Hitler, Guevara, and Lenin and the Line We Walk

There’s a reflex in our culture–especially online–to flatten political history into a moral binary. You’re either on the side of the good guys or the monsters. In this simplified universe, to admire Lenin or Che Guevara is to place yourself in the same camp as those who admire Hitler. That comparison isn’t just historically false, it’s intellectually lazy.

Let’s draw a clear line, shall we?

Admiring Lenin or Che is not the same as admiring Hitler. It’s important to understand why, especially if we want to engage in political conversations that go beyond slogans and settle into substance.

Their goals were fundamentally different.

Hitler’s ideology was rooted in racial supremacy, conquest, and genocide. His vision required extermination. It was designed around hate. There is no version of Hitler that isn’t a fascist or a mass murderer.

By contrast, Lenin and Guevara operated under a radically different vision, however flawed. They saw themselves as liberators, fighting systems of exploitation and imperialism. Lenin wanted to smash the czarist monarchy and capitalism to empower workers. Che fought for global revolution against colonialism and U.S. theory, about freedom, equality, and solidarity, not domination and extermination.

Does that mean they got everything right? Hell no. The crimes can’t be ignored though.

Lenin authorized the Red Terror and laid the groundwork for the state repression in the USSR. Che oversaw executions of political enemies in revolutionary Cuba. They believed violence was a necessary tool of revolution. That can’t be whitewashed or excused with historical whataboutism.

However, here’s where critical admiration comes in.

You can admire someone’s courage, clarity of purpose, or strategic brilliance without endorsing every action they took. You can appreciate Guevara’s fearless commitment to anti-imperialism and still mourn the people who died because of him. You can study Lenin’s revolutionary theory and still criticize how it was implemented.

There’s a difference between admiration and apology. Admiration is honest. It sees both the brilliance and the brutality. It doesn’t romanticize, but it also doesn’t erase the context or potential of revolutionary struggle.

Apology is denial. It minimizes or justifies atrocities, insisting the ends always justify the means. That’s where things get dangerous.

If your admiration turns into excuse-making–“they had to do it,” “it was for the greater good”–you’ve stopped thinking critically. You’re no longer admiring. You’re worshipping. And revolutionary icons don’t need worship, they need interrogation.

Bottom line is history is messy and so are its heroes. We don’t need to build saints out of revolutionaries, and we don’t need to pretend they’re all devils either. The left does itself no favors by refusing to wrestle with the full truth of its icons. And the right discredits itself by comparing every revolutionary to a fascist.

So yes, I admire Lenin and Guevara. I admire their courage, their clarity, their willingness to challenge empires and imagine a different world. But I don’t ignore their flaws. I don’t excuse their crimes. And I don’t pretend they didn’t make serious mistakes at the cost of real lives.

That’s not an apology.

That’s what it means to learn from history instead of being trapped by it.

How a Libertarian Socialist Society Would Work

I’ve already stated my political leanings and they are very far to the left. We’re seeing what the far right can do to a society and it’s horrible. We’re seeing it now. Some people saw it in Nazi Germany. The far right is dangerous and should be destroyed. Capitalism itself should be destroyed.

So, what would a libertarian socialist society look like? I’ve been reading more and more about my political leanings and coming up with how the United States would look under libertarian socialism and here’s what I’ve come up with:

First and foremost, it would prioritize decentralization, have direct democracy, and collective ownership while abolishing capitalist wage labor and hierarchical state power. It would be built on cooperation, bottom-up structures that allow the people, not managers or CEOs to manage their workplaces and communities without coercion from a centralized authority.

How it would affect the economy and community

There would be no private ownership of production. That means factories, farms, and businesses would be collectively owned and managed by workers and communities. Instead of bosses, workers would directly organize production through democratic assemblies and councils. Goods and services would be distributed based on need, contribution, or through participation rather than profit-driven markets. All economic decisions would be made through federated councils of workers and consumers rather than dictated by a federal government or market forces.

How it would affect politics

Instead of a government ruling over people, power would be held in local, self-managed assemblies where absolutely everyone has a say in decisions affect them and their lives. Local communities would coordinate with each other ensuring cooperation without a top-down hierarchy. There would be no politicians. We’re all sick of them anyway, right? Instead, think about it: communities and workplaces would elect temporary, recallable delegates with strict limited power.

Free Association and Mutual Aid

People would contribute to society based on their ability and receive according to their need. For those of us, like me, who are disabled, no one would be forced to work to survive. People would contribute according to their abilities, and those unable to work would still be valued as full members of the society.

Land, housing, and natural resources would be collectively maintained and distributed according to democratic principles. People would form communities and organizations based on voluntary cooperation rather than state enforcement.

Now, some of you may be wondering how justice might work. Will there still be police and prisons? I think we can all agree that for-profit prisons have to go. Prisons will be meant for rehabilitation. That is what the society would look like: conflict resolution, justice focusing on rehabilitation, community accountability, and non-punitive solutions.

Work and Leisure

With production driven by human needs instead of profit, people would work fewer hours and have more time for leisure, education, and creativity. Who wouldn’t want a society like that? There would also be lifelong learning. Decision-making would be central to civic life.

Technological advances would be used to reduce labor, improve well-being, and enhance sustainability.

Healthcare

Healthcare would be free and universally accessible, including specialized care for the disabled, including mental health services. Caregiving would be shared responsibility rather than an individual burden, ensuring that people who need support receive it without being financially or socially isolated.

Leadership

Now, you’re probably wonder who would run such a society. Where there be a president? A leader? A kind? What kind of leadership would there be? If there were a leadership role in a libertarian socialist society, it would be more of a coordinator or spokesperson chosen by democratic means, with limited power and subject to recall at any time. Governance would be more about collective decision-making through councils, federations, or assemblies rather than a single executive figure.

Utopia

Would a libertarian socialist society be a utopia? No. There’s no such thing as a utopia. People aren’t perfect and conflicts will arise. The democratic structures would allow for ongoing problem-solving and adaptation without authoritarian control.

If I’m being honest, it would be messy and experimental at first, with different regions trying different forms of organization. The core principles would remain though: maximizing freedom and equality by ensuring that power is always distributed among the people rather than concentrated in a ruling class.

If you’ve read this far, I thank you. These are just my ideas of what a libertarian socialist society would look like based on my reading of the system and researching it and reading a shit load of Noam Chomsky and Peter Kropotkin. I haven’t read much by Mikhail Bakunin, but he’s on my list and I’m curious about his ideas of what a society should be.

So, what do you think? Would you live in this type of society? I for one am tired of capitalism and would jump at the chance to try something new.

Can Freedom and Communism Coexist?

I’ve been delving more and more and reading more and more into systems other than the oppressive one that is Capitalism. Something has to be done to bring down the entire Capitalist system. I think we need some sort of revolution and to make way for Socialism or Communism or at the very least Democratic-Socialism, Libertarian-Socialism, or Anarcho-Communism.

I’m fond of the freedoms we have so far in the United States, but with this new administration I fear that those freedoms are going to be taken away by the Capitalists. But you may be asking, “But isn’t Communism against freedom?” I have always thought that as well after being brainwashed and indoctrinated by the education system and the news, but it’s not the case.

Can freedom exist within a Communist or Socialist society? It depends on how you define “freedom” and “Communism.” If by “freedom” do I mean the ability to live without economic coercion? Have access to basic needs and participate in decision making? If that’s what I mean then the answer is yes. Many leftist theorists argue that true freedom is only possibly when Capitalism is abolished, since it forces people to sell their labor to survive.

Communism is against the right to accumulate wealth and own private property at the expense of others. In that regard, Communism is incompatible with freedom. Communism prioritizes collective well-being over individual accumulation, which can sometimes mean restricting certain freedoms such as the freedom to exploit labor or hoard resources.

Historically, some communist regimes have suppressed political freedom such as the USSR and North Korea, but those two were never truly Communist, but I’ll save that for another day. Many leftists argue that a stateless, decentralized form of Communism, like Anarcho-Communism would maximize both economic and political freedom.

In a truly Communist society — especially in a decentralized, democratic form like Anarcho-Communism — freedom of choice, speech, and the press could still exist, and in some ways, they might even be stronger than under Capitalism.

In a Communist system where resources are collectively owned and distributed based on need, people wouldn’t be forced to take jobs just to survive. Instead they could choose their work based on interests and community needs. However, certain choices like owning private businesses or accumulating excessive wealth wouldn’t exist because the contradict the principle of Communist ownership.

In theory, a Communist society could allow free speech and press, especially if it’s structured democratically. If power is decentralized and decisions are made collectively, suppressing speech would go against the idea of worker control. The press would be worker-run instead of owned by a few wealthy individuals, leading to a more diverse range of perspectives instead of media being controlled by corporate interests.

In short, freedom of speech, the press, and choice could absolutely exist under Communism, it just depends on whether the system is democratic and decentralized or authoritarian and bureaucratic.

Hey Kid, You Want to Build Communism?

My reading this month has consisted of re-reading The Communist Manifesto. I haven’t read it since my freshman year of college. I am also discussing communism, socialism, and capitalism with a friend of mine. Capitalism is no better than communism or socialism. People say, “Communism has killed millions!”

To that, I say that Capitalism exploits people in other countries for profit, not for the greater good. How many people has Capitalism killed by letting the poor and sick and homeless just go ahead and die just because they couldn’t afford food, shelter, or healthcare? Capitalism is responsible for the deaths of the sick and poor. As was said in an Otep song, “There isn’t any cure for the poor and uninsured.”

So, how are we defining the number of people killed by an economic system? Do you count all the preventable deaths by hunger or curable diseases that took place due to poverty under that system? When counting death tolls of 20th century state socialism, most people count such deaths. If we do that for capitalism, then the death toll is astronomically higher.

What about occupational deaths among proletarians and unfree laborers in capitalist societies, both on the job and as the result of health problems brought on by their work?

And how about those killed in wars in which a capitalist state was the aggressor, including in any anti-colonial uprisings against a capitalist state (as the capitalist state was the aggressor in these also, because the violence of their occupation provoked the necessary uprising)?

Communists may have killed people, but wars waged for feudalism and capitalism way outrank it with centuries of imperialism and the people killed by communists tend to be those with guns trying to shoot them and so, in a battle context, don’t really count as killing innocent people.

So, am I a Communist? No. I am just saying capitalism is shit for being exploitative and it’s not the perfect system Americans think it is. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer under Capitalism. If you ask me what has radicalized me into this way of thinking then I say to you it’s Trump. Trumpism has radicalized me. I am doing anything I can to fight back against this regime. I am emailing and calling anyone I can to ask them to put an end to this oligarchy we now live under. I have my first meeting with a group of Socialists next week that I’m looking forward to.

“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries unite!”