The welfare state killed it’s chances… thank you socialism.
It is flawed, we will never see it.
Another option… elaborate.
0voters
I think it is interesting that when Marx published his Communist Manifesto (yes… with Engles) he seemed certain that the revolution was just around the corner and various communisms where just around the corner. Instead, only one revolution close to what Marx desribed occured (in 1917) and even then it was not what he had envisioned. Anyone care to share their thoughts on if we have seen all that communism will do, why the US or UK isn’t communist at the moment, and possibly what is the history for the revolution?
I disagree with your assertion that Marx believed Communism was imminent, meaning something that would happen in the next few generations. He, however, believed that it was inevitable, but based on Marxist historiography it would seem that Communism would be a distant goal. Seeing as how history is divided into epoche’s and previous epoches lasted 1000+ years, why would one assume that the era of Capitalism would only last a 200 years? Modern Capitalisms, or the development of Capitalism since Marx’s time is in line with Communist theory. We are today, quickly approaching, what is called state monopoly Capitalism. Which is a theory in Communism where Capitalism makes Communism possible by building the infrastructure and work force necessary for a revolution. As industries become more and more monopolized individual workers get closer and closer to providing for the the entire community wither there labor. Meaning if once company provides chicken for the entire country, then labor is already socialized, but the capitol isn’t. This is two fold, as the one company has to have detailed information about the distribution of product, and has the infrastructure necessary for provide for the entire community, which is what Socialism requires. Communism is not dead, as Capitalism is still preparing for it.
If you look at the oppressive form of capitalism that existed in Marx’s day, well, it didn’t take a genius to figure out that something was going to be done to stop it.
Marx’s mistake was to underestimate the variability and flexibility of capitalism. It can (and does) take many forms as the situation allows, insidiously adapting to changes in the social environment.
Part of that adaption was to address many of the problems that Marx saw. In that regard, Marxism was a huge success because it curbed many of capitalism’s excesses. Naturally, that is changing now, so hopefully we’ll see a swing back in the other direction soon.
If you look at the turning points of the Russian communist revolution, the point above is borne out, as the revolution succeeded, and the proletariat won, but the country did not have the necessary infrastructure and technology to support it’s citizens. Which forced Lenin to to enact the NEP, which led to preceived hypocrisy, thus decent, and the ad hoc creation of a bureacratic hydra, which led to civil war and the ability of Stalin to come to power. Had there been proper infrastructure and technology it still might not have worked, but without the famine, NEP, civil war, ad hoc bureacracy, it certaintly would have had the chance.
I actually think that the USSR is a stunning example of how well communism works. There had been capitalist reforms going on for ages and ages in Imperial Russia but they got nowhere because there was absolutely no infrastructure to support it, nor anything resembling an impetus to get it started.
While the Soviet state collapsed, what was left after that collapse was many, many times better than what it was before.
I almost agree. Instead, I would argue that hierarchy is a natural part of the human order. When one acknowledges this state, they can see it, realize it, and (eventually) deal with it. If this natural state is denied, then people will allow it to assert itself silently. Then there is that maxim about what power does to people . . .
It’s easy to see the manifesto is perishable. So much so that I find it difficult to believe Marx did not expect revolution soon. Certainly the Communist Manifesto will have lost a great deal of urgency within a thousand year time frame.
Yeah, you’re probably right, although I thought that he became somewhat disillusioned by the failure of the 1848 revolutions and returned/retreated to scholarship, thus writing Das Kapitol ect.
Heirarchy, if it was the natural state, would not generate such strife as we see in society and history.
Man was around for a long time before our modern history began and spent a lot of time in small non-heirarchical groups if the anthropologists are to be believed.
This would seem to be a reason why heirarchical social structures are so fragile, constantly breaking apart and reorganizing ad infinitum. It is because it is not the natural state. If it was, I think we woud not be having so many problems with it.
I’ve never heard of any anthropologists putting forth that there were societies without hierarchy, ever.
Look at dogs, they have a hierarchy.
Look at monkeys, they have a hierarchy.
Look at apes, they have a hierarchy.
And when we reach Homo sapiens, this trend suddenly stops? I don’t buy that for a moment, especially given the ample evidence we see of it in the day-to-day world.
Even before people fully differentiated themselves from one another, there was a hierarchy. Think of your body – it is a fully continuous organism, but there is a clear hierarchy at play there as well.
A simple, elegant and persuasive argument. If the human hierarchy is biologically based, then perhaps the best we can do as a species is to move from a “strict father system” to a “nuturant parent family” model of government.
I was only aware of one of them… the kind that lacks rightness.
But seriously, for psychologial purposes what conception of the mind would be easier to use than the Cartesian view? Very mechanistic, seems like something the Cognitive school would jump on.
The human mind I take to be free. In practice, cognitive freedom is often an unrealized potential. However, the human brain is hierarchy of repitilian, mammalian and human structures. The lower structures continue to influence much of our behavior.
If the human mind is free, then it is also free of heirarchy and by extension, the need for heirarchical structures.
This also, I will have to disagree with.
While it is easy to generate a heirarchical model of the mind by comparing the stucture of the brain with that of other creatures, this does very little besides creating an imaginary heirarchy of the mind which is misguided by the physical evidence of the brain.
The human mind is a gestalt, not easily separable into neat little containers or heirarchies. A microprocessor on a tiny robot can be run with Unix, but so can a supercomputer. Both can process input and produce output. The question of which stands higher depends on what you want or need. It is subjective.
I’m sorry, but I just cannot see that their is any heirarchy anywhere that has any basis that is not subjective.
