How does Karl Marx’s political vision, views, or advocacy differ from communism as realized in places like Soviet Russia?

Question

Since learning a bit more about Marxism, the question has been opened in my mind, to what extent a common perception of what a communist society is supposed to be like - for example, the USSR - is something that matches what Karl Marx himself actually explicitly discussed in his theoretical writings.

I believe, for example, there is a quote that is commonly falsely attributed to Marx: “The last thing the capitalist will sell us is the rope we hang him with,” or something. In other words, it is at least possible that something bordering on “McCarthyism” has affected modern public understanding and perception of Marxism, perhaps at least in the Western world - possibly, through straw man arguments, what is decried and dispelled as “Marxism” is not actually what Karl Marx said or advocated. Thus, Marxism may be vilified, but unjustly, because the thing that is being countered may be bad, but it may not be (authentically) “Marxism”.

Since leaning towards this conviction, I have been forced to acknowledge that I really don’t know very much, either about what Marx actually wrote, as well as what communist states that arose were actually like. It is possible that Marx’s political leanings may have been more in that direction than I realize.

So, what is the disparity between “Marxism” vs. “communism”, as commonly known? How similar or different are they really? With textual evidence, what can we know Marx actually believed or advocated?

By far the most important thing in answers to this question is textual evidence. Please show what Karl Marx actually wrote, in addition to what orchestrators of communist states, like Lenin or Mao, actually wrote, or actual laws or policies they had.

Answer 1

Some variation of "the capitalists will sell us the rope we hang them with" is attributed to Lenin (1870-1924), the Soviet leader, although brief research on my part suggests this is only reported anecdotally through other sources who claimed to have heard Lenin speak.

The general concept itself though - of things containing some force or tendency which can contribute to its own harm - isn't original. Lenin's quote is a twist on an earlier one attributed to Hegel (1770-1831): "every civilization contains the seeds of its own destruction".

The most modern example of this theme is probably China's seizure of the world's manufacturing economy from the liberal West, by offering Western capitalists larger profits to offshore to China than when they were previously compelled to employ their local working class.

The more general question of how communist regimes differ from Marx's (and Engels') personal vision is probably a more appropriate topic for a volume of written works than a Q&A.

Marx was only one thinker however, and whilst his writings on critical analysis of capitalism continue to be held in regard (even by intellectual proponents of capitalism), his prescriptions for change were really quite vague, and much larger bodies of people subsequently have actually devised practical details of "communist" regimes.

Those like Lenin only claimed to be inspired by Marx, rather than following a detailed blueprint left by Marx, so that contrasting the two presupposes they each produced something that could be compared on equal terms.

In reality, contrasts often take the form of comparing the practical behaviour of the Soviet regime (for example) with only some general principle derived from the writings of Marx.

Not really very dissimilar to how "the teachings of Jesus" are always either on the side of a protagonist of Christianity, or how an antagonist of Christianity can always find deep and irreconcilable contradictions in the same teachings, but no sensible person attempts to put Jesus on the hook either for describing exactly the society we live in today, or for all its perceived failings.

Answer 2

Karl Marx described Communism in his works. That was built in Soviet Russia is Socialism that is a different order, even if it was presented as the transitional stage (that never ended).

Communism as described in the "Manifest" includes abolishement of money, abolishement of the family institution, no nationalities, no right of inheritance and some other very radical steps that were not implemented. Socialism is no longer Capitalism but retains more similarly. While services like health, education and transportation were free or cheap, there were still money and salaries. Family was not touched. One single party remained, it should be no any under Communism. Worker and peasant classes even officially also remained.

The differences between these two societies seem well defined in Lenin's works. Soviet Union never claimed it has built exactly Communism, addressing the mentioned differences itself.

Answer 3

Marx's basic understanding of the world is that large-scale social problems arise from a condition in which a particular class of people exercises control over the means of production, reducing all other classes of people to a dependency akin to slavery. For a clear (but over-simplified) example, we might appreciate the old saw: "If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day; if you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". That's fair enough, but Marx would suggest that some class of people will hear that and immediately go out and secure control over all the bodies of water where someone might fish. They might buy them up and then charge admission (in the capitalist model), or seize them by force and grant licenses for a tithe (the feudal model), but in either case the people who were taught how to fish (the fisherman class) is entirely dependent on the will and grace of the people who control the fishing spots (the owner class). This leads inevitable to exploitation and abuses, because these people must fish to live, and so must do what is asked of them for the privilege of access.

So, Marx's political vision was to establish world without socioeconomic classes, so that there were no choke-points where one might be subject to another's domination merely to be allowed to produce. This (somewhat utopian) vision is Marxism proper (or sometimes Marxist communism). It doesn't specify what the means of production are, or how they are administered without classes; it merely suggests that when class structures are erased, many, many social problems are erased with them.

Socialism for Marx was a post-capitalist stage, not a goal in itself. Marx saw socialism as a condition where private ownership of the means of production is taken over by the state, so that the state acts as a class in the name of laborers. Marx assumed (arguably correctly, looking at history) that however earnest the initial socialist state was in preserving the interests of laborers, it would eventually develop into a monolithic capitalist class of its own, as though a single corporation had taken over all industry. This would lead to further revolution(s) as these socialist classes were removed and replaced with different proxies for the laboring class. This would continue until class itself was dissipated, and people stopped trying to divide into dominance groups. Lenin knew this, but decided that it was time to actively push for a socialist state (instead of waiting for a proletarian uprising). Mao came to a similar conclusion, but settled own a more corporatist/communist model (given the differing conditions in China.

So Russia prior to WWII, and the USSR afterwards, followed a pure socialist model, nationalizing industry and treating the entire population as 'employees' that the state was to look out for. This rapidly deteriorated into an authoritarian class system under Stalin. China, by contrast, organized its many remote, impoverished villages into communes, and designed its state apparatus along corporate lines, leading to its current party-class structure (tantamount to a diversified single owner capitalist system). Neither of these would satisfy Marx, since neither effectively removed class structures from society.