While I understand the idea you're talking about, I'm not sure Lenin is the best person to consider for an example of what the left should focus on. After all, Lenin's successor was Stalin and we know that Stalin is one of the world's worst monsters. Maybe only succeeded by Mao who similarly were focused on the poor or the rural poor as you put forward.
To point to one of my favourite people on the subject of Stalin, Stephen Kotkin, "During the run up to World War 2, Hitler used to receive intelligence reports about what's happening in the Soviet Union. The records of these reports and discussions survived the war. The notes from these meetings of Hitler were known to have Hitler say on numerous occasions, 'I'm sorry, Stalin did what? That's crazy.' And that's how you know how crazy Stalin was. Hitler thought he had crazy ideas."
And Lenin created Stalin. So maybe let's not hold up Lenin as the best example.
We're really talking about human nature, and what systems humans can operate without causing too much grief. Nuclear power? Probably best if it never was discovered. Viral gain-of-function research? Same. AI? Same. Humans have all these great ideas but our nature is too selfish for us to use them properly. Give the group at the top all the resources because the people down below don't really know what's good for them? Hasn't worked through history, due to human nature. Doesn't turn out like the poor thought it would. Let people compete for the best ideas in the marketplace & reward them accordingly? Billions of consumer decisions every day send economic votes upward, to heads of corporations, to improve their product, or go out of business. Now, even capitalism can go too far. Entities that get too powerful should be broken up by anti-trust legislation. But when it comes to human nature, the best we can do is the lesser of numerous evils.
I think you have an interesting analysis on the class structures involved during the history and present times of Socialism and Communism. One aspect that you didn't highlight is that in today's political and social life "culture wars" plays about as much impact as economic life. I think a lot of rural people are turned-off by the cultural changes proposed by Progressive Leftists and Socialists associated with the Democrat party.
Also, a rural person who owns a trailer and a few acres of land would be happier earning less money, rather than having a soul-sucking corporate ladder climbing career job. That's a hard sell to make to a rural person for them to want to give it up to be a Communist.
This doesn’t take into account that in rural areas even with less income, many are more autonomous and free than those in cities. People who make 40k a year in a small rural town are not peasants, blown around by circumstance, where someone making that in California may as well be.
While I understand the idea you're talking about, I'm not sure Lenin is the best person to consider for an example of what the left should focus on. After all, Lenin's successor was Stalin and we know that Stalin is one of the world's worst monsters. Maybe only succeeded by Mao who similarly were focused on the poor or the rural poor as you put forward.
To point to one of my favourite people on the subject of Stalin, Stephen Kotkin, "During the run up to World War 2, Hitler used to receive intelligence reports about what's happening in the Soviet Union. The records of these reports and discussions survived the war. The notes from these meetings of Hitler were known to have Hitler say on numerous occasions, 'I'm sorry, Stalin did what? That's crazy.' And that's how you know how crazy Stalin was. Hitler thought he had crazy ideas."
And Lenin created Stalin. So maybe let's not hold up Lenin as the best example.
We're really talking about human nature, and what systems humans can operate without causing too much grief. Nuclear power? Probably best if it never was discovered. Viral gain-of-function research? Same. AI? Same. Humans have all these great ideas but our nature is too selfish for us to use them properly. Give the group at the top all the resources because the people down below don't really know what's good for them? Hasn't worked through history, due to human nature. Doesn't turn out like the poor thought it would. Let people compete for the best ideas in the marketplace & reward them accordingly? Billions of consumer decisions every day send economic votes upward, to heads of corporations, to improve their product, or go out of business. Now, even capitalism can go too far. Entities that get too powerful should be broken up by anti-trust legislation. But when it comes to human nature, the best we can do is the lesser of numerous evils.
I think you have an interesting analysis on the class structures involved during the history and present times of Socialism and Communism. One aspect that you didn't highlight is that in today's political and social life "culture wars" plays about as much impact as economic life. I think a lot of rural people are turned-off by the cultural changes proposed by Progressive Leftists and Socialists associated with the Democrat party.
Also, a rural person who owns a trailer and a few acres of land would be happier earning less money, rather than having a soul-sucking corporate ladder climbing career job. That's a hard sell to make to a rural person for them to want to give it up to be a Communist.
This doesn’t take into account that in rural areas even with less income, many are more autonomous and free than those in cities. People who make 40k a year in a small rural town are not peasants, blown around by circumstance, where someone making that in California may as well be.