4 ms·
You mean Marxist-Leninists, Marxism in and of itself doesn't require violent revolution. The real irony is that if governments are rational actors, and power i
by cmdkeen 12y ago
You mean Marxist-Leninists, Marxism in and of itself doesn't require violent revolution.
The real irony is that if governments are rational actors, and power is in their best interest, then the Leninist insistence on the need for proletariat dictatorship as a step to true Communism (where the government isn't needed) is undermined by the rationale that the government won't give up power.
Which is of course what has happened with every state that has tried it. Marxist Communism on a state level has never been reached, merely various forms of socialist dictatorship that claim to be working towards it.
- icebraining 12y ago> You mean Marxist-Leninists, Marxism in and of itself doesn't require violent revolution. Well, maybe not require, but In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. Marx/Engels -- Manifesto of the Communist Party