Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Leonid Kravchuk, The Communist That Became The President Of Independent Ukraine #ukraine" video.

6:36 to be frank, I wouldn't be surprised someone who understood Lenin so well, would become a turncoat. For a number of plausible reasons. Two best and most likely. 1. He understood Lenin not just at his best, but at his worst and what his ideas did to the Soviet Union and Ukraine. Stalin was basically the worst of Lenin cranked to 11 for example, but it started with Lenin. 2. He was an Opportunist, similar to Lenin. This will take a bit of explaining but... Lenin had a dark side, few seem to care to see definitely his religious followers. Lenin turned on most of the less extreme Socialist in Russia and at times even had many of them killed. Despite all the preaching Lenin did, books he wrote, it's hard to believe he was actually sincere about any of it once he was in a position of power. Best example is when he pretty much officially split the idea of Socialism and Communism. Prior to Lenin they were pretty much synonyms of each other in the Marxist camp. Lenin split the terms, as an excuse on why the USSR was not the Anarchist anti "State" society that Marx promised, but a State heavy Bureaucracy. So he claimed "This is Socialism, not Communism, we haven't reached Communism yet." Very well knowing they'd never not be a State Bureaucracy, ie he lied. Willingly.
7
@UshankaShow Well I would argue the issue is, Russia was the right place. Issue for a country like France/Germany is they lack raw material/resources and rely entirely on foreign trade for Iron, Coal, Gas, and Grain. Meaning without those resources such a socialist system was next to impossible without trade with outside Markets. Which if you want a system that operates without capital accumulation, it would be very difficult to get the capital to pay for those foreign materials. Russia had it all, just Russia didn't have the industrial capacity at the time to capitalize on it. Which is why Stalin was so brutal trying to force that industrialization upon Russia. It's also the main reason Hitler invaded the USSR, Grain, and Oil for example, he had Iron, and access to Coal. He wanted to cut Germany off from the J**ish Capitalist/Marxist world order as he viewed it. To do that would require material he didn't have, Russia what he needed, with the added bonus in his eyes of getting rid of the Bolsheviks. If you tried to make a Socialist or Communist country in Germany or France, you'd run into the same problem Hitler had.. no resources, and absolute reliance on foreign material, meaning your socialist state would end up being reliant entirely on foreign markets to survive.
4
@Asptuber Soviet Union barely survived and in the end didn't. Were as the former Russian Empire which the Soviets inherited had resources she had to deal with the combination of size and lack of industrializatiom. Socialism becomes more difficult also, the larger the community becomes. Because of the increased bureaucracy that comes with it. I believe Russia was the best place for Socialism to work but it still had massive hurdles to overcome. At horrific cost to the people of Eastern European. Honestly I personally just don't think Socialism in the sense Socialist want it to be will ever be practical. Every part of the world has completely different challenges it would have to overcome and that is if it can survive the corruption of those who end up ruling it. I mean name one Socialist regime that didn't turn into a perversion of the promise Socialist made?
1
@aranos6269 Not saying they're not. I'm very anti Socialist an ideology that strips people of their liberty for the promise of equality has repeatedly failed to uphold said promise. Though I believe people should've still hold a form of Civic Duty to their fellow man. Even Bakunin considered Marxism to be a Cult of the State, and Marxism is the backbone of nearly all Socialism today. Even Social Democracy. In all it's promises of Libertarianism, Socialism always seems to come down to State Control. So regardless what is preached by Socialist. Socialism in practice is what critics of it have claimed for a century. State Control over almost every aspect of it's citizen's lives.
1
@warreneckels4945 Tragically for Marx his ideas do not really factor into real world application. Which is why I often tell people there are pretty much two kinds of Socialist. Dreamers, and Pragmatist. Dreamers being those who believe in People like Marx as if it's a religion. Then Pragmatist people who actually understand the flaws inherent in socialist doctrine and try to take a more practical approach, because there are serious issues within socialism. Best example is, Economic Liberalism (ie Capitalism) which leads to greater efficiency, reduced cost, and greater abundance. Which in turn = greater prosperity for the Working Class, and the Poor. So no Revolution. Revolutionary Socialist for almost two hundred years keep spouting it's the dying Days of Capitalism, but then Capitalism never dies, I wonder why? Perhaps because Capitalism isn't actually in crisis as they believe. In fact most of the Violent Revolution that happens in the 1920s was entirely the result of impoverishment brought about by WWI, not Capitalism itself, public States made the people poor by throwing away capital to wage war at the expense of the people. So ironically people were revolting as a result of the public sector states, not the private sector economy the state rides on. Pragmatist understand this. Which is why Social Democracy is more popular than Socialism itself. Even the Democratic Party of America is technically a Social Democratic Party even if they don't openly admit it. Social Democratic movements believe you can reform the Capitalist system, and turn it into a Welfare State, with a Capitalist Economy to pay for Social Welfare. It sprouted originally from the Marxist movement when Marxism kept failing in Practice in the 19th Century. Many Marxist eventually split from Marxism and started forming their own socialist movements, including Social Democracy and Syndicalism, among many others.
1