You're viewing a single thread.
2 things:
-
The victors write history
-
After Lenin the USSR was not really communist anymore but more really a totalitarian state that didn't believe in the values of communism. Just like China.
Everything would probably have been better if Lenin didn't die so fast and then Trotsky would have ruled.
- The victors write history
Flashback to stories of Rus conquests written by the Rus that said the people asked to be conquered
“History is written by the victors” is a tired cliché that doesn’t always hold up super well if you spend a moment to consider it.
Who conquered Rome? Surely, it was a people remembered for their great military prowess, right? Nope, still commonly remembered as barbarians thousands of year later.
The Mongols had one of the largest empires in history, and yet in much of the lands they conquered, they’re remembered as being monstrously ugly brutes, which is where words like “mongoloid” and “mongrel” come from.
Just like China.
And Cuba. And North Korea.
One of those funny coincidences that keeps happening.
To be perfectly clear: I'm not strongly opposed to what any "14-year-old white girl" means when she promotes communism. I understand leftist goals as distinct from what these countries actually did. But the fact these countries had those goals, and then did this shit instead, demands a better explanation than 'that doesn't count.' Especially when leftist philosophy has a lot to say about liberals and capitalism inevitably producing terrible outcomes.
All of those countries made great strides in accomplishing great things for their people actually, and you’ve just been lied to about them and their history repeatedly from the time of your birth, to the point that you don’t actually know jack shit about any of them but you think you do??
Permanently Deleted
Just like China.
Which is also a dictatorship.
Turns out literacy or whatever doesn't cancel out being a dictatorship.
Permanently Deleted
It's a dictatorship of the Castro family, in a way America's representative democracy isn't one at all.
It was literally modeled on the Soviet Union, well after all y'all insist the Soviet Union stopped doing anything communism-ish and was a straight-up dictatorship. Again - quoting the initial mook I replied to - "just like China."
Boring goddamn tankies think it's a zero-sum game where one thing being bad means the other must be flawless.
From the CIA’s assessment
Even In Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organi- zation of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and I t seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain. However, 1t does not appear that any of the present leaders will rise to the stature of Lenin and Stalin,so that it w i l lbe safer to assume that developments in Moscow will be along the lines of what is called collective leadership, unless Western policies force the Soviets to stream- line their power organization.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
Permanently Deleted
Fidel is dead and Raul is 90 and you're playing gulag apologia.
We will never speak again. Waste someone else's time.
Permanently Deleted
Trotsky would have ruled.
Mask off trot lmao
To be clear, the alternative here is Stalin. There are like only five people who would be worse choices
Trotsky was as much a tyrant and potentially even more blood would have been spilled. Trotsky was a strong proponent of war communism which was brutal towards the Russian civilians.
Stalin believed in the values of communism, he just also believed everyone was out to get him. Economically he followed Lenin's plan of nationalization and collectivization even more zealously then Lenin would have. Lenin wasn't as paranoid as Stalin and probably wouldn't have killed and gulaged millions of "suspicious" people but he was still very much a dictator and was willing to use any means necessary to achieve his goals, same with Trotsky.
With any of them the super structure of the state and how it's organized may vary a bit, but it would have all been built off a nationalized and collectivized base. Whether you want to call that base communism is up to you, but you can't say one is and one isn't.
Lenin did put plenty of people in Gulags. Communism = fascism.
He did but not nearly as much as Stalin.
Equating soviet style communism and fascism completely ignores the base. Yes the structure of the government is similar but in fascism the underlying economic system is still capitalistic and market based, while in Soviet style communism it is nationalized and planned. It also ignores ideology, fascism is about asserting national and racial supremacy to the detriment of inferior races, communism is about seizing the means of production from the bourgeoisie and giving control to the proletariat. Even if the government structure is similar, the policies those governments enact are wildly different. Thats like saying reddit and lemmy are the same because they both work on up voted content percolating up.
Yeah, right, fascism is so capitalistic! This is why Mussolini forced labour unions and nationalised 75% of the Italian economy. What a capitalist!
Average Trotskyist shitting on MLs
Until the next tyrant came along. It's a system that is always bound to fail.
It is a system that never gets transitioned to fully. It doesn't fail because it has basically never existed. If I invade your house, kill your father, and make you call me the milk man, that doesn't make me a milk man.
-