re: Has there ever been a communist leader who wasn't a terrible tyrant?

quote:

---

Not everybody who fought in the Cuban Revolution was a Communist. They didn't realize at the time that Castro would somehow accomplish the seemingly impossible task of being even worse than Batista. Castro didn't come out as a communist until a year or two into his dictatorship, and he ended up executing some non-communists who had fought for him in the Revolution.

---

Same with the Russian Revolution. The Bolsheviks were a vast minority even after Germany sent Lenin back. WWI was crazy bad and the worst time in human history since the Black Death, so the Russians couldn’t imagine that it could get any worse. Boy were they wrong.

No

quote:

---

Barry Hussain Odumbf*ck?

---

poli

quote:

---

Communist and tyrant go together like cheese and crackers

---

Our own government has become a tyrannical crony capitalist overlord. But we and the world are headed for a globalist totalitarian state.

quote:

---

Arguably Yugoslavia’s Josip Broz Tito, but like with Jesus or any other historical figure, not everyone agrees. Some view him as a benevolent dictator who built a socialist empire in the middle of divided Europe, but others complain he was an authoritarian who used political oppression to forge the image of a peaceful country even though folks were deeply divided.

---

I asked our all-knowing AI how history regards Tito. Here is her response:

Historical Consensus
Tito’s legacy is a paradox: he was both a unifying figure who modernized Yugoslavia and an autocrat who ruled with an iron fist. Western historians often lean toward "benevolent dictator" because his regime was less repressive than Soviet-style communism and delivered tangible benefits like stability and development. In former Yugoslav states, opinions vary:

In Slovenia and Croatia, he’s often criticized for suppressing national identity and centralizing power.

In Serbia and Bosnia, some nostalgically view him as a symbol of a prosperous, united past ("Yugonostalgia").


Globally, his role in the Non-Aligned Movement earns him respect as a Cold War maverick.

Was He a Despot or Benevolent?
Tito doesn’t neatly fit either label. He was despotic in his control—ruthlessly eliminating opposition and maintaining a one-party state—but benevolent in his vision for a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia and his focus on improving living standards. Compared to contemporaries like Stalin or Mao, his body count was lower (tens of thousands repressed vs. millions killed), and his policies prioritized social cohesion over ideological purity. Yet, his failure to build democratic institutions or resolve ethnic tensions left Yugoslavia fragile after his death.

quote:

---

Communism, by its nature, cannot exist

---

It can until the workers realize there's no incentive to work.

I haven't seen Alexander Dubcek mentioned.

From Grok:

History views Alexander Dubcek primarily through the lens of the Prague Spring of 1968, where he, as the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, attempted to reform the rigid Soviet-style system with his vision of "socialism with a human face." His efforts to liberalize Czechoslovakia—introducing freedoms of speech, press, and movement, while still aiming to maintain a socialist framework—made him a symbol of resistance against authoritarianism and Soviet domination.

quote:

---

the Chinese know that they’re no longer communists and really the government and market structure they now most resemble is Nazi Germany. Its communist in name only,

---

They are state capitalist.

Communist, Nazi, Populist, does not matter. It is about using some philosophy that enables someone or some party to take power. Next comes some type of "emergency" where the rulers can use their followers in Congress to suspend or unseat the opposition so that they can consolidate power. In other words, Trump.

quote:

---

In other words, Trump.

---

Sky is falling much?