A few quick points:

1. None of it was satirical.

2. Marx claimed that he wasn’t a Marxist as a response to those of his time labeling themselves Marxists. He still developed what became Marxism as an ideology.

3. The dictatorship of the proletariat isn’t one person, but the absolute rule of the entire working class itself over capitalists. It’s saying that workers run the world, not capitalists, ever again, and that when there are no capitalists all workers will simply be people, a classless society.

Great rec!

Reread the statements I linked. The DSA and PSL are very different organizations, same with PTB and Die Linke, and yet they all focus on how to best bring an end to the war in a practical manner from their own positions as western organizations. None of them have power over what Russia does or does not do, but all can influence the continued warmongering and militarization of NATO. Only four countries recognize Russia as genocidal in the Russo-Ukrainian war:

And that’s because the Russo-Ukrainian war has, among modern conflicts, had a remarkably low civilian death count on both sides. What this means is that a swift and expedient settlement is the best that organizations in the west can actually push for to help the people of Ukraine, people who do not wish to keep fighting for western billionaires to plunder minerals. Further still, Donetsk and Luhansk already want to join Russia. Even if Kiev succeeded in pushing Russia back and getting them to surrender, Kiev would still be right back to the civil war it was in for 8 years prior to Russia entering the war.

The best case scenario for working class Ukrainians, as well as the people in the Donbass, is a negotiated settlement now. This is something socialist parties and anti-war activists recognize around the world. As the conflict in Iran heightens, it becomes clear that NATO buildup is being used to bomb elementary schools like Minab, all riding off of the far-right slide and militarization campaigns that only service western billionaires.

None of this is “pro-Russia.” Labeling any socialist views as being “foreign influenced” is a time-tested method of cracking down on any form of anti-war, anti imperialist, pro-labor activism for centuries.

Fascist repression of communists is nothing new to us, historically it’s extremely common.

No problem! This is one of those subjects that isn’t immediately understandable even though it seeks like it should be, so no worries!

Unfamiliar, sorry.

I genuinely do not get your point. The purpose of developing rapidly is to uplift the proletariat rapidly and achieve communism faster.

My point is generally that social relations are real, material processes. Race does not fall into that category, ideas themselves are not material processes by themselves. Nations, genders, classes, and more are real, material, social relations and processes. Race is not. I think it might be helpful for you to brush up a bit more on dialectical materialism, and I don’t mean that in a demeaning manner.

My point isn’t that I think people should never read anything by Heinrich or anything, nor that I am arguing for purity. I think Heinrich presents a very specific reading of Marx that lends itself to opposing practical action with respect to existing socialist states, and that this insistence on adhering to Marx and minimizing the contributions of Engels downplays Marx’s lifelong agency and cowork with Engels. Harvey is more agnostic, in that sense, and defends the Fowkes translation, based more on the French edition that Marx developed latest than earlier Marx-only editions.

Really, this gets more into esoteric and usually trivial differences. Among modern Marxist economists, I am most a fan of Ian Paul Wright over others.

I am not confusing it, the very concept of “authoritarianism” is suspect, both in the way you define it and in the coloquial sense.

No, it isn’t the same thing, but the critique holds for the concept of “totalitarianism” and “authoritarianism” themselves. Did you read it?

It’s a Marxist-Leninist wiki, and the pages I linked are just the ML positions on what constitutes a nation and what we mean by self-determination. It isn’t even something like a current or historical event that might draw contention, it’s just an explanation of what Marxists believe theoretically.

I prefer David Harvey, who sometimes misses the mark slightly. Heinrich is closely associated with the Neue Marx-Lektüre school of Marxism that deviates pretty heavily from Marx’s actual ideas IMO, and quite far from Marxism-Leninism, which is where I stand.

Marxism did not deal strictly with factory work, but with proletarianized labor, which persists today as the dominant form of labor. Further, I am really not sure what you mean by saying communism is “pie in the sky” or that human ambition is in opposition to communism. The manifesto is a pamphlet for agitation, it isn’t really the core of Marxism.

What stretches does Marx make, in your view?

I’d say the first 3 chapters of Capital are the most difficult to get through, but if you can the rest goes pretty smoothly.

Nope, I linked a reputable academic critiquing the very subject.

No? Nobody thinks communists are right-wing, and the concept of “authoritarianism” is itself disputed.

The utter lack of any upvotes means you have no supporters here. Simple as that.

No idea what you’re referring to, considering you only have downvotes in this thread and 0 upvotes. Demonstrably, my persuasion has been more effective, considering I have cited every major claim I’ve made, while you’ve dodged every single argument I’ve presented.