: frenchy, you don't know what you criticize. marx was certainly aware of
: the pre-technological communist societyies, callieng them primitive communism.
He even later revoised the most famous sentence, changing it to "All WRITTEN history is the histroy of class struggle"; bviously, in traditional African communist-democratic societies, there were no classes, so there could be no class struggle. In fact, he devoted many words to discussing how primitive communism in undeveloped countries could be integrated into modern communism if it came about simulatenously witha worker's revolution in Europe. So you really don't have a leg to stand on in thsi respect.
: on teh subject of that chimera, 'totalitarianism' - God, what a dated, 1950's type word- your calim that communist societies are invariably totalitarian needs but one counter-example to refute it, sincve it's a categorical statement. To my knowledge, I've supplied many. Chile? Bengal? Kerala? Guyana? Nicaragua? Zimbabwe? South Africa? Bissau? Burkina Faso? Nepal? Hell, even Yugoslavia?
: I don't understand to this day why you fail to acknowledge these. The existence of 11 examples of non-totalitarian vcommunsim (there are more) listed above mean that your eqaution of communism and totalitarianism is not true. It's as simple as that.
: And by teh way, your connection of liberalism, communsim and socialism is getting old. Socialism and communinim can be very different; communism goes teh whole hog, socialism, may only go partway. Liberalism, the bastard cousin, may have more in common with capitalism and fascism than with socialism and communsim. After all, liberalism is predicated on the unrestrained freedom of the individual to do what he likes, no matter the cost. OIn capitalism, this takes the form of exploiting other humans; in facsism, of killing them.
As I've said, I'm simply using the material from A. Solzhenitsyn's book, "From Under the Rubble" in illustrating the existance of Communism throughout history whereas Marx claims that Communism is the pinicle of man's evolution. You can call it "primitive" if you like, but it's still Communism; control of all by a few. There's no way you can get around it.
The examples that you provide are suspect.
I hate to break this to you but I'm not going to purposely go out of my way to verify what you claim. If, by accident, that happens, that's fine. As I've mentioned before, I had the good fortune of finding out a little more about Kerala from an Indian gentleman. Turns out that that Indian state recieves money from the central government in the form of subsidies to keep it afloat. That's success? By the way, what's the per capita income of Kerala? I heard it's about $800.00 per year. That's success?
About Nicaragua; I happened to stumble across an interesting booklet entitled "Causes of the continuing conflict in Nicaragua; a view from the radical middle" written by Timothy C. Brown and published by Stanford University as part of their Essays in Public Policy. The long and short of Nicaragua is that it is ruled by a very small minority of people and always has been, regardless of what ideology is dominant at any given time. There are a few families whose roots can be traced back to the Conquistadors and those are the people that hold power. It doesn't have very much to do with Communism or Capitalism, it's about this family essentially screwing that family to retain power. The vast majority of people in Nicaragua are going to be used by politicians and they in turn are manipulated by the ruling families.
An excerpt; "The Sandanistas as an Eltie Subgroup
The second principal set of actors on the contemporary Nicaraguan political scene is the Sandinista Popular Army and the Sandinista Party. Despite their revolutionary rhetoridc and image, their leaderships, especially since their triumph, have been heavily salted with members of the traditional patriarchy and its grand bourgeoisie allies, particularly from Leon. This did not go unnoticed even in the beginning.
Internationally prominent Costa Rican historian and genealogist Samuel Stone Xemurray (1990) has labeled Daniel and Humberto Ortega Saavedra "members of the new colonial aristocracy." General Humberto Ortega is married to a Costa Rican, Trejos Montealegre, from a branch of Nicaragua's second-wealthiest family group. Humberto's Costa Rican father-in-law warehoused guns for the Sandanistas and helped run them to Ortega's forces during the anti-Samoza rebellion. Among other key Sandanista leaders from or married into patriarchal families are Joaquin Cuadra Lacayo, the new commanding general of the Sandanista Popular Army, Luis Carrion Cruz, and Jaime Wheelock Roman, the latter two from elite Leon families.
Carlos Vilas, a prominent Argentine pro-Sandanista Marxist, noted that after the revolution "notable family names of Granada quickly multiplied within the highest levels of the revolutionalry government, particularly within thearmy and the implemintation of agrarian reform." Vilas also noted that the Sandanistas in power were as solicitous of the powerful Pellas family as the first Somoza had ever been. "The prudence, advanced warnings and early notices characterizing intervention in *(the Pella's)San Antonio, stand in stark Contrast to the (treatment)of small and middle class peasants who were found collaborating with the Contras." Vilas also repeats with obvious relish a critical comment on the Sandanista-Chamorro transition as a process during which "relatives exchanged power among themselves." All these can ber readily viewed as manifestations of elite class solidarity."
There's more, my fingers are tired, so am I. Power is shuffled at the top in Nicargua, and I'll bet a nickel to a banana that this is common in all those countries in C and S America. It's a form of a caste system. The 'patrons' only care that their particular family stays in power. If that means they'll be Commies one week and Capitalists the following, so be it.
Now, I don't know about the other places, I have my suspicions, but as far as Nicuragua and Kerala go maybe you could use some education yourself.
I'll eventually get around to Zimbabwe and S. Africa.
I think it's important that since you seem to view such places as success' you'd also be willing to live there yourself. Which of the above mentioned place would you choose to live in? (that reminds me, I saw an article about Zimbabwe, seems their having a civil war there. Whites and Indians are prime targets. Have you heard about it?)
PS, wasn't it Marx who said that Socialism and Communism are interchangable?
PSS, the only reason that I lump Communists/Socialist/Liberals/Greens is that they all lie about their intentions. They have to. Besides lies, they also have a desire to control others and taking rights away. Thanks for the mini-seminar though.