Trotsky In Mexico Talks On Moscow Trials (1938)
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 04. 2014
- Unused / unissued material - no paperwork - dates unclear or unknown
Mexico.
A clapper board comes down in front of Leon Trotsky - communist thinker, writer and revolutionary.
Trotsky is holding a copy of his book 'Behind The Moscow Trial'. He stands in front of a brick wall. He apologises for his poor English and gives thanks to the Mexican people and their leader President Cardenas. He thanks Cardenas for allowing him to go from being held 'under lock and key' in Norway to being able to talk freely in Mexico. He says that Stalin's trial against him is based on false evidence. This is based on Stalinism - 'the irresponsible despotism of the bureaucracy over the people." He wants to show his personal files to an independent inquiry to prove himself innocent. He wants a counter trial.
A Mexican voice calls out cut.
N.B. Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico in August 1940. This film dates from between 1937 and then. For those with a Stalinist bent it is interesting to note the crowing of the cockerel in the background - shades of St Peter denying Christ perhaps.
Dupe Neg in UN 52 R.
FILM ID:558.21
A VIDEO FROM BRITISH PATHÉ. EXPLORE OUR ONLINE CHANNEL, BRITISH PATHÉ TV. IT'S FULL OF GREAT DOCUMENTARIES, FASCINATING INTERVIEWS, AND CLASSIC MOVIES. www.britishpathe.tv/
FOR LICENSING ENQUIRIES VISIT www.britishpathe.com/
British Pathé also represents the Reuters historical collection, which includes more than 136,000 items from the news agencies Gaumont Graphic (1910-1932), Empire News Bulletin (1926-1930), British Paramount (1931-1957), and Gaumont British (1934-1959), as well as Visnews content from 1957 to the end of 1984. All footage can be viewed on the British Pathé website. www.britishpathe.com/
We are very lucky to see a former Soviet Leader giving his own speech in English.
he wasn’t a soviet leader
@@ABPHistory Quite litterally so, actually. Trotsky was elected head of the Petrograd Soviet, the most militant worker's council at the time. I'm guessing you mean Trotsky never led the Soviet Union, which is correct of course, but technically you could absolutely call Trotsky a Soviet Leader.
@@Lucky-revolutionairy-anger Nitpicking
@@ABPHistory Nope you were just wrong, own it
@@Lucky-revolutionairy-angertrue and he was also soviet leader of the red army im pretty sure
The fact is; it was Trotsky who created those Soviet Kangaroo courts.
You know it is really MExico when you hear that rooster going off all the time in the background.
Lovely ambient, reminds of home
so true
truly a latino staple. lived next to a neighbor in the dr that had just a bunch of roosters and hens and they would go off at night
While he has still a very heavy accent his vocabulary is still better than mine and I have been speaking English for 25 years
tbf he was a very smart man, he did speak at least 5 languages
You are referring to his latin-rooted words, along with his obvious eloquence.
English is a hotpot of German words (close to your heart) and French/Latin (which by Norman conquest became 'high' and formal).
Master both for different settings, but use what you want.
The roosters in the background add a touch of surrealism.
…that’s not how I imagined him sounding at all.
Maybe he will show the beast on russian langguage
He has a nice gentle voice. Stalin funny enough has a very high pitched voice. Sounds nothing like I imagined
Excellent! Very interesting.
Great audio and video quality!!!
The man who drove Stalin crazy
Perhaps a million people, mostly loyal Communists, were killed because Trotsky annoyed Stalin. Trotsky was among the victims.
I think Stalin was a bigger headache for him
@@Happymoron11yeah Trotsky had to keep fleeing countries because stalin was obsessed with killing him
Good one 😂@@Happymoron11
While not a fan of Trotsky,his English was very good.
he was an international spy
¡Hahahaha! el gallo en el fondo.
Ramón Mercader downvoted this presentation.
Why is a Russian in Mexico speaking in English ..
The real question
Because most of the world speak English!!!
@@HipHopHymns Another ignorant. Most of the people weren't speaking English in 30's.
@@ozanareyiz7773 rubbish
@@ozanareyiz7773 Trotsky is speaking English so the majority of people who don't speak russian can understand and the world secondary language is English!!!
As soon as Lenin died Zinionev, Kamenev, Rykov and Trotsky should have formed an alliance to get rid of Stalin. That would have altered the course of history for the better. They didn't play their cards well!
That’s the problem with a state built on oppression and mass murder… the one who rises to the top is the one who is best at it. Stalin was a master of the game, willing to stack the corpses as high as needed in order to hold power. It was what Lenin did, but he hadn’t had nearly as much time to murder as Stalin ended up having.
If any of those men had “formed an alliance” they would have turned on each other, and eventually the best murderer would have ended up on top.
@@Evil0tto You have a point to be fair, they murdered to be in power but Stalin took it too far
So murder in pursuit of power is okay to a certain degree? Where is the line drawn? 50,000 a year during the Red Terror? But bringing it up to millions with an engineered famine and mass purges and that's where the line should be drawn? The moral depravity of the Russian Communists was apperent from the start.
@@adjeiboateng6720 Stalin took it far enough to build the military industrial complex and the military that defeated Hitler. Would anything less have sufficed?
The defeat of Hitler is the principle justification and excuse for all of Stalin's crimes.
It created the Red Army and the power behind the Red Army that was one of the great accomplishments of power in all of the 20th century. Hitler had very little to replace the losses he sustained in his war with the USSR, while Stalin raised millions of soldiers over and over again as one army after another was defeated ---until Hitler's army had been worn down by repeated victories.
That's really a remarkable strategy of war.
@@SeattlePioneer Military that defeated Hitler at the cost of 26 million lives of its own citizens which could have prevented had Stalin heeded to advise from intelligence. He didn't trust his own countrymen but thought Hitler was his ally. What a fool he was! Hitler defeated himself.
The Soviet military victory should be dedicated to the military men and citizens. They are the true heroes not that Georgian bull dog
Viva Trotsky!
О, вы из Англии?
I think most people grossly under-estimate the mans great mind and intelligence. Yes he had his faults, and did some wrong things, that is the same for every human. He was one of the very few people who really did - change the world.
It is possible, indeed quite common, for a person of great intellectual gifts to misuse them in the service of a bad cause. When one realizes that one is clever and has power to influence people, when one armed with an ideology which one believes is the salvation of mankind,
imagine how self-righteous one may become.
One may even believe that one is justified in ordering the deaths of millions.
Some accuse Christianity on grounds which I have just laid out, with the caveat that few consider Christians 'clever'. But don't we have an OBLIGATION to consider: Jesus' own teachings on violence, before passing
judgment??
He said that those who live by the sword will perish by the sword.
It is CLEAR that 'Christians' who acted violently, ostensibly in the interests of their faith but really in self-interest, were DISOBEDIENT to Christ's teachings.
On the other hand, Trotsky was OBEDIENT to the teachings of Marx as he understood and interpreted them. From 1917 onward he was solidly behind Lenin,
who equated morality with the interests of the Bolshevik party.
While Stalin's Terror was horrendous, we must not forget that the Red Terror imposed by the Bolsheviks
during the Civil War of 1918-21 was also horrendous.
I feel a little impatient with those who try to justify one
at the expense of the other. Both were bad, and though Putin is NOT a communist, he is celebrating a violent legacy by his disgusting war on Ukraine.
I thought that his natural gifts were well-known among those who remember him, but few remember him now because of his political marginalization.
I agree, the wrong he did was in accordance with human nature. As the book which he did not believe says:
'...All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.'
'The heart is deceitful beyond all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?'
I don't quite agree that only a few change the world,
though only the elite get credit for doing so.
Change is built into the system which God created.
Every one of us, in some modest way, is affecting how the whole system operates, just as the whole system affects how we operate. We are all historical actors in the great drama of which God is Sovereign Master.
Therefore it matters very much what we believe and how we act.
@@jesusislordsavior6343 based christian poster
He controlled the red army while Stalin was trying to take power. Makes me wonder why he didn’t just use it to over throw Stalin. That’s probably the only thing that would have stopped Stalin
Eh. Most people haven't committed mass murder. Kronstadt helped pave the path Stalin took. Trotsky was indeed extremely intelligent, but it still took him far too long to accept his old mentor Martov was right about everything.
I feel sorry for Trotsky and what happened to him.
Don't. He was a butcher. His decisions have resulted in directly attributable hundreds of thousands of deaths. He has gassed the peasants rebelling against theft of their food with chemical weapons left over from WW1, he has disbanded the army while German assault was underway (while Germany was literally on its last legs), he has given the order to massacre the actual Soviets in Kronstadt. And much, much more. The despotic machine of Stalin that he criticizes here was given its start by Trotsky and Lenin.
@make a wish Yeah he definitely saved them aye
@make a wish hahahahahah just not the ones he killed aye?
@make a wish sure, the life expectancy of his cronies
@make a wish He starved an entire nation
Didn’t he live in NYC?
We was given an invitation by US officials to explain what was the purpose of the CPA but after he said to break the chains of capitalism, his invitation was revoked.
@@Nyet_komrade it’s sad he was assassinated. Stalin was a very petty evil man
Trotzki crossed the Atlantic Ocean on the steamer "Monserat" departing from Spain.
He arrived in New York on 01/13/1917.
Other Trotzki deciples went over the Atlantic too.
One Trotzki group landed in Mexico and wrote the Constitution Queretaro for the Revolutionary 1917 Carranza government, giving Mexico the dubious distinction of being the first government in the world to adopt a Soviet type Constitution.
Book references:
The Plot Against The Church by Maurice Pinay.///The Plot Against Christianity by Elizabeth Dilling.///Onwards Christian Soldiers by Donald Day.///Judaism And The Vatican by Leon de Poncins.///Freemasonry And The Antichristian Movement by Cahill.///American Freemasonry And Catholic Education by Kenney.///The War Of Antichrist With The Church And Christian Civilization by Dillon.///The Occult War by Emanuel Malynski./// Beasts Of The Apocalypse by Olivia O'Grady.///Freemasonry by Leon de Poncins.///A Study In American Freemasonry by Arthur Preuss.///The Sign Of The Scorpion by Yuri Lina.///Architects Of Deception by Yuri Lina.///The Rulers Of Russia by Denis Fahey.///
Based Mexican constitution
my disillusionment with russia.
funnily enough censored by American publishers.
the censoring of this is really the most damning and resonates so much with the elder protocols
A capable author and propagandist, but a failure as a politician once he was no longer under the tutelage of Lenin.
Wow. Lenin was a massive failure if there ever was one. He thought that he alone was right. Even as a kid, when I began studying socialism in my pre-Christian days, I hated Lenin. He was so stubborn, dogmatic, and AMORAL all at once.
One of his maxims was, 'Promises are like pie, made to be broken.'
He liked classical music, but rejected it because he had no time for anything beautiful.
How can one have any kind of peaceful society with an ethic like that? Btw he was a MASS MURDERER who rejoiced in the death of his enemies.
One cannot build a JUST society on a foundation of NJUSTICE. Why do think America has such a violent history? Apply the same understanding to Communism, Fascism, etc. etc., you name it.
(Romans 3:23) 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.'
I am not justifying Trotsky by comparison with Lenin.
These guys were all ego-tripping over their own historical importance.
Trotsky switched from the Mensheviks to the Bolsheviks when he saw opportunity beckoning. He overcame his qualms of Marxist 'conscience' with his theory of 'permanent revolution'.
All the orthodox Marxists knew that Russia was not
'advanced' enough in capitalism to proceed to the 'socialist' stage of development. One had to FORCE the ideological agenda to justify the Bolshevik coup.
Nice work, Leon.
But you see, Marxist theory had already begun to collapse during the late 19th century, hence the Revisionist movement (Bernstein). Meanwhile wise legislators, some of them CHRISTIANS, were trying to lighten the oppression of workers. HOW?
By
-expanding the vote to include workingmen
-reducing working hours
-introducing social insurance (Germany, 1889)
-allowing unions to organize.
As for Marx, his views changed a bit toward the end of his life. He regarded the joint-stock company (ancestor of modern business corporations) as a
sort of collective enterprise, and rightly so, because
investors pooled their resources. Apparently he invested in some stocks himself.
Just saying. It's not a recommendation. .
Jesus says that 'not even when one has an abundance does one's life consist of his possessions.'
That is the PRIMARY problem with Marxists. Like so many of their capitalist enemies, they have a MATERIALIST analysis of history. Too many are unaware of powerful SPIRITUAL forces which determine the course of history. To understand hisotry better, we must take into account God's RIGHTEOUSNESS, or His POWER, or His JUDGMENT, or His MERCY.
Therefore Biblical history is still relevant to us today.
-
Trotsky lives
And how do you figure that? If he did not repent of his wickedness, his soul cannot be resting comfortably, though his body lies in a grave. Beyond this there is the 'lake of fire', the 'second death'.
Revelation 21:8 is just a few clicks away.
If you mean (and no doubt you do) that his ideology remains an inspiration today, name one Trotskyite group which has inserted itself into the international news cycle since the turn of the millenium.
People on the Left are not talking about class warfare anymore; they are talking about racial and sexual identity politics.
I almost wish that they would talk more about 'class', just not in Marxist terms, which are obsolete anyway.
The Bible has a lot to say against exploitation of the poor by the rich!!
(James 5:1, 5)
'Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries which are coming upon you.'
'You have lived luxuriously and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.'
Now that is a very serious accusation, isn't it??
Trotsky's lament in this video shows he well understood the despotism he was instrumental in establishing as commander of the Red Army during the Civil War that established the Soviet Union. And he didn't like it, as he laments, once it's power was aimed at him.
But he was instrumental in establishing that despotism, and that despotism has been repeated wherever Communism acquired power.
And he was instrumental in using that despotism while he commanded the Red Army, and as long as he held power under Lenin.
In short, for all his brilliance, he was a misguided fool, as are all Communists.
Your summary is excellent. I do not say this to butter you up. I really liked it.
The psalmist writes:
'The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." '
Of the three follies of Communism, which are theological, political, and economic, I think the theological one is the worst, because it is fundamental
to the others as well.
When Man anoints himself as a 'god', he commits
to all sorts of hare-brained schemes which sound good on paper but cannot work in practice.
@@jesusislordsavior6343 I am a practicing Christian as well, but I have to admit two things: 1) Trotsky promoted a democratic, international workers state, NOT despotic Stalinism. Trotsky's Red Army only DEFENDED the fledgling international revolution from the robber barons who tried to snuff it out. 2) Trotsky predicted that Capitalism, and the nation states upon which it is based, would, if left unchecked, destroy the world with war. Big Capital controls foreign policy. Since Trotsky, we've had WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. And for what? So you can put sugar in your cereal in the morning and wear a shirt that was made by a 12 yo girl in a sweat shop? Now, the imperialist nations of NATO are risking nuclear war in order to capture the vast resources of Russia and take them away from the new capitalist Russian oligarchs. They can afford to take the risk as they have deep underground bunkers to hide in; the working class doesn't. The people making THESE decisions are NOT Christians, and they do NOT deserve our support.
@@raymondsearch5289
I agree that Trotsky's ideals sound noble on the surface. But all systems of human devising are bound to fail, because of the corruption within Man himself.
In Scripture, God does not endorse any system or political ideology as good for all times and places, although His Word does express many precepts useful for governance.
The Tsar had ignored these precepts, which led to the demise of the monarchy. The Bolsheviks also ignored them.
In my view, Communism, especially Left Communism of the sort which Trotsky represents, is a species of Quasi-Messianic religion. But as you know, there is only one true Messiah, and it is NOT in OUR POWER to bring about His Kingdom.
(Psalm 2;6) 'Behold, I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain.'
You allege that the fledgling Soviet State was under assault by 'robber barons'. What do you call confiscation of peasant property by the Soviet State under War Communism, if not
ROBBERY?
Please bear in mind that the White forces did not consist solely of Monarchists. They included liberal Kadets and 'Right' Socialist Revolutionaries, who were leftists FYI.
As I recall, the SRs, who had a lot of peasant support, had won the elections to the Constituent Assembly of 1918, which the Bolsheviks dissolved because they did not like its composition.
I am not a fan of capitalism, although we have to endure it somehow, because it has become the prevailing system across the entire world.
Not only did Marxian predictions of its demise not come true, but States have propped it up in what they thought was the public interest.
Remember what Mr. Obama did in 2008 in the US.
Many of the problem areas which you identify in the world began to crumble because of Nationalism and Counterfeit Religion. There are forces OTHER THAN ECONOMIC which play powerful roles in shaping conflict.
I'm not saying that it should be this way; it simply is this way.
I think you're confused about the Ukraine conflict and NATO's role because you do not understand the TRAIUMA experienced by several East European nations at the hands of Russia, under BOTH Tsarism AND Communism.
The story really beings with the partition of Poland in 1795. Russia also engaged in punitive invasions of Hungary in 1849, 1944, and 1956.
This is only scratching the surface, I said nothing about the Baltic countries, Finland, Czechoslovakia, etc.
To some extent sectarian divides within Christianity are reflected in these dysfunctional relationships.
At any rate, Russia likes to regard Eastern Europe as its front yard. So how can one blame former Warsaw Pact nations seeking security under the umbrella of the EU and NATO?
Ukraine's situation is definitely more ambiguous, but suffice it to say (for I am running short of time), Putin has driven Ukrainians CLOSER to an alliance with the West through his extreme aggression, which is based on NATIONALIST SENTIMENT.
If you're a socialist, WHY do you defend Putin,
who made deals with oligarchs and is said to have amassed a fortune worth ca. 200 billion dollars? Of course he can say that it isn't his, that it belongs to the Russian State. But like Louis XIV of France, he thinks that he IS the State.
As for our support as Christians, I think the best we can do is to pray for an end to the conflict.
But peace without justice is not peace, and
though compromises may be necessary, Putin's vision of Ukraine as totally subject to his own will is not just.
The regimes you think of aren’t communist states. Communism (apart from small communes) has never been achieved. Communism is the moneyless, stateless, fully equal utopia that many Marxists hope to achieve.
The authoritarian socialist states are supposed to be transitional dictatorships of the proletariat and each one, each regime is different unique. Vietnam for example is completely different from China which in turn is very different to cuba. There are various different orthodox and revisionist socialists all with vastly different thought. It’s not simple. It’s not just authoritarian socialism. You will find libertarian, agrarian, Christian, arab, democratic
Forgive me if I accept Lenin, Stalin and Mao over your claims. Communism has been the system of slavery in the 20th century since it was established by Lenin.
Based trotsky
Based
how are you going to have a ted K pfp and be pro-communist?
trotsky and stalin wanted rapid, rapid industrialization and ted k was opposed to industrialization? or are you just dumb?
Russia managed without you Trotsky
True, he wasn't needed. But I would still call most of Russian history since 1917 a severe case of MISMANAGEMENT.
Come to think of it, there was a lot of mismanagement before 1917 as well.
Poor, suffering Russia. Except that many Russians have participated willingly in the crimes.
(Jeremiah 17:9) 'The heart is deceitful beyond all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?'
@@jesusislordsavior6343
Communism breathed life into Russia. It brought it into the forefront of the world. It defended Russia from the most destructive force to exist.
Today Russia is struggling without it.
@@RedFortress ]
Oh really? Stalin and Hitler were allies in 1939 when they ganged up on Poland. Crocodile tears.
Killing millions in the Red Terror and Stalin's purges does not sound like 'breathing life' to me.
Nor the GULAG system, which expanded ENORMOUSLY on what the tsars had built.
Culturally, the Soviets built on what ALREADY EXISTED in Russia------------that is, whatever they had not ruined or twisted into crass political propaganda.
I find your comment very funny, because when I was growing up during the 1970s, SOVIET artistic culture was regarded as CONSERVATIVE and backward. It was the West which was in the avant-garde! The Soviet authorities drove underground whatever displeased them, punishing originality, exalting what was banal and mediocre and conventional. But it had not been that way in 1914, NOT AT ALL.
Have you studied the so-called 'Silver Age' (1861-1917? Much of the repertoire of Soviet musicians and ballet dancers comes from that period.
You see, from the LIBERAL reforms of Tsar Alexander the First onward, Russia made HUGE cultural leaps. Not only did it develop and refine its own traditions, learning from Western models. It also EXPORTED ideas to the West, FRANCE especially. Russia was a big player in the global marketplace of ideas at the time.
The long and close historical relationship between France and Russia is quite remarkable. Usually we think of Imperial Russia as a symbol of reactionary autocracy, France as a symbol of
revolutionary democracy. But the facts aren't quite so simple. Russia has a CONSTITUTIONAL tradition, too.
It just hasn't fared as well, and the Communists are partly to blame for that. Freedom never had much of a chance. It still doesn't. Russians often go abroad to find it.
Did you know that, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution, a HUGE number of Russian intellectuals EMIGRATED to the West, again quite a few to France? Lenin was eager to get rid of them anyhow. He packed a bunch on a vessel called the 'Philosophers' Ship' and sent them away. He had no use for independent thinkers.
(At least he didn't execute them.)
Alright, so the Soviet space programme was very successful. Guess what? The Russians were good in the field of aeronautics from the outset, having 24 aircraft manufacturers in 1914. One can't prove that Communist ideology had anything to do with technological prowess one way or the other. Talented scientists, hard workers, and the infrastructure needed for advanced research exist in quite a few non-Communist countries as well. You know this.
There was a saying, wrongly attributed to Yuri Gagarin, that on his space journey he hadn't seen God. It's a very stupid comment, but
apparently Gagarin did not say it, Khrushchev did.
Gagarin became an Orthodox Christian believer and had his daughter baptized.
As for Khrushchev, he was brought up in a Christian environment and learned the Gospel of John by heart, which is quite an accomplishment.
But he did not live by the precepts he learned.
Late in life, he passed by a church and paid a visit. He said that in his opinion, Russia ought to return to the Christian faith.
Whether he did or not, I do not know. But
Russia should do that. Putin is a big fake who uses 'religion' to butter his own political bread.
Russia does not need that.
Of course Putin is NOT a communist, but he still thinks that the disintegration of the USSR was a big tragedy. I was so happy when the Berlin Wall fell and again when Gorbachev dissolved the CPSU.
@@jesusislordsavior6343 Why weren't Poland and Germany allies when they 'ganged up' on Czechoslovakia? Why did Poland occupy Ukrainian and Belarusian land anyway?
Communism is the synthesis of the class struggle. It is the next stage of human development, beyond capitalism. It makes sense that forces from inside and outside would attempt to destroy it. That includes Trotsky.
Invoke the gulags and the famines and your black book numbers, the fact remains. Communism is widely popular in Russia and without it Russia would have stayed the backwater it was or perished in 1941, even worse.
Religion is not incompatible with Communism. Only when it allies with Capitalism does it become an enemy. As it did during the Russian civil war and the interwar decades.
@@RedFortress
To be fair and honest, I haven't researched the
conflicts among newly-minted national States in Eastern Europe post-ww1. All I can say is that the breakup of the Hapsburg Empire was a messy process. The treay of Brest-Litovsk
also gave opportunity for the first modern Ukrainian republic to emerge, which of course the Bolsheviks killed.
Having some ethnic roots in the region myself, I can say that excessive national pride is not the exclusive fault of IMPERIALIST nations like Russia, the USA, China, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Turkey, etc.
In many parts of Eastern Europe two or more ethnic groups may coexist, peacefully or not so peacefully. Getting international boundaries to reflect neatly drawn ethnic boundaries must be near impossible.
You are promoting one particular version of communism with which I cannot agree. I am not a fan of capitalism, but I see no evidence that 'advanced capitalism' must be superseded by communism.
It would be contrary to human nature, which habitually seeks its own.
Spiritually unregenerate humans (those who do not have the Spirit of Christ working in them) usually need strong external compulsion in order to cooperate, because their natural love is so limited in scope. Or they can be induced to cooperate by appealing cleverly to their low instincts (e.g. hatred of neighboring nations or minority groups).
At one time, BEFORE the Neo-Liberal wave of the Reagan/Thatcher era, I thought that a liberal society might possibly EVOLVE in a more socialist direction. I wanted the East Bloc would LIBERALIZE its policies and break free from the Soviet grip. (I had in fact visited both Czechoslovakia and Hungary during as a student, during the late 1970s).
This view was closely aligned with 'liberal-socialist' ideology, which I did not think incompatible with my newfound Christian faith.
I regarded the Bolshevik revolution as a terrible mistake after the success of February 1917.
I did get my wish with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the USSR, but in other respects history proved me WRONG.
I heard news reports about what was happening in Russia, with oligarchs dividing the spoils.
What has happened to the so-called Left in the West? Leaving aside its traditional role as
advocate for workers' rights, it became obsessed with questions of ethnic, sexual, even religious identity-------------as if to mirror the cultural concerns of the Far Right. Most Left politicians here have one solution for everything, which is to spend more money borrowed by the State.
Now as you must know, there have been past societies which practiced communal ownership of property (technically, communism).
The science of Anthropology might have something to offer on this subject.
Or we could speak of the FIRST CHURCH IN JERSUALEM, founded not long after the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus.
(Acts 2:44-45)
'And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing the m with all, as anyone might have need.'
On the surface, this sounds remarkably like a Marxian communist Utopia. But I think most Marxists would have EXTRAORDINARY difficult seeing GOD as a LIBERATING force in human history, Israel's EXODUS from Egyptian slavery notwithstanding.
I do however acknowledge your point, that religion and communism are not necessarily
incompatible. Latin American 'liberation theologians' would applaud you for saying that.
As for me, I don't like the word 'religion' very much, because it includes so much that is alien to CHRIST, alien to the Truth. I am not alone in regarding Marxism itself as a sort of SECULAR religion, with its various prophets, denominations, etc.
Before leaving I ought to mention a few points about the Jerusalem church, by way of contrast with modern secular communism:
1. There was NO class struggle involved. Those who had property released it VOLUNTARILY.
2. The community was small enough (several thousand) to administer itself. But it coexisted with an occupying Roman government, which it did not challenge in any way.
3. The 'system' is not binding upon others churches or generations, but should serve as a demonstration of brotherly love in action.
if him and stalin worked together the world would be a better place
impossible, they were too different to work together, stalin wanted socialism in one country, while trotsky wanted a permanent revolution
hilarious coming from a king dedede pfp
Quite simply, a colossus.
Join the Socialist Equality Party!!
Why? Will you have show trials if I don’t?
"Workers of the world, Unite!"✊
most American socialists are just Fascist Progressives.
@@adjeiboateng6720socialism in one country is hella based.
Very cursed my friend commie
fash collaborator.
You mean Stalin?
@make a wish Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact kind of made Stalin the fash collaborator. There's literally a photo of him shaking hands with a Nazi after signing the pact.
@@user1138 the USSR was the last county in Europe to sign a pact with the Nazis
Also along with France and UK, Stalin wanted to make a anti-nazi alliance but they rejected it so he had no other option
@@4am555 but was the first to do a friendship pact with mussolini, guaranteeing the raw material for the armament of the country. He didn’t even cared so much about the prohibition of communist in Italy!
@@4am555 what about when he had talks about joining the axis? which only didn’t happen because stalin was called too greedy?