What do you think of Lenin?

[EnlightenmentHK]

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.

 

[Pokurcz]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

Writes a yahoo with these board stats:

Azale
Una, Grande y Libre

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

About someone with these board stats:

meisen
Besser tot als doof

Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 793

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

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).

 

[Traitorfish]

-double post-

 

[innonimatu]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

One that is pointless....

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

You obviously watch yourself in a mirror.

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.

 

[Azale]

Writes a yahoo with these board stats:

Azale
Una, Grande y Libre

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

About someone with these board stats:

meisen
Besser tot als doof

Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 793

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

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!

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's rather obvious, isn't it. And you should be sorry.

You're really not very good at witty retorts, are you? And yet you keep trying... It's kind of sad, really...