Failed Leaders

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Why do people continue to follow Stalin, Trotsky,Lenin, or Lao(or w/e the Chinese guy was) when they were all failed "leaders" of revolutions and eventually slaughtered thier own people for thier so called "communism" they all claim to have followed marx but none did, Pol Pot in Cambodia slaughtered his people, doctors,lawyers, and the educuated class, Stalin did much worse, Trotsky put down acts that would have furthured the Russian Revolution, along with Lenin and the entire Bolshivek party, the Chinese gov. is one of the most represive and strict, yet people continue to folow them becuase they were so called "communists", answer me why?

[Hiero]

they all claim to have followed marx but none did

What do you know of Marx?

[symtoms_of_humanity]

I must say I have never read the Communist Manifesto, or much on the works, but I have read much of Lenin and he talked of what Marxism was and it seemed that he missed the concept he was so deeply talking of, and i know that Marx said "dictatorship of the Proletatriot(sp)" which Lenin ignored, and Stalin completly ignored the workers, poor and so on, the chinese revolution I do not knwo much of, but if i do so remeber Mao said "power comes from the barrel of a gun" does not seem very communist to me

[symtoms_of_humanity]

I'm not saying I know all, but it seems to me these "communist" revolutions failed miserably, yet people continue to follow thier example, and throught the years followed the people, I do not know much of the Cuban revolution, but Fidel seems to have messed up seeing the poverty which Cuba is in(I know it has also to do with the sanctions of the US) and when he dies Cuba will be thrown in crisis, probably a civil war, and either return to capitalism because of an army backed by the US, or there will be a Stalin like man to fill the void

[Ian]

I fucking hate Lao

[Hiero]

and i know that Marx said "dictatorship of the Proletatriot(sp)" which Lenin ignored

Lenin often referred to the dictatorship of the proleteriat and what it means in his writing.


but if i do so remeber Mao said "power comes from the barrel of a gun" does not seem very communist to me

Marx's idea of a revolution was violent. Mao is just making it clear that power is overthrown and gained through military might. Some people imply he is talking about a police dictatorship, or using guns to control power, this is not true.


but it seems to me these "communist" revolutions failed miserably

They brought new standards of living, increased education, brought some aspects of proleteriat democracy that were never seen in this countries, transferred industry into state hands so revenue could given back to society. There were many benifits of the revolutions in these countries, while they did lose the class war in the end, it wasn't a misreably failure.


and either return to capitalism because of an army backed by the US,

Thats implying that the Cuban people are not intelligent. They understand the Cuban socialist program. If there was civil war it would not be for the Yanks.


I fucking hate Lao

Ian, it's Mao.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

I'm not saying the Cubans are ignorant, the US has very imperialist tendancies, and when they see and opportunity they take it, and Castro dying would be one the US would try to take and spread neo liberalism, Thank you for clearing up the Mao quote, but China is living in an extreme police state, and if the revolutions brough new education why were there still so many pesansts, and in the russian revolution the collectives were all state owned and everything a farmer owned was state owned, therefore the people had no say in anything, so it was neither communist nor socialist, in fact, many peasants or the Ukrain and Russia resisted the state taking everything, becuase they knew once the state took it, they would never get it back

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:33 AM

I fucking hate Lao

Ian, it's Mao.
He was making a joke :D

[D_Bokk]

I like Lenin's idea of a Revolutionary Vanguard, but keeping that Vanguard until Communism is a little over the top. People still follow these leaders because their ideas seem logical, but some people don't want to accept the ideology failed and place blame on other sources, instead of improving on the ideology. Furthermore, those same people claim that those who change the ideology aren't Marxist, at least in my experience this is what happens.

If we were to just forget about these leaders, we would then have to start from scratch. In a sense, all these leaders followed Marxism to an extent - we cannot rule out their ideologies, otherwise we would need to rule out Marxism.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:23 AM
I like Lenin's idea of a Revolutionary Vanguard, but keeping that Vanguard until Communism is a little over the top. People still follow these leaders because their ideas seem logical, but some people don't want to accept the ideology failed and place blame on other sources, instead of improving on the ideology. Furthermore, those same people claim that those who change the ideology aren't Marxist, at least in my experience this is what happens.

If we were to just forget about these leaders, we would then have to start from scratch. In a sense, all these leaders followed Marxism to an extent - we cannot rule out their ideologies, otherwise we would need to rule out Marxism.
That makes alot of sense, so like the learn from history, look at the good they did and try and follow, but change the bad(or misguided or mistakes) that they made?

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad+Jun 29 2005, 05:10 PM--> (CompaneroDeLibertad @ Jun 29 2005, 05:10 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 06:33 AM

I fucking hate Lao

Ian, it's Mao.
He was making a joke :D [/b]
haha I didn't notice I spelled Mao wrong :lol:

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by symtoms_of_humanity
That makes alot of sense, so like the learn from history, look at the good they did and try and follow, but change the bad(or misguided or mistakes) that they made?
Yes. However, you will run into Leninist, Stalinist and Maoist (All pretty much the same ideology...) who will call you a revisionist. They do not realize that Lenin, Stalin and Mao weren't Marx and therefore cannot claim that their ideology is what every Communist movement should follow. All you're really revising is the failure of these leaders, but still adhering to the basic principles of Marxism.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Can you explain(shortly or long whichever) what Mao's ideas and changes were, I haven't read much on him(I've only heard the western capitalist side of him from history class)

[danny android]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 11:06 PM
Can you explain(shortly or long whichever) what Mao's ideas and changes were, I haven't read much on him(I've only heard the western capitalist side of him from history class)
the little that i know about Mao is that he believed that the communist revolution would happen first in rural areas of the world, farms and what not. I think that is it atlease. I don't know a lot about the guy.

[Anarcho-Communist]

In my eyes Benito Mussolini was a failure. He didn't do all that much for Italy and was like a slave to Adolf Hitler.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by Anarcho-[email protected] 3 2005, 12:19 AM
In my eyes Benito Mussolini was a failure. He didn't do all that much for Italy and was like a slave to Adolf Hitler.
He did good stuff for the economy, other than that people hated him, he was Hitlers lap dog, and his military sucked, thats why he made friends with Hitler, Hitler did great things for Germanys economy, but it was at the biggest price the world has ever seen

[Anarcho-Communist]

Accept for Hitler copied Fascism from Mussolini. Benito had put it into practise long before Hitler used it. :D

[symtoms_of_humanity]

what year did Hitler write Mein Kampf(excuse spelling) and how did Hitler call it socialism when it cleary was Facism

[Anarcho-Communist]

You spelt it right, so theirs nothing to worry about. Why don't you search for it on Google.com, then you might find it.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

I'll give it a try, I also heard fi you buy that book your name goes on a list in the FBI is that true?, and if he copied Mussolini, how come Hitler did a better job at it

[Anarcho-Communist]

Mussolini started the fascist regime, but hitler copied him. You can copy someone and still be better than them.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Yea good point, do you see the Nazi's as still being capitalist or is there a difference in capitalism and facism?

[Deutsche Ideologie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 12:47 AM
Why do people continue to follow Stalin, Trotsky,Lenin, or Lao(or w/e the Chinese guy was) when they were all failed "leaders" of revolutions and eventually slaughtered thier own people for thier so called "communism" they all claim to have followed marx but none did, Pol Pot in Cambodia slaughtered his people, doctors,lawyers, and the educuated class, Stalin did much worse, Trotsky put down acts that would have furthured the Russian Revolution, along with Lenin and the entire Bolshivek party, the Chinese gov. is one of the most represive and strict, yet people continue to folow them becuase they were so called "communists", answer me why?
I COMPLETELY agree with you.

A real Communist rejects the entire Leninist paradigm--vanguard party, "professional" revolutionaries, "democratic" centralism, imperialism as a special "stage" of capitalism, etc.,etc.,etc. A real communist throws the whole 20th century "communist" movement (with a few obscure exceptions) into the dumpster of history.

Not simply because it was "un-Marxist" in a theoretical sense (it was)...but because it failed the test of real world practice. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Tito, Mao, Ho, etc., etc. all had their chances to show what they could do...and what they all did was restore capitalism.

Saddest of all is the fact that modern Leninists of all varieties have learned nothing from their own histories. They don't see fundamental theoretical errors; all they can do is blame one another for "treachery", "corruption", etc. And all the modern Leninists can do now is promise us that they will be "good" if we only give them "another chance".

Real communists will not give them another chance.

[D_Bokk]

Deutsche Ideologie, what is your definition of a "Real Communist"?

Most Leninist I've run into claim to be real communists too and all the others are revisionist scum... their words - not mine.

[Deutsche Ideologie]

A Real Communist?

Someone who doesn't believe the lies of failed leaders like Stalin or Mao. Someone who sticks to the basics.

[bolshevik butcher]

How did lenin fail? Or marx he was a scientist? And trotsky wrote some very influential and interesting theory, and as for stalin or mao ask a maosit or stalinist i odn't have time for either.

[Anarcho-Communist]

Karl Marx was a very intelligent philosopher. Trotsky never really failed, he was "removed" by Stalin. :P Ciao

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Anarcho-[email protected] 3 2005, 08:03 PM
Karl Marx was a very intelligent philosopher. Trotsky never really failed, he was "removed" by Stalin. :P Ciao
did trotsky fail? He still influences people today and his works are still read by millions, maybe he didn't.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+Jul 3 2005, 08:11 PM--> (Clenched Fist @ Jul 3 2005, 08:11 PM)
Anarcho-[email protected] 3 2005, 08:03 PM
Karl Marx was a very intelligent philosopher. Trotsky never really failed, he was "removed" by Stalin. :P Ciao
did trotsky fail? He still influences people today and his works are still read by millions, maybe he didn't. [/b]
He never got a chance, just becuase people read his works means he was great, look at Mein Kampf, many still read it and Hitler was a nut(brillant but he was crazy)

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by symtoms_of_humanity+Jul 3 2005, 12:31 AM--> (symtoms_of_humanity @ Jul 3 2005, 12:31 AM)
Anarcho-[email protected] 3 2005, 12:19 AM
In my eyes Benito Mussolini was a failure. He didn't do all that much for Italy and was like a slave to Adolf Hitler.
He did good stuff for the economy, other than that people hated him, he was Hitlers lap dog, and his military sucked, thats why he made friends with Hitler, Hitler did great things for Germanys economy, but it was at the biggest price the world has ever seen [/b]
He didn't really do any good for the economy. There were often food shortages due to the corporate nature of the Fascist state, by which I mean companies putting profit before the needs of the people. One of the reasons Mussolini had so many foreign adventures (Abyssinia, Spain etc.) was because his domestic policy was failing, and he needed to focus the Italian people's attention elsewhere.

Mussolini didn't automatically bow down to Hitler. It only happened after he invaded Abyssinia and Britain and France somewhat shunned Mussolini. Up until that point Mussolini had always sided against Hitler with Britain and France.

[jasontkennedy]

I'll agree that Stalin and Mao have slaughtered their own people, but not Lenin nor Leon Trotsky. There are a few reasons why communism failed in USSR. The big reasons though were that
a) Russia was forced to send a huge portion of it's insutrialized national development into arms production because of an arms race they were involved in. Now keep in mind, the Soviet Union did not want to be involved in an arms race against the most powerful nation in the world, but when the US was loading Turky and a several other contrys full of nukes pointed at the Soviet Union, they had little choice but to arm themselves against the US. Keep in mind that the only reason that the Cuban missle crisis ever happened was because the US had nukes pointed into USSR from surrounding countrys. In fact Nikita
Khrushchev later wrote:" The Americans had surrounded our country with military bases and threatened us with nuclear weapons, and now they would learn just what it feels like to have enemy missiles pointing at you; we'd be doing nothing more than giving them a little of their own medicine. ... After all, the United States had no moral or legal quarrel with us. We hadn't given the Cubans anything more than the Americans were giving to their allies. We had the same rights and opportunities as the Americans. Our conduct in the international arena was governed by the same rules and limits as the Americans." :o
So instead of the Soviet Union spending money on what they wanted, it was on arms. The USSR was bankrupted by the arms race.
b)Communism is dependent on a co-operative network of other communist places for import/export exchange. The US tried to prevent every single communist revolution they could, making it nearly impossable for so many countrys to have their worker uprising, when they are contending with US machine guns and tanks. This happened in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanastan, El Salvador, Cuba, Colombia, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. The US worked it's ass off in the 20th century to make sure that communism failed because the US knew that if the third world countrys that they were exploiting for labor banned together in the name of a workers uprising, it was just a matter of time before they gathered together and came to slavemaster's door (the US). So that is another huge reason that communism in Asia failed, and Souther America. We have to keep our sweat shops in place, and a communist uprising would not tolerate it (please spare me the obvious exception of China, as they have become a mockery of communism.)
c) Communism didn't thrive under Lenin because 1 - he was in power for 6 years before stepping down and, 2 - Russia was the most industrially backwards country in Europe/Asia, in fact Marx was actually quoted as saying that Russia was the one place that a communist revolution would never take place, because there were no means of production to take back! Stalin is still admired because he took one of the most backwoods podunk countrys and in less than 30 years made it the 2nd most powerfull industrial nation and the most technically advanced nation in the world. He took the country from illiteracy to havinf some of the most brilliant scientests in the world and he made education to any level completely free. So Lenin failed not because he lacked the mental faculties, but because the country wasn't ready for it. Stalin would have been great if he promoted democracy and wasn't a butcher.

[Commie Rat]

i problem stems from being dogmatic just like christians follow god to the end, some of our brethren will follow Marx Lenin and even Stalins teachings to the end.

To succed we need to draw out the effective ideoligies and stratagies to form a flexable and effective communism, that is the point of this site is it not, to be a melting pot of idears to produce a greater more effective communism (now consumer friendly :) ) :P

[zendo]

When people first begin to study Marxism and the great leaders of Marxism such as Lenin, Stalin and Mao, they immediately say why are people all over the world still following the ideology of these leaders?

Why are there so many Maoist inspired Communist rebellions taking place in all parts of the world? From South America to the Maoists in Nepal? Why do Communists all over the world still look for inspiration from these past leaders?

The first thing you have to do when you study Lenin, Mao, Stalin is understand that we DO NOT LIVE IN AN IDEAL WORLD. If we did live in a perfect world then the great marxist leaders of the world would not have to implement IRON DISCIPLINE in order to defend the Revolution.

You need to understand leaders like Mao and Stalin in the historical timeline in which they ruled. During Stalin's leadership, the Nazis were preparing for an all out invasion and total destruction of Russia and Stalin was very aware of this. Therefore, the Bolshevik party under Stalin's leadership knew that IRON DISCIPLINE must be implemented in order to industrialize the USSR to be able to save the country from the Nazis.

It is a similar situation in China during Mao's leadership. Before Mao consolidated Communist leadership in China, he was busy fighting off the Japanese Imperialists who killed 21 million Chinese Citizens. What other choice did the Chinese leadership have other than to implement IRON DISCIPLINE?

Nobody says that Mao, Stalin and Lenin were perfect and beyond flaws. Absolutely not, however the good deeds and positive accomplishments way outnumber the bad deeds of my cherished Socialist leaders.

The Capitalist Imperialists are always saying that Communism is dead, haha they can keep dreaming.

There are currently many Marxist/Maoist inspired armed struggles taking place all over the world from nepal to the Phillipines to South America.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Overall I agree with "jasontkennedy" view on the failure of Communism. America and other Capitalist nations and institutions did as much as they could to destroy Communism. However the Stalins and Maos of this world instead of trying to strengthen Communism in their Countries became more brutal, corrupt and disguisting than their enemies. Therefore there can in my opinion be no justification for anyone to support leaders who just like Hitler commited genocide.

It is my opinion that if Stalin had implemented proper Democratic Socialism in Russia. It would be thriving today and attracting more and more people and countries to its system. If he had followed Marx's teachings and given power to the masses, instead of opressing them. He would not of had to invade countries to impose his deluded view of Communism, they instead would have happily joined.

[comradestephen]

First: why do 'we' follow those leaders? We dont'...those leaders are dead. Marxist-Leninists don't just follow a leader mindlessly, we follow Marxism-Leninism i.e. scientific socialism. This means dialectical materialism. It means historical materialism. It means a class based view of the world, among other things.

Second "they all failed". No they didn't. Where did you hear that my friend? School? TV? Newspaper? Movies? Capitalists control all these things...no wonder that is all we hear and no wonder most people (even on this board) believe that.

Socialism in all the countries of the leaders you list and others has massively increased the standard of living, democracy and so forth in those countries. In some of them, counter-revolutions eventually over-threw the gains of socialism but this doesn't mean that the gains made in those socialist countries before that no longer count.

Look at Cuba as one present day example...what has the revolution brought? Terror? Bloodshed? Poverty? Disease? NO! It has brought free and accessable health care, and end to unemployment and homelessness, an end to starvation. It has protected Cuba's sovereignty against the most powerful empire on the globe. It has brought real democracy to the Cuban people. It has aided liberation struggles and socialist revolutions around the globe.

That is Marxism-Leninism in practice.

And now someone will say "but Stalin killed 200 million billion trillion people" so socialism must be failed or some nonsense like that. If we want to hear that junk we can read our text books in history class, watch a James Bond movie or turn on CNN...

Anyhow, i'm not holding it against anyone...i'm just saying I think you are misinformed.

Before believing what you read it's best to do a class analysis of your sources. If the book was published by Penguin books or at Harvard University...it's coming from a bourgeois source for one thing so chances are it's going to be that point of view. Look for material written by workers or published by progressive publishing houses like International Publishers or Progress Books (when it was around). Or books published in socialist countries. If it's published by some capitalist I wouldn't put much faith in it.


OOps...one more comment to add. Someone said "I agree Stalin and Mao slaughtered their own people but not Lenin or Leon Trotsky". Well, first of all did they slaughter anyone personally? Secondly, did they give the order to? Thirdly what are "their own people"? Next...what are your examples and your evidence.

With that said, what about all the people who died during the civil war (a class war I might note). That was while Lenin and Trotsky (and also Stalin) held prominent leading positions in the Soviet Union. Does that mean that Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin and whoever else are guilty for those deaths? Or are the capitalists who caused the war? What about the deserters ordred shot by Trotsky during that war? Is he guilty of their deaths? I don't like Trotsky, but I would say he is not. That was the common practice back then and still is in most armies these days. In context, he was doing his job weather we agree with it or not and he was dealing the death blow to traitors of the revolution.

What about Kulaks killed by peasants and the red army during those days? Or later on in class struggles in the country side during collectivisation? Murder victims of evil tyrants? Or victims of the class war, of violence perpetrated against the people by capitalists who were defending their "right" to exploit and oppress the people and of violence by the people against the capitalists in defence of their rights and of their socialist system.

Depends how you want to look at it and who you sympathise with. But if you look at history through the eyes of the exploited class things look a lot different that they are described by the ruling class in this country in their schools, media and so on.

[Technique3055]

Look, I know Stalin was a pretty messed up guy with some serious head problems, and that he did do some pretty nasty things in regards to human rights, but calling him a "failed" leader is absurd. He managed to keep power in his country for over two decades. He managed to industrialize the people of Russia to a point that is incredible. He managed to keep all of his human rights violations silent from the public, as if he had nothing to do with them.

There is a large difference between a "failed" leader and a "good" one.

[Scars]

I fail to see how Stalin or Mao 'failed'. Socialism in their respective countries was ended after they died. More over, following the theroy and ideas that a person laid down does not mean that you necessarily agree with everything that person did. I support a mixture of Stalinism and Maoism (PLP supporter), but I criticise both these men because both of them made errors during their time in power.

As for numbers, numbers don't matter. Millions of people still follow Hitler- does that make him right? Millions believe in Capitalism- does that make it right? Criticising ideas based on people is plain stupid, it's the idea that matters, not the person.

As for criticism of Stalin and Mao, it's all subjective. People seem to think that Lenin and Trotsky were these spotless saints who never did a single thing wrong. It all depends on who you support. I think Trotsky was wrong, but I don't turn him into some kinda of distorted Marxist anti-Christ. He did a lot of good for the Revolution, but ultimately he did not possess the support that Stalin did and his arrogance pissed off many, many people within the party. In fact Trotsky's arrogance is the reason that Stalin became the general secretary of the party in the first place! In addition, you don't know what would have happened if Trotsky had got into power. Maybe the USSR wouldn't have won the war- where would that leave all us now? Ideas matter, dismissing ideas on the basis of a few people who you've taken a dislike to for whatever reason is shortsighted and idiotic.

[Led Zeppelin]

Why do people continue to follow Stalin, Trotsky,Lenin, or Lao(or w/e the Chinese guy was) when they were all failed "leaders" of revolutions

Actually Lenin and Stalin were successful, did Lenin not succeed in creating the first socialist state?

Did Stalin nod succeed in industrializing and socializing the economy, and defeating fascism?

Of course both made mistakes, it would be utopian and stupid to think otherwise. We must not repeat their mistakes, we must repeat their successes.

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 3 2005, 08:36 AM

Why do people continue to follow Stalin, Trotsky,Lenin, or Lao(or w/e the Chinese guy was) when they were all failed "leaders" of revolutions

Actually Lenin and Stalin were successful, did Lenin not succeed in creating the first socialist state?

Did Stalin nod succeed in industrializing and socializing the economy, and defeating fascism?

Of course both made mistakes, it would be utopian and stupid to think otherwise. We must not repeat their mistakes, we must repeat their successes.
uhmmm, not exactly. I have full confidence that, had Lenin lived to carry out his will, as was described in his Last Testament, that Russia WOULD have been socialist. Lenin himself foresaw a "deformed workers state", and he was bloody right. He also acknowledged that there needed to be more members of the working class in the Party, which I agree with. Unfortunately, he did not live as long as one would have hoped. Also, after the period of "War Communism", he reverted to the NEP, which was, in his own words, "State Capitalism".

Which brings me to Stalin. He refused to differentiate between the middle peasantry* and the kulak, (*probably the only part of the peasantry that could sustain Russia's agriculture), thus unfairly taking more grain,he employed numerous five year plans (first conceived by, and shouted down for, the Left Opposition,) he refused to acknowledge the Left Opposition's policy on putting industry 1st (which he, again flip-flopped back to) and you say HE "socialized" the economy? It takes a lot more than that to bring about a socialist state, and Stalin was by no means, socialist. His very essence was state capitalist.

I know I'll get flamed by many a "Marxist-Leninst", so if I may, could we get this out in the open? Thank you.

"The First Secretary poses his candidature for the grave-digger of the Revolution!"-Leon Trotsky

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scars
I fail to see how Stalin or Mao 'failed'. Socialism in their respective countries was ended after they died.
The ideology they chose to follow failed miserably. Both of this men created Socialism in their respective countries, however they neglected the fact that over time people, especially politicians, become overly corrupt. When one gives these politicians virtual immunity by disallowing the Proletariat to elect the officials that represent them, they're setting up a government to fail.

With the dictatorial rule of the Party and ultimately Stalin and Mao, they turned Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat to a Dictatorship for the Proletariat. In order for the Proletariat to dictate, there needs to be democracy... which is exactly what Stalin and Mao should have been spending their time setting up while they were in power. By doing so Party members would need to be reelected by the people and them being 'secret bourgeois' would be a lot more difficult.

[Amusing Scrotum]

comradestephen-

"And now someone will say "but Stalin killed 200 million billion trillion people" so socialism must be failed or some nonsense like that. If we want to hear that junk we can read our text books in history class, watch a James Bond movie or turn on CNN...

Anyhow, i'm not holding it against anyone...i'm just saying I think you are misinformed."

I don't think socialism is doomed to failure. However are you honestly saying Stalins death camps where made up by Western Politicians and Media. If you truly believe this then you my friend, are the one who is misinformed.

[Scars]

<<The ideology they chose to follow failed miserably. Both of this men created Socialism in their respective countries, however they neglected the fact that over time people, especially politicians, become overly corrupt. When one gives these politicians virtual immunity by disallowing the Proletariat to elect the officials that represent them, they&#39;re setting up a government to fail.>>

I criticise both these people, their forms of Communism never put enough emphasis on both the political education of the masses and mass party leadership. That&#39;s why the Cultural Revolution, where workers themselves started looking to themselves, not the party for mass leadership, was such a high point. However I refuse to accept that either of these people &#39;failed&#39;. The main mistake Stalin made was not educating the masses enough, so that they could effectively resist the revisionism that came to dominate the USSR (many workers DID resist, but not successfully) and with Mao, he didn&#39;t let the Cultural Revolution go far enough. He was worried and didn&#39;t quite have enough faith in the masses.

<<With the dictatorial rule of the Party and ultimately Stalin and Mao, they turned Marx&#39;s Dictatorship of the Proletariat to a Dictatorship for the Proletariat. In order for the Proletariat to dictate, there needs to be democracy... which is exactly what Stalin and Mao should have been spending their time setting up while they were in power. By doing so Party members would need to be reelected by the people and them being &#39;secret bourgeois&#39; would be a lot more difficult.>>

And I critcise them for this too. Stalin did not spend enough time educating people and attempting to establish a Worker State (as opposed to a state led by a Workers Party) by introducing democratic methods of worker control. The Cultural Revolution let alot of this happen in some places, but ultimately it did not go far enough and Mao made several errors in regards to this.