1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Ask Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua etc

Of those countries, the only ones still Communist , are dictatorships.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Venezuela 😀 .

You seem to favor 'Marxism' over Fascism, and I can readily see its advantages.
But in reality, it is a system prone to abuse by the 'powerful' ( just like most others ), and where ever it has been implemented, it has caused vast inequality in wealth and power, comparable, if not surpassing pure capitalism.
Before his ill-considered foray into Ukraine, V Putin was reputed to be wealthier than E Musk, and China has more billionaires than the US, while close to a billion of its people live in what we would consider poverty ( wait till their revolution ! ).
Venezuela, arguably one of the richest countries in South America due to oil reserves, has people starving in the streets; where do you think all the wealth goes ?

5 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Eventually... someone's enemy becomes a fascist

And eventually ( according to some ) even Anti-Fascists become the enemy.
All depends on the convenient spin.

Edited October 13Oct 13 by MigL

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

You seem to favor 'Marxism' over Fascism, and I can readily see its advantages.
But in reality, it is a system prone to abuse by the 'powerful' ( just like most others ), and where ever it has been implemented, it has caused vast inequality in wealth and power, comparable, if not surpassing pure capitalism.

The British Labour Party that formed the government for most of my youth was essentially a Marxist-Leninist party in that Clause IV of its rule book read:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

Coming out of WWII, and its necessarily interventionist war economy, we gained a free National Health Service, free schooling and university education, nationalised utilities and transport infrastructure and a few nationalised industries such as coal and steel. Recovery from the war took time, but by the sixties, things had picked up and living in a largely socialised mixed economy under a nominally Leninist government was actually pretty good.

Are you suggesting that living in Britain in the '60s and '70s was no better than living under Hitler or Mussolini? Or Trump?

I know I'm not going to undo 60 years of brain-washing here (isn't there another thread about this ...?), and as previously stated, I'd not support a fully state owned economy myself, but it IS potentially a fair and feasible option if and when conditions permit, and good will prevails.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Of those countries, the only ones still Communist , are dictatorships.

Like the US then 😉

26 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The British Labour Party that formed the government for most of my youth was essentially a Marxist-Leninist party in that Clause IV of its rule book read:

Coming out of WWII, and its necessarily interventionist war economy, we gained a free National Health Service, free schooling and university education, nationalised utilities and transport infrastructure and a few nationalised industries such as coal and steel. Recovery from the war took time, but by the sixties, things had picked up and living in a largely socialised mixed economy under a nominally Leninist government was actually pretty good.

Are you suggesting that living in Britain in the '60s and '70s was no better than living under Hitler or Mussolini? Or Trump?

I know I'm not going to undo 60 years of brain-washing here (isn't there another thread about this ...?), and as previously stated, I'd not support a fully state owned economy myself, but it IS potentially a fair and feasible option if and when conditions permit, and good will prevails.

Like the US then 😉

What screwed up the politics in the UK eventually was the unions became too political and tried to strong arm Labour even further left. Thinking of Scargill and Derek Hatton.

41 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What screwed up the politics in the UK eventually was the unions became too political and tried to strong arm Labour even further left. Thinking of Scargill and Derek Hatton.

Certainly didn't help, though the Social Contract did stabilise Labour's position with the unions.

Economic mismanagement by the preceding Heath government, lack of investment in aging industries, the 1973 oil crisis, consequent stagflation and onerous constraints on policy imposed in return for the 1976 IMF loan also played major roles in Thatcher winning the 1979 election I believe.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Are you suggesting that living in Britain in the '60s and '70s was no better than living under Hitler or Mussolini? Or Trump?

But why compare a society that has a sizeable Socialist mix of institutions, along with some Capitalist ones, to societies that experienced extreme Fascism, where society exists at the whim, and for the economic benefit, of their dictatorial rulers ?

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Like the US then 😉

Arguably a Fascist, Capitalist state trying its best to emulate V Putin's supposedly Marxist, Socialist state; with the same methods.
( I'm angry that Canada is considered D Trump's Ukraine )

Extremes of any ideology never benefit the majority ( of people ), as the 10 percentile and 90 percentile of a bell curve have very little area compared to the central 80.

49 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Certainly didn't help, though the Social Contract did stabilise Labour's position with the unions.

Economic mismanagement by the preceding Heath government, lack of investment in aging industries, the 1973 oil crisis, consequent stagflation and onerous constraints on policy imposed in return for the 1976 IMF loan also played major roles in Thatcher winning the 1979 election I believe.

He unilaterally joined us into what became the European union as well.

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

He unilaterally joined us into what became the European union as well.

Yes, Credit where credit's due.

43 minutes ago, MigL said:

Extremes of any ideology never benefit the majority ( of people ), as the 10 percentile and 90 percentile of a bell curve have very little area compared to the central 80.

Agree, I think. The mixed economy model seems to be the best option, particularly when coupled with a fully democratic, liberal(ish) social policy.

The increased diversity of this model appeals to me on thermodynamic grounds at least.

7 hours ago, MigL said:

I prefer definitions that describe how something acts ( being a Physicist ), and in my opinion, if Fascism and Communism act the same at the state level, and use the same methods to control people, then they can be defined by the same terms.

I am sure that you will appreciate that the process can be as important as the outcome. After all, violent explosions killing people largely have the same outcome. But the reasons why those happen are varied and so are the means to prevent them. Even if we ignore ideological differences, there are historic differences how these systems came to power and those do shape how they act in a certain way and why. I will preface that the very end point, where absolute powers are invested into a single person things start look similar again but the path towards that is very different. I will also add that I am no clearly not a history scholar I am sure better learned people will point out how that is again a simplification and that there are important differences. However, my limited knowledge won't allow me much to speculate too much here.

Let's start with Italy. It was a constitutional monarchy with significant powers invested into the king. The democratic structures were weak and few political actors beyond the left were really promoting further democratization. Following WWI and resulting social and political upheaval. something Mussolini was able to take advantage of to get himself appointed as prime minister following the famous March on Rome.

At least superficially the desire for "law and order" and he spearheaded a strong anti-socialist stance, a group, as you noted, he originally belonged to. Many of his successes have the hallmark of a supreme opportunist, for example conveniently abandoning his anti-monarchist stance, once he saw a way to power. The anti-socialist was arguably also a way to align himself with the ruling powers in opposition to Marxist revolutionaries (though again, this is a quite a bit of an oversimplification). In contrast, race played originally only a minor if any role (there was an underlying Aryan supremacy with a goal to civilize inferior peoples but prior to the late 30s it was more of an undertone than policy.

Somewhat similarly Hitlers rise to power in Germany were based on riding the popularity of grievances, but perhaps in contrast to Italy, more centrist powers led the governments and an outright quasi-revolutionary grab to power was cut short and he ultimately needed to get elected. With support from the right (which included significant contributions from a partially monarchist party) he presented himself with contradictory stances, such as being a champion of the working class, while presenting himself to industrialists as bulwark against working class uprisings.

Both, (perhaps Hitler more then Mussolini) had to appeal to the broader population and played mostly originally within the legal confines of the system, just barely flirting with revolution. But in both cases, they started as a continuation of the existing democratic or quasi-democratic system and only started to dismantle them after their rise to power. They had to ride populist waves and did not have significant military might at their disposal but both are historic evidence how democratic structures can be effectively dismantled, how grievance politics can enable such events and also the role of outgroups in order to galvanize opinion,

Meanwhile, the Russian and Chinese revolution were structurally different, marked by armed conflicts aimed at fully dismantling and replacing existing power structures via civil war. Here, the stories are more complex but the enemy in this case is less nebulous, the movements squarely targeted the Monarchy or Republic, respectively, though for different proximate reasons. Why do the differences matter? Well, looking at say Western societies, a revolutionary uprising is pretty much inconceivable. However, a populist-driven takeover of democratic structures, well, I have got a couple of examples.

44 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am sure that you will appreciate that the process can be as important as the outcome. After all, violent explosions killing people largely have the same outcome. But the reasons why those happen are varied and so are the means to prevent them. Even if we ignore ideological differences, there are historic differences how these systems came to power and those do shape how they act in a certain way and why. I will preface that the very end point, where absolute powers are invested into a single person things start look similar again but the path towards that is very different. I will also add that I am no clearly not a history scholar I am sure better learned people will point out how that is again a simplification and that there are important differences. However, my limited knowledge won't allow me much to speculate too much here.

Let's start with Italy. It was a constitutional monarchy with significant powers invested into the king. The democratic structures were weak and few political actors beyond the left were really promoting further democratization. Following WWI and resulting social and political upheaval. something Mussolini was able to take advantage of to get himself appointed as prime minister following the famous March on Rome.

At least superficially the desire for "law and order" and he spearheaded a strong anti-socialist stance, a group, as you noted, he originally belonged to. Many of his successes have the hallmark of a supreme opportunist, for example conveniently abandoning his anti-monarchist stance, once he saw a way to power. The anti-socialist was arguably also a way to align himself with the ruling powers in opposition to Marxist revolutionaries (though again, this is a quite a bit of an oversimplification). In contrast, race played originally only a minor if any role (there was an underlying Aryan supremacy with a goal to civilize inferior peoples but prior to the late 30s it was more of an undertone than policy.

Somewhat similarly Hitlers rise to power in Germany were based on riding the popularity of grievances, but perhaps in contrast to Italy, more centrist powers led the governments and an outright quasi-revolutionary grab to power was cut short and he ultimately needed to get elected. With support from the right (which included significant contributions from a partially monarchist party) he presented himself with contradictory stances, such as being a champion of the working class, while presenting himself to industrialists as bulwark against working class uprisings.

Both, (perhaps Hitler more then Mussolini) had to appeal to the broader population and played mostly originally within the legal confines of the system, just barely flirting with revolution. But in both cases, they started as a continuation of the existing democratic or quasi-democratic system and only started to dismantle them after their rise to power. They had to ride populist waves and did not have significant military might at their disposal but both are historic evidence how democratic structures can be effectively dismantled, how grievance politics can enable such events and also the role of outgroups in order to galvanize opinion,

Meanwhile, the Russian and Chinese revolution were structurally different, marked by armed conflicts aimed at fully dismantling and replacing existing power structures via civil war. Here, the stories are more complex but the enemy in this case is less nebulous, the movements squarely targeted the Monarchy or Republic, respectively, though for different proximate reasons. Why do the differences matter? Well, looking at say Western societies, a revolutionary uprising is pretty much inconceivable. However, a populist-driven takeover of democratic structures, well, I have got a couple of examples.

No quibbles with that analysis +1

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Meanwhile, the Russian and Chinese revolution were structurally different, marked by armed conflicts aimed at fully dismantling and replacing existing power structures via civil war. Here, the stories are more complex but the enemy in this case is less nebulous,

Being peasant societies (rather than industrial ones) seems to make a difference, when it comes to dismantling a government. And one can see the early appeal of Marxism, as it initially seemed to promise peasants a way to end the unpleasant relics of feudalism and work together in an egalitarian structured agrarian collective. Not how it worked out, due to that lack of good will from all parties which ideal Marxism needed. Revolutionaries have that unfortunate tendency to morph into oppressors and corrupt dealers. Resulting in forced collectivization and widespread peasant rage. Marx was a dreamer.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Meanwhile, the Russian and Chinese revolution were structurally different, marked by armed conflicts aimed at fully dismantling and replacing existing power structures via civil war.

The 'Blackshirts', or Squadrismo, the private army of B Mussolini's Fascist Party was founded in 1919 and numbered about 200000 by the time of the march on Rome in 1922.
It was comprised mostly of disgruntled WW1 demobilized soldiers, and I assure you, there was a considerable amount of fighting and armed conflicts.

Similarly, A Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch, inspired by B Mussolini's march on Rome, comprised 600 paramilitary SA members, Finally, in the early 30s, his NAZI party became the largest party in the Reichstag, and President P von Hindenburg relented and made A Hitler Chancellor, which was the beginning of the end for democracy. In the intervening 5-8 years there was plenty of violence and armed conflict perpetrated by the NAZI's private army, the SA 'brownshirts', all of which are documented in a google search of 'Hitler's rise to power'.

Contrary to your statement, European Fascist movements did not begin with marches or elections, but with years of armed conflict.

And I didn't even mention the Spanish civil war that led to F Franco's Fascist dictatorship in Spain.

12 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Effectively installed by US destabilisation of the region,

The road to Pol Pot's Cambodia and the slaughter house of the Khmer rouge goes back to the 1960s.

I think it's safe to say that communism in the 1970s did not work out too well.

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

Revolutionaries have that unfortunate tendency to morph into oppressors and corrupt dealers. Resulting in forced collectivization and widespread peasant rage. Marx was a dreamer.

Also readily seen in the French Revolution.
"Liberte', Egalite', Fraternite'" quickly turned into decapitating anyone you didn't like, by simply making an accusation.
Revolutionary 'mobs' can be much more vicious than dictators.

16 hours ago, MigL said:

The 'Blackshirts', or Squadrismo, the private army of B Mussolini's Fascist Party was founded in 1919 and numbered about 200000 by the time of the march on Rome in 1922.
It was comprised mostly of disgruntled WW1 demobilized soldiers, and I assure you, there was a considerable amount of fighting and armed conflicts.

Similarly, A Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch, inspired by B Mussolini's march on Rome, comprised 600 paramilitary SA members, Finally, in the early 30s, his NAZI party became the largest party in the Reichstag, and President P von Hindenburg relented and made A Hitler Chancellor, which was the beginning of the end for democracy. In the intervening 5-8 years there was plenty of violence and armed conflict perpetrated by the NAZI's private army, the SA 'brownshirts', all of which are documented in a google search of 'Hitler's rise to power'.

Contrary to your statement, European Fascist movements did not begin with marches or elections, but with years of armed conflict.

Yes, but these armed conflicts were not directed at the government, rather they stoked dissent and fought political rivals. In fact, both ingratiated themselves with that with parts of the government. The Beer Hall Putsch failed and Mussolini didn't really expect to succeed. Though to be fair, Italy was politically in a more precarious situation plus due to the outsized power of the King, the decision was more based on individual decision than governmental consensus.

Hitler was a different issue. They did not fear his powers, it was more down to fears of socialism and strong influence by conservative industrialists and elites to convince Hindenburg. They explicitly did not see the brownshirts as a threat to them and they assumed quite openly that Hitler would be a controllable way to undercut socialists influence over the workers.

With respect to the SA, prior to Hitler's appointment their influence was mostly minimal. They functioned mostly as the equivalent of party security and fought mostly with hecklers and political enemies who would show up at meetings. Essentially they were beer-hall brawlers who would also go on and disrupt meetings of other parties. Especially the KPD and other communists groups were doing the same. But these fights were not considered major civil disruptions, if you look at newspapers of that time, it was just kind of a thing folks expected from the working class. They were also racketeers to make fund their actions. But the bottom line is that their influence at that point was not seen as a threat to the ruling class, rather a means to maintain power over revolutionary influences. One way of reading is that a lot of the political strife was focused on leveraging or suppressing the rising influence of the working class due to democratization processes. One the one hand the KPD and associated more revolutionary inclined groups, the NSDAP on the right wing and the SPD in the center, which pursued a strictly legal course of action (and eventually lost ground).

Similar arguments have been made for Mussolini, but I have not read enough to get a real sense. However, Mussolini also organized his groups as anti-communist forces and afaik, there was no clearly formed program. But there are bits and pieces of his reasoning (other than desire for power) that also explain his falling out with the Italian socialist party. One of the key elements is that in contrast to most socialists, Mussolini did not believe in equality using an early version of (I believe) misinterpretation of Nietzsche's "Uebermensch". He did believe in ethno-state land ownership and was (in contrast to the party) in favour of WWI. Now, while the march to Rome was a show of force, this and prior actions did not threaten the King as such.

A key element here is the political instability following the election of 1921, where the Socialists, Catholics and the National Bloc (anti-socialist coalition, including Mussolini's Fasci Italiani di Combattimento) having pretty much the similar number of votes with the Socialists coming out a bit ahead.

Bonomi was appointed as a moderate prime minister but his coalition pretty much fell apart. His successor (Facta) moving to the right had little success to govern, either. This weak government trying to keep communist revolutionary groups out of power eventually marked an opportunity for the National Bloc to gain power.

As you mentioned, fascist paramilitaries started to gain power (already after the 1921 election) and after the switch to Facta, they increasingly engaged in provocations. Italian authorities did not engage them, in part because they were seen as anti-communist allies, but also because of the general impression that the army would support those groups (which, as mentioned, contained ex-militaries).

Now the point that is debatable and I am sure there are good books on that matter is whether the March on Rome was a power grab, with King Emmanuel being afraid of a repetition of the Russian revolution, or whether it was a show of force to break nudge centrist-right rule and shift it further towards the fascists. But whatever it was, the core elements were laid down within the legal framework existing at that time, rather than a revolutionary violent uprising to destroy it.

Again, the fully dismantling happened after seizing power and even then some elements remained.

Edit: I forgot to add, I haven't really read anything substantial on the history of Spain, unfortunately. But yes, in contrast to Germany and Italy the left-right conflict was not intermittently stabilized and as far as I recall the civil war was initiated by a military coup.

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

Marx was a dreamer.

Perhaps, but his output remains highly relevant. Wikipedia's article is succinct enough for here:

Das Kapital stands as one of the most influential and controversial books ever written. Its legacy is multifaceted, shaping intellectual discourse, political movements, and the historical trajectory of the 20th and 21st centuries.

... In academia, Das Kapital has had a profound and lasting influence on the social sciences and humanities. Marxian economics emerged as a distinct school of thought, developing Marx's categories to analyse capitalist dynamics, crises, and long-term development.^[279] In sociology, Marx's work is foundational to conflict theory, class analysis, and the study of social stratification and historical change.^[272] Political science, history, philosophy, and cultural studies have all been significantly impacted by Marxist concepts such as ideology, alienation, and reification.^[297] The Frankfurt School, Western Marxism, and post-colonial theory are among the many intellectual currents that have engaged deeply with Marx's legacy.^[267]

Das Kapital has also shaped the understanding of capitalism itself, even among its defenders. Marx's analysis of the inherent dynamism, contradictions, and crisis tendencies of the capitalist mode of production has forced subsequent economic and social thought to grapple with these issues. Concepts he pioneered, such as the reserve army of labour, the concentration of capital, and the role of technological change, remain relevant for understanding contemporary capitalism.

... The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was widely seen by some as the definitive failure of Marxism.^[274] However, subsequent economic crises, growing global inequality, and the challenges of globalisation have led to periodic revivals of interest in Das Kapital as a tool for understanding the contemporary world.^[274] As Francis Wheen notes, even in the post–Cold War era, journalists for The Economist and financial speculators like George Soros have acknowledged the "startlingly relevant" insights of Marx's analysis of globalisation and its inherent instability.

At one level (consisting the vast bulk of it), it is a dry, precise, apolitical, mathematical analysis of capitalist production. Afaik no significant elements of this have been definitively refuted, and it remains relevant pretty well in its entirity. (Which I have read, plus all the background in Grundrisse).

One central question of moral judgment generates its political content: is it ethically justifiable to simply pocket the surplus value created by the labour of someone else?

I suggest that this too remains as relevant a question today as it was 150 years ago. Personally, I believe that only fools and monsters would think this has a simple yes/no answer. Which makes it a particularly interesting question.

So I'd urge a little thought before tarring him with the brush of 20th century history. Like it or not, he's up there with his contemporary, Darwin.

Edited October 14Oct 14 by sethoflagos

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

At one level (consisting the vast bulk of it), it is a dry, precise, apolitical, mathematical analysis of capitalist production. Afaik no significant elements of this have been definitively refuted, and it remains relevant pretty well in its entirity. (Which I have read, plus all the background in Grundrisse).

One central question of moral judgment generates its political content: is it ethically justifiable to simply pocket the surplus value created by the labour of someone else?

When I called KM a dreamer, I wrote with admiration, not pejoratively. His dreaming, seated in the British Museum Reading Room, thinking deeply and thoroughly on capitalism, was a towering intellectual achievement. I only meant he was a philosopher and scholar, not someone steeped daily in the sausage making of politics. I was not tarring him, nor suggesting that he could have written something more fortified against misuse and misappropriation. And I'm impressed you've read the whole book - I read some excerpts for a college course, so I claim no comprehensive knowledge of his oeuvre.

Generally, let me go on record as someone who, when I call someone a dreamer, is noting a breadth and depth of vision, an ability to zoom out for a larger picture. At moments when I'm most appalled by the predatory aspects of capitalism and its manifest harms to our societies, I am most in favor of revisiting Marx. I will read your future posts on him (if you choose to write such) with great interest.

14 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Generally, let me go on record as someone who, when I call someone a dreamer, is noting a breadth and depth of vision, an ability to zoom out for a larger picture. At moments when I'm most appalled by the predatory aspects of capitalism and its manifest harms to our societies, I am most in favor of revisiting Marx. I will read your future posts on him (if you choose to write such) with great interest.

It feels that there is a resurgence of Marxism, especially as society is barreling towards exactly what he has been worried about (with some modern twists). To large degree it is fueled by recent economic crises, but perhaps most importantly, by rising inequality which goes beyond a more qualitative difference. Add to that that we are entering a new era where it is entirely unclear whether labor is worth anything, and where somehow all the wealth apparently is generated virtually it might be time to rethink how the economy is and isn't working for people.

52 minutes ago, TheVat said:

When I called KM a dreamer, I wrote with admiration, not pejoratively...

Generally, let me go on record as someone who, when I call someone a dreamer, is noting a breadth and depth of vision, an ability to zoom out for a larger picture.

Aha! One of those subtle transatlantic differences in shades of meaning. Heartfelt apologies for the misunderstanding.

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It feels that there is a resurgence of Marxism, especially as society is barreling towards exactly what he has been worried about (with some modern twists). To large degree it is fueled by recent economic crises, but perhaps most importantly, by rising inequality which goes beyond a more qualitative difference. Add to that that we are entering a new era where it is entirely unclear whether labor is worth anything, and where somehow all the wealth apparently is generated virtually it might be time to rethink how the economy is and isn't working for people.

Yes, we are seeing erosion of what David Graeber calls "everyday communism," which has always been necessary for societies to function and have relations of social trust and informal cooperation between people. (Graeber is my go-to guy for many matters of economics, due to clarity) In fact, let me link Graeber's essay on communism, since it might add something to this discussion:

https://davidgraeber.org/articles/communism/

It's a short essay, but I will pull this quote, to whet the appetite of anyone interested in his distinction between mythic Communism and everyday (small c) communism...

Communism may be divided into two chief varieties, which I will call ‘mythic’ and ‘everyday’ communism. They might as easily be referred to as ‘ideal’ and ‘empirical’ or even ‘transcendent’ and ‘immanent’ versions of communism.

Mythic Communism (with a capital C) is a theory of history, of a classless society that once existed and will, it is hoped, someday return again. It is notoriously messianic in its form. It also relies on a certain notion of totality: once upon a time there were tribes, someday there will be nations, organized entirely on communistic principles: that is, where ‘society’ — the totality itself — regulates social production and therefore inequalities of property will not exist.

Everyday communism (with a small c) can only be understood in contrast by rejecting such totalizing frameworks and examining everyday practice at every level of human life to see where the classic communistic principle of ‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs’ is actually applied. As an expectation of mutual aid, communism in this sense can be seen as the foundation of all human sociality anywhere; as a principle of cooperation, it emerges spontaneously in times of crisis; as solidarity, it underlies almost all relations of social trust. Everyday communism then is not a larger regulatory body that coordinates all economic activity within a single ‘society,’ but a principle that exists in and to some extent forms the necessary foundation of any society or human relations of any kind. Even capitalism can be seen as a system for managing communism (although it is evidently in many ways a profoundly flawed one). Let me take each of these in turn...

6 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Aha! One of those subtle transatlantic differences in shades of meaning. Heartfelt apologies for the misunderstanding.

None needed. Some of my countryfolk, this side of the Magatlantic or whatever the Grand Turnip is calling it now, will sometimes dismiss thinkers as "dreamers," so I was far from pellucid in my usage.

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

I forgot to add, I haven't really read anything substantial on the history of Spain, unfortunately

The exception that breaks your rule ?
( always enjoy sparring with you CY 🙂 )

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

When I called KM a dreamer, I wrote with admiration, not pejoratively.

Maybe 'idealist' would be a better term.
He dreamed of a utopia, but didn't take into account the lack of scruples of those that corrupted his ideal system ?

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

It feels that there is a resurgence of Marxism,

After seeing how the American Government of D Trump can corrupt the economy to benefit himself, his family, and his billionaire cronies, at the expense of working people and immigrants ( even though a lot of those dummies voted for him ), one can't help but think "How bad can Communism be ?"

1 hour ago, MigL said:

The exception that breaks your rule ?
( always enjoy sparring with you CY 🙂 )

Maybe, but there is also maybe something else at play. There are certainly different ways to read it. For example, it is possible that in Italy and Germany conservative forces held sufficient power so that the ideologically similarly aligned fascist movements could be gain power in a somewhat "regular" way. Another possibility is because at that point fascist held power in Germany and Italy, they thought that a violent grab to power was possible or perhaps even inevitable. Again, I am pretty sure someone has looked into it, but I certainly didn't.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

After seeing how the American Government of D Trump can corrupt the economy to benefit himself, his family, and his billionaire cronies, at the expense of working people and immigrants ( even though a lot of those dummies voted for him ), one can't help but think "How bad can Communism be ?"

I strongly suspect that this is at least some part of it. And especially among young folks I hear a lot of of disillusionment when it comes to the capitalist system, heavily fueled by the affordability crisis and that most won't be able to afford houses as even their parents did. This makes them naturally being interested in finding someone to blame and solve the problem. And generally speaking the centre tends to try to maintain some sort of status quo, whereas more extremist voices purport solutions (whether real or not).

It is part of the reason why especially young men have shown a swing to the right (including MAGA), which generally provides an outlet for grievances and often promises easy (if unrealistic) solutions. In fact we see that play out in real time, and I do wonder how long it takes until folks realize they have been had. Especially the working class is going to feel the financial squeeze. While this all seems rather similar to what we have been discussing, it is also of note that there are not real extreme left powers of relevance in the US, so there is some uncharted territory.

41 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Yes, we are seeing erosion of what David Graeber calls "everyday communism," which has always been necessary for societies to function and have relations of social trust and informal cooperation between people. (Graeber is my go-to guy for many matters of economics, due to clarity) In fact, let me link Graeber's essay on communism, since it might add something to this discussion:

https://davidgraeber.org/articles/communism/

An interesting framing.

On first impressions, I read his 'big C' Communism as maybe typified by Fourierism, a utopian viewpoint that greatly influenced Proudhon's libertarian socialism.

Traditionally, the foundational split in communist ranks stems from the breakup of the previously close collaboration between Proudhon and Marx over a petty matter seemingly unconnected with their significant differences in realpolitik approach. Ultimately, this lead to the fracturing of the International Workingmen's Association (First International) into what I internally label 'French' and 'German' schools (albeit with slightly different terms best not divulged).

However, Graeber lumps the F & Gs together and adds in the religious communists for good measure.

So who are the 'small c' communists? Graeber begins with those happy to play for the team in the workplace, and extends this to a more general grouping of good Samaritans, generally decent sociable folk, and Roger Waters' 'bleeding hearts and artists'.

Critique?

What's the way forward?

Off the top of my head, he ignores the social policy liberal-authoritarian axis. The 'German' school in its Leninist form offers armed insurrection leading to a monolithic, authoritarian single-party state that rather than 'withering away' slips inevitable into corruption and the surplus value that should be returned to the labourer in the form of services and infrastructure is trousered by the apparatchiks due to the lack of democratic controls and independent judiciary. The @MigL scenario. State capitalism. No better, often worse than what it replaced.

Proudhon's version, progressing peacefully though democratic social evolution has had much better results, but only if the word 'communism' is avoided. Amongst Anglicans and other British Protestants, the word is indelibly connected with the Catholic rite of communion and therefore utterly non grata.

Achieving the half-way house of a fully democratic, liberal, social democracy is not a utopian pipedream. It works. Albeit with a powerful, unexterminated opposition to contend with.

So I'm sort of more comfortable working with the traditional taxonomy of the socialist movement, but Graeber's identification of potential recruits is, as I say, an interesting framing.

Edited October 15Oct 15 by sethoflagos
Clarification