🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jacques Chester" <jacques.chester@student.usyd.ee-dee-you.au> wrote in
message news:8lous6$7t$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> > Marxists
>
> Can someone please explain to me the differences
> between marxism and communism? And no sniping,
> please :)
>

Marxism provided the theory for communism. The practitioners took over from
there and stuffed it. Marxism is therefore back in vogue along with a pack
of other euphemisms to provide boltholes for those who made a life out of
communism and like big Malcolm were caught with their pants down when
communism collapsed as an undeniable failure and atrocity world wide.

Marxism is of course thoroughly discredited as an economic theory - having
been built by Marx and Engels on the basis of economic conditions of
sole-proprietor capitalism of the 19th Century, it has no relevance to
today's global economy. After Marx's death, Engels recognised the beginnings
of this in a visit to Germany where he acknowledged that workers' position
had progressed far more by negotiation in a decade than by 50 years of
revolutionary struggle. This of course didn't stop the ideologues, and we
still have rabbits acclaiming Marxism to this day. When you have spent a
lifetime as a public Marxist-Leninist proponent, where else do you go when
the failure and brutality of Leninism is exposed? This is particularly bad
in Australian universities where these dinosaurs still exist in numbers.
Western European counterparts got rid of this rubbish in the 1970s.
Practical communism got its chance in Lenin's successful takeover of Russia
in 1917 and ruthless demolition of opponents in the Party. Having got this
power, he waited for the expected takeover in industrialised France and
Germany so that the fraternal parties could pool the goodies. Their
revolutions failed in 1919 and subsequently the industrialised countries
were too smart to get caught, building prosperity out of capitalism and
producing housing, services, amenities and welfare for their people.
A devastated Lenin then invented state capitalism so that poor isolated
Russia could industrialise and so provide the prescribed conditions and a
viable working class to make Marx's theory work - the lazy bourgeoisie of
Russia had not fulfilled their historical task of doing this and presenting
goodies on a plate for the distributionist socialists to distribute. So we
had Marxism-Leninism to make Marxism work in peasant-based countries, which
is all the communists could get hold of. And to make all this go, they
substituted for politics a doctrinaire monolithic party and a huge unfeeling
bureaucracy which treated people as statistics and serfs.
And so the communist countries began their long march on the backs of a
groaning and put-upon people to fulfil mad-Marx's dream. About 100 million
were killed in the process, and it finally began to collapse under its own
contradictions, inefficiency and brutality 70 years later. Communism is
dead, but the wolves have gone back to the sheep's clothing of 'pure'
Marxism (with a human face - look for the teeth) or called themselves
something fancy. Still unreconstructed, claiming to know how to do better
next time. Would you buy a used totalitarian bureaucracy from these men?

NL