Marx never believed in a "Nirvana" state. Did you not read my initial post about how socialism and communism are philosophical stages, not economic, political, or financial movements?
Can you show me where you read that State Capitalism was used as a temporary measure? And If that were the case as you say, why did they call themselves communists if they were still in a Capitalist state? Socialism takes hundreds to thousands of years to evolve into world communism. Also, before a socialist globe were to reach a communist state other countries, money, government, and a Capitalist financial system would cease to exist. Nothing socialist was ever achieved, so how could they have become a communist state when countries still existed? It's like they skipped socialism completely. You admitted a socialist state was never achieved, so why did they call themselves communists, because apparently you don't know the difference between the two. State Capitalism was NEVER used as a temporary measure and I've never read that anywhere.
True, Marx's Nirvana has no state. In that, it matches libertarian Nirvana. More about that below.
State capitalism as a temporary measure is in every history book I've had that talked about Russia's Communist Revolution. It's in Wikipedia, too.
But the Soviet Union never had state capitalism. Capitalism allows the market to provide the information as to what should be made; in the Soviet Union, the decisions came out of thin air. In capitalism, interests are run so as to garner a profit; in the Soviet Union, hardly any endeavor failed to be a drain on the whole economy.
They called themselves communists because supposedly they were working toward that as a goal.
Sometimes I feel people read certain parts of my threads and pick what they choose to read and reply to that. People already have their opinion and decision formed in their head before they read 2 paragraphs of what I'm trying to say. I read everyone's posts clearly and respectfully and I can't get the same decency from others.
Well, you write and write and ramble incredibly. People respond to what they think are the significant points. If you want responses that address your whole post... write shorter posts.
HERE is a questions that is more grand, WHO HERE has read the communist manifesto? FUCK Text books, FUCK The Disgruntled States Of America, FUCK The USSR, FUCK North Vietnam and China, (I don't have anything against China, Russia, and Vietnam I meant FUCK them in terms of them being communists) BUT WHO here has read the evolution of social structures in the manifesto itself? Am I the only person? The Manifesto can not just be read through. The manifesto and Marx's other literature contain ALOT of philosophical language and it would take the average person a long time to comprehend.
I've read it. As I said above, it describes a stateless Nirvana. That Nirvana shares almost everything with the libertarian stateless Nirvana. One huge element they share is a faith that the human race is changing for the better.
First time I read it, I realized it was a religion. Second time, I saw no reason to think differently. It relies on a change in human nature.
As for philosophy, I'll grant that it has one heck of a lot more depth than
Mein Kampf.
Reading and skimming simplistically will just give you the same perception Stalin and Lenin had. THAT is why we had such a huge historical blunder. A megalomaniac like Joseph Stalin NEVER had enough intelligence to know what a social structure was. Capitalism, Socialism, Feudalism, Primitive communism, Communism, and Slavery Era are all covered and depicted as epochs, NOT economic models as American text books wrongly teach us.
Stalin might have had the intelligence. He just didn't care: his objective was power, and he would have given lip service to whatever system there was... or perhaps he was a "true believer" who didn't care if he understood (kind of like religious fundamentalists).
Yes, those things are covered -- and Marx uses the terms differently than just about anyone else. That's part of the problem with your writing here: you're telling other people they're wrong, and they're saying you're wrong, when what's happening is you're speaking different languages. Most people here are using the standard definitions, where feudalism, capitalism, socialism, etc. are economic terms.
"Communism sounds great but doesn't work" comes from an ignorant biased statement of someone that never read the manifesto with full comprehension. I'm not putting anyone down but the ignorance and lack of knowledge is getting on my nerves.
That works two ways: you're plainly not aware of the standard definitions of all these systems. So people are irritated with you for not making sense.
"Communism sounds great but doesn't work" comes more from a look at human nature and one at Marx's Nirvana/Utopia and an assessment that the two aren't compatible. For communism to work out, a change in human nature is needed, not just a restructuring of institutions, which is what Marxism is usually considered. That's why it can be called "spiritual Marxism", because it relies on a spiritual development in the race. I suppose it could also be regarded as "evolutionary Marxism", from the point of view that any change in human nature will come from mutation.
In fact one of my professors claimed that communism will never be achieved by human beings. I don't think he had some mutation in mind, but it fits: if we evolved into something where communism would work/occur, it's an interesting question whether we'd be the same species.
Again, being simplistic. You take the most trivial aspects of a paragraph to sway others away from the original concept because you feel intimidated to discuss the most complex view points that you can not come to terms with.
Your reading comprehension is quite poor based on the years I've seen you try to interpret certain discussions and links to distorted news obviously filled with bias ideologies formed by the propaganda machine.
Kris, people are thinking the same about you.
fficial&client=firefox-a
