You’re showing statues of Lenin in countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure.
When Lenin took power, Russia had nothing. It was in the middle of WW1, there were regular famines, almost everyone was illiterate, and it was in no condition to establish a socialist economic plan. So, Lenin created a temporary economic model called The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is a centrally planned economy designed to rapidly develop infrastructure and industry in a country that has none. Lenin was already ceding power to the worker’s councils when he died. Stalin decided he liked The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and did not cede power back to the worker’s councils.
Those countries never experienced Communism. They never even experienced socialism. They destroyed those statues because they hated The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Living in a system designed for a short temporary economic boom for decades is no fun.
countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure
Oh, so like every single other place that tried to implement that deranged system? Thank you for this very important distinction.
It’s so very capitalist to look at failed attempts to escape capitalism which were sabotaged by capitalists as indication that the need to rebel is the problem.
failed attempts
They didn’t fail. I mean you can criticize the ussr, but it was not capitalist
which were sabotaged by capitalists
What a weird thing to say. The USSR had sovereign control over the largest country in the world by far + a lot of allies. The capitalists can’t even get rid of north Korea. Its not the capitalists, the system is just shit
the need to rebel is the problem
I mean its fine to rebel, but if your goal is communism I will bet on another case of “tHatS nOT rEaL coMMUnIsM”
Communism doesn’t include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence. The two concepts are antithetical. The USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism.
Communism doesn’t include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence
Very convenient, since nothing will ever meet this standard, so you will be able to say “that’s not communism” for the rest of your life. Actually sounds like the definition on anarcho capitalism
The two concepts are antithetical
Maybe to you, but many of the people in power at the time believed they were on the way to communism
USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism
I know of two common definitions of capitalism: “a system mostly organized around a profit-motive” and “a system in which individuals are mostly free to enter into consensual contracts”. I don’t see how the USSR is close to either of these. It was closer to fascism, tho there are also large differences
“Nothing will ever meet this standard” ~CHINESEBOTTROLL
If CHINESEBOTTROLL says it, then it must be true.
The two concepts are antithetical, even if the ignorant and corrupt claim it for themselves. Modern Christianity is antithetical to the Gospels of Christ, and that remains the case even as America slides into Christofascism. Fascists have always been steeped in irony because their core beliefs are based in the ignorance of ego.
You having an ignorant concept of capitalism doesn’t have any bearing on reality, except that it causes you to ignore the atrocities of the system that keeps you fat and happy.
