The End of History: Or will Communism ever make a comeback?

[Laika]

In the Summer 1989 edition of the National Interest, Francis Fukuyama wrote and published an article titled "the end of history?" later developing the theme in a book "The End of History and the Last Man" (1992). The full essay is here but at the end of the Cold War, Fukuyama argued that:

The triumph of the West, of the Western idea, is evident first of all in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism. In the past decade, there have been unmistakable changes in the intellectual climate of the world's two largest communist countries, and the beginnings of significant reform movements in both. ...

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. ...

Fukuyama's understanding of History wasn't as an end to all events, but rather that the great ideological questions of our time would be settled and the acceptance of liberalism would be a global ideological consensus.

Naturally it has been extremely controversial, especially amongst the far left who still hold on to the belief the transition from capitalism to socialism. Buried in an old Soviet textbook, I found a passage that would seem to be relevant to demonstrating the survival of Communism now that the U.S.S.R. has fallen.

"Ideologists of imperialism believe that if the victory of socialist revolutions could be prevented and the communist movement suppressed, capitalism would be able to remain firm and stable and prove itself the only possible form of society. They see the source of capitalism's troubles solely in the action of forces outside the capitalist system. Even though of them who recognise the general crisis of capitalism as a fact seek to attribute this crisis to the existence of the socialist system and to communist plots to overthrow capitalism. The communist movement, which inevitably develops from the class struggle, is regarded by them as a movement inspired from without and organised by "foreign agents".

Actually, the general crisis of capitalism is the product of the internal contradictions of imperialism. It becomes sharper and deeper primarily through the action of capitalist society's own antagonisms. External conditions- the existence and growth of the socialist system- promote the more rapid maturing of these antagonisms, but by no means their initial cause."

(p. 318, Kuusinen, Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, 1961)

Put in to laymen's terms, the existence Soviet Union was never the sole cause of socialist revolutions around the world, but only made revolutions, that would have happened anyway, a little bit easier. The class conflicts within capitalism necessarily produced those revolutions and will continue to do so even in the absence of the U.S.S.R. So now that the U.S.S.R. has gone, those class conflicts and internal contradictions remain in Capitalism to produce socialist revolutions in the future.

This theory could equally be applied to explain the revival of fascism as a form of political reaction, and the overall decline in the health and quality of our "capitalist" liberal democracies, developing out of the class conflicts of capitalism as a part of it's overall deterioration or "general crisis".

Does this sound like total BS to you? A long shot maybe? Or do you think that capitalism itself is producing the conditions required for new socialist revolutions in the future? What do you think?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Does this sound like total BS to you? A long shot maybe? Or do you think that capitalism itself is producing the conditions required for new socialist revolutions in the future? What do you think?

First, my impression about that quote by Francis Fukuyama is that it is premature.

Imperialism is alive and well, but I think it comes from belief in maintaining worldwide order or a fear of chaos. The fear of war causes people to excuse it. A fear of world war is the excuse. This also is not a reason but is an excuse for the annexation of smaller territories by larger ones.

The decline in health of capitalist liberal democracies is only a surprise to those who thought happiness could be systematized. A country must have its ups and downs, and I am talking about inequality and suffering. Fukuyama's premature optimism is not isolated. Lots of people think that because things are good in their country for one or two decades that they have achieved a stable and long lasting system of happiness, but they are premature to think so.

One problem in all countries is consolidation of property and power. USA is the evidence. Vast amounts of land are now owned by a few people. Its going to cause trouble for us. You may not see a socialist revolution, but you will see suffering and trouble return in cycles. We have seen it before.

Communism may have failed because of appearing before its time, before technology was ready to uphold its ideals. Even now its almost impossible to give the means of production to the worker, but that may not always be true. Idealists jumped the gun. They tried to make due with too little.

Capitalist idealists do the same thing, claiming victory before the score is settled. Everyone hopes for the best.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does not seem likely in India. They lost and are forgotten in W.Bengal (pop. 102 million) ten years ago. Have lost Tripura (pop. 4.2 million) three years ago. Have lost on alternate elections in Kerala (pop. 36 million) to Centrists, and the Rightists have risen there. In 2004, they had 43 members in the India Parliament (in a house of 543. They could have ruled India in 1977 through a coalition government, but refused the opportunity). Now they have just 3. So, all that remains is to read requiem for them.

 

[Laika]

Does not seem likely in India. They lost and are forgotten in W.Bengal (pop. 102 million) ten years ago. Have lost Tripura (pop. 4.2 million) three years ago. Have lost on alternate elections in Kerala (pop. 36 million) to Centrists, and the Rightists have risen there. In 2004, they had 43 members in the India Parliament (in a house of 543. They could have ruled India in 1977 through a coalition government, but refused the opportunity). Now they have just 3. So, all that remains is to read requiem for them.

India was one of the stronger holdouts for Communist support around the world. So, the decline there is a major issue and an indication of it's overall weakness. In the West, Communism barely exists except for a isolated pockets. Taking all the 20-30 tiny far left parties in the UK, party membership probably won't exceed 2,000-5,000 in total.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We have a strong Communist membership and they are important as far as industry goes. But it does not translate into political victories because of other reasons, religion, caste, etc.

 

[PureX]

Man's desire to control ... everything ... has not abated. Only the means he uses to do it changes.

Communism was never communism. It was totalitarian dictatorship masquerading as communism. Forced labor camps aren't communes. They're just the inevitable result of mankind's innate desire to control ... everything and everyone. Well, it's not all mankind's desire. But clearly it is the desire of a significant percentage of men (and some women) to control everything and everyone. And in the several 100 thousand years of humanity's existence, we still have not managed to understand this, to recognize the incredible suffering that results when these people get the control they desire, and learned to put a stop to it. To stop those people from gaining the control over everything and everyone that they are driven to seek.

And by whatever methods they find available to them.

Their methods change over time and via circumstances, but their goal never does. Some of these would be despots gain control by mesmerizing their fellow humans with 'charisma', and lies. Some of them gain control through brute strength and the constant threat of violence. And now, the latest wave of wanna-be despots have learned to gain control by controlling the flow of wealth. And it's this method of creating and maintaining totalitarian dictatorship that has subjugated that previous method of gaining and maintaining control through threat of violence. The threat of violence is still a common means of control among humans all around the world. But that is changing. And in the larger more modern countries, first. The new dictators among us are learning that controlling the economy is a far more effective and reaching threat than controlling armies. Armies can be bought and controlled by money. Governments can be bought and controlled by money. Once you control the money flow, you can control everything and everyone.

The fall of phony communism was not the fall of despotism. And it sure was not the end of man's desire to subjugate and control everything and everyone, absolutely. It was just a first-world example of how economic control has become a more powerful method of control than militarism and threats of violence. So that now we have a new and even more deadly expression of mankind's innate inhumanity and pathological desire for absolute control. And an economic system that is feeding it.

 

[Valjean]

Does this sound like total BS to you? A long shot maybe? Or do you think that capitalism itself is producing the conditions required for new socialist revolutions in the future? What do you think?

Capitalism contains the seed of it's own opposition.

 

[atanu]

In the Summer 1989 edition of the National Interest, Francis Fukuyama wrote and published an article titled "the end of history?" later developing the theme in a book "The End of History and the Last Man" (1992). The full essay is here but at the end of the Cold War, Fukuyama argued that:



Fukuyama's understanding of History wasn't as an end to all events, but rather that the great ideological questions of our time would be settled and the acceptance of liberalism would be a global ideological consensus.

Naturally it has been extremely controversial, especially amongst the far left who still hold on to the belief the transition from capitalism to socialism. Buried in an old Soviet textbook, I found a passage that would seem to be relevant to demonstrating the survival of Communism now that the U.S.S.R. has fallen.



Put in to laymen's terms, the existence Soviet Union was never the sole cause of socialist revolutions around the world, but only made revolutions, that would have happened anyway, a little bit easier. The class conflicts within capitalism necessarily produced those revolutions and will continue to do so even in the absence of the U.S.S.R. So now that the U.S.S.R. has gone, those class conflicts and internal contradictions remain in Capitalism to produce socialist revolutions in the future.

This theory could equally be applied to explain the revival of fascism as a form of political reaction, and the overall decline in the health and quality of our "capitalist" liberal democracies, developing out of the class conflicts of capitalism as a part of it's overall deterioration or "general crisis".

Does this sound like total BS to you? A long shot maybe? Or do you think that capitalism itself is producing the conditions required for new socialist revolutions in the future? What do you think?

Marx and Engels did not think that State Communism (as it later happened in USSR or China) would be real Communism or that such system would be stable. Communism is about attainment of classless and stateless society. It may remain a high unattainable utopia.

An isolated state communism is bound to fail, mainly due to subversive activities by actors from within and without. Right after 1917, the Bolsheviks had to face attacks from foreign powers and internal enemies and had to exist under huge stresses. Similarly, a few countries that tried to implement democratic socialist governments were brutally brought down. Allende’s case in an example. The history of military and electoral interventions of the USA are well known. Most people think that those interventions are/were for common peoples benefits. It is far from true.

In state Communism such as in USSR, the workers instead of being freed had to face restrictions and hardships. It happened mainly due to pressures put on its economy by the Capitalist forces that constitute hardly 0.5% of population of the world but control 95% of its resources.

Running a successful state Communism, adhering to the cherished ideals of Socialism, was hardly a possibility.

It is a known tactic of the rightist forces to divide the working classes along the lines of nationality, religion, language, or some other identity element to stop working people across these imaginary divisions to unite. Currently the capitalist forces have succeeded 100% in dividing the world along religious or racial lines.

India, although beset with worst economic conditions, is also preoccupied with Hindu Muslim issues. It suits the rulers who have assiduously promoted this. It is funny that the poor and the common people are the most vocal and bitter critics of socialism. But when I ask “Why are you opposed to socialism?” most of them have no answers. It is the propaganda that they believe and parrot out.

The left forces are are moneyless and powerless to counter the propaganda.

The ruling party devised a money raising tactic. First during the last 7 years the government waived off loans worth Rs10 lakh crores. We do not know the beneficiaries. Simultaneously, a scheme called called ‘Electoral bonds’ was implemented. Under this scheme anyone can donate any amount to any political party ANONYMOUSLY — except that the government will only know the donors. 95% money from electoral bonds goes to only one party.

In contrast, the left parties have no fund.

But. The goal of socialism is not to capture power but to work for a classless society and to be alive to the issues of the unprivileged. And towards this, the dialectical processes do not stop. Changes may not follow the copybook prescriptions but the dialectical changes are inevitable. It is not simply politics but it is the nature of existence.

…

 

[Valjean]

Socialize the Commons -- those goods and services used universally, or necessary for a safe, stable society -- fire and police services, education, healthcare, social services for the needy, &c.

Allow entrepreneurs manufactories, free enterprise, competition and a capitalist marketplace. Regulate as necessary to suppress exploitation, hazardous conditions and products, pollution, &c.

Experiment as necessary. Don't be afraid to try new things, tweak or replace problematic policies, &c.

 

[Aupmanyav]

First during the last 7 years the government waived off loans worth Rs10 lakh crores. We do not know the beneficiaries. Simultaneously, a scheme called called ‘Electoral bonds’ was implemented. Under this scheme anyone can donate any amount to any political party ANONYMOUSLY - except that the government will only know the donors. 95% money from electoral bonds goes to only one party.

Atanu, does Narendra Modi have a secret Swiss or Panamanian account like the Gandhis have? In a democracy, pleasing the constituents is a necessities. Loans have been waived since independence and by all parties. Surely, I do not like this kind of politics, but one not disregard reality.

Those whose loans are waived are the poor people. Big agriculturists or what are known as the forward castes are not the beneficiaries. There has been Ujwala scheme which has enabled liquid gas cooking in villages, is that bad? It saves environment. There is a toilet scheme and a house-building loan scheme. Are they bad. There are schemes to start small and medium manufacturing facilities, are they bad? Scholarships for students, tablets and laptops for students. Is that bad?

I do not understand your problem with the current government. There has been no big scams during the seven years that Modi has been at the helm. See the problems he has had to face. Pakistan-fueled terrorism, black money, Chinese aggression and then the Covid. India has successfully sailed through the rough sees and emerged stronger. Modi has always gone by the law, Modi has stood by all agreements that India has made with the international community.

At one time donations to political parties were in unaccounted money (Black money). And then the parties spent more on elections than was permitted. What is wrong if the government has channelized it through banks. Also foreign countries cannot now make unaccounted donations to political parties and influence the outcome of the result. Now, to which party Corporations and individuals give donation is their choice. The new regulations have not restricted anything other than the use of Black money. So, what is your complaint? There is no anonymous donation. The parties have to submit their accounts to the government. What is anonymous now is a donation below Rs.1,000 (USD 13.46).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_India#Electoral_Bonds

Why do you act as a fifth columnist and spreading false information about India? Who are you working for?

 

[Stevicus]

Put in to laymen's terms, the existence Soviet Union was never the sole cause of socialist revolutions around the world, but only made revolutions, that would have happened anyway, a little bit easier. The class conflicts within capitalism necessarily produced those revolutions and will continue to do so even in the absence of the U.S.S.R. So now that the U.S.S.R. has gone, those class conflicts and internal contradictions remain in Capitalism to produce socialist revolutions in the future.

This theory could equally be applied to explain the revival of fascism as a form of political reaction, and the overall decline in the health and quality of our "capitalist" liberal democracies, developing out of the class conflicts of capitalism as a part of it's overall deterioration or "general crisis".

Does this sound like total BS to you? A long shot maybe? Or do you think that capitalism itself is producing the conditions required for new socialist revolutions in the future? What do you think?

Regardless of the fall of the USSR, as long as there are wide divisions between have and have-not, there will continue to be a class struggle.

It may not always take the same form, and some people might believe there are other ways to improve their lives. Nationalism and identity politics seem to continue to persist, indicating that people might be concluding that "I realize I can't change the world, but at least I can try to make things better for me and mine."

China and Russia have grown more nationalistic in recent decades, and a similar rise in nationalism can be discerned in India, Europe, and America. This could be an impediment to global capitalism, even though capitalism and nationalism are both in the same ideological ballpark of social Darwinism.

Capitalism, too, has also grown dependent upon international trade, but this has been predicated on the idea of the "free world" and America's role as its defender, which requires a critical mass of Americans to be staunch patriots and quasi-nationalists. Although they often bump heads with Western liberals who are also capitalists and also benefit from imperialism, yet try to play it down or pretend like its benevolent. Liberals and progressives are often embarrassed by these ultra-patriotic, militaristic types, but they can't do much of anything about them, because if they did, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

In my view, what we have currently is that capitalists (both the conservative and liberal variety) have painted themselves into an ideological corner, where they have to be both nationalists and internationalists at the same time. And then they wonder why things are going south.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

the main conflict in history is between democracy and totalitarianism.

Anyway, I think the clash between ideologies is a not very useful model for describing the social, economic and political state of the world.

 

[Ponder This]

I don't think we can ever rule out the forces that bring about the disintegration of free society. And thus capitalism might not be the end result. Capitalism is only one aspect of a free society.

 

[sun rise]

Communism was never communism. It was totalitarian dictatorship masquerading as communism. Forced labor camps aren't communes. They're just the inevitable result of mankind's innate desire to control ... everything and everyone. Well, it's not all mankind's desire.

Yes. We can debate Marx's ideals, but the nature of people do not allow them to be really tried. The best we can hope for, right now, is a balance of power. And in the US we see that starting to crack and fall as SCOTUS more and more makes decisions in secret with no reference to the law and precedent leading the US into the chasm of having people's egos ruling the country not a system of law and precedent.

We also have a growing disparity between the mega rich who hide their wealth all over the world (see the just breaking Pandora Papers study) and the growing poor who see middle-class lives receding into impossibility.

Something will have to give sooner or later. It was a propaganda slogan in the 60's but it's true anyway "you don't have to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing".

Personally the Scandinavian nations' democratic socialism looks pretty good to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Capitalism contains the seed of it's own opposition.

Don't they all?
Socialism has the attendant authoritarianism & economic misery.

 

[Sand Dancer]

In the Summer 1989 edition of the National Interest, Francis Fukuyama wrote and published an article titled "the end of history?" later developing the theme in a book "The End of History and the Last Man" (1992). The full essay is here but at the end of the Cold War, Fukuyama argued that:



Fukuyama's understanding of History wasn't as an end to all events, but rather that the great ideological questions of our time would be settled and the acceptance of liberalism would be a global ideological consensus.

Naturally it has been extremely controversial, especially amongst the far left who still hold on to the belief the transition from capitalism to socialism. Buried in an old Soviet textbook, I found a passage that would seem to be relevant to demonstrating the survival of Communism now that the U.S.S.R. has fallen.



Put in to laymen's terms, the existence Soviet Union was never the sole cause of socialist revolutions around the world, but only made revolutions, that would have happened anyway, a little bit easier. The class conflicts within capitalism necessarily produced those revolutions and will continue to do so even in the absence of the U.S.S.R. So now that the U.S.S.R. has gone, those class conflicts and internal contradictions remain in Capitalism to produce socialist revolutions in the future.

This theory could equally be applied to explain the revival of fascism as a form of political reaction, and the overall decline in the health and quality of our "capitalist" liberal democracies, developing out of the class conflicts of capitalism as a part of it's overall deterioration or "general crisis".

Does this sound like total BS to you? A long shot maybe? Or do you think that capitalism itself is producing the conditions required for new socialist revolutions in the future? What do you think?

Whenever one side tightens up on rules, the other side reacts. Socialists cause fascists to react, and vice versa.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Socialize the Commons -- those goods and services used universally, or necessary for a safe, stable society -- fire and police services, education, healthcare, social services for the needy, &c.

Allow entrepreneurs manufactories, free enterprise, competition and a capitalist marketplace. Regulate as necessary to suppress exploitation, hazardous conditions and products, pollution, &c.

Experiment as necessary. Don't be afraid to try new things, tweak or replace problematic policies, &c.

Valjean for president!!!!

 

[PureX]

Personally the Scandinavian nations' democratic socialism looks pretty good to me.

Me too, but unfortunately it's working for them to the degree that it is because the people there want it to. Here, we are all far to poisoned by the false ideal that freedom = selfishness to accept the kind of social responsibility required to make socialism work.

 

[Valjean]

Don't they all?
Socialism has the attendant authoritarianism & economic misery.

No. Socialism is the opposite of authoritarianism. Socialism is radical democracy.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. Socialism is the opposite of authoritarianism. Socialism is radical democracy.

A personal definition, eh.
Check every dictionary....it's about the people owning
the means of production. Authoritarianism is simply
what happens under socialism...a necessity to prevent
people from free economic association.

But if we get to define things as we want.....

Capitalism:
A system of constitutional democracy that stresses
individual liberties, both social & economic. It allows
regulation to protect people's rights, anti-competitive
conduct, & the environment.