Is Communism effectively dead?

[Al B. Sure!]

Has it run its course, proved itself as a failure, and will never rise again? Will it continue in a moderate form? Are there numbers of supporters of communism in the First World? Is it possible to gain support in the Third World? Can it obtain strength through popular appeal (elections), terror, or through actual military conquest (China conquering Taiwan, etc.)?

What do you think? This is especially directed to you communists: chegitz et al.


thanks

[Kropotkin]

Communism was/is a mere incarnation of very old ideas. The ghost is still walking around in the world.

[Urban Ranger]

There were way more failures in Capitalism than in Communism.

Silly person.

[Bereta_Eder]

soem thought and still think that it can gain support by terror (mobilizing the masses)

but here it can't, so they better stop.

[Bereta_Eder]

BTW, I recomend to all the book 17 November: Europe's Last Red Terrorists.

It is an eye -opener on the mouldings and transitionsof a country (Greece) from the civil war (communists-nationals) to the present day.

It is one of the best books I've ever read.

Your question is too complex to adequately answer or even give a hint here.

I'm not so much interested in wether communism will resurface (because I'm almost sure it will not - at least not in its previous form) but about the inner battles (ideological and other) that brought countries where they are now.

Breathtaking. GET THE BOOK

[Lemmy]

communism dead?
nah, we still got Che here

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by paiktis22
BTW, I recomend to all the book 17 November: Europe's Last Red Terrorists.

Does it mention the incompetence of the Greek police and the period of time when the Greek government turned itself into a "vacation resort" for various terrorist groups?

[Bereta_Eder]

counter reaction by the imperialist powers, propaganda and suppresion of civil liberties will increase the revolutionary will of the people...


or something like that

17 November


ah, and I can see it in the making


Yes it not only mentions but details all periods of terrorist activity in Greece.

Your statement is too simplistic to answer.

The most interesting thing about the book though is the wholnss by wich it deals with the issue.

As many have said (including BBC which you propably know as a media) there will never be a better book about 17 November.

[Bereta_Eder]

It also destroyes the myth aboutlinks of 17 November with the social democrats.

While the roots of the group are definetely from the extra parliamentary left wing and after the bringing down of the US sponosred dictatorship in Greece, the ammount of attacks against socialists as well as other sides of the story disproves any link.

The conspiracy enthousiasts will be dissapointed with this book...

[monkspider]

As long as there are those who want brotherhood and justice as the law of the land, there will always be communism.

[Bereta_Eder]

It also explained the docility of the people against it.

It has taken extra care to present itself as the voice of the people that the imperialist-controled from abroad governments of Greece do not represent.

But the book argues that it has failed to increase the revolutionary counciousness of the people to the point of entstaing a socialist state which it thinks can only be achieved through the use of weapons due to the history of imperialistic intervantion in greek politics.

The book classifies 17N which is propably the best terrorist groupp in europe and with a lot in common with the red brigades(italy), or raf (germany)or action directe (france) as a romantic revolutionary, utopian, militaristic group.

it's main fault is that it never understood that after the metapoliteysi the social fabrice and indeed the will of the people did not support a violent revolutionary deturnment of the state to a socialist entity.

[Bereta_Eder]

therefore, it propably serves no use.

[klesh]

As much as I dislike you Albert, I will entertain your question for a bit.

In short, I would say no. Communism (the Marxian interpretation) is one step above the economic evolutionary ladder. Capitalism sews within itself the seeds for eventual socialism, and hopefully communism. True communism, world communism, has never been reached yet. Forget the Soviet Union, that wasn't no communism there despite what some will say. With globalization, WTO's IMF's and the like, we are seeing an uber-capitalism that surlely will further separate the bourgeosie and proletariat to the point where the proletariat cannot stand it any more, and has had enough with the opression.

Just look at the numbers of protesters at various international meetings. Heel, they are holding the G8 way off in the Canadian NoWhere Rockies, so the suits aren't bothered by real people's opinions. That's democracy for you. Therefor, as world opinion grows futher against the world capitalist, we are sure to see changes. Perhaps not in Che's or my lifetime, but it is comming. People are starting to notice what is going on.

-FMK.

[Kropotkin]

"Just look at the numbers of protesters at various international meetings."

Middle class brats that has read a book to many is not a solid foundation for a socioeconomic revolution.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh
In short, I would say no. Communism (the Marxian interpretation) is one step above the economic evolutionary ladder.

Yes, that's right, which is precisely why communist countries end up turning democratic-capitalist when given time.

Is there any example of communism that has worked?

Just look at the numbers of protesters at various international meetings. Heel, they are holding the G8 way off in the Canadian NoWhere Rockies, so the suits aren't bothered by real people's opinions. That's democracy for you.

It almost makes me wish that those world leaders were democratically elected.

You vote with your votes, not with your blockading of traffic, capiche?