Exactly !Socialist system was pushing his indoctrination on few levels: in schools, in media and in Yugoslav army where I was for a year. I would say that system presented itself on a wide level. And marxist theory was something completely different than a practice on all levels. That's why it collapsed: because of a widening gap between a presentation and a reality.
To get an idea of the dismal nature of peoples existence in England (20's and 30's industrial Northern England), which we would assume would have been close to the view that Marx had, I suggest The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell.You really know nigh to nothing about human nature, do you? I'm pretty sure if you take a nomad to cold, dark USSR and make him work 40 hrs a week, he would more likely commit suicide than feel like a sultan.
I have read that there argument is that "communism hasn't been fully tested"..... but how can you really test it?
Many people claim that there are many obstacles to it mainly that human beings are selfish and greedy and don't want to work for one another but still pro communist persist that it does.
Why? What makes it so hard for them to just let it go?
Is it pride?
Is it arrogance?
Is it the unwillingness to accept that they were wrong?
Is it fear of the consequences if they do admit that they were wrong?
It is probably safer to say that it has worked until now. If in 30 years China still did not find huge problems, if by then it has surpassed the US, then the Chinese government has a point. But nevertheless it seems that the safest test of the reliability of a kind government is to see it in action against a scenario of economic crisis, which did not happen yet.Its worked for China though.
I'm not a fan of Communism but China's financial stability is so sound and deep they have apparently used that cash reserve to buy into large portions of America.
Got it.In order to avoid this site becoming destroyed by partisan political squabbles (as has happened to other history sites) we are only really supposed to discuss history and not contemporary politics -- this being defined as 1991 (roughly).
Some subjects do 'slip through' or are tolerated as they are supposed to be of 'historical importance'.
It is Marxist language for one thing. Marxist, not USSR type polemics.
The big takeaway concepts here are, IMHO, "antagonism between the classes" and the "failure of capitalism". (I am just conveying doctrinal Marxist language and these are not my words or my POV so please don't attack me)
The picture drawn by Marx is that Capitalism will ultimately fail1 and the proletariat will have to take control. This can be attractive to those who are frustrated with the parliamentary failures within the state.
1. Bernstein thought Marx wrong on this account because he failed to recognize the ability of a free political system to modify production systems. See: Evolutionary Socialism, Bernstein, 1899/trans. 1902 below.
... Evolutionary socialism: a criticism and affirmation. (Die voraussetzungen des sozialismus und die aufgaben der sozialdemokratie.) : Bernstein, Eduard, 1850-1932 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Is liberalism more popular than conservative because people hate being told that you can't this or that?||Philosophy / Sociology|
|Why can't the US build basic rail?||General History|
|What if humans can't fly? WWII without airplanes||Speculative History|
|Why can't the East Asian countries learn from Europe?||Current Events|