4 ms·

Most revolutions replicate what they rebel against. Marxism was just an extension of French Revolution logic (1789) and not surprisingly, has followed a similar

Most revolutions replicate what they rebel against. Marxism was just an extension of French Revolution logic (1789) and not surprisingly, has followed a similar path: executions, social engineering, fanatical militarism and finally internal turmoil brings it down.

Volpe 13y ago
Except the largest country (by population) in the world is a product of that line of thinking.. So where is the "internal turmoil brings it down" happening?
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  China is not communist though, it's state capitalism.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    State corporatism.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    China is also not internally very harmonious, which is why the Chinese military is focused mostly inward rather than outward.
  - Volpe 13y ago
    State capitalism... you really want to go down the rabbit hole of language semantics. So it's capitalism where all the money goes to the state, which is the government, which is the people... which is exactly what "communism" is. If you think of a "commune" as a "corporation", then it's almost identical. I'd be happy to see the arguement, that they are a pretty bad communist state, and they don't allocate their money too well, and they (like every other country) have problems with corruption. But "they are not communist" is just as valid as "the US is not a democracy" (Technically it's kind of true, but it isn't useful as a discussion point). My point is, Communism is pretty much just as popular as democracy... so saying it's died, is just being ignorant.
    - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
      > So it's capitalism where all the money goes to the state, which is the government, which is the people... which is exactly what "communism" is. If you think of a "commune" as a "corporation", then it's almost identical. Not it's not. It's called state capitalism because the state interferes directly on the market, instead of abolishing corporations and capital. It's a different kind of regime, that allows China to be inserted in a free market world without making the communist party lose control of the country.
      - Volpe 13y ago
        So you have a new name for a communist country... That doesn't change the fact the old one exists still... So I can say: America isn't a democracy, because it's an oligarchy. (This statement isn't true, but is equivalent to yours). China achieves it's communism, through state capitalism... Or is that not a true scotsman... I mean communist? Communism hasn't died, Chinese officials still study Marx and Mao, and it is well and truly part of the Chinese propaganda message. There is still a large picture of Mao hanging in Beijing, and the leaders constantly profess to be Marxists... But of course, how could I think that communism is still alive!?
oscargrouch 13y ago
You are making the classical mistake, equalizing Marxism to the political scene executed by the Soviet Union.. The marxism is much more sophisticated and deep; I think maybe trotsky could make a better socialism.. but even than probably away from the Marx vision But you know, politicians will always think about their own selves in the end of the day, no matter what they say, as long people believe in them.. So, in the day we have real altruistic people on power, things might change for the better... Socialism requires a much more sophisticated politician type. But let me make clear, that i dont defend pure left or pure right.. if nature teach us something is decentralization and and micro-management.. If a government has the tendency to concentrate power, its like a dead body to the crows... it will seduce only the people with fetish for power, and control over the lives and destinies of others.. Thats why the history of world politics has been a greek drama where the weak(and sadly the majority) always lose in the end
- gaius 13y ago
  No you are making the classical mistake of thinking the combination of Marxism and human nature can play out any other way. The Sovs even knew this themselves, hence their trying to create New Soviet Man (and predictably failing).
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    Except, of course, for the fact that the attempt to create the New Capitalist Man has been every bit as much a failure, but we all pretend it's been a wild success because that's the ideology our rulers demand.
    - oscargrouch 13y ago
      Your well made point, make a pretty depressing observation that we still live under the Positivism umbrella (adored and used by "our rulers") where role-models serve as "guide" to shape ordinary people by the owners of the institutions of power at their own will, so they can be easily manipulated. Our society doesnt even get into the Nietzsche philosophical level were we are free of this State+Capital controlled lobotomization ideology where human beings are far away from their freedom and humanity.. which is our fuc$##%ng natural rights for start Its sad that the people that has shaped the last century has listened more to Comte than Nietzsche..

Volpe 13y ago

Except the largest country (by population) in the world is a product of that line of thinking.. So where is the "internal turmoil brings it down" happening?

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
China is not communist though, it's state capitalism.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  State corporatism.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  China is also not internally very harmonious, which is why the Chinese military is focused mostly inward rather than outward.
- Volpe 13y ago
  State capitalism... you really want to go down the rabbit hole of language semantics. So it's capitalism where all the money goes to the state, which is the government, which is the people... which is exactly what "communism" is. If you think of a "commune" as a "corporation", then it's almost identical. I'd be happy to see the arguement, that they are a pretty bad communist state, and they don't allocate their money too well, and they (like every other country) have problems with corruption. But "they are not communist" is just as valid as "the US is not a democracy" (Technically it's kind of true, but it isn't useful as a discussion point). My point is, Communism is pretty much just as popular as democracy... so saying it's died, is just being ignorant.
  - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
    > So it's capitalism where all the money goes to the state, which is the government, which is the people... which is exactly what "communism" is. If you think of a "commune" as a "corporation", then it's almost identical. Not it's not. It's called state capitalism because the state interferes directly on the market, instead of abolishing corporations and capital. It's a different kind of regime, that allows China to be inserted in a free market world without making the communist party lose control of the country.
    - Volpe 13y ago
      So you have a new name for a communist country... That doesn't change the fact the old one exists still... So I can say: America isn't a democracy, because it's an oligarchy. (This statement isn't true, but is equivalent to yours). China achieves it's communism, through state capitalism... Or is that not a true scotsman... I mean communist? Communism hasn't died, Chinese officials still study Marx and Mao, and it is well and truly part of the Chinese propaganda message. There is still a large picture of Mao hanging in Beijing, and the leaders constantly profess to be Marxists... But of course, how could I think that communism is still alive!?

oscargrouch 13y ago

You are making the classical mistake, equalizing Marxism to the political scene executed by the Soviet Union.. The marxism is much more sophisticated and deep; I think maybe trotsky could make a better socialism.. but even than probably away from the Marx vision But you know, politicians will always think about their own selves in the end of the day, no matter what they say, as long people believe in them.. So, in the day we have real altruistic people on power, things might change for the better... Socialism requires a much more sophisticated politician type. But let me make clear, that i dont defend pure left or pure right.. if nature teach us something is decentralization and and micro-management.. If a government has the tendency to concentrate power, its like a dead body to the crows... it will seduce only the people with fetish for power, and control over the lives and destinies of others.. Thats why the history of world politics has been a greek drama where the weak(and sadly the majority) always lose in the end

gaius 13y ago
No you are making the classical mistake of thinking the combination of Marxism and human nature can play out any other way. The Sovs even knew this themselves, hence their trying to create New Soviet Man (and predictably failing).
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Except, of course, for the fact that the attempt to create the New Capitalist Man has been every bit as much a failure, but we all pretend it's been a wild success because that's the ideology our rulers demand.
  - oscargrouch 13y ago
    Your well made point, make a pretty depressing observation that we still live under the Positivism umbrella (adored and used by "our rulers") where role-models serve as "guide" to shape ordinary people by the owners of the institutions of power at their own will, so they can be easily manipulated. Our society doesnt even get into the Nietzsche philosophical level were we are free of this State+Capital controlled lobotomization ideology where human beings are far away from their freedom and humanity.. which is our fuc$##%ng natural rights for start Its sad that the people that has shaped the last century has listened more to Comte than Nietzsche..