[Leninist]

Nationalism is just an extension of tribalism, which is not new at all. The only new thing is that people were identifying with the nation state rather than smaller units, and even then that's only if you believe the Marxist view of history is at all accurate on that issue. The claim that historical nations and empires pre-capitalism didn't have any strong sense of belonging to communities distinct from outsiders is dubious.

Historically, patriotism has been used to bolster the socialist nations just the same as any other. This caused tendency fall outs within the socialist world during the Cold War. You imagine that if capitalism wasn't there, they would all unite completely somehow (Who would give up rulership? Would Russian workers be prepared to be out-voted by Chinese workers?). I don't know, but if people can't unite to fight their enemies, why would they be able to unite when their enemies are defeated? It sounds more likely that they would start fighting over new socialist mode divisions.

There are biases which transcend our relationships with the means of production, and there are biases which incorporate our collective relationship in relation to some other groups' relationship.

But you are still thinking in the mindset of competition. In a socialist system where the economies have reached the level where there is no need for national competition or hoarding of resources, why should the Russian workers give a shit about the Chinese workers outvoting them? Post scarcity means we no longer compete for resources, things are simply sent where they are needed. What benefits the Russians in a cooperative global economy benefits the Chinese and visa-versa.

The problem is that there are different socialisms distinct to the conditions of different nations. Stalin recognized this. An extension of that is recognizing that this creates a point of conflicting interests when it comes to "merging the world".

The other (perhaps more fundamental problem) is that it isn't purely a dichotomy between self-interest and group-interest. There can be competing group-interests (evidentially, there are) even if people aren't purely thinking of themselves. Each person or groups vision for others must win over other the visions of others. Since history shows us that not all Marxisms are the same thing (other Marxists on this forum have criticized you for rejecting Stalin, for example), it is a given there will be competition, and where some parties lose big, history indicates again that the conflict has a tendency to converge on violence.

Would Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Tito's administrations (to name a few) all amiably melt into a pool of homogenous communism post-capitalism? I think not. Not with relative ease. I think there might have just been a fair few wars over whose socialism was more amenable to communism first.

Stalin never viewed his goal in say, Eastern Europe as one of setting up proper communist states, his goal was to create a buffer for Russia against the West and to exploit them for the benefit of Russia. Stalin, Mao, and Castro, they were/are all nationalists. Stalin fought tooth and nail against Lenin's ideas on national self-determination. Mao was more than willing to bounce around on communist theory, his goal was to benefit China, not the world communist cause. When Castro came to power he wasn't even a declared Marxist, he just aligned with the USSR because the US was trying to kill/depose him. I hold with none of these men as great examples of communist leadership, and I say the same about the systems they created.

Well then, you would hope not to copy what actually existing socialist nations did. Representatives are needed to cut through competing ideas and create one vision for the administrative area in question, so it is intrinsic to a representative system that there is a distinct interest by those ruling. One way to tackle this would be to draw leaders at random from the most intelligent and competent workers (but who decides what that is?), however the crazy risk inherent in this means people would be wary of a leadership system that lacks momentum, and moreover the vanguard who brought in the revolution would have a vested interest not to transition to such a system.

With representatives, the people are not making policy; they are choosing a package deal of policies attached to the party they vote in. The people who want to run will be people who want to see their vision dominant, either for personal gain, or out of altruism. Either way, they will want to ensure their vision is maintained, and if they have a party, they will want to gather power to it, so the more of a party based system you have, the more there is a distinct group interest that develops (you could almost say a class interest...) even if the members of the party are workers. You see, they are workers who believe in a distinct set of managerial policies which will differ from the thousands upon thousands of different sets of policies other groups of workers or individuals might come up with. This is a problem inherent to republics, socialist or not.

Well firstly, I would not copy what existing socialist nations did. Most of them collapsed under the weight of their own Stalinist bureaucracies, not something I would like to see rise again. Secondly, the goal of a communist party is not to rule indefinitely. Its purpose is to provide sound leadership for the people during the revolution and immediately after, but the most important purpose is to prepare the people to lead themselves. The Bolsheviks were doing this, but while fighting a civil war and trying to modernize an incredibly backwards economy they invested a little too much power in themselves, Lenin died at the worst possible time and then Stalin took control and entrenched what was supposed to be a temporary system in so deep the entire country fell apart when they tried to change it. This would not necessarily happen in a first world country, as the populace would be better educated, the economy in a better position, and the precedent of democracy already laid out, none of which Russia or most (if any) communist nations had.
You ask, why would the party cede power? Because we're communists, the goal is not power for us, it's power for the people. The question is not whether we can get people who don't want personal power but whether we can keep the people who do (Stalin, Mao) from getting too much. Historically, we failed, but as the saying goes the only real mistake is the one you don't learn from. Taking into account the death toll, I would say Stalin was still a mistake, but he had to happen, because now we now that totalitarian communism does not work.

[Technology]

But you are still thinking in the mindset of competition. In a socialist system where the economies have reached the level where there is no need for national competition or hoarding of resources, why should the Russian workers give a shit about the Chinese workers outvoting them? Post scarcity means we no longer compete for resources, things are simply sent where they are needed. What benefits the Russians in a cooperative global economy benefits the Chinese and visa-versa.

There will be disputes over what people need and how the economy should be structured to fulfill those needs. A system which says property will be owned by society as a whole, will have representatives distilling that will, and given that there are a myriad of ways to do so, there will be competition over it.

You can't just do away with competition. You can't hide competition behind co-operation, because there will be competition over how we should co-operate and who should lead us there. Doing something as big as settling the economic destiny of the entire world is something more than just enemy capitalists might have differing views on.

Also, besides people differing on how to achieve communism, or how communism should operate when it arrives, there are those who see the socialist mode of production with a "dictatorship of the proletariat" being preferable in its own right. These people would in a sense be the new reactionaries after capitalism falls.

Stalin never viewed his goal in say, Eastern Europe as one of setting up proper communist states, his goal was to create a buffer for Russia against the West and to exploit them for the benefit of Russia. Stalin, Mao, and Castro, they were/are all nationalists. Stalin fought tooth and nail against Lenin's ideas on national self-determination. Mao was more than willing to bounce around on communist theory, his goal was to benefit China, not the world communist cause. When Castro came to power he wasn't even a declared Marxist, he just aligned with the USSR because the US was trying to kill/depose him. I hold with none of these men as great examples of communist leadership, and I say the same about the systems they created.

But that's just the thing: other people calling themselves communists on this forum and elsewhere love the leadership of some of these people and think that even though they failed, their method was the best shot for communism. They will try to purge people like you just as Stalin purged Trotsky.

The countries aiming for communism all had different ideas of how to get there. You don't want to claim them as communists, but they wouldn't want to claim you as communist either. From an outside perspective, it's the perfect recipe for conflict to continue as it always has.

Well firstly, I would not copy what existing socialist nations did. Most of them collapsed under the weight of their own Stalinist bureaucracies, not something I would like to see rise again. Secondly, the goal of a communist party is not to rule indefinitely. Its purpose is to provide sound leadership for the people during the revolution and immediately after, but the most important purpose is to prepare the people to lead themselves. The Bolsheviks were doing this, but while fighting a civil war and trying to modernize an incredibly backwards economy they invested a little too much power in themselves, Lenin died at the worst possible time and then Stalin took control and entrenched what was supposed to be a temporary system in so deep the entire country fell apart when they tried to change it. This would not necessarily happen in a first world country, as the populace would be better educated, the economy in a better position, and the precedent of democracy already laid out, none of which Russia or most (if any) communist nations had.
You ask, why would the party cede power? Because we're communists, the goal is not power for us, it's power for the people. The question is not whether we can get people who don't want personal power but whether we can keep the people who do (Stalin, Mao) from getting too much. Historically, we failed, but as the saying goes the only real mistake is the one you don't learn from. Taking into account the death toll, I would say Stalin was still a mistake, but he had to happen, because now we now that totalitarian communism does not work.

You've just highlighted my point by saying that "totalitarian" communism does not work. If you were the head of a non-totalitarian socialist nation (!), and another poster like Fuser was at the head of a Stalinist style socialist republic, he would see you as completely wrong about how communism should be approached.

I mean, is there conflict today within the socialist and communist scenes? Yes. There are splitters and tendency wars. Will these things be likely to go away with the capitalist powers, or will they intensify when there is no longer a common, satanic enemy to unite against?

[Leninist]

There will be disputes over what people need and how the economy should be structured to fulfill those needs. A system which says property will be owned by society as a whole, will have representatives distilling that will, and given that there are a myriad of ways to do so, there will be competition over it.

You can't just do away with competition. You can't hide competition behind co-operation, because there will be competition over how we should co-operate and who should lead us there. Doing something as big as settling the economic destiny of the entire world is something more than just enemy capitalists might have differing views on.

Also, besides people differing on how to achieve communism, or how communism should operate when it arrives, there are those who see the socialist mode of production with a "dictatorship of the proletariat" being preferable in its own right. These people would in a sense be the new reactionaries after capitalism falls.

The difference between capitalist disagreements and communist ones are that in the capitalist system if one group is doing better it means they are actively depriving/exploiting another. The first world powers its economy by exploiting the third. Multi-nationals are careful to manage how much of a product enters the market and try to suppress competitors. But in a communist world economy, if China starts producing twice as many shoes the Russian shoe distributors don't have to worry that the price is going down, they just have more shoes to distribute. Its true that there will be competition in the political system, but the test of a good system is not that it has no problems, but that it can overcome them. So long as a well educated and empowered people is at the center of a system I am confident there is little it cannot handle.

But that's just the thing: other people calling themselves communists on this forum and elsewhere love the leadership of some of these people and think that even though they failed, their method was the best shot for communism. They will try to purge people like you just as Stalin purged Trotsky.

The countries aiming for communism all had different ideas of how to get there. You don't want to claim them as communists, but they wouldn't want to claim you as communist either. From an outside perspective, it's the perfect recipe for conflict to continue as it always has.

To explain why it is unlikely that Stalinism would rise in a first world communist society you have to examine why it rose in Russia. I kind of outlined it above, lack of democratic tendencies, and generally facing incredible barriers and threats to the socialist society. There are very few Stalinists in the first world. So what if a revolution took place in the first world and a democratic socialist republic came to be, and then exported its brand of socialism around the world? Basically I'm saying, the Stalinists can't purge me if I purge them first.

You've just highlighted my point by saying that "totalitarian" communism does not work. If you were the head of a non-totalitarian socialist nation (!), and another poster like Fuser was at the head of a Stalinist style socialist republic, he would see you as completely wrong about how communism should be approached.

I mean, is there conflict today within the socialist and communist scenes? Yes. There are splitters and tendency wars. Will these things be likely to go away with the capitalist powers, or will they intensify when there is no longer a common, satanic enemy to unite against?

Satanic is a little harsh. I mean, they did cure polio. But anyway I guess the difference is that my socialism based on democratic cooperatives would function economically, while history shows his would fall apart once the bureaucracy fell in on itself. So maybe we cold war it for a while and then history repeats itself either in the form of a massive war that possibly wipes out humanity or I win. And its all a pretty serious hypothetical anyway.

PS, for the past couple of days the forum has seemed to go down. is this just me or everyone?

[park]

Ah my friend, that is where you miss understand capitalism. The reason there is less exploitation in say, the US, is because the workers got fed up but rather than a revolution they unionized. after a while the capitalists got fed up with paying so much to workers and now because of free trade agreements they try to ship as much work out as possible, and now it is the Asians and south Americans who get really badly exploited. Soon it will probably be the Africans to. And here in the US the Unions are dying and so soon they might come back here, or they'll mechanize production and tell everyone to fuck off. but the point is the exploitation never stops, it just moves or transforms. Even if they mechanize they'll still be exploiting us.

Westerners (especially Americans) are still recovering from all the crap of the cold war, but the right wing's error is that they think we are "in the dustbin of history" and they have largely slacked off their propaganda. But people are waking up. And we communists just need to show them (especially the youth) that they need to give up all that crap with things like occupy wall street and and co-ops, stop reforming the system, and rewrite it. because as long as we try to work with people who are rich and greedy, no matter how much we should compromise, they will always try to pull more for themselves. And the wonderful thing is that the rich could probably stop us, but their own greed will force them to constantly make the situation worse and worse for themselves and better for us.

If workers in 1917 had the same rights of today even the USSR would have never existed.Lenin was a man of his time,only a few people today would follow him.The only hope for Communism to come back is if we go back to lower rights,then millions of people become upset against capitalists and will vote Communist parties.Until then,Communism has 0% chance of coming back because workers are happy with their situation.

[Leninist]

If workers in 1917 had the same rights of today even the USSR would have never existed.Lenin was a man of his time,only a few people today would follow him.The only hope for Communism to come back is if we go back to lower rights,then millions of people become upset against capitalists and will vote Communist parties.Until then,Communism has 0% chance of coming back because workers are happy with their situation.

Lenin said exactly that while explaining why a revolution in so backwards a country as Russia was justified, and I just said that in the last paragraph of my statement. The system IS in decline, people in the first world ARE getting pissed at the capitalist system, although they haven't reached the point where they express this discontentment as anything more than anger at select politicians. My point is that because of the fundamental flaws in the capitalist system, the people will inevitably become more and more dissatisfied with it as the capitalists are forced to do crazier and crazier things to save themselves. They are, for example, about to sign another free trade deal which will ship off more jobs.

[park]

Lenin said exactly that while explaining why a revolution in so backwards a country as Russia was justified, and I just said that in the last paragraph of my statement. The system IS in decline, people in the first world ARE getting pissed at the capitalist system, although they haven't reached the point where they express this discontentment as anything more than anger at select politicians. My point is that because of the fundamental flaws in the capitalist system, the people will inevitably become more and more dissatisfied with it as the capitalists are forced to do crazier and crazier things to save themselves. They are, for example, about to sign another free trade deal which will ship off more jobs.

I don't agree,there are millions of workers who don't even realise they're exploited.If they had to work 14 hours a day and with lower income then Communist parties would collect their votes.But until then people just think that it's better now than a Soviet like state.Without the severe exploitation there was 200 years ago,the Communist thinking probably wouldn't even be born.Why hope for a revolution that kills people if after all everybody is happy,even if some are richer than others?It's the same for National socialism,if Germans weren't that upset Hitler wouldn't have won the elections.

[Leninist]

I don't agree,there are millions of workers who don't even realise they're exploited.If they had to work 14 hours a day and with lower income then Communist parties would collect their votes.But until then people just think that it's better now than a Soviet like state.Without the severe exploitation there was 200 years ago,the Communist thinking probably wouldn't even be born.Why hope for a revolution that kills people if after all everybody is happy,even if some are richer than others?It's the same for National socialism,if Germans weren't that upset Hitler wouldn't have won the elections.

Well yes, revolution requires as much negative input from the capitalists as positive from the communists. The thing is that by its very nature capitalism MUST exploit somebody. The system is built upon there being a few winners and many losers, because that is how competition works. What Lenin explained is that first world countries exist by exploiting their people less than the third world, and so make themselves look better in comparison and make their proletariat feel that they should be content. The problem is that while this may postpone revolution, the inherent economic flaws of capitalism, such as the inevitable over concentration of wealth and over production of goods which will lead to economic collapse, means that in the long term even the first world proletariat will find cause to rise up. And the past few years have shown this to already be the case across Europe (social unrest in Greece, Spain, etc.,) and to a lesser extent the US (Occupy Wall street).

[Varax]

*Ignores the trollish nature of the OP*

No, communism and socialism are not dead. To say that it is would ignore the global presence of large, still operating communist and socialist parties including countries where such movements are actually in government or have significant influence in local affairs. This much should be painfully obvious. They're not going away any time soon much to the frustration of the capitalists. You might want to tell the millions of communists in India that "communism is dead" because apparently they didn't get the memo.

The collapse of the USSR and socialist states in Eastern Europe was a setback, yes. I don't think anyone is really going to dispute that. But that's not the fate of the communist movement as whole - nor is the USSR and its associate states all that socialism can or should be. To think that they are seems to be a rather Russo or Eurocentric approach. One's thinking cannot be trapped in the 20th century with the material conditions that prevailed in those countries at the time. The world has moved on and so has the communist movement. Further, the path to a new a new system/mode of production is not going to be simple or straightforward. To think that strikes me as a very un-dialectic approach. So it's important to learn from the experiences of the past movements, but not to expect a repeat of it.

It's also worth remembering that large scale industrial capitalism is still very new, historically speaking. It's only really been around of a couple hundred years - a drop in the bucket in terms of human history as whole and even more minute in terms of Earth's history. The situation is rapidly changing now in terms of global development patterns. Our technology is being catapulted along at an increasing rate with more minds engaged in large scale R&D now that any other time in our history. Global capitalism, which was still in its infancy at the time of the Bolshevik revolution, is now much more mature. It's reasonable to expect that conditions will continue to change rapidly over the coming centuries.

In the wake the USSR's collapse and neoliberalism imposing itself in the west we've seen the arrogant, triumphalist nature of the global capitalist ruling class push itself ever further. The oligarchs have taken hold in the former Soviet sphere as millions were confronted with a new life of poverty and unemployment. In the west, labor arbitrage, downsizing and the resulting weakening of labor movements has proven a feast for capitalists who have increased their profitability while forcing their workers into low wage servitude. In the developing world we're now seeing many countries go through the things the west has already experienced as with industrialization we see the corresponding proletarianization and destruction of "traditional" lifestyles. We have increasing productivity and energy output per worker. We have access to new technology but as millions acquire smartphones they struggle with the making enough to afford basic necessities, live in fear of unemployment and poverty, and feel alienated from their livelihoods. Meanwhile more and more wealth is concentrated in a small number of global elites as smaller firms are consumed by larger and while we still see small upstarts increasing economic activity is being dominated by a small number of large increasingly multinational corporations.

Is this all we can do, is this all we are capable of? Even as we move to a more high energy society, with even more output per worker, is best we can do this system which sees wealth concentrated in the hands a small number of powerful monied interests? No. Everything is a transitional state, from something to something else. It would be utter folly and ahistorical to consider the present capitalist system which has existed really for just a short amount of time as constituting an end of human history. It is in this context that Marxist "stageist" approach to development makes sense.

The seeds of the new society and sown within the fabric of the old. We saw the capitalist mode rise from within the old feudalist society to the point where capitalists and the monied interests surpassed the dominance of the landed aristocrats and overthrew them. But this was not a simple or straightforward process nor did it happen overnight. It was fraught with conflict and setbacks. So too are the beginnings of a new society being instilled within the confines of our present system which is also beginning to show difficulties containing it. Our patterns of productivity and technological development makes it possible to ensure a high quality of life for all in developed economies yet the dead hand of private property and monied interests prevents us from using increasingly technocratic methods in a socialist way to make it happen. Take for instance digital distribution - so efficient in its pure form that it could provide a potential wealth of "digital abundance", yet because that because that would interfere with the capitalist mode where everything must be monetized to ensure profitability it is trying to be curtailed. Inane patent laws, invocations of "intellectual property theft" and a litany of other artificial barriers are set up to try to force it to conform to the capitalist way. They've failed and will continue to fail - just as the landed aristocracy attempted to tax and control the bourgeoisie as the wealth of the capitalists began to exceed their own. With the advent of 3D printers and other technology it is entirely predictable that similar methods of control will be attempted here as well. But it won't work.

At the same time with traditional national barriers being breached by global capital we see the rise of the internet and communication technology allowing for the emergence of a "global consciousness". The ability to learn from one another, to access new information and ideas in today's world is unmatched by anything we've had in the past. When I think of all the new ideas I've been able accrue, the people from around the world I've been able to communicate - it is entirely unlikely I could have reached where I'm at now ideologically much less be able to share those ideas without it. Language still provides a barrier to true global communication but as our translation software improves this barrier too is being broken bit by bit. But even here we see the "digital divide", our uneven patterns of development furthering a rift of haves and have-nots.

Combine this with the continuing class struggle, the antagonisms that have become more acute in the triumphalism of global capital and we begin to see the pieces fall into place. The communist movement not only highlights the exploitation and inadequacies of the present system but it also answers the question "can't we do better?" The communist movement is not only alive and well but is well positioned going into the future to encapsulate the nebulous frustrations aimed at the capitalist system and funnel them into creating the next level of societal development.

[Esper]

FAIL #1
The communist states are all but gone now pretty much, with exceptions like Cuba and North Korea who hardly can be called communist, if ever they were in the first place.

I wouldn't call them 'communist states'. Communism in my opinion (and due to the writings of Karl Marx) is an age of non-state and non-market, because the 'national-state' is a modern product, that rose parallel to capitalism. By the way: During the 19th and 20th century there has been also communist experiments without a state, without killing people and building a dictatorship. But they also collapsed.

FAIL #2
For all the theological communist mambo jambo and prediction of proletarian heaven coming down to earth. Where every working person will unite throughout the world, hold hands and sing kumbaya. Such things have not come to pass. So epic fail.

That's indeed epic fail. One of the failures of Marx and Engels were the underestimation of ideology. Both men thought that the economy process alone would change the mind of the people. They thought capitalism will diminish frontiers and nations - and also the ideologies based upon these categories. And if so, the workers would have no choice but to ally with each other worldwide to fight against their exploiters. They underestimated the free will of men. And this will also includes choosing the wrong. Exploited and impoverished people rather fight weaker people than stronger employers or powerful governments. Arching the back to the above, kicking the ones below - Marx and Engels should have paid more attention to this weakness of men. There is no guarantee that the poor will solidarize with each other. Solidarity must be learned like every action of man. People who have been trained to compete each other - where should solidarity come from? And there are many historical examples which show that in times of oppression or poverty people tend to look after themselves first.

FAIL #3
Every time I read a communist here quoting their saints such as Trotsky or Marx and preaching about class struggle, they seem just completely deranged from reality to me. And they seem to read stuff from industrializing era of 19th century of Europe. Not coming in contact with today's world at all.

That's also true epic fail. That happens if you make the writings of a historical person into ahistorical writings. In the 19th century there have been classes who had nothing to sell but their labour force. But during the progress of capitalism also working classes got the opportunity to gain property, which blurred the lines between the classes. For the last three decades, it seems that this process has come to an end. Poverty of the masses seems to return, economic crises are cumulating. But there is no solidarity between the poor and the workers any more. It seems to me that during the last 100 years the concept of 'solidarity' has been forgotten. I fear that it is more probable that the poor all over the world will fight each other under the flags of racism, nationalism and religion instead of liberation from capitalism.

FAIL #4
Most communist I meet are morally bad or either not anything exceptional. They are very egotistical, and can never admit that their crazy ideology has some flaws in it.

They will do bad things to achieve the end. Their end being the proletarian heaven.

They are usually promiscuous and morally degraded in that sphere.

They are usually against good family values, religion, and straight people.

They are usually very ignorant, aside from reading whole bunch of communist text, they read not much outside of it.

Anti-Capitalism can be also a religion like christianity or the islam. That's why it is important not to keep the writings of Karl Marx as a dogma. The 'Kapital' is no bible. The crititicism of capitalism today must be updated from the 19th or 20th century to the 21th century. There are no classes, and poor people don't fight for the right things automatically. So I would rather agree with Rosa Luxemburg, who expressed with the phrase "Socialism or barbarism", that the self-destruction of humanity is also a possibility in history.

I also agree that fighting against capitalism means that you have to change yourself first. I try to do that. It's not easy, and I spent more than one time thinking about my actions. For example: Many years ago I donated money to beggars. Now I don't do that any more. Why? Because I recognized that solidarity is never unconditional. I do not know the beggar, but what I know is that he can buy anything with my money; also things that are not helpful for him or other people. Alcohol for example. So I changed my mind. Instead of donating money I donate material good. Also material goods can also be sold to get money, it is more difficult to sell them.

I cannot say if communism is dead. The urge for an alternative to capitalism exists as long as capitalism does. If the oppressed and poor will ever leave behind their modern ideologies and update their minds to a new concept of 'worldwide human family', I doubt.

[Classicliberal]

Yes, if were talking about orthodox Marxist-Leninist 'Communist' or as Stalin called them "socialist" states, Communism is indeed dead or close to death. The last vestiges of the 20th century Marxist-Leninist empire is rotting away in the still nominally, emphasis on the nominal, Marxist-Leninist states of Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba; all whom, moreover, are also mired in relative, destitute poverty and underdevelopment, except for the party elites that still, illegitimately, reap the benefits of the hegemonic political power of their oligarchic Communist parties and the control they can exude over their peoples via the State.

While in China and Korea, we see the two available paths for Communist oligarchies who reach the crossroads where Marxist-Leninist propaganda and the novelty of working towards 'communism' wears off and people start to demand more. The first is North Korea where in response to the obvious failings of your regime, you follow the Stalinist model; that is, the stalinist model on steroids in terms of growing a personality cult around your ruling elite or leader, crushing any knowledge of the outside world to keep your people nice and indoctrinated and ignorant, and then investing most of your country's resources into inane projects to showcase the greatness of your regime (or more aptly, its insanity) i.e. large but outmoded military and a nuclear weapons programs to fend off a probable UN backed invasion of your pathetic, totalitarian regime.

The second path is China wherein your similarly totalitarian in terms of maintaing your political and governmental hegemony over your people but given you experienced the cost associated with letting one leader set policy and it was that leader (Mao) who wound up killing 5% of your population in the process--Great Leap Forward--you try and find a new, more enduring course. So instead, you make a streamlined technocracy out of your party and pretty effectively manage a gradually capitalization of your formerly, purely command economy, which was mired in typical stagnation and decline--however, this course inevitably creates glaring contradictions within your state that still considers itself Communist and dedicated to socialism while party elites stuff their pockets with billions, send their kids to the Western universities, and China's cheap and expendable labor is exploited by those evil, greedy Western multinational corporations, who somehow through heavily investing in the Chinese economy actually help to raise the living standards for millions of Chinese, but thats besides the point because capitalist bad; Communism good!

So to wrap it up, yes, by regime count around the world, Marxist-Leninist states are basically gone along with their perpetual poverty, underdevelopment, bureaucratic corruption and mismanagement, and general bullshit. The world is better for it. But as you can see the insanity and the mental gymnastics of why the world proletarian revolution has not occurred, or in the micro cases it did, why it failed, are still being played out on PoFo by the dutiful internet (brought to you by Capitalism, fyi) Marxists of the 21st century. There an interesting breed to read and observe, though; always full of excuses for the failure of their "infallible" ideology historically and always trying to project their underlying, or subconscious, in more developed cases of the Marxist delusion, sense of ideological inadequacy onto Capitalism. The only problem with this approach--liberal democracy and mixed market economies don't presume to be perfect; in actuality, they presume to be experiments able to evolve to changing political and economic needs and dynamics. The ability to evolve is its strength; and conversely, the anathema of Marxism--its philosophically still viewing the world through concepts derived from the social dynamics of the 19th century European industrial revolution, just a little dated but don't tell them that: Marxism is a science