today in my langs arts class my teacher told that lenin was a corrupt and that communism was made for the rich! please shed some light into the subject this poor women has no right mind to think that
Lenin was a douche, that's for sure, but I'm pretty sure he was stalwart. As for that other nonsense, I wouldn't worry. Communism was made for the middle class who have too much time on their hands, not the rich.
1). I wouldn't expect any of my language arts teachers to have any concept of political and economic systems. Actually, none of them do. They just know how significant a yellow shirt on a character in a short story is. 2). If communism was indeed made for the rich, then why did the czar, kaiser, and European noblemen support the system with open arms? Why don't wealthy capitalists advocate it to this day? Why did France, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Japan, et al. support the white armies in the Russian Civil War? Her argument is one of the single stupidest things I have ever heard, but I wouldn't expect a language arts teacher to be the most informed authority on this subject.
Hmmm, this is when you take a stand and voice your opinion. One time my Lang. Teacher said that the bible was fact, I chewed her out all day. She never saw the end of it. I told her that she should let the kids decide themselves on these beliefs without her impacting there opinions.
I think somebody in your classroom slipped her a few Tea Party pamphlets... and a few dozen happy pills. If you want to hear and see some the most Right-wing, fanatical Christaian, leftist-bashing "teachers" you should have been with me during my entire 6th grade year. The headmaster was dumber and more radical than friggen Glenn Beck in any life-time, she were on par with those Quran-burners in Florida.
Yeah, English teachers emphasize the significance and impact of that yellow shirt as you pointed out. Historians emphasize the significance and the impact of the excecution of the Tsar! (It ment that there is no where to go back to and it shows their determination as it was unthinkable to kill a monarch when held prisoner.) The point is, English teachers dont know shit. Us Historians debate why something is important. Now as for her argument, it is seriously flawed as the Bolshevik party was made up by the industrial workers almost exclusivly and lead by educated Middle Class men. (yes, it basicly is middle overthrowing the top in my opinion) It was popular to the industrial workers but the Peasants could care less as long as whomever is incharge improves their living standards. The peasants supported the Tsar until 1916 as my own reaserch has shown. However, they only joined up with the bolsheviks under the promise for bread during the revolution, hwoever the Bolsheviks realy worked for the industrial worker and often against the wishes of the peasants. However, Lenin introduced a mix of Capitalism for the peasants and Soscialism for the Industrial class to help solve this problem, so Lenin was not an idiot as he knew he needed to enact radical Soscialism in as many areas as posible but saw it was not working for the peasants imediatly so he did the smart thing and made the transition more gradual for them. That was the point of allowing the peasants to control the production. Anyways, I can go on about this subject for a long time, but I would like to conclude that no one system is completely right nor are they completely worng. One must adapt to changing cercumstances, which is why Lenin was a genious and therefore must be respected in that sense.
