Is it fair to consider Communism a dead ideology post 1991?
>>17438301Communism was a dead ideology post-1979. Reagan and Bush were just kicking bullying a sick man clutching nukes.
>>17438328this
>>17438301Pretty much. They've moved on to nigger and faggot shit.
>>17438301Communism has zero chance of being successful after industrialization.
>>17438301what about the chinks?
>>17438301i cant believe i laughed at this shit
It's always been dead, the entire point is killing/starving people because you hate humanity. Death is the entire point
>>17439187It's shorter and sweeter than the Gorbachev version
>>17438301It died completely when Mussolini took power.Let me give you a small history lesson. In the mid 1700's, in France there was a circle of economists who were postulating the need for scientifically managed economy. They had different conceptions of how to organise it but because they were economists and strayed off angering political elites they generally saw it as some form of centrally planned system with the king at its head.However, as anyone who knows how the ancien regime operated, the chances of this happening were null, as it would require creation of many, many laws that would disenfranchise the regional elites of the country and at the time these people could get the parliaments(regional courts) to block such laws, as happened with an attempt to introduce compulsory military service for instance. Well then the revolution happens and suddenly these roadblocks are removed and so the same ideas started popping off in the heads of some people, but before they can get going the excesses of revolution are tempered and some status quo is worked out.However it has to be said that the revolution showed how can such system be introduced. As such you have Marx, who argues for the same stuff and just dresses it up in some populist rhetorics and then popular philosophy.As the time went on communism was kind of popular. Even some big business people like JP Morgan were cordial to it because before it was put in practice it wasn't necessary that it'll involve their destruction, but it would certainly lead to creation of monopolies and as we all know competition is inherently wasteful. You could say they expected a napoleon figure moderating the effects of the revolution. However then the revolution in Russia happens and not only it's a circus economically but it also leads to closure of all but one commercial bank(which was used to funnel money from wall street) and nationalisation of most large private enterprises.
>>17439230the stupidest thing I've seen in a while
>>17439230However at the same time as these people get disenchanted by the communism in practice(and the financial elites were stopping pumping money into it) they notice that in Italy something new showed up. The fascists would appease all interested groups. The intellectuals would be given enough control of the economy to matter, but at the same time the control wouldn't go down to some microscopic level so majority of the clownshow that was communist economy would be avoided. The international financers and corporate entities were fucked but the Italian ones weren't, as monopolies were established. It did cost something, as concessions to the farmers or industrial workers had to be made(communism didn't have this problem, see Great Leap Forward where they've determined that the solution to building socialism is forcing people to work 18 hours a day), but overall it was a decent package.So in the 10 years or so of the interwar period fascism was fashionable. Mosley was far from the ordinary fascist politician if you read his writings(his position on Ireland is very counter intuitive for instance), but he adopted the mantle because back then it was the popular thing.However when FDR won the elections in the US and introduced the new deal it became clear that functional control over the economy(more extensively than in Italy) and wide array of instruments to effectively generate monopolies via winner picking while at the same time allowing for all sorts of capital mobility, not chimping out etc. etc. it was just something that won over and so fascism was dropped like a cum rag, just like communism was before. It was only the sheer ideological fanaticism that allowed the latter to last among some of the intelligentsia, but in many ways they sound as if someone read on monarchy by Dante and started to argue for the kind of stuff Dante did in there(creating world spanning empire to bring the second coming). It's just completely anachronistic.
>>17439230holy fucking based
>>17439266samefag
>>17439268
>>17438301Definitely and mainly because of that, at least the version tried historically. When state-socialism is criticized for famine, kills etc, "orthodox" marxists always pull up "muh context", "muh external factors", "muh this happened in capitalist countries too", and for me its too much to analyse.But the simple fact that the socialist experimentation ended either on return to capitalism or highly poor countries (cof cof Cuba and North Korea), it shows that its not the way really.This is why there is so much "revisionists" who try to think on alternative ways or the why China highly reinterpreted marxism and allegedly aims for a slow and safe transition to socialism. Revisionism is really the only way to save marxism, but there is many retards who cant accept that.
>>17439155People go full turbo reddit and say that they're ''fascist'' to cope with their massive success. Them being a modern day super power and industrial power house. Mao allegedly killed 6 million je-I mean chinese but also caused a population boom right after. That's why there's a billion chinese.
>>17439360>cof cof Cuba and North Koreaso fucking true... NK and Cuba are AES and that's why they're poor
