In fairness, it’s usually the other way round: if someone else is doing it, it’s not proper communism.
Which is ironic, because communism requires two people or more. Presumably why facism is more popular because you only need one.
In fairness, it’s usually the other way round: if someone else is doing it, it’s not proper communism.
Presumably why facism is more popular because you only need one.
Well – one subject, one million abjects.
Nah. One, and one too many.
Oh yes. Because communism only happens if someone else is doing it...
Well as my mother always said "if all your friends were institutiing the dictatorship of the proletariat, whould you do that too?"
Well, if everyone else was doing it...
If everyone were doing it, a few people have some apologies to make to Mr Trotsky…
Indochine is looking distinctly an unfriendly place for an American to be.
He clearly wasn't needed, if everyone ended up doing it.
Booooo! (Can't help myself really, it's an instinctive reaction to those two words at this point).revisionist historians
It does depend. At one extreme you have the SWP who declare that nothing, ever has been 'real' communism which remains pure, perfect and un-sullied by reality. At the other extreme is the CP-GB(ML) mob who will unironically defend any dictator you care to mention and minimise or deny any crime, as long as the state in question at some point mentioned Marx. For every position in between you will find a tiny hard left party defending it, such are the ways of the left.In fairness, it’s usually the other way round: if someone else is doing it, it’s not proper communism.
Communism requires three people; lead ideologue, the other ideologue to declare the first person a deviationist heretical splitter traitor (due to an argument about exactly where to put a comma), and the secret policeman to spy on everyone.Which is ironic, because communism requires two people or more. Presumably why facism is more popular because you only need one.
I am mildly amazed that despite all the changes stretching back decades Vietnam is still happening in broadly the same shape with the same people. With presumably broadly the same outcome.
It does depend. At one extreme you have the SWP who declare that nothing, ever has been 'real' communism which remains pure, perfect and un-sullied by reality. At the other extreme is the CP-GB(ML) mob who will unironically defend any dictator you care to mention and minimise or deny any crime, as long as the state in question at some point mentioned Marx.
For someone who dislikes the revisionists, you attribute too much to the CIA.Booooo! (Can't help myself really, it's an instinctive reaction to those two words at this point).
I am mildly amazed that despite all the changes stretching back decades Vietnam is still happening in broadly the same shape with the same people. With presumably broadly the same outcome. You would have thought after decades of change the CIA could have found a better stooge the Diem, his drawbacks were many and his advantages few.
Now there is a challenge. Workers International Marxist-Leninist-Mao-Zedongist Trade union?Then of course there are honourable mentions including the ridiculously named WIMLMZT (a shiny badge to anyone who figures that out without Google)
Now there is a challenge. Workers International Marxist-Leninist-Mao-Zedongist Trade union?