So Russians shocked the world in 1917, ending a long standing and often brutal regime. Since that time, other political "innovators" came along like Mao in China, Castro and Guevara in Cuba (and elsewhere), and a long list of others. Now there may be some remnants of the Communist era that long for those days of Communist leadership and power. Some say it worked.
Marshall Tito of the former Yugoslavia was hailed as a great Communist leader. Perhaps he may have been the greatest, or fairest. At least a few former Yugoslavs I know think he did well, and his nation was great.
Others like the Soviet Stalin, Chinese Mao, Vietnamese Ho Chi Minh, and others, were less than pleasant in the leadership of their people. But that is from the Western point of view.
To Chinese, or to what seems like most of them even in the 21st century, Mao Tse-Tung was a courageous and successful Chairman of their party (of the People), their government. Despite some really disastrous events and "leaps", he is still considered a great Chinese patriot.
Most Westerners cannot fathom the human suffering that occurred under him.
But that, again, is a debate between the East and the West.
Perhaps nowadays (2014) the dialectic is more North and South. Rich and poor. Developed versus developing.
Communists, based on the writings of Marx and other ideologues, tried to eliminate God and religion from the advanced and better state of humanity.
Meanwhile, modern and traditional religions, including my own, have had communities that flourished with communitarian societies that depended on faith-based values and rules that helped people, under free governments, to allow individuals, families, towns or regions thrive or cope among their trials.
Hillary Clinton garnered headlines when she made the famous quote that it "takes a village".
I concur. It does take a village to help everyone thrive and flourish.
Checks, balances, freedom, values, rules, community.
Communism? A failed attempt.
I wonder what the rulers of Ukraine who are responsible for those killed in Kiev are thinking.
Are they Communist ideologues? Are they more fascist? Are they simply technocrats? Or worse? Thugs?
They could use some more freedom and values, and in my opinion, community.
More religion, less demagoguery. To some, they may appear as the same thing.
I would like to think we can understand the difference.
Blog it, EMC.
Marshall Tito of the former Yugoslavia was hailed as a great Communist leader. Perhaps he may have been the greatest, or fairest. At least a few former Yugoslavs I know think he did well, and his nation was great.
Others like the Soviet Stalin, Chinese Mao, Vietnamese Ho Chi Minh, and others, were less than pleasant in the leadership of their people. But that is from the Western point of view.
To Chinese, or to what seems like most of them even in the 21st century, Mao Tse-Tung was a courageous and successful Chairman of their party (of the People), their government. Despite some really disastrous events and "leaps", he is still considered a great Chinese patriot.
Most Westerners cannot fathom the human suffering that occurred under him.
But that, again, is a debate between the East and the West.
Perhaps nowadays (2014) the dialectic is more North and South. Rich and poor. Developed versus developing.
Communists, based on the writings of Marx and other ideologues, tried to eliminate God and religion from the advanced and better state of humanity.
Meanwhile, modern and traditional religions, including my own, have had communities that flourished with communitarian societies that depended on faith-based values and rules that helped people, under free governments, to allow individuals, families, towns or regions thrive or cope among their trials.
Hillary Clinton garnered headlines when she made the famous quote that it "takes a village".
I concur. It does take a village to help everyone thrive and flourish.
Checks, balances, freedom, values, rules, community.
Communism? A failed attempt.
I wonder what the rulers of Ukraine who are responsible for those killed in Kiev are thinking.
Are they Communist ideologues? Are they more fascist? Are they simply technocrats? Or worse? Thugs?
They could use some more freedom and values, and in my opinion, community.
More religion, less demagoguery. To some, they may appear as the same thing.
I would like to think we can understand the difference.
Blog it, EMC.
No comments:
Post a Comment