Why has there been no communist revolution in India when most of it's freedom fighters were socialists or outright Marxists. Instead today it's ruled by fascists and Indians dislike Marxist concepts
In 200 years of scientific socialism there must have been tests/researches done on marxist theory that either make its argument stronger or weaker? If so, please also mention them. Had this thought after seeing the news of AI bots being overworked becoming Marxists and Che's "it's not my fault that reality is Marxist" started ringing in my head
Why do communists hate deng if(from what I've known) his changes in the policies were what made china what it is today?
Why are all the local parties not working together and creating a counter propaganda to spread ideas and eventually begin a revolt with enough people? Is it because of the leftist infighting? Or a possible accusation of being called terrorists? Or maybe becoming a target of CIA..? A bit stupid but had to ask
Why does the history keeps repeating itself and if so then why are we even trying to do anything when we know how it's going to end up?
Communism is the end goal of humanity
Capitalism is a necessary phase to pass through before achieving it
Then why are we so adamant on trying to manually take control of nature anyway. To begin a revolution and get communism to work we will require enough economists and scientists to work on it and more importantly have the masses suffer throughout capitalism so they revolt seeing the expanded wage gap. It's not supposed to happen in a single country but rather throughout the world and it's going to require every worker(including the uneducated ones) to naturally overthrow this system not by reading the theory but suffering through it, then why are we being a possible interruption to inevitability?
EDIT: So if anyone stumbles across the same question, my assumption of point 2 is wrong. From Principles of communism - "In Germany, finally, the decisive struggle now on the order of the day is that between the bourgeoisie and the absolute monarchy. Since the communists cannot enter upon the decisive struggle between themselves and the bourgeoisie until the bourgeoisie is in power, it follows that it is in the interest of the com-munists to help the bourgeoisie to power as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it. Against the governments, therefore, the communists must continually support the radical liberal party, taking care to avoid the self-deceptions of the bourgeoisie and not fall for the enticing promises of benefits which a victory for the bourgeoisie would allegedly bring to the proletariat. The sole advantages which the proletariat would derive from a bourgeois victory would consist
i) in various concessions which would facilitate the unification of the prole-tariat into a closely knit, battle-worthy, and organized class; and
ii) in the certainly that, on the very day the absolute monarchies fall, the struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat will start. From that day on, the policy of the communists will be the same as it now is in the countries where the bourgeoisie is already in power." So there is no highest point, Capitalism is the problem no matter which stage.
Is it moral for a communist to invest in stock market if it's life or death? I mean there is no exploitation so....