you are fundamentally misunderstanding what marx set out to do, marx was not proposing a system of government or an executable plan. he was analyzing history in order to explain the forces that drive social change and to make conditional predictions about the future. within that kind of analytical framework, outcomes are how the categories are defined.
this is standard practice in historical and social analysis, which you seem unfamiliar with, you likely haven’t read any primary sources on this. a process is usually identified by what it produces, and a capitalist economy is one based around wage labor and capital accumulation. A feudal system is one organized around landed aristocracy and serfdom
and in Marxist terms, a socialist revolution is one that actually produces socialism. A revolution that claims the label but reproduces class domination has not achieved that outcome.
That does not make this a no true scotsman situation, that’s when definitions are arbitrarily narrowed to protect a belief. in this case, the definition is fixed in advance by structural criteria. If those criteria are not met, the category simply does not apply. this is no different from saying that an attempted overthrow of a feudal monarch that fails is not a successful revolution. that does not expose a flaw in anti-feudal ideology, it just reflects how we use words.
your criticism also assumes marx failed to provide a plan, which he never attempted to provide, this is like criticizing darwin for not designing ecosystems.
the project was explanatory, not prescriptive. he analyzed why capitalism arises, how it functions, and why he believed it generates conditions that eventually make class society untenable.
marx’s claim about socialism and communism is therefore conditional, not magical: if material conditions develop in certain ways, class antagonisms intensify and if class antagonisms are resolved, tthe state loses its function, where those conditions are absent or prematurely forced, domination reappears under new forms.
we as socialists are engaged in the practical task of trying to build a future that resolves those contradictions, but marx himself did not “fail” by not delivering an engineering blueprint, he never attempted to do what you are demanding of him. rejecting this because it’s not an instruction manual is a misunderstanding of the assignment in the first place.
every argument you’ve posed has been based in a misunderstanding of the reading and you should REALLY read some primary sources, here’s some:
you are fundamentally misunderstanding what marx set out to do, marx was not proposing a system of government or an executable plan. he was analyzing history in order to explain the forces that drive social change and to make conditional predictions about the future. within that kind of analytical framework, outcomes are how the categories are defined.
this is standard practice in historical and social analysis, which you seem unfamiliar with, you likely haven’t read any primary sources on this. a process is usually identified by what it produces, and a capitalist economy is one based around wage labor and capital accumulation. A feudal system is one organized around landed aristocracy and serfdom
and in Marxist terms, a socialist revolution is one that actually produces socialism. A revolution that claims the label but reproduces class domination has not achieved that outcome.
That does not make this a no true scotsman situation, that’s when definitions are arbitrarily narrowed to protect a belief. in this case, the definition is fixed in advance by structural criteria. If those criteria are not met, the category simply does not apply. this is no different from saying that an attempted overthrow of a feudal monarch that fails is not a successful revolution. that does not expose a flaw in anti-feudal ideology, it just reflects how we use words.
your criticism also assumes marx failed to provide a plan, which he never attempted to provide, this is like criticizing darwin for not designing ecosystems.
the project was explanatory, not prescriptive. he analyzed why capitalism arises, how it functions, and why he believed it generates conditions that eventually make class society untenable.
marx’s claim about socialism and communism is therefore conditional, not magical: if material conditions develop in certain ways, class antagonisms intensify and if class antagonisms are resolved, tthe state loses its function, where those conditions are absent or prematurely forced, domination reappears under new forms.
we as socialists are engaged in the practical task of trying to build a future that resolves those contradictions, but marx himself did not “fail” by not delivering an engineering blueprint, he never attempted to do what you are demanding of him. rejecting this because it’s not an instruction manual is a misunderstanding of the assignment in the first place.
every argument you’ve posed has been based in a misunderstanding of the reading and you should REALLY read some primary sources, here’s some:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/
i think these would be the most helpful readings for you.