Ono asked:

Why does not the history of the 20th century prove Marx wrong? What speaks in favor of, and what
speaks against, the likelihood of a Marxist revolution in the future?

============

Well, of course it does show it is wrong. But that does not prevent Marxism's advocates from
"mounting a rescue operation" as David Hume might have called it. The most prevalent of the "rescue
operations" has been to state that where Communism failed, even in the Soviet Union, and in East
Europe, "true" Communism was never "really" tried. The rescuers present a number of reasons for
that, but it doesn't matter since so far as they are concerned, when Marxism fails, the only
explanation is, that it wasn't Marxism that failed but some (perhaps) reasonable facsimile. It is very
reminiscent of the old ditty: "Treason never prospers: what's the reason? If it prospers, none dare call
it 'treason'.'" Only, of course it is in Marxism this time: "Marxism never fails. What's the reason? If it
fails no Marxist calls it 'Marxism'.

Kenneth Stern