No, I'm saying it's not simplistic because I've read a lot of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and from many, many, many more Communist leaders and theorists since them.

[+] aldfin@lemm.ee -7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Right and you keep equating reading a lot of material as a basis of complexity, which it simply isn’t. The quantity of theory does not equate to quality. Once again please refer to my previous point about the Bible or the absolute plethora of religious research that mankind has produced which does not lead to any kind of truth and has lacks any kind of complexity other than God is the greatest and do as he says. One can pretend to find complexities as much as they want but the outcome is always the same, a useless fiction.

There is nothing remarkable about Marxism other than a way to create a whole new set of problems. There is literally zero concrete evidence of the supposed benefits of Marxism other than for redistribution of power from one set of assholes to another, I think we’ve seen that enough times at this point.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I don't equate quantity to complexity, you have simply not made a genuine point on why it oversimplifies besides vibe. I have explained that I experienced the complexity of theory because I read it regularly, and you haven't.

Marxism is remarkable because it's true, and is the guiding ideology of several existing Socialist states that came with massive improvements for the Working Class, including the soon to be world's largest economy (already there if adjusting for PPP) and eradicator of poverty, the PRC.