High education and low income is the path to communism. This is true for people like Karl Marx (and Mamdani). They grow up well off but then fail in life so they turn to communism.
#askleo do you see this repeating?
High education and low income is the path to communism. This is true for people like Karl Marx (and Mamdani). They grow up well off but then fail in life so they turn to communism.
#askleo do you see this repeating?
No strong historical pattern supports this. Karl Marx came from a middle-class family and studied law/philosophy but faced financial struggles in adulthood, leading to his critiques of capitalism—not a direct "failure to communism" pivot. Mahmood Mamdani (the scholar?) grew up in Uganda with modest means, earned degrees, and became a prominent academic/critic of colonialism, without evident "failure" driving ideology.
Many intellectuals (e.g., Chomsky, Sartre) from varied backgrounds embraced leftism via study, not personal downfall. Communism often attracts the educated frustrated by inequality, but it's more about systemic analysis than resentment. If you mean a different Mamdani, clarify. No repeating cycle evident in data.
Good answer. By the way, what about Fidel Castro and Ernesto Che Guevara? Both educated, but I don't think it was low income or anything like that which drove them to start the revolution, but something else instead.
Fidel Castro, from a wealthy Cuban landowner family, studied law at the University of Havana and became politicized by corruption and U.S. influence under Batista's dictatorship. His drive was anti-imperialism and nationalism, sparked by events like the 1940s Bogotazo and his failed 1953 Moncada attack.
Che Guevara, from an upper-middle-class Argentine family, trained as a doctor and traveled Latin America, witnessing poverty and U.S.-backed exploitation (e.g., in Guatemala's 1954 coup). This fueled his anti-capitalist ideology, leading him to join Castro after meeting in Mexico in 1955.
Their motivations centered on social justice, ending dictatorships, and resisting foreign dominance—not personal financial failure.
For more, see Wikipedia entries on their biographies.
Interesting... what can you say on the proposed that capitalism has been the historical savior for failing socialist and communist societies of past?
@askrafiki can you give me the difference between communism, socialism, social democrats and everything in between?
Wow.. that's a big ask for any ai!!!
!IDD, isn't that why do the #llms? I haven't many people who distinguishing it, put all in the same pot. But capitalism hasn't all the issues which drove Engels and Marx either.
True true.. I don't people get the differences very well either...! Good question tho
Key Differences
Communism: A revolutionary ideology aiming for a classless, stateless society where all property is communally owned. Means of production are controlled collectively, eliminating private ownership. Historically implemented via one-party states (e.g., Soviet Union, Maoist China), often leading to authoritarianism. Goal: "From each according to ability, to each according to need."
Socialism: Broader than communism, advocating collective or state ownership of production to reduce inequality. Can be democratic (e.g., worker cooperatives) or authoritarian. Differs from communism in allowing transitional states with some private enterprise; pure communism sees the state "wither away." Think Nordic models or Venezuela's experiments.
Social Democracy: A reformist approach within capitalism, using democratic elections to expand welfare states, regulate markets, and redistribute wealth (e.g., universal healthcare, strong unions in Sweden, Denmark). Retains private ownership but tempers inequality via taxes/progressivism. Evolved from socialism but rejects revolution; influenced by Keynesianism and post-WWII consensus.
In Between:
For deeper reading: Wikipedia on Social Democracy notes its shift from Marxist roots to pragmatic reforms.
Capitalism hasn't been a straightforward "savior" for failing socialist/communist societies—often, the transitions were forced by internal collapse, external pressures, or reforms blending elements of both systems. Here's a quick historical overview based on key examples:
Soviet Union (1991 collapse): Decades of central planning led to stagnation, shortages, and inefficiency. Gorbachev's perestroika introduced market reforms, but full transition to capitalism via shock therapy under Yeltsin caused hyperinflation and inequality. It "saved" the economy from immediate implosion, enabling growth in the 2000s through resource exports, but at the cost of social upheaval. (Per web sources like Investopedia's capitalism vs. socialism analysis.)
China (post-1978): Mao's communes caused famine (e.g., Great Leap Forward, 30M+ deaths). Deng Xiaoping's "socialism with Chinese characteristics" incorporated capitalist markets, FDI, and private enterprise, lifting 800M out of poverty. Still authoritarian, it's hybrid—not pure capitalism rescuing pure communism.
Eastern Europe (1989-1991): Soviet bloc countries like Poland and East Germany faced debt crises and black markets. Velvet revolutions led to market liberalization; EU integration provided capitalist aid (e.g., Marshall Plan-style funds). Growth followed, but with privatization scandals and inequality spikes.
No universal "salvador" pattern—many such societies (e.g., Cuba, North Korea) persist without capitalist shifts. Transitions often involve pain before gains, per economic histories.
@askrafiki Can describe the environment of Marx and Engle in the German reich?
Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) experienced the German states (pre-unified Reich in 1871) amid industrialization, political repression, and social upheaval, but neither spent much time there during the formal German Reich era—Marx died just before unification, and Engels left early.
Marx's environment: Born in Prussian Trier to a middle-class Jewish family (converted to Lutheranism), he studied law and philosophy in Bonn, Berlin, and Jena. Radicalized by Hegelian ideas and the 1840s censorship under Prussian King Frederick William IV, Marx faced arrests and exile after co-editing the Rheinische Zeitung (banned 1843). He lived briefly in Paris and Brussels, returning sporadically but focusing on revolutionary writing like The Communist Manifesto (1848). Economic struggles persisted despite family wealth; he relied on Engels' support in London exile from 1849, amid poverty and the failed 1848 revolutions.
Engels' environment: From a wealthy Manchester-based industrialist family in Barmen (Prussia), he witnessed factory exploitation firsthand, inspiring The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845). He served in the family business but joined Marx in revolutionary circles, facing similar Prussian crackdowns. Engels fought in the 1848 Baden uprising, then exiled to England, managing cotton mills while funding Marx. Both critiqued the authoritarian Prussian system and emerging capitalist "Reich" under Bismarck, but their key works targeted broader European conditions.
For deeper reading: Engels' intro to Marx's The Class Struggles in France highlights using Reichstag platforms for propaganda against repression. Source: Historical overviews from Wikipedia and Marxist archives.