Those are all Stalin’s public statements. It looks good to downplay your cult. But he still undoubtedly had one.

Lennan for example seemed to pretty strongly oppose a cult of personality forming around him. But Stallin didn’t, just some humble public statements.

But was that risk to their power from a armed revolution, or from their proponents getting voted out?

Do you agree that Mau and Stallin extensively purged political opponent?

Do you agree that Stalin and Mau created cults of personality?

So do you think people should vote or not?

The book you linked seemed to be a explicitly Communist reexamining. I wouldn’t really go to that for unbiased history. But anyway.

Do you agree that Stalin and Mau created cults of personality?

Soviet Russia and China were nominally a democracies, but both were controlled by individuals without checks. Stallin and Mau respectively. Again, what history books are you reading that is saying otherwise?

It seemed like you were suggesting in your original comment that voting was futile and that we needed a revolution instead.

USSR and PRC had really bad checks and balances since they let dictators consolidate power and form cults of personality. You really think those are good examples of your point? Have you read entirely different histories than I have? Which books do you recommend then?

You have suggestions for books? I’m not going to be able to read more than a couple of pages in the middle of this conversation, but maybe after we’re done?

My point is I don’t think you should be advocating starting revolution till that opinion is close to a majority.

Examples?

Sure then, give scholarly reading advice for revolutionary pressure in those events

Do you think a democratic bureaucratic fully checked and balanced revolution would succeed in overthrowing the structure?

Could you point me to secularly resources I should read on these revolutions?

But if you’re taking about the pressure voters put on elected officials, I’m all for it. But I’d hardly call that a revolution. That’s just how the system is designed to work.

What’d you call a overthrow of the government with say 30% popular support? A coup?

You can absolutely have a revolution without majority support, you just need support of the majority of the power.

But they don’t actually put it in place because of the pressures during a revolution.

Could you elaborate?

Really? What revolutionary pressure was it Papua New Guinea under in 2008? What revolutionary pressures were on the UK in the 2000s to further regulate campaign finances?

A revolution in a democratic manner? We are taking about a violent armed revolution, right? For that, you need a military power structure, and big charismatic leaders to rally behind. There’s no way a revolution would try to hold fair elections while they are fighting.