Karl Marx was never “in charge.” He developed a framework for analyzing Political Economy in a manner useful for the Proletariat to identify the manner in which we are exploited, and how we may go about defeating the Bourgeoisie. There are no rich oligarchs replacing Marx.

Belief systems certainly can be exploited, but that isn’t the point you are making here. Your point is that we should disregard analysis of Political Economy in favor of vibes-based action. If you don’t do the effort of studying Political Economy, any conclusions you come to will be based on shaky foundations, rather than throwing theory aside, we need to weild it to guide correct practice.

Funny enough, Mao described your error over half a century ago, in On Practice:

The second point is that knowledge needs to be deepened, that the perceptual stage of knowledge needs to be developed to the rational stage – this is the dialectics of the theory of knowledge.[5] To think that knowledge can stop at the lower, perceptual stage and that perceptual knowledge alone is reliable while rational knowledge is not, would be to repeat the historical error of “empiricism”. This theory errs in failing to understand that, although the data of perception reflect certain realities in the objective world (I am not speaking here of idealist empiricism which confines experience to so-called introspection), they are merely one-sided and superficial, reflecting things incompletely and not reflecting their essence. Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherent laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories – it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge. Such reconstructed knowledge is not more empty or more unreliable; on the contrary, whatever has been scientifically reconstructed in the process of cognition, on the basis of practice, reflects objective reality, as Lenin said, more deeply, more truly, more fully. As against this, vulgar “practical men” respect experience but despise theory, and therefore cannot have a comprehensive view of an entire objective process, lack clear direction and long-range perspective, and are complacent over occasional successes and glimpses of the truth. If such persons direct a revolution, they will lead it up a blind alley.

Both Capitalism and Socialism have room for public and private ownership, the difference is which sector controls the state, large firms, and key industries. The Nordic Countries are dominated by Private Capital, ie it is Capitalist, while the PRC is dominated by Public Ownership, ie it is Socialist.

Communism limits the personal freedoms of the bourgeoisie. All Communism is, is a more developed and global form of Socialism, where the small firms that once were private have all grown into the public sector or collapsed.

I responded to it, but I want to respond to this as well. There’s really no such thing as “mixing” Capitalism with Socialism. Private and Public property can be mixed, but what determines Capitalism or Socialism is if the former is the principle aspect of the economy, or the latter. By principle, I mean which controls the state, large firms, and key industries.

This doesn’t solve the systemic pressures within Capitalism, nor does it describe how to get from A to B. Your idea still depends on your one firm outcompeting other firms, which is difficult in saturated markets.

I recommend you look into Marxist theory, I have some recommendations I can make.

That’s the plan! Though I want to aid in turning my own country Communist, as that would benefit the most people globally, or at least take down the US Empire.

Ableism aint cool either.

Unless the Proletariat has control of the state, and thus can implement a “corporation behavior credit score” like in the PRC that isn’t in control of private interests, you will see corporations just lobby and get what they want that way. Socialism remains necessary, which is the first step to Communism.

Secondly, cooperative ownership is nice, but it doesn’t stop the natural centralizing of markets or prove more efficient than public ownership and planning at higher levels of development.

Really, it sounds like you would like the PRC’s model of economy. Companies like Huawei are worker-owned, the Proletariat has control over the state and thus profit isn’t the central guiding factor of the economy, and there are checks in place to punish corporations that go against benchmarks and metrics for “good” vs “bad” behavior.

This is the “extreme ideology” you said doesn’t work.

Why?

I don’t think Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc were lying to me when discussing what they wanted to implement and how Socialism and Capitalism function. I don’t think reading speeches and writings of Deng Xiapoing, Xi Jinping, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Joseph Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, or other leaders of AES states were lying about their intended goals or economic policies either.

I genuinely don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Are you rejecting analysis of Political Economy, in favor of vibes-based social movements? Genuinely.

Class War is a fundamental part of the Socialist canon, though, while Capitalism affirms that it is unnecessary.

Further, a bit nitpicky, but I don’t like framing it as “cluefull vs clueless.” People’s ideas are a product of their material conditions, we shouldn’t downtalk those who don’t know more.

The Russian Federation ceased being Socialist in the early 90s, the Hammer and Sickle is a symbol of Marxism. Not sure what your point is.

Social Democracy retains Private Ownership as the principle aspect of its economy, ergo its still Capitalist. Fascism isn’t distinct from Capitalism, but Capitalism in certain circumstances, ie when it needs to put on a mask and brutally protect itself from its own decay, before taking off the mask and pretending it’s something else, ie it keeps Capitalism’s record “clean.”

Further, being radical does not equal being wrong. Distance from the status quo does not mean it is not correct, we need to judge legitimately the merits of Socialism/Communism and not just say they are too radical.

Cool agitprop posters like what OP posted rarely give you a particularly nuanced perspective due to their limited space. The intended effect is to spark conversation, not to beam Marxism into the heads of anyone who sees it.

More men should read The will to change by bell hooks. Patriarchy hurts men in different ways than it does women, we are all oppressed by it, including gender-nonconforming individuals. Patriarchy stunts male emotional health and creates these unhealthy repressed feelings. Rather than blaming women, men should look towards the systems that impact our daily lives and how they force us into little boxes we don’t always fit neatly into naturally, suffocating us and justifying the general subjugation of women, which in no unclear terms exceeds the suffering of men under patriarchy.

No idea what you’re getting at, to be honest.

This certainly isn’t a Marxist take, at the very least.

Calling the PRC “Capitalist with controls” implies that private ownership is the principle aspect of its economy, when in reality the overwhelming majority of its large firms and key industries are in the public sector as the private is made up of small firms, sole proprietorships, and cooperatives. Here’s a handy infographic:

The PRC’s economy is classically Marxist, as Marx didn’t think you could abolish private property by making it illegal, but by developing out of it. Socialism and Communism, for Marx, were about analyzing and harnessing the natural laws of economics moving towards centralization, so as to democratize it and produce in the interests of all. This wasn’t about decentralization, but centralization.

Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can’t just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.

China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.

The USSR was Socialist, and it was dissolved for a variety of reasons. It would take volumes to discuss, but I recommend Blackshirts and Reds.

The current democratically elected President of Cuba is Miguel Díaz-Canel, so not sure where you got your Cuba talking point from. We aren’t in the 90s anymore, and even if we were, the Cuban people still supported the Castro family and the Socialist system regardless.

Vietnam is Socialist, and has a similarly classical Marxist understanding of economics as the PRC. You’re correct that it has a very similar structure, but wrong in thinking it’s a betrayal of Socialism. Rather, I recommend reading Marx, I’ll include a reading list at the end.

The DPRK is less of a dictatorship than the US, its governed by 3 parties overall and has more of a participatory election system. I recommend reading this article on the DPRK.

Your second paragraph starts off fairly strong! You’re correct in the idea that full socialization of the economy requires vast development of the productive forces, but you quickly derail. You acknowledge that no system is pure, a key principle in Dialectical Materialism, but make the error of assuming contradictions, which are in all systems, are the defining aspects, rather than the principle elements. I went over this above.

Further, you make the error in stating that a vanguard is to “relinquish power.” This is wrong. First, it implies Vanguards as distinct from the Working Class, and not its most advanced elements, and further it implies that Vanguards are meant to disappear before Communism, a global, fully publicly owned economy, is achieved. On the contrary, a vanguard can only disappear when there no longer are advanced, backwards, and general sections of the working class, and class in general has been abolished, which requires Communism to be achieved to begin with.

Moreover, you answer this with the distinctly Anti-Marxist notion that decentralization is the answer. Perhaps if you are an Anarchist, I can understand your critique, but if you’re attempting to uphold Marx, he would disagree firmly. The advancement of industry requires the management and administration of industry. Government will remain even when the state has whithered, in fact we will only ever get more centralized. This does not go against democracy, however, it extends it by extending the reach of the voice of the workers.

I recommed checking out this introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List I made, and if you have specific questions, I’ll do my best to help answer!

Don’t we all…

You don"t have arguments, though. I have tried to get you to make some, but you haven’t, except for the times where you say things that are false, like the idea that Capitalists were the ones who beat the Nazis when it was the Red Army that killed 90% of the Nazis that were killed and took Berlin. I haven’t attacked you, I pointed out that, repeatedly, you make unbacked assertions that aren’t in line with reality, so I gently suggested you do more research.

Secondly, suggesting that Socialism is a form of Capitalism is the same as saying Capitalism is a form of Feudalism, and that Feudalism is a form of tribal society, just because these systems came before the other. That’s entitely incorrect, though it would be correct to say that Capitalism’s development drives Socialism to emerge, just as Feudalism’s development drove Capitalism to emerge.

As for highlights, I don’t really need to, the Eastern Front entirely eclipsed the rest of the combat combined, and the Soviets were the ones to take Berlin. No highlights are necessary, the Red Army gave by far the most and did by far the most in putting down the Nazis.

Yep, the US is losing its global power gradually.

You’re being extremely cagey. Why do you think the Nazis gained power? For what purpose? Moreover, they were overwhelmingly stopped by the Communists, 80% of the combat in World War II was on the Eastern Front. I don’t think you have a good grasp of what we are talking about, here.

It’s been very funny following this saga the past few days.