Marx allowed for the possibility of a peaceful transition in nations with strong democratic institutions. This has happened to a degree in the US and Europe, with some center-left Social Democratic policies finding support.
I think many people here confuse Marxism (which is mainly an Hegelian practice), and Communism (which is mainly an economical system).
Marxism is a way to scrutinize and understand society, especially through the initial concept of social class struggle, which means exploitation and alienation. And hence, even if you don't agree with some of its presuppositions, this method is very interesting, and has a lot to say about contemporary sociology, social and cultural policies of the modern capitalist states.
Communism, on the other hand, is so different that even Marx himself didn't really think it was possible to "achieve" it.
And I'd say that while we are all the intellectual heirs of Marxism (you, me, and even Pure Merc and Peguy... whether we like it or not!), Communism has indeed been one of the worst tragic failure of history.
You can be deeply influenced by marxist philophy, but yet it doesn't necessarily imply you should have automatic communist sympathies. As a matter of fact, many great Marxist thinkers were extremely critical of so-called communist policies or communist states.
For instance, the generation that made "may 1968" and the protest marches against the Vietnam war, is also the same that made possible the fall of the Berlin wall.
"A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire
I got a random question for you, cloud (interpret the question any way you like and answer, if you want):
Do you think Mao failed*? If so, why? If not, why not?
*take 'fail' to mean any way you want, and, if you can outline how you've chosen to evaluate 'fail'.
I wouldn't call it a suyccess, espiecially when couple million people die because he choses to socially experiment with communism in his country. Thayt itself is alredy kind of failure.
As for the fact whehther he failed or not, he succeeded in the sense that he had balls to do what nobody dares to do. The phjilosphy itself failed to work and his blind believe in it is what made the disaster happened.
Originally Posted by Edgar
You do realize that capitalism is closer to anarchy than socialism, and MUCH closer to anarchy than communism, right?
when did capitalism associate itself with anarchy. free maket iutself is motivated by greed, rahter than political anarchistic tendencies.
The fear of poverty turns people into slaves of money.
"In this Caesar there are many Mariuses"~Sulla
Conquer your inner demons first before you conquer the world.
Blackmail has largely got this one right, and essentially said most of what I would say if I hadn't read anyone's posts.
I will say to Blackmail that Marx can't be completely removed from Communism. He did co-write the Communist Manifesto and honestly did hope for a bloody revolution. Marx's exact perscriptions for society were the area in which he was most mistaken (though that's usually the case for social philosophers).
But indeed, Marx's main field of impact was sociology. Marx invented concepts (like alienation as Blackmail noted) that most of us understand and refer to today. The entire perspective of conflict theory was basically Marx's invention. When people regard Marx as an extreme, narrow, and obsolete thinker, they are demonstrating naivete.
The cause of the problem here is that the USA wanted to destroy any notion that we had anything to do with anyone iconic in the Soviet Union. It just ignored the fact that we are heavily influenced by Marx, and that the USSR had about as much to do with Marx's ideas as we did.
Go to sleep, iguana.
INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp. Live and let live will just amount to might makes right