Search Results
7/1/2025, 11:51:26 PM
>>17805003
>Why did communism tend towards having massive retards running the country?
First of all this isn't necessarily true. It's an exaggeration in your head and a product of hostile state propaganda. Like Mao might have been erratic but he wasn't really a "massive retard." More like one of China's most successful warlords/Imperial Dynasty founders.
But anyway
1. "Communism," that is, governments in the fashion of the Soviet Union (often sponsored by) started out broken - thanks to Stalin. It was never supposed to be a dictatorship and he wasn't selected as a leader, let alone a supreme unquestioned one. He was just the trickiest of the power seekers. Stalin never defined himself as "King" or "President" nor set up coherent rules for a successor beyond himself, so the USSR ended up having no system of formal high leadership.
Most "Communist" states followed this and had one ill defined dictator and succession via internal coups, not democracy. Usually the revolutionary founder. It should be noted most "Communists" states were never in their history democratic and had no cultural experience with it. Anyway though: leadership to the "strongest" or those who desire it the most and manage to stab the competition in the back.
2. "Communism" is generally comes in a point of historical drama and also tends to be reinventing the wheel. Stable wealthy developed nations do not generally have radical socialist revolts. And there's no drawing on centuries of evolved stability from tradition. It's usually when a society is in a radical mass movement where something really bad or wild happens. E.g. the Great Leap Forward, The later phase of the French Revolution, Baron Ungern, the emptying of all cities by the Khmer Rouge. This is where individual dictator personalities really start to shine for good or ill, usually for ill.
>Why did communism tend towards having massive retards running the country?
First of all this isn't necessarily true. It's an exaggeration in your head and a product of hostile state propaganda. Like Mao might have been erratic but he wasn't really a "massive retard." More like one of China's most successful warlords/Imperial Dynasty founders.
But anyway
1. "Communism," that is, governments in the fashion of the Soviet Union (often sponsored by) started out broken - thanks to Stalin. It was never supposed to be a dictatorship and he wasn't selected as a leader, let alone a supreme unquestioned one. He was just the trickiest of the power seekers. Stalin never defined himself as "King" or "President" nor set up coherent rules for a successor beyond himself, so the USSR ended up having no system of formal high leadership.
Most "Communist" states followed this and had one ill defined dictator and succession via internal coups, not democracy. Usually the revolutionary founder. It should be noted most "Communists" states were never in their history democratic and had no cultural experience with it. Anyway though: leadership to the "strongest" or those who desire it the most and manage to stab the competition in the back.
2. "Communism" is generally comes in a point of historical drama and also tends to be reinventing the wheel. Stable wealthy developed nations do not generally have radical socialist revolts. And there's no drawing on centuries of evolved stability from tradition. It's usually when a society is in a radical mass movement where something really bad or wild happens. E.g. the Great Leap Forward, The later phase of the French Revolution, Baron Ungern, the emptying of all cities by the Khmer Rouge. This is where individual dictator personalities really start to shine for good or ill, usually for ill.
6/18/2025, 3:29:32 AM
Page 1