a true marxist society has never been created or existed? why?

[careyprice31]

I heard all kinds of reasons from "marx's ideas are against human nature" to marx is "incompatible with human nature" to "look at the soviet union thats why it dont work" to "communism is a dictatorship"

i have heard lots of reasons why a true marxist society has never existed.

I'd like to know why you fellows here think it has never truely existed. Why not? why hasnt it?

I dont really know why. Thats why I'd like to hear what you fellows here think. Maybe I'll get an idea of why not.

[poolcleaner]

I couldn't say why a true Marxist society has never existed but one reason must be the political apathy of possibly the majority of working class people.

Give them food, housing, jobs and a TV and they don't care what political system they're living under.

[mikelepore]

Several unfortunate policies that have no basis in anything that Marx ever said or wrote, but begun in the Soviet Union more than three decades after Marx's death, and later emulated by, or forcibly exported to, other countries. Not having fair elections that may be contested by multiple factions. Not having an environment in which people are free to express their political, artistic and religious viewpoints without persecution. This has kept populations in conflict with the administrations.

[Holden Caulfield]

because marxism is an international movement and so cannot be sucessfully practiced within the limits of nations and so 'permenant revolution' is needed, the more marxist "nations" that exsist then the closer we all move to true communism,

'socialism in one country' can never be marxism as the confines of the country itself and the external pressues upon it make very unfavourable conditions for communism to emerge,

until a large number of the worlds workers have been liberated true communism can not exsist anywhere, however transitional governments can, however these governments are usually twisted by the corrupting elements of national pride, power, and money in some way or another

[Awful Reality]

Because external factors saw it as necessary to suppress the revolution. They were acting as interventionists, and took it upon themselves to secure their status as the ruling class.

This is where what hewhocontrolstheyouth said comes in. Marx lived in an imperialist world, not an interventionist one. He didn't see foreign powers as suppressing foreign revolutions. The Workers' revolution is certainly stronger than capitalist forces, but unless the revolution is promoted world wide, regardless of Stalin's "Socialism in One Country," the interventionists will win. Remember, it they who rely on us, the workers.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't know what a "true marxist [sic] society" is.

I can only assume you're speaking of communism, which can itself only come after a period in which the working class takes power in every part of the world.

Keep in mind that it took a series of years to usher in the capitalist mode of production, and socialism has proved to be no different in that regard.


Otherwise:


22. The various defeats and counterrevolutions faced by the working class have served to educate it. They have not ended its struggle.

Various bourgeois revolutions were defeated and turned back before the ultimate victory of capitalism over feudalism. Likewise, the inability of the working class to achieve absolute victory in the first waves of its revolutions have not eliminated its historic tasks, or the possibilities of achieving them.

Contrary to the claims of the capitalists’ mouthpieces who so boldly proclaim “the death of communism,” the class struggle is again sharpening, and a new wave of revolutions -- made stronger through the lessons learned -- is approaching.

[John Rap Brown]

Marxism was a scientific 19th century philospophy. Thus, as times changed and new experiences were gathered, addendums to this philosophy were necessary. Thus we have [often times divergent] trends like Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Irish Republican Socialism, Gonzalo Thought, etc.


So a Marxist society has never emerged because the conditions which would have precipitated a 'marxist society' have changed.

[Dros]

Because the masses haven't siezed power in every country yet.

That is assuming by "true marxist society" you mean Communism.

If you are referring to "the first stage of Communism" or Socialism, it has been reached several times.

[cb9's_unity]

I don't think you can really call anything a 'marxist society'. Socialist or communist possibly but a marxist society would simply mean everyone was marxist and the system under which they lived could be anything from Capitalist to communist.

But the reason why socialism or communism haven't been reached is because there simply hasn't been that much time for them to work. On the bigger scale the advanced capitalism needed to incite large scale working class revolution has only recently appeared. It took well over a thousand years for feudalism to fall, people are saying socialism can't work after at most 150 years of true capitalist states.

The soviet union was a case of a society trying to jump from the late stages of feudalism straight to socialism. That sort of revolution is completely outside of marx's writings. Depending on what point of view you take lenin either 'built upon' or 'ignored' at least a portion of marx's beliefs to justify the Russian revolution.

As for the whole 'human nature' aspect. There is nothing scientific that can make communism incompatible with the human mind. If anything science disproves the concept of any significant human nature.

[Everyday Anarchy]

"marx's ideas are against human nature" to marx is "incompatible with human nature"There is no universal 'human nature.' There is only historical context, and that is crucial to analyzing any situation. As paradigms shift, so does the concept of 'human nature.' In feudal times, if you were to ask what human nature means, you would be told that serfs worship their lords and that the king is best fit to rule.

It was discussed in another thread of how the 'human nature' claim is equivocal to the 'end of history' mindset. People in a certain point in history adapt a 'human nature' that explains their current way of life and use it to justify their existence and structure, and they claim that because it is in their nature to behave the way they do, that things will never change. Obviously, this has never been the case. History has not ended and never will end.



If somebody is sincerely stuck on 'human nature,' then reverse it on them! If they believe that humans are naturally greedy, violent, and selfish, ask them then why they would enjoy having a greedy, violent, and selfish man in power over themselves? Why would that be the most desirable system?
Wouldn't a better system be one in which everyone is on equal ground so as to minimalize any possible exploitation?

[bayano]

well, i dunno that i agree with this premise. not just because i think early cuba, 1980s nicaragua, or early viet nam came close, but bcuz of, well...

the paris commune

1905 petrograd soviet

appo in oaxaca (which was largely led by marxists)

some of what theyre doing in chiapas

etc etc

each temporary marxist societies. and of course im restricting myself to moments that were actually marxist-inspired so as not to go back before marx or to include stuff that wasnt relevant to marx at all since.

[Red Blue Pen]

I think it's a combination of Socialism's need to be practiced in every country and the great ease of counterrevolution. Not many people think about the long term benefits of Socialism, and because capitalism is already established and provides immediate creature comforts, it's fairly easy to see why it hasn't worked quite yet.

If you want a past-time example, think of the gladiatorial matches in Rome and their ability to lull the masses into a false sense of security.

[Dimentio]

Because the state often perverts socialism when socialism takes the state.

[Winter]

Socialism has been reached. BUT, Communism has still never happened on a national level. I think alot of it has to do with corruption within the vanguard party by revisionist Marxist by name only. Initially, when a vangaurd party seizes control, things will remain true. But after the death of a figure head, revisionist find it easiest to slip in then. That is why the people must always be critical of the party leading them.

[Kropotesta]

because the Dictatorship of the Proletrait is just seized by a new ruling class who exploit the revolution.

[RNK]

For one, none of us will ever see communism. Our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and their grandchildren will probably never see communism. We're talking about a society here which is fundamentally different in almost every concievable way to today's society, and just like every transformation into a new epoch, the transformation to communism may take centuries -- and that's only after a global socialist revolution which itself may not happen for decades.

It has never happened, quite simply, because conditions for it have not been met; the capitalist mode of production has not been abolished or even begun to be abolished by a global progressive and revolutionary movement, and while movements have appeared in various countries throughout the past century, they are not enough. In order for socialism to occur one of two things needs to happen; the western economic powers must be brought down (economically) to destroy their domination of the rest of the world; or a widespread socialist movement must spring up in 2nd and 3rd world countries and gain enough strength and stability to be able to erode western capitalism from the outside.

[FireFry]

Because the idea of marxism in general is absurd. Marx merely laid out the groundwork, the basis for which communist ideas are organised.