The obscure field of study regarding Marxist theory and its impact on the agricultural sector is sparsely populated and understandably uncelebrated. Attempted applications of Marxism perfectly raise the general question of the purpose of government and the specific question of whether its purpose should be to manage the labor power of citizens; certainly associating citizens in relation to the State by way of their vocational functionality (and as peasants or proletariat) simplified citizen identity for Marxism-inspired leaders. Although reducing complexity, it made practice tragically characterized by antagonizing peasants. Representatively as old examples, though admiring Marxist thought Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao and Nyerere actually corrupted Marxist practice* since it does not provide theoretical justification for collectivization of, or any agricultural appropriations from, peasants -- for Marx, labor over organic matter did not cause alienation. Marx's Theory of Alienation supported appropriation of means of production treating inorganic matter. He believed alienation was a result of only receiving a wage in exchange for labor over inorganic matter.
Though attempted applications of Marx's ideas legitimized his 1867 opinion about the superiority of labor over inorganic matter, appreciation of a type of work is not an appropriate foundation for a political science theory for the public (it was suited for Marx's private fiefdom). Marx should have based his theorizing on a definition of human and not on his inorganic matter fetish and this error of his logic reappeared in commentary such as Mao's when Mao claimed someone would reject Marxism because of the class they were assigned to by Marxists (Mao April-June 1938). That was an absurd comment and it was a direct result of choosing to ignore that humans possess a unique method of reasoning that they apply to their activities regardless of who they are, regardless of where they are, regardless if they work with inorganic or organic matter or intangible theory. Even for Marx's or Mao's era the conclusion is surprising.
Marx did absolutely nothing radical about capital; Marxism has no applicability to capital creation in theory or practice and this non-commercial website regards study of the political malpractice inspired in particular, by way of practitioners not being compliant with their own theory and, in general, by way of the philosophy not being appropriate for public governance. Per the skill set that Marx admired, for leaders it was not enough to not be a peasant and not enough to be a worker. Marx admired the type of consciousness Sergei Korolev possessed not Stalin's and a preponderance of facts support the conclusion that mentioned leaders erred by deciding they were fit to govern states theoretically based on Marxism, facts also derived from what they wrote. Obviously, it was easier for many of them to perceive of peasants as obstacles than it was for them to acknowledge that they were not industrialists.
As a current example, the People's Republic of China is not Marxist because President Xi says it is, it would be Marxist if governed by industrialists. President Xi would do many people a great favor if he sponsored submitting Karl Marx's labor theory of value and Marx's (supposedly) mathematical conclusion 'the measure of the expenditure of labour power by the duration of that expenditure, takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labour’ (Marx 1867) to public peer review since, if Marx's theories are still appropriate, then let us all know why Marx's pseudo-scientific approach and pseudo-math are acceptable to scientists and mathematicians. Even for Marx's era, Marx's approach was not scientific and his mentioned math only seems mathematical--why are these obvious errors at the foundation of Marx's theories still acceptable?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*For the current volume underway, Who Had a Marxist Experience? by Erickson and Klein, top leaders of 100 countries from 1891 to 2025 were reviewed (non-executives excluded) to determine if they were/are qualified Marxist leaders. Survey participants can down load the ideology-related trauma survey here and have until 14 February 2026 to return them.
This review of leaders purportedly aligned with the school of thought demonstrated
most of them were more intellectually like Marx and not like what Marx admired.
Recent books in the Baggage, Baskets, Caskets and Cribs series:
Baggage, Baskets, Caskets and Cribs, an Introduction to Political Science Theory. Vol. I.
Available at the University of Dar es Salaam Dr. Wilbert K. Chagula Library, University of Namibia
Library, Stanford University Auxiliary Library SAL-3, University of Amsterdam Library, Japan
International Cooperation Agency (国際協力機構) Library, the National Repository Library
(Varastokirjasto) of Finland, and in private collections.
Small Plot Angst in the Marxist Milieu (小农田块和官僚的焦虑在⻢克思主义的 社会环境),Vol. II,
with foreword by Pamela Klein.
Available at the University of Tehran Central Library, National Repository Library (Varastokirjasto) of
Finland, and in private collections.
Spiritual Agricultural Economics of Marxism-inspired Practice, Vol. III,
with co-author Pamela Klein, and review by Denise Millard.
Available at the Japan International Cooperation Agency (国際協力機構) Library and in private
collections.
Eating Through Marxist Dreams. Supplemental text of recipes for the Baggage, Baskets, Caskets
and Cribs series.
Available in private collections.
The following works can be cited as:
Erickson, T. (2020). Stalin's Frustration and Irresistible Forces. Author.
Erickson, T. (2020). Circumscissilians. Author.
Erickson, T. (2021). Engels Pandered To Marx. Author.
Erickson, T. (2023). Bibi's Resignation, an Example for Today. Author.