Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
Simplistic claptrap. Lenin, Stalin and Mao all died of natural causes. None of them was "assassinated by more dictatorial successors". All of them believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat, but rejected Marx's theory that an advanced level of industrialization was a prerequisite for it. That is how they explained and justified their pursuit of communist revolutions in the most backward and under-developed countries (Russia and China) rather than in the more advanced industrial economies (Germany and the UK).
From 1918 until 1939, the socialist left in Europe and the US was enthralled by the communist "experiment" in Russia. These willfully blind and naive leftists went to great lengths to rationalize and defend Stalin's genocidal evils such as the liquidation of the kulaks and the forced collectivization of agriculture. Many finally got a reality check in the form of the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty signed on the eve of WWII. Best book on the subject is Arthur Koestler's The God That Failed.
|
Simplistic claptrap :-) I'm not at all defending how it eventually happened, but that many people saw a need to do something and some did it even though it went terribly wrong is understandable. Are you supportive of the absolutist monarchy in Russia and the serf system? What about "tyranny and freedom" before the revolution? You paint all socialists with the same brush but only some of the left in Europe and the US were enthralled by the communist "experiment" in Russia. Even that obsession was primarily because of the complete takeover of all news media and the suppression of much of the reality. Turns out lots of socialists and progressives were appalled by the reality once they found it out (as you note). Similar to many well meaning conservatives when they find out the abuses of capitalism and plutocracy - but then there are many that just don't give a shit even when they do find out.
Lenin was shot (they tried to assassinate him twice) which led fairly quickly to his death at age 53. Winston Churchill, who ardently opposed him, said of Lenin, "He alone could have found the way back to the causeway... The Russian people were left floundering in the bog. Their worst misfortune was his birth... their next worst his death."
Trotsky was run out and Mensheviks and other leftist parties were outlawed (which is why the assassination attempt). Then Stalin supplanted him despite his wishes to take power from Stalin. They were all eventually very bad (though not bad in every aspect) and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a travesty in concept, but far more in execution. In light of the terrible absolutist monarchy in place at the time (in China as well) it is understandable that they were searching for something better. Too bad it was such a complete mess to try to replace it. That is not to say that it wasn't right to try to replace the horribly oppressive system that existed at the time or that some of their ideas didn't have some merit. It is just sad that it went so terribly wrong. There
IS something to be said for self-determination as well so again, the situation is not just black and white.
Bottom line is (to your point about simplistic) that it wasn't just a simple black and white situation (Communists and communism were horrible - they were but supplanted at least an equally horrible system but not everything about them WAS horrible, especially in relation to the system that went before). It is similar to the Arab Spring, horrible regimes supplanted by big messes so far (though not as bad yet as Communist Russia or China). I don't know, maybe it IS really simple in that Russians and Chinese are just horrible in governing their own people. You tell me?
