History has shown that communism is possible. We have a well-developed theory and practice as a criterion of truth has proven correct. Humanity is actually prepared to live in the new socioeconomic system. We even understand how communism itself will work.
However, the problem is related to motivation for revolutionary fighters for communism. We will not able to enjoy our own results of fights. This comes much later than we would like. Unlike other sciences, where you can really create your own brainchild with due effort, you cannot say about communism that you are fighting to improve the life of mankind if this does not happen during your lifetime. The result comes mostly only after your life. It just make no sense.
Ironically, about the same amount of effort can be made to become a great capitalist. And only heirs will be able to fully benefit it.
Then why fight for communism? Yes, people suffer under capitalism, but how is the struggle for communism better? What kind of motivation will be?
Can anyone recommend any good texts that give an overview of the New Communist Movement in the u.s.a. in the 60s, 70s, and 80s? When talking to older communists, there seems to be a bit of amnesia regarding that period, and I'd like to find out more about the debates between different communists and tendencies at the time, and if there's any lessons we can learn from it to apply to our current period. Thanks
I finally capitulated the USSR as Mexico but suddenly the "One World Government" focus has no effect. I can't find the event ID I need on the list of event IDs so I'm asking here
I'm curious as to why the Nazi party managed to garner widespread support when when compared to Communism it was so weak. I found two answers, one of them is that Hitler was a charismatic leader and while the Nazi party was not powerful enough to take power in the USSR, by the time the Nazis came to power, they were on the rise and were able to create a powerful coalition. However, the other answer is that the Nazis were much more efficient than the communists in their operations and the Nazis were able to garner support for their operations from the poor workers who had no other option.
So what's your thoughts on this?
Title pretty much explains my point.
Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken”.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears. [Note: Joining Happer as new additions to the Senate report, are at least 10 more scientists, including meteorologists from Germany, Netherlands and CNN, as well as a professors from MIT and University of Arizona, many current and former UN IPCC scientists].
“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week.
Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
Senator Inhofe said that the continued outpouring of prominent scientists like Happer -- who are willing to publicly dissent from climate fears -- are yet another strike to the UN, Gore and the media’s claims about global warming.
“The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," Inhofe said.
Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy," Happer explained in 1993.
“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from t
... keep reading on reddit ➡
If we look at countries where there where socialist revolution it is always correlated to social inequality. Russia for example abolished selfdom by making peasants pay a big debt to their old Feudal lords, which they had to pay with work. They joined the socialist revolution in order to aquire selfsom (free from landlords). In China the same. Workers paying most of their work productivity to land owners while they were starving, so they supported a revolution.
While the communist movement was never strong in England because peasants aquire the land their relatives have been working for generations, so they could keep the value of their work productivity to themselves. The same in France where Paris commune only rised after the economic desaster that ended up with a war with Prussia.
Otto von Bismarck started the welfare state in Germany from 1880, as attempt to weak the influence and consequently the power of both communist movement as well as Christians Comservative aristocratics, who where convincing people to support their revolution, claiming that their lives were better with the Feudal system like stability or would be better in a socialist society (woekers owning the means of production and the value or their work). So Bismarck implemented the welfare state in order to people feel more protected from modern times economic instability and so accept the modern times capitalist system. The same did Nazi Germany, to attract people support for the Nazi government, by giving supporters economic stability and prosecuting non-supporters and groups of Jewish, anarchists, socialists and communists.
What I am presenteing here is from both Robert Paxton and Oswald Spengler. Both are conservative fascists against socialists and progressists.
>Historian of the 20th Century fascist movement, Robert Paxton, observes that the provisions of the welfare state were enacted in the 19th Century by religious conservativesto counteract appeals from trade unions and socialism.[33]
>Later, Paxton writes "All the modern twentieth-century European dictatorships of the right, both fascist and authoritarian, were welfare states...They all provided medical care, pensions, affordable housing, and mass transport as a matter of course, in order to maintain productivity, national unity, and social peace."[33] Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers' Party expanded the welfare state to the point where over 17 million German citizens were receiving assistance under
... keep reading on reddit ➡
The COVID-19 pandemic is creating massive instabilities in the Western economies. The effects of this, combined with the oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia, has caused the Dow Jones Industrial Average to lose about 1/3 of its value in less than a month, and that's AFTER the US pumped $2.2T in no-interest loans into the system. The worst of these losses may be yet to come, ultimately making the 2008 crash look tame.
At the same time, the self-quarantining and forced quarantining to stop the spread of the Coronavirus is having roughly the same effect of a massive general strike that's rolling throughout the world economy, involving hundreds of millions of workers. Not only is it upsetting profits by bringing production to a standstill in many industries, but it's also teaching workers what happens when we fold our arms and say, "I won't work for capital": the system's control dissipates like a fog in a matter of days.
We already can see somewhat of a forced political realignment as the crisis takes hold, workers' grievances are ignited, and politicians are forced to abandon cocky, neoliberal austerity in favor of panicked, emergency concessionary giveaways to placate the working class and keep in place their illusion that capitalism is a force of nature -- and one on which workers *gulp* depend to last indefinitely. ("No, seriously! Please believe us?").
If there were a moment for the global communist movement to make a play, it seems to me that that time may be fast upon is. The question is, are we ready, and if not, what do we need to do and how long will it take to be ready? In other words, will we be able to act in time to seize this particular moment of crisis, and if so, what must be done to make the most of the opportunity? If not, and the bourgeoisie is able to superglue their system back together again somehow, what's at stake for us going forward?
