View Full Version : The (reletively) good Communist leaders.
11-17-2004, 05:03 PM
My favorite Marxist leader of all time was Dubcek, the leader of Communist Czechoslovakia. He initiated the Prague Spring, which was the best thing to happen to Soviet style socialism, and actually managed to maintain a socialist state where people are allowed to voice their concerns and say a say in what goes on in their government. Dubcek completely ended state censorship of literature and released thousands of political prisoners. He called it "socialism with a human face." Unfortunately, the Soviet bureaucrats couldn't deal with any sort of democracy and sent in their tanks to crush the Prague Spring and revert the country back to an oppressive dictatorship. Dubcek later became a democratic socialist and was the elected president of Slovakia.
I also like Tito alot, he managed to be independent of the soviet union and allow to reletive amount of freedom to his people. Fidel Castro was also pretty cool - he does imprison desenters, but many less then alot of American allies, and he's actually kept his revolution alive and didn't corrupt it like China.
People like Dubcek are good examples about how Marxism is actually a humanistic ideology, and nutbals like Stalin, Mao and WHeelchair man should be able to give it a bad name.
11-17-2004, 08:42 PM
The question is, are there any communist leaders that are absolutely (not relatively) good? The same could be said for any system, of course.
11-18-2004, 12:38 AM
Personally I have a lot of respect for Walter Ulbricht (this is before the Wall right now), he sent Beriya packing when Beriya had come to organize a purge in DDR.
Fidel is cool as hell. Allende I can't believe was forgotten. I'll say Mao and Lenin knowing I'm on my own with those two. In a way you could argue for Hugo Chavez, I am satisfied with what he's doing.
W.E.B. Du Bois and Huey P. Newton kick ass. (Communist Leaders inside American).
And that's all I can think of for now.
11-18-2004, 01:33 AM
11-19-2004, 02:38 AM
Allende wasn't a communist, he was a democratic socialist with marxist leaning. Every developement he made for Chile was done within democratic process, not violent revolution. Hugo Chavez is not a real communist either - that would be like saying Robert Mugabe is a communist. These are just leaders who refer to themselves as socialists but their policies do not live up to the name. Fidel would be cool if he'd only release all those prisoners of conscience.
The Cheshire Cat
11-19-2004, 09:14 AM
I'm not sure if you could count Allende anyway, because he was overthrown by a military coup pretty soon after he took office, so it's difficult to say exactly what he would have done.
11-19-2004, 10:08 AM
Allende considered himself a Marxist, and I have seen nothing to prove otherwise. (Revolution through election is not un-Marxist.) Chavez is definitely a socialist, whether Marxist or not, I have not read enough about him to say. However I do think he is a good leader, and hardly comparable to Robert Mugabe. Who did claim to be a socialist leader at one point (or at least his party did.)
11-19-2004, 10:16 AM
whos gonna join me :) :)
11-19-2004, 10:23 AM
Spam somewhere else child.
11-20-2004, 01:54 AM
Allende was a leader in a system in which he had to convince his people that socialism is the way to go because they had the option of voting right wing capitalists into office if he didn't meet their needs. This is inherently anti Communist, since leaders of communist revolutions ruled one party dictatorships and barred the people from having any way to challenge them.
11-20-2004, 03:03 AM
Now I believe you are just trying to provoke me with your false propaganda.
Either way, I will state that you are inherently incorrect in your theoretical knowledge.
The Cheshire Cat
11-20-2004, 03:41 PM
I don't even like communism, but I'll still say that's not what communism is. Communism in theory and the way communism has been put into practice are two very different things.
Actually a one-man dictatorship is inherently anti-communist. A communist dictatorship is a dictarship that uses communist economic ideas, it's not actually communism.
11-20-2004, 03:58 PM
Is that a form of Norwegian in your signature?
Even Engels talked about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Lenin led the party at the time, however most memoirs from the time say that he often listened to the suggestions of those around him. Although that did not mean he would not engage in debate as well however.
However, I agree. Communism has a tendency to fall under the leadership of one leader. Even Mao realized this and tried to prevent.
Lenin certainly never liked pomp and celebration and whatnot.
However, in theory, the revolution should be guided by a vanguard party. That is in theory, but can be interpreted differently in practice, since this obviously led to many problems and eventually the creation of a new class.
The Cheshire Cat
11-20-2004, 04:43 PM
Well, the way I meant it was that they aren't supposed to form dictatorships so that no one will oppose them. That's what ends up happening, but that's probably not what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat (Which is supposed to be a temporary phase anyway). What the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be is the many ruling over the few (Since the Proletariat made up about 90% of the population at the time), which was meant to destroy the system of having a small, elite party ruling over the rest of the population - In the case of communism, that would be the bourgeoise.
(Yeah, it's Norweigian. It's a quote from a song by Kaizer's Orchestra. I'm not Norweigian in any way, but I have weird taste in music for a North American).
11-20-2004, 05:24 PM
So are you trying to tell me what Karl Marx meant by Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
Let me draw you a little sketch on the marxist theory on democracy. Marxists see modern democracy, as a bourgeois democracy, or basically a state in which the bourgeois control and manipulate the population. They do this since they own the media, administer the education system and basically own society. This is most obvious in America where the working class has been at a far worse position in the class struggle than their contemporaries in Western Europe.
This shows how Marxists view the state, as a tool of one class to oppress another class.
Now when a Marxist government takes power, it's goal is to consolidate the working class' interests. You can't expect Lenin to start having elections and whatnot in the middle of the civil war. And by the end he was already suffering from health problems.
Would I run a state the same way? Probably not, but during a civil war, in which foreign countries have sent their armies to intervene, etc. One needs to make decisions that will ensure the survival of the worker's state.
I can translate most of the signature for you, if you want.
The Cheshire Cat
11-20-2004, 06:03 PM
Oh, I already know what it says. The site I got the lyrics from has the translation underneath it.
11-21-2004, 12:36 AM
I don't think a ruling central committee made up almost entirely of the upper bourgeois not even allowing the proletriat a say in leaders or policies constitutes a "dictatorship of the prolitariat."
11-22-2004, 03:06 PM
Lenin is one of my favorites...
And not to forget Trotsky... Only too bad he got assassinated by that totalitairian prick Stalin....
11-22-2004, 07:56 PM
You critisize totalitarians but you like Lenin?
11-23-2004, 08:44 AM
Totalitarianism is a bourgeois buzzword created to loop the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany into one group.
11-23-2004, 08:56 AM
Haha, trick question! There have never been any even relatively decent communist leaders.
11-23-2004, 10:56 AM
finally. . . .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2016 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.