Well, do you advocate the top-down or bottom-up approach that she mentioned? Fascism is top-down and there’s nothing social about national socialism; it’s a complete misnomer.
The main difference is whether the state is controlled democratically by the people or controlled authoricratically by a small group of elites or just one guy.
that’s why mao and stalin were necessary, hombre. that stateless state marx talks about is highly unlikely to ever happen.
It’s a function of prosperity and energy costs. If energy were free, then there is no justification for a monetary system (except to impoverish people in preservation of a class system). 100 years ago 100 lbs of sugar took 10 hours of labor to purchase with a median income. Today it’s 1 hour and in another century it will be 6 min and another century 36 seconds, etc (assuming linearity, but it’s more likely exponential). At what point does it become a waste of time to charge someone for the sugar? Money will be antiquated eventually and I think Marx saw that. There is no reason for a government if there is nothing to protect because of such abundance. Marx never intended that communism be enforced.
You like the Sopranos? springfieldspringfield.co.u … ode=s04e11
[i]Tony: You know what she says? This broad she’s from Russia, dirt poor. She had some kind of osocarma disease in her leg when she was nine. She says that nowhere else in the world do people expect to be happy except for here in this country, and still we’re not. And we got everything. And when we’re not, what do we do? We go to shrinks. For what, $6 or $7 a minute?
Melfi: There’s some truth to what she says. But should that be a source of shame? That when the desperate struggle for food and shelter is finally behind us we can turn our attention to other sources of pain and truth?
Tony: “Pain and truth.” Come on, I’m a fat fucking crook from New Jersey.[/i]
We are constantly finding new sources of pain and injustice to correct after old perils have been addressed.
So, according to Marx, the feudal capitalistic class structures eventually bring sufficient prosperity to cause people to crusade for more and more social reforms; therefore, capitalism inevitably leads to socialism and the prosperity wrought from the implementation of socialism then ushers in communism when a government is no longer required to fix stuff. This makes sense right?
what i’m saying is that lenin’s vanguard party is something i think will always be necessary… so that while indeed a revolution might be generated ‘from the bottom’, it won’t hold any ground without a central proletarian dictatorship quickly materializing. and if that’s the case, it no longer matters whether or not it comes from the top or bottom; it ends up becoming the same thing… at least until every country on the planet is part of it. as long as there is an enemy still prowling the earth, a central party has to be established to oversee the fight against the parasites of capitalism and imperialism still lurking about.
You’re probably correct in the context of our current technological development, but I foresee Marxian communism as an inevitability.
this whole stateless state won’t happen until the entire planet is revolutionized.
and this will take a loooong time. capitalism/comsumerism has dumbed everyone down so much it might take another century before humanity begins to grow up and the working classes pull their brainwashed heads out of their asses.
You could be right, but we could at least have socialism in the mean time.