-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
realy there was no democratic regime in russia in 1917 ? ever heard about provisional goverment ? it was way more democratic than bolshevicks, booth by present and that time views.
and can you realy explain how democracy can exist with just one party system ? and how multiparty system can exist without democracy ?
well, someone can say that your lack of understanding of democracy is fault of your teacher, to teach you this, but truth is failure is mainly on your part to educate yourself.
becase banning of parties which are saying they will create dictatorship if seize power or are openly against human rights, one can say it is self preservation ratren than anti democratic.
because do you knwo what is magic of democracy ? NO ONE is preventing you to move any country in whole world which will suits your desires of ideal goverment for you, unlike dictatorships.
don't forget Russian legislative elections November 1917, Bolsheviks dissolved assembly because it wouldn't support bolsheviks
lenin ideas seem nice, but are literally impossible, unless humans change massively.
unfortunately, people go to the extremes to reach the unreachable, reaching the bottom of the shit pit.sure, thas why we have utopia for.
I hate Lenin and his ideology, wouldn't call him evil though, mostly cause he seemed stuck between a rock and a hard place when making his worst decisions. Afaik anyway.
I reserve evil for people like Mao.
I reserve evil for people like Mao.
I don't hate Lenin's ideology "in theory" (it actually sort-of works in small isolated groups of less than a couple hundred people where peer pressure is sufficient to control their actions). I blame him for naively trying to impose such an impractical "pie in the sky" solution by force, if that's what he REALLY believed, in which case I can't call him "evil", just seriously mistaken. If he didn't really believe it, and was just using it as a means of gathering power, then he was evil, and I do hate him.
so either he was incompetent/stupid or evil. either way, people shouldn't be accepting Leninism wholeheartedly.
I don't consider communism's rare real world successes significant enough to redeem the tremendous suffering it has enabled and often does enable when implemented. Hence, a large reason why I hate it.
I will always hate people who do what you describe, though. It's tremendously narrow minded and again causes needless suffering. Doesn't make you evil but it can make you a colossal tosser who should spend life in prison for criminal negligence at the very least.
well, i think there will be never proof to show that lenin was truly belived in what he preached or if he was using it to grab power, so lenin can have some exuse for what he did, but that can be told about stalin, which was withoud doubt paranoid powerhunger very evil person.
Communism has more that a few rare successes: it seems to have been very successful among small hunter-gatherer tribes. Unfortunately, once the "tribe" (or whatever else you call the group) grows beyond the point where everyone knows everyone else personally, you've got "strangers" in your midst, and peer pressure fails as a means of keeping people honest. At that point, either someone has to impose order (creating some sort of "authoritarian" system rather than communism), or else you've soon got cheaters, and the system falls apart as the most unscrupulous take advantage of the rest. It simply doesn't function as intended at the level of a modern country.
Lenin doesn't seem to have adjusted his views even after it became clear that the "common man" couldn't properly run a bank or manufacturing plant, and those few who were capable weren't willing to accept the responsibility and heavy workload without some sort of compensation beyond "minimum wage". I'm sharply reminded of the book "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand, who points out the pitfalls of communism/socialism quite starkly in her novels. Up to that point, Lenin may very well have believed in his proposed system, but beyond that, it seems incredible that he couldn't understand the shortcomings, and still insisted that it would work. My "assumption" is that he may have honestly thought it was a good idea up until his initial attempts at organizing the country failed, and after that, he just did whatever he had to do to hang onto power. Sadly, a lot of people died both before and after that point: those before MAY have been forgivable, but those after were basically victims of his own hunger for control.
Well I don't know much about Lenin's theory. But most "communism" states in the world in reality are more about a workers' state. These states are willing to pay huge amount to improve education and life of the ordinary people.
Those "communist" states in the real world that pay for education and other benefits for the ordinary people are usually socialist authoritarian oligarchies or dictatorships run by a more-or-less benevolent leadership. They're not really "communist", because they have a strong central authority that dictates from above, not "the people" controlling the means of production.
In a "real" communist community, everyone contributes to the group as they are able, and everyone draws from the communal resources according to need. That only works if everyone knows everyone else's abilities and needs, and peer pressure keeps everyone honest. If you've got cheaters in the system, then you need a central authority to dictate what you MUST do, and what you "deserve", and that position is open to abuse by the most ruthless individuals: people such as Joseph Stalin. The practical size limit for "everyone knows everyone else" seems to fall between around 200-500 people at most, and it appears that many early hunter-gatherer tribes tended to divide (amicably or not) if/when they reached that limit.
Lenin attempted to set up a strong central authority (a socialist authoritarian state) to dictate duties and needs, until such time as the people could accept true communism. In a society the size of the Soviet Union, the only way true communism could have been achieved would be to evacuate the cites and group everyone into small "collectives" of 100-300 people, with minimal personnel exchange between groups. Obviously, that wouldn't fly for long in the face of strong neighbors with centralized governments and unified armies. The Marxist predictions of capitalism breaking down may still prove accurate in the end, but having it evolve from there into communism makes little sense, unless we nuke ourselves back into the stone age and return to a primitive hunter-gatherer existence.
In a "real" communist community, everyone contributes to the group as they are able, and everyone draws from the communal resources according to need. That only works if everyone knows everyone else's abilities and needs, and peer pressure keeps everyone honest. If you've got cheaters in the system, then you need a central authority to dictate what you MUST do, and what you "deserve", and that position is open to abuse by the most ruthless individuals: people such as Joseph Stalin. The practical size limit for "everyone knows everyone else" seems to fall between around 200-500 people at most, and it appears that many early hunter-gatherer tribes tended to divide (amicably or not) if/when they reached that limit.
Lenin attempted to set up a strong central authority (a socialist authoritarian state) to dictate duties and needs, until such time as the people could accept true communism. In a society the size of the Soviet Union, the only way true communism could have been achieved would be to evacuate the cites and group everyone into small "collectives" of 100-300 people, with minimal personnel exchange between groups. Obviously, that wouldn't fly for long in the face of strong neighbors with centralized governments and unified armies. The Marxist predictions of capitalism breaking down may still prove accurate in the end, but having it evolve from there into communism makes little sense, unless we nuke ourselves back into the stone age and return to a primitive hunter-gatherer existence.
I don't think the "successes" of communism you mention technically consistitute communism- unless I'm mistaken marx considered those kinds of systems 'proto-communist' or something. At any rate it's pretty irrelevant to any modern discussion of communism as you allude.
Also both Virginia and plymoth colonies tried a sort of "communism" (long before the ideas of communism were codified and it was called communism), but it rapidly failed, and the governing system was quickly changed, as even in the small numbers of the colonies, collectivism ended in disaster, with much of the Virginia colony dying of starvation.
well, thats the main problem, IMO, we didnt have small tribes in 20 th century, so i think it is safe to say that comunism DID have small succes and failed on major scale.
well, even infinite amound of money puted to education dont automaticaly tranfer to good/excelent education, and in efect efficient managing of manufacture sectors.
or do you realy think it is just just coindicidence taht every state which adoptet comunisms/socialism were in time more and more technologicaly backwards ? with living standards behind capitalist states ?
- Status