Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<We chose freedom, they chose a dictator.>> Techincally, the people chose communism as opposed to capitalism which they called “wage slavery.†It is not really a dictatorship though. In fact, there supposed to be no government in communism. However, as Marx says, there is a transitionary period between capitalism and communism which may require a heavy-handed government to organize the commune. Communist nations have never been able to make the transition between dictatorship and communism.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Pass-- Read Douglas' post and mine. You don't think choosing a dictator over freedom and then Ima's post responding to that is buffoonery? You're scaring me pass?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe tigger--just read your post and I'm just laughing> that's all I'll say as I won't insult. I remember Ford blew the election to Carter in 76 by saying Eastern Europe was NOT under the influence of Russia and Communism. That just jumped into my brain reading your post 213
Originally Posted By cape cod joe BTW--Did Marx anticipate "the heavy handed government" would murder millions mostly clandestinely to remain in power. I think that argument is over.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger I think what ima was asking was about the choice between Lenin and the Tsar. But I don't think the people had much of a choice. Yeah, they overthrew the Tsar, but Lenin just stepped in to fill the power vacuum. I doubt that he really had much support beyond "He's not the Tsar!" <=== not a student of Russian history.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I had an ENTIRE course on Russian history at U Dayton and they did have a choice. It's called a revolution as we had ours and "chose" Georgey and the boys. The whole crux of a revolution CT is choice as in now with the talk of regime changes all around the globe. There's always been power vacuums to fill which may "facilitate" changes but who creates those vacuums? Me thinks the PEOPLE!
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "I think what ima was asking was about the choice between Lenin and the Tsar. But I don't think the people had much of a choice. Yeah, they overthrew the Tsar, but Lenin just stepped in to fill the power vacuum. I doubt that he really had much support beyond "He's not the Tsar!" This is exactly what I meant. I am also not a student of Russiam history but my understanding was that it went from one evil to another. I think they felt so overwhelmed and oppressed by the Czar that they didn't have a choice. Joe, you sound a bit paranoid to tell you the truth. I was asking a real question and got a sarcastic response without an explanation. I'm trying to listen and understand what the options were that were available to the Russians OTHER than Lenin. It was a serious question but it seems you let your paranoia get in the way. I'll remember from now on that I'm not allowed to ask any history questions of the history expert.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal I guess my original question was unclear. What circumstances led to Lenin being able to take over so easily and make the Russian people choose him?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Ima--I am TRULY sorry as I admit I am still somewhat bitter about the past post. Joel Osteen says "NO EMOTIONAL LUGGAGE" so I have again sinned (not to get too religious. You have been fine with me for awhile so I apologize. To answer in a pithy way. It was a tumuluous time and "ripe" for the picking by a strong arm to waltz in like Hitler would do the very next decade, so I don't want to crack down too hard on the Russian people themselves as look at the courage they showed to stop the Communism. Sorry Again Ima.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe To be fair to CTigger> the Russian people were clearly misled>duped and that is why here, in the U.S.A.. it is very important to question our government ALWAYS and ALL WAYS and is precisely why George is in so much trouble now> not transparent enough. He HAS to be more accessible to the people.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe One post script--That is why, I think, Beau is always posting 100% pragmatism because I think history teaches that Marx, Engels, et al on PAPER and in books looked damned attractive as did Plato's Republic a few milleniums before that (which btw I actually practice Plato's philosophy to this very day) but in the real world> it's a whole new ballgame and that is why Beau seems so brash with his "winners and losers and dems and libs" because he has learned from history that this world is not WDWorld as we all pray that it someday will be.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<that is why Beau seems so brash with his "winners and losers and dems and libs" because he has learned from history that this world is not WDWorld as we all pray that it someday will be.>> It never will be as long as thinking like Beau's is prevalent. To change things you need the imagination to think that things CAN be different and the courage to do something about it. It doesn't take a whole lot of either to sit around and spew the party line.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Trippy--I'm just "gently" trying to nudge our friend Beau into opening up his very intelligent brain into different ways of thinking and possibly a different way of interpreting life> that's all
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<tigger--just read your post and I'm just laughing> that's all I'll say as I won't insult.>> And I in turn will laugh at your empty response. <<BTW--Did Marx anticipate "the heavy handed government" would murder millions mostly clandestinely to remain in power.>> If you knew anything about Marx, you would know that the answer is, no. Stalin misused the transitionary dictatorial role Marx envisioned that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Tigger ---my empty response is the overwhelming weight of history, not me personally. Sorry--It hit me in a strange way and is why I encourage open government as SO MANY times the same "villains" come to power. People laugh at me all the time--nothing personal> just the post
Originally Posted By tiggertoo I don't get where you are going. Do you agree with what I said? Because it's pretty indisputable. I too had a course on Russian Revolutionary history at UC Riverside. This is very basic Marxist philosophy. You should know this. The reason why communism has never worked, nor will it ever work, is because no one has never, nor will ever, be able to get over the authoritarian stage. Communism requires a leadership willing to forgo its status once the organization is attained. And that will not happen and is the fundamental flaw in Marxism. Simply stated: power corrupts. We saw that in Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and every other communist attempt.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Tigs--I get it but read my post 224--I actually laughed because it's how I myself tend to think and be> naive. I agree with your post 230. I just think your other post that the people "chose" Marxism was naive idealism hence I laughed. I love to be in that ethereal mind set as Trippy mentioned in post 225 but reality sets in. Why do you think I drank so heavily and quit 31 years ago. My friend has one of his many sayings for me "The dream and the reality" I've always been a dreamer but NOW they do match. Unlike Governments IMHO (strictly opinion) it WON'T ever match the dream and the reality because as you so eloquently and succinctly put it power corrupts and absolute yadiyada... WE ARE ON the same page Tigg-no harm no foul I hope?? I want to keep on dreaming too.
