Lenin: Hero of Communism

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Though many of you Capitalists or anti-Communists may not support this. This Thread is in memory of dear Comrade Lenin.

Lenin, in his term, also made bad decisions resulting in death of many but still he was a man for his country. And we must all remember all countries have their bad eggs which end up killing many (Let us not forget Andrew Johnson (US) Stalin (That bastard who f*cked the USSR) Vlad The Impaler, etc.) Lenin was still a great man.

So let us (me, my fellow comrades or any others who had any belief in Lenin's system) pay tribute to our comrade...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Who did Andrew Johnson kill?

 

[blackheart]

Why is this in the history thread, and what made Lenin so great?

 

[Tee Kay]

Lenin caused more trouble than good in his lifetime. In early 1917 Russia is a potential parliamentary democracy, where liberals may share power with monarchists and moderate communists. Lenin spoiled it all with his hardline version of communism.

 

[Adler17]

Indeed. He also murdered the czar family. And even against the belief of Marx he acted. He forgot he made a civil revolution and not a proletarian one, which was also said to him by Rosa Luxemburg. He did not hear on her. So even to strongly communistic belief he made severe errors.

Adler

 

[Plotinus]

I think if this is to be a History forum thread, and not simply a spam thread, it needs some more historical discussion. Why not edit the OP to tell us more about what Lenin did and why he was great?

 

[MCdread]

Lenin, in his term, also made bad decisions resulting in death of many but still he was a man for his country.

A man for his country? I thought the official version would be that he was a man for the oppressed proletarian masses in the whole world and starter of the world revolution that would bring all men and women towards a free equalitarian communist society, for the greater happiness of mankind.

 

[Godwynn]

Yes you can think Lenin for keeping Russia down, even today. He only set up an economic time-bomb.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

A man for his country? I thought the official version would be that he was a man for the oppressed proletarian masses in the whole world and starter of the world revolution that would bring all men and women towards a free equalitarian communist society, for the greater happiness of mankind.

The Polish military put an end to that idea.


Lenin's policies were not entirely disasterous, and this can be put down to the timidity of his NEP, which was an inspiration to the present Chinese economy. Soviet education and the "welfare state" were both a major improvement in what had gone before.
Stalin, the war, the arms race and the spectacularly mismanaged conversion to capitalism are the problems responsible for Russia's present economic state.
Lenin's damage was dealt in the political sector but has survived into modern Russia in equal measure.

 

[DAv2003]

I think Lenin would have been good for the USSR if he had survived. Admittedly since Stalin was the next real leader, that isn't saying much...

 

[MCdread]

If he had survived, I'm sure Stalin would have taken care of that.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Who did Andrew Johnson kill?

The Indians...

Anyways I understand why most of u probably dislike Lenin. But rly even i got to admit Lenin didn't give us enough time to judge how things would have gone... He did what he could to control a war torn country and the world was against him for leaving WWI... He did damned fine for all the pressure against him.

However, Lenin would have supported Trotsky instead of Stalin. And that at least lets us know he wanted whats best for Russia... he knew Stalin's game but by the time he was completly aware he was dying.

 

[blackheart]

The Indians...

That's Andrew Jackson

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

That's Andrew Jackson

I'm not sure... I swore it was Johnson

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm not sure... I swore it was Johnson

I assure you that it was neither.


Andrew Jackson fought to preserve the Native Americans, the Trail of Tears, to which you most likely refer, was the doing of Martin Van Buren, Jackson's successor.

You see, Andrew Jackson, while he felt the Native Americans were inferior to Americans, still respected them, having fought with them during the War of 1812, and respected both their culture and their right to exist. He did create the reservations to which they marched, but he did not cause the march to happen. Jackson wanted the Native Americans to decide to go on their own, he felt that they were not taking into accound the expansion of the United States when they decided to stay where they were, and that they would surely be wiped out if they decided to stay where they were. However, he also gave them two years to go before the law stepped in.

When Martin Van Buren took office, the two years was not up, but he did not like the Native Americans, and sent the US Army in to round them up and march them West before their time was up, and against their will.

Furthermore, US troops did not execute Indians in the Trail of Tears. They died by their own fault. Nearly all of the contributing factors to the death of Indians during that march can be attributed to the Indians themselves. For instance, it was their choice not to wear shoes, or to bring their livestock with them, which they were allowed to do.

So, take it out on Van Buren, not Jackson.


Andrew Johnson was Abraham Lincoln's successor, and is best known for being Impeached for blocking every piece of legislation Congress sent his way, for screwing up Reconstruction, and for trying to block the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Ammendments, which cover citizenship and equal protection under the law.

 

[neutrino]

Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not set a good precedent. first of all, from the onset, the modus operandi of Lenin & Co. had been dictatorial. (though, it is not completely their fault, considering they had to survive the civil war in whichever way they could, and their reactionary opponents were no better.) before his death, Lenin was aware of the flaws within the Bolshevik dictatorship -- hence he promoted NEP, wanting to increase the membership of the Central Committee to bring in 'new blood'. but it was a half-hearted plan, at best, as only one political party was allowed. the fact that Russia lacked republican/democratic tradition made dictatorship doubly more attractive.

Trotsky ...... though he performed well as the war commissar (one key move he made that turned out to be very successful was to recruit ex-tsarist officers and soldiers and run the Red Army according to proven military tradition, not according to some revolutionary pipe dreams), he had no political allies to speak of outside Lenin. the fact that he was in charge of the military during the civil war became a political liability as several of his collegues were afraid of the possibility of Trotsky harbouring 'Bonapartist' ambitions. (though he was arrogant and flamboyant, he lacked the means to become a Bonapartist.) his radicalism also did not help. (ironically, his arch-rival, Stalin, adopted many of Trotsky's radical ideas later on, but w/ much more repression!) overall, he was not much of a politician, as he quickly became sidelined right after Lenin's death.

Stalin ...... not many of his collegues thought highly of him (until too late!). on the surface, he was crude, rude, and lacked intellectual sophistication. plus, he became the party's general secretary, something most others thought of it as nothing more than a bureaucratic job that someone had to do, certainly not as prestigeous as thingies like foreign affairs, war comissariat, and so on. he had a knack for letting others to show their playing cards and keep his own cards to himself. though Trotsky was his arch-rival, Stalin did not made his move until he could deliver a crushing blow; collegues like Zinoviev and Kamenev fought Trotsky for the most part. sort of like ..... the wolf and the bear find a piece of meat. they fight over it. the meat rolls downhill until it lands right in front of the fox. the fox snatches the meat; the wolf and the bear find themselves empty-handed and can only blankly stare at the smiling fox.

 

[sydhe]

Cheezy: You're being too kind to Jackson. The treaties which were the excuse for the removal were the work of his administration, and it was his administration in 1836 which gave the Indians two years to go west. The ones who refused to go were the ones who were forced to go in 1838.

There is also the second Seminole war:
"n 1832, the United States government signed the Treaty of Paynes Landing with a few of the Seminole chiefs, promising them lands west of the Mississippi River if they agreed to leave Florida voluntarily. The remaining Seminole prepared for war. White settlers pressured the government to remove all of the Indians, by force if necessary. In 1835, the U.S. Army arrived to enforce the treaty. Seminole leader Osceola led the vastly outnumbered resistance during the Second Seminole War. Drawing on a population of about 4,000 Seminole Indians and 800 allied Black Seminoles, the Seminoles mustered at most 1,400 warriors (Andrew Jackson estimated they had only 900) to counter combined U.S. Army and militia forces that ranged from 6,000 troops at the outset to 9,000 at the peak of deployment, in 1837. To survive, the Seminole allies employed hit-and-run guerrilla tactics with devastating effect against U.S. forces. Osceola was arrested when he came under a flag of truce to negotiations in 1837. He died in jail less than a year later." (from wikipedia)

That's the Jackson administration who decided to use force.

 

[Dell19]

I would also seriously question this paragraph:

Furthermore, US troops did not execute Indians in the Trail of Tears. They died by their own fault. Nearly all of the contributing factors to the death of Indians during that march can be attributed to the Indians themselves. For instance, it was their choice not to wear shoes, or to bring their livestock with them, which they were allowed to do.

If you make someone move and they die on that journey then it is still your fault. Also how were they meant to survive after the journey if they didn't have their livestock?

 

[Plotinus]

Well that's the point he was making - if they didn't have their livestock it was by their own choice, not that of the Americans.

I agree, however, that that hardly exonerates the Americans from blame in this matter. Apart from anything else, why did the indigenous people choose to march barefoot and without livestock?

But I don't see what this has to do with Lenin.

 

[Dell19]

Ah misread that and yeah its probably better if the discussion continued in another thread.