Yes, Comrade!

[DexterJ]

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.

nah i would argue a communist = marxist-leninist=bolshevik. the menesheviks weren't communists, they were increasingly taking the views of europes social democrats, pionered by the 'revisionists' in the German social democrat party. These ideas were spearheaded by Karl Kautasky (if memory serves me correctly). The huge spilt in the socialist movement which occured after 1917 was caused by the russian revolution, the hard left split from the moderate left social democrat movements and formed communist parties. These were directly influenced, and in many cases controlled, from moscow.
other socialist parties, most notably the socialist revolutionarys, at the time were also not Communist.
I supposed it depends on how you define communism, and whether you are spelling it Communist or communist. I would associate the former with Marxism-Leninism.

 

[Companiero]

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.

Wrong thesis: The proof is that they did it again, after WW2. Also, I can speak about Yugoslavia, because there too a system of Wartime Communism was introduced following WW2. It gave excellent results, prevented huge inflations (like in Germany), and I see really no reason why all the fuss about it. It was predominantly an economic measure.
“ Many peasant families had their production confiscated and starved to maintain Lenin's war, a war that they did not want.”
Lenins war?! It was a war imposed by foreign powers. If anyone Lenin was most willing to stop all outside wars and build-up the country from the inside.

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.

I’m not talking success stories. I’m talking superpowers. Its not measued in standard (is switzerland supermower?), its not measured in population (is indonesia superpower?); it’s a country’s abillity to interfere in worlds economic, political issues and influence its global courses. Russia came a long way from a backward peasant country to a modern industrialized one.

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.

Too crude and unobjective propagating way to say it, but correct to a great deal. For example, certainly Lenin started the trend in Soviet politics of killing opponenents, when the Soviet Union started with Lenin. Otherwise, if you replace Soviet with Russian, of course its not true since most undemocratic regimes in history have killed their opponents in one way or another. Though one must ask the question: Who were Lenins opponents at the time? Petty liberals, “social-democrats” who had no real socialist agenda (or had one but were unable to carry it out), tsarists and netionalists. I’m convinced that under these conditions a socialist revolution was impossible to come, and Lenin was fundamental in understanding that a real and effective revolution would be impossible to implement without leveling the ground first. Besides, it was his movement that was persecuted, not the other way around, as much as some here are trying to switch theses.

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

In the aftermath of the revolution and the civil war, there were many political elements that needed to be eliminated if the revolution was going to survive. Foreign interventionist armies, domestic groups paid by foreign governments to kill the revolution, Whites’ generals who defended the interests of aristocracy and bourgeoisie, basically united forces of an entire class whose interests werent workers’ seizure of power. Almost no Marxists here, and the vast majority of the ordinary people supported the Bolsheviks, so unless you’re deluded idealist who believes that Lenin should have negotiated with his enemies and abdicate, then those deaths were just a necessary and unfortunate phase of the revolution.

Thirdly, my idealogy is that of the socially liberal left

What kind of ideology is that? Both socialist and liberal, what an oxymoron.

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

Pardon?! Lenin and his ideal for self-determination were the most democratic and libertarian political ideas at the time in the whole world, which enabled centuries long imperialist oppression in Russia to come to an end. That’s how USS Republics was born. The rights of the minorities that came with the revolution were unparalleled in all the West (what? Britain with Northern Ireland, France with Corsica, USA with the blacks?). Those rights included education in native language, “authonomous” (relatively, as much as you can be in a centrally planned federacy) republics, establishment of national institutions for all republics etc.

 

[Japanrocks12]

All of them had faults, all of them had weaknesses. Commies suck!

 

[DAv2003]

All of them had faults, all of them had weaknesses. Commies suck!

With that philosophy, so does everything else.

 

[Verbose]

“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. ”
Too crude and unobjective propagating way to say it, but correct to a great deal. For example, certainly Lenin started the trend in Soviet politics of killing opponenents, when the Soviet Union started with Lenin. Otherwise, if you replace Soviet with Russian, of course its not true since most undemocratic regimes in history have killed their opponents in one way or another. Though one must ask the question: Who were Lenins opponents at the time? Petty liberals, “social-democrats” who had no real socialist agenda (or had one but were unable to carry it out), tsarists and netionalists. I’m convinced that under these conditions a socialist revolution was impossible to come, and Lenin was fundamental in understanding that a real and effective revolution would be impossible to implement without leveling the ground first. Besides, it was his movement that was persecuted, not the other way around, as much as some here are trying to switch theses.

Well, thank you for saying I'm basically right.

Of course, your whole argument hinges on your conviction that a socialist revolution is itself a 'good thing'.

It's kind of a 'Jesuit attitude': The end justifies the means. Human life is expendable for the greater good.

 

[luiz]

“ Many peasant families had their production confiscated and starved to maintain Lenin's war, a war that they did not want.”
Lenins war?! It was a war imposed by foreign powers. If anyone Lenin was most willing to stop all outside wars and build-up the country from the inside.

The war started when Lenin decided to get rid of the Provisional Government. It was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who started the war, not the Whites or the foreign powers.

I’m not talking success stories. I’m talking superpowers. Its not measued in standard (is switzerland supermower?), its not measured in population (is indonesia superpower?); it’s a country’s abillity to interfere in worlds economic, political issues and influence its global courses. Russia came a long way from a backward peasant country to a modern industrialized one.

And my point was that many of the factors that made Russia become a superpower had nothing to do with the Bolshviks(size, population, resources, etc). If Russia was not so big, it would never be close to a superpower, as in relative terms it was very weak when compared to the western nations, even at the soviet peak of power.
And even though Stalin managed to industrialise the Soviet Union, it was hardly modern. Furthermore, similar industrialisation happened in many third-world countries at that time.

 

[nonconformist]

Khrushchev was a big murderous thug-one of Stalin's henchmen in the Ukraine.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Intresting viewpoints everyone

nah i would argue a communist = marxist-leninist=bolshevik. the menesheviks weren't communists, they were increasingly taking the views of europes social democrats, pionered by the 'revisionists' in the German social democrat party. These ideas were spearheaded by Karl Kautasky (if memory serves me correctly). The huge spilt in the socialist movement which occured after 1917 was caused by the russian revolution, the hard left split from the moderate left social democrat movements and formed communist parties. These were directly influenced, and in many cases controlled, from moscow.
other socialist parties, most notably the socialist revolutionarys, at the time were also not Communist.
I supposed it depends on how you define communism, and whether you are spelling it Communist or communist. I would associate the former with Marxism-Leninism.

Ah, I see. I am defining communist's as to include the Mensheviks and the workers/soldiers who sided with the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks, alot of whom were killed at Kronstadt.

 

[ComradeDavo]

What kind of ideology is that? Both socialist and liberal, what an oxymoron.

It means I didn't say socialist, I said left

Anyway, it means that economically I believe in the wealfare state and support high tax and spendature. Then socially I am liberal because I believe in letting people do what they want with their lifes.

In the aftermath of the revolution and the civil war, there were many political elements that needed to be eliminated if the revolution was going to survive. Foreign interventionist armies, domestic groups paid by foreign governments to kill the revolution, Whites’ generals who defended the interests of aristocracy and bourgeoisie, basically united forces of an entire class whose interests werent workers’ seizure of power. Almost no Marxists here, and the vast majority of the ordinary people supported the Bolsheviks, so unless you’re deluded idealist who believes that Lenin should have negotiated with his enemies and abdicate, then those deaths were just a necessary and unfortunate phase of the revolution.

I think you are forgetting Kronstadt, where the Bolsheviks under Lenin's leadership killed alot of communists, who had been their supporters.

The war started when Lenin decided to get rid of the Provisional Government. It was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who started the war, not the Whites or the foreign powers.

I agree!

 

[DAv2003]

The war started when Lenin decided to get rid of the Provisional Government. It was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who started the war, not the Whites or the foreign powers.

To be fair, the only reason the Civil started was because the Bolsheviks overthrew a government that was already continuing another, unpopular war. To qoute Sun Tzu "In order to make peace you must prepare for war."

 

[luiz]

To be fair, the only reason the Civil started was because the Bolsheviks overthrew a government that was already continuing another, unpopular war. To qoute Sun Tzu "In order to make peace you must prepare for war."

To be even more fair, the actuall reason the Bolsheviks overthrew the government had nothing to do with WW1. They wanted a dictatorship of the party, so they needed to get rid of the government. Of course, though, the anger of the people with war played in their favour.

Lenin's position against WW1 was minority within the Bolsheviks. Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev all favoured to remain fighting, just to name a few important leaders(even though Stalin later changed his official opinion, but just because of Lenin's pressure).

Indeed, the fact that the Bolsheviks made peace with the germans is proof that there was no democracy even within the upper circles of the Bolshevik party.

 

[Japanrocks12]

On second thought, I think that Gorbachev cuts it because he is the one who defied the Communist Party - a feat not done before by leaders of the USSR - to reform. And for that he should be hailed. It was his intention that the several countries formerly under USSR rule be free.

 

[Companiero]

The war started when Lenin decided to get rid of the Provisional Government. It was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who started the war, not the Whites or the foreign powers.

True, Lenin wanted a revolution, Lenin got a Revolution. He wasnt allowed political activity, which only goes to justify his methods of coming to power.
But to say that Lenin waged war on all the others is not true. What right did foreign powers have to involve in Russian internal matters? If tomorrow a popular revolution happens in Brazil, do the US or Russia have any right to interfere? The truth is, it was an engaged class operation aimed at assuring and keeping the dominance of the opressing class over the others.

Furthermore, similar industrialisation happened in many third-world countries at that time.

Of the same scale?! Like which ones...

I think you are forgetting Kronstadt, where the Bolsheviks under Lenin's leadership killed alot of communists, who had been their supporters.

You approve of Lenins intelligence and yet u consider him so blutantly stupid to kill his own supporters. Truth is Lenin never killed real communists, only quasi-social-democrats were victims on the left, because they had been cooperating with foreign interventionists, and wanted to continue the war.
Its true however that in the beggining some communists supported the war, but as military failiures grew, so too popular discontent did. The Bolshviks were the only party to detect and reflect this sentiment.

 

[luiz]

True, Lenin wanted a revolution, Lenin got a Revolution. He wasnt allowed political activity, which only goes to justify his methods of coming to power.

He wasn't allowed political activity during the tzarist time. The Provisional government would be happy to deal politically with him if he stopped organizing an armed revolution to overthrow it.

But to say that Lenin waged war on all the others is not true. What right did foreign powers have to involve in Russian internal matters? If tomorrow a popular revolution happens in Brazil, do the US or Russia have any right to interfere? The truth is, it was an engaged class operation aimed at assuring and keeping the dominance of the opressing class over the others.

Civil Wars are terrible by definition, sometimes foreign intervention might do good. I'm sure you approve the support soviet troops gave to the republicans during the spanish civil war, for exemple.
If a revolution happens in Brazil and we are threatned with an oppressive regime, hopefully foreign powers would help the more democratic side.

Of the same scale?! Like which ones...

Brazil and Argentina. Though it happened a few years later then in the USSR, the intensity was not much different(In 1940 Argentina was the 4th largest economy of the world, with a population only a fraction of the soviet).

You approve of Lenins intelligence and yet u consider him so blutantly stupid to kill his own supporters. Truth is Lenin never killed real communists, only quasi-social-democrats were victims on the left, because they had been cooperating with foreign interventionists, and wanted to continue the war.
Its true however that in the beggining some communists supported the war, but as military failiures grew, so too popular discontent did. The Bolshviks were the only party to detect and reflect this sentiment.

Lenin killed many communists who disagreed with him over some issue. Leninism is not the only version of marxism, and truth is Lenin did not tolerate any other. Many people to the left of Lenin were persecuted.

 

[DexterJ]

Lenin attacked those to the left and right of him: socialist revolutionarys, left social revolutionarys, anarchists, mensheviks where some of the groups on the left of the political spectrum attacked.
Those in his own party who suffered from infatilism, economism, revisionism and other types of deviationism were attacked. Because Lenins politics were often pragmatic rather than fixed unwaveringly he changed his opinions and policies and those who held his old viewpoint were attacked mercilessly.
Because Marxism is 'scientific socialism', there is only one interpretation, one correct line, which is held by the party, any deviation from this line would result in the working class being led astray from the true path of socialism. This is why there can be no toleration of dissent or disagreement, once the party line is decieded it must be adhered to absolutely. The party cannot fail because it is the vanguard of the working class, it leads rather than follows. This is why Lenins critics were attacked so harsely. It would have been better in the long run for a few million to die to construct socialism correctly than have the entire population fail to enter the earthly paradise of socialism.

 

[DAv2003]

It did suit Lenin's philosophy of breaking eggs to make an ommlete. He was the ideal Macheavelli leader in a way, always ready to sacrifice to either obtain his major goal or stay in power.

 

[Companiero]

Lenin attacked those to the left and right of him: socialist revolutionarys, left social revolutionarys, anarchists, mensheviks where some of the groups on the left of the political spectrum attacked.

You are talking about political attacks here. He alienated many socialists from the party, true, but in the Revolution and the Civil War (rough guess) 95% of those who died (or were sent "somewhere") were no communists nor socialists.

 

[Terje]

If a revolution happens in Brazil and we are threatned with an oppressive regime, hopefully foreign powers would help the more democratic side.

Excuse me? The Whites being the "more democratic side"?
Sure there may have been the occational liberal in the White fraction, but most Whites were from the ultra-reactionary parts of the upper classes - generals, aristocrats, members of the bourgeois - who favoured a return to the absolutism of tsarism.

Not exactly a bunch I'd personally refer to as "the more democratic side"...

 

[Dreadnought]

Commies suck. Nough said. All of them led a communist country. Instead for the benefit of the people, its the death of the people.

 

[CruddyLeper]

I went Gorbachev, on the grounds that he ended the SU. Which was about the best thing to be done with it.