>>13634807It seems that communist politicians like to sell communism as a final state, but marxism would find that approach very dreamlike in that whatever communism that does form would be in the context of its formation. There is no final utopia. Even perfect communism would have its own contradictions and would entail yet another historical development, I am guessing they would like to refer to it as communism 2.0. Jumping around capitalist failings, and leaving them unaddressed, will embed them in the next commie state that it evolve from/to. Likewise, the general notion of short-circuiting dialectic development through radical revolution leaves the unknown and many-headed possibilities of reality unaccounted for. Put another way, they only address certain issues which seem important at a time, and only those issues which must be addressed for the success of the revolution. This makes historical developments a category of science and society would be experiments of various kinds trying to determine ultimately important tuning numbers for uncovering "contradictions".
There is some points to this idea when discussing paradigm shifts which are centered around human lifespans. Things change when people die. Some ideas are not perfectly conveyed, or are even more perfected by the incumbent. This gets interesting when you think about how religious and tribal groups have, or have not, developed. Some have peaked and the only hope of their current followers are to revive the earlier perfected idea.
But this is all dialectic materialism which makes it complete non-sense. Just like other claims of consequentialism, there is actually no basis for decision-making, and all choices are derived instead by highly abusive personalities that tend to rise for power. Every statement for the future are instead hidden or unobserved directions for power. As rooting out corruption is also consequentialist, the whole thing is ends with who deboonks the deboonkers.
