Bloodless Coup

Isn't that how these progressive revolution thingies always turn out? :-P

Of course. That's because they're a handy path to the top for the patriarchal/power hungry. That's why I'm all about process, institutions, and checks and balances. It doesn't keep 'em out, but it makes it a longer and harder road.

Has any society ever done Marxism "right" for any length of time?

Has any society ever done (any)ism "right" for any length of time?

Well, I can't remember a historical example of a communist government that didn't rapidly degenerate (or maybe "fail to evolve out of" is a better term) goosesteps and strongmen and secret police and intellectuals disappearing in the dark of night.

So I wonder: why the continued appeal? It doesn't seem like something that "checks and balances" has ever been able to contain, whereas capitalist/democratic governments seem to behave (somewhat) for extended periods of time.

Ah but democracy isn't an -ism. That's why it works.

but capital-ism is.

"but capital-ism is" not a system of government. :P

So let me get this straight: Binky is saying that communism can't work?

Of course. As designed. And in practice, it tends to disintegrate into authoritarianism, which sucks. Which is why I've always been a radical (small d) democrat. A transparent process is the only way to head off the worst shit. I mean, bad shit can still happen, but it's arguably at least opposable.

capitalism isn't a system of government? what country are you living in?

don't get me wrong, it all looks great on paper, the idea that capitalism is orange to democracy's and communism's apples. and of course there was all kinds of pithiness in my comment.

but in the breech one can easily argue that it's a distinction without a difference. until senate races can't be and aren't bought by the capitalists with monetary interests at stake (which are all too often served at the expense of the relevant "voters"), until major decisions of foreign policy that cost thousands of lives don't seem oddly coincident with the fiscal interests of the most well connected multinationals, i'm going to continue to find dubious the proposition that the difference is categorical.

and anyway, if the distinction is ideological versus economic, please to explain how communism neatly fits the description. to me, it seems an ideology built upon economic principles. and while American democracy may pay lip service to something more bifurcated, i don't see how one can pretend it isn't, as formed, much the same -- an ideology that is built upon, or at least fundamentally animated by, economic principles.

this does all start with the boston tea party, no?

It sounds to me like you are describing corrupt, crony autocracy.