> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Andrew Paul > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:21 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: Myers-Briggs > > No, in fact it seems to be growing in popularity. Who discredited > Marxism? It's out of favour for sure, but when was the official > accreditation lost?
Well, we are not talking about anything official, of course, but the general flow of things. > And are we talking Marxism here, or the more general communism? Well, I always thought that Marxism was a larger field...including Marxist-Leninist thought as well as Maoist thinking. Generalizations tend to be a bit slippery, but let me give an outline of the two systems that contrasted. Marxism tends to focus on the interplay of class, not individuals. The historical dielectic is a critical tool for Marxist thought. It is seen to be the science of historical/political development. Economic class conflict is seen to be fundamental. In the long term, governments will fade away. In the short term, there is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Democracy, human rights, etc. are considered a bourgeoisie invention that does not take into account that societies are fundamentally economic in nature. Thus, a Communist dictatorship, with collective ownership, is the next step forward in history after a liberal/capitalistic state. >From the 50s through the late 70s/early 80s, it appeared that Marxism was a very viable political/economic theory. Decade by decade, Marxist governments spread throughout the world. The US was seen to lose an imperialistic war in SE Asia, with the nature result being the extension of the Marxist government. Most governments in Africa were Marxist, with central planned economies. India was socialistic and loosely in the Soviet camp. But, the inherent inefficiencies in planned economies finally overwhelmed Communist countries. The GDP of the Soviet Union fell through the 1980s, just as military spending was increased to try to match the spending of the US. At the end, about half of the GDP went to the military (the US now spends about 4% of GDP on the military). After the fall of the Berlin wall, the USSR disintegrated and the former Warsaw Pack countries happily moved to the US's sphere of influence. Germany reunited, using the West German model of society for the new unified country. China opened up it's economy to markets, at least somewhat. The present boom in China is tied to the opening of the economy to market forces. Marxist governments in Africa sought ties to the West. While there is, often, rampant corruption and strong ties between the government and industry in Africa, no government is explicitly Marxist. North Korea, Cuba, and perhaps Laos are the remaining strongly Marxist governments. About the same time, I noticed that the leftists I was arguing with stopped making Marxist arguments and started making arguments that I later found out were associated with post-modernism. The arguments I see on the web, in forums, etc. are not Marxist the way they were in the '70s. Now, this may not be a good representation of thought in other countries, so I'll be happy to see counter-examples that show that how people are still true Marxists elsewhere. But, the sea change from the '70s until now is tremendous. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
