augustin717 said:
scamandrius said:
Hiwot said:
Its a fascinating irony that Communism that is so anti monarchy in theory, time and again paves way to these imperials who rule until they die and then are succeeded by their children or relatives who will also do the same.
Lord have mercy on his soul!
Come on. Communism has never been about equality for the masses or sharing of power. Communism has always benefited the few or the one over the many while paying mere lip service to the idea of true equality. A more technocratic system than this one cannot devise.
Communism has benefitted the most-up to a certain moment, at least, in all countries it has been tried.
Yeah, those masses that the Danube Canal benefitted. And the Stalinist Purges. And the Cultural Revolution. And the whole freakin' Kim dynasty...and....and....
augustin717 said:
It had the support of the masses as most of these people were crassly poor under the various capitalist regimes before.
The only place where communists took power by the masses was in Spain, Czechoslovakia and Chile.
Odd how the crassly poor in the capitalist regimes surpassed the lifestyles of all but the highest party members in the commie world.
augustin717 said:
I will never stop saying: I come from a very poor family, as it was the rule there. People like mine only got a chance because Communism ended their multifarious disenfranchisement.
The Genius of the Danube, the only world leader to envy North Korea and emulate its "Dear Leader."
augustin717 said:
I'm also sure most muzhiks couldn't have given a damn about the holy tsar etc. these are all reactionary, petty bourgeois phantasies.
Stalin cured them of all their communist phantasies.
Just because it doesn't fit your world, doesn't mean the muzhiks didn't revere their czar.
You're just in the dark, even if you are in that dot of artifical light in Pyongpang with Kim Il Sun: