> of the Soviet project. Lenin might as well have instituted
> a liberal capitalist social-democratic state in 1918 and
> saved himself, his heirs, and his country a lot of trouble.
Nonsense. Russia was a peasant country thrown into the ghastly cauldron of WW I; no social democracy could exist in the peripheries of the day. The choice was, build up your industrial base at a terrible human cost, or be liquidated by Fascism. Stalinism was the result of that situation, not some bad choice made by a personal leader.
> In the middle of the 19th century, one could delude oneself
> into believing that a little transitional violence, a little
> temporary authority, would advance us toward a better world.
> Today, anyone who reads history ought to know better.
A little temporary violence worked pretty well at ending slavery, toppling monarchies, defeating Fascism, and kicking colonialism out of Africa and Asia -- all thing which *did* advance us towards a better world. Violence is a historical category, not a moral one.
-- Dennis