[QUOTE]Nepal’s ruling Nepali Congress has suffered defeat in the parliamentary elections. The country’s left-wing alliance is set to win the landmark vote.
The leftist alliance won 113 seats in Nepal's national parliament while the ruling center-left Nepali Congress party took just 21, the election commission reported on Tuesday.
The leftist alliance, composed of the communist Unified Marxist Leninist and Maoist Centre parties, was also leading in six out of seven newly created provincial assemblies mandated in a new national constitution, which was officially adopted in 2015. This year's elections were the first to be held under the new constitution.
The Unified Marxist Leninist and Maoist Center were in first and second place in the polls and Nepali Congress was coming in at third.
Nepalese Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, who also serves as chairman of Nepali Congress, won his seat from a constituency in western Nepal, but most senior leaders of his party were trounced in the polls.
The country's parliament is composed of 275 seats, 110 of which are allocated on a proportional representation basis. There are also 550 seats across the seven provincial assemblies.
Ram Sharan Mahat, a former finance minister of the Nepali Congress, said the Nepali Congress had suffered losses due to votes being less spread out.
"In earlier elections, votes had been divided among three main parties. But, after their alliance, it became a race between the two," said Mahat. "Our party made several missteps in choosing candidates and presenting an image during the campaign," he said.
The full results from Nepal's mixed electoral system, which includes proportional representation and direct elections, are expected in early January.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.dw.com/en/communist-parties-close-in-on-nepal-election-win/a-41756338[/url]
The scary bit is the maoists because nepal is part of a proxy struggle between india and china, if they are backed by china in any way that could enflame the tensions
I wasn't aware that communism was still a thing that ANYBODY took seriously except like North Korea. I thought that communist parties today were just fronts for heroin cartels
[QUOTE=proboardslol;52976937]I wasn't aware that communism was still a thing that ANYBODY took seriously except like North Korea. I thought that communist parties today were just fronts for heroin cartels[/QUOTE]
Communism is still rather relevant and important as an ideology even today.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;52976937]I wasn't aware that communism was still a thing that ANYBODY took seriously except like North Korea. I thought that communist parties today were just fronts for heroin cartels[/QUOTE]
They [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War"]overthrew[/URL] the 450 year old monarchy back in 2008 and the country's [URL="https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/nepal"]been going downhill[/URL] ever since.
[QUOTE=Griffster26;52977081]They [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War"]overthrew[/URL] the 450 year old monarchy back in 2008 and the country's [URL="https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/nepal"]been going downhill[/URL] ever since.[/QUOTE]
The crown prince drunkenly gunning down almost the whole royal family also took its toll.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;52976937]I wasn't aware that communism was still a thing that ANYBODY took seriously except like North Korea. I thought that communist parties today were just fronts for heroin cartels[/QUOTE]
where have you been in the past few years, bourgie?
[QUOTE=Kecske;52977150]The crown prince drunkenly gunning down almost the whole royal family also took its toll.[/QUOTE]
I was not aware of this event. Reading up on it, that's some shit straight out of a particularly shitty action movie. How the fuck did he still become king after that shit?
[QUOTE=Riller;52977438]I was not aware of this event. Reading up on it, that's some shit straight out of a particularly shitty action movie. How the fuck did he still become king after that shit?[/QUOTE]
I guess they were afraid about people losing their trust in the monarchy as a whole. They needed time, at least until a new ruler was in place. So they initially tried to blame it on some accident, and breaking the line of succession would have brought up too many questions.
I guess dying 4 days later helped too. I missed that bit on my first read of the events.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;52976937]I wasn't aware that communism was still a thing that ANYBODY took seriously except like North Korea. I thought that communist parties today were just fronts for heroin cartels[/QUOTE]
Good job ignoring China and Vietnam
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;52978430]Good job ignoring China and Vietnam[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure they're communist in name only at this point.
China is state capitalist and Vietnam operates on enticing Western companies to set up shop their before slapping on special taxes and seizing their companies.
Watch these fucking tankies become a new ruling class and not achieve anything in the way of proletariat liberation.
[QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;52976969]Communism is still rather relevant and important as an ideology even today.[/QUOTE]
Including stalinist parades in london
[t]http://enacademic.com/pictures/enwiki/77/May_Day_in_London.jpg[/t]
Really says it all doesn't it. "80 million dead from the father and the teacher alone, eh, maybe next time the utopia will happen."
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52978490]Watch these fucking tankies become a new ruling class and not achieve anything in the way of [I]proletariat liberation[/I].[/QUOTE]
i find it bizzare how anyone can actually think this will happen in any capacity.
You want to improve the lives of the working class? Push for capitalism in a supervised/regulated economy like we have in the west. That's directly responsible for the greatest rise in standard of living, workplace conditions, social/political stability and indeed any other desirable outcome ever witnessed. And an order of magnitude greater in every regard than any other system ever tried. Whereas the "proletariat liberation" has done nothing but make things worse than literally any other social system, again, by an order of magnitude. Because hey, as it turns out, predicating your utopia on the destruction/liquidation of a "social class" doesn't work so good. You can't destroy your way upwards, and you can't kill your way to social well being. Show me a place where the working man is freer, happier and healthier than under capitalism, and show me a place where he is more beaten, wounded, emaciated, destitute and oppressed than under the glorious dictatorship of the proletariat.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52978490]Watch these fucking tankies become a new ruling class and not achieve anything in the way of proletariat liberation.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much the reason why all attempts at communism have failed so far
[QUOTE=Blackavar;52978597]Pretty much the reason why all attempts at communism have failed so far[/QUOTE]
The main problem lies in "attempting" communism. It's not something that people are supposed to decide to create, it's something that is theorized to happen on its own when the existing system reaches its highest stage. The fact that capitalism keeps evolving and the system rolls on is proof that we haven't seen the highest stage of capitalism and probably won't within our lifetimes. Moreover, Marx would have expected the first "communist revolution" to take place in a very highly-developed country.
The fact that the revolutions that happened in real life took place in underdeveloped and struggling countries like Russia and China basically demonstrate that Lenin and Mao and everyone else "inspired" by the manifesto basically reinterpreted Marx's teachings to put an appealing (at the time) wrapper around the same old power grab. And while they implemented socialism, this didn't actually bring them closer to communism, because communism comes after capitalism. If you can't even do capitalism correctly, then what the hell are you thinking trying to "leap forward?" You're doomed to fall on your face, and that's exactly what happened to all those countries that tried.
To me, the only thing that resembles the roots of real, Marxist communism anywhere in the world is the pitch of "universal basic income" circulating around the best-developed western democracies.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;52978686]The main problem lies in "attempting" communism. It's not something that people are supposed to decide to create, it's something that is theorized to happen on its own when the existing system reaches its highest stage. The fact that capitalism keeps evolving and the system rolls on is proof that we haven't seen the highest stage of capitalism and probably won't within our lifetimes. Moreover, Marx would have expected the first "communist revolution" to take place in a very highly-developed country.
The fact that the revolutions that happened in real life took place in underdeveloped and struggling countries like Russia and China basically demonstrate that Lenin and Mao and everyone else "inspired" by the manifesto basically reinterpreted Marx's teachings to put an appealing (at the time) wrapper around the same old power grab. And while they implemented socialism, this didn't actually bring them closer to communism, because communism comes after capitalism. If you can't even do capitalism correctly, then what the hell are you thinking trying to "leap forward?" You're doomed to fall on your face, and that's exactly what happened to all those countries that tried.
To me, the only thing that resembles the roots of real, Marxist communism anywhere in the world is the pitch of "universal basic income" circulating around the best-developed western democracies.[/QUOTE]
You've hit the nail on the head here, especially with this middle paragraph.
Lenin's idea was that he could take an agrarian state like Russia and "skip" the capitalist stage of societal development that Marx was talking about under the leadership of an enlightened leader like himself. I wouldn't call Lenin just another power hungry despot, however, he did actually do some genuinely good things and was [I]trying[/I], with some very extreme measures, to lead Russia into communism with ultimately good intentions.
The point Marx was making is that eventually, capitalism will collapse under its own weight (which it very much will), and that will lead to communism. He never intended for countries that were basically developing nations suddenly turning into authoritarian one-party states, because the point of a classless society is that there [I]is[/I] no ruling class. Marx's writings were much closer to anarchism than Leninism.
The problem with communism isn't the system itself, but rather the dictators that uses it as a means to get to the top, which isn't very communist tbh
Communism is unneeded in modern world. Nearly everything communists fought for, was accomplished by democratic/capitalistic nations.
Equaloty was achieved in western world, work conditions are higher and better than they were before, there are less tyrannic governments in the world, monarchy was stripped off it's powers.
There's no need for communism, as there are better alternatives.
[QUOTE=Mifil;52978939]Communism is unneeded in modern world. Nearly everything communists fought for, was accomplished by democratic/capitalistic nations.
Equaloty was achieved in western world, work conditions are higher and better than they were before, there are less tyrannic governments in the world, monarchy was stripped off it's powers.
There's no need for communism, as there are better alternatives.[/QUOTE]
Communism isn't an alternative. It's an evolution.
The existence of a truly communist society solely hinges on the idea of an (effectively) post-scarcity economy. An economy where people don't need to exert labor to put food on the table or have a roof over their heads. This obviously, and with necessity, trickles down to the lowest levels, where the cultivation and processing of food and water is wholly automated, and the construction of housing is similarly automated. For a fully post-scarcity economy, the systems that automate these would even be maintained and constructed by similar autonomous systems, to the point where humans are not included in the picture at all, not even as maintainers, programmers, or designers.
To expand the necessary environment for true communism to naturally evolve, all the (major) societies of the world would need to enter a similar state, to the point where there is no incentive to generate artificial scarcity. So long as there is a society that is unable to produce its basic needs, then there will be capitalism - another post-scarcity economy could take their food and water that they produce without human labor, and sell it in a classic capitalist modal to the other scarcity economy that needs it. So long as such a dynamic can exist, true communism cannot.
I'm not trying to argue that such a post-scarcity economy will ever exist. I won't even argue that it [b]can[/b] exist, in full form. And in all the times I've brought this up, I never have. I [b]have[/b] and [b]will[/b] argue that we are closer to post-scarcity than we ever have been before, and I would even argue we're approaching it at a faster rate than we ever have before, but I hold no delusions that post-scarcity is still a very long ways away for this world.
And it may never occur.
But, if it does, then true communism is one possible path that a system like capitalism, a system that requires people to need things they don't have, may evolve into to adapt to the fact that there are no longer people who needs things.
Not the only possible evolution, but it is certainly [b]a[/b] possible evolution.
[QUOTE=Mifil;52978939]Communism is unneeded in modern world. Nearly everything communists fought for, was accomplished by democratic/capitalistic nations.
Equaloty was achieved in western world, work conditions are higher and better than they were before, there are less tyrannic governments in the world, monarchy was stripped off it's powers.
There's no need for communism, as there are better alternatives.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I love that my government is constantly influenced by companies that have amassed enough capital to do so by not paying their workers enough to even survive.
Just look at the Net Neutrality debacle. A vast majority of the informed public wanting something doesn't mean jack shit when telecom companies have basically become gods through exploitation of labor.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;52978686]The main problem lies in "attempting" communism. It's not something that people are supposed to decide to create, it's something that is theorized to happen on its own when the existing system reaches its highest stage. The fact that capitalism keeps evolving and the system rolls on is proof that we haven't seen the highest stage of capitalism and probably won't within our lifetimes. Moreover, Marx would have expected the first "communist revolution" to take place in a very highly-developed country.
The fact that the revolutions that happened in real life took place in underdeveloped and struggling countries like Russia and China basically demonstrate that Lenin and Mao and everyone else "inspired" [B]by the manifesto basically reinterpreted Marx's teachings[/B] to put an appealing (at the time) wrapper around the same old power grab. And while they implemented socialism, this didn't actually bring them closer to communism, because communism comes after capitalism. If you can't even do capitalism correctly, then what the hell are you thinking trying to "leap forward?" You're doomed to fall on your face, and that's exactly what happened to all those countries that tried.
[B]To me, the only thing that resembles the roots of real, Marxist communism anywhere in the world is the pitch of "universal basic income" circulating around the best-developed western democracies.[/B][/QUOTE]
These seem a wee bit, contradictory.
And which highly developed western nations? The one present at his time he supported revolutions in through his involvement in the first international?
[QUOTE=Samiam22;52978716]You've hit the nail on the head here, especially with this middle paragraph.
Lenin's idea was that he could take an agrarian state like Russia and "skip" the capitalist stage of societal development that Marx was talking about under the leadership of an enlightened leader like himself. I wouldn't call Lenin just another power hungry despot, however, he did actually do some genuinely good things and was [I]trying[/I], with some very extreme measures, to lead Russia into communism with ultimately good intentions.
The point Marx was making is that eventually, capitalism will collapse under its own weight (which it very much will), and that will lead to communism. He never intended for countries that were basically developing nations suddenly turning into authoritarian one-party states, because the point of a classless society is that there [I]is[/I] no ruling class. Marx's writings were much closer to anarchism than Leninism.[/QUOTE]
Which explains marx's involvement in the first international, his writings about the dictatorship of the proletariat and transitory stages, and his feud with bakunin.
Marx was not really any much more of an anarchist than lenin, in the grand scheme of things, lenin's contributions to marxism were not that significant aside from further defining certain things. Such as providing an actual dictatorship of the proletariat, as marx calls for. The end-game of both Marx and Lenin was anarchistic communism, but the transitory state is why they are not considered anarchists.
"It's not ready yet" largely just sounds like another cop-out, that will always be utilized to justify away potential issues of communism. It may even be true; but the idea that "the society of the far future might work different" does not have much to do with most contemporary and historical leftism.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52979169]Communism isn't an alternative. It's an evolution.
The existence of a truly communist society solely hinges on the idea of an (effectively) post-scarcity economy. An economy where people don't need to exert labor to put food on the table or have a roof over their heads. This obviously, and with necessity, trickles down to the lowest levels, where the cultivation and processing of food and water is wholly automated, and the construction of housing is similarly automated. For a fully post-scarcity economy, the systems that automate these would even be maintained and constructed by similar autonomous systems, to the point where humans are not included in the picture at all, not even as maintainers, programmers, or designers.
To expand the necessary environment for true communism to naturally evolve, all the (major) societies of the world would need to enter a similar state, to the point where there is no incentive to generate artificial scarcity. So long as there is a society that is unable to produce its basic needs, then there will be capitalism - another post-scarcity economy could take their food and water that they produce without human labor, and sell it in a classic capitalist modal to the other scarcity economy that needs it. So long as such a dynamic can exist, true communism cannot.
I'm not trying to argue that such a post-scarcity economy will ever exist. I won't even argue that it [B]can[/B] exist, in full form. And in all the times I've brought this up, I never have. I [B]have[/B] and [B]will[/B] argue that we are closer to post-scarcity than we ever have been before, and I would even argue we're approaching it at a faster rate than we ever have before, but I hold no delusions that post-scarcity is still a very long ways away for this world.
And it may never occur.
But, if it does, then true communism is one possible path that a system like capitalism, a system that requires people to need things they don't have, may evolve into to adapt to the fact that there are no longer people who needs things.
Not the only possible evolution, but it is certainly [B]a[/B] possible evolution.[/QUOTE]
If this gets advocates for communism to do nothing until a leftcom-type spontaneous revolution occurs and capitalism is replaced with utopia, hey, I guess I have no complaints.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52979477]These seem a wee bit, contradictory.
And which highly developed western nations? The one present at his time he supported revolutions in through his involvement in the first international?
Which explains marx's involvement in the first international, his writings about the dictatorship of the proletariat and transitory stages, and his feud with bakunin.
Marx was not really any much more of an anarchist than lenin, in the grand scheme of things, lenin's contributions to marxism were not that significant aside from further defining certain things. Such as providing an actual dictatorship of the proletariat, as marx calls for. The end-game of both Marx and Lenin was anarchistic communism, but the transitory state is why they are not considered anarchists.
"It's not ready yet" largely just sounds like another cop-out, that will always be utilized to justify away potential issues of communism. It may even be true; but the idea that "the society of the far future might work different" does not have much to do with most contemporary and historical leftism.
If this gets advocates for communism to do nothing until a leftcom-type spontaneous revolution occurs and capitalism is replaced with utopia, hey, I guess I have no complaints.[/QUOTE]
In direct response to what you said to me, it's not a contradiction. Marx claimed that humanity would advance beyond capitalism only at the highest stage, logically, in the most-developed countries. To say, "I can create communism in a developing country" laughs in the face of historical materialism. Universal basic income is a cutting edge policy being discussed in highly-advanced democracies which, to me, seems post-capitalistic.
Marx was a very smart man, but he wasn't a prognosticator, and plenty of his predictions were wrong. He clearly believed that capitalism would collapse in the near future because the capitalism he lived under was very fragile at the time. Corporations were still a new concept, unions were weak or non-existent, and bank runs were fairly common. He was so obsessed with capitalism's flaws that he didn't realize how it could be improved. If he was wrong about the world's readiness for the next step, than Lenin and Mao and the others were even more wrong.
And I don't know what you mean by a "cop out." I like to use an analogy with this stuff. Imagine Marx was a medical doctor. He looks at the history of health and medicine, and realizes that the number of diseases have declined thanks to cures discovered by science, and that life expectancy has increased. He concludes that someday, people will very long, disease-free lives, completely changing the medical profession. He publishes a book which explains to other doctors how to handle this transition when it comes. People start asking, "when will cancer be cured, Marx?" His only answer can be "when it's cured." That never changes, regardless of whether he thought the cure would come quickly or slowly. What matters is what you do once the cure is available.
But yeah, your last statement about "do nothing" is basically correct. Allow the world to progress naturally. If we ever reach the collapse of capitalism, the world won't know how to handle it, and that's why the concept of a vanguard is required. But the whole point is that the world should come to you. You don't go make revolution.
[QUOTE=Mifil;52978939]Communism is unneeded in modern world. Nearly everything communists fought for, was accomplished by democratic/capitalistic nations.
[B]Equaloty was achieved in western world, work conditions are higher and better than they were before, there are less tyrannic governments in the world, monarchy was stripped off it's powers.[/B]
There's no need for communism, as there are better alternatives.[/QUOTE]
Equality and work conditions were and are fight with strikes and other movements inspirated by the left, and due the current events they are far from over these fights as we can lose it in any second due any lobby/corrupt government as we are seeing in america and europe. Dictators went under a cape of "decent capitalism" by covering themselves in propaganda and crushing the poor ( africa and south america ), and the monarchies unaffected by world wars or revolts still strong on both power and corruption ( Thailand or Spain, where they are untouchable ).
The main theory behing communism may be obsolete as it has been written more than a century ago ( I think we can say already a century and half ago ) and the way the world works has changed a lot, but that doesn't mean it can't be updated.
Capitalism is the one who is leaving us into a desperate situation for not being updated, with more inequalty between rich and poor, less freedoms and a ravaged planet. All because it continues considering possible the infinite growing of the economy, ignoring that are finite resources.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;52979744]In direct response to what you said to me, it's not a contradiction. Marx claimed that humanity would advance beyond capitalism only at the highest stage, logically, in the most-developed countries. To say, "I can create communism in a developing country" laughs in the face of historical materialism. Universal basic income is a cutting edge policy being discussed in highly-advanced democracies which, to me, seems post-capitalistic.[/QUOTE]
It's not remotely post-capitalistic. UBI is just a welfare system but it is still within an economy ran by private ownership of the means of production.
It's really only socialist under a liberal's definition of socialism, where any redistribution is seen as a socialist action.
[quote]Marx was a very smart man, but he wasn't a prognosticator, and plenty of his predictions were wrong. He clearly believed that capitalism would collapse in the near future because the capitalism he lived under was very fragile at the time. Corporations were still a new concept, unions were weak or non-existent, and bank runs were fairly common. He was so obsessed with capitalism's flaws that he didn't realize how it could be improved. If he was wrong about the world's readiness for the next step, than Lenin and Mao and the others were even more wrong.
And I don't know what you mean by a "cop out." I like to use an analogy with this stuff. Imagine Marx was a medical doctor. He looks at the history of health and medicine, and realizes that the number of diseases have declined thanks to cures discovered by science, and that life expectancy has increased. He concludes that someday, people will very long, disease-free lives, completely changing the medical profession. He publishes a book which explains to other doctors how to handle this transition when it comes. People start asking, "when will cancer be cured, Marx?" His only answer can be "when it's cured." That never changes, regardless of whether he thought the cure would come quickly or slowly. What matters is what you do once the cure is available.[/quote]
That may not be directed to you then. But instead, people in the OP, and those who fight for socialism/communism today. They are always ready to throw up many excuses, "we weren't ready is one," with us being presumably ready the next time they try to revolt in a way that fundamentally changes economics itself.
Marx doesn't really tell us much about what to do when the transition comes anyhow. In the bulk of his work he establishes marxian economics, his philosophy including things like historical materialism, and advocates and criticizes contemporary movements.
[quote]But yeah, your last statement about "do nothing" is basically correct. Allow the world to progress naturally. If we ever reach the collapse of capitalism, the world won't know how to handle it, and that's why the concept of a vanguard is required. But the whole point is that the world should come to you. You don't go make revolution.[/quote]
Waiting does not seem to really be the point in their writings. Historical materialism suggests that internal contradictions would enable the collapse, but people still have to actually do something. In time, socialists noted that capitalism was becoming more stable, and stronger, not weaker. That's where vanguardism really picked up in popularity.
It could be the point now if people want it to be, socialists abandoning Marx for something more useful and hopefully empirical would be nice.
[QUOTE=Maestro Fenix;52980043]All because it continues [B]considering possible the infinite growing of the economy[/B], ignoring that are finite resources.[/QUOTE]
This is one of those things I see claimed so much and used to say myself but I've never seen it actually proven.
Is malthus being taken a little too literally or something
Thanks for the replies. I guess I have to study communist/socialist ideologies more.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52979169]Communism isn't an alternative. It's an evolution.
The existence of a truly communist society solely hinges on the idea of an (effectively) post-scarcity economy. An economy where people don't need to exert labor to put food on the table or have a roof over their heads. This obviously, and with necessity, trickles down to the lowest levels, where the cultivation and processing of food and water is wholly automated, and the construction of housing is similarly automated. For a fully post-scarcity economy, the systems that automate these would even be maintained and constructed by similar autonomous systems, to the point where humans are not included in the picture at all, not even as maintainers, programmers, or designers.
To expand the necessary environment for true communism to naturally evolve, all the (major) societies of the world would need to enter a similar state, to the point where there is no incentive to generate artificial scarcity. So long as there is a society that is unable to produce its basic needs, then there will be capitalism - another post-scarcity economy could take their food and water that they produce without human labor, and sell it in a classic capitalist modal to the other scarcity economy that needs it. So long as such a dynamic can exist, true communism cannot.
I'm not trying to argue that such a post-scarcity economy will ever exist. I won't even argue that it [b]can[/b] exist, in full form. And in all the times I've brought this up, I never have. I [b]have[/b] and [b]will[/b] argue that we are closer to post-scarcity than we ever have been before, and I would even argue we're approaching it at a faster rate than we ever have before, but I hold no delusions that post-scarcity is still a very long ways away for this world.
And it may never occur.
But, if it does, then true communism is one possible path that a system like capitalism, a system that requires people to need things they don't have, may evolve into to adapt to the fact that there are no longer people who needs things.
Not the only possible evolution, but it is certainly [b]a[/b] possible evolution.[/QUOTE]
This is a bit of a whitewashed view of communism, really. For a very long while, communism was explicitly an alternative to the status quo. It was an outright rejection of the prevailing capitalist world order. It was revolutionary - not evolutionary. Also, pinning communism to "post-scarcity" really doesn't reflect the realities of communist ideology when it was a major influence - there was no requirement for a "post-scarcity" economy in Marx or Engels or Lenin. That's a modern re-imagination of communism. It's also not a very useful qualifier - saying "[I]real communism[/I] could be possible in a [I]post-scarcity economy[/I]" is about as naive and optimistic as saying "[I]real capitalism[/I] could be possible in a society filled with solely rational actors free from any form of coercion." Sure, yeah, I guess, but none of those things are true, so it's not really worth bringing to the table.
It's fair to say that revolutionary communism has died. The vision of social and economic equality, minus the utopian post-class fantasies of traditional communism, is still very much alive. Reformist socialism is still very much alive. People who look at specific policy issues and find ways to benefit workers and reduce societal inequalities through pragmatic effort are doing [I]way[/I] more for the communist dream than any Soviet state ever did.
Don't add qualifiers for why a political ideology "should" work in theory. Theory is meant to inform practice, not the other way around. Capitalism would be flawless, if only we had a way to guarantee the liberty of contract in a system free of coercion. We don't. Coercion will never stop existing. The same goes for class and communism - inequality is a part of any society with limited resources, and we will always have limited resources because that's how the universe works. Communism doesn't work. Capitalism doesn't work. Political systems "work" like a rusty car that is constantly falling apart and being repaired while it's running. You can think about how great the car would be if you could only freeze time to repair it, but you can't, so who gives a shit.
[QUOTE=Mifil;52978939]Communism is unneeded in modern world. Nearly everything communists fought for, was accomplished by democratic/capitalistic nations.
Equaloty was achieved in western world, work conditions are higher and better than they were before, there are less tyrannic governments in the world, monarchy was stripped off it's powers.
There's no need for communism, as there are better alternatives.[/QUOTE]
Ya but those were socialist/labor achievements, and we never really got rid of the nobility they just stepped out of the way, today the rich are very much of the same vein as the nobles of yore and we are approaching an honestly scary turn where the richest of us own virtually everything, much like the agrarian feudalist societies that were common when marx and lenin were writing
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;52978686]The main problem lies in "attempting" communism. It's not something that people are supposed to decide to create, it's something that is theorized to happen on its own when the existing system reaches its highest stage. The fact that capitalism keeps evolving and the system rolls on is proof that we haven't seen the highest stage of capitalism and probably won't within our lifetimes. Moreover, Marx would have expected the first "communist revolution" to take place in a very highly-developed country.
The fact that the revolutions that happened in real life took place in underdeveloped and struggling countries like Russia and China basically demonstrate that Lenin and Mao and everyone else "inspired" by the manifesto basically reinterpreted Marx's teachings to put an appealing (at the time) wrapper around the same old power grab. And while they implemented socialism, this didn't actually bring them closer to communism, because communism comes after capitalism. If you can't even do capitalism correctly, then what the hell are you thinking trying to "leap forward?" You're doomed to fall on your face, and that's exactly what happened to all those countries that tried.
To me, the only thing that resembles the roots of real, Marxist communism anywhere in the world is the pitch of "universal basic income" circulating around the best-developed western democracies.[/QUOTE]
Communism is the natural evolution after socialism,what lenin and company stablished in their countries is state capitalism, even lenin himself said that temporary usage of state capitalism was benefitial because it allows rapid growth and industrialization (the same growth that is excessive in other countries can be useful temporarily in underdeveloped countries).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
