communism confuses me ????

[jaiden]

ok so i understand that its about creating a stateless, classless society. however, when i get some communists say they admire people like stalin, it contradicts the whole basis of communism. he killed tons of people with no sense of the slighest empathy towards anyone. under his orders the NKVD was involved in arresting aprox 1/9 of the population (this could be wrong, but it was something like that) and shipping them off to the cold and brutal conditions of the siberian gulags. to me it seems communism mimicks anarchism in the sense that there will be no leader, everyone works together for a prospering society, etc, however stalin was a leader who was unwilling to give up his power. he didnt care about communism, instead he was an oppertunist like mussolini, he did whatever would give him the maximum amount of power. during stalin's rule, the USSR was imperalist as he took over former nazi occupied countries and instead of liberating them took them as control as soviet sattelites. explain any similarities between stalin's rule of the soviet union and communism. why didnt he just give up his power? or why didnt lenin? or why didnt any communist leader do that??? :confused:

[Drace]

I was wondering this also. I suppose it is because they got caught up with WW2, the Arms Race, and the Cold War o.O?

They should of have focused on reaching communism.

Hell they let a whole revolution go to waste and gave a bad name to communism :-$ Kinda sad how most people think communism is a dictatorship.

[SEKT]

ok so i understand that its about creating a stateless, classless society. however, when i get some communists say they admire people like stalin, it contradicts the whole basis of communism. he killed tons of people with no sense of the slighest empathy towards anyone. under his orders the NKVD was involved in arresting aprox 1/9 of the population (this could be wrong, but it was something like that) and shipping them off to the cold and brutal conditions of the siberian gulags. to me it seems communism mimicks anarchism in the sense that there will be no leader, everyone works together for a prospering society, etc, however stalin was a leader who was unwilling to give up his power. he didnt care about communism, instead he was an oppertunist like mussolini, he did whatever would give him the maximum amount of power. during stalin's rule, the USSR was imperalist as he took over former nazi occupied countries and instead of liberating them took them as control as soviet sattelites. explain any similarities between stalin's rule of the soviet union and communism. why didnt he just give up his power? or why didnt lenin? or why didnt any communist leader do that??? :confused:
The answers to your questions comrade resides on the hisotorical conditions they lived an the decisions they made to front those conditions.

In first place Stalin as you mentioned was not a communist, this is because any communist that argue to be one doesn't look only for the individual good (as Stalin did), a communist know that the dualism between individual and community is based on the historical conditions of capitalism that in socialism that supposedly duality will dissapear because is pointless. Also respatables comrades as Lenin or Trotsky fallen in that trap (saying that a "vanguard" was a primary need for the communist movement), but again they decided to do what they did, that is not something we can change, but what we can do today is to assure that those errors won't be repeated again. Two main directions have to be taken:

1st.- To never underestimate the "philosophical" part of Marxism (dialectics) just as a remain of the idealistic thought. The main aspect that makes Marxism different from any other capitalist conception of reality is the fact that is based on the opposition to reality and knows the basis of the historical change not lineal but antagonic.

2.- To understand that communism doesn't mean to hide, to form sects, to be like a guru only for one or two people, communism means to get together with other people to create the human world that in the capitalist state of development is only reduced to the "interaction" of social atoms but not humans not only in the biological aspect but also in the totality of existance of humans.

[Drace]

This may not belong here, but I don't want to make a new thread for it.

If the communist state is reached, how can it be ensured that no one takes power? That no one comes up with a new idea and creates a business?

Would there be something which we may call a weakened state?

[Norseman]

That's why I describe myself as an anarcho-communist. Communism, at least according to The Communist Manifesto, is classless and stateless. Classlessness requires that there can be no ruling class, or privileged elites, and statelessness requires there can be no state for them to rule over. The problem is that so many people confuse communism with Stalinism. I find it easier to just say that I'm an anarcho-communist, even though I think that's redundant.

[Drace]

So what is the difference between anarcho-communism and communism?

[Norseman]

This may not belong here, but I don't want to make a new thread for it.

If the communist state is reached, how can it be ensured that no one takes power? That no one comes up with a new idea and creates a business?

Would there be something which we may call a weakened state?

If the population is predominantly communist, then people should generally refuse to cooperate with tyrants and capitalists. If people want to be exploited and oppressed, I don't think there's anything you can do about that. But, if people generally do not recognize the authority of the state, and refuse wage slavery, and violently defend their rights as necessary, then there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. Communism fundamentally requires cultural change. A communist culture would be very resistant to any attempts to exploit and oppress it.

[Drace]

Oh thats why I prefer a socialist stage. A transition from capitalism to communism is too dangerous.

[OI OI OI]

That happened because of the material conditions of the USSR.

Russia was a backwards country, isolated and with a 3 year bloody civil war and also an imperialist invasion of 21 armies against it after 1917.

It was only natural that the workers state set up by the Russian proletariat in 1917 under the leadership of Lenin , Trotsky and the Bolsheviks would degenerate, creating a stalinist state or a degenerated workers state.

Russia after the first half of the 20's had a bureaucratic caste controlling the political side . But the base of the economy was socialist , that is why it was a degenereted workers state.

Also don't listen too much to the western media about Stalin. Although I am a Trotskyist I don't I dont believe all the anti-Stalinist propaganda I hear .

Also not all communists support Stalin. The Trotskyists and left-communists certainly don't.

But we Trotskyists support the USSR, Cuba etc while we advocate political revolution so the proletariat can take power and we can have a real workers democracy......


why didnt he just give up his power? or why didnt lenin?

We don't support Stalin.
There was no workers democracy during the Stalin era so he obviously did not want to give his power voluntarily:lol:
Why there was no democracy I explained above.

Also don't confuse communism and socialism. Communism does not come after the revolution.
That is socialism which is a transitional period from the revolution to communism , which is caracterized by a greater productive level that capitalism , with a state that fades away and workers democracy and a nationalized planned economy.

The USSR had some characteristics of socialism and it had a socialist economic base.
But the political side was a "dictatorship" .

That's why we characterize it as a degenerated workers state.

[Norseman]

So what is the difference between anarcho-communism and communism?

There isn't a big difference. The Communist Manifesto touches on nearly all issues that important to anarcho-communism, and lays out instructions for what communists should do in order to accomplish that. Anarcho-communism specifically rejects republican democracy, but accepts direct democracy. It supports expropriation to prevent exploitatation; i.e. if all of the local factories, farms, shops and homes are owned by capitalists, it supports directly taking at least enough capital or necessities so that you don't have to work for capitalists to survive and maintain basic necessities of life. It goes a little bit further than communism in terms of private property; whereas communists would insist that capital should be public property, anarcho-communists would insist that capital, and any property which is not being used should be public property. i.e. if I have a drill, or a radio, and my seven neighbors don't, then my neighbors should be able to use the drill or radio whenever I'm not using it. Likewise, I should be able to use their tools when they aren't using them. Things that can be efficiently shared should be shared so that everyone has the greatest amount of property available to them with the least possible amount of labor required to get that property.

[Winter]

My god. Yet another anti-Stalin thread!

Seem to be popular these days. :rolleyes:

[Drace]

And how come China too is a dictatorship...along with Cuba, North Korea :confused:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This may not belong here, but I don't want to make a new thread for it.

If the communist state is reached, how can it be ensured that no one takes power? That no one comes up with a new idea and creates a business?

Would there be something which we may call a weakened state?
You can come up with all the new ideas you want (in fact you'd be encourage to do so), but starting a business requires private property over the means of production, which is something that will not exist under communism.

There is no need to have a state-like entity actively preventing people from starting a business. On the contrary, it's only due to the capitalist state that you can have private property and start a business in the first place. Think about it: What does it mean to say "this thing is my property"? It means "the state will send policemen to arrest you if you try to use this thing without my approval." Your property is yours only because the state says so.

[OI OI OI]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../images/icons/icon1.gif

And how come China too is a dictatorship...along with Cuba, North Korea http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

After the degeneration of the USSR the comintern (the communist international) until its dissolution in 1942 by stalin was controlled by the bureaucrats of the USSR.

So every revolution by the proletariat if not boycotted by the Stalinists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-betrayed-revolution-t74256/index.html) (click on the link for more info on that topic), was ensured to be created on the image of the degenerated USSR.

That's how China, Cuba and the Eastern Block along with North Korea were all lacking workers democracy.

It is because they were created on the image of the USSR. They were deformed workers states and not degenerated because they had never had workers democracy in order to degenerate from it.
They were controlled by bureaucrats from the get-go.

Does this make it clear to you or do you want further explanation.

Also I think you should start reading some books .

[Trystan]

My god. Yet another anti-Stalin thread!

Seem to be popular these days. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't have it any other way.

[Black Cross]

ok so i understand that its about creating a stateless, classless society. however, when i get some communists say they admire people like stalin, it contradicts the whole basis of communism.

I agree completely. I'm with you; i don't understand why people continue to believe that an egalitarian, classless society can be achieved by means that directly contradict those principles.


to me it seems communism mimicks anarchism in the sense that there will be no leader, everyone works together for a prospering society, etc, however stalin was a leader who was unwilling to give up his power. he didnt care about communism, instead he was an oppertunist like mussolini, he did whatever would give him the maximum amount of power. during stalin's rule, the USSR was imperalist as he took over former nazi occupied countries and instead of liberating them took them as control as soviet sattelites. explain any similarities between stalin's rule of the soviet union and communism. why didnt he just give up his power? or why didnt lenin? or why didnt any communist leader do that??? :confused:

This doesn't necessarily mean Stalin, Lenin, etc., weren't communists, it just means that they were wrong (in my opinion) as to how to go about creating a communist society. They just couldn't achieve communism through authoritarian means.

So why does communism confuse you? It's still defined as a classless, stateless society, and that doesn't change just because it was represented by a few poor leaders in the past century.

[RedHal]

because Communism was NEVER achieved, those countries calling themselves communists, were at best in the transitional stage towards communism. You can call it the socialist stage.

Revolutions are not an easy thing, especially when you consider the backwardness of Russia and China. China already being raped by Western imperialism and war of agression from Japan. Aside from their backwardness, you have to understand the hostiliy towards these revolutions by the powerful western capitalists. You think they will sit idly by and let Russia and China build their revolutions? Just look at Venezuela, Chavez is going out of his way, even bending backwards to not upset the beorgeiousie. Yet Washington and the Venezuelan beorgiousie have shown nothing but hostitility towards Venezuela.

So it's easy to say how bad Russia and China were, and write off Stalin and Mao as "evil", but when you consider the situations they were in, the progress they brought to Russia and China in a VERY short time, you'll have to give them credit. It's always easy to believe in safe illusions that anarchism or trotsky would've saved the revolutions.

[OI OI OI]

his doesn't necessarily mean Stalin, Lenin, etc., weren't communists, it just means that they were wrong (in my opinion) as to how to go about creating a communist society. They just couldn't achieve communism through authoritarian means.

why do anarchists put Stalin next to Lenin?
Stalinism just paid lip service to Marxism-Leninism . But as some dialectician said( i forget who) small accumulated changes can turn something great to its opposite.

[revolution inaction]

why didnt he just give up his power? or why didnt lenin? or why didnt any communist leader do that???
Leaders are not compatible with communism, nether are forms of organisation which operate from the top down.
Communism needs to be created by the workers, abolishing top down institutions and creating there own federated organisations to co-ordinate the running of society.
I don't think Leninists are communists, there methods of organisation remove workers power and are destructive to revolution.

[redarmyfaction38]

Leaders are not compatible with communism, nether are forms of organisation which operate from the top down.
Communism needs to be created by the workers, abolishing top down institutions and creating there own federated organisations to co-ordinate the running of society.
I don't think Leninists are communists, there methods of organisation remove workers power and are destructive to revolution.

not sure about lenin, but didn't trotsky say "control your leaders"?
and, when asked why he didn't use the red army to overthrow stalin replied along the lines of "we didn'y have a revolution and fight a civil war in order to impose the old order."
and, before you "anarchists" jump on me, i am well aware of "trotskys crimes" during the civil war, but would suggest those "crimes" were driven by circumstance rather than desire or even ideology.
just a thought or two.
btw, i agree totally that any attempt at socialism/commmunism has to driven from a politicised working class, however, there are those, that are better at putting our desires into words than we are, their are those that are better at organising than we are, doesn't make them better than us, just means they have different talents, but it does mean we should keep them on a tight leash imo.

[OI OI OI]

Leaders are not compatible with communism, nether are forms of organisation which operate from the top down.

Agreed. But that is communism not socialism or a workers revolution.

Communism needs to be created by the workers, abolishing top down institutions and creating there own federated organisations to co-ordinate the running of society.

In the anarchist point of view.

I don't think Leninists are communists, there methods of organisation remove workers power and are destructive to revolution.

This is so sectarian and ignorant bullshit. I bet you haven't even read Lenin and you just repeat anarchist bullshit against Leninism.

First of all who said that the Soviets which were creation of the workers were managed top down? It was the people who managed the Soviets with elected and recallable representatives. Besides the Bolsheviks were the most democratic organization even more than the anarchist ones.


Negative rep for you and I would answer back very harsh but I won't fall to your level.

[Lector Malibu]

OI OI OI

Honestly when I came to this site I was just starting to consider communist theory. I did not have a specific leaning and was pretty open about the whole affair. Im someone that has been drawn to communism and anarchism.

After being here though I have lost my communist drive. Let me explain. In no way am I a capitalist or a supporter of imperialism or any of that crap. After interacting with the Trots on this forum though I'm not sure I want to be a communist. I'm not a Stalinist or anything like that and I've always been drawn to Lenin over alot of the other figure heads in communist theory.

I'm not trying to be sectarian. I'm just honestly talking about the way I see it. I don't think the Trots on this forum realize how they come across and that they are turning people away from communism in my opinion.

[Slovo]

Hi Lector, :) This is in not supposed to sound patronising, though I'm aware it may come across that way. But how much communist theory have you read since you came here? And by that I mean, in your own time, sitting down with a book and reading it? I ask simply because it seems from your post that if being here made you lose your communist drive, maybe you were relying far too much on the board in the first place to give you that drive? And, are you politically active?

[Lector Malibu]

Hi Lector, :) This is in not supposed to sound patronising, though I'm aware it may come across that way. But how much communist theory have you read since you came here? And by that I mean, in your own time, sitting down with a book and reading it? I ask simply because it seems from your post that if being here made you lose your communist drive, maybe you were relying far too much on the board in the first place to give you that drive? And, are you politically active?


I did not take it as patronizing it's the same thing everybody ask me. I actually do not read in the traditional sense and If i do it's rare. The reason why is because of the way I learn I have a hard time absorbing the information. I actually have a learning disability that stems from a head injury I have.

What I prefer is to watch documentary's or if I can get my hands on oral presentations that would be ideal.

So no I'm not a big reader as I do not absorb the information fully that way.

To answer you're question about politically active. Currently I'm not doing much. However I'm actually moving to another part of the state I live in where I have friends that are active and will be starting to work with them.

I really wanna get linked in with IWW. I will as well once I get settled and I can swing the dues.

[Trystan]

Why on earth has this been moved to OI?!

[danyboy27]

Why on earth has this been moved to OI?!

same old reason i guess.

[Slovo]

Lector, that's good to hear that you'll be getting active. I imagine that you'll have far more drive once you do.
I know from personal experience that sitting in front of the computer discussing theory with fellow computer nerds isn't the most inspiring of positions. ;)

[Lector Malibu]

Lector, that's good to hear that you'll be getting active. I imagine that you'll have far more drive once you do.
I know from personal experience that sitting in front of the computer discussing theory with fellow computer nerds isn't the most inspiring of positions. ;)

I think you're right Slovo. Hands on learning and activism are key. I'm not anti-communist at all. If I came across that way I apologize. Sometimes I just say things a little to directly.

[NerdVincent]

As a commie, I hate Staline and cie more than everybody else for spoiling the very notion of communism. Thanks to him when we talk about communism people automatically think "goulag".

[Bud Struggle]

As a commie, I hate Staline and cie more than everybody else for spoiling the very notion of communism. Thanks to him when we talk about communism people automatically think "goulag".

The Chains that tie Communism down are the chains that tie us to the past. We have to decide: is Communism the path to tomorrow of the old road to the past.

If Communism is going to reinvent the world--than Communism must reinvent itself first.

[TheGonz]

ok so i understand that its about creating a stateless, classless society. however, when i get some communists say they admire people like stalin, it contradicts the whole basis of communism. he killed tons of people with no sense of the slighest empathy towards anyone. under his orders the NKVD was involved in arresting aprox 1/9 of the population (this could be wrong, but it was something like that) and shipping them off to the cold and brutal conditions of the siberian gulags. to me it seems communism mimicks anarchism in the sense that there will be no leader, everyone works together for a prospering society, etc, however stalin was a leader who was unwilling to give up his power. he didnt care about communism, instead he was an oppertunist like mussolini, he did whatever would give him the maximum amount of power. during stalin's rule, the USSR was imperalist as he took over former nazi occupied countries and instead of liberating them took them as control as soviet sattelites. explain any similarities between stalin's rule of the soviet union and communism. why didnt he just give up his power? or why didnt lenin? or why didnt any communist leader do that??? :confused:

yea I'm not really surprised that you don't get it. You're kind of an idiot, and besides, fascists and commies don't usually tend to agree with eachother's ideology too much. Please stop posting on revleft.

[Drace]

yea I'm not really surprised that you don't get it. You're kind of an idiot, and besides, fascists and commies don't usually tend to agree with eachother's ideology too much. Please stop posting on revleft.

Wtf? His pretty much just asking as to why the Russia's revolution's plans of a communist society didn't work out.

[Mindtoaster]

Wtf? His pretty much just asking as to why the Russia's revolution's plans of a communist society didn't work out.

Please refer to: http://www.revleft.com/vb/gay-people-should-t86674/index.html

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Communism is a fool's errand.

Do you all actually believe this? That everyone in the entire world will enslave themselves to the greater good? That people will end the milenia of religious and ethnic ties to their heritage and begin working for nothing?

The masses need to be led, not because they're any worse than the leasers but because they don't want that role. Capitalist Democratic-Socialism is the best system because it allows people to choose whether they want to lead or be led, while giving them the basic services they need to survive.

[trivas7]

I agree completely. I'm with you; i don't understand why people continue to believe that an egalitarian, classless society can be achieved by means that directly contradict those principles.

Who believes this and what has this to do with Stalin?

[More Fire for the People]

Communists want to abolish the state but only after it's outlived its usefulness as a political organization of the working class.

[TheGonz]

Wtf? His pretty much just asking as to why the Russia's revolution's plans of a communist society didn't work out.

A bit of a petty insult, I know, but he's also an (alleged) sockpuppet with views that are borderline fascist, and I'm sick of reading his shit, sick of hearing stuff that's totally opposed to revleft's ideology.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

A bit of a petty insult, I know, but he's also an (alleged) sockpuppet with views that are borderline fascist, and I'm sick of reading his shit, sick of hearing stuff that's totally opposed to revleft's ideology.

What is a sockpuppet?

[OI OI OI]

Originally Posted by: TOM K If Communism is going to reinvent the world--than Communism must reinvent itself first.

So you are saying that we should re-invent the wheel ?
Can you propose something better than Marxism in order to achieve communism if you can then I ll follow your ideas.
But however hard I searched I found nothing close to the richness of Marxism.

You are the person who would want to re-invent the wheel after a car accident, because apparently "the wheel didn't work" and replace it with a square "wheel" which can't move an inch. Woe to people who think like that .


Now to respond to Lector Malibu.

I think that what you are saying has some truth. Nothing is black and white.
Now if you want to find some fun people and hang out and talk about politics or have fun at demos nothing is stopping you from being an anarchist.

If you are ready to engage into serious theoretical study as a guide to action , do a thorough study of Marxist economics, understand the system you leave in and understand how to change it and the methods you should use then nothing stops you from being a Trot.

I am just using stereotypes here.

It seems that you are not so much into theory and you explained yourself why.
I am just saying that this is the reason why you "get turned off" . Because you look for the "lulz" and you miss the whole point which is ideas , methods etc.
I seriously suggest that if not reading then engage into serious theoretical discussions with local trots so you can understand the ideas better.




PS: Sorry if I misunderstood your post but its 3 in the morning.

[Plagueround]

What is a sockpuppet?

Its a puppet made out of a sock.


Ok ok, on the internet its an "alter ego" username for an already registered user. In this case, jaiden is clearly just forward registering a new name after his first account got banned.

[Plagueround]

Communism is a fool's errand.

Do you all actually believe this? That everyone in the entire world will enslave themselves to the greater good? That people will end the milenia of religious and ethnic ties to their heritage and begin working for nothing?

The masses need to be led, not because they're any worse than the leasers but because they don't want that role. Capitalist Democratic-Socialism is the best system because it allows people to choose whether they want to lead or be led, while giving them the basic services they need to survive.

this same argument has been leveled against every single progressive change humanity has ever attempted. Numerous historical examples (The Cherokee Nation and the Spanish Revolution before everything got screwed up by outside Imperialists or Fascists are some of my favorites) say otherwise about your notion that the "masses" need to be lead. People are perfectly able to take care of themselves and work as a group (and no, that isn't a contradiction) for the common good.

[Lector Malibu]

It seems that you are not so much into theory and you explained yourself why.
I am just saying that this is the reason why you "get turned off" . Because you look for the "lulz" and you miss the whole point which is ideas , methods etc.

PS: Sorry if I misunderstood your post but its 3 in the morning.

Yes you did misunderstand my post completely. Please read it again and I will be happy to respond .

[RGacky3]

Do you all actually believe this? That everyone in the entire world will enslave themselves to the greater good? That people will end the milenia of religious and ethnic ties to their heritage and begin working for nothing?


THey won't be working for the 'greater good' at least thats not the main motivator, nor will they be working for nothing, they'll be working for themselves which will entail working with others as equals.

Right now people enslave themselves for someone elses good, without much of a choice. So, really you can nit pick at Socialism if you want, but its still a better option.


Communists want to abolish the state but only after it's outlived its usefulness as a political organization of the working class.

And these communist leaders will ONLY use the state for the political oranization of the working classes right? Even though they could use it, and its been universally used in history, as a tool for domination and power.

When its achieved that (organizing the working classes) they will voluntarily give up all that power and authority just because they are nice guys right?

It does'nt work that way, historically its never worked that way, the State is a tool of domination, thats all its ever been.


If Communism is going to reinvent the world--than Communism must reinvent itself first.

Communism (not marxism I'm talking about) is just a general set of principles, thats like saying the golden rule needs to be invented. What needs to happen is Leninists need to stop hijacking Socialism and trying to turn an idea of liberation into a way to gain power.

OI OI OI

You can talk about Lenins writings till your blue in the face, its his actions that count.

[OI OI OI]

is Leninists need to stop hijacking Socialism and trying to turn an idea of liberation into a way to gain power.

OI OI OI

You can talk about Lenins writings till your blue in the face, its his actions that count.This doesn't make sense.
Marxism-Leninism or Trotskyism is a set of ideas, principles , traditions and methods that will help the proletariat take power not the Marxist-Leninists themselves.

Also can you give me concrete examples on how Lenin didn't act based on what he wrote? Don't just assert something and not support it.

Also Lector Malibu I will re-read your post and respond again in 3 days as I am going to Toronto for the weekend and im suppossed to leave inan hour!(IMT business:lol:)

[Trystan]

Communism is a fool's errand.

Do you all actually believe this? That everyone in the entire world will enslave themselves to the greater good? That people will end the milenia of religious and ethnic ties to their heritage and begin working for nothing?

The masses need to be led, not because they're any worse than the leasers but because they don't want that role. Capitalist Democratic-Socialism is the best system because it allows people to choose whether they want to lead or be led, while giving them the basic services they need to survive.

Only every four years, and during the time in between we're basically fucked if we disagree with this or that. "Capitalist democracy" is a sham.

[Black Cross]

Who believes this and what has this to do with Stalin?

Authoritarian communists: Stalin was an authoritarian communist.

[Bud Struggle]

This doesn't make sense.
Marxism-Leninism or Trotskyism is a set of ideas, principles , traditions and methods that will help the proletariat take power not the Marxist-Leninists themselves.

Well the "Vanguard" is the Marxists-Leninists. And it's a well known fact that once they take over only the likes of a Ronald Reagan could dislodge them.

[Mindtoaster]

Well the "Vanguard" is the Marxists-Leninists. And it's a well known fact that once they take over only the likes of a Ronald Reagan could dislodge them.

They just build a ten foot bronze statue of Ronald Reagan in the center of my town :(

Wondering if I should do something to it.

[Plagueround]

Well the "Vanguard" is the Marxists-Leninists. And it's a well known fact that once they take over only the likes of a Ronald Reagan could dislodge them.

Giving all the credit to Raygun for the Soviet collapse is an insult to the other American imperialists and Soviet reformists that did the real work in fucking that country up even worse than it was.
Don't worry though Tom, Reagan put a plan into action that will someday topple America's economy too. :laugh:

[Plagueround]

They just build a ten foot bronze statue of Ronald Reagan in the center of my town :(

Wondering if I should do something to it.

Cut your hair into a mohawk, get a green army jacket, and shoot it.

[RGacky3]

Marxism-Leninism or Trotskyism is a set of ideas, principles , traditions and methods that will help the proletariat take power not the Marxist-Leninists themselves.


Well Historically thats not been the case. Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism are based on the thoughts and writings of those respectvie persons.


Also can you give me concrete examples on how Lenin didn't act based on what he wrote? Don't just assert something and not support it.

Well one off the top of my head is Lenin supported complete freedom of speach and religion, and history shows he did'nt live up to it, remember NKVD?