Marxist Dialectic

It is unfortunate that Americans so roundly denounce Communism (with a capital ‘C’).  We are so hesitant to shift from our 1950’s not-accurate-even-then mindset that Communism, as an idea, would destroy us all.  I write this knowing – knowing full well – that should I ever run for elected office my lack-of-hatred of Communism could be used against me.  But what I write is an opinion, and we all must wield opinions.  What is Communism based on?  The Marxist dialectic.  Which says,

History is nothing but the succession of the separate generations, each of which exploits the materials, the capital funds, the productive forces handed down to it by all preceding generations, and thus, on the one hand, continues the traditional activity in completely changed circumstances, and, on the other, modifies the old circumstances with a completely changed activity. This can be speculatively distorted so that later history is made the goal of earlier history, e.g., the goal ascribed to the discovery of America is to further the eruption of the French Revolution. Thereby history receives its own special aim and becomes “a person ranking with other persons” (to wit: “Self-Consciousness, Criticism, the Unique,” etc.), while what is designated with the words “destiny,” goal,” “germ,” or “ideal” of earlier history is nothing more than an abstraction formed from later history, from the active influence which earlier history exercises on later history.

That’s it. That’s the Marxist Communist dialectic in a single paragraph. Nothing more than “earlier history (cause) produces later history (effect).” I’m not quite sure why it’s so difficult for the independent (or Independent, in a political sense), Capitalist, track-and-project market pattern histories American to grasp that Communism is a workable conception of the market.