The West (NA and Western Europe) have been by far the most advanced capitalist countries for a long time, but
(i) there has been no socialist seizure of power
(ii) for western european countries, they had a significant communist movement when it was backed by the USSR. After the latter's fall, they disintegrated
(iii) for the anglosphere, there never was a significant communist movement at all
So, what is the materialist explanation for this? According to a simple, straighforward Marxist logic, these countries should have the most developped proletariat and thus should be leading in terms of 'socialist experiments'. These countries have had many 'Marxist intellectuals', famous internationally recognised ones. And yet, one struggles to see a movement emanating from them. From the Western proletariat, we get absolute nothingness. From the Western 'Marxist intellectuals', we just get endless bitching about how Stalin and the USSR was bad.
Is there something lacking in the conventional understanding of class struggle?
While I do not agree with the 'civilisational' arguments, does history show us that there is something about 'Western civilisation' which is less conducive to socialism/communism? (On this issue, I am relating to chud-fash narratives, but rather Emmanuel Todd's study on family structures of different demographics for example, which he argues played a role in the development of socialist regimes in the East and not the West).
Leftypolaks, discuss. I want to be enriched.
We need ww3
All of the biggest socialist revolutions and social transformations have all happened during or right after the world wars
>>2739610not in western countries thobeit
>>2739602Capitalism hasn't yet run its course. As new productive technologies appear new modes of production will emerge naturally.
>>2739615Quite weak of an argument, Heinrich.
>>2739602>From the Western 'Marxist intellectuals', we just get endless bitching about how Stalin and the USSR was bad. Those western marxist intellectual talk exactly about this tho, specially the second one you posted. The first one is not a stalin hater either.
The third guy is not an intellectual actually quite the brainlet.
Anyway, I would argue that exactly because they are the were the most advanced there was no revolution.
>>2739622>>2739622>would argue that exactly because they are the were the most advanced there was no revolution.Interesting take. Can you please elabotate?
>>2739617Its stronger argument than forcing new modes of production by the power of ideas.
>>2739602having the most advanced proletariat dosent necessarily mean having socialist states. in all fairness, the only true socialist experiment was Russia (and Cuba), russia then later exported the revolution, the eastern countries didnt have their own revolutions. what happened is that in the west the advanced proletariat managed to conquer incredible advantages, things you didnt see anywhere else, and this slowed radicalisation greatly. but at the same time weakened western states who kept losing colonial wars because of the necessary expenditures . When the USSR fell much of the proletariat gave up, because an extremely important factor stopped being present, the belief of the proletariat to be able to oemancipate themselves. what is most striking is that the modern most advanced proletariat in the world, which is the western proletariat, isnt radicalising again after all of these benefits were cut and relaxed to the benefit of porky. to that i have no answer.
>>2739602>So, what is the materialist explanation for this?Imperialism
>>2739635Class struggle is idealism.
>>2739634Please elaborate.
flood detected shitty buggy website >>2739639Technological determinism provides a more robust explanatory framework for historical transitions than ideological class struggle because it grounds social change in measurable, physical realities rather than subjective consciousness. Arguing that class struggle alone can force a new mode of production without the prerequisite technological infrastructure is fundamentally philosophical idealism the belief that the mind precedes and shapes matter.
>>2739646>class struggle aloneclass struggle is never alone though
it is linked with the mode of production
>>2739638Imperialism allows the bourgeoisie of western countries to take a tiny fraction of the unfathomably large super profits gained from it, to buy off large sections of the western proletariat and increase living standards in their countries across the board. Thus stabilizing their society for the time being and pushing off the conditions that would lead the proles to revolution