[array_key_first]

I think that Marxism is not centralized - Capitalism is centralized and some communist implementations are centralized. Marxism, if anything, is distributed or communal.

It's not "nobody owns anything", it's "everybody owns everything". Maybe those mean the same thing to some people, but that's the idea.

[throwaway-11-1]

Exactly this. Lenin's whole thing was to reach a point where the sate dissolves!

It drives me crazy how like 95% of HN is too scared or lazy to read a 10min wikipedia article on Marxism.

[xp84]

It’s your position that we just don’t get how genius Marxism is and that it just hasn’t been tried? Why did it not work out so well for the USSR? When was that state going to “dissolve” into a utopia where everyone owns everything? Why was China a poor agrarian society when they followed Marxism better, and has become relatively wealthy since abandoning a great deal of those ideas and participating in a form of capitalism?

[array_key_first]

I think it's not exactly a fair comparison, because capitalism and communism are both very new economic systems. And, in the time communist systems existed, they were existentially threatened by high GDP nations.

I think, it's clear to me, that capitalists feel extremely threatened by the mere concept of Marxism and what it could mean for them. Even if it's happening on the other side of the world. They will deploy bombs, soldiers, develop nukes.

I'm not saying that it works and it's good. But, consider: most capitalist nations are abject failures as well. There's only a handful of capitalist nations that are developed, and they stay developed because they imperialisticly siphon wealth from the global periphery. We don't know if this system is sustainable. Really, we don't.

Since WWII, the US has just been riding the waves of having 50% of the global GDP. It's not that we're doing good - it's that everyone else was bombed to shreds and we weren't. We've sort of been winning by default. I don't think that's enough to just call it quits.