"Democracy is when the government oppresses people, and the more people it oppresses, the more democratic it is! And when it oppresses a whole lot of people, then it's a direct democracy (like ancient Athens)!"
There is an argument to be made that everyone after Lenin doesn't deserve to be there (which is not to say I endorse such a thing)
Like if someone excluded Stalin, I'd be up in arms but somewhat understanding, Mao is 50/50. Still, to actually get to any of them at this point, you would need extraordinary contributions to both theory and praxis. Which I'm not sure we'll get for some time
But it's funny they include Hegel, since he was an idealist. Yes, he used dialectics, but you don't have to believe in them to actually be a socialist. Being a materialist is much more important, which Hegel was clearly not.
This type of shit right here is the exact reason why I've come to believe the revolution is never ever going to come to America
It's just so frustrating watching these spineless liberals have all the fucking facts, evidence, lived experience, and yet the best they can come up with are empty moral platitudes. Or even worse, return to monke. "Oh but I don't like the ending because it's too real!!", yes, that's the fucking point you dipshit, you can't run away from exploitation. And that line about "realities of economics" is the cherry on top of the shit heap.
Although I've somewhat come to enjoy these liberals wrestling with their contradictions and falling flat on their faces, I must admit lol
I think when comparing the situation from WWI Russia and this one the problem we run into is that the WWI scenario was on a much more even keel in terms of the relative power of the imperialist alliances than it is now. In WWI, if Germany or Russia lost, the balance of power was such that they could most certainly not be fully subjugated to the other side. In the modern day scenario however, they west would be more than capable of economically subjugating Russia.
That is the reason that revolutionary defeatism was the right strategy at the time. This time however, I think it would actually be best to instead take the complete opposite approach. It is now in fact paramount to take the materialistically correct position and instead acknowledge how the liberals in both Russia and Iran are effectively impeding the resistance against imperialism via their own personal interest of retaining power or the fact that even in foreign policy they are hedging their bets instead of uncompromisingly allying with China. In that respect, the communist parties should actively take the position that the only way of actually securing the country not just from outside but from the inside as well, is to socialize the means of production in the hands of the state, which will be the only entity capable of actually utilizing it to not only secure the positions of the working people, but of maximizing security by any means necessary.
It's funny because if anything, this would benefit the industrial capitalist greatly. The merchant doesn't get to sink his teeth into his rate of profit nearly as much, whilst the industrialist is able to realize more of his commodities.
"Democracy is when the government oppresses people, and the more people it oppresses, the more democratic it is! And when it oppresses a whole lot of people, then it's a direct democracy (like ancient Athens)!"