Join the new “Cool Earth Party” tribe

<By who? taking over the factorys is done by the people who want to eliminate their bosses, including the state.>

Tedster, I was being totally sarcastic. On one hand we have somebody here who is spouting American Public School propaganda and on the other hand he is saying that the means of production can be seized by force. Seizing property through force is the ultimate authoritarian act. It also implies mob rule, which is the fertile ground from which the worst dictatorships have sprung. Look at what mob rule did for France.

If the means of production is to be seized, it needs to be seized through due process. A good example of this would be the Microsoft case that was in European Court a few years ago. Essentially, Europe broke Gates's European monopoly and imposed the rule of law on Microsoft. If Marx did make a mistake (and he made many) the largest one was the idea that a revolution can be achieved by violence. Violence only promotes dictatorships. Europe is in the middle of a vast socialist revolution where everybody comes to the table, including the capitalists. Yes it is slow and clumsy, but it beats the hell out of Siberias and Gitmos.

In Marx's own words.

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."

This kind of talk opens the door to a new form of classism, one based not on economics but based on a political minority dictating the actions of the majority. While it may be true that some are more politically savvy than others, this rigid declaration sets people into distinct social classes, the Vanguard and the "less advanced workers".

Marx aslo advocated "4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.". This lead to the repression of the Anarchists.

He also advocated

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

These are just a few examples of the kind of totalitarian power Marx advocated from the very very beginning. Marx was an opponent of economic hierarchy, not political hierarchy.



And the thing that was the most wrong of all that was said by Marx is this idea that the state would be willing to dissolve itself.

"Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."

<If you read my words more carefully you would see that I didnt claim that Marxism is synonymous with Leninist-Stalinism or Maoism. I only claimed that fundamental flaws in Marxist theory lead to Stalinism and Maoism. Marx was wrong about human nature. I also think he was wrong about the stages of society.>

Here are your own words.

<<I am aware that Marx miscalculated the direction that Marxism would take, likely because of the inherent flaws and "wrongness" of his theories, most especially his perception of human nature. The idea that the logic of his reason would overcome human natures drive towards greed and lust for power was utterly moronic, and its not really a surprise that Marxism evolved into Stalinism or Maoism even if thats not what he claimed he was envisioning. Maoism could arguably be a bastardization of true Marxism, or else it could also be considered the logical conclusion of an inherently flawed ideology that moves in progressively more authoritarian directions as time goes on. >>

You not only called Marxism an ideology but you called it a "flawed" ideology. It is not that i have to read more carefully, you have to write more carefully.

Marx was not a prophet. He did not come down from Mt. Sinai with "Das Kapital" engraved on stone tablets. Your criticism of Marx is purely the same as the arguments presented in elementary school civics text books. Marx did not predict anything. His reasoning was purely of the conditions of 19th Century Europe. I presented The Paris Commune as an example as it was a brilliant use of the dialectic.

<Bakunin said, "The picture of a Commune in armed insurrection was so imposing that even the marxists, whose ideas the Paris revolution had utterly upset, had to bow before the actions of the Commune. They went further than that; in defiance of all logic and their known convictions they had to associate themselves with the Commune and identify with its principles and aspirations. It was a comic carnival game, but a necessary one. For such was the enthusiasm awakened by the Revolution that they would have been rejected and repudiated everywhere had they tried to retreat into the ivory tower of their dogma.">

Really? I had seen it more as a scholar changing his position when presented with new evidence.

It is interesting that the Paris Commune is being discussed here. That was what sold me the possibility that anarchism is possible.