Yeah? Authoritarian regimes tend to treat the people like slaves. This should not be shocking.

...don't forget about the Marxist corporation comprised of WEF leaders to control said governments

The US trying to get rid of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjjTCxI0OjE

The idea is that the people are the government. It´s like in a democracy. The government is not above You, but sadly many people think they are.

I am aware of the idea, i am also aware of application, because it never fits the ideology. There's always gonna be leadership. It's impossible for everyone to be a leader equally or to over see everything distributed equally.

In general , people who want to redistribute wealth, want other people property distributed, but not their own, the crux of Marxism

Well, pedantically, corporate control requires corporations and corporatism. In orthodox Marxism, there are no corporations. That authoritarian or totalitarian strains of Marxism result in corporate-like control, enslavement, etc, is just a feature of dictatorship as a whole and part of that whole horseshoe of horrors. Go in the direction of tyranny and you will always end up as the same monster you once supposedly opposed.

Outside of petty semantics though, there's nothing you're wrong on to prove you wrong over (other than that obviously, libertarian and democratic forms of Marxism aren't going to have this problem, they instead have other ones, like heated arguments over the pamphlet budget).

So you're basically right and the nuance and details aren't worth arguing over on this silly platform.

But what I will add: since you brought up corporate-like structures in Marxist regimes, etc etc... How about the opposite? Marxist or communist-like structures in corporations. For example, when companies get large enough to be roughly as powerful as the average nation-state, when they have their fingers in more pies than you can count, they have a tendency to bring as much as they can under their own centralised economic structure. For example, the logistics systems of Amazon or Walmart were originally outsourced to other companies (and still are in some places to a minor degree) but in absolutely every place they can, they've brought them under their own central corporate control. They've done the same for everything else they can centralize under their own power. Which is the mirror image of a standard Communist regime's command economy!

There isn't much to prove as Marxism died with the USSR. The few that remain are irrelevant on the world stage. It's almost like newer generations are jealous they never got to bash marxism like older ones. Having said that, it's about government control, not corporate, based on central planning that never worked, which is why it failed.

引用自 SympliKrazi：

In general , people who want to redistribute wealth, want other people property distributed, but not their own, the crux of Marxism

Hmm - how did the other people get to their property?

You might notice that in the Nuremberg trials none of the rich business people was punished really. Even if they financed the Nazis, and made good use of the "free" laborers. In certain companies those would live only a couple of days, because You don´t really need to feed them, because nobody cares if they die or not.

And after the war - till this day - those families are among the richest in the country.

The system is rigged, when it´s about earning money with money. Like the rich people will become ever richer, and the poor people stay poor. The gap is growing bigger. Which is what we see since a couple of decades. Because the original ideas of keeping it somewhat fair don´t apply any more.

And something like communism is the opposite idea to concentrate wealth on a few people. But it doesn´t mean to have some authoritarian government. It´s in fact about having a classless society.

引用自 Despiser：

There isn't much to prove as Marxism died with the USSR. The few that remain are irrelevant on the world stage.

You mean like, China?

Anyhow we do need much "more" socialism than what we have now. I'm not at all for communism, and idt many people want their phones made by the government.

But we have to go back to a more FDR based economy.

inb4 "REAL SOCIALISM/MARXISM was never tried correctly in X country!!!"

no one wants to live under a guy like mao tse tung, stalin, pol pot, or josip tito

引用自 the：

inb4 "REAL SOCIALISM/MARXISM was never tried correctly in X country!!!"

no one wants to live under a guy like mao tse tung, stalin, pol pot, or josip tito

Or that of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Batiste and Trumpo.

But that apparently is where we are. And so, we can afford to go way further Left on economic issues.

We have 66& of Democrats in this country have a more favorable view of Socialism than Capitalism....

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/politics/5529266-democrats-socialism-rise-mainstream/

Well the Democrats are half the country.

And so we are going to have to go "more" socialist in the future, particularly given this pendulum like politics.

引用自 SympliKrazi：

civilians are slaves to the communist leaders, and everything including the citizens is government property in communist and marxist countries. Prove me wrong.

It would be a dangerous world if that were the case do you know how people are selected in the corporate world?
Not one to be answered.
I'd say to research on the corporate world intensely watch stock markets watch the shifts in the corporate structure - all the stuff you don't see on the mainstream news.
See who is being employed and who has just been fired.

UK football teams are a good example of a live "firing" example of the corporate structure.

If a corporation was all about total control it would collapse due to its competitors manoeuvering around the power mad lunatics who wanted Ultimate Control.
No need to mention Marxism at all.

引用自 xBCxRangers：

引用自 Despiser：

There isn't much to prove as Marxism died with the USSR. The few that remain are irrelevant on the world stage.

You mean like, China?

Anyhow we do need much "more" socialism than what we have now. I'm not at all for communism, and idt many people want their phones made by the government.

But we have to go back to a more FDR based economy.

China is communist in name only. Soviets ran a corrupt system loosely based on Marxism. China is some kind of hybrid capitalist authoritarianism where you have considerable freedom provided you are favourable of the regime. Russia operates in much the same way. Just substitute industry for manufacturing.
RW governments are not that different in stripping institutions of power while practicing intense propaganda and rhetoric. These hybrids are present in Hungary, Turkey and USA. These countries share the same authoritarianism mechanics as aforementioned China and Russia to a lesser degree but trending the same way.
Democratic socialism (or centrist) governments like most of Europe, Canada, Australia and a few others are being tested.

引用自 SympliKrazi：

civilians are slaves to the communist leaders, and everything including the citizens is government property in communist and marxist countries. Prove me wrong.

If the government wants they can make a highway where your house is. Capitalism is just a different form of tyranny.

引用自 Pierce Dalton：

引用自 SympliKrazi：

civilians are slaves to the communist leaders, and everything including the citizens is government property in communist and marxist countries. Prove me wrong.

If the government wants they can make a highway where your house is. Capitalism is just a different form of tyranny.

Capitalism didn't murder people for trying to leave or people who 'looked smart' i.e. wore glasses.

It depends on which strain of Marxism that we are talking about as they all had different amounts of success or failures, such as Revisionist Marxism and how it influenced our perception of Capitalism and Orthodox Marxism that failed to, and couldn't at the time, take human nature into account that lead to the eventual rise of new classes in post-revolution societies.