Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frau_Phillips
*sighs*
If only Marxism WORKED.
|
I wish you people would stop saying that Marxism doesn't work. There's no proof of that. Just because Lenin was inspired by Marxism, doesn't mean that the string of autocratic pseudo-communist regimes that have spawned in the wake of the Soviet Union comprise a true test of the marxist state.
Stalin for one wasn't a Marxist. He wasn't a socialist. He was a capitalist, just like every other despot. He hi-jacked the movement and turned it into another autocracy where he had the monopoly on everything. Just because a man waves a flag doesn't mean he actually salutes it. Remeber also that Nazi means 'National
Socialist".
Also, you can make legitimate claims that Leninist Communism itself is fundamentally flawed or very unlikely to succeed, but to paint all of modern socialist thought as the same is just a gross generalization. The fact is that if you actually knew Marxism you'd know that Marx said that there were very specific circumstances that would have to pass for a true socialist movement to succeed. For one he said that a modern industrial movement would have to have occurred, that capitalism would have to have corrupted itself to the point that nobody would take it anymore. Now if we all remember history correctly we'll notice that Russia only became industrialized AFTER Stalin was in power, and he was not a Marxist.
And finally lets get some perspective here. The first communist revolution occurred in 1917 and since then every subsequent communist state has been affected by the Soviet Union and that is not a Marxist state. China is a direct off shoot of the USSR. North Korea isn't even an industrial giant. These aren't examples that Marx himself would accept as being anything near what his own theories discuss.
And since it is only 2007, it has been only 90 years since the Russian Revolution and history has proven that it takes a very long time for a real change in the structure of society to occur if it is to be progressive towards the majority. It took thousands of years since the idea of democracy first became real for a functional and lasting one to form in Britain and the United States. And a few failed states is hardly enough to condmn socialism, especially since you are also discounting the successes in socialist ideas.
Sweden is a legitimate Social Democratic nation and has been for some time. All through the cold war and even predating it the social tradition has grown and flourished. Sweden took a different approach to socialism than Lenin did and it worked out alot better. It isn't a utopia, it has its serious issues like any state, but has proven that a lasting movement can meet real success. It was going so well that in the 70s the elected Social Democrats even actively explored a proposed program that would effectively create that much spoken of socialist dream: "The workers shall control the means of production". That they considered making it a practical application says that the progress towards that end is real, if not still far off.
Another excellent example is Nicaragua. The Sandinistas took a nation that had been brutalized by a dictator family for decades and within a few years had made huge strides. The basis of the Sandinista party's ideology was an absurd sounding melding of Socialism and Catholicism. The growth in social welfare over the first few years was massive given the brief time they had. It was a true progressive socialist mided regime. However the US backed Contras demolished that nation once again. So that is also proof that success for socialism will only be seen after it has faced as much if not more persecution as democracy faced in its formative times.
Now call me a pinko, a radical, a moron, or whatever. But I'd like to see an honest, genuine response to what I've written, and no simple flag waving and lefty hating.
A real discussion, instead of an absolutist back and forth.