Capitalism, socialism, and utopianism
- End of Cold War.
- Analysis of Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.
- Threat of communism and socialism.
- Interpretation of the essay - socialism and utopia.
- Analysis of Gorbachev's reforms.
- Adam Grinovich's role.
- Bland's view on social reforms.
Since Karl Marx's radical proposition of establishing a new society based primarily around the elimination of the bourgeoisie and the uprising of the working class, there have been an innumerable advocates, detractors, and vehement debates surrounding both sides of Socialism and Communism. However, it wasn't until the Cold War that Socialism was seen as more than a mere political institution or idea, but a threat. With the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union were two superpowers, and the rivalry between the two was heightened when the Bolsheviks seized power shortly after the Russian Revolution in 1917. When World War II began, the animosity between the two countries intensified, and the war grew to include a nuclear arms race, new breeds of violence, and military coalitions, but also a clash of ideologies.
[...] And thus it is tat the mere mention of Disney can rekindle decades- old controversies today.? However, other writers and philosophers maintain that the threat of Communism and Socialism has become a moot point. In his essay Downfall of Communism,? Jay Rogers writes, ?after a decade of massive social upheaval in countries behind the Iron Curtain, the communist philosophy appears to have become an anachronistic system of a bygone era.? He goes on to say that Soviet Union, the nation with the world's largest land mass and the leader of the communist world, has suddenly had its political power base challenged and its economic system shaken to the core.? From Rogers' writings, it appears as if Socialism is about to undergo a change, a softening of its Socialist standards, and an adhering to more democratic endeavors. [...]
[...] The West was so concerned with quelling Communist dictators, pegging them as the uber-monster, that they failed to see the utopian ideals in Socialism, and how those utopias could disintegrate, meaning that not only was socialism hopeless, and the war against it nullified as well, but that any utopian endeavor was a frivolous act. As Ulam puts it, ideological legerdemain can abolish class struggle, no single revolutionary eruption can overnight transform society and reform human nature.? Yet Stalin was seen as that exact ?ideological legerdemain.? And as Bland posits during his address to the Sarat Academy in London, ?Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (the Soviet Union), which was constructed under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, no longer exists. [...]
[...] Furthering this idea, Ulam suggests that has been the decline of utopian thinking that has seriously damaged the capacity of socialism to stir up emotions of fear or hope.? While Gorbachev may be changing the parameters of socialism, Ulam argues that it is no longer a necessity because its threat of spreading and enduring that was once so strongly felt during the Cold War is no longer existent. Another reason Gorbachev's reforms may be in vain is that, as Ulam points out in his essay is that society of perfect and equal harmony is the final promise of Marxism, the promise which has enabled it to offset the anarchists' charge that it proposed to displace a multitude of capitalists by one, the state. [...]