When Did the Roles Reverse?

Nietzsche most definitely raised some interesting points when he spoke of the essential difference between good and bad in the essay that we read in class. He defined good as being strong and useful, and bad as being weak, and somewhat helpless. These definitions of good and bad definitely differ from the norm, because we normally view good and bad as how they compare to morality. As in, if I commit adultery  it is bad, but if I help feed the poor and donate to charity, I am considered good. Nietzsche made me think about the definition of good and bad in a different light, in that being good or bad is more of a social standing rather than a moral standing. However, what I noticed about our class discussion is that everything becomes misconstrued depending on what side of good or bad you are on. During class, I could not help but think about Marx's works on Communism. Virtually, in his eyes, if you are wealthy you are essentially bad, and if you are of the poor working class then you are good. Yet, from Nietzsche's view point, the weak are bad simply by nature, just as the strong are good by nature. But what Kind of comparison is that to make? Good is good and bad is bad right? Everybody has their own definition, and that whats makes an individual an individual. There was a comment made by Dr. J in class about the slave revolt which reversed the "noble mode of evolution." In my mind, I believe that is when the role of good and bad was reversed. Take today's society for instance, I know I have mentioned this before, but the Wall Street movement virtually ostracizes the rich "AKA strong" as being bad. When did this come to be? When we were all little did not we dream to grow up to become rich and famous, so why are we criticizing them  now? Believe me, I came from a very humble back ground, and I have worked very hard to get to where I am today. Although that might not be much, it is a start.  I cannot buy into the idea that the upper 1% are the evil aristocracy that are ruining the nation, because deep down inside I know that everybody wants to be that 1%.  According to Nietzsche, you would be strong. And, who would not want to be strong?

This or that?

In class on Tuesday, we discussed Marx’s concept of estranged labor. He believes capitalism is bad due to the fact that the class struggle between the owners of production and the workers leads to alienated labor. This means that the workers work for the owners to earn a wage which they then use to survive. This is in contrast to Marx’s communist society in which everyone works and produces, no one is subject to wages, and you take what you need to survive. Under capitalism, our relationship to the material external world which is required for production becomes an estranged and broken one. The workers relationship to their work and fellow workers is broken as well as to themselves. Supposedly, capitalism even destroys our sense of what it means to be human which Marx calls species-being.

Conceptually, capitalism appears to be a heavily flawed system while communism appears perfect. However, I believe each system has its own strengths and weaknesses. Realistically, countries become stagnant under communism. Without the presence of competition, innovation falls by the wayside. Without innovation, countries fall behind. The more important issue though is the morality of both systems. The main flaw of capitalism is that the proletariat is exploited and driven down to a mere subsistence level. Workers are treated as commodities versus being considered human beings. Private property becomes more important than the humans that produce it. Personally, I find this concept hard to believe. Obviously no one values any of their possessions more than a human life. However, coming from a family that has provided for me throughout my life, I do not think I’ll ever really be able to understand this concept. Do we all really value our possessions more than a human life? I hope this is not the case, but then again I am not the one to say.

It is hard to say which system is the better one. From a sort of macro point-of-view, you could say countries thrive under capitalism due to the competition of it. But it is the lack of competition that gives communism the edge. Humans are treated as such and everyone works and produces. I’ve been raised under capitalism so it is all I know. The way I look at it is the struggle to survive is innate and, therefore, we should live under a system which appeals to that. In a way, capitalism keeps us sharp and hungry while communism leads to passivity and laziness. It’s similar to an animal that is domestically raised. That animal was provided for and, if released into the wild, will not survive. In the end, capitalism may be the “darker” of the two, but I still believe it to be superior.

Upsetting the System

My understanding of Nietzsche up to SEARCH 201 was superficial at best and I write this blog post hoping to clarify some obvious confusion I still have with his ideas. I struggle to grasp what exactly Nietzsche meant in his attempt to overthrow the traditional moral explanations of humanity before him. I hope to further discuss the ramifications of his overthrow means for all of us in how we live our lives.

According to Nietzsche our society is simply a system of beings. Nobody is good or bad simply because we are doing precisely what we are. To ask us to do anything else is ridiculous.

Does this not blow anybody else’s mind? The Nietzsche mentality is absolutely maddening me. As I am sitting here writing this blog post and as you are reading the same post we are each being ourselves, we are doing what we are. There is no longer any moral will in our action. Nietzsche provides the example of the lightning in section 13 where we mistake the thunder as the action of the light. We separate the sound from the thing itself and we say that the lightning caused the thunder. Instead we now see that the lightning is the thunder and the thunder is the lightning.

Sounds pretty crazy initially, but the ramifications of Nietzsche’s proposal are mammoth. Where the hell does our free will then go? I am guessing free will is simply gone in Nietzsche’s world. Our decisions are simply determined before we are even aware of them.

I would then ask why exactly we attempt to reform criminals and gang-bangers if they have no will in their decision making? They are each doing what they are; to ask them to do anything else is irrational. What they do in the future is simply determined by fate and chance. Just as Prof. Johnson’s villain from “No Country for Old Men” exists and his decisions to murder are fatalistic.

Subsequently, what about the reformed criminals? Are they the ones whom chance favored? Where does this chance derive from and what exactly are the odds of certain situations?

How can we be sure of Nietzsche’s claims that upset the system that we still cling to today? With every step we take towards achieving a better society as a whole under the Judeo-Christian scheme, we must reject the reality of what really is taking place according to Nietzsche.

Are we really living in a world of chance?

Society's Reversal of "Weak" and "Strong"

In class Thursday, we discussed the Genealogy of “good” and “bad.” Good and bad were originally aristocratic modes of evaluation.  However, eventually the roles were reversed due to ressentiment. “Good” which is noble is powerful is beautiful is happy is beloved by God was reversed by the “bad.” Nietzsche calls this reversal of “good" and “bad” the slave revolt in morality or the reversing of the noble mode of evaluation. We then discussed how Jews did the same thing and Christians made it worse. They begin to associate things that were really good with things that were self-denying. Nietzsche has a problem with this because he believes that by denying self, we no longer express our strengths. Instead, we exemplify our weaknesses. In my opinion, I think it was very clever of the weak to reverse the definition of what it means to be strong in order for them to be seen as the ones that are actually strong. However, I do agree with Nietzsche that we are doing ourselves a disservice and making it okay to be weak. While in class, I thought about how today’s society is still using this same technique to make their selves appear as the good guys. For example, everyone has been talking about the One Percent and how powerful and rich they are. Last time I checked, being powerful and rich was a good thing but because the majority of society is not powerful and rich like the One Percent, we have decided to equate powerful and rich to being evil and negative. If powerful and rich are negative, does that make incapable and poor positives? The same thing has been done with slender individuals. As of late, they are being described anorexic. Although the slender person is a healthy weight and does not have an eating disorder, they have been portrayed as weak, sick and fragile while women that weigh more or are obese, are being described as the wealthier individuals. Let me first say, I am not trying to attack anyone and their weight. I am just trying to make the point that a major reversal of roles has taken place in society. The weak are not trying to become strong. They are changing the definition of what it means to be weak in order to make weak acceptable. Although it may help the weak and their confidence level, it is not helping solve the issue and make the weak stronger. If this continues, I believe society will no longer strive to be noble, powerful, beautiful, and happy in their original context. Society will strive to noble, powerful, beautiful, and happy in their new unrealistic context.

Seeing Through the Cage



Morality is as artificial as is this morality meter

I have had a hard time understanding Western philosophers we have encountered in Search so far. Before I read Nietzsche’s First Essay, I have even, in jest, said that western philosophy has gone downhill since Ancient Greece.  Western theologians and philosophers such as Aristotle, Augustine, Luther, Descartes, Kant, and Marx, all believe in some unifying or exemplifying ideal. There must be something that is the very best of things. For Plato, it’s the Forms; for Aristotle, it’s the eudemonia; for Augustine, Luther, and Descartes, it’s God; for Kant, it’s the objective maxim. Because of their confidence in the perfect ideal, they believed in the perfect morality. I was skeptical of their stances on morality based on one single doubt: can there really be perfection? I can find no evidence for one set of moral values being the best of them all. The idea of God seems to be a mere extrapolation on the idea of the Socratic Form.  The Western thinkers were trapped in a cage of perfection. They assume the necessity of perfection while there is none.

Nietzsche sees through the cage. What we called “good” in the Roman times, was nothing but what the ancient Greeks thought best exemplify what people want the most - the virtue of a knife is in its sharpness. Utility or usefulness dictates goodness. Such etymology of good is found in Chinese language even today: the term YICHONG, or Useful Bugs connotes goodness, the term HAICHONG, or Harmful Bugs connotes badness. There’s nothing confusing here. Morality started off the same way. After Socrates’ failure at defining the Just, the Romans created a noble morality. Morally good actions are just actions that are useful. Aeneas' leaving Dido may be heartless, but he still proves to be a good Roman because of his obedience to duty, a useful conscience for a strong Roman. As Nietzsche points out, the noble point of view sees values different from theirs as barbarian (Genealogy of Morals 477). I find a mocking tone in his defense of the Roman values.  A powerful herd of people believe: whatever my people think is good, is good, whatever we think is bad, is bad. Anyone thinking otherwise is just underdeveloped. This is as ridiculous as the weak herd of people believing: whatever those against us are, are evil; whatever least like those against us are, are good.

There’s no reason to adopt either the week's or the strong's side of the moral debate. The Christian morality we have today is there, but it is not founded on anything, certainly not God – since he has long been dead. These values are here only because they were useful once, when the week became numerous and carried a mutual ressentiment. A reverse of the Roman morality is just as authoritarian and false as the original. Here we come to a realization: there is no morality. But wait! What of the consequences?

If there is no morality, how do people live in harmony? If we can’t tell our kid, taking things from other kids is wrong, what of our peaceful society? We have only unsatisfactorily appeased the concern when we inform everyone in a society that moral laws are useful though artificial, just like a knife is artificial, but useful. A societal moral code may then be able to take the place of a Christian morality, however not fully. The Christian morality with a God as overseer is strong beyond doubt. No Christian wants to forgo blissful afterlife and extend their lifelong suffering even more. However, we can't always rely on the Christian morality. It is way too rigid. Its content has become obsolete decades ago if not more. We are now in this sticky situation where we have no readily-available moral code with the same weight to replace the Christian one in a post-Christian era. Some might ask: do we really need something to replace the blank left by Christian morality? I am leaning to the positive answer.

Growing up as one of the weak in a Godless country, I have experienced the effect of having merely suggestive moral laws on society. Unfortunately, the new artificial morality doesn’t work as well as some atheists in this country have hoped. In a country with new moral codes, People can only guess how to be a good person, an inconvenience that has resulted in the strong herd tacitly defining how a society works. I did not see myself surviving in that climate. Most of us are just slaves; we can’t survive without a slave morality at least around us, if not in us. I am in such a predicament: I know a Christian morality is irrational in itself and harmful when involved in governing; however, I cannot deny its nonparallel efficiency in maintaining a society congenial to the weak and numerous (which I am a part of).

I think, when one sees the world in its reality, underneath its pretense, one is doomed to despair. That the world is the best of all possible worlds is a wonderful, fulfilling belief to have. It is beneficial for my mind if I can un-see the ugliness of the world, to know that the world (or rather human society) is not created by human, but by some other intelligent, perfectly free being, I am free from the guilt of participating in the creating of an ugly world. I am also free from the loneliness of a prophet. The only one who sees the world as it is, is necessarily alone. We want to have companions; therefore we must deny the ugliness of our companions and ourselves. Inconveniently,I feel incapable to self-deceive. I found empathy in Nietzsche’s view, however a dim light for my future sanity as well.

The need for workers

I think that Marx definitely emphasizes the importance of the worker in society in general.  The worker is essentially the backbone that drives the economy. The capitalist, in my opinion, plays a less significant role in the development of the economy in general.  I think that the worker definitely
has much more of a struggle to deal with than the capitalist. It is possible to see the separate between the two groups if one examines the elite !% of wealthy Americans vs. the working class.  Essentially, the worker is what drives the capitalist society and allows the upper class to maintain their positions.  Without the working class, there would be no upper tier. Additionally, the state of society also effects the well-being of the worker.  If society is suffering economically, then the well- being of the worker can potentially be compromised.  Overall, I think that Marx emphasizes how the relationship between the worker and the society is a continuous cycle.  The workers' circumstances are dependent upon the circumstances of society and the circumstances of society are dependent upon the labor of the worker.

Marx also talks about how the worker desires to produce capital.  He talks about how the worker himself is an asset and he makes a contribution through his own existence.  He says that "The worker produces capital, capital produces him.  Hence he produces himself and man as worker, as a commodity is the product of the entire cycle." Hence the worker is the essential part of the equation. The worker is willing to put forth labor to produce everything that is made.  He works to produce his own money. However, he makes a significant contribution to the production of capital through his labor.  For example, someone who works for a major entity such as UPS or Kraft Foods works to produce his own income for himself and his family.  However his hard work and efforts also allows the company to turn profits and sustain itself as well.  This is essentially beneficial to both entities involved.  The company stays afloat and the worker may receive more benefits as the company is able to sustain itself and produce more capital.

I think that Marx's ideas definitely apply to the economic downfall that began in 2008.  During that time  millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes.  Thus they were unable to work. I think that this crisis supports the fact that the workers sustainability is dependent upon the economic circumstances at the time because the worker has more to lose.  As a result, society as a whole suffers because the demand for labor is decreased.  Even though we can still see the effects of the economic crisis today, I think that in the future, we will see some major improvement in circumstances.  Thus the laborer will have better success. However for now, things continue to be rough for many individuals.  ///overall, the big picture that Marx wants readers to see is that productivity of the worker is related to the circumstances of the time period.  If things are rough, the worker will be placed in a compromising situation.  However, if things are better, the need for the worker will be in greater demand.

Can you change your class

In class yesterday we discussed Marx’s three different reasons for why the ownership of property divides societies into two classes.  His third reason was that under capitalism the conditions of the workers will only continue to worsen thus causing the poor to get poorer and grow in size all the while the rich is getting richer and decreasing in size.  Eventually this ever-growing divide between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will cause the proletariat to revolt in desire to create some sort of communist society.  We have seen a redistribution of wealth on smaller scale in many examples overtime in order to hold off the revolution, but Marx claims that at some point the redistribution of wealth will not be significant enough to appease the proletariat and at that point the revolution will come.  This revolution would not be one that would essentially flip-flop the two classes because the proletariat does not want to directly take what the bourgeoisie has.  Rather the proletariat desires to live in a classless society.  It should be noted though that in creating this society there is no way to avoid the reality that the proletariat is taking from the bourgeoisie. 

            Following this progression we then in class discussed how if the basic needs of humans were always provided for it would then cause them to lose their drive and become complacent beings in society.  I had not considered this before when thinking about communism, and this is an aspect that would really worry me if the United States somehow became a communist nation.  If a person is given all their basic needs then they do not have to go out into the world everyday and work in order to survive.  The difference in this situation for a capitalist society is that one is not provided basic needs, and thus people are competitive and driven to achieve certain levels of wealth in order to survive.  I think capitalism is a very good system in motivating people to work hard and is fantastic for innovation and adaptation.  But my problem with capitalism, specifically in the United States is that those people in the lower class are basically stuck in those positions.  Often times people say you get out what you put in, but I have seen so many hard working kids that have no way of uplifting themselves out of their current positions in society.  They cannot afford to buy books or got to college, and their parents are not educated enough to help provide them with any sort of background to help them in school or later on in life.  How often do you hear it’s all about who you know? Well these kids of poor families do not know anyone.  The do not have the Rhodes alumni network, and the public high schools they went to do not have any significant networking system either.  These kids for the most part are stuck in the positions they are in, and it is not their laziness or unwillingness to work hard but rather a lack of opportunity because of their societal positions. 

In class on Thursday we talked a lot about the idea of "estranged labor."Marx says that labor is estranged because capitalism takes the innate drive for labor and makes it dehumanizing. He believes that capitalist labor is dehumanizing because the richer will only get richer and fewer while the poorer will only get poorer greater. Instead of capitalism, Marx believes in communism. He thinks that every should be equal and have equal opportunity and equal amounts of money. He believes that one of the main downfalls of communism is the surplus profit because this is what makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. He also doesn't think that anyone should own private property which was one of the main topics of discussion on Thursday.
From our discussion in class I learned that private property is the only right that denies everyone but yourself ownership of something. I found this very interesting because I had never thought about how different this right was from all of the other ones. Personally, I have to disagree with Marx because I believe that having private property is essential to humans. I think that owning private property gives people individuality and the capability of making decisions on his or her own. For example, when I go shopping I get satisfaction out of knowing that I personally chose out an item and I paid for the item with money I had worked hard for. I think that I would be deprived of this satisfaction if I knew that I had to share everything. I also think that Will's point about owning private property for the comfort of knowing you will always have it is extremely important. I believe that sharing is something people do between those that they trust because they know that their private property will not be harmed.

Public Property?

While discussing Marx's idea of of the idea of getting rid of private property an number of us, if not all, were not comfortable with the idea. Why is that? Not having private property would put us on a more equal level. No one would have better stuff than the next person because we all have to share the same things. I think this need for having something to call our own is something we are born with. As children we go through a phase were we think everything is ours. It just part of our greedy nature of humans. We do not want to share what we think is ours. 

Even if it is not specifically ours but if we still feel as though we have a special connection with that item we may still think that item is still ours personally. Take for instance chairs in a classroom. On the first day of class  when you pick a seat it is hard, well for me, to have to choose a different seat the next class period because I had already designated the first day seat as MY seat.  So I know I would have an especially hard time with this aspect of communism. I, greedily, feel like what's mine is mine. I do not mind sharing but I like having something to call my own. But I do feel like this is a common sentiment among most if not everyone. 

We would also not have anything to strive for if we all shared everything. Why should I work I work for something if I could just wait for someone else to get it so we can share. It would limit some peoples ability to better themselves. This is one of my main reasons against communism as a whole. 

Another reason I feel that having everything as public property is not a good idea is because lots of things will start to become worn down because no one will feel responsibility for the well-being of any items. It's known that people tend to take care of things that are theirs and feel less responsibility for things that are not. We discussed this in class. We used the example of our classroom. No matter how dirty that classroom became none of us would ever come in with a vacuum to clean up. Why? Because it's not ours and not our responsibility. But if the property was shared between all of us many of us would not do anything to clean it up either because we would expect someone else to do it. So if we all have that same mindset the room would still not get cleaned. 

These are just a few of the reasons why I do not feel the idea of not having personal property is a good reason. Of course this is not for every situation and for every person (there are exceptions for everything). Or I could just have a negative perception of human personalities. 

Communism's Smile

Connotation can sometimes obliterate any chance of a concept’s positive sides.  Take a basic example, when a homework assignment is called “difficult,” students are less likely to put forward an effort if they think that the work will be too “difficult.”  The instructor would typically call the assignment “challenging,” which instead says that students can solve the problems if they put in some work, and that the result of further understanding will be rewarding.  A simple little trick, that communism suffers from.  As we discussed in class earlier in the semester, in the U.S., running for President as a communist is comparable to running as an arsonist.  The difference:  one has a political viewpoint with a negative connotation, and the other burns buildings.  While indeed the President will publicly be neither of those, the basis of communism as a means to social order bears no threatening attributes, and casting out all aspects of an ideal simply because it is the opposite of one’s way of life is an argument that slavery should still exist because we are used to slaves.  I am not arguing that we should become a communist nation, but merely that communism has reasonable arguments.

For the sake of acknowledging connotation, let’s imagine bread pudding.  To bake the most delicious of all bread pudding, the almighty pudding of the Gods, there cannot be an imbalance in the volume of pudding versus the volume of bread.  While pudding provides the flavor, bread provides the texture that is essential to this delicacy, and yet the bread is often overlooked.  When there is an excess of pudding, the dessert will be mushy, and go completely to waste.  Now there is only a mess of pudding sitting in a refrigerator that no one wants to eat, it will go to waste.  If the chef would have simply found the proper balance, the bread would not be suppressed, and the pudding would be delicious for all to enjoy.  Of course, there are other ingredients that are necessary as well, and to make the perfect bread pudding, all one can do is experiment with these ideas until a synthesis is achieved.  Perhaps it is even the case that the perfect dessert is impossible to achieve, since indeed it is up to the taste buds of the consumer to determine what they enjoy.

What did I just say? Take an idea, and assume it to be almighty like pudding, and forget about what else is needed for a good mix.  Chances are the results will not be very good if we try to create a government based entirely around the power of one individual, all flavor with no substance.  Likewise, if we base a government with no leadership, all for the people with all substance and no flavor, then we have bread rather than bread pudding.  I admit that I enjoy bread, but it gets old quick and could always use a little more oomph.  Like any idea, communism would not exist if someone did not have a justification for its benefits.  Just as behind capitalism’s smile, and any idealism, there are hidden problems in communism’s toothy grin of social order.  Someone please name for me an idealism where the obvious benefits are not layered with human error.

A Class-less Society?

As we discussed in class this week, Communism as an ideology is widely regarded in America with distaste, fear, and in many cases, outright revulsion. And with the types of leaders who have embraced Communism in the past, one can hardly blame us. However, in actually reading and discussing the ideas of Marx, one cannot deny the allure of his argument; Capitalism is a rather heartless enterprise, and communism seems like the inevitable solution to this condition of human selfishness, replacing the extreme social and economic discrepancy between the "bourgeoisie" and the "proletariat" with a classless society.

It all sounds so good on paper. However, many capitalists would argue that is insupportable because of the lack of competition, an incentive to innovate. But this is not the problem I would like to address--the goal of Communism I must question is the reality of a "classless society." Perhaps such a thing existed in one point in time, thousands of years ago, but the way civilization has developed across the board renders this kind of utopia impossible. I believe it is in human nature to classify ourselves--we are constantly judging ourselves and others, seeking our identity. Though communism may necessitate economic equality, it would not stop humans from finding other ways to justify their superiority over others.

Imagine a world in which, regardless of what sort of work one did, everyone makes the same salary--everyone lives modestly, no one takes more than they need. The doctor has no more money than the garbage man: everyone is simply playing their part in their society, each job necessary for the survival and nourishment of their community. All people are people, rather than commodities to be bought, sold, and exploited. As idyllic as all this sounds, this homogeneity would not please the people for long. Contrary to the popular conception of class as strictly a product of economic status, I find that social status and power are never distributed equally amongst the people, no matter what the economic situation. Today, money is power. But if one took away that money, there would still be power to be seized by someone else by some other means, some other way of elevating himself. Perhaps those with more cerebral jobs would be placed above those with more menial tasks, or maybe instead the work that required the most physical strength would be considered the most powerful position.

According to Paul Fussell, author of Class: A Guide Through the American Class System, the way class is defined differs for each sector of the class system. The poor generally think class is solely an issue of money, the middle class think it a combination of money with the kind of education you've had and work you do, while the upper class think of as it mostly a matter of taste and behavior (Fussell). The way we define ourselves is very important to us. If the working class took over and eliminated the economic motivations of the class system, there would still be other ways to divide ourselves. Whether that means that the proletariat would become the new ruling class and create a system that oppressed the previously wealthy and oppressive, or whether they would try to implement a system of equality, a classless society seems impossible. Man was created equal, but he will do anything he can to change that.  

Rising Out of Communism

            Karl Marx, in his writings in Economical and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, describes his ideas on Communism and Capitalism, and the relationship between the two. Marx believed that Communism is always the result of a Capitalist society, because of many reasons. In Capitalism, as the classes separate into the bourgeoisie, the owners of the means of production, and the proletariat, the working class, the economical and social divide inevitably grows. The bourgeoisie grow richer and fewer, while the proletariat become poorer and more populous. Marx illustrates that Capitalism, by definition, requires the exploitation of the proletariat. Eventually, the class divide will become so great that the proletariat will revolt against the bourgeoisie in hopes of achieving living conditions above sustenance level.          

As there are flaws in Capitalism, there are flaws in Communism. Because you receive an amount independent of your contributions to society, you have no incentive to work hard or contribute. This brings the Communist society into a downward spiral, making it unable to thrive. Despite this seemingly obvious aspect of Communism, many countries have attempted to survive in a world of Capitalism. The Soviet Union was not a prime example of Marx’s true ideals; in fact, it was a mild perversion of his mentality. Perhaps this is because Communism is not completely plausible in real-world society. We can see from the past and present that a Communist society is very difficult to survive in. Cuba and North Korea, two extremely Communist countries, are simply overlooked because, by choice, they have isolated themselves from the thriving world Capitalist economy. In addition, Communist countries inevitably shed a negative light onto the Marxist ideals, because the conditions in which their people live are extremely undesirable.

After all of this analysis, one must ask, can a country rise out of Communism? If so, what comes after Communism? The Russian Federation, once the Communist Soviet Union, is a semi-presidential Republic. Because Marxist Communism is implausible in a real-world society, Communism cannot thrive indefinitely in the world. Only after a coup did was the country able to begin as a new government. As such, it seems as though revolt is inevitable; Capitalism leads to separation of classes, which leads to revolt, while Communism leads to the desperation of its citizens for reasonable living conditions, also ending in revolt. Perhaps there is an undetectable cycle, one that takes centuries to oscillate, and is unpredictable as revolutions are.