It's idealist, by definition, to believe ideas are responsible for economic and political systems. The communist bloc was defined by its economic development by industrialization, which came with all the horrors that accompanied it in the West
-
-
Replying to @RealEnverHoxha
Crudest take on the materialism / idealism difference I've ever seen. ...
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @RealEnverHoxha
... Signs are triggers for material processes. Ideologies are materially transformative. ...
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @RealEnverHoxha
... There were no inevitable socio-economic bases for the Bolshevik revolution. Merely the opportunity presented by military humiliation. ...
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @RealEnverHoxha
... The Germans knew what they were doing when they put Lenin on a sealed train, and injected him into the heart of the Romanov regime.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
This just in, war is not a material phenomena It's well established that the Tzarist regime was finished, the civil war only determined what would replace it. Given the factions involved, the choice was always between a workers-peasant revolution or domination by imperial powers
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RealEnverHoxha
Marx is on record strongly advising that in such cases the forces of capitalist imperialism are the carrier of progress.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
When their purpose is to open up new markets, yes. But it's also a fact that the communists industrialized Russia far faster than any imperialist power would have, with their error perhaps being that they didn't integrate this production globally.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RealEnverHoxha
Marxism in historical practice has just been a program for raping the peasantry in order to build steel plants.
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
And this is where your idealism slips through once again. This was the exact same process of primitive accumulation that occurred in classic capitalism. It's simply industrialization in practice. What does it matter what the ideological trappings are?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
In the West there was a prior agricultural revolution, liberating surplus labor from the countryside. Marxist regimes didn't bother with that part.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness
This isn't a very accurate picture of either capitalist development or that of the communist bloc. In the west colonization provided much of the surplus resources, as well as changing market conditions that favored pastures over farmland freed up labor.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RealEnverHoxha @Outsideness
In terms of the communist bloc, China established food security for the first time in its history under the first few year's of communist rule. But it's also the case that these developing countries could not wait a hundred years or so to complete this process.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.