you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

I wasn't the one making the original claim. I'm just saying that if the theory expects a vacuum or zero opposition then it's a pretty poor theory to follow in real world. More like a hypothetical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It has nothing to do with communism though. Nothing would survive it. It doesn't require zero opposition, but any functioning government can't survive well with most of the world trying to collapse it. With that said, Cuba is doing fairly well despite that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It just makes it sound dubious that it would ever work unless this opposition suddenly vanished. I know the theory was (is) that eventually situation would be such that despite that opposition, it should triumph. But I guess that situation hasn't been reached.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't know if there'd would be quite as much opposition today. There'd be some obviously, but when the USSR was growing everyone was so much more invested in "stopping the spread of socialism."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    You should look into leninism, which explicitly does not do that at all. Understanding how global material conditions and economic interests affect the local application of Marxist theory is like the whole point of large portion of what Lenin wrote

  • source
  • parent