The fatal flaw in political Marxism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by BennyF, Sep 18, 2011.

  1. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    I intend for us to discuss Marxism as a system of government, not as an economic theory, usually referred to as Communism. If you want to discuss Communism, please do so in any one of the economic threads. The names and historical events I mention will be those that Russia experienced almost a hundred years ago. China has also tried to install political Marxism, but with different results for these reasons:

    1. The Cultural Revolution in China half a century ago took a different approach to the problem of governing their people. It wasn't pure Marxism, it was a combination of that and other political theories, including some free-market economics in the majority of the land, which was still rural and difficult to govern from Peking/Bejing. The Chinese leaders also had to deal with a loss of political control over small-population areas like Tibet, Nepal, various islands, and the towns that bordered Mongolia. After the Cultural Revolution began, the new Chinese government also faced a bigger political challenge with the people on Formosa/Taiwan because of the water between it and Mainland China. The Marxists who took over Russia, on the other hand, had a large, industrialized country with many natural resources to draw upon. If they had allowed most of the Russian-speaking people to remain unorganized politically, the new country might have survived the early 1930s better, when the US was experiencing the worst of the Great Depression.

    2. China had a different history than Russia did. Before the Russian Revolution, the country was governed by a large and wealthy family who became an easily-identifiable enemy for the people to hate in unison. China had nothing to compare to it, which denied them what they told the Chinese people they hated - a visible enemy.

    Marxism, as a political system, is unworkable. It prevents any set of people, in any country where Marxism is tried, in any historical period and in any set of economic circumstances from making their people happy to be citizens, mainly because it is a system that does not allow the people being "governed" to remove anyone that is unsuited for the job. That is the fatal flaw in Marxism. Marxist leaders are not really chosen by the people and so they are not accountable to the people.

    As a political system, it sets up a top-down government. One man with charisma and a revolutionary vision, like Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, or (arguably) Nikita Krushev, tells a few trusted others (the Central Committee) how to organize other people (the Russian Parliament) into a movement that organizes millions of ordinary workers into one proletariat, all moving in the same direction, and all under strict state control in any political sense.

    The state chooses governors, mayors, judges, and police chiefs. Military leaders at the highest level swear allegiance to the state or sometimes to one nationwide political party, not to a foundational document like our Constitution, as military leaders do in the U.S. Teachers at every grade level are given textbooks that are approved by the national government, not by local school committees. Major corporations are owned by the state and are run by state-approved executives and local managers.

    The flaw in this system is simple. No man, woman, or child can avoid making mistakes. Lenin was so detached from his own people that he didn't even know when a mob of Russian people, a true grass-roots mass-movement, would storm the gates of the Palace, kill most of the ruling family, and install their own choices in the Russian Parliament building. He was informed of it while he was writing a book in London. When he learned about what the people had done in his absence, he arrived by train, demanded to be the new leader, threw the people's choices for Parliament Members out of the building, told his guards to empty the building, and shut the doors. The Russian people did on their own what Karl Marx demanded - the overthrow of an oppressive regime, but he refused to give them any credit for it, and his personal vanity prevented him from "capitalizing" on the first Russian Revolution. If he had not been so vain, he could have worked with the people's choice, but instead, the revolution that Marx wanted was delayed by Lenin. He started a second revolution, but one that lacked the one vital ingredient - the approval of the people.

    Joseph Stalin was an alcoholic, and that may have been responsible for his decision as the head of the party to organize into a political force most of the Ukraine, an area that had large areas of farmland. If he had been a better chief executive, he would have realized that he had an extraordinary asset, one that could have fed the large country that he was trying to unite under himself as a single political leader, and that it would be better for him to let the Ukrainians be farmers instead of revolutionaries.

    Any political system that refuses to give the people a peaceful and legal way to remove poor-quality people from high office leaves people with only four alternatives.

    1. leave the country (if the heavily armed border guards will allow it)
    2. wait for the incompetent man at the top to retire or die (that could take awhile),
    3. ask for help from religious leaders (unless the state has turned their churches into museums), or
    4. assassinate the man at the top and hope that the policies change when a new man is chosen.

    The alternative (in this country, at least) to this unworkable system is political stability based on the fact that every political leader in this country swears allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, and that document even allows the U.S. Congress to impeach high officials, including the President himself, and remove them from office, replacing them with someone else.

    Other countries that have stable governments, notably England, which does not have a constitution, also does not have a large family whose personal choices dictate where people live and work, where their children go to school, how, when, and where people worship, and how and when they can vote. The British Royal Family is in political control over the Church of England, but they do not force anyone to go or to stay away from whatever church people wish to attend.

    Stable, peaceful, and long-term government systems depend for their very lives on the acceptance by the government and every man, woman, and child who participates in it that no man, including the head of the national government, in this country, in Russia, or any other country, is or ever will be perfect. Every political leader, including our own President, must be accountable to his people.
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Marxism never was a political system except that it injected government deeper into the economy than other economic policies do. Marxism is a proposed economic policy. The type of government instituting Marxism does not matter.

    The flaws in Marxism are:
    1 the idea that government can allocate resources as or more efficiently than the invisible hand of the market.
    2 the idea that people will be as motivated to work for the collective advancement as they are to work for their own or their family's advancement.

    Really nothing more to be said. Those two Ideas were incorrect and therefore Marxism is inferior to regulated almost free market (call it capitalism if you must) economics. Marxism is not inferior to full blown feudal kleptocracy form of capitalism.

    "Capitalism" actually means nothing but "not marxism". The term "capitalism" was almost unused prior to Marx writing Das Kapital.

    With market economics the question of what kind of regulations to impose on the market comes up. "Thou shalt not steal" is an economic regulation and a restriction on freedom. Taxation is an economic regulation. Taxing to pay for public education has been a very effective socialist policy that is almost taken for granted now in the wealthier nations.

    But once again, Marxism only gives the vaguest recommendations on how government should be organized. There was nothing "Marxist" about the political structures of the Soviet Union or China.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    The thing is you can't stop black markets no matter what you do . So Marxism would never work . There will always be black markets . The ones out of sight that are only affected when the law comes for them . What ever you deny things that people want you strengthen black markets . Black markets are heavy laden with working people. Most you working people if not part of it can identify it easy enough . It is all around you . It is not just drugs . It is gifts and presents . It is exchanges . It is garage sales . It might even be internet sales . I think it is . Want adds in the news papers . It is the old lady on the corner selling vegetables
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Economic theories and history belong on other boards and other threads. Lenin, Stalin, and their successors, including those who are nostalgic for a one-government control of most of Asia (they do exist and they could be trouble in the future), didn't just nationalize businesses, they also took political control over all sorts of governmental functions, making alternative political parties illegal, handing filled-in ballots to people moments before they voted, and making decisions in Moscow that affected people in Bulgaria, the Baltics, and Belarus. That's not economic theory, that's a one-world government idea, a political idea, one that Karl Marx and Frederick Engels approved of.

    Dictatorship must be discouraged so that people can be parents to their own kids, so they can vote for their favorite national, state, and local political candidates, and so they can decide for themselves which kind of a light bulb to use in their own homes.
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  8. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    False dichotomy. You'll get nowhere splitting these imaginary hairs.

    It's unclear to me what "Marxism, as a political system" is supposed to refer to. "Dictatorship of the proletariate?" The utopian "classless society?" Or what?

    Also there are about 50 cases of people trying to implement political Marxism, other than the USSR and China, that you'll need to account for.

    If what you want to critique is Soviet Communism, then you don't need to invent this term "Marxism, as a political system." There's already a specific term for Soviet Communism. It's "Soviet Communism."

    Also I don't see what we're supposed to learn from this analysis. Everyone already knows that Soviet Communism was fatally flawed, and that this caused its collapse decades ago. This is all well-treaded material. Do we learn anything new about Soviet Communism, or Marxism, from this boilerplate analysis?
  9. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    i know a few Russians . There is something about there tenacity. Maybe it is cold weather people in general ? They have a pride for there home land . I don't know if you call it patriotism or not . I think it is . A love of there land and heritage. There identity . All our countries have checkered pasts. There is something in community and I am positive the Russians as peoples have mastery in secret communion with each other . I strong black market very protective of one another .
    My everyday Russian friends are great guys. The ones I know best are hard wood floor guys . They brought there craft with em from Russia . The best . Not much competition when your that good . A few , John Hammock, Craig the boat maker he is a good floor man too . The Russians have the magic tough though . Super natural!! Very!! Yes!! Like that Ryan Guy Braking the 4 minute mile
  10. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Yes, we do. The citizens of the USA now have a President who has pushed Congress to pass legislation before most of them have read it, including the thousands of pages' worth of a health care law, placed on the desks of congressmen and -women days before the scheduled vote. He also criticized the Supreme Court, an equal branch of government, according to the Constitution, and his campaign assurances of transparency were broken before he even took office. He now wants Congress to pass a jobs bill that (again) isn't on their desks, and isn't available for review by the people that he should be accountable to.

    The same political problems that I described in Russia almost a hundred years ago are showing up here, but in our case, slowly and stealthily, and the economic problems that plagued Russia in the 1930s are returning here as a result. We already have a "central committee", consisting of 12 members of Congress, and having some legislative powers. How long will it take before they're given the power to veto the laws that Congress passes? How long will it take before the President forgets the reason why we declared independence from King George III? How long will it take before the Supreme Court abolishes the Constitution?
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Ah. So it's all a cover for the usual paranoic anti-Obama hysteria. I should have known.
  12. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    What you should have known was that our current President would be compared to other world leaders on an apples-to-apples basis, and that their failures to be accountable to their people, and the people's anger at such dictators, would be predictive of what will happen to him and to us if he refuses to be accountable to us.
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  13. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    In order to reduce the magnitude of the comparisons between our President and Vladimir Lenin, Obama must give us more political control than we have now. He must allow our elected representatives to read, examine, and make changes to legislation that he proposes.

    He must publish the legislation long before it is scheduled for a vote, so that we can read it, understand it, and lobby for changes to it, in the best interests of whatever group we freely choose to belong to.

    He must accept the checks and balances of the United States Constitution, including the right of the Supreme Court to declare laws UN-Constitutional, the right of Congress to pass laws that he doesn't like, and the right of the people to vote him out of office.

    He must stop talking to us like a college professor and start accepting his position as one world leader out of many.

    He must accept the fact that "the business of America is business"

    Quote from President Calvin Coolidge

    ... and that any business that has too many costs related to government oversight cannot be profitable enough to stay in business.

    He must refuse to allow non-citizens to vote in our elections or to have the protection that our Constitution gives only to citizens. Non-citizens do not have a Constitutional right to receive government benefits or even to be here at all if they cannot produce a valid visa.

    He must allow citizens "the right to be left alone", in the private words of a Supreme Court Justice.

    He must realize that his primary responsibility is to the American people and that he cannot govern well if a sixth of us are in poverty.

    Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- America's poverty rate is now the worst since 1993, according to a shocking report last week from the U.S. Census Bureau.​
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Hell, warmed over

    I don't know. How long will it take Hell to freeze over in your microwave oven?

    For many, you're setting up competing standards. To the one, Marxism is a fatally flawed political system. To the other, it's capitalism that got us into this mess.

    Maybe we can get Tony Blair and Baron Giddens in here to devise a third way for us.

    Look, Benny, when you embark on these sorts of faux-libertarian rants, please recognize that whatever point you think you're trying to make, you are also chasing people away from.

    Meanwhile, I think of Bill Maher's joke from "New Rules" last week:

    "New Rule: If you're attacking this man [Gov. Rick Perry] for being too liberal, you must ask your doctor if lithium is right for you. At the Tea Party Debate, Governor Jesus McBangBang was actually beaten up by the other candidates for being too far left on public health, immigration, and taxes. Honesty, this man is not some kind of centrist Republican. This man [Pres. Barack Obama] is."

    Really, to hear people complaining about Barack Obama and Marxism at this late date is very nearly a disqualifier.

    In fact, I think it should be. That is, you're entitled to your opinion, but I see no reason for anyone to take it seriously. I might as well criticize Osama bin Laden for being too Christian, or the aforementioned Gov. Perry for being too atheistic.


    Maher, Bill. "New Rules". Real Time With Bill Maher, episode 224. September 16, 2011. Transcript. September 19, 2011.

  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Don't like Obama? Vote him out. That's something you can't do in a Marxist system.

    There was ample time to read and understand the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, please don't exaggerate, you sound like a nutcase.
  16. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. I said in the very first message on this thread that I wanted to leave economics out of the discussion and focus on the weaknesses of political Marxism. If you're more comfortable referring to it as a dictatorship, I can live with that.

    I was listening to a radio talk show this morning. The host had a guest to talk about the national economy. The guest told the host that he had a close friend who was a bank president. The guest told the host that one day, he called his friend, the bank president, to ask him how he was doing. His friend told him two interesting facts:

    1. He had 15 employees.
    2. At that moment, there were 18 regulators in the building. That was in addition to any customers who wanted to do business with the bank.

    How can any company, including a bank, make money in this kind of a political environment? How can any country grow its' economy when regulators any industry, including the banking business, have such hatred for the companies that they regulate? How long can any country feed its' own people when its' President hates business so much that they want to regulate them OUT OF BUSINESS? Do I need to mention again the requirement, imposed by the Health Care Law, that every single American business that spends over $600 on ANYTHING has to spend the time and money it takes to fill out an IRS 1099 form and send it in? Does that regulation help or hurt American business? Does anyone think that it would have been included in ANY legislation that Congress had the time to read, understand, and maybe lobby against?

    I'm not a libertarian, I'm an American who loves this country. We broke away from Great Britain, at the time the strongest country in the world, economically and militarily, because the King demanded more regulations than we were comfortable with. He demanded more taxes than a very young set of colonies could pay. He demanded all this without giving any American the same political status than any person had before he got on a boat and left Britain.

    Read the Constitution and ask yourself why the people who voted on the amendments, one-by-one, would add Amendment #3, the prohibition on "quartering" a soldier. It's because that's exactly what King George III did. He required that American colonists provide housing to British soldiers, a clear violation of the personal freedoms that they cherished then and that we still cherish today.

    This was intolerable, and Mr. Franklin was one man who said so. It's still intolerable today for this nation to have to live under a President who will not allow our Legislature to act independently of him, and it's intolerable for our Supreme Court to have members who think that the laws of other countries can have any effect on their decisions. That's one intolerable step towards a one-world government, a move that all Americans must oppose if they want to remain citizens of one country in a world of many countries. Respect for other countries is admirable, but we cannot and should not try to join with them in any sort of a political way. Using the laws of other countries as a factor in the decisions made by our courts is one intolerable step towards a one-world government, exactly the sort of political system that Karl Marx wanted.
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member


    Easily. Nike made 20 billion dollars last year.

    What pizza shop owner can afford to test all their ingredients for salmonella? Regulations protect businesses as much as consumers. You are being lied to!
  18. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    The people doing most of the lying work for the President. If they think that they work for someone who loves this country, then they've been spending way too much time with Michelle Obama, who didn't even LIKE this country until after her husband was elected.
  19. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    You can't do it here, either, if ACORN registers tens of thousands of fake voters, as they did in 2008. The inability of the Federal Election Commission to detect this and to stop it from happening was a discrace and a serious threat to the political process that should be above any serious criticism.

    The following was cut-and-pasted from an article in the Washington Post dated the day after it passed the House of Representatives, after first passing the Senate (note the date it passed the Senate).

    The House voted 219 to 212 to approve the measure, with every Republican voting no. The measure now awaits President Obama's signature. In remarks Sunday night, he said that the vote "proved that we are still capable of doing big things. We proved that this government -- a government of the people and by the people -- still works for the people."

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues erupted in cheers and hugs as the votes were counted, while Republicans who had fought the Democratic efforts on health-care reform for more than a year appeared despondent.

    "Today we have the opportunity to complete the great unfinished business of our society and pass health insurance reform for all Americans as a right, not a privilege," Pelosi said before the House approved the bill, which first passed the Senate on Christmas Eve.

    The debate has consumed Obama's first year in office, with his focus on the issue amid a deep recession and crippling job losses potentially endangering his reelection prospects and Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. It has inflamed the partisanship that Obama pledged to tame when he campaigned for the White House and has limited Congress's ability to pass any other major legislation, at least until after the midterm elections in November.

    And it has sparked a citizens' revolt that reached the doors of the Capitol this weekend.

    "If we pass this bill, there will be no turning back," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) warned on the floor. "In a democracy, you can only ignore the will of the people for so long and get away with it."

    The will of the people is exactly what the President has been ignoring since he took office, exactly what dictators routinely ignore, and exactly what a humble President has to listen to if he wants to avoid having one-sixth of our citizens living in poverty.

    If there is no middle-class, a group largely composed of people who work for large corporations and those who own small businesses, then there will be much more envy of the upper class by the lower class and much more fear by the upper class of the violence and the outright theft of company property that is usually present during a riot, which is exactly what happened in Russia early in 1917.

    Dates of the two Russian Revolutions

    Remember, the Russian people performed one revolution on their own, which got rid of the Romanovs, and Vladimir Lenin performed the other one, which got rid of the people's will, as well as their choices for a new Russian Parliament.

    Oh, and Spidergoat, please notice the fact that the Health Care Bill passed the U.S. Senate on Christmas Eve, a time when very few legislators were in the building, much less reading documents that had over a thousand pages.

    The bottom line is simple. If the President wants to avoid a violent revolution, then he must increase the number of people who are in the middle class. He must allow large businesses to be profitable enough to hire lots of workers, and he must allow small businesses to have enough profits to stay alive. That means he must reduce the number of regulators who oversee businesses, large and small, he must reduce the number and the strength of the regulations that they enforce, and he must tell the regulators, including the people at the top of each regulatory agency, that their function is to stop the excesses of business, not the businesses themselves.
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  20. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    How many pizza shop owners want any of their customers to die soon after eating their food? How many of them know how to keep food safe to eat? How many of them could stay in business if five FDA inspectors were in their kitchens every day?

    Regulations that put businesses out of business should be scrapped. Regulators that outnumber the number of employees inside a bank building must be cut back. There has to be a balance of power between business and government. Right now, government has more power than is safe for the country, American businesses are suffering, and a sixth of our citizens are living in poverty.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    What an Embarrassment to American Prestige

    I see.

    The problem I have with that is the obvious conflict that arises when you complain about the economy, e.g.—

    He must realize that his primary responsibility is to the American people and that he cannot govern well if a sixth of us are in poverty.

    To the one, it seems obvious: If you do not wish to discuss economic aspects, do not complain about the economy.

    To the other, though, it was an obvious signal at the outset that something was wrong. When someone opens by saying, "I don't want to discuss what something actually is, but rather whatever I say it is," people generally know they're in for some village-idiot entertainment. And when it resolves that the whole thing is just another paranoid, useless rant about that commie Obama, well, nobody is actually surprised.

    And if you're comfortable failing to make any sense whatsoever, I can live with that.

    Okay, let me guess. Just like every other bank that has suffered regulation, there were no problems with the books, no reason for anyone to be looking through things. This is just another case of the government inventing a stupid reason to oppress the poor, honest bankers who never did anything wrong, never screwed up, and certainly didn't contribute in any way to our economic troubles which, if that commie Obama hadn't become president, never would have started before he was elected.

    No, you don't. If you loved this country, you would at least get yourself a clue before embarrassing yourself and, by proxy, the country.

    Thank you for the elementary history lesson.

    If I could figure out what that non-sequitur is after, maybe there would be something to respond to. But you went from your elementary history lesson to the question of quartering troops to an accusation that a president, presumably Obama, since that seems to be what this topic is really about, does not "allow our Legislature to act independently of him".

    I mean, really, Benny, at that point you are not making sense. That is, the syntax is probably just fine, but what the hell are you actually on about? Quartering troops? Legislative procedure and the separation of powers? The Supreme Court? The one-world government? Karl Marx, of whom you demonstrably understand nothing? What the hell are you on about, Benny, aside from the evil Barack Obama of your political stroke fantasies?
  22. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    The economy, including the fact that a sixth of our citizens live in poverty, is only one piece of evidence that our President doesn't like governing in a Constitutionally-based nation. Another piece of evidence is the fact, already stated, that the Federal Election Commission, a part of the Executive Branch of our government, and under his control, failed miserably to carry out one of their primary responsibilities - that of ensuring an honest election. A third piece of evidence is the fact that the President never met with the House Minority Leader for over a year after he was sworn in. This separation from the leader of a minority party shows that he believed, and acted in accordance with this belief, that he could run a country that had only one party. Now who's the village idiot?

    Well, you're very humble, speaking for everybody else, especially since I'm referring to him as a dictator, not as a Commie.

    The Russian people started one revolution early in 1917. Vladimir Lenin started the other one later that year, after he was informed about the first one while he was writing a book in London. Lenin's revolution not only ignored the will of the people, it was opposed to the will of the people, as demonstrated by the closing of the Russian Parliament building. If this is too much proof of the undemocratic nature of a dictator for you to understand, I can live with that.

    Let me guess. You didn't know that any country that has no middle class has a lot of envy of the upper class by the lower class. The existence of a middle class (large-business employees and small-business owners) provides a path for lower class people to improve their living standards. The parents of each middle-class family can say to their children, "If you study hard in school and work hard in your job, you can be better off than I am." However, if there's no middle class, because small businesses are going out of business, and large businesses are not hiring because they fear regulations, including the requirements of the Health Care Law, then these lower-class parents can't offer a better life to their lower-class children, who then become resentful (for the wrong reasons) of upper-class families, and riots start.

    If you had respect for other posters, you wouldn't insult them.

    No, the topic is "really" about what I said it was about - the flaws of political Marxism. President Obama is simply one example of a dictator, unable to rule and issue commands to a subservient people as he obviously wants to do because we still have a constitution and a strong two-party system. That's a political factor for your consideration, in case you didn't realize it.

    I'm "on" the benefits of the United States Constitution, including the history of it and the current threats to it. These threats include, as I said earlier, a Supreme Court that uses foreign law to help them arrive at their decisions, a Federal Election Commission that fails to detect and prevent voter fraud, and a President whose party commits voter fraud, as well as forcing legislation down our throats that hinder business so much that the middle class is shrinking and a sixth of our citizens live in poverty.
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  23. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    What does dictatorship have to do with one world government?

    Can you find me a Marx or Engels quote advocating for "one world government"?

    Can you find me a Marx or Engels quote criticizing democracy?

    Can you find me a Marx or Engels quote advocating for a form of government?

    Do you know anything about Marxism prior to 1913?

    Even Lenin, the creator of what you are criticizing probably never envisioned communism becoming what he turned it into prior to 1913. Lenin did get upset with his fellow leftists during WW1 when they abandoned their revolutionary efforts to patriotically support the war efforts of their kings and bad democratic leaders in the stupid pointless imperialistic World War one.
    from the above link: In 1906, "Lenin" was elected to the Presidium of the RSDLP;

    It would be interesting to see when and why Lenin became Anti-democratic.
    Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

    Lenin is still thinking that he is fighting for Democracy in 1905,

    After a quick read it seems:
    Lenin seemed to push Marxism to be more political rather than economical and theoretical but Lenin also seemed to neglect the issue of governmental structure. Obviously when Lenin got power he was forced to create a governmental structure but Lenin's life focus had been the struggle to overthrow the old structure which in Russia was a royal dictatorship. Lenin also concerned himself the the wealthy classes control over democracy where democracy exist. The wealthy and corporations still largely control democracy. The victory that Lenin sought was so unlikely that he did not bother much with what to do when it was achieved.

    The same source has Lenin's later writing from 1917 and 1918 as Lenin was achieving victory.

    BenyF maybe you should learn something about Marxism. The Western advocates for wealth and status quo dishonestly used the fear of dictatorship and the atheism to discourage attraction to Marxism and the echo of that propaganda confused you.

    I am not a fan of Marxism the economic theory and I gave my reasons why earlier but I am a fan of truth regardless how illusive and unreal truth is.

    BennyF, I am quite sure that quadraphonics is correct.

    Marxism is not a system of government. Marxism is only an economic theory. Any professor or author that told you otherwise was wrong.
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011

Share This Page