Awful Reality
21st April 2008, 21:55
It is an often posited supposition that "communism" "fell" in 1989, that the "experiment" of Marxism ended in failure, instability, and unsustainability. This idea permeates almost any discussion or examination of Marxism in today's press.
Despite being itself a fallacy, I was amazed when I read an Article in Harper's recently stating that it was, in fact, true that capitalism is "eternal." Written by a social democrat, it vaguely upheld Marx in the sense that it considered Marx correct when he compared capitalism to a vampire: That after being killed, vampires keep coming back again to life. And like any good vampire, this defeatist attitude can only be killed with a good stake to the heart.
The article dealt primarily itself with the proposition that the current leftist movement give up its revolutionary ideals and return to the useless arena of protest, petitioning, and lobbying. Its reasoning was that socialism and revolution has proven to be impossible, and that only change can be brought about through incessant "demanding" of the existing system.
Historically, Bourgeois regimes have had their instability as well. At the forefront of the "Spring of Nations" in 1848 was the overthrown of the Constitutional Monarchy in France- the King was often described as "Bourgeois!" And who was to follow but Bonaparte? History makes itself very clear.
Despite being itself a fallacy, I was amazed when I read an Article in Harper's recently stating that it was, in fact, true that capitalism is "eternal." Written by a social democrat, it vaguely upheld Marx in the sense that it considered Marx correct when he compared capitalism to a vampire: That after being killed, vampires keep coming back again to life. And like any good vampire, this defeatist attitude can only be killed with a good stake to the heart.
The article dealt primarily itself with the proposition that the current leftist movement give up its revolutionary ideals and return to the useless arena of protest, petitioning, and lobbying. Its reasoning was that socialism and revolution has proven to be impossible, and that only change can be brought about through incessant "demanding" of the existing system.
Historically, Bourgeois regimes have had their instability as well. At the forefront of the "Spring of Nations" in 1848 was the overthrown of the Constitutional Monarchy in France- the King was often described as "Bourgeois!" And who was to follow but Bonaparte? History makes itself very clear.