Warning: long “brain dump” triggered by L Tecolote and Tolik (gotta blame somebody! <grin>)
what we are seeing is the collapse and failure of another form of Communism.
Actually, I think it’s more like what L Tecolote seems to be describing. It almost doesn’t matter what the -ism is, as long as it controls people and subjugates them in some way or other. It’s why I’ve said before that the focus should not be on communism, whether upper or lower case “C.” Instead, the philosophy described in Marx’ and Engels’ 167 year old manifesto should be studied and deeply understood. Various attempts at it (“communism”) have indeed “failed” — yet have they really?
One of the very basic fundamentals of Marx’ and Engels’ philosophy is that it’s a multi-generational process. Marx and Engels never expected to see it all happen on their watch. A simplified version of that concept was seen with the “fall” of Soviet communism. I was fortunate to already have a political science degree behind me, with major focus on Eastern European political systems, as well as a semester-long course solely based on the book Essential Works of Marxism (still available on Amazon and elsewhere – I treasure my little red 95¢ Bantam Matrix 1965 Edition). I finally learned that they were fully comfortable with the concept of “losing” in order to fall back and set themselves up for even greater gains (while the enemy languished in perceived victory, and therefore a false sense of security). Two steps backward, pause, three or four steps forward. It is, in part, why we have figured out that it really doesn’t matter in the United States (or elsewhere) which party we vote for – we end up at the same place anyway, just at a faster or slower pace, thus giving the illusion of choice. As Lenin himself put it:
[T]here are, and there will be, separate, partial movements sometimes forward, at other times backwards; there are and there will be, various deviations from the average type and average tempo of the movements. … Only on this basis, i.e., by taking into consideration first and foremost the fundamental distinctive features of different “epochs” (and no of individual episodes in the history of different countries) can we correctly work out our tactics.
(“Under a False Flag,” Collected Works, 4th Russ. Ed., Vol. XXI, p. 125)
One must also understand what was published in the Peking Review in 1960, in an article titled, “Long Live Leninism!”:
The struggle between socialism and capitalism will embrace a whole historical epoch. … The proletarian dictatorship, established by smashing the state machine of the bourgeois dictatorship by revolutionary means, … is a continuation of the class struggle in another form under new conditions; it involves a persistent struggle, both sanguinary and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative, against the resistance of the exploiting classes, against … the forces and traditions of the old society.
Again: forget the word “communism,” whether upper or lower case. It has become a brilliant distraction from what’s behind it. Focus on the principles, the philosophy, outlined in the Manifesto 167 years ago. Understand them. And understand that there is, in fact, a fundamentally evil class of people on this earth that have the patience AND tenacity to wait out victory to generations beyond themselves. It sounds conspiratorial and just plain nuts by itself – I fully recognize that. And Alinsky’s “Rules” quickly found a way to counteract that line of thinking with the rule on “ridicule.” “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” It will stop not only an argument, but even consideration and subsequent study of a topic, and has been used brilliantly to keep people from studying the philosophy (that’s the key word) behind what is still fundamentalist communism (Marx, Engels, and Lenin style).
I happen to have an additional viewpoint on what’s behind it all, and how it works, but that’s not suitable for here. It does make it even easier to understand how and why it works, but also requires some other core beliefs that move outside the political realm, and I think would be at very best, a distraction here. Suffice it to say that I fully believe that there are some fundamentally evil people in this world. Some are simply destructive individualists (those that do the school massacres, simply plant bombs for the sake of destruction, etc.). But some are highly intelligent, and willing to work with others in a comprehensive and coordinated effort to achieve what perhaps sometimes they don’t even realize is “beautifully” integrating into Marx’ and Engels’ vision.
I happen to believe that the absolute end result of Marx’ and Engels’ vision is simply impossible, because it assumes that once they have become ultimately successful, all greed and selfishness will disappear to any extent that it poses a threat to the proletariat victory. But there will always be those on the opposite end of the spectrum that inherently and fundamentally espouse personal liberty and individual achievement. Thus, there will always be “revolutions” on both sides. So sadly, the ultimate end is likely to be the destruction of any social and political order as we know it, by any means. But then that at least fulfills what Marx and Engels emphasized not once, but twice in their final 3/4 page chapter of the Manifesto. And we still end up with what all of us here expect will happen – collapse and a need to be prepared for a multiplicity of conditions (see the various facets in the last block quote above).
So Tolik’s view about the “failure of another form of Communism,” is in one sense correct – as long as one realizes it’s just one of those steps back, before two or more steps forward, with the “in between” being the destruction of the social and political order, as fundamentally required by Karl and Fred. And it’s being coordinated by some very evil people outside the confines of ANY formal government structure (though it uses those structures). It is not multi-national, it is extra-national. And we can likely only guess at who some of them really are. Many of those we might guess, I suspect, are what Lenin reportedly called his “useful idiots.”
[ADDED: I’ve been working on this in pieces this evening, and just noticed that L Tecolote added an additional comment that ended up before mine. It simply adds, in my opinion, to the above (as if any of this is simple).]