| | Why does no one under that r.e.g.ime deny the greatness, glory, and correctness of the c[o]mm[u]n[i]st re-vo-lut-ion? When reading p-ro-pa-ganda of c[o]mm[u]n[i]st reg-im-es, you can find a strong suggestion that the c[o]mm[u]n[i]st p-art-ies are intrinsically the le-ader of the nation, even if they are not in po-wer. Although the Oc-tober revo-l-ution was just an intrigue of usurping the fruit of the February re-vol-ution, yet it was a "genuine" re-volu-tion. As to the February re-volut-ion, that was just a "foreshadowing for the Oct-ober re-vol-ution". "His-tor-ical mat-er-ial-ism" told the people the history process has an unalterable law. It is that law makes the c[o]mm[u]n[i]st pa-r-ti-es seize power. So when c[o]mm[u]n[i]st par-ti-es are not in po-wer, citizens are permitted (by c[o]mm[u]n[i]st parties) to do whatever they want to oppose the go-ver-nm-ent. The more fiercely you oppose the gov-er-nme-nts of your own nation, the more pat-ri-otic you are. But when the c[o]mm[u]n[i]st par-ti-es conquer the former go-vern-ments and found new ones, you are not permitted to say any critical words of the new g-ove-rnme-nts. No matter how relevant your critiques are; you are the "enemy of the people" and "traitor", and more importantly, "violator of the natural rules". I think the lib-erta-rian thinkers should find a way to eliminate this meaningful phenomenon.
|
|
