Talk:The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism

Pseudo-science?
Article contains the sentence : the theory of P.R. Sarkar that socio-political groups based on psychic properties rotate in controlling the social motitivty. Is this pseudo- science? WillMall (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
 * See reformulated text. The ideas are rooted in the ancient indian episteme. Cosmic Magician (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * much better. but it still needs third party sources and refs to make more in line with standards. WillMall (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean?
"Fundamental political changes have begun to take place"? Seems to be pure speculation on that will unwind. Also "fundamental" is quite vague. That there was some unrests and some gvt changes, OK. But their interpretation in this article seems to me to be an original thesis. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it may be too early to tell how deep this crisis and how profound the changes to the political system will be. That said, there have been protests and riots in major European countries since last year, and most recently this week there were quite difficult protests all over France. The fury is linked to the rapid rise in unemployment . In the US, furor erupted recently over AIG bonuses. These developments make clear that a major backlash has begun against political and business corruption. Let's replace the word "fundamental" with "significant". Cosmic Magician (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobrayner
Your edit "but the regime was not replaced in the way Batra predicted" is OR. There is no RS for this finding.Plankto (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Batra made predictions about what would happen. Reliable sources make it very clear that different things happened. Batra's predictions were wrong. The article ought to reflect that. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Batra's 1977 prediction for downfall of totalitarian communism
The above reveals that the fundamental nature of the socio-political transformation in Russia seems to have been fairly accurately predicted. Some nominal features are off, e.g. the mention of the Soviet is gone; the Party Secretary is no more and there is a President; and the nominal influence of President is arguably greater at present than Batra predicted. However,Vaclav Havel's rise, as an oppressed intellectual, in the Velvet Revolution is in perfect alignment with the nature of Batra's prediction.Plankto (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On theory: "Sarkar's main concern with the human element is what lends universality to his thesis. Thus while social evolution according to Marx is governed chiefly by economic conditions, to Sarkar this dynamic is propelled by forces varying with time and space; sometimes physical prowess and high spiritidness, sometimes intellect applied to dogmas and sometimes intellect applied to the accumulation of physical wealth." (pg. 38)
 * On the recent past: It then appears that at the outset of the twentieth century Russia was ripe for the new [Intellectual] age. The [Warrior] era, because of tsar's unenlightened despotism, had been declining for some time...Such then was the Russian polity at the dawn of 1917, when two revolutions, whose impact no epithets describing the brutality and bloodbaths can fully describe, occurred only a few months apart, tore the country to shreds, and reimposed on it the ugly totalitarianism of which the Russian people were undeserving and helpless victims. The [Warrior] era which was about to witness its own eclipse thus returned with a vehemence reminiscent of the terror of Ghingis Khan, only this time the terror sprang from within. Ever since, Russian society has been living in the agony of the party and state despotism." (Pg. 171)
 * On present (1977) conditions: "That Russia today is languishing in the decadent phase of the [Warrior] era there is little doubt." (pg. 174) The crux of the discussion thus far is that [intellectuals] -- churchmen and the itelligentsia -- have been the prey of persecution of the new [Warrior] era that has prevailed in Russia for much of the last four centuries." (pg. 232) "Ever since the Revolution, the country has been ruled by the Party Secretary, who in the person of Lenin and Stalin was also the top ideologist and the top administrator...such leadership functions have been increasingly differentiated ever since Stalin's death." (pg. 233) The complexion of Russian society is drastically different today. Since nearly all are literate, the foundation on which the governance of the [intellectuals] may stand is there. When the latent rift between the subjects and the state erupts into an open protest on a large scale - and for this we may not have to wait for long - the resulting change will lead Russia into the [intellectual] age. (pg. 235)
 * On the future: "In the forthcoming [Intellectual] era, however, this will no longer be the case. The Party Secreatary will have to defer to the Head of the Government - the Soviet Prime Minister...the party which has been supreme so far will lose much of its influence." The constitution which has been good only in theory until now will assume a more positive role, and the Supreme Soviet will assert itself in the governance." (pg. 233-4) "But in most respects the Soviet polity will display the features of the British [Intellectual] era of the eighteenth century. Thus the Party Secretary, much like the British king, will enjoy high privileges and public esteem but only nominal political influence. Similarly, the Soviet Prime Minister, like his early British counterpart, will be an efficient manager, displaying [intellectual] qualities. He might even come directly from the ranks of the intelligentsia. (pg. 234)
 * The spiritual renaissance: "In the preceding chapters, I have spoken of the internal turmoil in which the societies of India, the West and Russia will be caught in the near future. All portents and calculations point towards the turn of the twenty-first century - the year 2000. The ensuing internal conflicts, either before or little after 2000 A.D. will eventually assume international dimensions. The entire world will then seethe under international intrigue." (pg. 270)
 * You do realise that Havel was in a different country, don't you? So, yeah, apart from the fact that the Party collapsed, the presidency changed in the other direction, and of course the intellectual caste (if it exists at all) conspicuously had no involvement at all in forming a new epoch of government, but there was a different kind of intellectual who briefly ran another country (one which doesn't even border Russia) so that means the prediction was fulfilled!
 * There are certainly many websites which would take this stuff at face value, but en.wikipedia is not one of them. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Czechoslovakia was under Soviet control from 1945-1990, during which time Russian civilisational influences were powerfully asserted on the country and its people, including its leaders. Alexander Dubček is another example of the repression of thought in the country. There is plenty of information on similar dynamics in other countries within the Soviet sphere of influence.Plankto (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)