Slavoj Zizek likes to put it like this: Communism is not the name of a solution, its a name of a problem. Meaning that the problems of capitalism still exist, which communism tried to give an answer to and failed. Its the problem of the commons.

So he is basically saying, that a democratic state that is based on private property cannot solve things like intellectual property esp. concerning big data, biotechnology, externalities that lead to serious ecological damage like global warming, etc. And of course capitalism is a system, that produces failed people all the time.

The decline of democracy is a symptom that capitalism reached a theoretical limit in its developement.

The question that concerns me is how much of the communist ideology is still actual today? On Wallstreet alot of people still like Marx, since his description of capitalism is quite acurate, even today. But Lenin and others - most people are shocked if you just mention these names.

I still think Lenin said alot of intelligent things and i like his theory of imperialistic states. Dont know how dated it is, since two thirds of the world is imperialistic today, given Lenins criteria like capital export.

Is there any chance to update communism and which theories have the most potential to do so?

Market socialism is the way to go

Class rule and the continuing crisis of capital accumulation and stagnation remain relevant issues. The portrayal of class rule, especially after the cultural turn, is useful.

Marxism retains a great deal of explanatory power about capitalism.

But the solutions have been spectacular failures.

But the contradictions are not going away. The despoiling of the commons by private interests is becoming more of a crisis every year and the need to restrain them more urgent.

But Zizek is a blowhard. Half of what he says just sounds profound because he over complicates it.

democratic socialism is also the way to

Not sure if that's the same.

for those of you pushing "the way to go" be it communism or market socialism or democratic socialism or something else please provide real world examples of their successful application.

I think national socialism is the best kind of socialism

Much of Europe has a high degree of democratic/market socialism. Some of us even have the pleasure of socialised universal health care.

Zizek just touches a lot of topics in his talks. Read his commentary about that book of Mao ('on practice and contradiction'), that is mouch more detailed.

Agree with everything else you say.


no, europa has social market economy, but it is reduced every year and has nothing to do with democratic/market socialism, even though the names sound equal.

social market economy allows capitalism up to a very high degree and delivering a huge welfare state in return, while in market socialism most production is state owned.

Befor the 1990, East germany for instance practiced market socialism but not social market economy, while west germany did the opposite.

As i said in the OP we are looking for new models that can be a solution for the actual crisis. I agree that i prefer posts that contain more than one sentence.

I guess its killed fewer people than communism.

Haven't Norway, Sweden, etc basically solved this?

if they run out of oil they are sitting in the same **** as we all do.

also no, they didnt solve the problem of commons, they just have a big welfare state. the problems that capitalism cant solve are more than just poverty. i already mentioned intellectual property and ecology, another problem is the growing probability of an outbreak of war between really big nations, because of the declining profit rate.

If you are takeing Lenins analysis of imperial states seriously, we are in a quite similiar situation like befor world war I, when the interests of diffrent imperial nation states collided.

Its not about the oil. Norway and denmark have oil while sweeden, finland and iceland doesnt. In norway about 18% of the state budget is from oil income, if there was never any oil there would have been other stuff going on to compensate. Plenty of countries all around the world have oil, almost all of them are crappy. Its all about institutions, regulations and redistribution, which is what we are very good at around here. Also its in general a very highly educated population around here, something economists all the time talk about as a big asset for the transitioning to a greener economy.

I have a far fetched suspicion that open minded people followed the ice melting frontier 10k years ago moreso than non open minded people. They were curious and novelty seeking, the most open minded ones went all the way north.

Also in the 1800s-1900s we got to ship off all the poor and dumb people to the US, which helps as well. Some humour there but i like my first idea.

i must admit i dont know that much about the scandinavian modell. i will invest time to find out where the flaw is and i will find it

what i know though is that scnadinavia alltogether is moveing to the right just now and starting to question their welfare state. the social democrats are losing their voters.

Also our generation has invested so much in high education, more than any generation befor us. still everybody is broke. at least we are much poorer than our parents. thats a ****ing fact. and our children will be even poorer. i have an university degree in mathematics and im still unable to find a job for a year now besides minijobs.

i know a guy who studied physics and biology and everything he can get is a teacher in the prison for a laughable wage.

Hell, I even have the low salary and inadequate access to overpriced consumer goods. It's a goddamn utopia.

It's paradoxical that communism is considered old hat yet the governing ideas of capitalism were developed centuries earlier. 'It's too early to tell' the impact of the french/english/amercian/German etc revolutions never mind the Russian /Cuban / Chinese etc, or national liberation movements, Arab spring etc.

Re capitalism and democracy, capitalism was never supposed to bring universal suffrage, this is a relatively new concept, in fact the Russian revolution which gave all people the vote predates universal suffrage in the west. Russia was a warning to governments as to what can happen if concessions aren't made to the people. The thing to understand is that communist ideas are born out of workers and oppressed people struggling against the established order, Marx didn't understand what communism might look like until 1871, 20 years after communist manifesto, when he saw the Paris commune and how workers/soldiers etc could begin to organise revolution and how the seeds of workers led organisation of production could develop. Needless to say that experiment was crushed with brutality. Likewise Lenin and the bolsheviks were skeptical of the soviets initially, being as they were non-socialist organisations, but it was Lenin who realised the potential of these grassroots democratic bodies and the boksheviks fought to win majorities, which they did ofc which is what gave them the legitimacy to lead the October revolution.

Which leads us to the mao quote above and the legacy of so called communism. The logical conclusion of Chinese communism is evident right now as China competes with the US to be the world's bully. Never mind what they call themselves, let's look at what they are - a group of self interested bureaucrats seeking to dominate and control production along capitalist lines, using state monopolies. It is petty nationalism. Still more progressive than the US which uses a show of force to secure interests while China pursues less violent means to secure markets.

Norway, Sweden, Finland

1. Sweden doesn't have oil
2. Norway is the #15 oil producing nation in the world. Guess who is #3?

Re updating theories, I think a deeper understanding of what is happening in the world with regard to empire and the US, flash points in the middle east, crisis in the EU, and how the role of the working class and oppressed groups can respond, what political alliances are possible, the role of telecoms, international links, so yeah there is a ton of stuff to be done, Marxist ideas are quite useless without a context of people actually organising for change

They are examples of how capitalism doesn't need to be based on brutal oppression and how education and health contributes to functioning capitalism. It isn't a model that can be easily exported however and is susceptible to market forces/crisis, for example those countries have historically very dense trade union membership and national agreements which have thatcher turning in her grave, but these are under pressure from EU politicians seeking a more neo liberal model. If I was looking for a genuinely radical alternative system which releases the full potential of humanity, I wouldn't be going to Scandinavia imao.

Venezuela?

Come on, man. Norway’s oil production is 20% of US production and it only has 5 million people. The other Nordic countries are great, but Norway’s success is obviously dependent on its oil.

bobman the oil helps norway to some degree. However when you look at finland, sweden, iceland it doesnt seem to be the deciding factor. It seems to be far from sufficient to just have natural resources like oil, and it seems to be far from a necessity.

I would look elsewhere for an explanation.

Look at the list i have attached its based on per capita, denmark is 25. This doesnt even factor in other natural resources that other countries may have. Why is every single country 1-24 apart from norway (and i guess canada) doing real crappy? Why is human rights down the toilet, why are they bathing in crime, why is everyone poor, why is there severe inequality, failed democracy, endless war and conflicts, why is it so while everyone here in the north is basically a star. Now thats funny.


http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...ion/Per-capita

Saudi Arabia has oil and it's a repressive disgrace.

Nordic countries win on happiness, and it's not close. They're doing something right.

Why why why why why are we bathing in crime?