What do you think of Lenin?

[holy king]

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...

 

[~Corsair#01~]

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.

 

[Swedishguy]

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

 

[Sofista]

(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?"

 

[Cutlass]

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?"

 

[innonimatu]

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... 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.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

Self-interest is also a popular principle currently, certainly more popular that when Mandeville 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...


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.

 

[red_elk]

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.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

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.

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[Swedishguy]

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!

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

 

[Mirc]

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.

FYI, monarchy does not equal lack of democracy.

 

[Cutlass]

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

FYI, monarchy does not equal lack of democracy.

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

 

[Pokurcz]

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.

 

[innonimatu]

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....

 

[ComradeDavo]

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.

 

[Azale]

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.