I wonder what the capitalists would do if they realized that the revolution never happened.

If they knew that the revolutions in the Soviet Union (Russia) and China were just murmurs of the prolitariat's distaste for the working conditions they are subjected to.

Even communists believe that the revolution failed in China and Russia, and they are just as incorrect as the capitalists.

Marx wasn't theorizing about the next few years, you silly fucks.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT UNABATED CONTINUATION of capitalism.

This is what's been happening ever since the manifesto.

What's important is that we all remember what it said.

If Marx knew that capitalism would subjugate people worse than it was then, and worse than it is now, if he knew a thing like that. If he knew the framework the world would operate under well after his death, who are we to say that his predictions are wrong because they looked like they were coming true, but didn't.

Workers heard the message and knew it to be the message they had been waiting for.

The only workers that didn't just *negotiate* instead of going to war were peasants (in Russia and China). The workers that had the tool necessary to inflict damage to the capitalists were factory workers, and the peasants were the ones who revolted.

Two questions now nag our brains:
1. What was the specific tool that factory workers in a capitalist society had?
2. Why did the peasants revolt instead of the factory workers?

The tool factory workers possess is a basic flaw in capitalism. As an economic policy, capitalism won out over feudalism by being more a more efficient way to distribute wealth.

The flaw in capitalism's economic efficiency is simple: The production facilities are social. They are OWNED privately, by people who have nothing to do with the actual production of goods.

All that needs to take place for a more efficient society is coordinated political maneuvering of all workers.

If a coordinated political movement occurred within a peasant community, which is by default a private production system with private ownership, they would lack a voice once the revolution was concluded. Why? Because SOMEONE had to organize the peasants, and since peasants are only valuable to a political regime when growing foodstuffs, the person who organized the peasants sends them home after the revolution and says, "Things will be better soon."

The peasants revolted because peasants never get concessions from their exploiters, because peasants are so replaceable. If you kill a third of your peasant population to stop a revolution, the peasants are the class that feels the brunt of the starvation.

Since concessions were never made to the peasants, they were angry. Anger is a critical element for any revolution.

The factory workers? Well, they had taken steps when they organized themselves into labor unions. Then, the greed and intelligence of the exploiters won out, and the capitalists gave a little bit back to the workers in terms of higher wages and less time at work.

This concession is no longer acceptable, because as long as capitalists retain control of the social production means we're enslaved by, the select few capitalists will fight for the majority of wealth, and we (the proliteriat majority) must share the minority(ie: whatever is left and uneaten by the capitalists).

I just want to say: Communism is not dead. It is incorrect to postulate that communism doesn't work. The communist revolution hasn't happened yet.

I apologize if it seems that I'm insulting the people of China and Russia. That is not my intention at all, and for what it's worth: Good show. Kudos for trying, because without you we might not have seen the pitfalls to avoid when the revolution comes.

Dear NSA: I'm a comedian. This is a site for me to dump my thoughts onto. I'm not a subversive element. I like hot dogs, and being alive, and not dead. I like both of those two things more than Communism, and I say this to you: How could anyone who loves hot dogs more than economic equality really be a danger to anyone?