"It is awful to experience a beautiful morning or to have a beautiful idea and not being able to turn either of them into a monetary value and sell them"

One of the issues or rather one of its many Achilles heels that communism suffered from was the simple, constant and ever more rising temptation to simply cash in the otherwise supposedly timeless and everlasting new organization of society and its total control over all the resources. And that's exactly what happened in the USSR. The possibility to cash it all in proved to be for the very "communist" leadership more persuasive than anything else, however noble or good it could be. And capitalism always held this option open--to all the communist regimes even to those that were meant to be destroyed. In a word, Marx forgot (or did he?) that his theory and plan did come with its Achilles heel--the option to cash it all in and sell it all with everyone on board down the river.

The desire to cash in the struggle and sacrifices of the generations proved to be much stronger than any residual and progressively diminishing commitment to social justice or equality. Once the decision to cash communism in took place (which, in the case of the USSR, must have happened before they murdered Stalin or shortly after so that people like Yakovlev or Kalugin could be sent for [re]training to the US by the end of the 1950s as the VIP liaison for selling and destroying the USSR), communism turned into just another pyramid scheme in which those who quit, desert, betray, cheat and sell first (here also lies the key to Putin's fortunes; the captains were first to cross everyone on board, even directing the fire on their ships), get away with most of the spoils and those, i.e., the most faithful, who stay on the sunken ship to the last are bound to be the worst off.

The desire to cash in (the temptation was neither small or trivial--we are talking of wealth measured in trillions of dollars) toppled communism.

This, in turn, also affirms and reveals something essential about capitalism itself. Capitalism works and will always work as long as humans and humanity can be sold and as long as someone is buying. 

Even if, as Marilyn Monroe said, a soul would cost in Hollywood some 50 cents, but a kiss will make thousands, if not millions.

"Hollywood is a place where they’ll pay you a thousand dollars for a kiss and fifty cents for your soul."

This statement by Marilyn Monroe was printed in an autobiography of Monroe titled “My Story” that was first published in 1974. The longer excerpt reads as follows:

In Hollywood a girl’s virtue is much less important than her hair-do. You’re judged by how you look, not by what you are. Hollywood’s a place where they’ll pay you a thousand dollars for a kiss, and fifty cents for your soul. I know, because I turned down the first offer often enough and held out for the fifty cents.

[The source of the memoir was a typewritten manuscript from a former photographer of Monroe named Milton Greene.]

The terminology of Marxism is, however, rather peculiar given the fact how much it is laden with ostensibly archaic borrowings from the Roman Empire. Thus proletarians far from being any industrial workers were the lowest and poorest of the Roman citizens who, as such, were prime beneficiaries of the Empire's social services and welfare programs in the form of free circuses and bread provided at the expense of the rich and the colonies, including the wealth and the lives of the defeated enemies of the Empire. The proletarians were exempt from taxes and even from military service. Their only service and purpose for the Empire was to have sex that would make new children to the State and the Empire. Proletarius was “a man whose only wealth is his offspring, or whose sole service to the state is as father,” from proles, “offspring, posterity.” One of the figurative meaning of the proles was also testicles. socialism is from the old good Roman term for allies alias vassals with a later connotation for societies or brotherhoods--the offshoots of the new Catholic/masonic system.

Socialism as a term is an offspring of the Roman socii, Rome's vassals and friendly allies; the word is derived from the root sekw with the meaning "to follow." In Rome's nomenklatura, the socii were Rome's former defeated enemies turned into vassals and new allies to whom Rome was, however, denying as a matter of principle the privilege of Roman citizenship and its rights and protection. Over the admission into Roman citizenship and thus rising above the status of the socii, the socii waged with Rome the so-called Social War (War of the Socii) in 91-88 B.C. 

Moreover, it is also interesting to note that, in the end, the Soviet communist elite behaved like these early Roman "socialists" who decided to "fight" the Empire in order to join the Empire's masters--to join the VIP political club. However, if Rome's socii were as a rule Rome's former defeated enemies, the Soviet socialists, desiring to become the Empire's new socialites, turned their war and fight against their own country and its socialist system, which was the condition, the premise and also part of the promise for switching sides and transforming themselves into the new Animal Farm's Orwelian pigs.

At the beginning of the new buorgeois orde from the 1660s, social and society took on the meaning of "friendliness or geniality" is from 1660s and, by the 1720s, denoted people "living or liking to live with others; companionable, disposed to friendly intercourse." As "a natural condition of human life," society was first attested 1695 in John Locke, one of the founders of bourgeois liberalism. The social was thus originally both linked and counterposed to the political and the polis and, as a properly Latin term, the social thus stood in relation as well in opposition namely to the City of Rome--as a class of friendly vassals, but those who were kept till the Social War below the class of Rome's citizens and their rights, powers and freedoms. The much forgotten origin of our terms does admittedly illuminate much of the underlying essence and dynamic beneath the typical surface of the otherwise much sterilized, worn-off and vacuumed textbook lexicon and our fundamental political coordinates.

This leads us to democracy and its relation to capitalism. For several centuries capitalism existed without democracy, even without any good will toward democracy, but with strong prejudices against it. The relationship or hooking-up started to evolve alongside and together with the rise of socialism and communism within the capitalist world, and especially after World War I. Since then the relationship between capitalism and democracy was one of a marriage of sorts--resembling something of a contract marriage and a marriage of convenience in the course of which the relationship also started to move toward something called these days "an open marriage"--where, supposedly, everyone sleeps nearly with everyone and cheats everyone with the understanding that what is going on is much a public secret or a common knowledge and understanding anyway, and neither capitalism or democracy are too much exclusive or discriminatory. It is a democracy that is perfectly fine holding hands with a Saudi king and despot, an owner of royal harems, in a world where nothing and no one is supposed to be that much straight or square either in principle or in the near future.

And, as Plato already knew, democracy is a multicolored, beautiful and in many ways pleasant regime. A regime that offers and is conducive to a true market of all possible opinions. The freedom of opinion is thus both a key premise and an essential principle of democracy. It is a source from which democracy flows. However, neither democracy nor human nature can ever ensure or make it so that all opinions would mutually like one another equally as they like themselves or their own opinions. Sooner or later opinions do stumble over some essential and fundamental, even irreconcilable differences over something that people hold too dear or too important or too essential--like their deep or fundamental interests, prejudices or causes. Sooner or later some opinions do hurt or outrage others. Not all opinions are or can be equally indifferent, inoffensive or not really that important. At some point, some opinions become too "offensive" to the taste and the interests of the effective majority of the established opinions and their cult. And here also lies the paradox of democracy and its own death--once democracy reverts to ordering and prescribing what people ought to think and what not to think, which opinions they can have and which they can't, democracy dies and becomes something else--again. Thus Athenian democracy sentenced itself to death at the moment when it sentenced to death Socrates and his philosophical questioning and teaching. And very often or even as a rule mankind is less upset over its lies than it is over the truth--over the truth that hurts and "offends" these lies and their liars, whether conscious or unconscious. The less people are good, the more they find truth offensive, and the more they try to defend themselves against it.

This leaves us with fascism. And here it must be said that once communism was cashed in by the very same ones who led this movement for decades, the debris of the left, left all over the place both in the East and the West, have been often appropriated and picked up by rather well organized, well trained, well supported (including, if not especially by the state) and clever fascists who profited greatly from the demise of communism and its cash-in operations which are the life source and the very genesis, for example, of the Putin regime itself.

Fascism is religiously devoted to the idea of superiority of some men and women over the rest of humanity. At the root of this complex and need to recognized and worshiped as mankind's superior is a perverted God complex--a desire to be to the rest of mankind what God or Gods are or used to be. To accomplish this, anyone who resists or opposes this pathological craving and need for such superiority and Superman-ship is an object of the most radical hate and contempt. In fascism, sociopathy and psychopathy creates its perfection and its most desired environment.

And in the world where we live, capitalism and new fascism became and remain the two nearly dominant and monopolist political employers. These are the times when Platonists and poets may have a good deal of opportunity to live as exiled hermits.