The Left-wing here in Brazil says Lenin was a good man and a great leader and philosopher. There is a lot of evidence proving that Lenin was responsible for a few millions of deaths, but the leftists insist in idolising him.

I would like to know what the rest of the world thinks of him, specially the europeans, because according to the local news most of them are reds.(Im exagerating, but sometimes it really seems like it)

BTW, my personal opinion is that he was a mass murderer.

Murderer. Simple as that.

Unlike Stalin, who was just power-hungry, I think that Lenin really did believe in the philosophy he had started for his country. He probably felt that his actions were justified, although this doesn't in any way excuse him.

I'm not saying Lenin was a nice guy .... but if I had to choose, say, out of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, who was trying to do the best things, I would tend to support Lenin.

Communism has a way of getting off the track the farther into it you get... in Russia it seemed to be going about how the book said it should up to Lenin's death... in China it was generally living up to its promises until the Great Leap Forward made a mess of things. That may be because of how the leaders led, or it may just be a pitfall of the system.

In my opinion he was a fascinating and charismatic historical figure, I would have liked to have seen how his plans would have gone through had he lived longer. Clearly, he was a far better leader for the Soviets than his successor.

Originally posted by Siegmund
Communism has a way of getting off the track the farther into it you get... in Russia it seemed to be going about how the book said it should up to Lenin's death

Wrong.

If by "the book" you mean the writings of Marx, then communism in Russia under Lenin couldn't have been further from Marx's predictions. First, Marx, who accepted Hegel's dialectical theory of history (thesis and antithesis), thought that communism would be the antithesis of industrial capitalism. Ergo, communism would develop in industrial, capitalist societies. Russia was a far cry from this (as was China, Cuba, Vietnam, N. Korea, and other places were communism later spread). The the first and most basic deviation from "the book."

Moreover, Lenin employed a system of, what Stalin called, "half-capitalism" wherebey wealthy peasants called kulaks still owned their own land, many factories were privately owned, etc. In fact Ford Motor company built a factory in Lenin's Russia. That is certainly not "by the book."

Originally posted by luiz
...specially the europeans, because according to the local news most of them are reds.(Im exagerating, but sometimes it really seems like it)

Really?! I know here are lot of leftists, like social democrats but reds, I think not. After Soviet Union ceased to exist communists great majority turned their coats, left politics, lost interest or formed some liberal leftist coalitions and parties. I think green parties also gained some voters there. Probably at the time 0.5% continued being communists, now after ten years they may get some more votes in elections, but I don't think there are more than few seats taken by communists in different parliaments of Europe.

For example, in Finnish social democratic party is the largest or the second largest party of Finland, it's considered to be a leftist party with majority of it's members belonging to labour class - nevertheless there are many anticommunists in our ranks - such as me. Actually after WWII social democrats was the only party not kissing the big red soviet butt all the time.

Anyhow, I think good old Vladimir Iljitsh Uljanov was an idealist, but not two feet above the ground, more like cold-blooded real politic with endless energy reserves. In a way I can relate to him, and I'm sure I would have followed his cause at the time, if I had been a poor Russian peasant. If I had known the way it turned out, I had probably tried to assassinate him. But, as our former president Koivisto said: "It's difficult to forecast and especially difficult to forecast the future" :lol:

I wouldn't go worshipping him as I wouldn't worship Che Guevara - which has been idolized again, as you probably know better than me.

I would say that Lenin gave the peasants of Russia a chance to rise from their misery under the tsars, although this was of course perverted by later rulers, who tried to rival the tsars n wealth and opulence, not least of all in cruelty. I would say he was a good leader though [B]not[\B] a great one.

Some crypto-communists try to claim that Lenin was trying to introduce some mythical pure form of communism but he died too soon, and his successor - Stalin - perverted what was a good idea.

Wrong.

Lenin was indeed more ideological than Stalin, but through whatever means he got there he still in the end was a mass murderer. His signature is on the order to execute the Tsarist family, as it is also on orders for mass executions in the countryside before he instituted the "NEP". Lenin was a more refined thug than Stalin, but a thug nonetheless.

@Ukas: Most of the newspapers here are somewhat leftists, so they tend to show all non-american(USA, not the continent) world as leftist, and they like to focus on Europe. Here in Brazil the left-wing is still pro-communism, and thats why sometimes we have the impression that many(not to say most) europeans are admirers of the USSR. Whe I went to Europe I noticed that its not true.

@Everybody: I think we all should reflect about something Molotov once said: "Compared to Lenin, Stalin was a lamb".

Its a fact that Lenin didnt kill a number of people even near what Stalin killed, but Stalin ruled for more time and had a much more powerfull repressive apparatus in his hands. It seems to me that Lenin was indeed an idealist, but that doesnt excuse what he did.

Here a lot of people are assuming that the Russian people were better off under the Tsars.

WRONG!!!

They were oppressed by a medieval tyranny and grasped at the only straw which seemed to provide them with some succour. Whether or not Lenin WOULD have been a mass murderer or not is questionable and we should judge a man by what he has done, not what he may have done.

While communism was a flawed concept , one must give credit to Lenin for at least trying to get the Russian people out of abject poverty and misery.

@allhailIndia: "While communism was a flawed concept , one must give credit to Lenin for at least trying to get the Russian people out of abject poverty and misery."

Yes, I somewhat agree with that. If communism caused many victims so did the times under the Czars. You can't count the times of great famines which caused millions of deaths, just because the Czar in question was more interested to build new palaces or starting another war.

@allhailIndia and Ukas:

Its true that czarism was a very repressive regime that made the russian people suffer a great deal. But I dont think communism was the right way out of that misery.
Remember that in February 1917, before the Red October Revolution, the czar had already fall and a Liberal government had been stablished with the support of a faction of the communists, the menchevists. The objective of that new government was to lead Russia towards a west-like Democracy. However, they were depposed by the Reds lead by Lenin and Trotsky in October, and Russia became a dictatorship once again.

Maybe if the Red Revolution didnt take place the russian people would be better of. I believe in this.

Pre-communist (czarist) Russia was on its way of developing a modern economy and the country would probably be much better off now economically if communism hadn't come.
The economic gap between Western Europe and Russia has only been widening a lot since 1917.

On topic, I think Lenin was an idealist but kind of obsessed with it and willing to take relentless measures to fulfill his ideals, which made him into a mass murderer.

To call him an 'evil dictator' sounds a bit to unnuanced to me (he was a lot less worse than Stalin) but since the other option is 'he was a leader just like anyone else' I have to go with the 'evil dictator' one.

@luiz: "Maybe if the Red Revolution didnt take place the russian people would be better of. I believe in this."

I really don't know, though figures you hear about victims of communism are quite huge. Russia is so much different. It well could have been worse with some other group taking power. As you said the his communists were not alone, there were also anarchists, menchevists etc.

Even if he was an idealist Lenin was also a cold-blooded realist. The revolution in Russia continued for years and if he wanted lasting results there was no place for debate about different values inside communism. That is why he subjugated other communists. Soviet Union might have ended before it was really born.

In this sense the revolution was succesfull - it was stabile. There were no counter-revolutions. But the idea was long ago corrupted by practice and when they started to rule by the fear this is how it naturally continued. Hrustsov wasn't the nicest guy but in his time Russia started to be much more tolerable.

Finland had it lucky, Lenin practicly gave it the independence 1917 because he expected Finland to join the international revolution. First thing what happened was a bloody civil war between the Reds and the Whites. The Whites won, but were forced to think about conditions of the working classes. This is why I usually salute the dead Red rebels, even though I can be counted in ranks of anticommunists.

@ Ukas: You made some good points. Lenin was probably not the worst thing that could happen at that moment. But I cant think of nothing worse then Stalin.
Nevertheless I still think that Russia would be better off if it had stick with Democracy.

Bloody Sunday, with the czar's troops shooting protesters,
the dissolving of the Duma after a few weeks,
involvement in WWI without lots of military technology, just high population,

Lenin wanted a change, and he went about making it happen.

He wasn't as brutal as Robespierre, but his revolution didn't bring peaceful prosperity, either.

He did what he thought was the right thing, which most everyday citizens can't say.

Leader, but there were many worse.

Scumbag, pure and simple. Perhaps an idealist at first, but as he had to continue killing people to make his ideal world he became a worse guy, frustrated with his nation.

The only real difference between him and Stalin was that Stalin was a realist.

Originally posted by Magnus
In my opinion he was a fascinating and charismatic historical figure, I would have liked to have seen how his plans would have gone through had he lived longer. Clearly, he was a far better leader for the Soviets than his successor.

au contraire my friend.

Stalin was the perfect leader for the Soviets, they needed him. He was the leader that the times called for.

Because lets face it, Communism didn't fit. THe Russian people didn't want it and Lenin fought, virtually his entire time as a leader, against them to make them fit the commie mold. Stalin compromised, killing a few ahhhh million? probably, maybe more. But mostly transferring Marx to a sort of Russian Fascism. Stalin suceeded where Lenin failed, he was the father of the Soviet Union. Not only did he quell the peasentry, mostly by killing them all, but what other way could he have dealt with them? But he extended Russian control to East Germany.

Which is not to say he is a good man, only a better leader than Lenin, because Stalin realised that to make Communism fit you simply must kill several million people.

I hate Stalin as much as the next guy, but I hate Lenin even more.

@Skilord:I hate Stalin more then I hate Lenin, but I sure hate Lenin!

I dont accept Lenins opinion that his ideal was worth killing everyone who disagrees with it. And several millions disagreed.

Lenin was an idealist. Unfortunately, many (if not most) idealists try to fit reality into their ideology instead of the other way around. When idealists come into power, they are ruthless in making their ideological ideas into reality.

During WWI, the many faults and failings of the Tsarist regime became evident. It didn't help that Nicholas II, a pure autocrat, was a particularly stupid man. Russia was ready for a change and, after a particularly bloody civil war, Lenin and the Bolsheviks ended up in control. Lenin did not have to institute a secret police, he just remade the Cheka into an instrument of his ideology. Unlike the American and French Revolutions, which were run from below, the Russian Revolution was imposed from above. The peasantry continued to be repressed, the bourgeousie and aristrocracy were eliminated, and one brutal regime was replaced with another.

Just as a note, Stalin wasn't an idealist like Lenin. Stalin was a paranoid, powerhungry dictator. While the results were similar, Stalin didn't have the same ideological motivation that Lenin had. Lenin thought (or hoped) that he was working for the good of the Russian people. Stalin was working to keep himself in power.

I wouldn't say thet the Tsar was a stupid man, He may not havve handled the situation well, but he wasn't particularly stupid, I don't think at least.

Nice to see that you say the Russian Revolution was imposed from above, how true.

Stalin was no idealist, he was motivated by the need to keep in power, but to stay in power he had to keep the Bolsheviks in power and that is what he did. He suceeded in his goals, making him a sucessful leader. Did poorly for his reputation post mortem.... but i doubt he would have cared.

You might say that Nicholas II wasn't a particularly stupid man, other people, including A.J.P. Taylor, John Keegan, Vladimir Nobichov, Martin van Crefeld, Anthony Kenny, Basil Liddell Hart and David Lloyd George would disagree with you.

I dont know if Nicholas II was stupid, but he sure wasnt smart!
He didnt noticed two obvious things: his wife was cheating on him with Rasputin and his situation in power was critical.
He tried to gain some time in 1904, by making an agreement with the bourgeousie. But the agreement didnt really fit the interests of that class and the czar insisted in maintaning his absolute power. If he was samarter, Russia might have became a constituitional monarchy.

I concede that the tsar was an idiot.

He was a fairly brutal extremist whenever he was given a wiff of power, just like Trotsky.

hey people, Stalin was a mass murderer but NOT Lenin. Bear that in mind. His ideas are very great but too utopian. You have never worked as a miner so you don't know nothing, believe me ;)

He was an evil murdering Bolshevik bastard responsibly for a monstrous communist tyranny. The only reason he did not get the bodycount of Joe was that he wasn't around for long enough.

Marx and Engels were idealists behind the communism. Lenin was more a man of practice who recognized the ideas of Marx and Engels. Responsible of "communist tyranny" he was and probably did his part to make it so - bloodless revolution would not have been possible, but the situation demanded a change. Lenin ruled with an iron fist, and that was needed for the revolution to really happen. If he would have been around longer perhaps he would have been more lenient - but there were men like Stalin ready to take his place if he'd been too soft.

@Indrius: True, I never worked in a mine. But Ive seen children starving, and Ive seen leftist politicians using their misery to get elected and dont doing *&@#! to solve the problem.

hey people, Stalin was a mass murderer but NOT Lenin. Bear that in mind. His ideas are very great but too utopian. You have never worked as a miner so you don't know nothing, believe me



Define mass. Lenin killed alot of people and uyou are a fool to beleive otherwise.

He was an evil murdering Bolshevik bastard responsibly for a monstrous communist tyranny. The only reason he did not get the bodycount of Joe was that he wasn't around for long enough.

Preach it brother, preach it.

Marx and Engels were idealists behind the communism. Lenin was more a man of practice who recognized the ideas of Marx and Engels. Responsible of "communist tyranny" he was and probably did his part to make it so - bloodless revolution would not have been possible, but the situation demanded a change. Lenin ruled with an iron fist, and that was needed for the revolution to really happen. If he would have been around longer perhaps he would have been more lenient - but there were men like Stalin ready to take his place if he'd been too soft.

You tend to see a trend that isn't there, you say that Lenin grew softer as he grew older for one, but you also see communism softenin in the USSR. Not true, it was forced to remain hard until Stalin's purges because of peasant revolution. Purging was the only way to keep the system intact. Dictatorships rule through fear, it is foolish top beleive otherwise.

He was a very good singer, but I still like Ringo better.:band:


Seriously, he was a fairly ideological nut, brutal, but the Germans did make good use of him to eliminate Russia from WWI.

Lenin wasn't a evil dictator, actually we din't have time to see if he was going to be one, because he died just after the civil war ended. All the brutally that occured during the civil war can't be blamed one him as he had little control over the deeds of his troops

@zhukov
We can blame him for killing MILLIONS of peasants who refused to give away ALL of their production to the state. There is a document in wich Lenin orders the execution of aprox. 30,000 peasants. If that doesnt qualify him as en evil dictator then I dont know what does.

Stalin killed millions of peasants during the "Coletivization" (mp).

Lenin just declared the start of the revolution and couldn't rule the Soviet Union because by the time the civil war had ended he was suffering the consequences of the stroke.
Million STARVED during the civil war, not killed.
One could argue that he was never dictator of the Soviet Union, because both his stroke and the creation of USSR occured in the same year. ( 1922)
Russia in the early 20's was a country broken by war, starved by the civil war and on a huge caos due to the violent change of regime. To say that was a time up until his stroke to stablish a true goverment, with him as a dictator of all Russia is to overestimate russian capacity and capabilities.
My personal view is that it was a free for all in caotic Russia up until 23 and 24.
Lenin wasn't in charge of anything in Russia let alone the behavior of his troops

Forgive me, but Collectivization was Lenin's idea. He and people like Stalin favored it, which would tailor Communism to Russia, to Trotsky and other's plans for making Russia an industrial society in which Marx's plan would be carried out. Ironically therefore the revolution was not hiijaked, and Lenin's plans carried on, rather than Marx hiijaking the USSR in the form of Trotsky.

Lenin commanded several of the early, and brutal, actions of the Cheka (KGB) the key term here is commanded, he takes the blame.

I am not defending Lenin, I don't even like him.
All I think is that comparing him with Stalin is way too much. I also think it is an exaggeration to call him a evil dictator, because he didn't have enough control over Russia to be a dictator.
A dictator needs resources to stablish his Terror Police all over the country and all the other goverment institutions , he also needs to have full control over the nation to be a dictator.
Excesses and mass murders were commited during the civil war by the Red Army troops but to say that in that caotic time Lenin ordered the killings is something that I have a hard time believing just because Lenin wasn't powerful enough, he never was.

Being of Polish descent and hearing the stories from my parents from before they escaped from the Iron Curtain, I may be a bit Biased. But Lenin was Evil, just as Stalin, Khruschev, and the rest of that club.

I can no way support in any sane frame of mind a style of government which completely reduces any kind of motivation (look at Cuba, my neigbours came back from a 2 week vacation a week ago, engineers are working in hotels as they make more money because they get tips). As well as a style of government which requires a bloody uprising. Communism is a style of government which relies on power. It is Idealistic, not realistic. Communism cannot hold free elections as the ideas of communism rely on working people keeping the power. What would happen if a non-working person won the election? We'd need another bloody revolution. COmmunism leads to government controll of everything in every part of life. And as Marx miscalculated, human nature is good. People want what is best for them.

Thus you have people like Stalin, Khruschev, Mao, Lenin, Castro etc in charge of communist states. There have been numerous attempts at communism and all have failed. Its time to listen to the fat lady its over. If i burn my hand on a hot stove 5 times, it won't be any different that 6th time I try.

I totally agree with you Furry Spatula.

The problem with communism is that it goes against human nature. Marx thinked that its possible to determine what the people want. He believed that he speaked for the people, what was completly wrong. Lenin tried to imppose his views to all the russians, and this makes him a tyrant.

For the last time Communism is a Socialism without state.
The Soviet Union was a socialist state never communistic one.
The UN has acknowledged that for really poor country Socialism, works better, because it brings everybody above poverty line.
In the long run Socialism doesn't work because lack of competion turns the economy into a dormant, inefficient thing.

Socialism has proven to be a great system to mobilize factors of production, but on the other hand has proven to be a horrible system when it comes to allocate those same factors, take the Soviets for example.
It is all about economy not about Capitalism or Socialism or even Feudalism.

Originally posted by allhailIndia
I would say that Lenin gave the peasants of Russia a chance to rise from their misery under the tsars, although this was of course perverted by later rulers, who tried to rival the tsars n wealth and opulence, not least of all in cruelty. I would say he was a good leader though not a great one. I picked this post, because it perfectly illustrates that people have no clue who or what Lenin was.

Lenin belived in ORGANIZED TERROR OF THE MASSES, that's what HE called it, and the above white-wash is what he would call the words of a "useful idiot", people who refuse to see the truth, and cover it up for ideolgical reasons.

He was not Communist, as layed out by Marx and Engels, he belived only an educated elite could govern the idiot peasents, and he cared little for their well being, the STAYE was all that mattered.

Like all communists, the rights of man is a concept to be hated and shuned, as it runs counter to the Communist ideal.

Lenin was also a mass killer, Russia's civil war is filled with murder, as was the nation in the aftermath.

There is NOTHING good or praiseworthy in Lenin, he was a stonecold murderer, an elitest who thrived on terror, and cared only for those he considered useful to him in his attempt to sieze control of Russia, all others to be liquidated in the name of the good of the state.

Good point, Lenin was not a communist. In those days there were real Communists and if they've had the power USSR would probably have been a better place. Or then it would have fallen back to the Whites, who probably would've been evenly ruthless and paranoid when dealing with the people.

As his good act, communists here back in the 70's claimed that Lenin gave us the independence. Sure, but he expected the Finns would have joined to international revolution by themselves. This was tried in the civil war of 1918, the Whites won and retaliated. Next major event between the two countries was when the Soviets tried to take Finland back in the Winter War. So that much of their goodwill. Nevertheless the revolt made the right wing government to pay more attention to the conditions of the people - and result made our country better and stronger.

Socialism, as long as it's democratic or better a natural part of a democracy, I believe is a good thing. I don't have to admire dictators like Lenin because I like the idea.

marshal zhukov

I beg to differ. Without a state, who would be collecting and redistributing the resources? And also, who would enforce it to make sure nobody skims off of the share they are supposed to pass on? If what you say is true, then Communism is nothing more that Utopianism from a childish poorly thought out idea that is impossible to impliment. With no sate who ever has the biggest gun rules. People will figure that out soon enough. The idea that there is no state assumes that nobody will try to keep a little extra for themselves. And with a state to make sure that people do pay their dues. There is no motivation to work hard. Look at Cuba, talk with some people who visited there recently. Engineers work as porters in hotels b/c they get tip money. It pays better to be a porter than a scientist in Cuba.

And also, once someone tries to enforce something in your view of communism they become the state as they are applying rules to someone.

Given your explanation. Communism can never exist.

Furry Spatula said it all:goodjob:

Originally posted by luiz
@Indrius: True, I never worked in a mine. But Ive seen children starving, and Ive seen leftist politicians using their misery to get elected and dont doing *&@#! to solve the problem.

You haven't lived in USSR so you don't know anything about that. There weren't any childred labor, famine or unemployment in USSR. You may believe me or you may not, but I lived there. So your socialDEMOCRACY example is worthless here.

Originally posted by luiz
@zhukov
We can blame him for killing MILLIONS of peasants who refused to give away ALL of their production to the state. There is a document in wich Lenin orders the execution of aprox. 30,000 peasants. If that doesnt qualify him as en evil dictator then I dont know what does.


It was Stalin, who made such orders for his terror aparatus. Lenin didn't order to kill peasants. He even told that Stalin shouldn't be appointed as the ruler of USSR, he knew that Stalin was mad psycho.

Anyway, learn some history.

@Indrius: Just because someone hasn't lived in a country doesn't mean he can know nothing about it. And Lenin WAS a mass murderer, I could give you lots of references to books or articles from respected historians in which is stated that Lenin is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.

Lenin definitely gave the cheka broad powers and they killed many opponents with his 'blessing' Stalin was far worse, but Lenin created the apparatus that would eventually give Stalin the power to do the horrors he would eventually commit. Eventually Lenin began to realize the dangers that Stalin would possess if unchecked, but it was too late.

Originally posted by Furry Spatula
marshal zhukov

I beg to differ. Without a state, who would be collecting and redistributing the resources? And also, who would enforce it to make sure nobody skims off of the share they are supposed to pass on? If what you say is true, then Communism is nothing more that Utopianism from a childish poorly thought out idea that is impossible to impliment. With no sate who ever has the biggest gun rules. People will figure that out soon enough. The idea that there is no state assumes that nobody will try to keep a little extra for themselves. And with a state to make sure that people do pay their dues. There is no motivation to work hard. Look at Cuba, talk with some people who visited there recently. Engineers work as porters in hotels b/c they get tip money. It pays better to be a porter than a scientist in Cuba.

And also, once someone tries to enforce something in your view of communism they become the state as they are applying rules to someone.

Given your explanation. Communism can never exist.

Exactly. I totally agree with you.
Communism is the dumbest idea ever conceived by a human being.
Communism is an utopia, it is so unworkable that no Socialist nation has ever tried to put the idea into practice. Not even the Soviets followed through with the idea.
Socialism was supposed to be an intermediate fase to the Communist revolution, it was never meant to be a system to run a economy.
It amazing to see how many people believed blindly in the idea that Communism is a workable system, worst yet, it amazing to see how many believed that it was the solution for flaws of Capitalism.
Capitalism is by far superior to any system ever created by mankind, of course it is not perfect, it has its flaws.

ok whew, i thought you were one of "those" people.

Originally posted by Magnus
Lenin definitely gave the cheka broad powers and they killed many opponents with his 'blessing' Stalin was far worse, but Lenin created the apparatus that would eventually give Stalin the power to do the horrors he would eventually commit. Eventually Lenin began to realize the dangers that Stalin would possess if unchecked, but it was too late.

Ahhhh Bullsh*t.

Read this Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679640509/qid=1052623700/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-6483504-8465520)

This man has a bone to pick with you.

And in Stalin's defense; he was a brutal totalitarian. This is a good defense because he was a Communist, and a dictator, and he should be admired, among dictators, because he managed to do the 'ruthless dictator' thing better than most.

Originally posted by Magnus
Lenin definitely gave the cheka broad powers and they killed many opponents with his 'blessing' Stalin was far worse, but Lenin created the apparatus that would eventually give Stalin the power to do the horrors he would eventually commit. Eventually Lenin began to realize the dangers that Stalin would possess if unchecked, but it was too late.

Ahhhh Bullsh*t.

Read this Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679640509/qid=1052623700/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-6483504-8465520)

This man has a bone to pick with you.

And in Stalin's defense; he was a brutal totalitarian. This is a good defense because he was a Communist, and a dictator, and he should be admired, among dictators, because he managed to do the 'ruthless dictator' thing better than most.

I wish he never existed, but i'm American, so i'm gonna say that ;)

I would like to know what the rest of the world thinks of him, specially the europeans, because according to the local news most of them are reds


I wish it were true :( ... Though Europe certainly seems more left then America, we got people like Berlusconi:yuck:, Sarkozy and Merkel...

Five years... :wow:

That's not the record though. I remember someone did revive a seven years old thread.

Lenin shows how dangerous ideology becomes when people start to believe so much in said ideology that they forget the reality.

Lenin, is a difficult man to discuss...

On one side, consider the time... Russia just suffered a terrible defeat in the First World War, then the country was thrown into a bloody Civil War, and we all know how much that just bumps the economy down... I'm not saying this excused him but if your gonna honestly form an opinion on Lenin, look at the world around him.

I find him an important figure, I don't praise him as most lefts do but I respect him and believe he cared for the country.

When you get right down to it, Lenin wasn't much different than any other brutal dictator. In fact, given his fanatical devotion to ideology, he was probably worse than most. Almost his every move while in power was some variation of 'repress and/or consolidate power'.

He created a secret police to crush dissent. Violently silenced all criticism and monopolized and propagandized the press. Stole food and grain from the peasants he was supposedly there to protect. Made examples of everyone, rich and poor, bourgeois and peasant, in an effort to spread his 'Red Terror' everywhere. Broke up and repressed all attempts at grass roots worker or peasant organization. He condemned imperialists, yet used military force to subdue all the newly independent states around Russia. He filled labor camps on a scale that not even the Czars had ever attempted. And he didn't regret this crap or call it a necessary evil. He openly celebrated and encouraged slaughter and butchery.

He was an imperialist. An authoritarian. A butcher. And a thug. I'm hard pressed to find anything positive that he actually did for Russia. Intentions don't count. He may have had some quaint notions of empowering the people, yet he did everything within his power to crush them. Just because he clothed his power grab in ideology and likely believed that ideology doesn't make him any different or any better than the Czars. In fact, he was probably worse.

He was a tyrant and nothing excuses that. Unfortunately any further insight is generally made absurd by ideological nonsense, either by the left that wants to imagine a communist paradise before Stalin, or by the right that seeks to paint Stalin as the communist mainstream. If you think Lenin was comparable to Stalin, or that Lenin's tyranny was in any way excusable, you've been made blind by your ideology, simple as that.

He had one badass beard, and he knew how to wear a three-piecer.

The Left-wing here in Brazil says Lenin was a good man and a great leader and philosopher. There is a lot of evidence proving that Lenin was responsible for a few millions of deaths, but the leftists insist in idolising him.

I would like to know what the rest of the world thinks of him, specially the europeans, because according to the local news most of them are reds.(Im exagerating, but sometimes it really seems like it)

BTW, my personal opinion is that he was a mass murderer.

a traitor. you left out that option in the poll...

Lenin was responsible for destroying the communist movement. His murderous and insane rampages against any and all advocates of responsible and accountable government, from the SRs to Makhno's anarachists led directly to the deaths of millions of people, the end of the infantile leftist movement in the territories he seized and set the stage for Stalin & Beria coming to power- the single greatest tragedy of the 20th century.

Sympathy for Lenin and his successors is based upon disinformation, spread through Stalinist and later Trotskyite domination of the far left movement.

However, the idea that people cannot co-operate for the common good and are inherently evil, as espoused by the rightists is also absurd. Science and elementary common sense proves that human behaviour (by any arbitrary standard) can be improved. The very fact that some people with genuine morality have ever existed and that their morality is clearly not the result of genetic factors (as shown by their parents & offspring) is proof of this.
If people can be good then surely we should all strive for the ideal of a communal society? If not, then surely we should still do so anyway- if people can never be good, who cares whether they suffer the consequences of a failed system? They deserve nothing better.

Lenin was a leader just like everybody else, it just so happened that he led the biggest country in the world. Meh. :dunno:

(derailing with a joke heard during the 80's)

In Moscow, a Supreme Soviet member spots a very old man bent in prayer outside the Kremlin. The oldtimer's fervor catches the politician's attention, so he decides to question him. He approaches.
"What are you doing here, old man?" he inquires politely.
"I'm praying for the communists, just like I used to pray for the czar".
"Ah!", says the politician, amused yet touched by such devotion, "and did it work well for the czar?"
"I'll say it did" the old man replies, "he was shot in the end, right?"

Lenin was something of an ideological revolutionary who had the rage and brutality burned into him that's common with revolutionaries.

When you want to judge now nasty a revolutionary is, you have to look at how nasty the situation they are revolting against is.

The Tsars were evil. They deserved to be killed off. It's a tragedy that what replaced them was decades of horror.

But it's not surprising in the least.

If a place now has lefties that are idolizing Lenin, then the question that has to be asked is; "how evil are the people they want to overthrow?"

I totally agree with you Furry Spatula.

The problem with communism is that it goes against human nature. Marx thinked that its possible to determine what the people want. He believed that he speaked for the people, what was completly wrong. Lenin tried to imppose his views to all the russians, and this makes him a tyrant.

. .. .. .. . human nature! Neither you nor anyone can claim to know human nature. What is human nature? What is the purpose of life, the purpose of each one of us as a self-conscious being? What are our motivations, how will we behave?
Those are existential questions to which an infinity of philosophies, religions and ideologies (and now science such as psychology) sough to give an answer. Marxism was one such ideology, Lenin's version of it another, etc. Your own fuzzy version of capitalism/liberalism/whatever is just another. You're falling for what you charge Lenin of: being an "idealist" who believes in absolutes and wants to impose his own set of absolutes. When you claim "it goes against human nature" you're saying that you know the definitive "truth" about human nature. And your claim is false to start with: can you show me where in any form of "communism" are there assumptions about human nature?
The assumptions are about human institutions. Marxism was remarkable (for its time) in that it stated that what divided people was not lineage, race or nationality, but the role assumed by each individual. It was understood that individuals could assume different roles, and that these roles changed throughout history: that human nature didn't exist, each individual's nature was a product of it's environment!

Try to contradict this while appearing to stand for freedom, if you can.

Unfortunately Marx then came up with a theory of historic determinism and screwed up what was otherwise a beautifully accurate analysis of humanity and the world... :rolleyes: Well, he was a man of his time, and age of faith in reason and science, of man as a construction that could and eventually would (or already was!) understood. And yes, there is that taint in his work: he was humane enough to contradict the prevailing theories of human nature (which have been so useful to justify tyranny, racism, fascism...), but he still believed that human institutions were understandable and predictable.

On topic: frankly I doubt Lenin was much of an idealist. An idealist wouldn't have been able to win the bloody civil war. He was more than that: he understood the people we eventually came to rule, the nation he took over. He overthrew old institutions and managed to impose his version for the new ones. He took one ideology thought to apply to a different scenario and modified it for use in Russia.
As any leader in a civil war, yes, responsibility for the deaths and destruction ultimately leads to him. But the civil war would have happened anyway, even if he didn't exist, circumstances were ripe for it. As a leader he was at least effective in holding together most of Russia and putting an end to the civil war reasonably quickly.

Without a state, who would be collecting and redistributing the resources? And also, who would enforce it to make sure nobody skims off of the share they are supposed to pass on?

Without a state there is no property, mind you. The only thing you're proving is that the anarchists were better socialists (or at least better intellectuals) than the Marxists...


If what you say is true, then Communism is nothing more that Utopianism from a childish poorly thought out idea that is impossible to impliment. With no sate who ever has the biggest gun rules. People will figure that out soon enough. The idea that there is no state assumes that nobody will try to keep a little extra for themselves. And with a state to make sure that people do pay their dues. There is no motivation to work hard.

There are three widely recognized forces for social organization: self-interest, coercion, and association. Usually the "professional polemicists" will be found defending one of these against the others, claiming that theirs is the only one that explains "human nature" (and if they manage to persuade enough people they will indeed create societies based on their favorite principle).

Coercion (currently in the form of states) seems to have been present through much of human history - but the odd thing is that it was an unstable thing, rulers always fighting rebellions, "states" very much powerless (and uninterested) to do more that collect taxes and wage wars. In western history for a long time political theory was dominated by Aristotle and Plato, and these were not supporters of coercion. Nor of anything resembling the modern state, then inexistent. In fact Aristotle divided constitutions between virtuous and non-virtuous, and it's obvious that the non-virtuous one are those which would require coercion to maintain (the others, being virtuous, presumably wouldn't need it). Thus was the problem skirted... The modern state is recent, the intellectual defense of coercion as a legitimate political tool should probably be credited to Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_%28book%29).

Self-interest is also a popular principle currently, certainly more popular that when Mandeville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable_of_the_Bees) first proposed it as an explanation and basis for social order (and properly loathed by, among others, Adam Smith). I' won't comment further on this one, or I'd never stop...

But association has been unfairly neglected. Small communities around the world have practiced it for hundreds of years successfully - in the absence of a state, for states, for much of human history, were nearly nonexistent, holding a tenuous rule, at best, over rural communities, and often failing to control cities entirely, as numerous republican city-states attested.
Yet rural communities managed to share resources such as land and water without armies of their own. And even cities experienced with rebellions and different forms of government, acclaiming and overthrowing rulers. Was that a situation where "the biggest gun rules", or one where people freely associated, made new rules according to their needs, and sometimes stuck with those rules? It's true that association works better on a smaller scale, because it requires monitoring of the rules by the people of the community, but if other sources of social order can scale, why not association? We still practice it on our everyday life, whenever we reach (and abide by) agreements or rules that do not involve coercion or self-interest. The defenders of the "self-interest" worldview will claim that is self-interest, but I really don't have the time to go into that discussion...:rolleyes:


My point, after this lengthy introduction, is: there are forces other than the state (coercion) at work in making human society work. Arguably any of these forces could do by itself, for some time, but we'll tend to mix the three (coercion, self-interest and association) to get any kind of complex society working. This doesn't mean we need states monopolizing the power of coercion. Coercion is just one accessory to society, not the sole basis on which society stands. You were arguing as Hobbes did in Leviathan. Well, he was wrong.

He was a great man undoubtedly. "Just leader" could not take and hold the power in that time. He rebuilt country from ruins, and he is responsible for many victims of this process. It could be less victims or country could be better, nobody knows this.

Innonimatu, thanks for your analysis, very interesting.

The Left-wing here in Brazil says Lenin was a good man and a great leader and philosopher. There is a lot of evidence proving that Lenin was responsible for a few millions of deaths, but the leftists insist in idolising him.

I would like to know what the rest of the world thinks of him, specially the europeans, because according to the local news most of them are reds.(Im exagerating, but sometimes it really seems like it)

BTW, my personal opinion is that he was a mass murderer.

In some discussions, Lenin gets a pass because his barbarism is outrageously overshadowed by his successor, Stalin. However, make no mistake that Lenin was responsible for widespread death and destruction, as you alluded. It was, in fact, Lenin, who founded most of the organs of the USSR, including what eventually became the KGB.

Association isn't neglected. In the modern nation-state its arguably as important as coercion, if not moreso. Nationalism and the national identity has proven to be an exceptionally effective unifying and motivating force. Countries without a strong national identity seem to be prone to internal instability, cult of personality leaders, and extreme (and often violent) efforts to forge such an identity where none previously existed.

Religion of course is the most obvious, longstanding, and arguably effective association mechanism in existence. It has the ability to spawn devoted fanatics far and wide. Of course since its an inherently irrational and unpredictable ideology, not to mention internally divisive, its best supplanted by something grounded in real world rules and concerns like nationalism.

The other major associative mechanism is ideology. Ideology can breed fanatics as fierce and devoted as religion, but it tends to be grounded in a bubble reality that is predictable if you know the ideology, but not always applicable to real world circumstances. (although that'll never stop them from trying to apply it). Its breadth and reach is limited compared to religion/nationalism. And the typical ideological state will have a few true believers up top with everyone else going along (of those who do go along) because its the immediate path of least resistance and greatest potential reward. (self interest)

For any large scale organization and government, nationalism is (IMO) clearly the most effective, rational, and least dangerous available associative model. It has the least number of false premises, asks the most rational and important questions ('what is in the best interests of my country' is a much better basis to start from than 'god says' or 'rambling ideological philosopher forefather says') and is better suited to maintaining internal unity and stability.

Short of 'purification' by the sword, you can't guarantee that everyone internally will follow the same religion, which leaves the potential for conflict. And you're certainly never going to be able to spread a certain ideology nationwide. (and even if you could, goodbye new ideas and fresh perspectives, hello stagnation!) But a strong national identity welcomes every citizen no matter their background, and if most of them are drinking the koolaid, you've got the best large scale unifier and motivator in the game.

I started this thread 5 years ago and I am not bothering to re-read it. If I wrote something stupid or inaccurate blame it on my youth.

I started this thread 5 years ago and I am not bothering to re-read it. If I wrote something stupid or inaccurate blame it on my youth.
Wow, I totally missed that this was an old thread! :crazyeye:

Lenin has always struck me as a Cromwellian figure, a well-meaning but misguided leader. As far as I can see, he was motivated by a genuine dedication to Marxism- albeit one balanced by a pragmatic approach to it's implementation- and the betterment of the working class. However, the self-righteousness and egotism of the Bolsheviks (as a group and as individuals), combined with unnecessarily brutal and repressive methods, meant that he did as much harm as good.

Looking back at some of the (far, far) older posts, I see some people have brought up the fact that the Tsarist regime which preceded the revolution was a bad, if not worse, than Lenin's. It always seems odd how people seem to forget things like this- it's almost like absolute monarchies are given a sort of moral "get out of jail free" card simply because of their outdated nature. For example, in the UK Cromwell is often regarded as "bad" because he was a politician who rose to dictatorial status. The absolute monarch who preceded him, however, is largely treated with indifference, because he was "just doing what kings do."
It sometimes seems that people draw some imaginary line between "monarch" and "dictator". "Monarch" are a quaint historical detail, free from moral scrutiny, while "dictators" are, apparently, modern, and so have to be judged by the standards of the modern age, regardless of their own context. Apparently, acting like a tyrant and telling people that God, a fancy hat and five generations of equally tyrannous ancestor give you the right to do so is far preferable to merely acting like a tyrant.

Lenin has always struck me as a Cromwellian figure, a well-meaning but misguided leader. As far as I can see, he was motivated by a genuine dedication to Marxism- albeit one balanced by a pragmatic approach to it's implementation- and the betterment of the working class. However, the self-righteousness and egotism of the Bolsheviks (as a group and as individuals), combined with unnecessarily brutal and repressive methods, meant that he did as much harm as good.

Looking back at some of the (far, far) older posts, I see some people have brought up the fact that the Tsarist regime which preceded the revolution was a bad, if not worse, than Lenin's. It always seems odd how people seem to forget things like this- it's almost like absolute monarchies are given a sort of moral "get out of jail free" card simply because of their outdated nature. For example, in the UK Cromwell is often regarded as "bad" because he was a politician who rose to dictatorial status. The absolute monarch who preceded him, however, is largely treated with indifference, because he was "just doing what kings do."
It sometimes seems that people draw some imaginary line between "monarch" and "dictator". "Monarch" are a quaint historical detail, free from moral scrutiny, while "dictators" are, apparently, modern, and so have to be judged by the standards of the modern age, regardless of their own context. Apparently, acting like a tyrant and telling people that God, a fancy hat and five generations of equally tyrannous ancestor give you the right to do so is far preferable to merely acting like a tyrant.

Not me. I always give the monarchs their rightful scorn. Someone recently said here monarchy>communism, but it really isn't true. Nothing is worse than monarchy, because except for the few that chose to give up power, all have ended in disaster for their people.

Not me. I always give the monarchs their rightful scorn. Someone recently said here monarchy>communism, but it really isn't true. Nothing is worse than monarchy, because except for the few that chose to give up power, all have ended in disaster for their people.

You know, "nothing is worse than monarchy" is exactly what I would have expected from a propaganda website of the USA. :lol:

FYI, monarchy does not equal lack of democracy.

You know, "nothing is worse than monarchy" is exactly what I would have expected from a propaganda website of the USA. :lol:

FYI, monarchy does not equal lack of democracy.


You didn't actually read what i wrote, did you? :mischief:

The problem with Lenin is that after his death he was practically deified by his successors. His crimes where deliberately forgotten for the sake of giving world communism a Jesus figure. And believers in communism are still to this day decieved by eighty year old propaganda.

He was in fact not a communist Idealist, as some here claim. He murdered true communists and idealists en masse, as is evident in the Kronstadt rebellion.

When bolsheviks who had been in the game from the beginning protested against his misuse of power and perversion of communist ideals, He called them traitors and had them killed.

Whilst in fact he was the greatest traitor of communism of them all.

He is the ultimate proof of that communism always leads to death and destruction and feeds of the well meaning "usefull idiots" for the ends of the power hungry.

His deification proves that communism is nothing but idealism turned to religion by people yearning for utopia, who blinded by their hopes and dreams have been led to the gulag or the slaughterhouses of the secret police.

Communism is even worse of a religion than , say christianity, because it has no mercy.

He was in fact not a communist Idealist, as some here claim. He murdered true communists and idealists en masse, as is evident in the Kronstadt rebellion.

When bolsheviks who had been in the game from the beginning protested against his misuse of power and perversion of communist ideals, He called them traitors and had them killed.

Whilst in fact he was the greatest traitor of communism of them all.

He is the ultimate proof of that communism always leads to death and destruction and feeds of the well meaning "usefull idiots" for the ends of the power hungry.

His deification proves that communism is nothing but idealism turned to religion by people yearning for utopia, who blinded by their hopes and dreams have been led to the gulag or the slaughterhouses of the secret police.

Communism is even worse of a religion than , say christianity, because it has no mercy.

The only thing your post proves is that you're unable to post a coherent reply to this topic!
Taking up ypur argument, either Lenin was a communist, and you can claim that "communism" is evil because Lenin was evil, or Lenin was not a communist but a traitor, and then you cannot claim communism is evil because Lenin was evil.

As for the other silly claims "always leads to death and destruction", "worst than a religion"... any ideology taken to extremes causes that kind of problems. The fact is that while the first 30 years or so of the soviet block were bloody, the rest was increasingly civil, and the whole thing fell practically peacefully. Not exactly what you'd expect from the totalitarian monster ruled by leaders who ate babies for breakfast....

For anyone really intrested in learning about Lenin, i'd reccomend reading Robert Services biography of him. To find it just serach for 'Lenin' on amazon.

Personally, I have a negative view of him. I think he was a dividing force amongst Europes left-wing at the time, and that he was very authoritarian. He was a good tatician, but the fact that Stalin became leader after him against his will goes to show that he had lost control over the situation by the end. I don't really have much patience for the 'he was an evil mass murderer' view though.....he was more a product of the terriable system that Russia had under the Tsar. Afterall his brother was executed by the Tsars police state in his youth so it's hardly surprising that he resorted to brutal methods himself in return. It's not justifiable, but it is understandable.

Good point.

Another thing to think about is that probably 99% of all most people see, read, hear in western, capitalist sources about anything that happens in countries the western capitalist countries have designated "the enemy" is pure bullsh*t. They are only putting forward what they think will serve their own interests and this info is no more accurate than their television adverts.

What are you talking about? I just bought the Communist Manifesto at Barnes & Noble, read some Noam Chomsky on my unblocked internet (wow, uncensored mass media! What a novelty!). Chomsky is not a communist, more of an anarchist, but he is certainly "the enemy" to any capitalist country I would imagine.

I don't think you really know what your talking about, you just like to talk.


I think Lenin was a man more interested in power than ideology. This can be seen with his radical shifts to capitalistic policies near the end of his reign for the purpose of alleviating Soviet economic problems, totally backing out of what he had said just a few years earlier about a "classless, Marxist state".

I'm not really a fan of Lenin at all and I despise the Communist movement as a whole (though I can at least respect certain well meaning movements), but I can't really blame him for the KGB either. The Ohkrana was already well established under the Tsars and with so many rival factions...sometimes you just need a secret police to get things done. I do pin the blame of millions of deaths on him, but not the KGB or the organs of Soviet destruction that might have been "created" under him.

Maybe another decade of a pragmatic Lenin would have been great for the Russians, in comparison to what they got instead.

I don't really have much patience for the 'he was an evil mass murderer' view though.....he was more a product of the terriable system that Russia had under the Tsar.


Here's the thing though....there's absolutely nothing untrue about that 'view'. Well, the evil part might be a stretch depending on how you choose to define the term. But no matter what system, era, or society he was a product of, it doesn't really change the fact that he was a brutal, murderous, oppressive b*stard.

He was a revolutionary who murdered and crushed people and groups who were more revolutionary than he was. He did the same to political allies for acts of real or imagined defiance. The entire basis of his ideology was to end the oppression of the working and peasant classes, yet he actively and violently oppressed those classes himself once he came to power. He railed against imperialism, yet became an imperialist himself, sending the Russian army to invade neighbors. He heavily censored everything from books to media. Controlled the press. Restricted just about all basic rights you can think of. His policies led to widespread famines and civil strife. Almost an all out war against the peasant class that he was supposed to be fighting for. A secret police. Work camps. Death camps. Large scale summary executions. Theft. Murder. The whole nine yards.

I really see no reason to believe that he was any better than the Tsars or Stalin. He's lucky he died early. That did more for his reputation than any of his actual 'achievements' in life. Now Che-loving college freshmen can lament the perversion of Lenin's vision at the hands of his brutal and evil successors. A sort of vindication of communism that is not the least bit deserved.

He was a straight up thug on just about every level. And unfortunately he's been judged much more favorably by history than he should be. Because the 'what if' scenario of Lenin's Soviet Union had he lived for another 10-20 years certainly doesn't look any more pleasant than what Stalin delivered if you use past practice as an indicator.

The only thing your post proves is that you're unable to post a coherent reply to this topic!
Taking up ypur argument, either Lenin was a communist, and you can claim that "communism" is evil because Lenin was evil, or Lenin was not a communist but a traitor, and then you cannot claim communism is evil because Lenin was evil.

As for the other silly claims "always leads to death and destruction", "worst than a religion"... any ideology taken to extremes causes that kind of problems. The fact is that while the first 30 years or so of the soviet block were bloody, the rest was increasingly civil, and the whole thing fell practically peacefully. Not exactly what you'd expect from the totalitarian monster ruled by leaders who ate babies for breakfast....

Just read up on the Kronstadt rebellion and the gaps you percieve will be filled.

And further on it is obvious that communism has death and destruction built in to itself.

Its goal is revolution and upheval fed my hate, the revolution requires centralised leadershit that later refuses to relinquish power to the masses. The revolution inevetably consumes it s own children.

The only thing a communism revolution produces is a new elite, that is even more blood thirsty in its idealistic bravado.

When you have killed of enough people the survivors become doctile or revolt. The Soviets becme doctile, the satelite states revolted, silly.

Writes a yahoo with these board stats:

Azale (http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=18780)
Una, Grande y Libre

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,725

About someone with these board stats:

meisen (http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=61094)
Besser tot als doof

Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 793

Apparently George Bush isn't an isolated example of that species.

:lol:
So your saying 793 pointless displays of ignorance is better than 10,725 wise, insightful comments?
Not that I'm saying either is the case, of course, just making a point...

And further on it is obvious that communism has death and destruction built in to itself.
Firstly, demonising your political opponents as the Dark God of Kaos isn't very mature.
Secondly, don't just throw "communism" around like it's a particular doctrine- here's a difference between something as broad as collectivist anarchy and the specific doctrine of Marx-Leninism (which, asides from anything else, is not actually a form of communism; it's a program of revolution through which communism is intended to be achieved).

-double post-

Just read up on the Kronstadt rebellion and the gaps you percieve will be filled.

And further on it is obvious that communism has death and destruction built in to itself.

Its goal is revolution and upheval fed my hate, the revolution requires centralised leadershit that later refuses to relinquish power to the masses. The revolution inevetably consumes it s own children.

The only thing a communism revolution produces is a new elite, that is even more blood thirsty in its idealistic bravado.

When you have killed of enough people the survivors become doctile or revolt. The Soviets becme doctile, the satelite states revolted, silly.

Any successful revolution produces a new elite, that's the whole purpose of a revolution. And you can bet that when the revolution involves a civil war the victors will be bloodthirsty bastards, if they weren't they'd have been defeated. It's just the way things work...

This still does not prove that communism always leads to death and destruction. Not any more that other political ideologies, under the same circumstances. If the whites had won the russian civil war and then (after a few more years of infighting among their own different factions) proceeded to install a democratic regime, would you claim that democracy always led to death and destruction, because it happened to take that to achieve it? Any war requires two or more sides, always...
Communists, at the time of the russian civil war, could be blamed for believing that a violent revolution would be required to impose a communist government, in Russia or anywhere. But about Russia they were probably right, the country was ripe for revolution due to WWI. Whoever started and won one would rule, Kerensky's government would fall, if not to the bolsheviks then to some other violent faction.

Eventually communism led to a stable government, one that despite its totalitarian legacy gradually came to rely on propaganda instead of terror to maintain its rule. And eventually it fell without putting up any real resistance, when people ceased believing in the regime. I don't like the organizational basis of communism (the idea that the people must be lead, "herded" by an elite composed by communist party members...) and the way it ruled first through terror and then through propaganda. But those faults are really not unique to communism.

One that is pointless....:lol:

Or more accurately, you missed the point entirely.
Actually, my dear little troll, my rather obvious point was that saying "you don't know what you're talking about, you simply like to talk" was not a comment directed at the quantity of your posts, but the quality. Making 800 utterly worthless posts fits under that heading, while making 10,000 informed and intelligent posts does not.
As I said, I'm not saying that this is the case, I'm just making a point.

You obviously watch yourself in a mirror. :lol:

freak
I'm sorry, I honestly can't see how that's supposed to function as a retort. I mean, I get that you're trying to be clever and insulting, I just don't understand how that particular "sos your face" variety of post is aimed to achieve it.
I was just saying that, hypothetically, it'd be a bigger waste of time to make one inane comment than a thousand worthwhile ones. Why you think that making that point reflects, no pun intended, badly on me, or why you object to it so greatly, I really do not understand.

Writes a yahoo with these board stats:

Azale (http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=18780)
Una, Grande y Libre

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,725

About someone with these board stats:

meisen (http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=61094)
Besser tot als doof

Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 793

Apparently George Bush isn't an isolated example of that species.

:lol:

Dude, I've been on this board since 2002 you twit. That's about 4-5 posts a day, I'm too lazy to check. Hardly sucking my life away since I frequent pretty much just this forum.

Also, I'm a Texan whose against the death penalty, tight immigration laws, the pro-life lobby, and pro-environment.

Nice to see you drop all the points of contention though. I was hoping to either be enlightened but instead I get insulted...and it's not even a good insult! :lol:

Come on, I'm from TEXAS. Jebus Cristobal, you give a man a fish and he feeds for a day but I just gave you a magic fishing rod and the Titanic and your still starving.

That's rather obvious, isn't it. And you should be sorry. :D
You're really not very good at witty retorts, are you? And yet you keep trying... It's kind of sad, really...