this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
232 points (76.4% liked)
Memes
46031 readers
2570 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're showing statues of Lenin in countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure.
When Lenin took power, Russia had nothing. It was in the middle of WW1, there were regular famines, almost everyone was illiterate, and it was in no condition to establish a socialist economic plan. So, Lenin created a temporary economic model called The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is a centrally planned economy designed to rapidly develop infrastructure and industry in a country that has none. Lenin was already ceding power to the worker's councils when he died. Stalin decided he liked The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and did not cede power back to the worker's councils.
Those countries never experienced Communism. They never even experienced socialism. They destroyed those statues because they hated The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Living in a system designed for a short temporary economic boom for decades is no fun.
So-called "dictatorship of proletariat" was simply a terror. Lots of philosophers and religious elite was killed just because they weren't compatible with communist ideology. Rich peasants who didn't even use others labor were either robbed or killed. Peasants lost their land and had to work for the country. People got killed just because some anonyms told they did something bad. I know this because it happened to my ancestors. My grand-grandfather lost his house, communists left only one room for his family. His friends, all good people, dissapeared. His daughters never played with neighbor's kids because of fear. My other grand-grandfather lost land and two horses. His brother was killed for not agreeing to give away his house. And my another grand-grandfather was killed because an anonymous letter. He was communist and thought he was safe as he did nothing wrong. His kids couldn't get education because they were "children of the enemy of the people". Much later my grandfather got a paper concluding that execution of his father was a mistake. It was horrible time, and lots of people thought the ones who were killed were "pests" or "enemies of the people", so killing them was good and beneficial for the society.
And what time period or country was this?
1920s in USSR.
So your family were wealthy landowners of some sort? Chances are if your family was doing well prior to the revolution, they probably weren't good people. I have a friend who's family was killed during Vietnam. His family is mad because they lost their gold mine and farms. No one should prosper while others are starving.
Nope. My first grand-grandfather was a teacher in a university, his salary was enough to own a two-story house and spend a month in Europe with his family every year. The second grand-grandfather was a retired soldier, he bought a house with a land plot in a village. His family worked there. The third grand-grandfather was a successful director. Because he was a good manager, he was sent to raise a collective farm.
Well, if I lived in a country where people were kidnapping children, cutting them up, cooking them, and selling them for food; I'd feel really bad living comfy and cozy in my nice house. The government went to people like that and they said, "everything is fucked up, share your house and go produce food so we can improve everyone's lives. If you don't like it, you're getting shot." You're looking at things from a Western lense. I'm sorry, but if you own a bunch of land and enough money for yearly vacations, you have things to give. "From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs." You give what you can and you get what you need. A core tenant of Communism. No one should have luxuries while others starve and die.
I'm not saying the Soviets couldn't have achieved this less violently and I'm certainly not saying we should follow their footsteps. But, it was a different time in a different place. Life was brutal under Tsar Nicholas and it took a lot of work and time to undo that damage. The Church was in on it, too. Hence the brutality committed to the religious groups. Sometimes the great atrocities are outweighed by the greater good.
People talking about such things never consider the possibility of being killed for the sake of greater good. This approach gives somebody the privilege to decide who will live and who will die. And nobody knows what such people would decide, having such unlimited power. Logically, they would kill to "improve society", but nobody knows who they would choose.
Human life and property must be respected. This rule protects every member of the society from the worst traits of humanity.
If I lived in Russia at that time I would gladly have given my life to end the suffering happening under Tsar Nicholas. I would give my life now if it means lifting millions out of poverty.
Ok, you don't value your life enough.
No, I value my life a whole lot. If I was offered immortality I'd take it. But they were literally eating children to survive in 1916. It's worth fighting to end that.
I don't find any mentions of the famine in 1916. The only famine that year was a local famine in Uzbekistan. It was inflicted by the Russians as a bloody response to the fight for independence.
It wasn't a famine yet. In 1914, food was being shipped to the front line for the war. This created food insecurities for the people. Regular riots occured at markets due to scarcity and high prices. It wasn't considered a famine because it was being forced on the people by Tsar Nicholas. It did eventually lead up to the famine in the 20s though. Turns out, if you send every farmer to war and all the food with them, you'll start a famine.
Here's a decent breakdown: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/food_and_nutrition_russian_empire
So, you're giving away all your excessive money to charity? No matter how wealthy or poor you are, there is somebody who is doing worse then you.
First off, I would absolutely donate my excess money to charity. Unfortunately, there's two problems with that. 1: I live paycheck to paycheck and have no excess money. 2: charities in the US are not charitable, they're profitable. Look at the Susan G Komen foundation or the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Both incredibly profitable and do very little to actually make a material difference for those in need. Some are not bad though. I've been organizing a charity drive for Alpha house, a women's abuse shelter, through my local union. Just because I don't have money doesn't mean I can't find some way to help those who need it.
That's what a revolution looks like unfortunately. The terror in France was instigated for this reason. Danton (one of the government leaders) said "soyons terrible pour éviter au peuple de l'être" : "We shall be terrifying so the people don't need to be so."
I suspect USSR didn't do better than France. The sad part is that USSR didn't even overcame the dictatorship. Their leader were "better" than in France in avoiding the fate they inflicted to so many people.