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 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 understood the proletariat knew what to do with them and, thus, proposed that, to eliminate alienation, their skill of converting inorganic matter into some thing and the type of consciousness created by such conversion activities were the reasons they should perform a dictatorship. Though attempted applications of his 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 and, awkwardly, Marx did absolutely nothing radical about capital (he understood confiscation). 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. 

       Studied leaders did not possess the skill set that Marx admired -- 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 them to perceive of peasants as obstacles than it was for them to acknowledge that they were not industrialists (and a useful topic for future research is considering what actual industrialists might have done differently about interacting with their fellow citizens who were peasants). 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.

​​

*Research is ongoing to discover even one country that actually had a Marxist experience (instead of recuperating from trying). Countries like Russia, China and Tanzania, had profoundly illiterate populations. It is considered here unlikely that a peasant would have had access to Marx's complete works to recognize that, per Marx's own logic and treatment of history, Europe's process of  capital accumulation actually demonstrated Europe had caught up with sub-Saharan Africa where a currency already might have been a commodity and used for employing large numbers of people (Marx thought he had discovered something new). Marx either ignored, was unaware of, or did not understand, documents available while he was alive that documented this fact. Lack of comprehension is not unlikely since he also, consistently, used the word capitalism when he meant to refer to large-scale industry. There are many reasons to exercise caution when reading Marx's works (a major reason being that he did not really understand...capital).​  All the gold in Africa did not result in an industrial revolution and had Marx studied ideas perhaps he might have offered something intelligent for intellectual consumption instead of promoting mere plunder (for which plenty of evidence in the literature exists). 'Systematic, well-organized and planned' importation of brains and technology are promoted as the reason for economic growth in the Soviet milieu and not the gulag method and 'whips and cookies' (Https://exp.idk.ru 2024, Gsovski 1951) that appealed to the individual ambitions of individuals who could not manage human resources much less industrialization.​

_____________________________________________________________________________________