Who's Worse The Heads Or The Critics?
I know I am not going to change the minds of those on the opposite ends of the political compass but after reading the following, how can one not view majority of accusation of human rights violations against Mao and Stalin, two of the heads of communism, as Lenin put it, "what must be done." They literally followed the text here, even if their methods were controversial and disagreed with.
"But after its victory, the sole organization which the proletariat finds already in existence is precisely the state. This state may require very considerable alterations before it can fulfill its new functions. But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries, and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and in a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris Commune." - Friedrich Engels
"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." - Karl Marx
'And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence."- Vladimir Lenin
Understand this perspective now? People are viewing the actions of Mao and Stalin as a necessary means to achieve the goals of the communist revolution, as described by Lenin, Marx, and Engels; while ignoring the falsehoods from the black book of communism and cold war propaganda. According to this perspective, the suppression of opposition and the restrictions on freedom were seen as necessary to:
Consolidate power and prevent counter-revolution. Implement economic revolution and abolish class antagonisms. And free humanity from wage slavery and exploitation. In this context, the human rights violations and atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin's regimes are seen as a regrettable but necessary aspect of the revolutionary process, akin to Lenin's concept of "what must be done."
However, it's essential to remember that this perspective, which aligns with the heads of communism, is controversial for its justification of violence, repression, and human rights abuses. Marx, Engels, and Lenin in the quotes above argued that the ends justify the means; meaning that the actions of Mao and Stalin's regimes may have been excessive and brutal, but were justifiable.
The debate surrounding the legacy of these communist leaders and others and the implementation of communist ideology remains complex and contentious, with valid arguments on both sides. With some communists sounding like supporters of modern US, Canadian, and British leadership, exclaiming "that's not what he meant," in terms of responding to the words of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Acting like revisionists, reinterpreting them because they do not want to acknowledge the darkness approved of in the words of their beloved theorists. They do not want to admit how far the heads of communism were willing to go to protect humanity.
"But after its victory, the sole organization which the proletariat finds already in existence is precisely the state. This state may require very considerable alterations before it can fulfill its new functions. But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries, and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and in a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris Commune." - Friedrich Engels
"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." - Karl Marx
'And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence."- Vladimir Lenin
Understand this perspective now? People are viewing the actions of Mao and Stalin as a necessary means to achieve the goals of the communist revolution, as described by Lenin, Marx, and Engels; while ignoring the falsehoods from the black book of communism and cold war propaganda. According to this perspective, the suppression of opposition and the restrictions on freedom were seen as necessary to:
Consolidate power and prevent counter-revolution. Implement economic revolution and abolish class antagonisms. And free humanity from wage slavery and exploitation. In this context, the human rights violations and atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin's regimes are seen as a regrettable but necessary aspect of the revolutionary process, akin to Lenin's concept of "what must be done."
However, it's essential to remember that this perspective, which aligns with the heads of communism, is controversial for its justification of violence, repression, and human rights abuses. Marx, Engels, and Lenin in the quotes above argued that the ends justify the means; meaning that the actions of Mao and Stalin's regimes may have been excessive and brutal, but were justifiable.
The debate surrounding the legacy of these communist leaders and others and the implementation of communist ideology remains complex and contentious, with valid arguments on both sides. With some communists sounding like supporters of modern US, Canadian, and British leadership, exclaiming "that's not what he meant," in terms of responding to the words of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Acting like revisionists, reinterpreting them because they do not want to acknowledge the darkness approved of in the words of their beloved theorists. They do not want to admit how far the heads of communism were willing to go to protect humanity.
While others who oppose the actions of communist leaders aren't willing to come out and say they're willing to make a trade off some human rights violations for individualism; willing to sacrifices others for their own selfish desires. Which makes them worse because they're often making a trade off for egoistic ends instead of altruistic ends due to their social-darwinistic instead of collective means.
Those who prioritize individual success, desires, and survival above all else, are still worse and we won't even mention those who believe that the strong should dominate the weak. The critics often wear a mask to hide who they are. Their ideologies can and does lead to extreme exploitation, oppression, and harm towards others, especially vulnerable groups. It perpetuates a cutthroat mentality, where empathy and compassion are seen as weaknesses, and the well-being of others is disregarded.
In contrast, while the communist ideology, as implemented by Mao and Stalin, as stated is controversial as it has its own flaws and human rights violations, it at least purports to prioritize the collective good and aim for a more equal society. Which is why I still consider the critics ideology as the worse option majority of the time and question how majority of the accusations against most communist leaders are not justified by the words of Marx, Engels, and Lenin in the above text.
Those who prioritize individual success, desires, and survival above all else, are still worse and we won't even mention those who believe that the strong should dominate the weak. The critics often wear a mask to hide who they are. Their ideologies can and does lead to extreme exploitation, oppression, and harm towards others, especially vulnerable groups. It perpetuates a cutthroat mentality, where empathy and compassion are seen as weaknesses, and the well-being of others is disregarded.
In contrast, while the communist ideology, as implemented by Mao and Stalin, as stated is controversial as it has its own flaws and human rights violations, it at least purports to prioritize the collective good and aim for a more equal society. Which is why I still consider the critics ideology as the worse option majority of the time and question how majority of the accusations against most communist leaders are not justified by the words of Marx, Engels, and Lenin in the above text.
I encouraging people to consider the sources and potential biases of the reports, records and accusations against Stalin and Mao, rather than taking them at face value. This is an important critical thinking approach, especially when evaluating historical events and figures.
It's essential to consider the context, motivations, and perspectives of those reporting or accusing, as well as the potential role of propaganda, political agendas, or ideological biases. By doing so, we can gain a more nuanced understanding of the complexities and controversies surrounding historical figures and events.
My approach is not about revising history but about encouraging a more informed and critical evaluation of the sources and evidence. This helps to promote a deeper understanding of the past and its complexities, rather than relying on simplistic or one-sided narratives.
Comments
Post a Comment