Marx made regular writings and letters to contemporary movements up until his death. At no point did he back down on violent, sudden revolution as the path to achieving Socialism. Marx was many things, but he wasn’t anti-gun.

Exactly. The Primary process is about getting your policies in the platform as much as it is getting you candidate(s) the nomination. She should run, a “standard neoliberal” should run, a corporatist should run etc… the process is allowed to be messy.

She also ran an incredibly poor campaign (Not completely her fault). Assuming she would have a run a Biden free open (which I’m not convinced of given how poorly she did in 2020), she would have done so by being good at campaigning and testing which messages swayed the electorate. Every winning canadite gets it.

Additionally the people you beat, give you a feel for the parts of the party that you need to bring into the coalition which you can satisfy as you build out your proposed VP and Cabinet. Think of how Obama brought in Clinton as Sec of State, Trump brought in Pence as VP to satisfy the religious right, how Biden brought in Harris etc… Harris didn’t have any of that feedback and picked a pretty questionable VP as a result.

At the end of the day she lost by 1.5% of the popular vote. And I got to imagine that the whole process lost her significantly more than that.

I think it’s worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.

The Gatling Gun predates came out a 5 years before Das Kapital. Sure arms hadn’t had the revolution they’d get during WW1 yet, but they were plenty capable.

She should absolutely run. I don’t know if she should win the nomination, but running brings a voice to the wing of the party she represents.

Primaries are about coalition building. And to have your ideas represented by the eventual candidate you need a champion to promote them in the process.

This particular conflict did indeed start then.

Marx’s critique isn’t with democracy it’s with bourgeoise-democracy.

Marx’s critique isn’t with democracy, it’s with democracy that disagrees with him.

All you are doing here is demonstrating that you do not understand the difference between what marxists refer to as a bourgeoise-democracy and what marxists refer to as a proletarian-democracy.

I do understand the difference. The difference is that to transition from the former to the later, Marx advocates for violent revolution and the establishment of a dictatorship to “re-educate” the populace. It’s practically hand waved over by Marx and modern Communists, but it’s the most important part of the process. Who controls that dictatorship has all the effective powers of a dictatorship and has the ability to make life for the people they rule hell. Essentially Marx unironically created a worse version of Feudalism where there was no check on the power of the ruler(s) on the assumption that compassion.

a new dictatorship of class but one instead run by the working class (the vast majority) instead of the former ruling class (the bourgeoisie, the vast minority).

Unfortunately, even in a post revolution environment; the working class will never voluntarily choose to rule in the fashion that Marx things they would. No matter the re-education instilled.

You haven’t even read a pamphlet like the manifesto, let alone the Critique Gotha Programme that you’re linking to. I have though. And to anyone that actually HAS read these things that you’re pretending to have read you look like and absolute clown who is winging it.

My interpretation of it is essentially Lenin and Mao’s interpretation of it, just with the benefits of historical hindsight. I imagine, a younger, more idealistic me in 1920s St. Petersburg would have been a proud Bolshevik with the utmost confidence in the party leadership to lead us into a glorious, worker led future. If that makes me a clown whose winging it; my only request is that I get some ranch dipping sauce so at least I can get my vibes right.

You’ve not looked into Communism too much have you?

Marx had the opportunity to see Communist movements rise in his own timeline. And he opposed the implementation of Communism in a Democratic manner. And wrote about it in his criticiques of the Germany’s Communist movements source. In his criticiques he lays out how he believes a transitional state should be laid out, how it should be organized. And later Lenin refers extensively to this blueprint in his written works and it’s clear to me upon reading that he truly believes what he says.

In my experience about almost every modern day Communist hear arguments made about the USSR not being based in Communism and have failed to even hear of this critique of the mythic Democratic Communism they believe I’m so much.

Read the critique, and given everything you know about human beings tell me honestly, do you truly believe a multi-generational dictatorship of the proletariat, led by you (or someone whom you’d champion), would really work?

I’m saying that your political opinions and knowledge of history is based on vibes…

I’ve been on the internet a very long time. But this is the first time I’ve seen a Communist (or anyone really) ague their position based on the vibes of the person their arguing against.

Not really sure what you’re trying to say here.

Ironic as I went the other way. I was a Communist when I got into FOSS and as I got older I realized I could never defend the historical record of Communism.