- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
geteilt von: https://lemmy.ml/post/28879338
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28879290
You must log in or register to comment.
This reads as a quote against freedom of the press, which is also likely the original intention of the author, given what happened later.
I would not consider this inspiring whatsoever.
And no, that doesnt mean that I think the current system implements freedom of the press.
Isn’t that still better than only a single state-controlled media?
Of course, because only those two very specific options can/will/do exist.
What options did Lenin have in mind for an authoritarian communist state?
None. The goal was a classless, stateless society. The exact opposite of an authoritarian state.
He was a vanguard single party advocate.
And how did that turn out?
That was never a goal. The only real goal of a communist is genocide.
This goal almost immediately collapsed when he found out not everyone agreed with him. Then he became an authoritarian so clearly he didn’t think they were opposites.
Yes it is.
The point you’re evading is that having the press controlled by six oligarchs also isnt a free press.
I’m not talking at all about free presses. The Soviet Union didn’t have a free press and was controlled by 1 entity instead of 6 - which is much worse - which was my point I was trying to make.
Which further options have you been taught of?
Well, one option at most, seems the worst.
Where you don’t elect the editor?
Are you talking about Soviet elections?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union?wprov=sfla1
To quote a guy is not the same as to subscribe to all of his actions.
Pre-Lenin Russia was really fucked, but Lenin didn’t end wealth inequality, just changed who had the wealth.
People insisting he was perfect and he can’t be criticized will never stop reminding me of modern American neoliberals.
Like, yeah Karen. Lenin was better than the Tzar, but that doesn’t mean we can’t ask for any more progress over 200 fucking years.
But to get back on topic of press freedoms:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Soviet_Union
… but Lenin didn’t end wealth inequality, just changed who had the wealth.
It is unfair to lay that on Lenin, as it was Stalin that consolidated and bureaucratized soviet government against Lenin’s wishes as Lenin fell ill. While Bolsheviks most certainly did loot and pillage like bandits and barbarians during both the revolution and civil war, that was never a part of Lenin’s vision or goals. See Lenin’s Testament, which he essentially dictated from his death bed in a last ditch attempt to rescue his vision from Stalin’s dictatorial takeover. Unfortunately, Stalin suppressed the testament and it would not be seen again until years after Lenin’s death… and then only privately among party elite.
Interesting, but he did set the precedent of using state power to enforce his vision even when the people disagreed. This eventually snowballed into Stalin which was nowhere near what Lenin wanted, but when you use power like that bad actors will take over eventually and ultimately he is still to blame for that.
This is rich lol, coming from one of the most totalitarian leaders russia has ever had
https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/
You can correctly criticize a system without implementing a better version yourself. It is, somehow, possible.
I do wonder where he would rank in a top ten authoritarian Russian leaders, however, that leaderboard is a lot more competitive than we’re pretending.
Do the Khans count? Is there a per capita adjustment?
Right after the Czar. Literally.
