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 believed alienation was a result of only receiving a wage in exchange for labor over inorganic matter and converting it into some thing.  Marx admired the type of consciousness created by such conversion activities and its possession was the reason he promoted the proletariat (not peasants) to 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. Marx should have based his theorizing on a definition of human and not his inorganic matter fetish because, just like Einstein, an individual’s thoughts might be their own precious form of capital not made of inorganic matter and not created by profit (Who would want their thought time frittered away?). Marx's erroneous understanding of capital sent his disciples over a conceptual cliff and one easily imagines staff at the U.S.S.R. State Bank rolling their eyes when Stalin opened his mouth to talk about capital. 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--it was suited for Marx's private fiefdom.

    Stalin cheered peasants on the road to their own revolution (Stalin March 1906) and he proclaimed that the "socialist programme only accommodated proletarian demands" (Stalin March 29, 1906). Lenin informed that heavy industry "is the main basis of socialism" (Lenin 1922) and Mao announced "Marxism-Leninism tells us that the working people are the creators of social wealth…we must depend on the creative power of the working class" (Mao 1963). In the Arusha Declaration of 1967, Nyerere presented Tanzania as a nation of peasants who could be asked to work harder. Clearly, Marx's opinion about the social value of peasants and agriculture trickled down into their practice and, unfortunately for peasants, they also shared Marx's ignorance about industry.  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. ​​​

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

​​​​​​​​

*Research is ongoing to discover even one country that actually had a Marxist experience instead of recuperating from trying. For the current volume underway, Who Had a Marxist Experience? by Erickson and Klein, leaders of 100 countries 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.​

                                   Considering Trotsky's statement as a practitioner ‘the actual teaching of Marx is the theoretical

                                   formula of action, of aggression, of development of revolutionary energy' (Trotsky 1921:156), and

                                   combining it with Marx's Theory of Alienation and his personal glorification of one type of work, it

                                   can be accurately concluded that after the third week of October 1917 and having unleashed all

                                   that aggression Lenin and Stalin’s personal Marxist experience was over because they did not

                                   possess the consciousness required to treat inorganic matter nor could they lead industrialization.

-                                 They could not purvey the intended Marxist experience.  For Stalin, and everyone he presumed to

                                   be Marxist-competent to lead, this lasted until the first week of March 1953. The review of leaders

                                   of 100 countries, leaders purportedly aligned with the school of thought, demonstrated most of

                                   them were more intellectually like Marx and not like what Marx admired. In this volume, Marx's

                                   Labor Theory of Value is corrected from within Marxism itself, on Marx's terms, and Marx should

                                   have done it himself. In addition, special consideration is given to Marx's conclusion that

                                              labor that manipulates inorganic matter is superior, useful, labor having

                                                  value precisely because it embodies itself into inorganic matter.

​                                   Had Marx courageously followed through with his own logic, he would have resolved an Inorganic

                                   Matter Theory of Value instead. In his theory, Marx returned man to a state of nature to acquire

                                   inorganic matter by wrestling with a Sovereign but Marx never stated how that Sovereign, then,

                                   informed him about the value of what belongs to it. This mysterious value cannot be

                                   accommodated in the component revenue or the component cost.

​​

                                  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.