I have pointed out, I'm aware Marxism is not a utopian theory describing how the perfect state would operate in practice. But it is not a mere thought experiment for philosophy classrooms either. It is a philosophy that has consequences for the real world, and implementations. In fact it swept through large areas of the world, and caused large political transformation, because it is very powerful.
Marxism cannot, by definition, cannot have implementations as it is not a set of proposals to be implemented but rather a critique of the economy, class, society etc. with little to no prescriptive content. There's nothing to be implemented, and it didn't cause political transformation--political transformation was caused by the real-life movements and their struggles. That's a pretty crucial Marxist point. It's also interesting to note how the theoretical apologia produced by states born out of a counter-revolution (say, the USSR) was notoriously anti-communist and opposed to Marx himself, e.g. Stalin recognizing capitalism in the USSR but claiming it was somehow on a vague, undefined 'socialist' limbo that is diametrically opposed to Marxist theory, the very separation of 'socialism' and 'communism' into distinct modes of production or phases, the claim (echoed by Mao) that class struggle would intensify under socialism, Mao's sudden discovery of the revolutionary potential of the peasantry (again, completely opposed to the Marxist understanding of the peasantry and an obvious excuse for the lack of a Chinese proletariat at the time, since they had been killed in the Shanghai massacre earlier, a massacre brought about in part due to the CPC's collaboration with the KMT). So even in the realm of ideas themselves, the theory produced under those societies was actually in direct contrast with Marxist theory.
because Marxism is mostly based on resentment and false ideas about human nature.
Uh, what? What resentment? The historical importance of Marxism was precisely that it broke with the moralistic memery that made up what they called petty-bourgeois socialism, the utopianism that campaigned for a misguided notion of 'socialism' as an ideal to be established, without really understanding how capitalism functioned or the real meaning of class. That's what the term scientific socialism referred to: a scientific understanding of capitalism and the socialist movement from its real premises, doing away with moralistic abstractions. What Marx was doing was developing a critique of capitalism, not putting forward an alternative current of economics, which is why so-called Marxian economists are simply social democratic charlatans. What are these false ideas of human nature?
A false, or at least incomplete, historical analysis. A historical analysis that makes false resentful conclusions, and false social constructivist conclusions.
What exactly is false about it? Historical materialism is not anything as sophisticated as it sounds; it's actually quite a lapalissade at its core. Nobody denies that the technological revolution, or the development of the means of production, is conducive to the formation of new classes or that the scope of human possibilities in each epoch is limited by technological development, e.g. you couldn't go to the Moon in 1500 because the existing technology didn't allow you to do so. And what resentful conclusions? That opposing class interests lead to conflict?
So, your point is that philosophical and political theories and ideologies have no real life consequences? Ideas are powerless, because most people are unable to understand them? That's a strange and silly point to make.
Of course not. Ideas do have consequences if they are implemented, but this is in the sense of policies, not of revolutionary social movements, and the scope of feasible policies is itself largely constrained by the material reality of the world. The golden age of social democracy ended and neoliberalism became prominent because of a change in the composition of international capital on various levels, not because a group of pundits willed it. And this isn't some crackpot theory that only Marxists know about; you can read about this one example on any decent history of the Bretton Woods system, for example.
Back on track, my point is that workers don't need a benevolent self-appointed intellectual to explain to them that they are being exploited and they conduct their struggle on the basis of their own class interests, not because of what some theorist wrote. This is, again, quite a basic Marxist position. That one example was meant to illustrate how absurd it was to think that those people didn't have agency or awareness of their condition and acted on the basis of what a German intellectual wrote, in this case because it was very much impossible. There's a point to be made about Marxism as a theory having little to do with Karl Marx the individual, but that's a different conversation.
That 'illiterate working class' became lead by resentful unsuccessful power hungry elites, as usual. I know you are aware of the role of vanguardism in Marxist theory, so this isn't very genuine of you. We still see that elites that chose educations that do not immediately provide much perspective towards material wealth gravitate towards radical leftism for the same reasons.
That's an extremely lazy analysis of the Russian Revolution that doesn't really explain anything. The revolution lost because the international revolution was defeated, the most obvious examples being Germany and Italy, which is what paved the way for the destruction of class power in Russia and the prominence of the bureaucratic center. The Russian working class wasn't tricked (honestly a pretty classist interpretation there), they were physically defeated, and you can see manifestations of this all throughout the 1920s, what with Kronstadt, the disruption of the soviets and all that jazz. The vanguard in Marxism refers to the most advanced section of the class itself, not a group of outsiders that leads the class. For more on this, check out Bordiga, a left communist in the Italian tradition.
Pointing out that ideas have real world effects and implementations doesn't make me an idealist. That's just a truism, and the fact that you disagree strikes me as absurd.
That's not what I was arguing, though. I was specifically criticizing your notion that ideas were responsible for political change or the construction of societies in a certain way. That is the opinion that ideas shape the conditions of the world, rather than the material conditions of the world giving rise to certain ideas (materialism). I wasn't disputing that ideas have real world effects, but that requires, for example, material, political power for their implementation. Certainly they have consequences, but it's infantile to say that societies are born a certain way because of the ideas that some individuals had, and it neglects to comment on the real agent of that political change, which in this case is actually the whole point of the theory associated with those individuals (Marx and Engels).
The question that is more interesting is where ideas originate. Are there innate ideas, archetypes, a human nature, or are there just socially constructed ideas with the intent of furthering the interests of the powerful and the privileged? I think both are true, but you probably completely go for option two.
I wouldn't, for a couple of reasons. For one, I don't subscribe to 'mechanical materialism' of the Feuerbachian kind (and neither did Marx and Engels); I think there's interplay between the material and the ideal, as I said above. There's also the issue that analyzing history on the basis of the "powerful and privileged" tends to tie right into the liberal "1%" rhetoric, which is devoid of any class analysis and fails to understand the connection of things like class and race issues, for example, opting to speak in moralistic memes instead. I know what you mean and it does exist, but it's more related to 'woke leftism' of the r/socialism type than any kind of proper socialist analysis.
Ideas have people, just like people have ideas, in a way. People can be possessed by ideas. And yes, ideas arise in a historical context. But people are also responsible for how they consciously handle their ideas.
But some ideas are innate, or have shown themselves to not be the mere protectors of privilege, but the foundation of the success of Western civilization, and we can't change them every way we want, and transform human nature any way we want, or we'll destabilize and disrupt society and cause utter chaos.
It's obvious that humans have unique problems and you can see the different treatments of them throughout history, but that's more to do with the human condition, self-awareness and self-reflective capacities than any political persuasion per se. Communists don't deny innate human dispositions and I consider capitalism antithetical to it. You can see this in the way producers are alienated from their product and forced into largely collectivist associations wherein they are stripped of individuality--the individuality advocated under capitalism is, paradoxically, advertised through collective schemes of mass consumption and is only attained by a limited portion of society to the detriment of a large section, which is deprived of it, not to mention the maintenance of private property being anti-social and requiring violent structures to perpetuate itself. People like Oscar Wilde and Adorno pointed out this individualistic facet of emancipation and I'm inclined to agree with them. It's not a matter of transforming human nature any way we want, but more of an issue of seeing that it doesn't make much sense as a political concept most of the time, judging from the different dispositions of humankind faced with different conditions. I mean, I can find things written not that long ago to justify the divine right of kings through the concept of human nature, so evidently it tends to mean whatever one wants it to mean in political discourse and, again, doesn't describe anything substantially.