The blueprint by Marx

[Nas]

Marx never made a blueprint for Socialism or Communism :angry:

[Individual]

This is in response to who/what? :blink:

Have you even read any works of Marx?

[El Che]

Communism is just a prediction based on the Marxian view of social evolution.

Now, considering that any kind of prediction is extremely risky business, it would be folly to make any sort of 'blueprints'. Even the existence of communism, in the future, is not certain. It is possible that capitalism is the best we can do -a scary thought that I, personally, don't share.

[Nas]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 5 2004, 01:02 PM
Communism is just a prediction based on the Marxian view of social evolution.

Now, considering that any kind of prediction is extremely risky business, it would be folly to make any sort of 'blueprints'. Even the existence of communism, in the future, is not certain. It is possible that capitalism is the best we can do -a scary thought that I, personally, don't share.
i would definately not mind if you share your thought , please go ahead, it might be similar to what i think .

[Essential Insignificance]

Well summed up (El Che)…it was one believe that Marx ostracized irretrievably, as he denounced it as the work of "utopians''. As there are know "certainties" and "exacts" of how the future society will function.

But from his devoted study and fundamental idea of Dialectical Materialism, he was able to draw "some" predications of the supplementary society and how it will regulate.

[El Che]

The comparison to the "utopians" is an enlightening one. 'Blueprints', unfortunately for us, are not in keeping with the 'Marxist' method. There's a reason why they call it scientific socialism.

[Nas]

ok so , because we (the people) are using now capitalism - Marx predicted that at some point socialism will take over , right?

so for Marx, socialism is inevitable?

[Essential Insignificance]

so for Marx, socialism is inevitable?

Precisely!...and for me and other Marxists...tremendous isn’t. :D

[Nas]

im intoxicated by this event :)

[peaccenicked]

Marx, who was heavily influenced by Aristotle as was most thinkers of that time, would have recognised that potentiality can be accidentally aborted. Socialism is not 100% inevitable. Marxists have seen this, otherwise Luxembourg would not have had said "socialism or barbarism"

[Essential Insignificance]

That is correct, Marx did say that his ideas were not infallible. But he did as myself believe that the likelihood of capitalism being in progression to socialism as a feasible, more then feasible, I quess, theory.

I have read some were in Luxemburg’s writings "socialism or barbarism", I think…what context did she intend…that capitalism could self-destruct to nothing, leaving us with barbarism.

So what makes Luxemburg’s different...that she offers two evitable outcomes.