Communist ideology dictates the ultimate goal of Marxism be total world domination, via "any means necessary", and the Politburo is never supposed to relax in their efforts in pursuing that end. Hence, Marxism was a clear and constant danger to the welfare of democratic capitalist countries world-wide, and hence be contained.

Marxist ideology dictates that there are three major methods to achieve total socialist world domination.

The first one is supposed to be through democratic means through which weak but well-meaning governments form alliances with their local communist parties, which gradually assumes power until they are ready to engineer a coup d' etat. See also Czechoslovakia. However, this ploy only works on countries that are poor and in bad condition.

The second option is to maintain constant pressure on capitalist countries until they collapse from economic overstrain. Marxist theory dictates that capitalist economies can never maintain a high-standard of living and keeping an army while dealing with the constant slumps and booms of their economies are supposed to go through. Eventually, they'll collapse when pressured enough, and a revolution will replace the government with a Communist regime. Unfortunately, this is a contradiction, because despite all the ramble Marxism throws about efficiency, capitalism is infinitely more efficient in the distribution of resources, and hence can always outlast an economic war.

The third option is outright war. Even if they don't decisively win the hot war, the Politburo is supposed to fight until enough havoc and destruction has been caused. In theory, the post-war poverty, suffering and rebuilding, as well as the resentment of the government for losing the war, is the perfect breeding ground for communist scum. Desperate folks demand desperate measures, and Marx and Engels knew that. By driving the population to desperation, via any means, they are supposed to be able to cause a revolution. Unfortunately for Marx, the thought of the communists losing the war did not occur to him.

And there you have it. What Marxism is all about.


Darn. You caught me, ryano. OK, the basis of the node came out of a book talking about Marxism-Leninism, I dug out the references. However, this view was held by almost all communist regimes back in the Cold War, including China, North Korea, Cuba, and North Vietnam. Yes, it is the actual implementation of Marxism that produced that.

Then again, Marxism blabbers about the "Ultimate Goal" a lot, which is what you're talking about. Even though it never states it concretely, it obviously translates into this solution.


themusic: That is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever read. You merely obfuscate the issue by including American foreign policy, which admittedly engages in operations to increase its power, but not as far as world domination.

What do you know about Reagan? He ended the Cold War, which is far better than letting it run on. And it did not even come close to destroying the United States. That's bullshit and you know it. Canada didn't even do anything to help, but oh well, what do you expect from a socialist state?

War? Need I remind you on the USSR's excesses in Eastern Europe and Central Asia? Russian aggression in Cuba? Jesus, if you're going to quote the 80's, lets look at Afghanistan.

Not even mentioning that America has been decidedly isolationist until the end of World War II, and the commies have been preaching world domination since 1917. So what? Corporations are trying to run a business, and you muddy the waters by calling them agents of American world domination. Yeah, I'm sure when I buy a coke in China, I'm part of their evil schemes. In any case, even IF the Americans are actually intent on world domination, hey, better democratic capitalist than anything else, themusic.

Um... it might be useful if you reference that a little bit - you seem to be mixing in specifically Marxist philosophy with the various accretions to Marxism which have built up over the years. For example, the politburo, if I'm not grossly mistaken, is a specifically Russian term.

This mixing is entirely understandable, as almost nobody has ever professed or practiced pure Marxism.

In my understanding, Karl Marx's thesis was that the collapse of capitalism was inevitable, whether communists worked towards it or not.

My, you certainly know Marxism inside and out, don't you?

I'd like to see you reference specific passages written by Marx where he discusses an "ultimate goal that must be attained at all cost" or strategy for "socialist" nation-states.

Confusing classical Marxism with Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, et al. only serves to obfuscate the issue. Sorry, little of that is part of classical Marxism. The terms "Communist" and "Marxist" cannot be used interchangably.

The only important revolutionary Marxist (that I can think of) who was unencumbered by any alien, tacked-on ideology was Rosa Luxemburg. If you want to see "Marxism in action", read about her.
Jumping Jesus! You node so quickly that I cannot keep up with you!

To just make things clear: I'm not a Marxist. I just get a bit irked when an ideology is misrepresented so.

I spent my youth in Communist Czechoslovakia. The Communist propaganda used to say that capitalism was standing at the edge of a ditch (or whatever is the right English word for a very deep excavation), implying it was about to collapse (as Marx had expected).

The people would ask (when confident Big Brother was not watching): "Why is capitalism standing at the edge of the ditch?"

Then they would answer: "It is looking at socialism that fell in."

Note: The Communists always referred to the system as socialism rather than communism.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.