NationStates Jolt Archive

1. This is not a communism thread! Don't start slinging mud about Soviets and Mao. They were about as close to Marx's Philosophy as George Bush.

2. Forgive me if I use some "Germanised" names for some philosophers, but the "Anglicised" names are no better really. And they're pretty similar too.

3. Marx was a philosopher. He wrote his doctorate about Demokrit and Epikur, two ancient Greek philosphers who denied that there was a world other than the one we can see and touch. Demokrit also came up with the idea of an "atom" (he said the soul was made of soul-atoms, who dispersed to form other souls upon death - ie there is no afterlife).

4. He started from Hegel's work, which more or less condensed people's (and humanity and all of the world, really) into a "world spirit", which worked like an individual would. And this world spirit directs history as it evolves - which then forms the material conditions people live in. Marx however, reckoned it was the other way around. He said that people's minds are formed by the material conditions they live in.

5. So Marx defined the material, economic and social conditions as the basis. What follows from that, ie politics, laws, religion, morals, science, philosophy and arts is the Überbau. For that to work, you need a basis, and the kind of basis directs what kind of Überbau you'll get. And vice versa, to some extent.
It follows that the Überbau istelf does not have an independent history, that it merely expresses the material conditions as they change over time.

6. The basis is given by natural conditions of production, like natural resources (so that a fishing culture will not develop in the Sahara). Then there are the productive forces, like workers and the technology available. Above that are the conditions of production, ie the way the resources are organised.
So he followed that the way things are produced creates morals and what is right and wrong in a society. And those are usually created by the ruling classes.

7. Just as Hegel had concluded, Marx believed that when a person changes his environment, he will change himself. So it is part of one's development and therefore that work is a part of life. So this is where Marx criticises the capitalist system: Because really, you are working for someone else, ie the person who actually profits from your work. The work he does is no longer his, and so he loses a part of himself.

8. Marx also defines Ausbeutung as the profit a capitalist makes. He selles other people's product for more than what he himself paid for it. And that profit is invested goes into increasing profit, ie buying more machines to reduce wages paid. And people become unemployed. So these social crises where one thing Marx thought would bring Capitalism down.

9. A second thing is the simple fact that workers usually weren't able to actually purchase the goods they produced. When they are laid off, or replaced by machines, or only work part-time even, they will have less money to give to the capitalist, who will therefore need to lower costs ie fire more workers.

10. Some of these points are philosophical, others are real life-type issues. Clear is also that Marx's analysis of Capitalism had some major flaws in it. And yet, especially with today's trend toward underemployment, the move toward making it easier to fire people when times are hard...isn't that a step into the direction of point 9? People say that for reasons of competitiveness wages must be cut and worker's rights must take a back seat. But isn't that undermining the entire system? What about the future, when robots will be able to do most jobs humans used to do? There can never be enough places in jobs that robots can't do to feed the population of earth and supply enough money to actually buy all the goods and services produced.
Couldn't one think that the self-destruction of capitalism (ie actual capitalism/libertarianism) has only been delayed, that it still is inevitable?
------------
Right, now that was a long rant, I hope you'll take the time to go through it, alert me to mistakes and so on.
But most importantly: Which points do you agree with? Which are plain wrong? And why is that?
At the end of this, we might be able to shed some light on the issue, when Marx is usually only known as some sort of boogyman (sp?) scaring little kids and big ones too.

Not that popular topic, hey?
bump

Tag, I'm too tired to read straight right now, let alone type a coherent and interesting response about Marx.

Its funny how many Marxists yell at the rest of us when we invoke any one of the attempted Communist nations, decrying them as 'not Marxist' and 'fake' or.. whatever. Classic theory-practice dichotomy action going on there.

The fact of the matter was, this is what ended up happening when people who read Marx and Engels came to power. Regardless of your opinions as to how these leaders handled themselves, their influences and their intentions cannot be denied.

Its funny how many Marxists yell at the rest of us when we invoke any one of the attempted Communist nations, decrying them as 'not Marxist' and 'fake' or.. whatever. Classic theory-practice dichotomy action going on there.

The fact of the matter was, this is what ended up happening when people who read Marx and Engels came to power. Regardless of your opinions as to how these leaders handled themselves, their influences and their intentions cannot be denied.

The intentions of Lenin and Trotsky were the creation of a communist nation. Unfortunately, Lenin died before he was able to get the system started and Trotsky was jailed by Stalin, whose intentions were to consolidate power rather than to create a communist society. So, at least when it comes to the Soviet Union you are mistaken, the USSR is what happened when a power hungry individual decided he wanted to consolidate power and become a dictator, it is not what happens when someone attempts to create a communist government. Stalin's intentions were never to create a communist nation and he is who we have to thank for the tyranny that was the USSR.

My 2 cents:

I think that Marx's philosophy isn't as bad or wrong as some people would like it to be.
You have to consider the time it was written, the industralisation had changed societies and values in Europe and America, old securities were gone and there were no new ones yet. People were working in appaling conditions, there were no labour laws or unions yet, nothing to stop a factory owner from exploiting his workers in any way immaginable. Wages were such that just kept people from starving, there were no unemployment benefits, children as young as 6 years old had to work 14 hour shifts, no social security, no pension schemes, no health benefits, nothing.

As bad as the labour situation today might sound, it's still nowhere near what Marx had seen.
And the governments of Europe (I can't really say anything about the US here because I don't know too much about their social system) are trying hard not to let the situation recurr. They've put in place labour laws, health systems, pension schemes, unemployment benefits, workers' protection laws and minimum wages.
It's a compromise, really. Communism is an utopic concept, human nature will always fail to live up to it, there will always be people exploiting the system. Unrestrained capitalism on the other hand will exploit the majority of the population to make a minotiry insanely rich. It will lead to a very unstable situation and incredible tensions. And as soon as the economy takes a dip, the oppressed majority will take drastic measures to improve their situation.
Neither system works on its own, every government needs to find the right balance for its own population and situation.

The intentions of Lenin and Trotsky were the creation of a communist nation. Unfortunately, Lenin died before he was able to get the system started and Trotsky was jailed by Stalin, whose intentions were to consolidate power rather than to create a communist society. So, at least when it comes to the Soviet Union you are mistaken, the USSR is what happened when a power hungry individual decided he wanted to consolidate power and become a dictator, it is not what happens when someone attempts to create a communist government. Stalin's intentions were never to create a communist nation and he is who we have to thank for the tyranny that was the USSR.

I hate to point this out, but how do you know what Stalin's intentions were?

The point is, you don't.

I hate to point this out, but how do you know what Stalin's intentions were?

The point is, you don't.

Also, before his death, Lenin told a close friend of his (forgot who) that Communism could not work. He said something along the lines of maybe another time and another place.

Marxism can simply be summarized as anarchist kleptocracy.

Marxism can simply be summarized as anarchist kleptocracy.

I’m writing that one down. :D

I hate to point this out, but how do you know what Stalin's intentions were?

The point is, you don't.

Sure we do. If his intentions were to establish a communist government he wouldve established at least some policies designed to lead in that direction. He didnt. He wouldve also studied communist philosophy, but instead of doing that, he locked up all the communist thinkers of the time in the gulags. The fact that he wasnt interested in communism is self evident.

What about his attempts to reorganize the farms ? All those who resisted were killed and afterwards Russian agriculture was seriously harmed, seeing as how all the decent farmers were dead. The ones left were the ones who didn’t make a lot of money, and thus were ineffective. Therefore, people starved. That sounds Communist to me. Screwing everyone equally.

The intentions of Lenin and Trotsky were the creation of a communist nation. Unfortunately, Lenin died before he was able to get the system started and Trotsky was jailed by Stalin, whose intentions were to consolidate power rather than to create a communist society.
Change that to "fortunately".

Did you know that words like "kill", "destroy" and even "execute by firing squad" are mentioned much more often in Lenin's writings than they were in Stalin's?

What about his attempts to reorganize the farms ? All those who resisted were killed and afterwards Russian agriculture was seriously harmed, seeing as how all the decent farmers were dead. The ones left were the ones who didn’t make a lot of money, and thus were ineffective. Therefore, people starved. That sounds Communist to me. Screwing everyone equally.

"Communist" would have been to empower the workers at the farm to have a say in what to do with the farm, not just kill off the owner. Communism is nothing but an extreme form of democracy.

The political concept of Communism has yet to be realised in any country on the planet. So far, all we had was a number of tyranies and dictatorship calling themselves communist without even trying to live up to the ideal.

Many people see Marxism a lot of them immediatly think of Stalin and other Tyrants, and use that to define Marxism.

The works of Marx is very similar to the Bible - they are both books that can be interpreted by different people in different ways. Some people believe in it, others say it's a load of crap. The different "schools" of marxism are like the many denominations of christianity - looking at the same thing and arriving at different conclusions about what it means.

Stalin came to power and became corrupted by it, going against what was put in the works of Marx. To me, he was more of a fascist than a communist. Lenin, I think, despite his faults, had good intentions and was a good man.

The political concept of Communism has yet to be realised in any country on the planet. So far, all we had was a number of tyranies and dictatorship calling themselves communist without even trying to live up to the ideal.

You don’t know what those leaders believed. Power corrupts, and communism requires someone to direct the communalization. These people have a lot of power. Thus, the system is flawed. Do you really think that Mao would have risked his life and gone out in the dessert, fighting against his own government and the Japanese, if he didn’t believe in something?

Cabra, you are exactly right. In all the "communist" nations so far, the means of production never made it to the workers. They made it into the hands of a dictator and "new capitalists" (the soviet fatcat politicians and managers). While a state controlled economy would be fine in a socialist nation, the state must become a tool of the people with direct democracy and much less centralization than is present in many communist nations. The means of production should belong to the State and the state should belong to the people.

Sorry, didn't say much about Marx, never could finish any of his longer essays.

Many people see Marxism a lot of them immediatly think of Stalin and other Tyrants, and use that to define Marxism.

The works of Marx is very similar to the Bible - they are both books that can be interpreted by different people in different ways. Some people believe in it, others say it's a load of crap. The different "schools" of marxism are like the many denominations of christianity - looking at the same thing and arriving at different conclusions about what it means.

Stalin came to power and became corrupted by it, going against what was put in the works of Marx. To me, he was more of a fascist than a communist. Lenin, I think, despite his faults, had good intentions and was a good man.

Thats a load of crap. Marxism is rather clear and not open to much interpretation at all. The different branches of socialism are nothing like denominations. In Christianity, denominations are founded on different interpretations of the same document they all believe to be true. Different branches of socialism, on the other hand, are based on different models developed by different people who disagree with Marx on different things. There really is no comparison.

The works of Marx (as far as I know) describe what society should be, and what society is now.

However, it is not precise in determining how change should come about. Lenin interpreted this as the working class overthrowing the government in the cities. Mao interpreted this as a countyside revolt.

Marx can be interpreted differently - as can the bible - whilst still believing it to be true. The differences between different groups in different countries, and the fact that it can be adapted to different contexts, I think shows this.

The works of Marx (as far as I know) describe what society should be, and what society is now.

However, it is not precise in determining how change should come about. Lenin interpreted this as the working class overthrowing the government in the cities. Mao interpreted this as a countyside revolt.

Marx can be interpreted differently - as can the bible - whilst still believing it to be true. The differences between different groups in different countries, and the fact that it can be adapted to different contexts, I think shows this.

Marx cannot be interpreted differently, it is rather clear in what its goals are. You can seek various avenues to attain that goal, but the goal remains the same. Lenin did not interpret how change should come about, because as you clearly admitted, Marx never tries to tell you how. How could he interpret something that does not even exist? He didnt interpret anything, he planned a strategy to bring about the utopia that Marx wrote about.

There are a wide variety of socialist views on the planet and they vary because they disagree with Marx on a variety of things. This is completely different from biblical interpretation which begins from the assumption that the bible is always correct. Socialism does not begin with the assumption that Marx is always correct and few modern socialists or communists agree with all of Marx's views. When was the last time you heard of someone who agrees with his views on marriage as espoused in the Communist Manifesto? The example you chose is a very poor one. Marxism is but one branch of Communism and there is a reason for that, the reason being that there are many communists who disagree with Marx. This is completely different from the religion comparison.

Marx cannot be interpreted differently, it is rather clear in what its goals are. You can seek various avenues to attain that goal, but the goal remains the same. Lenin did not interpret how change should come about, because as you clearly admitted, Marx never tries to tell you how. How could he interpret something that does not even exist? He didnt interpret anything, he planned a strategy to bring about the utopia that Marx wrote about.

There are a wide variety of socialist views on the planet and they vary because they disagree with Marx on a variety of things. This is completely different from biblical interpretation which begins from the assumption that the bible is always correct. Socialism does not begin with the assumption that Marx is always correct and few modern socialists or communists agree with all of Marx's views. When was the last time you heard of someone who agrees with his views on marriage as espoused in the Communist Manifesto? The example you chose is a very poor one. Marxism is but one branch of Communism and there is a reason for that, the reason being that there are many communists who disagree with Marx. This is completely different from the religion comparison.

Ta, I think I can see where you're coming from :p

Still it was only meant to be an analogy, and not an exact description of either.

Cabra, you are exactly right. In all the "communist" nations so far, the means of production never made it to the workers. They made it into the hands of a dictator and "new capitalists" (the soviet fatcat politicians and managers). While a state controlled economy would be fine in a socialist nation, the state must become a tool of the people with direct democracy and much less centralization than is present in many communist nations. The means of production should belong to the State and the state should belong to the people.

Sorry, didn't say much about Marx, never could finish any of his longer essays.

Well the big problem is that many countries wasn't able to have a democratic way to create socialism or communism so they had to choose revolution. Leading to two big problem because violence itself corrupte also if you though and died for something you get more inpacient to archive the goal making people more impacient. To a degree that they want to change their leades, while the leaders think as them as traitor against there beutiful revolution leading to oppreson to keep power. Also it is very hard to archive the goal is you belive in the idea that a small group should lead to communism because that also lead to corruption and oppreson.

The other side of it is the democratic way that was and is still practice in western europe, that lead to a much better society for the people and also a democratic society. There a very important part is democracy and the ability of people to influence. The problem with that is that is a very long process and even if this countries has to a great degree democracy then more rigthwing countries, the democracy project is not yet finished. Also you have the problem of getting intagling in capitalism and hard to create a better society free for capitalism there many socialist and socialdemocrace don't want to end capitalism.

Also you have a third movement that say they are both against todays socialliberal politics of todays socialist and socialdemocratic and the communist dictaturships.

It might also be noted that Marx for his entire life didn't like the term "Marxist" and refused to be called one.
Really this thread was meant to be about Economics AND Philosophy. So what do you say about some of the first points? Is the material situation we find ourselves in the only reason we turn out the way we do?

I’m writing that one down. :D

Gee, that took you a while! I've coined that phrase since I was 15. Whenver I'm a being told by some goddamn commo, I just shove those two words at him and that gets him into a rage!

It's good that at least the more advanced nations of the word are immuned to this communist virus.

Gee, that took you a while! I've coined that phrase since I was 15. Whenver I'm a being told by some goddamn commo, I just shove those two words at him and that gets him into a rage!

It's good that at least the more advanced nations of the word are immuned to this communist virus.

I can see that line coming from...a nazi sympathizer! ok ok, you already made your point on that subject as well. just had to say that. :rolleyes:

It's good that at least the more advanced nations of the word are immuned to this communist virus.

As opposed to the capitalist pandemic :D

I don't like Marx. I've read his works, and in my opinion he made several key mistakes. I'm too busy to elaborate, but I felt I'd toss my hat into the ring.

(ps. the gulag system can be traced back to Lenin, as well as summary roadside executions, a war of aggression into Eastern Europe and other things. He is certainly not a nice fellow.)

The works of Marx (as far as I know) describe what society should be, and what society is now.


Actually it describes society as it was 150 years ago in the now industrialized western nations. It's similar to the conditions in certain developing world nations, but it really is markedly different from those nations.

The intentions of Lenin and Trotsky were the creation of a communist nation. Unfortunately, Lenin died before he was able to get the system started and Trotsky was jailed by Stalin, whose intentions were to consolidate power rather than to create a communist society.
Woah woah woah, you just stepped into a whole heap of misunderstandings there. While Stalin was certainly worse, Lenin was no angel. This is the man who said "We should not hesitate to kill 9/10ths of the population if it will achieve communism", the man who formed the Cheka which went on to become Stalin's NKVD, the man who started the "Decossackization" programs which deported and executed thousands of Don Cossacks. Stalin was certainly worse but to blame all problems on him is to ignore the facts.

10. Some of these points are philosophical, others are real life-type issues. Clear is also that Marx's analysis of Capitalism had some major flaws in it. And yet, especially with today's trend toward underemployment, the move toward making it easier to fire people when times are hard...isn't that a step into the direction of point 9? People say that for reasons of competitiveness wages must be cut and worker's rights must take a back seat. But isn't that undermining the entire system? What about the future, when robots will be able to do most jobs humans used to do? There can never be enough places in jobs that robots can't do to feed the population of earth and supply enough money to actually buy all the goods and services produced.
Couldn't one think that the self-destruction of capitalism (ie actual capitalism/libertarianism) has only been delayed, that it still is inevitable?


This is a point that I actually hold to be true. In the coming decades automation WILL cause the unemployment to rise until such a point where the people are unable to purchase the product. There is already a trend towards corporations growing larger and larger yet employing less and less people. Inevitably the system will whither away and die, but it will do so on its own time by its own course, not because of some popular revolution where EVERYONE somehow agrees with each other and peace reigns for eternity. :rolleyes: Eventually money will become a irrelevant redundancy. Governments will come to a point where they aren't drawing enough taxes from the people and attempt to redistribute wealth. The result will be the entirely idiotic notion of taking money from the producers and giving it to the consumers just so they can... give it right back. o.0 As I said, irrelevant redundancy.

Capitalism is not the end. It is the means to an end, the end being a standard of living (which at this point is vastly superior to any previous system). People put their time into the system, the system gives them money, they put the money back in, and it gives them a standard of living. (Side note, the system has to be unbalanced in favor of those who take the incentive to lead, if there is no incentive then no one leads. Stagnation results.) As soon as another system can give them a better standard of living Capitalism will die off and a new generation of history will begin.

The result will not be some utopian paradise where everyone is uniformly, boringly equal, where government has ceased to be in favor of the idiotic assumption that anarchy can perpetuate itself orderly, and where one world lack of government reigns supreme. It will just be another imperfect but certainly more enjoyable evolution of human civilization. It will be a time when the average person lives like the rich of today just like we live better then the kings of the past.

On a different note, at one point Europe was collection of two-bit warlords, rape and pillage was the order of the day, and there was little hope of "better" tomorrow. Today, Africa and the Middle East are in similar circumstances. Today Europe is leading the world. Tomorrow Africa and the Middle East will follow suit. Don't be rash, don't be a "results now" extremist for some hackish cause, don't revile your status quo, and don't villainize the successful who dare to lead. I would suggest coming to terms with life as you know it, stepping back and getting a better perspective of life beyond the short-sighted and the reactionary, stop hating your polar opposite, and try to build on some common ground with the rest of humanity.

That probably came across as absurdly convoluted; I have a headache and a cold. I need sleep, have a nice day.

Communism started out as mental masturbation for rich spoiled bourgeoisie idealists. They claimed solidarity with people they actually looked down on and didn't actually want to have anything to do with them because they were stupid, smelly, and poor.

It was decided early on that intellectuals would provide the theory and the words to motivate the Revolution while the stupid smelly poor actually were fortunate enough to be shot for such a noble cause.

Then once the intellectuals took to helm and guide their nation through troubled waters, it was the stupid smelly poor who were labelled counter-revolutionary and thrown into forced labor camps because the "Intelligent Ones" couldn't deliver on what they promised. They betrayed the people they supposedly cared sooo much for.

Put away the "Communist Manifesto" and read Hayek and JS Mill before you wipe out another 100,000,000 people for their own good.

I pretty much killed this thread didn't I? Bah...

Communism started out as mental masturbation for rich spoiled bourgeoisie idealists. They claimed solidarity with people they actually looked down on and didn't actually want to have anything to do with them because they were stupid, smelly, and poor.

It was decided early on that intellectuals would provide the theory and the words to motivate the Revolution while the stupid smelly poor actually were fortunate enough to be shot for such a noble cause.

Then once the intellectuals took to helm and guide their nation through troubled waters, it was the stupid smelly poor who were labelled counter-revolutionary and thrown into forced labor camps because the "Intelligent Ones" couldn't deliver on what they promised. They betrayed the people they supposedly cared sooo much for.

Put away the "Communist Manifesto" and read Hayek and JS Mill before you wipe out another 100,000,000 people for their own good.

Surely that is a problem with the people who orchestrated the revolution and not the principles of it.

Certinatly the Russian Revolution was betrayed by evil men and did develop into a Beaurucratic ruling elite. (hint:Stalin) The intellectuals were not immune from being labelled counter-revolutionary. Stalin ousted most of the leaders of the revolution. but that is not a problem with the Manifesto.

Debating whether the problem with communism stems from Marx or those who put it into practice is an idle question. The only answer that can be drawn from this is that however correct or incorrect Marx may end up being, his philosophy will never be put into practice the way he indended it. I agree that the vision Lenin and Stalin had of communism was vastly different from Marx's view, but so what? This is Marxism in practice. It will never work the way Marx intended because it is purely theoretical. Marx can say all he wants about working class solidarity, but untill human nature is overriden, capitalism will prevail.

I can see that line coming from...a nazi sympathizer! ok ok, you already made your point on that subject as well. just had to say that. :rolleyes:

You do not call Mr. Liu (Sino) a Nazi sympathizer! I like reading about WWII and the Nazis but that doesn't make me a Nazi. Hell, I don't even have intentions of reading Mein Kampf or his second book (published after his death).

For me being an anti-communist reactionary, you call me a Nazi sympathizer, then are the capitalistic governments of the world a bunch of Nazists?


Finns were Nazis too!

http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=19

Capitalism is not the end. It is the means to an end, the end being a standard of living (which at this point is vastly superior to any previous system).
And just as a little additive here:
As a matter of fact, capitalism has already been changed dramatically (real capitalism is not vastly superior to anything except maybe feudalism) by Marx's work.
Unions, Social Democrats, Transfer Payments, Worker's Rights etc all exist today because of Marx's work.

Put away the "Communist Manifesto" and read Hayek and JS Mill before you wipe out another 100,000,000 people for their own good.
1) Put away "The Fatal Conceit" and read some Marx or Keynes for a while. It helps to look at both sides.
2) As an Economics student I cannot avoid being familiar with all parts of the debate - so yes, I do know works by both these people. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong - but both helps to move the debate forward. You cannot possibly claim to know who's right and who's wrong.
3) :( Why is it so impossible to have a thread about Marx the Philosopher without reverting to slinging mud at other people's economic system? "Mental Masturbation"? Give me a break.
The workers of 1845 certainly weren't masturbating (at least not mentally ;) )

Though many of you may not care, here are my thoughts. I apologize for any spelling errors. Marx was a genius, his thoughts on how to run a country were amazing, but ultimatly his plan was flawed. Had his idea been able to run effectivly there is a possibility that he could have created a utopiea of his time. But with all utopiean idea's he did not think it completly through. So with some minor changes his idea could've come to life.

Gimme a B....
...
ahh, screw it.
Bump.

And just as a little additive here:
As a matter of fact, capitalism has already been changed dramatically (real capitalism is not vastly superior to anything except maybe feudalism) by Marx's work.
Unions, Social Democrats, Transfer Payments, Worker's Rights etc all exist today because of Marx's work.
While Capitalism has changed, the change was not brought about by Marx. It was brought about by other philosophers. It was brought about by popular non-marxist movements. If anything Marxist movements were repeatedly shoved under the rug of nut-jobs in the west.

No, other people sprouted the changes. If I felt like it I'd get my political theory book out and challenge your statement. But I'm tired. So I won't.

While Capitalism has changed, the change was not brought about by Marx...
I would argue that without militant communism, without the actual threat to capitalists, any change in working condition would never have been tolerated by the establishment.
The German SPD for example traces itself back all the way to 1845, where two movements worked for that cause. One of them was actually headed by Marx himself (to some extent).

I would argue that without militant communism, without the actual threat to capitalists, any change in working condition would never have been tolerated by the establishment.
The German SPD for example traces itself back all the way to 1845, where two movements worked for that cause. One of them was actually headed by Marx himself (to some extent).

Nah, changes tend to happen without philosophers.

I lieked your op about marx, but I think - and perhaps this is because my lack of faculty with german - you underplayed the dialectic. Probably you are more correct in your interpretation, however the dialectic is prevelent in the english speaking world.

In any event, it is irrelevant insofar as economics, because Marx's view of money is flawed.

...but I think you underplayed the dialectic...
I might have, a little bit, but all in all I think I covered the most important points.
Dialectic Materialism is just an "improvement" on Hegel dialectic philosophies...