| </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Vercingetorix,)
Think about it. These were the direct results of attempts at Communism. It was too easily hijacked, and any attempt to prove the perfection of Communism fails because of this ease.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>To be a pedant, that proves that the implementation was flawed, not the theory; tho I'm inclined to believe the theory was flawed, too (especially in the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' part). I'd have to say that the implementation was flawed in that it called for a very heightened state of nationalism as a driving force for the 'people,' and that in doing so dissent was crushed (as it always is in the face of patriotism). Such a system lent itself to iron-fisted rulers (which both Russia and China had a very long history of before Communism came in. It might be a Russo-Chinese thing) and downplayed what I believe to be the true method of leadership in a socialist state: Democracy.
This isn't to say that Communism called for a dictator or a tyrant. It most certainly didn't. But it didn't leave a strong enough base for defending representative committees, nor electable and accountable leaders. It was to be borne from Capitalis, and Capitalism lent itself to such leadership - albeit a corrupt form of it - because it came about as competition to the throne as a more permeable class system that fostered participation. The system would have been in place and a precedent established had Russia followed that route. You cannot go from a dictatorial empire to a system that is weak in the face of dictators.
. . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |