On Misunderstanding Karl Marx

There is a common misunderstanding regarding Marx that contends he advocates totalitarianism and national Socialism like that observed under Stalin in Russia and Mao in China. This just isn't so.

Many acutely misread Marx. He was no more a believer in totalitarianism, terrorism or revolution than Thomas Jefferson. Marx opposed the state, did not advocate a totalitarian state and wished the state to vanish. While Marxism contains many propositions that could imply totalitarianism, it was Marx and Engels' view of the state that it was to eliminate itself and be replaced by a system of communism. But that was the hitch. Greed and power mongering intervened to undermine and subvert the purpose of revolution which was to overthrow capitalist oppressors and acquire their productive assets in preparation for a Communist system.

Promising communism, secretive advocates of totalitarianism and dictatorship concealed their goals and used Marxism to establish a socialist state which they then converted to permanent totalitarian dictatorships, having zero intent to replace the state with a stateless communism sought by both Marx and Engels.

Like Jefferson, Marx believed in revolution to overthrow state and capitalist oppression, but he went further than Jefferson and believed revolution was also necessary to acquire the assets of production from the capitalists, as capitalism failed, so they could be used not just for the benefit of a few, but for the benefit of all. But the goal ever and always was the stateless system of Communism whereby all productive facilities were owned by all (coops, largely) and each was provided for according to his or her need. That was Marx's goal and target. All was subordinate to obtaining that goal. Socialism was simply a transitional phase to acquire all productive assets from capitalists and then turn them over to the Communist system to be owned and operated by the people.

Many of evil intent used Marxism as a stepping stone to socialist dictatorships and ruled by terror, but that was never advocated by Marx any more than Nietzsche was an advocate and supporter of the Hitler and the Third Reich. Marx viewed the state as ever and always the potential enemy of true communism. The goal was to eliminate it, always.
________

My own critique of Marx in a nut shell is this:

1) is not that there will be no revolution or social uprising -- I think that is inevitable if we hold our present course and the new wave of technology hits us as foreseen and our population is displaced from employment markets and as a consequence, from the markets for goods and services for want of income -- but that a state, no matter how well intentioned or altruistic, will never dissolve itself in favor of Communism or communalism. It just won't happen. States act to protect themselves.

2) private property is needed as a concept to assure the proper care and best use of productive assets and

3.There is no workable resource allocation mechanism in the face of scarcity for either a Socialist or Communist system.

The Scandinavian model I have proposed is much more feasible and reaches many of the same ends -- capitalism with private ownership on the front end for production, with a mix of capitalism, socialism and even some communistic help on the back end or in regard to the distribution of income. With the high taxes on the rich and cuts in defense yielding a large social dividend for national health care, infrastructure, higher education and care for the incompetent we can have a fine social system.My own critique of Marx in a nut shell is this:

1) is not that there will be no revolution or social uprising -- I think that is inevitable if we hold our present course and the new wave of technology hits us as foreseen and our population is displaced from employment markets and as a consequence, from the markets for goods and services for want of income -- but that a state, no matter how well intentioned or altruistic, will never dissolve itself in favor of Communism or communalism. It just won't happen. States act to protect themselves.

2) private property is needed as a concept to assure the proper care and best use of productive assets and

3.There is no workable resource allocation mechanism in the face of scarcity for either a Socialist or Communist system.

The Scandinavian model I have proposed is much more feasible and reaches many of the same ends -- capitalism with private ownership on the front end for production, with a mix of capitalism, socialism and even some communistic help on the back end or in regard to distribution. With the high taxes on the rich and cuts in defense yielding a large social dividend for national health care, infrastructure, higher education and care for the incompetent we can have a fine social system. What we have is beginning to fail in too many regards.