with a young YouTuber asking questions at the protest, the activist said, "You're not doing this for what the actual conversation is, which is getting rid of this country."
The assertion was so outlandish that at first it did not seem to compute for the YouTuber, who asked in an incredulous tone, "Getting rid of this country?"
The activist set him straight: "Getting rid of America, getting rid of the West. This is what this is for," he said, motioning toward the demonstrators. "Yes. Everyone here understands that at some level we need to get rid of America completely."
The activist further expounded on the need for "decolonization," giving "land back" (supposedly to Native American tribes in this country), and abandoning "capital itself."
Elon Musk posted the video on his platform X last week, commenting, "Most reasonable people, because they are reasonable, cannot believe that the goal of the far left is to end America."
Thanks to Musk, more people now know. The post got nearly 40 million views.
Katharine Cornell Gorka and I have written a book that explains precisely why it is that so many people all of a sudden want to get rid of the United States (or at least how it's constituted), and how they conceal this urge behind other crusades, be they about race, sex, climate, ableism, or, as in this case, Palestinians.
The book's title is NextGen Marxism, What It Is and How to Combat It. Its mission is to make sense of all the bizarre and seemingly unconnected phenomena that bedevil Americans today, and provide an explanation as to who's behind it and, most importantly, why.
We call the causes of the present fever gripping America NextGen Marxism because it is at its base the cultural Marxism that emerged in Europe in the middle of last century, combined with some deeply contemporary American pathogens, such as community organizing, the manipulation of queer and gender theory and, above all, racial grievances, and the use of international networks and social media.
To be sure, it is still the same old disastrous, disgraceful Marxism. It still seeks the abolition of the family, the nation-state, private property, and God. It still reduces all human relations to a conflict between the oppressed and their oppressors. It would still lead to penury and gulags.
Today, its practitioners seek to dismantle, or at least unrecognizably alter, the experiment that Abraham Lincoln called "the last best hope of earth." America remains exactly that. For this reason alone, NextGen Marxists must be thwarted, just like an earlier generation of Americans defeated the Soviet attempt to communize the U.S. and, in time, the Soviet Union itself.
The cultural Marxists of the mid-20th century had already changed some of the key elements of the Marxism that Karl Marx laid down, so much so, in fact, that many old-style communists refuse to recognize this new Marxism as a member of the family.
The old Marxism emphasized economics. The industrial worker would be constantly rising to overthrow capitalism in bloody revolutions, Marx wrote in the Manifesto of the Communist Party in 1848.
In Capital, his 1867 magnum opus, Marx wrote that workers were "the class whose vocation in history is the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production and the final abolition of all classes."
Except none of that proved true. The industrial worker was simply not interested in revolution or overthrowing the state. Contra our Gaza demonstrator, the worker liked his homeland, God, his family, and what property he had. Workers were proud of what they produced at the factory.
After the Russian Revolution and the installation of the Soviet state in 1917 — the first successful communist revolution in the world — German and Italian ideologues tried to replicate it in their countries, but German and Italian workers took a pass, preferring capitalism and parliamentary democracy.
Marxist intellectuals began to ask themselves, why? How could Marx have been this wrong?
Their answer was that the worker had "false consciousness." Their revolutionary awareness needed to be raised through interventions. Cultural institutions needed to be infiltrated so that people could be indoctrinated into a new way of looking at and thinking about reality.
These ideas flowered here in the U.S. in the 1960s, and, as Gorka and I write, the radical students of that decade began to take over the institutions in the 1980s, beginning in the academy in the humanities faculties and building from there.
These professors have taught their young charges that they live in an oppressive society, one that we must get rid of, as the Gaza demonstrator said. As Gorka and I explain, the architects of Black Lives Matter all speak in these terms because they were indoctrinated into this poison from their teenage years. They use race, and the racial guilt prevalent among some whites, as a cudgel.
Sex is used, too. We now have a new verb, "to queer." It is for those "who see the task of queerness as the dismantling such institutional norms."
A 21st-century element of NextGen Marxism is the nexus of connectivity between social media and Marxist networks that span the globe. Years before she founded BLM, for example, Alicia Garza boasted that she had helped set up a U.S.-based affiliate of these networks after global Marxists called on their American counterparts to weaken U.S. power from within.
Only by understanding how we got here, and the seriousness of the current cultural crisis, will Americans know what must be done to defeat today's enemy. If Gorka and I reach one sliver of Musk's millions with our book, we'll be content.
Tags
Who is online
569 visitors
Socialism or communism is contrary to human nature. We simply are not wired to naturally act or think that way.
Exactly. Ideally, communism is perfect. We all give what we can and we all get what we need, a utopia. Everyone is cared for.
However, human nature, human impulse, and human desire says otherwise. Humans are not perfect, and thus a true communistic society can never exist. We have to do what we can with what we have, and that is capitalism, restrained of course.
I think this might be helpful.
In essence, Dr. Lindsay posits that essential Marxism is simply identifying and acting upon disparity between those who hold control (over X) and those who do not hold control (over X).
He has abstracted this well out of Marx' domain and into a fundamental dynamic of human nature and societies in general. He used the biological taxonomy (genus and species) so I will continue.
I posit this as the genus:
In every society (and this reduces down to very tiny groups too) there will be those who control some X and those who do not have control over X but must tolerate the actions of those who control X. This disparity will eventually lead to a class consciousness (a clear recognition of the disparity by those who do not control X). Historically, the disparity can grow so acute that there is a revolution where those who do not control X overthrow those who do.
The fact that Marxism has (no big surprise) identified X as 'economic control' and noted those who control X are the bourgeoisie and those who do not control X are the proletariat does not mean that this fundamental pattern of human behavior (what I posit as the genus) IS Marxism. It does not mean that Marxism is the genus and all forms of this (e.g. Critical Race Theory) are ipso facto Marxism.
Marxism is not the genus. Rather, Marxism is just another species of the general genus (described above).
I got something different. Specifically because Lindsay makes the point that if one thinks Marx thought essential Marxism is about economics one is missing what Marx meant. Recall that Lindsay points to Marx' earlier writings that posit that man is incomplete and that, at heart, man is a social creature (in the Socialist sense). For Marx, assuming Lindsay is correct to this point, the economics were a means, not the end. The end goal was making the incomplete man complete. What you describe above was simply what was getting in the way of that and economic Marxism was the means to remove the impediment in order to achieve the actual goal; socialist man in the image Marx conceptualized.
I agree. This pattern has been noted throughout history and, when the disparity grows great enough, the overthrow of the haves has never resulted in a Marxist society outside deliberate efforts to make it so. Rather, once the have-nots are the haves, they simply repeat the cycle.
I believe I understand what you're saying. Human behavior, or perhaps nature, is the genus and Marxism, Capitalism, Theocracy, Anarchism and the rest of the systems intended to organize or modify human nature would be the species, yes? I'm inclined to consider this a valid point of view in some other discussion, but not for this one. That is, unless you can provide a further component to your argument.
The subject of this GregTx' post is why Marxism explains what is currently going on in the West. The article he posted and the YouTube vid I posted explain why Marxism is the best explanation for what's going on, primarily because the methods being employed in the relevant cultural arenas are classically Marxist. Can you select some other of what you think should be considered species (if I understand you correctly) that better explains what we're seeing? Because, it seems to me, without that your proposed view doesn't really take us anywhere.
Dr. Lindsay described Marx’ objective as making everyone equal. That is incorrect. Marx’ sought equal opportunity- a level playing field - not a purely egalitarian society. This is a common misunderstanding of Marx.
My argument is that Dr. Lindsay is giving Marx way too much credit. Marx did not invent the paradigm I described in my blue box. Marx, like countless others, applied that basic wisdom to his theory.
And I am saying that the genus is not Marxism but that Marxism is just another species of the genus I described. That should make sense given what I described is human nature. Human nature preempts any specific application of same like Marxism.
To wit, again, this is giving Marx far too much credit.
Hmmm, doesn't Marxism, like most other "isms" have markers?
Key defining characteristics of Marxism include:
Marx, however, did not invent the idea of minority control over a majority in terms of some X. Nor did he invent the notion of classes in such a situation, the stress that results, and the often revolutionary dynamic that occurs when the stress hits its breaking point.
Rather, Marx drew heavily from the recent (to him) French Revolution. King Louis XVI was the last successful monarch in France. He took the brunt of class disparity in France that had been brewing for decades. In this case the disparity was between aristocracy and peasant, and was largely based on economics (especially taxation) and abysmal human rights.
Prior to the French Revolution, history a very notable event was the (more peaceful) revolt of both peasants and lower aristocracy to the English monarchy which resulted in the Magna Carta.
We can keep going back in history and we will find many examples of class disparity, uprising of lower class (majority) to remove the upper classes (minority) from power once the lower classes achieved a class consciousness and the conditions grew bad enough to trigger a revolt.
Marx was a student of history. He recognized a pattern and incorporated it into his particular theory. The genus (the pattern) is a function of human society in general, it was not a creation of Karl Marx.
I've watched a couple of times now and I'm not sure Lindsay made that point. The closest I could find to that was defining equity, the definition of which he accredits to George Frederickson, not Marx. In any case, I don't think Lindsay was trying to define Marxism. Rather, I think he was trying to point out that people tend to speak of Marxism as if economics is Marxism. I think he is correct in stating that Marxism is primarily about defining what it means to be a human being and the economics is simply a means to what he envisioned, since he thought it was the primary engine of human behavior.
Whether Marx invented it or used it because it was common knowledge, I don't see the relevance to the topic.
I find this confusing. This is what you are saying, so how could Lindsay be giving too much credit for a view that's actually yours?
Again, I don't see the relevance to the topic. I don't have a problem with you advancing your view concerning genus but it does nothing if it doesn't explain something about the topic. Lindsay calls Marxism, the ideology, the genus for a clear reason in that the various species beneath it, economic, Critical Race Theory, LGTBQ and the rest are all operating according the same methodology employed by socialists/communists throughout history and, almost certainly, with the same ideological framework behind it.
What I am asking you to do is explain how making human nature as the genus and Marxism as a species explains what is currently happening in the West or, at least, how it disproves either the article GregTX or the vid I posted.
Go to 7:30 and you will see Dr. Lindsay link Marx to that very definition of equity he provided upfront.
It is relevant to the notion of Marxism as the genus. It promotes Marxism to a fundamental pattern that other theories simply follow (his first example was Critical Race Theory). That ignores the fact that Marxism itself is patterned after its own history and that history is basic human nature. In human history, the pattern of a minority holding power of a majority, seeking to maintain that power, oppressing and exploiting the majority, having the majority recognize what it happening and revolting to remove the power from that minority is quite common. Marx did NOT invent this, he followed it.
See above. Dr. Lindsay is giving Marx credit for the above scenario. Marx did not invent this natural phenomenon of humans in societies (and even small groups), he simply recognized the dynamic and applied it to his interests (the exploitation of human labor in an industrial age).
And I have repeatedly explained why I hold that to be clearly wrong.
How about you just recognize that I am rebutting a specific point made by Dr. Lindsay and not demand that my specific rebuttal is supposed to answer other questions?
In general, Dr. Lindsay is putting Marxism as the culprit. What he should be doing is describing the fundamental human nature that I have repeated as the culprit. This dynamic predates Marxism. And again, just to be clear, he is how I recently described it:
In human history, the pattern of a minority holding power of a majority, seeking to maintain that power, oppressing and exploiting the majority, having the majority recognize what it happening and revolting to remove the power from that minority is quite common. Marx did NOT invent this, he followed it.
And as it being applied here, it seems to me, this lecturer is arguing for Capitalism with Tribalism under it. That is, "in-groups" and "out-groups." To wit, those who support pure capitalism are the in-groups and those who do not support pure capitalism are out-groups and the twain should not meet or intersect. So just stay 'stuck' as you were forever.
People striving to be 'realized' and out from under centuries of conservative-control and stream of consciousness are yet capitalists, because they want private holding and democracy to be maintained and EXPANDED upon to inclusion of all. Nothing you can say will register despite such foolishness (and desperation) to misinform. People, humanity on the whole, is just too smart for such calculated deceits, plural.
That's fine, then, but you could have said it earlier and I wouldn't have bothered with the questions.
We'll just have to disagree on that. Since the efforts are fundamentally tactics Marxists always use, I think Lindsay got it right as is.
Relevant quote:
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which” (p.141).
Anyone recognize it?
You need me to explicitly note that my rebuttal of a specific point by Dr. Lindsay is a rebuttal of a specific point by Dr. Lindsay?
First, does labeling (or self-labeling) someone a Marxist mean that they are necessarily following what Marx and Engels wrote? Similarly, can one self-label as a Christian and then legitimately establish what Christians do and what Christians believe?
Second, there is a tactic known as "planned obsolescence". It has been used for as long as I can remember. Apple has been accused of planned obsolescence. When another company uses this tactic, does that make them Apple-ists — some variant of an Apple philosophy? Or does it simply mean that they too used planned obsolescence?
It is a ridiculous notion to suggest that a commonly used tactic that has been around for a very long time is somehow considered invented / defined by a more recent entity and that anyone else who uses that tactic is a variant of this recent entity.
The 'tactic' of an oppressed majority revolting against the oppressive minority predates Marx & Engels. It is not their invention. It is, rather, a natural societal dynamic. If some modern group considers itself oppressed and revolts, that does not ipso facto make them some variant of Marxism.
Animal Farm
As I wrote in a different article, I don't really care about whether they do or don't. What I care about is that they claim it and what results from it.
Um, not similarly, as what Marx envisioned can't be actualized. Christianity can. That isn't quibbling. Assuming that what you intend by the question is, can one call themselves Marxist and then define what Marxism is or don't they have to first know what Marxism is first in order to legitimately accept it? The answer is, of course, they must first know what it is first, but that's where the similarity ends. No matter how purely one intends to actualize a Marxist society, you can't actualize one. Not only will many within the population resist Marxism, even those who support it will disagree with how it should be implemented or what the final result will look like. So, we get what we always get when they try anyway.
Again, as I said in another place, pointing out that there's never been an actual Marxist society as Marx envisioned it is irrelevant. It is not incorrect to call those societies Marxist however, if those societies are what always manifest when one tries to create a Marxist society. It is what Marxism gets you.
Except that is a different subject than what is being described as Marxist tactics. I'm sure you've heard of Critical Theory.
Except "attack" is a more accurate word than "challenge". It was developed by the Frankfurt school of Marxist thought. It makes it sound like an academic tool for the study of society and associated phenomena, but that isn't what it really is. It is intended as a weapon with which to tear down societies in order to replace it with a preferred one. They apply it to everything.
I highlighted the most relevant portion in red. What should be noted is that the Marxists that promote Critical Theory are the one's who decide what constitutes oppression and what society needs to be created. They use Critical Theory to create "theories" in the different fields that are designed to demonize and cast as oppression whatever it is they want to change as opposed to actually examining those structures to see if they are oppressive. It is not an academic tool at all. It's a political weapon used to tear down power structures so that they can be replaced with one of their own. This is where the tactics I've been referring to come from and it is without a doubt the same ones that have been employed by Marxists from the beginning.
Right you are, Kenny! (MXC reference)
I also hold that it likely cannot be actualized. There certainly are fundamental flaws in Marx' reasoning. But that does not change the fact that calling something 'Marxism' when it is the polar opposite of what Marx and Engels wrote about is flat out incorrect.
The Frankfurt School is not Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. If you want to speak of their body of work then you should use a proper distinguishing label. Something like Frankfurtism. Similar to how people refer to the philosophy of Lenin as Leninism. Failure to make such distinctions when the philosophy has substantial differences is sloppy and results in people holding ideas that are false.
Note that the Frankfurt School was critical not only of Capitalism but of Marx' theories and of Leninism.
And here you go illustrating the problem I note. You are perpetuating the idea that it is Marxists who promote Critical Theory. Yet Critical Theory was developed by the Frankfurt School. This is the same basic labeling problem we see routinely with the former USSR. Just because some group claims to be X does not mean that they are X or even ascribe to the defining characteristics of X .
If you want to speak of the Frankfurt School then speak of them specifically. Marx was dead for 40 years by time they were formed and had no opportunity to weigh in as he did when he was alive and other groups called themselves Marxist:
Yes, all humans are equal but some are more equal than others …..
Yes, I think so. And it is actually on topic. Thank you Drakkonis.
Thanks. I love how succinct and coherent this guy is. It was like having most of the puzzle pieces in my head but never being able to put them together the way this guy does.
Sigh. Lindsay has a pike dream or grift against people who simply want to be as free and capitalistic similarly to him without importantly doing harm or suppressing others.
One could ask this 'big talker' how normal it is for a homosexual who naturally sleeps with a man or men; to go around sleeping with a woman or women. O f course, his reply would be it is natural for a man to sleep with a woman. The follow-up would be to what end. He would likely say to have children (and not sleep with other men). Such a reply fails to acknowledge that 99.9 percent of homosexuals forego having "off-spring" because it is not their natural inclination to have sexual relations/ships or sleep their lives away with the opposite sex. But this 'talker' cares not for this explanation and will continue to spread misinformation about homosexuals who simply want MEN like him out of their lives!
To be clear: It is not NATURAL for homosexual men to live with women; marry women; spend a lifetime in a spiritual or physical relationship with women. If such was the case then you would not need a category for homosexuals (or Lesbians). Because they would not exist.
This man is a fool pretextually slamming different ideas together and labeling them as Marxism. It's self-serving misappropriation of terms and attitudes.
And I can only wonder if he got/gets paid for his lectures; if so, it is all-together a grift. As to the whole of his message, there are too many places needing to be addressed to pick any one to settle on—unless asked.
I agree with the essence of your comments that being the use of Marxism as some evil pattern from which ‘evil’ variants emerge. That aspect is silly … just a use of emotionally-laden terms to denigrate ideas to which one is opposed.
In furtherance of the train of thought from the video. When Blacks and other minorities or marginalized peoples make statements about the predominance and 'survival tactics (such as the labeling of 'evil' Marxism) of Whiteness, it is not an attack on White people. It is a statement about the pretense that nothing (ever) needs changing in our "American" culture because it is 'wholly' fine the way it is and "Making America Great Again" means repression to the classes of Others not having INPUT into the cultural make-up of this country.
Of course, Lindsay is talking about fear. Fear of Change. Fear of diversity. Fear of "Whiteness" being watered down or losing its 'high-water" mark in the country. Fear of our nation becoming a "S***hole" simply because Others have fair and reasonable access to deciding rights and wrongs within the country.
It's a sad commentary, that this even needs to be explained. It's a sad commentary that Lindsay thinks it worthy to mask his divisionary strategy through tactics stoking Marxism. That capitalistic boogeyman of old for which generations have been controlled and kept in check by the mere expression: "That's Marxism."
Agree.
All correct.
Karl Marx was all about the workers having control over the economy. He sought a system where one's labor cannot be leveraged by others (at least to the level possible under Capitalism).
Marx also recognized that human nature is such that things have to grow abysmally bad before a large change (revolution) would take place. He thus outlined a scenario in which a nation achieves a mature industrial base that is sufficiently productive to properly cover the human needs of the entire population. That was part one of this scenario. Part two was the impetus for revolution. He stated that Capitalism has a natural tendency to create a substantial division between the workers (proletariats) and the owners (bourgeoisie). This tendency, per Marx, will grow to the point where the class differences are so extreme that Capitalism will fall under its own weight. By that he was saying that the have vs. have-nots class disparity would become acute and the workers would revolt.
The revolution, per Marx, would involve workers seizing the industrial base (the means of production and distribution) and controlling it in a democratic fashion. He envisioned workers all sharing in the value they produced (unequally based on merit) but without the classical profit concept. All the money that would normally be seen as profit would be shared among the workers and reinvested in the industrial base.
Importantly, Marx outlined a stateless, classless objective. A society that is inherently democratic and run by the people, not by a state and not by industrial bourgeoisie.
Marx was, in simple terms, a pure anti-capitalist and a pure anti-statist (an extreme libertarian). His focus was on economic freedom, with a necessary secondary focus on democratic rule.
There has never been a situation as Marx described (in any nation on the planet). The former USSR, when Lenin took over, was NOT an industrial society. Its Czar history of aristocracy vs. impoverished peasants was an environment for revolution (which is how Lenin got power) but it was not set up for socialism (as Marx described) and thus certainly nowhere near having a chance to achieve communism (as Marx described).
Instead of the workers (proletariats) assuming control and running the economy (and the nation) democratically, the Russian workers were incrementally controlled by Lenin in a purely statist fashion. Lenin realized a couple of years before his death that he had to build a capitalist industrial base in Russia in order to achieve anything close to a Marxist socialism (transition to communism). But he died before acting on that and was replaced by Stalin.
Stalin ran with the Marxist labels (socialism, communism, etc.) as a facade and implemented a brutal regime of authoritarian rule with a dominating state which exploited the people of the former USSR until its demise. The polar opposite of a stateless, classless, democratic society.
Since his death, people have of course found all sorts of ways to label and justify their behavior using his concepts. To the point where most people think that communism is about authoritarian rule by a powerful state rather than a stateless, classless, democratic society.
=================================================================
the labor movement in America during that era had to fight for every single concession they got from the capitalists. Remember this was the Gilded Age/Robber Barron era.
Yes, like in other areas, America led the world in labor violence.
as usual, your comment is irrelevant to what was said
As usual, you fail to see when I agree with you, “the labor movement in America during that era had to fight for every single concession they got from the capitalists.”
This is what I quoted and deemed correct:
The part in blue in particular. I was commenting on the description of Marxism.
The balance, however, is typically correct. In the vast majority of cases, workers simply do not revolt and clearly not at the point of overthrowing the state.
The worker liking his homeland, etc. is true for some but I would not argue this is predominant view among workers. But this was not at all what I focused on.
Thank you for taking the time to explain that. I have said for years that there is no truly “Marxist” country or society on the planet. No on practices or even really tries to practice, Marxism.
So has pretty much everyone else. For the most part, when speaking of Marxist societies or Marxism, they are basically referring to what results from trying to employ Marxism, not Marxism itself. I think even the intellectuals who push Marxism know this just as well, but push it for the same reason all the others did. A path to power. IMO
That is demonstrably not true. People routinely point to the former USSR as an application of Marxism. They point to other nations who label themselves as "Communists" as an application of Marxism.
That implies that these societies actually tried to implement Marxism but failed yet what resulted was still some form of Marxism. Do you think that the former USSR was trying to implement Marxism with an authoritarian, brutal, single-party state which created an iron division between the party members and everyone else (known as a class system)??
Pretty much the polar opposite of a stateless, classless society based on democratic principles.
Few listen, Thrawn. The typical behavior is to ignore/reject that which does not conform to their current understanding.
I completely disagree and, equally demonstrably. They were or are what they are because they tried to apply Marxism. They are the result of trying to do what is impossible. It was impossible before it ever took off.
The question is irrelevant because no matter what they intended, no matter how honest or pure, the result will not ever be anything other than what we always get, every single time. Do you know why? Because not only would every single person have to have exactly the same ideology, want to achieve it in exactly the same way, with the exact same priorities and every other criteria you can think of, but everyone in the society has to be completely willing to do whatever is necessary to make it all work, no matter what it means to them personally. That is, there are those who are going to be astronauts, party leaders and other movers and shakers and those who will spend their lives shoveling shit and digging ditches.
That is not humanity. They don't want to be a slave to someone else's ideology if it isn't what they want. So, you get what you always get. A dictatorship that first and always seeks to secure its own power against internal threats. That power structure does not attract the best of any society and that priority, that grip on power never leaves it's place as first in their concern.
So, no, those examples are not ideologically Marxist. But, at the same time, they are what Marxism produces so they are Marxist. You might not like that inescapable fact but that's reality. 2 + 2 = 4. Marxism + people = brutal dictatorships.
Because it was. It's gaslighting to pretend otherwise. The only reason we are even familiar with the Marxist variant of socialism is the Russian Revolution. The Russians turned "marxism" into the dominant variant of socialism, and without Lenin and Stalin and company, it's doubtful you'd have ever heard of Marx. Lenin, Stalin Trotsky and company were Saint Paul to Marx's Jesus. Denying they are marxists is no different than claiming Saint Paul wasn't a Christian. It's just making shit up to an absurd level.
If the people do not have democratic control over the means of production / distribution then the label "Marxism" is sophistry.
Under no concept of classical Marxism (that produced by Marx and Engels) do we find the notion of an authoritarian state brutally oppressing the majority. The very notion is ridiculous.
Marx outlined the dynamics (I have done so too in my posts). Marx viewed socialism as an interim to an eventual condition of communism (a classless stateless society based on democratic principles). He clearly stated the conditions under which socialism would occur:
An active state of socialism would be one where the control was in the hands of the people (the majority) and NOT in the hands of an oppressive minority. Right off the bat, the conditions in Russia were NOT sufficient for socialism. Russia was not an industrial society; the people were woefully unable to assume control of the system and provide for themselves. And as things progressed the ability of the proletariat to take control was continuously diminished with brutality and oppression. The former USSR clearly was an authoritative, single-party state that brutally oppressed the majority. The polar opposite of what Marx described.
If you want to argue that the former USSR was an application of Marxism then, yeah, you need to deal with the fact that it was the polar opposite of what Marx described.
What on Earth are you talking about? A purely egalitarian society?? Maybe best to stick with what Marx proposed.
That equation works brilliantly if you redefine Marxism to be "the system of the former USSR". Of course, it would be better if you did not change the definition of Marxism and instead relied upon what Marx and Engels actually wrote about.
It doesn't matter. You want to simply ignore the fact that attempting to actualize what Marx intended is impossible, yet people try and it has ended up the same way every. Single. Time. You apparently don't want that sullying Marx' vision so you deny what is obvious. "We can't blame Marxism because it wasn't Marxism!"
It is a free country, TiG. If that's the bubble you want to live in, feel free. The rest of us will stick to the reality that Marx was completely and utterly wrong in his vision precisely because he got humanity completely and utterly wrong. Because of that, every time Marx's vision has been tried it fails utterly. Nobody cares what Marx intended except those who can't accept the reality of this. They only care about what actually results. You see, there's ideological Marxism and then there's practical Marxism. Practical Marxism, the USSR, CCP and the rest, is what you get when you try to actualize ideological Marxism.
this is the key
maybe you and Drakkonis will find this passage interesting
The lessons of the Russian revolution, 100 years later | The Week
Which Marxian ideas lead to a better world?
This is demonstrably false. No one has tried. They may have hald ideals, but... every single time (as you say) it's failed before inception because, as TiG right out said somewhere above, human nature intervenes simply before any ideal can get off the ground.
As social creatures we inevitably fall into classes (graphed as a bell curve). Marxism is a fantasy made into a boogieman by people who think the rest of us never read a book.
You don't seem to be very familiar with Marx. You confuse the utopian end state with the methods of getting their that Marxists work towards.
do we find the notion of an authoritarian state brutally oppressing the majority
Look up Marx's concepts of the dictatorship of the proletariat and revolutionary terror and get back to me.
The very notion is ridiculous.
Ridiculous is denying that people who sacrificed their lives to Marxism are Marxists.
And here you go again with slimy tactics. We are not debating whether Marx provided a practical theory. (I personally do not find it to be realistic ... never bought the notion that the proletariat could possibly organize into a democracy as described.) We are debating the definition of Marxism itself.
Marxism is that proposed by Karl Marx and Friederich Engels. Any body of work outside of those two that has fundamental differences should NOT be called unqualified Marxism. That blurs the distinctions and promotes falsehoods.
Bullshit. Focus on my argument rather than make obnoxious, unjustified accusations such as this.
This is a profoundly stupid claim. The systems you mentioned are authoritarian regimes with an oppressive state which creates two fundamental classes: the party and everyone else. This is the polar opposite of a stateless, classless society based on democratic principles.
Domination and oppression by a minority (the party) of the majority (the people) is the exact opposite of cooperative control by the majority (the people).
Ideological Marxism (as you call it) has never been actualized in whole. But it has been actualized on smaller scales. The most famous example is Mondragon Corporation (a cooperative corporation). The notion of workplace democracy, employee-owned cooperatives, etc. are very consistent with the theories of Marx. These are entities where the workers are in democratic control.
I do not see how this would come about at a national level in result of a full scale revolution (Marx' thought) but over time I certainly can see societies evolving to a system that share the wealth and power more so than what we see with capitalism. It would take many generations to get there (if ever) and it would not be as Marx described, but the basic notion he described could be largely realized.
The USSR, etc. did not follow Marxist theories. What they did was use his labels. You buy the bullshit that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. were peddling and even when you are made aware of the fundamental differences in the systems that show they were not implementing Marxism, just using the labels, you ignore these facts and just offer nuh'uh they are Marxism ... this is what happens when Marx' theories are applied.
Just like self-labeling Christian does not make one a Christian (as you argue) ... self-labeling Marxist does not make a system Marxist.
The key here is clarity.
Marx and Engels offered very detailed theories (mostly a criticism of capitalism). Marx envisioned a future without capitalism ... he called it communism. This was an idealized stateless, classless society where the people enjoyed collective control over the productive resources based fundamentally on democratic principles. His vision was something like the society we see in Star Trek. Definitely wishful, idealized thinking.
Marx also envisioned how his world would transition to his idealized reality. He called the transition socialism. Socialism, to Marx, is the interim stage where the proletariat (the workers) assume control of the means of production and distribution of an established industrial society (key). Further, he envisioned that the trigger would be much like that of the French Revolution where class disparity grew so acute that the people revolted. In his case the revolution was the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoise.
One can debate the practicality of Marx' views. That is an interesting discussion (have done this years ago with an actual Marxist). But here the issue is what can legitimately be called Marxism.
I submit that any system that fundamentally differs from what Marx outlined should not be called Marxism. At best it should be noted as a qualified Marxism or Marx-inspired or something like that. To call the former USSR an instance of Marxism requires one to ignore the fact that the former USSR was the opposite of what Marx envisioned. And the argument that this is what necessarily results when Marxism is attempted blindly ignores the fact that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. engaged in political propaganda (what a shock) using labels that connote economic freedom and control by the people while implementing a brutal, oppressive state that did the exact opposite.
Never did one see the former USSR trying to provide the people with economic freedom (collective control over the means of production and distribution) via a free democratic society. Claiming that the former USSR is an application of Marxism when it made no attempt to actually deliver what Marx outlined is rather ridiculous.
Lenin initially tried but what he tried violated Marxism right off the bat. Lenin attempted to effect a socialist revolution in a nation (Russia) that was essentially pre-industrial. Marx states that socialism requires a society that has a mature industrial base that is capable of providing for the entire society. He also requires the proletariat to have achieved class consciousness and thus the ability to organize into a functioning democracy (albeit this was very wishful thinking). Russia was collapsing due to the dramatic class system of royalty vs. peasant so in that regard they were ripe for a change. But they were not appropriate for the change Marx had outlined.
Lenin, a few years before his death, realized that he needed to first build Russia (the former USSR) into an industrial society before he could start working on socialism. Stalin took over and all that remained was the labels.
It is also an extremely superficial understanding based largely on propaganda, mere acceptance of what talking heads proclaim, and crucially the lack of serious study.
Except he specifically excluded Russia from that analysis and wrote that russia was capable of passing straight from feudalism to socialism.
Most of Marx only applies to western Europe, which Marx was very clear about. So you are fundamentally violating Marxism when you apply his analysis of Western European countries to those outside western europe, a distinction Marx emphasized.
Well that shows that you have no clue what I have been writing or you intentionally are making a demonstrably false claim. My words do not conflate socialism with communism.
You think that dictatorship of the proletariat means an oppressive state controlling the proletariat??
More of the same labeling nonsense. Marxism = that which was described by Marx and Engels. Lenin and his crew violated fundamentals described by Marx. Thus they were implementing something other than what Marx described. The label for this is Leninism.
So let's fix your claim to: Ridiculous is denying that people who sacrificed their lives to Leninism are Leninists. And we can even add: Ridiculous is denying that people who sacrificed their lives to Maoism are Maoists.
And thus doomed to fail before it even started. No one has ever gotten Marxism past the idea stage in anything bigger than a single smallish company.
Those purveyors of propaganda have an agenda and it's not one of education.
Logic take effort. I've seen the misuse of the No True Scottsman fallacy here multiple times within the comments, from the some of the same posters who argue definitions don't matter to other groups of people when it suits them.
As always, a gross oversimplification that misrepresents what actually took place.
Marx stated that the Russian peasant communes could be the foundation for a socialist society (because they were already collective in nature) but only if the Western European industrialized nations had first undergone their capitalist revolutions. These revolutions would then provide a base to help Russian grow the communes into a socialist structure and avoid falling into the property relationships of capitalism.
None of that was even remotely in place when Lenin came to power.
And importantly, Marx never proposed a dominant state oppressing the peasants. He proposed the opposite: peasants evolving communes into cooperative enterprises with the help of successful socialist societies extant in Europe (none of which existed when Lenin came to power).
Lenin violated the principles of Marxism. If the proletariat are not in control or at least on the path of being in control, the system is NOT, by definition, an application of Marxism.
You deny those working to create the socialist end state are socialists despite recognized the marxist end state is impossible. Thus there can be no marxists under your . Marxists will always fail. That doesn't mean they aren't Marxists.
k that dictatorship of the proletariat means an oppressive state controlling the proletariat??
Lenin and his crew violated fundamentals described by Marx.
No, they tried installing a socialist regime in Russia, which Marx himself recognized was a unique country with a unique situation. Marxism guided and inspired . their every step. Not to mention you are violating Marx by failing to recognize that he realized and wrote the paths forward for western europe and russia were not identical.
The idea that Marx prescribed detailed plans setting forth what could and could not take place on the "true" path to his version of socialism is ridiculous.
I see some aspects of Trump as a modern Karl Marx, especially when he brags about seizing the means of reproduction.
yes
This is one of those topics where facts are flat out ignored and preconceived notions are stubbornly pushed.
So many people "know" what Marxism, socialism, communism is. These people are the ones who "know" that these terms are properly defined by the systems of the former USSR and other nations who followed their lead (e.g. Red China, Cuba, Venezuela, ...).
Yet these 'knowledgeable' folks do not care that these systems fundamentally violate the principles and objectives of Marxism. 'These system are Marxism, damnit, and no facts to the contrary matter.'
Who, specifically, was working to create a socialist state per Marx? Where do I deny that the Marxist end state is impossible? Where do you see me claiming there can be no Marxists?
Back up your bullshit claims with quotes. You will fail because I have made no such statements.
You continue to ignore the facts:
And again, you misrepresent. Where have I stated that Marx prescribed detailed plans? I have always stated fundamental principles the Marx outlined. Pre-conditions, if you will. Attempt to get at least somewhere close to what I have actually written.
Seems so.
And we can tell the top of the class when they use terms like "cultural marxism" and "liberal, marxist, socialsist"
It would be one thing to argue the merits of how the authoritarian systems of Red China, Cuba, USSR were used and failed in an honest dialog, but it's an agenda driven narrative to continue to misstate these systems failed because they had Marxism/Socialism/Communism labels.
Is this parody? You were just claiming Marx states that socialism requires a society that has a mature industrial base that is capable of providing for the entire society.
Now you backtrack to this and claim I'm oversimplifying?
Lol.
d importantly, Marx never proposed a dominant state oppressing the peasants.
No kidding. He didn't provide many details as to how societies would transition between stages. You seem to think the Russian marxists believed they had accomplished the transition and had achieved the end state. That's nonsense. The Russian Marxists believed their state was a transitory expediency designed to protect a nascent socialist state as it matured. Marxists love extolling process, it's funny to see them ignore it when discussing their own. There's nothing in Marx saying the transition would be instantaneous and peaceful, in fact the opposite.
e proletariat are not in control or at least on the path of being in control, the system is NOT, by definition, an application of Marxism.
Of course that was the goal of the soviet state. Are you that unfamiliar with Russian history? That was the whole point of the USSR. That they inevitably failed doesn't change that.
Yes. And importantly the use or Marxist-Leninist (aka Leninism) to honestly distinguish this from Marxism (per Marx).
The key practical reasons for the divergence were:
Lenin likely had no choice but to institute an authoritarian system just to stay in power. And Lenin, I believe, genuinely wanted to transform Russia into a functioning socialist nation (as Marx described). But he eventually realized that he would first need to build an industrial society (likely employing capitalism) before he could even attempt a move to socialism (much less communism). He died within two years of his epiphany. Stalin, who took over, had no such grand objectives.
You put this up as if it is incorrect.
Every comment you write now includes false claims that do not follow from what I have written. Is this all you have to offer, Sean? Just posting false obnoxious crap?
I think that we need to use different terms to describe what we are talking about and define those words at the beginning of the conversation rather than using words with more than a century of baggage attached to them.
Lexicographers, the people who catalog the definitions that have been and are currently in use, recognize that there is a high degree of conflation with other ideals when referring to the terms "Marxism" and "Communism". These terms have become shorthand for "evil" and "authoritarian," and have lost the immediacy that they may once have enjoyed.
No, "we" are not. You are. I'm talking about the effort to tear down Western civilization.
Get back to me after it happens and we can have a different discussion.
Aside from the fact that what you say here is so oversimplified it ends up being uselessly untrue, it still doesn't change anything. Nor does it change the fact we will never see a truly Marxist nation.
And do you know what factors make it so? First and foremost, participation is voluntary. Don't like the system? Don't work there. Second, they aren't trying to run a country. Third, they are using Marxist ideas to operate a Capitalist enterprise, meaning it wouldn't work without Capitalism.
So, this ends my participation with you on this subject, since I no longer want to be a part of derailing the topic of GregTx's article.
Your use of Marxism and Marxist is what I have been objecting to. Your insistence that these efforts are variants of Marxism is what I have been objecting to. You are misrepresenting Marxism. And it looks as though you really have no interest in getting this correct.
A feeble dodge.
This illustrates again that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I explicitly stated that this is not a societal change as Marx noted yet your 'rebuttal' is to basically point out differences between this and a societal change. Honest acknowledgement of points made is clearly of no concern to you.
Well at least you acknowledge that they are using some of the principles of Marx. But, yes, Drakk, thanks so much for informing me that any business today (no matter how organized) is working in a capitalist environment.
As for this not working without capitalism, that is just another claim by you. It has no value. (And that does not mean I disagree with you, it just means that I find it to be another pointless claim.)
I think that we need to be more thoughtful in the terms we use and confront bigotry when terms are misused for a nefarious agenda.
Because they are have been used incorrectly for decades. Obviously no one wants to self term their system of government as "authoritarian", but that doesn't mean using Socialist in that context doesn't mean authoritarian. It certainly doesn't mean the USSR wasn't an authoritarian state or that Communist China was a classless communist state.
I agree with the summation. The terms Marxist and communist do not mean what they once meant. This is factual.
When a term comes to be the polar opposite definitionally in public usage, it behooves us to move on to a new word that is clearly defined and unambiguous.
... and to refute those who insist on trying to turn labels resulting from propaganda into fact.
Bravo. This is like watching a Presbyterian declare that not only are sincere Methodists not Christians, they are the opposite of Christians.
These are people who risked their lives, extreme poverty and prison to implement the Marxist version of utopia. They devoted their lives to parsing over Marx and Engels writings trying to divine the correct way forward and trying to match his idealistic vision to the reality of their world. And now after 5 minutes of exposure to simplistic wikipedia level propaganda, people here are confident enough to not only read them out of the movement entirely, but to declare them the "opposite "of what they dedicate their lives to achieving.
The combination of ignorance and hubris on display has to be seen to be believed.
If you went to college, you were taught marxist theories of interpretation in any humanities class you took.
College lectures are boring. I went to tech school. I'm pretty sure there were no political lectures in my A+ Certification class. Even though - I knew the difference between Marxism and Authoritarianism well before I left high school. They aren't difficult concepts to grasp.
People devoting their lives to an ideal does not have anything to do with people mislabeling concepts. What matters is the actual meaning of the words we use.
You claim that my knowledge of Marxism is a result of 5 minutes of simplistic Wikipedia reading yet all you can do to rebut is to put forth strawman arguments, and make unsubstantiated claims.
Resorting to indirect insulting posts like yours @4.2.36 is not an argument. It shows the lack of an argument.
I'm sure you learned valuable skills there, but knowledge of critical theory isn't one of them.
- I knew the difference between Marxism and Authoritarianism
Who's claiming they are the same thing?
Absolutely. Followers of Marx are Marxists. To claim is those who devote their lives to advancing Marxism aren't marxists are assaulting the english language. Positively orwellian.
eading yet all you can do to rebut is to put forth strawman arguments, and make unsubstantiated claims.
Physician, heal thyself.
Of course.
And followers of Marx who implement systems that are in direct violation of key principles of Marxism are not implementing Marxism. See Leninism and, worse, Stalinism.
See?
What part of followers of Marx don't you get?
. No different than Presbyterians denying the Christianity of Methodists. Ultra fanatics are going to fanatic, but it's just silly when they they start making those absurd claims. At this point, I can only roll my eyes and laugh.
That you are sharing made up memes in defense of this absurd claim is the absolutely perfect cap to this debate.
Thank you.
Do better than stupid quips. I explained myself clearly: a follower of Marx can implement something other than Marxism. That is exactly what Lenin did.
Not a difficult concept to comprehend.
Some flowers smell delicate.
Some flowers smell Rotten.
Some flowers don't smell at all.
Trucks go fast to get the flowers that smell to market.
Some people can discuss the meaning of words.
Some people are insistent that their own, pet meaning is applicable in all cases where the words are used.
Some people realize that language is fluid and constantly changing.
Colloquial usage of the terms "Marxist" and "Socialist" and "Communist" in the United States today is intended to imply "evil", "authoritarian", and "dystopian" interchangeably. Please show where in Marx's or Engle's writing they refer to the systems that they are espousing as some dystopian, state-controlled, evil empire.
I really don't think it's going to matter to him. It seems that even though Marx wasn't exactly fulsome on how to get to his proletariat controlled utopia, anything that doesn't look like what he envisioned on day one is not Marxist. It doesn't matter that followers of Marx were trying to get to Marx's vision by means they thought would work, whether or not Marx envisioned them. It doesn't matter that they were working towards Marxism, making them Marxists.
So, apparently, to be a genuine Marxist, one either spends their time doing nothing except discussing Marxism in its purest form or somehow can magically transform society from what it was and into the fullness of Marx's vision in an instant. Anyone else, like those whose efforts in the real world are intended to create a Marxist society for instance, is not a Marxist.
You either did not read what I have been writing or are intentionally ignoring it.
My argument has been that to call something Marxism, it needs to at least follow what Marx described in terms of pre-conditions, principles (e.g. proletariat in control), and objectives (e.g. cooperative, democratic control of the means of production and distribution by the proletariat).
The pre-conditions stated by Marx identified what must be in place for a society to even try to make a transition from capitalism to socialism. Russia, as the time of Lenin, did NOT have these critical factors:
What Russia did have (and why Lenin, et. al. perceived an opportunity) was an active overthrow of the Czar, rejection of the monarchy system, and a very weak interim government that could be easily overthrown. Russia had a bunch of pissed off peasants and a nation in near anarchy.
Lenin, unlike Stalin, did (it seems to me) want to implement socialism as described by Marx yet he ignored the pre-conditions and principles that Marx set for it to be successful. When Lenin eventually realized that his path was not going to work, he decided that he needed to first build an industrialized, capitalist society in Russia before he could begin a transition to socialism. He decided, in other words, that he needed to go back to Marx' pre-conditions.
What Lenin implemented was not Marxism. Even if Lenin genuinely wanted to achieve the objectives of Marx, what he implemented was the polar opposite. If he had implemented Marxism then the people would have had democratic control and would slowly mature this control until the state of communism was achieved. Leninism was NOT a democratically controlled society ... it was an authoritarian state. The proletariat were NOT in control. Maybe if he had lived he would have steered this ship into something that would align with Marxism. But that did not happen.
Lenin died within two years of his epiphany and Stalin took over. Stalin then took the authoritarian state and ran with it. Stalinism was a brutal authoritarian regime that oppressed and exploited the proletariat. Rather than enable the proletariat to economic freedom and democratic control, Stalinism did the polar opposite. There is no indication whatsoever that Stalin had any intention of yielding his power to the people. There was no hint of Marxism there.
For you to call Stalinism "Marxism" is to basically deny what was actually done and rely upon labels that were used. Just because Lenin / Stalin claimed they were implementing socialism/communism does NOT mean that they were implementing what Marx had defined. Just because Lenin was a Marxist, does not mean that whatever system he implemented (no matter how different it was from Marx' writings) is ipso facto Marxism.
Again, this is NOT what I argued. A Marxist is an individual who accepts the theories of Marx and Engels. Marxism itself, however, has pre-conditions, principles, and objectives. If a Marxist (e.g. Lenin) attempts to achieve the objectives of Marx (e.g. communism) but does so with a system that violates what Marx had defined, then this Marxist was NOT effecting Marxism; he was effecting some other system that he believed would get the same results. And this is especially NOT Marxism if the system oppresses the proletariat since that is the polar opposite of what Marx described (the proletariat is in democratic control).
To wit, Leninism is NOT Marxism. Stalinism is (to an even greater degree) NOT Marxism.
The dishonesty here is sickening. One strawman after another.
My argument is that if they call themselves Marxist and, regardless of the path followed, are trying to get to a Marxist society, they're Marxists. Could care less if the end result looks less than Marxist. What matters is the real world application of what self-labeled Marxists create. I don't care how ideologically pure it is.
The reason I don't care is because it is impossible to follow what you describe in this quote. And if they literally tried, say have the proletariat in control, what you would get is a nearly endless civil war over various groups of prols fighting over just how to move the country forward until one group won out and ending up the same way the Soviets did. Cooperative, democratic control of the means of production and distribution??? Are you serious?
Look, TiG. I have no problem at all with you having the point of view that you do. Have at it. But because you have it doesn't mean anyone else has to have it. Personally, I think it's not very realistic. It's just idealistic, not practical. Practical is, regardless of how closely the Soviet Union followed or exemplified Marxism, Marxism was its basic assumption and authority behind all that they did. To me, that's all that is necessary for them to be considered Marxist.
Really? Did you even understand your own words? According to you, any attempt to create a Marxist society is, by definition, not Marxism. According to you, Marxism will just spontaneously happen by an enlightened proletariat given the right circumstances. And because the proletariat is "class conscious", Marx's vision will just naturally unfold. Sounds a lot like what you quoted me as saying was dishonest, doesn't it?
Obviously, the "in an instant" is mostly hyperbole, but not entirely. Just the slaughter of the bourgeoisie pretty much achieves the Marxist goal, since only the proletariat is left with the means of production and the fiddly bits to make it work, so historic time scale, nearly instantly.
That is your view, and not necessarily the correct one. Certainly Stalin had no intent of giving up power, but that doesn't mean he wasn't Marxist. Like Lenin, who's policies Stalin tried to carry out, Stalin knew that to get anywhere near the Marxist ideal, they had to industrialize. Although undeniably brutal, Stalin was working toward the Marxist goal and did what he thought was necessary to achieve it. So, he did whatever it took to industrialize as fast as humanly possible to achieve that, while at the same time, having the same Russian fear of the West as Russia always had, especially since they were so far behind in modernizing their economy. It would be untrue to claim that Stalin was just using Marxism for his own purposes or gain. He was trying to achieve it in the manner he thought most realistic. He was a Marxist.
As so many have told you, Marxism isn't the process, it's the end-state goal. Marx's preconditions reflect what he thought was needed to make Marxism happen, not that those states represented Marxism. Marxism is the proletariat in control of the means of production for the purpose of creating a classless society that didn't need government control. Quibbling about how that state is reached is pointless.
Yet again, I have stated those who accept and desire that described by Marx are Marxists. Even if their actions are in direct opposition to what Marx described, their acceptance/desires would still mean they are Marxists. They would be living contradictions, but that is nothing new for human beings.
Also repeatedly stated and explained in much detail is that the actions taken by a Marxist determine whether or not that are following Marxism. If one is executing Marxism then the necessarily are following the pre-conditions, principles, and seeking the same objectives as Marxism. If they are using a different paradigm —even if they seek the same objectives— they are NOT executing Marxism ... they are executing some other -ism that theoretically would get the same end results.
I have clearly and repeatedly explained why that is wrong. You are arguing that no matter what one does, if they have an end goal of a democratically run, stateless, classless society then the system them are executing is Marxism. That the process they are using is Marxism. That no matter what they do ... it is all Marxism. (Good grief)
That is nonsense. Leninism can be argued to have the same end objectives as Marxism (Lenin, it seems, would claim that). But Lenin took a path of using an authoritarian state that controlled the proletariat with some undefined future changes that would theoretically put it back on the path that correlates with what Marx defined. Leninism is NOT Marxism even if it has the identical theoretical end state objectives because the paradigm/processes/methods are fundamentally different and the effects on the people are fundamentally different.
Merely being a Marxist and seeking the same end state as Marxism does not in any way mean that your system (process) are necessarily Marxism. Marx himself indicated this in his writings (which I delivered days ago):
To Marx, the process mattered. Even nuances as shown above. It is doubtful (ridiculous even) to think that Marx would have considered the work of Lenin to be Marxism. (Imagine Marx agreeing with authoritarian rule over the proletariat when his focus was to free the proletariat from the control of the bourgeoise.) The brutal authoritarian state of Stalin would obviously be rejected by Marx as the polar opposite of his collective work.
We do not have Marx here to weigh in (since he would obviously be the authority on what is Marxism). But we do have his writings and those writings clearly reject systems that depart from the pre-conditions, principles (and of course objectives) of what he described.
Both Christians and Muslims have a goal of serving God (Allah, respectively) and enjoying eternal bliss in Heaven (Jannah, respectively). The same end state; the same objectives. But they take very different paths. You would never claim that a Muslim is a Christian or that Islam is Christianity, yet here you are claiming that as long as the end state is the same, the means by which that is achieved is the same process (the same system).
OR that a person who claimed they were baking a cake, but instead butchered a pig and made sausage is still a baker because they claimed to be. Stalin made tons of sausage, but never followed the recipe for cake. Are they claiming the cake recipe is wrong OR are they claiming that making sausage IS the way cakes are made because Stalin said he was making cake?
Some just want to justify using the words Marxist, Marxism, socialism, communism as pejoratives. Those words have evolved a highly negative connotation in the USA and it is convenient to keep those connotations. They do not care about truth.
Thus we see ridiculous, historically incorrect arguments like 'as long as the objectives are the same the system is the same'.
Here is another analogy to illustrate how ridiculous that thinking is:
The objective is to keep the world population under 8 billion. So ...
Same objective. Are these the same system?
Specifically they want to justify using those words as pejoratives against liberals. First they confirm that Marxism is a liberal policy idea and then equate Stalin's authoritarian use of the label as confirmation Liberals are evil. It matters not that Stalin's far right wing authoritarianism was the polar opposite of the far left wing liberalism of Marxism - it is their argument.
to say that the author of this article is ignorant of the labor movement in America would be putting it mildly.
And so the meddling and taunting and fearmongering continues on the Right, whom clearly can't get over their obsession with anybody having a stream of consciousness they can not control. Another in a long series of 'boy crying; "Wolf!" And maybe the result will end up the same as in the story. At least, the Left should do what it can to expose the 'grift' of SELLING FEAR at election time through book sales and lecture series for what it is.
Liberals: Let's make them "Famous" or better yet, "INFAMOUS!" Since the evidence keeps piling up higher that the Right will not stop this on its own or out of a sense of decency.