Rascal said:
The problem with the teachings of Marx is that so few actually understand them and quickly confuse what they actually are with totalitarianist Soviet
Marxism is democrat.
Actually that's Bollocks Marx was committed to revolution what is democratic about that?
Also Marxism was based on a totally false premiss
"He was wrong to predict that history would take us to the inevitable triumph of the proletariat and then stop. History shows no signs of doing either. Marx was also wrong to suggest that this would happen first in the most advanced economies as the final stage of capitalism. In fact such revolutions as came took place in less developed economies such as Russia and China. It has not happened in the advanced economies, and this could be because Marx was wrong about something else.
He predicted that capitalism would drive down wages to survival level before its final denouement. In fact as economies became more advanced, both wages and living standards rose to levels not even dreamt of in Marx’s day, and this seems to have lowered the pressure for revolutionary change.
Marx was also wrong about something more fundamental. He was wrong about change. I don’t just mean that he was wrong about the changes that would come about; more fundamentally he was wrong about how change takes place. He took the Hegelian model of change.
To Hegel change comes about through staccato triangles. A state of affairs nurtures its opposite, and from the violent clash between the two a new state of affairs emerges. Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis. Violence is at the core of it, and hence Marx’s commitment to revolution."
As someone once said about Marxism
"Any man who has not become a Marxist by the time he is 20 doesn't have a Heart. If he is still a Marxist at the age of 40, he doesn't have a Brain!!"
For me that sums up this ludicrous doctrine perfectly sounds good but just cannot ever be made to work in the real world,