Marx argued that developed capitalist countries would be the first to transition to communism, yet this never occurred. Instead, communist revolutions were only successful in economically underdeveloped region that were largely semi or fully feudal such as Russia and China, or in regions where communism was imposed by external military force. Doesn’t this indicate a fundamental flaw in Marxism and perhaps suggest that other forms of socialism should have been more relevant.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
>>18289797>yet this never occurredYes and no; labor movements and others were initiated first in developed capitalist countries. It's just that the government made concessions and was more efficient in its repression than 3rd world countries.>Doesn’t this indicate a fundamental flaw in MarxismNot really. Marxism is the idea that the material and social structure of the world are constantly in motion and evolving because of contradictions. As the contradictions become more acute within a given society (like the tendency of profit to fall, or the recurring crisis in capitalism), the dominated class starts suffering more and has more incentives to rebel.So, revolution isn't necessarily predicated, it's just something that _can_ happen if the conditions worsen too much.For example, the October Revolution happened because the new government was unable to govern and had created misery for its people. Ergo, the people had been suffering from mismanagement and desired something else.
In my opinion I think it's because of the psyop liberals introduced where the workers are taught to fear communism and convinced that they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires. A common social phenomena in highly unequal capitalist societies is that the poor in such conditions feel like they do deserve less than rich people unlike more equal societies where the poor feel like the government should do more. Being poor in a rich country breeds a poverty of the soul.
Marxism was a discredited idea while he was still living.
>>18289973>For example, the October Revolution happened because the new government was unable to govern and had created misery for its people. Ergo, the people had been suffering from mismanagement and desired something else.You forget that it also required contributions from the Kaiser's transport and gold, and above all Kerensky's disastrous decisions to continue the war and thus send the Army to the front lines. Even then it wouldn't have succeeded without Lenin's will and pragmatism, unlike the other Russian communists.>>18290023We're talking about the late 19th and early 20th centuries. No one back then thought they were "temporarily embarrassed millionaires." You really have the same mindset as Fascists about Jews. The fact is that communists in the West simply failed to appeal to the working class, despite having every opportunity to do so and were constantly splitting apart over political or personal disagreements.
>>18289797It's the CIA's fault we aren't currently living on a global communism utopia o algo
>>18290282this but unironically
>>18290282>>18290301This
>>18290282>>18290301>>18290305It would not have been Communism. There has never been “real Marxist Communism.” What actually existed was quasi-socialist, nationalist politics and the folk ideology of whatever strongman happened to be in charge. Marx would have described every single one of the Eastern Bloc states as some variation of Bonapartism. That said you are correct. if the CIA had never interfered, this form of Communism would have taken off, especially in underdeveloped nations and it could have been good for them. It was arguably the best path for their development and material benefit. Afghanistan would not have been a utopia but it would likely have had more in common with Uzbekistan than with what it is today, and the same goes for much of the rest of the world. It could have reduced an enormous amount of suffering and produced a form of nationalism and socialism that genuinely advanced societies globally. It still would not however have been Communism.
>>18291037Marx wanted a totalitarian dictatorship as outlined in the Communist Manifesto when he calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat. "It wasn't real communism" will never not be a funny cope.Lenin interpreted Marx to perfection and applied everything his book said. The result was a disaster with millions of dead in famines and political persecutions.
>>18291044Did you read my post? I’m not a Marxist or a Communist. In fact I don’t think Marx’s ideals will ever be achieved and I think orthodox Marxists were/are genuinely more deluded than even the most zealous religious types. My point is that the form of communism in the Eastern Bloc had more in common with centralized Bonapartism than with Marx's ideal. Most successful communist movements(the Vietnamese, Koreans, and Angolans) were essentially popular nationalist movements painted red and there’s nothing wrong with that. Those movements did bring development, but that development could also have been achieved if they had been Monarchist, Fascist, Sorelian or some other third-position ideology.
>>18289797The weirdest aspect of Communism is the way it suckers in intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals.
>>18291116It's a religion for atheists, complete with a Holy Book, a Doctrine, a Prophet and a promised land.
>>18289797This fat Jew is responsible for more misery and death than any human being in history.
>>18290101>The fact is that communists in the West simply failed to appeal to the working class, despite having every opportunity to do so and were constantly splitting apart over political or personal disagreementsAbsolutely correct
>>18289797Marx core is he based his system on labor theory of value.Pic related are greetings from the communist USSR.
>>18291044>Marx wanted a totalitarian dictatorship as outlined in the Communist Manifesto when he calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat. This has been explained probably over a million time. I'm surprised people still say this line.>Lenin interpreted Marx to perfection and applied everything his book saidLenin didn't "interpret" marx, his main idea is that a vanguard party is needed in uneducated third world countries to do the revolution. On this point, he's right. His methodological analysis has been more or less vindicated by history when it came to doing a revolution (to the point even rightwingers use it too).>The result was a disaster with millions of dead in famines and political persecutionsHe never planned the economy though. His vision of the economy was closer to what we have in China, albeit with workers' control than what Stalin did (actual fully planned and centralized economy).>>18291037This. A planned economy is not socialism in-and-of itself. It's also extremely efficient when it comes to nation building, given that you can just build shit by allocating resources from place x to y.>this form of Communism would have taken offMeh I don't see them doing it on the long term. Planning works when it comes to building roads or factories, but it sucks when you have large scale consumption. You have to introduce market reforms or have some form of decentralization when it comes to assembling millions of different pieces from everywhere to make cheap plastic shit>>18291116The material dialectic is a pretty good concept philosophically-speaking, and it's vague enough so that anyone can fit its own philosophy and economic theories without having to worry too much about coherence
no real economist ever actually took Marx seriously, his followers were always humanities students
>>18289797>Doesn’t this indicate a fundamental flaw in MarxismSocialists believe that private property is badIf you are stupid enough to believe that abolishing private property is a good idea you should not be passing down your genes to the next generation of humansI cannot stand the 4D chess people engage in with Marxism, both for and againstIts so fucking stupidIts never worked and it never will because it is nonsense
>>18291614Makes sense that the one man who made it work was driven by a desire of revenge rather then by the usual leftist convictions
