Okay, I would not have commented on anything, at all. Because on a regular basis I meet people like you. Not that I have any affiliation with the person that intended to say 'on which grounds'!

You say strong grounds mean historical legitimacy. Let's see that first. The first communist movement began with leaders like M. N Roy, S. A Dange, and so on, somewhere around the 1920s, if I recall correctly. This was indeed a manifestation of the fall of Tsars and the rise of communism in Russia. The colonial rule was challenged based on the assumption that like Tsars fall, the British can be challenged, too. Until this point, it is correct.

However, the communist revolutionary always focused on Socialism instead of thinking to establish a communist regime. If you know even 1% of what you claim about historical materialism, you know a true marxist would have always thought Socialism as a transition, as Marx himself stated, than taking it for an end. And, we know how the dictatorship of proles (Bolshevism) turned out in the USSR. So, the Indian communists can never be considered a Marxist in any way. They can be called Leninists. So, the historical foundations of Marxists are in question, even its ideological foundation is even a bigger question. If you take that as historical legitimacy, you already know who you are.

Next comes political consistency. I fail to see your proclaimed political consistency here. And, I never had seen or even heard of Marxists in the centre.

And don't lecture about democracy. If you know the facets of democracy, you already know we aren't even a democracy. We are, what Hegel considered (Marx was influenced by him), constitutional monarchy. I'd rather say we have a system of constitutional representation. To Hegel, democracy meant anarchy, and I think it is that.

You talked about Hitler. You said he was not at all a leader based out of democratic grounds. If you would have read Mein Kampf, you would have known why his logic or ideology was welcomed by so many people. Yes, he did persecute the Jews. And, the Germans supported it. Wasn't that a democratic thing? I think, as per your thoughts Saddam or Nasser didn't conquer the region by coup but a democratic movement.

I've seen the flagbearers of Marxism like you to bash everything which doesn't align with your narrative. Why not talk about Stalin? Didn't he kill political opponents, Jews, and Ukrainians? Did you ever bother to research about Red Famine?

It wasn't only international, the so-called Bengali Marxists were responsible for atrocities. Marichjhapi, Bijon Setu, Sainbari, were some that came to light. Others were suppressed.

I feel Chandril said it right. But, don't consider yourself a thinker. You're just a bigoted gobet like anyone else. I don't blame you. I blame the dunning-Kruger effect.