Yes, Comrade!

[ComradeDavo]

Lenin by all means. It was him who masterminded the Revolution, he who brought about massive changes to the country, gave peasants their land, introduced equal rights for women, was able to push forward peace with Germany and even made Russia stable before he died with the N.E.P. Though true the War Communism was brutal it was needed in order to win the civil war. He is indeed the greatest of Soviet leaders.

Though Stalin deserves some points on being the greatest social manipulator of the last century. Despite all his atrocities and crimes, a whole nation mourned upon his death. If only he had used his genius for good instead...

Masterminded the revolution? He wasn't even in the country when the Tsar was overthrown! Ok, so he 'led' the Bolsheviks to overthrow the provisonal government. To be honest, he got lucky. If you do some reading on his life prior to 1917 you'll discover he spent most of his time raving about the 'Menshevik' traitors, having rows with other Bolsheviks and generally creating a schism in the Russian Marxist movement.

(I'm actually reading Robert Service's Biography on Lenin now and it is amazing just how naive Lenin was, he was more of a hinderance to Russian Marxism than teh 'great leader' he has since been portrayed as)

 

[DexterJ]

Lenin.
to be a communist under lenin would be to live with a dream of a perfect society. as opposed to his successors where you would have to live with its grim reality.

 

[Xen]

No, he did not turn the USSR into a superpower, world war 2 turned them into a super power because all the other super powers (apart from the US) got trashed.

His policies hampered the USSR's development!

By shooting prativally all the officers in the army prior to world war 2 he almost lost the war!

He was a very bad leader, the USSR would have been much better off without him.

the depends; in comparsion tot he alternative (Trotsky) Lenin was Satan incarnate; hell, compared ot just about anyone Stlain is pretty close to Satan, though Hitler edges him out; sure, Stalin was bloody maniac with somwhat genocidal tendencies; but hitler was blatantlly rastist bloody homicaldal manian with completelly genocidal tendencies; he was(thank the gods) just crushed before he could "live up to his potential", though since all casulties,. comabt and collateral in the western theater sof war, not to mention the concentration camps can be left every ones love-to-hate dick-tater, he has a "nice" little record going for him.

however, that said, whiel bloody, and ineffeicent, his 5-year plans DID make Russia into a superpower; not just becaused all the other got trashed, but because he did anythign he needed to make russia into the second; perhaps somtimes first- largest industrial power on earth, a feat which you cannot ignore, but is perhaps dwarfed by his simple bloody-handedness in dealing with the Russian populace.

 

[Companiero]

You guys called Lenin "murderous brutal dictator, Satan incarnate, who sucked big time". Either your understanding of history is extremely ideologically coloured, or you're some American kid writing for the sake of typing (which also makes you ideologically coloured)
Reading one biography of Lenin by some author, and concluding hastly that its "amazing how naive he was" is too bold indeed.

"War Communism" was one thing which saved a war-raveged country like Russia. Calling it major crime is funny. In times of war, non-standard measures are necessary, in order to sustain relatively normal supply of food and goods.
Lenin was one of the smartest man of his time, great ideologist, leader, philosopher, politician. You may hate him for making Russia embark on the path of communism, but it wasnt his fault that people like Stalin buerocratized and personificated Soviet society, which along with other inherent flaws ruined the entire system.

And about why USSR became a world power; because other powers got trashed. So, Russia wasnt? Which country again suffered the largest number of human losses? (Also, material losses were enormous, the countryside was ravaged.) Britain and France werent destroyed such as Russia, so its a moot point about the reason for Soviet success.

 

[Reno]

Gorbachev because of his quick reforms that came a little too late and in a little too fast pace, wich lead in part to the collapsing of the Soviet Union.

 

[Verbose]

Lenin can only be made to look good by comparing him to Stalin.

His brains can't be denied though. He was one clever cookie. Brutal too.

People may have thought he was weakening the international socialist movement. Au contraire, Lenin was a keen student of the Paris Commune of 1871, and quickly concluded that their downfall was the bloody democratc spirit of the thing. Too many people with different agendas trying to make policy.
Hence, what was needed was an elite to direct the revolution — the party — and in order to ensure a happy outcome, opponents must be killed.

Lenin started the trend in Soviet politics of killing perceived opponents. It's mostly a matter of scale if he ends up better looking than Stalin.

As for the necessity of wartime measures, that one is fishy. Sounds like a circular argument: The Soviets did what they had to do, and the proof they needed to do what they did, is the fact that they did it.

Oth what they really did was make peace with the Central Powers, and the war they fought was directed against this varied bunch of tsarists, liberals, popular uprisings (Ukraine), international interventions etc.

Without the Bolsheviks we don't know if all that warring would have been necessary. Possibly not.

 

[DAv2003]

Masterminded the revolution? He wasn't even in the country when the Tsar was overthrown! Ok, so he 'led' the Bolsheviks to overthrow the provisonal government. To be honest, he got lucky. If you do some reading on his life prior to 1917 you'll discover he spent most of his time raving about the 'Menshevik' traitors, having rows with other Bolsheviks and generally creating a schism in the Russian Marxist movement.

(I'm actually reading Robert Service's Biography on Lenin now and it is amazing just how naive Lenin was, he was more of a hinderance to Russian Marxism than teh 'great leader' he has since been portrayed as)

It was Lenin who master minded the whole operation, he decided the time and place. Trotsky was able to carry out his instructions to the letter and the Provisional Government fell. Lenin only argued with Mensheviks because of a huge ideal difference. Lenin believed in actual organisation when it came to a revolution and from what history tells us, he was right.

 

[nonconformist]

You guys called Lenin "murderous brutal dictator, Satan incarnate, who sucked big time". Either your understanding of history is extremely ideologically coloured, or you're some American kid writing for the sake of typing (which also makes you ideologically coloured)
Reading one biography of Lenin by some author, and concluding hastly that its "amazing how naive he was" is too bold indeed.

Lenin had the Checka kill 100,000 opponents in the aftermath of the revolution.

 

[ComradeDavo]

You guys called Lenin "murderous brutal dictator, Satan incarnate, who sucked big time". Either your understanding of history is extremely ideologically coloured, or you're some American kid writing for the sake of typing (which also makes you ideologically coloured)
Reading one biography of Lenin by some author, and concluding hastly that its "amazing how naive he was" is too bold indeed.

"War Communism" was one thing which saved a war-raveged country like Russia. Calling it major crime is funny. In times of war, non-standard measures are necessary, in order to sustain relatively normal supply of food and goods.
Lenin was one of the smartest man of his time, great ideologist, leader, philosopher, politician. You may hate him for making Russia embark on the path of communism, but it wasnt his fault that people like Stalin buerocratized and personificated Soviet society, which along with other inherent flaws ruined the entire system.

And about why USSR became a world power; because other powers got trashed. So, Russia wasnt? Which country again suffered the largest number of human losses? (Also, material losses were enormous, the countryside was ravaged.) Britain and France werent destroyed such as Russia, so its a moot point about the reason for Soviet success.

Firstly, my opinions are not just based on one book, I have done much study on Revelotionary Russia. Secondly, clearly I am not American. Thirdly, my idealogy is that of the socially liberal left, and in reality people's ideaolgy's always effect their opinions.

Right, now why do I think Lenin was a terriable leader? Because he wrecked Russia's chance of becoming a democracy. He alienated all over groups on teh left, and when in power, he had them killed. He left a legacy of brutality, one that Stalin took advantage of. Lenin was a bad leader for Russia has a whole. Russia has a whole includeds everyone who is Russian, and of course all of the minorities. Lenin basicall6y did not believe in giving power to tehse people, he wanted power just to whoever supportered his ideas, which acorss the whole populus, was hardly everyone. The Socialist Revolutionaiers were much more popular amongst the people, Lenin disregarded what the Russian people wanted and had took power all for himself and his cronies.

Once in power, his polices were not that good, even from a Soviet persepective. I understand that the Bolsheviks were being attacked from all sides in the civil war, but they could have handled it alot better, for a start if Lenin hadn't been so damn brutal towards all his oppenants and introduced some democracy then the civil war could ahve seen Russia's non-Bolshevik Marxists's fighting with him, not against him.

Basically I am saying Lenin got Russia into the mess, so any arguments that he was a great leader in getting them out of it are flawed, plus I don't think anyone who kills that many people and disregards democracy and the will of the people deserves to be called 'great' at all.

In regards to Stalin, well the progress he made with his five year plans is every questionable, as in the Soviet figures were either made up or exgeratted alot of the time. In regards to my comment on other countries getting trashed, well clearly Britain still was a superpower (abiet a wounded one after WW1), and they lost their status, France obviosuly lost alot, Japan and Germany rose up and were beaten down, therefore it was between the USA and a USSR which had been forced by the war to become a superpower, regardless (or indeed in spite) of who was leader.

It was Lenin who master minded the whole operation, he decided the time and place. Trotsky was able to carry out his instructions to the letter and the Provisional Government fell. Lenin only argued with Mensheviks because of a huge ideal difference. Lenin believed in actual organisation when it came to a revolution and from what history tells us, he was right.

No, what history tells us is that he was wrong, if he was right then their would be a glourious, prosperous USSR at this point in time.

 

[DAv2003]

No, what history tells us is that he was wrong, if he was right then their would be a glourious, prosperous USSR at this point in time.

Actually I meant he was right in the context that he manufactured a successful revolution. He might have been right about Marxism but because of the way Stalinism screwed things up we'll never know.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Clearly Gorbachev was "best" leader of the USSR, although that doesn't say much. All the others were murderous thugs, except for Khruschev. I'd go so far as to say that Russia going communist was an accident of history due to the fact of WW1's pressure and the incompetence of the provisional government.

 

[nonconformist]

Khrushchev wasn't a murderous thug?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Ok, maybe Khruschev was a little bit of a murderous thug.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Actually I meant he was right in the context that he manufactured a successful revolution. He might have been right about Marxism but because of the way Stalinism screwed things up we'll never know.

I can see your point of view, it's just that I think Lenin's lack of believe in Democracy and willingness to let others resort to violence in the name of revolution gave whoever came after him a mandate for murder, and it just so happened that (despite Lenin's 'advice') Stalin became leader. Probably if Lenin had had better forsight, he could have prevented Stalin ever getting power, unfortunetly by the time of Lenin's death Stalin had already manouvered himself into posistion to seize the throne.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Lenin.
to be a communist under lenin would be to live with a dream of a perfect society. as opposed to his successors where you would have to live with its grim reality.

You mean to be a Bolshevik, Lenin alenated all the over commnists to the extent that they fought against him, either in the civil war or at Kronstatd where Lenin and Trotski had their forces brutally surpress a communist rebellion against the Bolsheviks.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Khrushchev wasn't a murderous thug?

Thug, yes, but he was born a peasant. But other than when he was Stalin's pet, he never ordered anyone murdered. In order to survive under Stalin, you had to know how to please the Vozhd, and the best way to do that was to kill a dissident.

 

[MaisseArsouye]

Trotsky would have been the best leader...

 

[DAv2003]

I can see your point of view, it's just that I think Lenin's lack of believe in Democracy and willingness to let others resort to violence in the name of revolution gave whoever came after him a mandate for murder, and it just so happened that (despite Lenin's 'advice') Stalin became leader. Probably if Lenin had had better forsight, he could have prevented Stalin ever getting power, unfortunetly by the time of Lenin's death Stalin had already manouvered himself into posistion to seize the throne.

At the time democracy was a bit of a hinderance to the Bolsheviks. When they did have elections for the Duma, the S.R group gained the most votes leaving the Bolsheviks out in the cold. It's a shame what Lenin di but in a way, it helped stabilize the country a bit. The reason Stalin was trusted so much by Lenin (early on at least) was because he did show himself to be an able member of the Party in some ways. He was quite the valuable asset.

Trotsky would have been the best leader...

Doubtable. Trotsky was arrogant, refused to work as part of the Party and was politically inept. His biggest chance of destroying Stalin was sqaundered for a minor loss on behalf of Stalin.

 

[luiz]

You guys called Lenin "murderous brutal dictator, Satan incarnate, who sucked big time". Either your understanding of history is extremely ideologically coloured, or you're some American kid writing for the sake of typing (which also makes you ideologically coloured)
Reading one biography of Lenin by some author, and concluding hastly that its "amazing how naive he was" is too bold indeed.

Firstly, allow me to enjoy the irony of someone who disregards "ideologically coloured" opinions and calls himself "Companiero" and "proletarian par excelence".
Secondly, let me point out that I'm neither American, nor a kid, nor someone who read a single biography of Lenin and consider himself an expert.

"War Communism" was one thing which saved a war-raveged country like Russia. Calling it major crime is funny. In times of war, non-standard measures are necessary, in order to sustain relatively normal supply of food and goods.

"War Communism" was criminal. It's very nature was the de-humanization of the people and the peasantry in particular. Many peasant families had their production confiscated and starved to maintain Lenin's war, a war that they did not want.
Also, if by "relatively normal supply of food and goods" you mean "massive lack of food and goods" then you are correct.

Lenin was one of the smartest man of his time, great ideologist, leader, philosopher, politician. You may hate him for making Russia embark on the path of communism, but it wasnt his fault that people like Stalin buerocratized and personificated Soviet society, which along with other inherent flaws ruined the entire system.

The old "Stalin ruined it all" story. Now I wonder how informed YOU are on the subject.
The root of stalinism is obviously traced to leninism; the centralisation, the suppression of diferent lines of thought and even the cult of personality were already present.
Lenin was so intolerant that he did not tolerate even different marxist approaches. It was leninism or death.

And about why USSR became a world power; because other powers got trashed. So, Russia wasnt? Which country again suffered the largest number of human losses? (Also, material losses were enormous, the countryside was ravaged.) Britain and France werent destroyed such as Russia, so its a moot point about the reason for Soviet success.

The per capita income and living standards of the soviets were massively inferior to that of the Britain or France. The Soviet Union was only a "superpower" because of a huge military and population. And it was not a history of success, it was a history of misery, failure and collapse.

And if you want comparissons between communist nations and capitalist ones, compare W Germany with E Germany, or South Korea with North Korea. Then tell me which of them are success stories.

 

[luiz]

Trotsky would have been the best leader...

You mean, the Trotsky who was one of the inventors of "War Communism"? The Trotsky who was the first to propose the "total elimination of the kulaks?" The Trotsky who invented/proposed many of the stalinist policies(that later Stalin would claim as his own)...

Trotsky was an arrogant and brutal bastard. He had undeniable charisma and eloquence, but was a bastard nonetheless. The only thing he cared about was power. He was as power-hungry as Stalin, after he lost the battle he became bitter and dedicated his life to annoying the Secretary-General as much as humanly possible. When I read his works produced in the exile I don't see any humanistic regard to the soviet people, only bitterness and hopeless ambitions.