@rafi160 Except for the problem is... that's not what West-capitalism vs East-communism was.
See J. V. Stalin "Talk With the German Author Emil Ludwig", December 13, 1931
Ludwig: I am very thankful to you for that statement. Allow me to ask you the following question: You speak of "wage equalization," giving the term a distinctly ironical shade of meaning in relation to general equalization. But, surely, general equalization is a socialist ideal.
Stalin: The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities—such a socialism is unknown to Marxism.
All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society.
Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
It is quite clear that people's needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx's criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant "communism." Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive "Communists" of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian "Communists. "
Also communism didn't fall. The Soviet Union fell. Communists in Socialist countries still exist today and has largely been the major conflict of the last hundred years - hence all the anti-Chinese propaganda the U.S. puts out and embargos on Cuba etc... Communist global revolutionary war for liberation is still waging today, and the masses of most western states are hitting all the crises that are only solve-able by progressing to a socialist system. But domino theory and Monroe doctrine exist today and in fact are THE prevailing international zeitgeist determining how nations interact with each-other. That war has never stopped, just one group of countries did.
Then there's the issue of a ethnic determinism except that the soviet union was exactly that from the very beginning. It wasn't one country, it was akin to the EU with states and from the beginning the Soviets established Socialist Republics and divided the Russian Empire up into a dozen or so countries working together with self determinism. Though people generally think of it as Russia, but the RSFSSR was the largest nation in the USSR.
As for the three rules, that also isn't true and countries have been shifting borders for some time and militarized soft power is still military aggression - as shown in this very anime with usurpers and opportunists from other countries to destabilize regions - which is what the West predominantly has been doing since the beginning of the 1900s minimum. But this opportunism and soft power is actually the thing that took down the USSR not an ethnic divide, but an internal rot from opportunists who allied with fascists forces - such as the Mensheviks such as Trotsky (who literally was funded by fascists) and various bourgeois blocs that would slowly corrode and develop anti-communist forces through both bureaucracy (unelected officers) and manipulation. Which was what the Moscow Trials were about - trial for traitors in court.
The last part of your post though is related to that is mostly correct in why there's been a civil war in that country for the last ten years at least, and building up those forces has been a documented priority for at least eighty years or so.
Ironically, historically Souma's quote about nations taken by great difficulty are easy to maintain is in fact... utterly debunked by much of history. Every new nation and revolution that's tried to stay in power has been fought on an uphill battle and stayed an uphill battle for most of it's existence - typically against the old receding class. Especially these days. There's a reason why the U.S. spends so much of it's budget, time, resources, massive military-entertainment complex resources and so fourth constantly forcing itself upon it's people. There's a reason why we make kids recite the pledge of allegiance every day. The ruling class of the U.S. spends exorbitant amounts of time and resources making sure it doesn't lose it grip on power to it's people. If this anime itself were to shed any truth on that situation, Funimation wouldn't be backing it. Even just this one mistaken position you take on 'Equalism' as a very poor and incorrect interpretation of socialism is worth enough to support distribution. It's a common reactionary trope to manufacture consent and short circuit actually understanding the socioeconomic theories actually being discussed.
|
