Should we look at the twentieth century as merely the beginning?

[RadioRaheem84]

Bourgeois liberal democracy kicked off in the States and France in the late 1700s. They both went through turmoil and were almost taken in by imperial subjugation again in 1812.

France had their Bonaparte, who as a tyrant wished to spread the Enlightenment across Europe.

Some states like Spain went back and forth from monarchy to Republic and back.

I mean no one says liberal democracy is a dead dream?

Well I've always looked at Communism/Socialism as the continuation of the spirit of the Enlightenment taken to it's logical extent.

There is nothing to say that it's over and done with. We've had our trials and errors. We've had our Bonaparte (Stalin). Our relapses (Bloc Nations and Vietnam).

There is nothing to say in history that this cannot be attempted again.

[Lolshevik]

I've felt this way for years. glad to see i'm not alone in it.

[Tablo]

I've always seen the 20th century as the physical beginning of true revolution.. maybe somewhat the 19th.. it won't be too long until we see true revolution achieved, but maybe not within our lifetimes.

[Conscript]

Same. I've always felt that something as pinnacle and radical as socialism wouldn't be won in the what was the first battle for the world, and that claims of 'socialism is dead' or 'communism failed' are wishful thinking, or true ignorance.

As long as there is capitalism, there will be a struggle for the liberation of the working class. This will become obvious as the cold war generation dies out and the end of the cold war becomes a distant memory. The liberals can only be comfortable for so long. It was the same situation with the royalists after the french revolution and napoleon up until 1847, who had their own propaganda campaigns speaking of the horrors of the jacobins and liberalism. The rigid belief in the impracticality and evil of communism is largely a generational phenomenon. Look at the difference between the left before the cold war, the well-to-do baby boomers, McCarthyism, and after.

[EvilRedGuy]

From now till year 3000.

[CartCollector]

Certain liberal countries have retained feudal characteristics, like Britain and some Scandinavian countries, because they have constitutional monarchies. Does this mean that some communist countries will retain liberal characteristics? If so, which ones?

[RadioRaheem84]

Good questions.

Certainly, there probably would be liberal democratic tendencies in new revolutionary societies.

[People's War]

Pretty much agree. Communism will be back. And liberalism is on the way out.

[People's War]

Certain liberal countries have retained feudal characteristics, like Britain and some Scandinavian countries, because they have constitutional monarchies. Does this mean that some communist countries will retain liberal characteristics? If so, which ones?

There was never a liberal revolution in Britain - if there had been, we would not have a monarchy most likely. It is because our monarchy transitioned to a constitutional one with relatively little trouble. While in France, the monarchy attempted to increase their power further... and now there is no monarch of France.

[ckaihatsu]

Good questions.

Certainly, there probably would be liberal democratic tendencies in new revolutionary societies.


Yeah -- they'll be bringing daily offerings to a wax statue of JFK seated on a throne...!


x D

[NecroCommie]

This view is also a very potent argument against conservatives. I have silenced many a conservative by first pointing out that everything, including capitalism will come to an end. Then I proceed with introducing them to the thought of future post-scarcity citizens laughing at modern supporters of capitalism, as they now laugh at past supporters of monarchy. The very idea seems to be alien to them.

[RadioRaheem84]

1.) The bourgeois, being the second richest after the monarchy, were able to fund the liberal revolutions and entice the public to join in on the venture. They spread propaganda that fed their cause and created the situations in which revolution would be fomented.

2.) Can it be said that now that they're are the dominant class that they now have a vested interest from keeping revolution from de-throning them like they once dethroned the monarchies? Instead most efforts have now been geared toward spreading propaganda against revolution and causing situations that make revolution impossible or undesirable.

3.) The difference between us and the bourgeois of revolutionary times is that we do not own the lands, the businesses and what not. We have no major means of disseminating propaganda on the scale they did by comparison. We mainly have the normal progression of capitalism and it's contradictions as evidence to show to others.

But in our advances in the class struggle we ourselves blurred the lines when winning concessions from the bourgeois. The only reason there was any "changing face" of capitalism was because of us. This helped the vast majority of working people, which was a good thing, but it also staved off revolution and even almost discredited the further need for it (in the bourgeois eyes).


So we cannot even credit capitalism and the bourgeois for any progress. If it wasn't for our struggle and our tearing of concessions from them, they would have no room for making free enterprise seem any more desirable.

What we have is a mere continuation of history, not the end of it. If anything slowed it down it was not taking the victories for the working class even further, which are now being rescinded.

We're back to the same fight. We've only been at this for one century vs. the three centuries liberal democracies have been failing and "succeeding" thanks to democratic class struggle and reform.

If anything even the failures of the ML States and the success of class struggle in capitalist societies, override any of the successes of capitalism and the various bourgeois to make the world safe for investment.

History really does belong to socialism!

[ckaihatsu]

Then I proceed with introducing them to the thought of future post-scarcity citizens laughing at modern supporters of capitalism,


Um, can we start *now* -- ?


x D





But in our advances in the class struggle we ourselves blurred the lines when winning concessions from the bourgeois. The only reason there was any "changing face" of capitalism was because of us. This helped the vast majority of working people, which was a good thing, but it also staved off revolution and even almost discredited the further need for it (in the bourgeois eyes).


Are you speaking personally here? Baby Boomer, by any chance? (Sorry, you don't have to answer that.)





If anything even the failures of the ML States and the success of class struggle in capitalist societies, override any of the successes of capitalism and the various bourgeois to make the world safe for investment.


Care to expand on this at all? It's on the vague side of things and winds up sounding propagandistic....





History really does belong to socialism!

[RadioRaheem84]

Care to expand on this at all? It's on the vague side of things and winds up sounding propagandistic....



Meaning that there is no need to cave into the bourgoise when they tell us about the horrors of Communism when even the worst that was attempted in the name of Communism (the Soviet System) pales in comparison to the overall misery of the successes of capitalism (for the capitalist class).