Marx said that successful communist revolutions can only happen

marx definitely didn't foresee the appeal communism would have to people who were still living as peasants in the 20th century

>>2561002
If it happened in an agricultural society, it wasn't real communism.

File: 1490022735197.png (128KB, 310x338px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 310x338px

The workers saw what the cuckitalism has done to its population, hence they seize the means before the monopoly of corporatism.

>>2561002
Because Lenin happened morons. Read up on vanguardism. Noticed how Russia and China fucked up on the project

>>2561032
I think the point is why they didn't happen in those developed nations even though Marx predicted they would. Today the more developed a nation is, the less it flirsts with communism and it's only literal mudhut niggers like Chiapas, Rojava or various places in Africa that have actual communist tendencies.

>>2561035
I guess he never foresaw something like Denmark where you would have a capitalist democracy that has universal healthcare, fully state funded universities, universal basic income of around $100/day, etc

and instead saw capitalism only going the direction of America where the rich get an increasingly outsize share of wealth and influence until the government is completely detached from its citizenry

>>2561064
Because social democracy happened. For better or for worse reformists are trying to slow turn them into socialists before 'le evil USSR is socialist therefor all socialists are bad' then the scourge of neoliberalism happened

>>2561032
>the only ones who came even close
>they fucked up

Western marxists everyone.

>>2561032
Lenin hoped his revolution would be the "spark" to trigger revolutions in the developed world. Unforuntately they were crushed and the Soviets were left isolated.

No because it doesn't hinge on that one detail.

>>2561064
But Communism is still far removed from the majority of American political discourse compared to Denmark. Clearly, neither Americans nor the Danish have enough class consciousness.

>>2561002

No because those weren't proper communism.

File: 1488504245865.jpg (182KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x576px

The marxist revolution never happened in developed countries because we have a capitalist class of people who are scared shitless of one and work against it. they sidetracked the lefties with red herrings about sexual liberation and prohibition and civil rights. and it worked perfectly. I can't overstate the success of their operation, the leftists have been rendered totally useless.

>>2561782

>prohibition
>civil rights

Oh look, it's another American who thinks the whole world is in the USA.

>>2561035
Because Marx never quite grasped the difference between absolute wealth and relative wealth. He says that he acknowledges that wealth is not static or a zero sum game, but his social predictions seem to be predicated on an idea that it is.

So even if the capitalists get an ever-increasing share of the overall wealth of society, the poorest classes are still enormously more wealthy than they were in the 1850s. Hell, they have access to things that even the richest in the mid 19th century wouldn't have access to. And it's a lot harder to go for full revolution over an abstract idea of division of wealth than it is to riot because you're starving to death.

>>2561766

"proper communism" is mostly those hippie communes. It doesn't make sense to make communism of a whole nation, because people do not care for random strangers. People don't want to give their labor and resources to people they don't even know.

>>2561766

That's the problem. It's extremely difficult to exercise "proper" Communism in practice.

>>2561827
t. useless lefty