To start the discussion on Marxism, Leninism, or Communism generally, I'll begin with my counterarguments. To counter the claim that Communism hasn't ever succeeded, I'd like to mention how Communism hasn't fully been realized, and existing examples can more accurately be described as authoritarian socialism. Also, something noteworthy, Communist regimes face external pressures. These pressures were economic sanctions and military interventions, which hindered their ability to thrive and succeed. While Marxism and Leninism may be a hundred years old, these ideals are rapidly and constantly evolving. These theories adapt and grow as time progresses. This being mentioned, past failures do not define the evolving ideas of Communism. While Communism was never fully installed into a government, I'd like to point to social achievements in areas like health care, education, and employment during certain communist regimes as indicators of success, even if overall goals were not fully met. To combat the argument facing the death toll of Communist Regimes such as the Soviet Union, something often overlooked is the Dieseses and Famine of the time. To blame the Soviet Union for these deaths would be equal to blaming Ireland for their Potato Famine. Most of the Soviet Union's death toll is calculated from the idea that these genocides were man-made by Joseph Stalin's government to persecute the Kulak. But, as V. I. Lenin said, "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten themselves during famines", declaring revolution against them. As a central Communist ideal is to revolt against the rich, it is no shocker they were prosecuted. Rich, wealthy, Bourgeoisie farmers have been targets for Communists since the creation of the Communist Manifesto, as they pose a threat to the collectivization of agriculture. The reason for this was to prevent the widespread reliance on corporation businesses. Again, as I stated before, This may be more accurately described as authoritarian socialism rather than Communism. And if we are to blame Communism and the Soviet Union for this, we are to blame America for also partaking in Social Engineering(See Office of War Information (OWI) or Committee on Public Information (CPI) records for more information). To criticize Communism for deaths, we are also to blame America for racial injustices and a civil rights imbalance, which is still prominent.
The faces behind communism are most widely known as Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao. While these are two prominent and well-known figures of communist chronology, it’s crucial to understand that these individuals do not solely represent communist ideals. While I have my own opinions and thoughts on the two (I will mention these later) the unlettered may view them as Dictators. Western media has frequently skewed statistics, percentages, and casualty figures, leading to a distorted perception of their legacies. To properly delve into Stalin, you must first understand that his rise to power was deeply intertwined with the socio-economic conditions of early 20th-century Russia. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 set the stage for radical change amid the chaos of World War I and the subsequent Russian Civil War. During this tumultuous time, Stalin rose as a key figure within the Communist Party, eventually integrating his power in the years following Lenin’s death. Stalin's policies, specifically the Five Year Plans, and collectivization, aimed to transform the Soviet Union from a mainly agrarian society into an industrial powerhouse. While these endeavors did lead to significant progress in industrial production, they came at an immense human cost. Stalin's regime is known for its extensive use of terror to consolidate power. The Great Purge, for example, sought to eliminate believed political enemies within the Communist Party and beyond. This was justified by the state as necessary to protect the revolution and the Soviet Union from internal and external threats, even though it resulted in the execution and imprisonment of millions. Stalin's policies were often justified through a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint, emphasizing the need to defend socialism against capitalist encroachment. The death toll can also be analyzed in the context of World War II. Stalin's leadership during the war, while brutal, was aimed at defending the Soviet state against Nazi aggression. The sacrifices made during this time were sometimes rationalized as part of the struggle for survival and victory over fascism. The pervasive atmosphere of fear established by Stalin's regime served as a means of maintaining control over the populace. While this resulted in suffering, it was a method to ensure stability and achieve his vision for the Soviet Union.
While I believe that people who are self-proclaimed Centrists aren't good, I believe a Centristic government is crucial. On the topic of Centristic Individuals, a specific quote by Elie Wiesel “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Centralism, Neutrality, and Bystandings, all do nothing to protect or defend the victims. Staying uninvolved, uninformed, and unbiased only empowers the oppressor further. It is our respective duty to educate ourselves and have our own biases and opinions. However, where this splits is where a Vanguard Party emerges. A Vanguard party commits to an active engagement stance on pressing issues, rather than remaining biased and divided. Ultimately, the goal is to create a dynamic political atmosphere where various viewpoints can coexist, but where advocacy for justice takes precedence over complacency. By nurturing this environment, we ensure that the fight against oppression continues not just in the halls of power, but within every society, led by a committed and informed citizenry. In this way, we move beyond mere Centralism to a more engaged and responsive governance that prioritizes the well-being of all individuals. The splitting difference between a centrist individual, and a centrist government, is where the government's dependency on the individuals. One of the primary failings of centrism is its tendency to dilute revolutionary ideals. In its quest for accord, a centrist approach can inadvertently support existing power networks that favor the elite, sidelining the legitimate grievances of the working class. As I mentioned earlier, centrism contributes to a dangerous ambiguity in political alignment, making it harder to hold people in power accountable. The centrist's approach to "being unbiased" inadvertently supports existing power structures that favor the bourgeois.
I insist that Marx's analysis has "nothing to do" with morality because Marx himself is careful to avoid making moral arguments. He's not trying to say capitalism is morally wrong, though he certainly thought so because he's instead trying to analyze it in terms of its material contradictions and whatnot. If you do that well enough, you get to say capitalism is doomed to end and bound to change into socialism without needing to invoke the idea that it should happen on moral grounds, since that isn't an argument to the stuffy academics Marx associated with. Solidarity should be understood as uniting people against oppression and exploitation. It's about collective action for social change, not violence against individuals or groups. Fostering solidarity involves building alliances and encouraging dialogue, rather than resorting to lethal means. At the heart of Marxism-Leninism ideals is the concept of class struggle. Focusing too heavily on moral arguments can diverge the main idea from the material conditions that drive historical change. Moralism often focuses on individual behavior rather than on systematic issues, which fails to address the causes of inequality and exploitation. Morality can be deeply subjective by being constructed in Religion, Culture, or upbringing. This subjectivity can lead to conflicts within the movement about what is “right” or “wrong” which can diverge the main idea of solidarity. When moral arguments dominate a discussion, it can dilute the urgency of the political struggle. Instead of mobilizing for systematic change, discussions may become bogged in moral debates that do not lead to tangible action. This can hinder revolutionary progress and demotivate supporters. While Marxists must engage ethically with the world, it’s crucial to understand that the ultimate goal is revolutionary change rather than moral purity. Actions taken in the name of revolution may not always resonate with conventional moral standards, but they can be necessary for achieving liberatory objectives. Actions taken in the name of revolution may not always resonate with traditional moral standards, but they can be necessary for achieving liberatory objectives. When a government or leadership is authoritarian, they may not respond to peaceful protests or calls for reform. Rather they might view these movements as threats and suppress them harshly, which can lead to escalation and, unfortunately, violence. Records have shown that some revolutions that began peacefully did not accomplish their goals without significant strife or bloodshed. While mentioning Historical Records, it would be unjust not to mention the nonviolent activists who were killed by their oppressors. (https://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs click here for just civil rights cases.) While pacifism and nonviolent resistance are powerful strategies that have had success in many contexts, they exist within a complex landscape of human experience where the struggle for justice and equality can lead to tragic outcomes. But, sadly, we come full circle and end up in another discussion of Bourgious Elites not giving a shit about the people. They care for the production, not for the proletariat's humanity. With their substantial wealth, the bourgeoisie can exert significant influence over political systems, often shaping policies in ways that protect their interests while neglecting those of the wider population. This, in return, leads to the continuous oppression and cycle of proletarian abuse. These instances, reveal why morality and moralism do not have their place in a revolution. I believe, that when people are exposed to the ideas of Marxism, and freeing the workers from their chains, the proletariat of the world will not oppose this unifying freedom. Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, or just generally Communism, aims to protect the workers. This is why Capitalistic America opposed the ideas of Communism, going as far as to kill 2-3 million Vietnam civilians, for having this opposing idea. As mentioned prior, the elite's substantial wealth allows them to morph and manipulate laws and politicians to promote anti-communist propaganda, leading to a general consensus that Communism is evil, when in actuality, the general idea is just for the Proletariat to have a voice, of which they deserve. The only possible opposers to this would be the callous bourgeoisie, also known as the 1% or elites. The people of the world understand, as this is not a foreign concept.