Has Communism ever been implemented in a First World Late Stage Capitalist country like Marx said it should be?
Seriously now before all the /pol/kiddies come crying about the "not real communism" argument, to be fair it was Marx himself who said that Communism can only be implemented in a developed Capitalist society for it to succeed, which possessed the advanced infrastructure that could be provided only by late Capitalism to support it.
To me it makes a lot of sense, hence why in history underdeveloped countries like China and Russia which had their own revolutions inevitably had to implement Capitalist measures to be able to economically compete with the other highly advanced Capitalist nations of their time.
No, because Marx was wrong on the "immiseration of the Proletariat". Wages in Europe largely increased in Europe starting in the 1840s, thus gradual things like unions and such were seen as good enough.
t. /pol/kiddy trying to play nice
Evan Carter
>Has Communism ever been implemented in a First World Late Stage Capitalist country
Let's unpack this.
First: Communism is not an ideology, it's an endgame. The word you're looking for is socialism. Second: First World Late Stage Capitalist country This only refers to near future scenarios, at a stretch you could say it's present, but be prepared to plead that case. So your question is now: "has socialism been implemented in some future state like Marx said it should be?"
John Peterson
>he fell for the historic determinism meme >he fell for the historic materialism meme >he fell for the conflict perspective meme
I respect socialists. But nothing on this earth can make me respect marxists.
Thomas Taylor
OP here. Holy shit dude I think you just blew the fuck out of me. I have no idea how to reply to redpills like that. I should probably just close this thread already.
Logan Cox
You really should, this is literally politics and has nothing to do with history. >b-but hu- Fuck &humanities, anything can fall under that bullshit umbrella. Saged.
Charles Lopez
>To be sure, the weakness of anti-capitalist movements in the developed countries is one more reason for the existence of national-revolutionary movements. For the latter cannot wait for the proletarian revolution in the dominating capitalist countries; yet, where they succeed, they can reach at best only partial release from foreign exploitation but not the conditions of socialism. On the other hand, successful proletarian revolutions in the capitalistically developed nations could lead to the internationalisation of all social struggles and progressively hasten the integration of underdeveloped nations into a socialist world system. That there are national-revolutionary movements in the backward nations but not as yet socialist movements in the imperialist countries is due to the greater and more pressing misery in the former. t.Paul Mattick
Gabriel James
Good, you do that. Whig historicism is the only thing worse than marxist historicism.
Carter Scott
Actually, I'm going to take that back. Whig history is annoying as fuck, but it's nowhere near marxist historiography when it comes to blatant misinformation and false portrayal.
