While I understand the idea you're talking about, I'm not sure Lenin is the best person to consider for an example of what the left should focus on. After all, Lenin's successor was Stalin and we know that Stalin is one of the world's worst monsters. Maybe only succeeded by Mao who similarly were focused on the poor or the rural poor as you put forward.
To point to one of my favourite people on the subject of Stalin, Stephen Kotkin, "During the run up to World War 2, Hitler used to receive intelligence reports about what's happening in the Soviet Union. The records of these reports and discussions survived the war. The notes from these meetings of Hitler were known to have Hitler say on numerous occasions, 'I'm sorry, Stalin did what? That's crazy.' And that's how you know how crazy Stalin was. Hitler thought he had crazy ideas."
And Lenin created Stalin. So maybe let's not hold up Lenin as the best example.
Andrew, I didn't know that about Hitler and Stalin. Even though the US government sided with Stalin, he turned out to be a brutal mass murdering dictator.
Yes, the US government and other Western countries allied with Stalin over Hitler because they had the view that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Which is potentially beneficial but ultimately pragmatic in nature.
I also have recently heard that apparently the allied forces had plans in place for the possibility that if they had to for whatever reason, they would be willing to turn on Stalin and the Soviets and ally with Germany in World War 2 in order to defeat Russia. I have less confidence in the historical accuracy of this, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Lenin was not a good guy on his own either. I read the Gulag Archipelago which chronicles the history of the Soviet Union and Lenin’s record isn’t good either. Firstly, he wanted to destroy the Tzarists because it was “terrible” and tried to overthrow the government several times before becoming successful and each time the Tzarists were very nice to him. His punishment for trying to overthrow the government was to be put under house arrest and provided everything he wanted so he could write endlessly about how bad the system was and how it needed to be overthrown.
Secondly, it’s fairly well documented that after the October revolution, he almost immediately drew up plans to create the Gulag system for his enemies. By December of the same year of the revolution, he had people putting together the prison system that was so infamous for destroying so many lives.
We're really talking about human nature, and what systems humans can operate without causing too much grief. Nuclear power? Probably best if it never was discovered. Viral gain-of-function research? Same. AI? Same. Humans have all these great ideas but our nature is too selfish for us to use them properly. Give the group at the top all the resources because the people down below don't really know what's good for them? Hasn't worked through history, due to human nature. Doesn't turn out like the poor thought it would. Let people compete for the best ideas in the marketplace & reward them accordingly? Billions of consumer decisions every day send economic votes upward, to heads of corporations, to improve their product, or go out of business. Now, even capitalism can go too far. Entities that get too powerful should be broken up by anti-trust legislation. But when it comes to human nature, the best we can do is the lesser of numerous evils.
Ronald, I think you make a good point. There are several factors that go into political and social decisions in America, not just money. The desire for money and resources and who owns them has always been a popular topic in American history. However, people will decide for themselves what interests them, regardless of whether it's considered progressive or not.
I think you have an interesting analysis on the class structures involved during the history and present times of Socialism and Communism. One aspect that you didn't highlight is that in today's political and social life "culture wars" plays about as much impact as economic life. I think a lot of rural people are turned-off by the cultural changes proposed by Progressive Leftists and Socialists associated with the Democrat party.
Also, a rural person who owns a trailer and a few acres of land would be happier earning less money, rather than having a soul-sucking corporate ladder climbing career job. That's a hard sell to make to a rural person for them to want to give it up to be a Communist.
This doesn’t take into account that in rural areas even with less income, many are more autonomous and free than those in cities. People who make 40k a year in a small rural town are not peasants, blown around by circumstance, where someone making that in California may as well be.
Justin M., I agree with you. Not everything is measured by income in America nor the world. You could own 10 acres of land and a small shed to live in and have no money to your name;, yet still live a happy life. Some people are content with earning less money and having less wealth but have more time to go fishing and hunting. There are other people who choose to work a blue-collar job and punch out at the end of the day to spend more time with their family. Others choose to be very middle class with a "fulfilling career," and have no time for their family.
While I understand the idea you're talking about, I'm not sure Lenin is the best person to consider for an example of what the left should focus on. After all, Lenin's successor was Stalin and we know that Stalin is one of the world's worst monsters. Maybe only succeeded by Mao who similarly were focused on the poor or the rural poor as you put forward.
To point to one of my favourite people on the subject of Stalin, Stephen Kotkin, "During the run up to World War 2, Hitler used to receive intelligence reports about what's happening in the Soviet Union. The records of these reports and discussions survived the war. The notes from these meetings of Hitler were known to have Hitler say on numerous occasions, 'I'm sorry, Stalin did what? That's crazy.' And that's how you know how crazy Stalin was. Hitler thought he had crazy ideas."
And Lenin created Stalin. So maybe let's not hold up Lenin as the best example.
Andrew, I didn't know that about Hitler and Stalin. Even though the US government sided with Stalin, he turned out to be a brutal mass murdering dictator.
Yes, the US government and other Western countries allied with Stalin over Hitler because they had the view that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Which is potentially beneficial but ultimately pragmatic in nature.
I also have recently heard that apparently the allied forces had plans in place for the possibility that if they had to for whatever reason, they would be willing to turn on Stalin and the Soviets and ally with Germany in World War 2 in order to defeat Russia. I have less confidence in the historical accuracy of this, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Lenin was not a good guy on his own either. I read the Gulag Archipelago which chronicles the history of the Soviet Union and Lenin’s record isn’t good either. Firstly, he wanted to destroy the Tzarists because it was “terrible” and tried to overthrow the government several times before becoming successful and each time the Tzarists were very nice to him. His punishment for trying to overthrow the government was to be put under house arrest and provided everything he wanted so he could write endlessly about how bad the system was and how it needed to be overthrown.
Secondly, it’s fairly well documented that after the October revolution, he almost immediately drew up plans to create the Gulag system for his enemies. By December of the same year of the revolution, he had people putting together the prison system that was so infamous for destroying so many lives.
We're really talking about human nature, and what systems humans can operate without causing too much grief. Nuclear power? Probably best if it never was discovered. Viral gain-of-function research? Same. AI? Same. Humans have all these great ideas but our nature is too selfish for us to use them properly. Give the group at the top all the resources because the people down below don't really know what's good for them? Hasn't worked through history, due to human nature. Doesn't turn out like the poor thought it would. Let people compete for the best ideas in the marketplace & reward them accordingly? Billions of consumer decisions every day send economic votes upward, to heads of corporations, to improve their product, or go out of business. Now, even capitalism can go too far. Entities that get too powerful should be broken up by anti-trust legislation. But when it comes to human nature, the best we can do is the lesser of numerous evils.
Ronald, I think you make a good point. There are several factors that go into political and social decisions in America, not just money. The desire for money and resources and who owns them has always been a popular topic in American history. However, people will decide for themselves what interests them, regardless of whether it's considered progressive or not.
I think you have an interesting analysis on the class structures involved during the history and present times of Socialism and Communism. One aspect that you didn't highlight is that in today's political and social life "culture wars" plays about as much impact as economic life. I think a lot of rural people are turned-off by the cultural changes proposed by Progressive Leftists and Socialists associated with the Democrat party.
Also, a rural person who owns a trailer and a few acres of land would be happier earning less money, rather than having a soul-sucking corporate ladder climbing career job. That's a hard sell to make to a rural person for them to want to give it up to be a Communist.
This doesn’t take into account that in rural areas even with less income, many are more autonomous and free than those in cities. People who make 40k a year in a small rural town are not peasants, blown around by circumstance, where someone making that in California may as well be.
Justin M., I agree with you. Not everything is measured by income in America nor the world. You could own 10 acres of land and a small shed to live in and have no money to your name;, yet still live a happy life. Some people are content with earning less money and having less wealth but have more time to go fishing and hunting. There are other people who choose to work a blue-collar job and punch out at the end of the day to spend more time with their family. Others choose to be very middle class with a "fulfilling career," and have no time for their family.