Marxism and contemporary society.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin
DOH! I was meaning ALL the social programs, not just for the poor, my bad.

As much as you want to blame Reagan it has been natural changes in the economy which has led to the shrinking of the middle class in relation to the poor. The same jobs just don't pay as well, because of supply and demand.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I'd argue that capitalism isn't as flexible as you'd like to believe. I'd also argue that once Stalinism gripped the throat of communism, we lost what flexibility we had. Pre-Stalin, the USSR was exceedingly flexible. Castro's Cuba is extremely flexible. The Sandanistas were among the most flexible.

Its going to be a circular arguement. 1st generation communism = flexibility to adapt to teh will of the masses. (or damn well should be if they are gathering a base of support to pull off a revolution)

If pre-Stalin, the revolutionary spirit was alive and well and was the vehicle of change this would/could explain/rationalize what you are espousing. Once the first generation is past and the roots of revolution are lost what then?

You say the lack of flexibility was becasue of teh west's attacks on communism in general and the resulting need for authoritarian rule, I say the downfall resulted from the inevitable lack of fervor of those same masses/leaders.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
If you speak to 3rd world nations there are many other factors as you well know that impede their growth. Lack of rule of law, corruption,lack of observance of property rights including human rights, imperialist tampering, political instability in the form of military juntas etc.

You have to take the good with the bad, or I can toss out most of the Marxist experience on the basis of the Stalinist "coup."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You have to take the good with the bad, or I can toss out most of the Marxist experience on the basis of the Stalinist "coup."

No teh bad I described were reasons why teh move from nonindustrialized to industrialized never happenned (and moreover are symptomatic of lack of national will) hence no hockey stick.

If you try to infer that is a symptom of capitalism I would say your wrong. Conversely if you try to infer communism successful because it was able to enable industrialization I again would say it is wrong. (Moreso it was because it reflected a national will to do so as evidenced by a large enough contingent to pull off a revolution). Without that national will communism or capitalism is doomed to fail.


Another words it has less to do with teh dogmas of the two societal systems as much as the energetic passions of the people/governement at large to make the change possible.

[chequita guevara]

It's not national will that failed those countries. It's the fact that their role within the world capitalist economy didn't allow for them to make the necessary choices to move to industrial society. Those states that were forced to adapt their economies to the dictates of colonialism (and then neo-colonialism via the IMF and World Bank) were unable to raise enough capital to industrialize. Those states that told the IMF/WB to shove it, both captialist and communist, were able to industrialize. Argentina and Brazil had the will. They just got sandbagged.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
You say the lack of flexibility was becasue of teh west's attacks on communism in general and the resulting need for authoritarian rule, I say the downfall resulted from the inevitable lack of fervor of those same masses/leaders.

You have to realize that the Russian people really wanted political freedom and economic justice. Most of them realize that communism really wasn't the problem.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Consider that the first bourgeois governments in England and France (not to mention the Italian city states) both fell and in both cases it was a long time before capitalism was able to assert itself again. Only the Dutch managed to hold on, and they were built on the backs of a slave empire and Indonesian genocide.

In other words, we may have lost this round, but there will be another, and another. Eventually, we will win and stay victorious.

If you refering (as I think you are) to the Cromwell's Revolution and the French Revolution, both were derailed mostly for political reasons, not economic, as the leaders of the movements were seem to be too autocratic once in power. The problems with Soviet Russia was one of economics, where in the 80s they actually had negative economic growth during the decade and was slowly dying.

Oh, and as for the there will be another and another and another round and we'll win in the end... that's the religiousity I'm talking about

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You have to realize that the Russian people really wanted political freedom and economic justice. Most of them realize that communism really wasn't the problem.

Funny I thought they were enticed by the thought of consumerism and having the creature comforts or even basic necessities of their western civilization counterparts. Even if political freedom were teh underlying reason, one must question why dissent is so harshly punished if not for reasons of maintaining the status quo because no other compelling reason holds peoples passions as they once upon a time did.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Funny I thought they were enticed by the thought of consumerism and having the creature comforts or even basic necessities of their western civilization counterparts.

Consumerism I doubt, but basic necessities sure. That's what I mean by economic justice. They didn't have their basic needs met because they didn't have the political power to do make sure that those needs where met, not because of communism. You don't actually believe that it's impossible to produce enough blue jeans for everyone in a communist system do you?

Even if political freedom were teh underlying reason, one must question why dissent is so harshly punished if not for reasons of maintaining the status quo because no other compelling reason holds peoples passions as they once upon a time did.

People got tired of waiting in line for TP for sure. Why they didn't have enough TP was not because of communism. There we other reasons for that.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It had much to do with centralized production wherein the governement had different priorities of teh masses. Furher teh voice of teh people via teh communist party was muted to a faint whisper.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
It had much to do with centralized production wherein the governement had different priorities of teh masses. Furher teh voice of teh people via teh communist party was muted to a faint whisper.

Exactly. In other words it was a political problem, not an economic one.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Inextricably tied in the form of communism after a number of generations.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Inextricably tied in the form of communism after a number of generations.

If it were tied to communism then they wouldn't still have problems with economic injustice.

[Kontiki]

Ogie:

Just curious if you're making a conscious effort to spell it "teh" every time. You've been remarkably consistent so far.

[Imran Siddiqui]

they didn't have the political power to do make sure that those needs where met

If they wanted political power, though agreed with the economic system, they would have let Gorbachev continue after putting down the attempted coup by the hardliners in 1991. That was Gorbachev's goal to create a democratic communism.