None of them were 100% marxist-leninist because his theories had to be tweaked to be implemented in the real world. Not sure of the exact year Lenin was exiled by Stalin but regardless Bolsheviks went around burning churches and monastaries, killing kulaks (wealthy peasants), nationalizing everything (even the fabrege workshop) resulting in some 80% reduced output in oil alone and causing massive starvation everywhere especially ukraine. People refused to give up their homes, grain, livestock etc so they rather burn everything to the ground rather than have their 'enemy' take it. The Russians did the same when the polish invaded, they did that when the Germans invaded, and they'd do the same when their own government.
This is just two aspects of a socialist revolution - wiping out religion and redistributing wealth. I don't see how killing people who devote their lives to be religious and spiritual is a good thing regardless of what faith they practice. Same with confiscation - id burn my house to the ground too if I was forced out rather than let someone else enjoy the fruits of my labor.
Since you guys mentioned the original leaders Jewish roots I will point out that the Soviet union was one of the few (perhaps the only) country where being antisemitic was a crime. I believe punishable by death actually. So burning orthodox churches and monasteries was totally fine but not insulting a jew.
his theories had to be tweaked to be implemented in the real world
Tosh. Lenin tried to implement a move to fair ownership of the means of production far too early and in the pre-industrial society he came from.One very far from the context He envisaged, hence the Russian's perversion of His theories.
Marx would have been spinning in His grave, had He known that Russia tried it first.
Certainly not part of Marxist economic theory.
So burning orthodox churches and monasteries was totally fine but not insulting a jew.
Doubtless a response to ingrained Russian anti-semitism. BTW, Marxist theory does not advocate atheism - some of the great Marxist thinkers are practising Catholics.
Marxism does not support religion - opium of the masses. Something that must be done away with according to marx, like opium. People in a Marxist society must have their loyalties to the people and the state - not to a religion or nationality. Hence the famous phrase workers have no fatherland.
This is why the commies feared pope john Paul ii so much. They knew the Roman catholic church would end them.
Russians are also prejudiced to Muslims yet no death penalty for insulting Muslims was around in the ussr. I think it was more because so much of the leadership happened to be Jewish albiet non practicing so they didn't want people to develop theories. This didn't stop Winnie Churchill from writing zionism vs bolshevism though.
And no killing people isn't part of Marxism but it is what the leadership which included Lenin decided to do to implement a Marxist economy.
But yes russia wouldn't of been a great place to start because it was so backwards. Stalin certainly turned it into a industrial power although tens of millions died in the process.
Marxism does not support religion - opium of the masses
Don't confuse religious culture with faith or the possible existence of a transcendent deity. Marxism certainly allows for that and the pre-eminent Marxist scholar of today incidentally describes football as the modern day opium of the masses.
This is why the commies feared pope john Paul ii so much.
The Russians certainly disliked him. Communists in general were either ambivalent or positive.
I think it was more because so much of the leadership happened to be Jewish
More because of who lived in which parts of the former Tsarist Empire.
Guess ill have to re-read the manifesto again.. Good thing its a short read. I like the ideas in green book way more but that's just my opinion. Gaddafi wanted a middle ground - he found socialist to be too godless and capitalism to be too decadent. He made a sort of socialism unique to Libya with a sort of sharia law system. Yet gaddafis Libya seems to be one of the very few one party socialist countries where people didn't get killed by the millions during the transition and lived fantastically once the system was enacted.
Guess ill have to re-read the manifesto again.
Not my favourite book - it starts well enough and gets annoying. It should probably be read as a response to increasing industrialisation in Prussia and other parts of the Empire as well as a way to explain his ideas to the chattering classes of Berlin and London. I prefer Das Kapital, long and heavy economics treatise though it is. For a more enjoyable read, try Terry Eagleton on Marx. He's a Christian (specifically a Catholic) from Ireland and writes very well. A bit of a showman, but worth the effort. "Why Marx was right" analyses the various common criticisms and is very readable.
et gaddafis Libya seems to be one of the very few one party socialist countries where people didn't get killed by the millions during the transition and lived fantastically once the system was enacted.
It was an interesting place to see, certainly not the Utopia some claim however he did try his best. In the end, the corruption inherent in an unstable authoritarian society (those awful sons for example as well as thousands of hangers on who knew how to work the system) brought him down, as did his own hubris and increasingly eccentric behaviour. The Libyan interpretation of Sharia was essentially stable, however the tribal system in that region was another weak point - all Middle eastern leaders favour their own tribe and would have no power base if they didn't. He went too far with that, excluding some of the more traditional tribes (ones with a tradition of education and overseas influence) from the oil wealth.
Peace will return there, but not just yet.
Sports, Bieggers are playing. A distraction, and no basis on which to form an overarching philosophy of humanity.
Wrong. Sport is not a casual hobby. It is BIG business; from football clubs to the Olympics. Both corporations and countries vie to cash in on humanity's innate need to compete. Even your revered but rightfully defunct USSR made sport a centerpiece of its communist propaganda and yes even its "national" pride. So much so that their long sports history is littered with doping and corruption scandals one right after another.
This is the basis of civilised society....any developed society...is based on the concept that all humans are equal, with equal rights and equal responsibilities.
Oh, so how then do you reconcile your longing for a communist world with your stated and obsequious commitment to Zionism?
An opiate pushed by the Soviets and their satellite states.
So why did you dodge answering my very relevant question about your cognitive dissonance regarding your support for both Zionism and globalism for the rest of humanity? Did the contradiction never dawn on you or were just you hoping no one would notice and ask you about it?
Money paid in tax belongs to the people who paid it, for the common use.
Yes, those money belong to workers. To be spend on champagne consumed by representatives of the common men. . Those who understand best the Marxist idea. No, thank you.
There is none, mainly because it was never truly Marxist.
There were plenty and still are. Look around.
They always say that. Every bloody murderous regime started with good intentions in the name of some lofty idea begins with - we'll get it right this time. No you won't sunshine, you need your head check.
At the very beginning of this text, I stated that the abolition of the traditional family is one of the four main tasks of every Marxist. This was the aim and of the new, cultural Marxists. Marx wrote that patriarchal men view their wife and children as property. In Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, Friedrich Engels advocated one of the feminist beliefs that all discrimination against women stems from the patriarchal family. Erich Fromm argued that the differences between the sexes are not hereditary, but instead represent fabrications of European nations and cultures. According to Wilhelm Reich, "the authoritarian family is an authoritarian state in miniature. Family imperialism reproduces itself into national imperialism ". For Theodor Adorno, the patriarchal family represents the cradle of fascism.
In order to cripple a healthy family with the father at the helm, the Frankfurt School was in favor of and advocating alternatives such as matriarchy and "androgynous theory", where the roles of men and women within the family are interchangeable, and even reversed. Like Lukacs, Wilhelm Reich also believed that the family should be destroyed with the help of revolutionary sexual politics and early sexual education.
Millions of women in Europe and the West now share feminist hostility towards marriage, a healthy family and motherhood. Millions accept the ideas of this movement and have no intention of getting married or having children. Europeans more and more are using contraceptives. Contraception, sterilization and abortion are the three biggest dangers of the "culture of death".
To such an extinction had led the individualistic basis of Marxist doctrine. And today's cultural Marxists, the Jewish masters, do not intend to stop at this, but will go to the extreme limit, until they humiliate us completely. We can not allow that happen.
I mean both, Ms. Bristols:-) Either ideology is far afield from any middle-of-the-road type thinking which presumes that in life, things are always either one way or the other. Such is entirely unrealistic.Life is often neither extreme, but the rabid, die hard Communists, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, National Socialists, and croniest capitalists don't see things in their proper perspective, that's all.