Opinion of Vladimir Lenin?

[DINGO Joe]

The Tsarist empire did a lot of bad things but it's absolutely hilarious to call it genocidal (it wasn't under Nicolas II) when you consider what came afterward.

I think the Circassians would beg to differ (though that predated Nicolas).  When discussing Russian history there's plenty of HP to go around.

[All Along The Watchtower]

online leftists: the Soviet Union achieved a lot of good things, anti-Communism is always bad and reactionary and fascist, also I support LGBTQ rights always and forever (red rose emojis)

the Soviet Union: homosexuality is bourgeois degeneracy, social democracy is fascism, anyone who disagrees with the (ever-changing) Party line will be the first against the wall, and consider yourself lucky for being sent to a Siberian gulag

[PSOL]

online leftists: the Soviet Union achieved a lot of good things, anti-Communism is always bad and reactionary and fascist, also I support LGBTQ rights always and forever (red rose emojis)

the Soviet Union: homosexuality is bourgeois degeneracy, social democracy is fascism, anyone who disagrees with the (ever-changing) Party line will be the first against the wall, and consider yourself lucky for being sent to a Siberian gulag

We’re talking about Vladimir Lenin, who legalized homosexuality and pushed for avante-garde art movements in the Soviet Union. At the time, they were perhaps the most woke party on earth. Anything after that is irrelevant to this thread

[Big Abraham]

online leftists: the Soviet Union achieved a lot of good things, anti-Communism is always bad and reactionary and fascist, also I support LGBTQ rights always and forever (red rose emojis)

the Soviet Union: homosexuality is bourgeois degeneracy, social democracy is fascism, anyone who disagrees with the (ever-changing) Party line will be the first against the wall, and consider yourself lucky for being sent to a Siberian gulag

Note: Lenin is not Stalin.

[All Along The Watchtower]

online leftists: the Soviet Union achieved a lot of good things, anti-Communism is always bad and reactionary and fascist, also I support LGBTQ rights always and forever (red rose emojis)

the Soviet Union: homosexuality is bourgeois degeneracy, social democracy is fascism, anyone who disagrees with the (ever-changing) Party line will be the first against the wall, and consider yourself lucky for being sent to a Siberian gulag

Note: Lenin is not Stalin.

He just paved the way for him.

[Cashew]

HP. The man who managed to ruin socialism for the rest of the century and forever lost Russia it's chance of becoming a True superpower with its own developed economy, financial centers, tech industry, soft power, and blue water navy, rather than merely a faux superpower with bloated army expenditures and exporting a failed developmental model.

[Devout Centrist]

"Stalin isn't Lenin! Stalin isn't Lenin!" I continue to insist as the NKVD drags me off to the basement of Lubyanka.

[Kleine Scheiße]

The man was a genius, a visionary, a cold-blooded murderer, a brilliant political organizer, and a shoddy head of state. How can one honestly be expected to sum up a man like Lenin in such short order?

Lenin was without any doubt a brilliant strategist and one of the most profoundly interesting people to have ever lived. He was also, objectively speaking, a tyrant, and a killer.

If one forgives of him the history of the Soviet Union beyond his death, there is a case to be made that he was a desperate and eminently capable man, pushed to desperate and eminently operatic lengths—and there is also an equally strong case to be made that he was a lunatic. Every case in between is equally as tenable.

Lenin compared to other communist revolutionaries, safe FF; Lenin compared to other statesmen as a whole, HP.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It would have been better had he lived a little longer to secure Trotsky as his successor. While Lenin and Trotsky weren't democratic socialists like Martov, they were far better than Stalin.

[dead0man]

You seem to know a great deal about the Russian civil war and the early Soviet Union. Do you have any reading recommendations on the topic?

Mike Duncan (History of Rome podcast) is currently 7000 episodes (not really) into a deep dive on the Russian Revolution in the last of Revolutions series of podcasts at wherever you get your podcasts (if you're into that kind of thing).

[Aurelius]

You seem to know a great deal about the Russian civil war and the early Soviet Union. Do you have any reading recommendations on the topic?

Mike Duncan (History of Rome podcast) is currently 7000 episodes (not really) into a deep dive on the Russian Revolution in the last of Revolutions series of podcasts at wherever you get your podcasts (if you're into that kind of thing).

Absolutely, thanks for the rec. I operate heavy equipment at work so that's 8 hours a day to listen.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

History's most successful terrorist.  The Bolsheviks were basically ISIS, except they claimed to be fighting for the working proletariat rather than fighting for Islam.

I don't like him, but I think it's a bit weird to characterise the rise of the Bolsheviks this way. Terrorism in Russia was primarily sponsored by the nihilist Narodniks tradition: a populist faction that was constantly assassinating and bombing figures (Alexander III, Stolypin, Grand Duke Sergei being the three biggies). The Bolsheviks were more interested in recruitment and agitation than offing officials like the Socialist Revolutionary Combat organisation did. (I guess they tolerated their more ... pragmatic (read: unencumbered with moral qualms) partisans to do the odd train robbery

Even October was essentially a bloodless coup (the blood came afterwards). against a hollow shell of an increasingly despotic Provisional Government with absolutely no legitimacy since the June Offensive. Would i have supported it? No, especially after the true masks off moment, the dissolving of the Constituent Assembly despite all previous assurances that October was merely about ensuring democracy. But the idea that the Kerensky regime was destabilised by Leninist terrorism is incorrect.

[DINGO Joe]

You seem to know a great deal about the Russian civil war and the early Soviet Union. Do you have any reading recommendations on the topic?

Mike Duncan (History of Rome podcast) is currently 7000 episodes (not really) into a deep dive on the Russian Revolution in the last of Revolutions series of podcasts at wherever you get your podcasts (if you're into that kind of thing).

I actually paid a nominal fee to access an Orlando Figes website with podcasts (you access parts of it for free).  I think it was designed for British students taking maybe the equivalent of an AP class on the topic.  So many moving parts and it's just hard to wrap ones mind around the mindsets and really every level of society involved.  I mean the French Revolution, in comparison, was a tea party to follow.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

It would have been better had he lived a little longer to secure Trotsky as his successor. While Lenin and Trotsky weren't democratic socialists like Martov, they were far better than Stalin.

"Trotsky would have salvaged the USSR" is one of the funniest pieces of liberal gospel. Despite being one of Stalin's harshest critics, Trotsky never took issue with Stalin's tyranny over the Soviet populace.

Stalin was a massive HP and one of the worst statesmen of the past century, but for all you could say about him, he wasn't a warhawk and never had any serious intention of invading western Europe. Trotsky, on the other hand, was a warhawk and wanted to invade a lot of places. Stalin's isolationism was one of Trotsky's biggest criticisms of him.

With Trotsky, the Cold War would have been a hot war.

Bukharin is right there. By all historical indications, Lenin liked him the most as a potential successor, he was the favorite of the CCCP, and he primarily wanted to continue Lenin's market policies. You'd think Bukharin would be a slam dunk for communist-sympathetic-on-paper liberals to clamor about, but no, they choose Trotsky.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Trotsky was clever, but like a lot of clever auto-didacts he had a tendency to view himself as the most clever person in human history, and that everything he did was part of a play about himself. And a lot of his moves were ... unwise (e.g. his intervention in the peace negotiations led the germans to make the terms even worse for Russia, his handling of the Czechoslovak Legion was incredibly embarrassing and started the Civil War off by losing the entire Trans Siberian Railway etc.)

[KaiserDave]

It would have been better had he lived a little longer to secure Trotsky as his successor. While Lenin and Trotsky weren't democratic socialists like Martov, they were far better than Stalin.

"Trotsky would have salvaged the USSR" is one of the funniest pieces of liberal gospel. Despite being one of Stalin's harshest critics, Trotsky never took issue with Stalin's tyranny over the Soviet populace.

Stalin was a massive HP and one of the worst statesmen of the past century, but for all you could say about him, he wasn't a warhawk and never had any serious intention of invading western Europe. Trotsky, on the other hand, was a warhawk and wanted to invade a lot of places. Stalin's isolationism was one of Trotsky's biggest criticisms of him.

With Trotsky, the Cold War would have been a hot war.

Bukharin is right there. By all historical indications, Lenin liked him the most as a potential successor, he was the favorite of the CCCP, and he primarily wanted to continue Lenin's market policies. You'd think Bukharin would be a slam dunk for communist-sympathetic-on-paper liberals to clamor about, but no, they choose Trotsky.

Yes, Trotsky was a madman, and arguably worse than Stalin. Reflects very badly on Lenin they he wanted Trotsky to succeed him.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Trotsky would have just been another decade or so of Lenin-style oppression, mass-murder and attacks on workers and unions in the name of those same workers and unions, except once he felt he had secured the country he would have started invading their neighbors in the name of spreading communism.

That's why I always find it funny when I talk to Sawant people and they try to defend any association with Stalin, Mao or the horrors of communism by saying "we're a Trotskyite socialist party, numbnuts, don't you know Stalin had Trotsky killed?"  As if Trotsky is some heroic martyr who would have brought about a humane, just and kind Soviet Union if only he hadn't been assassinated.

[PSOL]

Oh god, they’re whining about Trotsky now. We’ve gone full circle in going back to front, side by side.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Oh god, they’re whining about Trotsky now. We’ve gone full circle in going back to front, side by side.

The point is that the Bolsheviks were Bad. It’s a pretty simple (and correct) point.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Oh god, they’re whining about Trotsky now. We’ve gone full circle in going back to front, side by side.

The point is that the Bolsheviks were Bad. It’s a pretty simple (and correct) point.

One ought to be extremely leery of folks that have to be convinced of this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There pages in and no has mentioned Kronstadt yet? How remiss. Traditions must be upheld!

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

It would have been better had he lived a little longer to secure Trotsky as his successor. While Lenin and Trotsky weren't democratic socialists like Martov, they were far better than Stalin.

"Trotsky would have salvaged the USSR" is one of the funniest pieces of liberal gospel. Despite being one of Stalin's harshest critics, Trotsky never took issue with Stalin's tyranny over the Soviet populace.

Stalin was a massive HP and one of the worst statesmen of the past century, but for all you could say about him, he wasn't a warhawk and never had any serious intention of invading western Europe. Trotsky, on the other hand, was a warhawk and wanted to invade a lot of places. Stalin's isolationism was one of Trotsky's biggest criticisms of him.

With Trotsky, the Cold War would have been a hot war.

Bukharin is right there. By all historical indications, Lenin liked him the most as a potential successor, he was the favorite of the CCCP, and he primarily wanted to continue Lenin's market policies. You'd think Bukharin would be a slam dunk for communist-sympathetic-on-paper liberals to clamor about, but no, they choose Trotsky.

Yes, Trotsky was a madman, and arguably worse than Stalin. Reflects very badly on Lenin they he wanted Trotsky to succeed him.

Lenin didn't want Trotsky to succeed him. That was one of my points.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The irony of Trotsky is that his political programme was completely stolen by Stalin: terror, bureaucracy, central planning, rapid industrialisation, the militarisation of labour, subordination of trade unions, even socialism in one country and alliances with capitalist powers were all advocated for by Trotsky when he was in power from 1917-23 and occasionally after.

Bukharin I agree is the most interesting and sympathetic what if among the Old Bolsheviks, but continuing the NEP ran counter to the ideological instincts of most of the party leadership.

[Fight for Trump]

It would have been better had he lived a little longer to secure Trotsky as his successor. While Lenin and Trotsky weren't democratic socialists like Martov, they were far better than Stalin.

"Trotsky would have salvaged the USSR" is one of the funniest pieces of liberal gospel. Despite being one of Stalin's harshest critics, Trotsky never took issue with Stalin's tyranny over the Soviet populace.

Stalin was a massive HP and one of the worst statesmen of the past century, but for all you could say about him, he wasn't a warhawk and never had any serious intention of invading western Europe. Trotsky, on the other hand, was a warhawk and wanted to invade a lot of places. Stalin's isolationism was one of Trotsky's biggest criticisms of him.

With Trotsky, the Cold War would have been a hot war.

Bukharin is right there. By all historical indications, Lenin liked him the most as a potential successor, he was the favorite of the CCCP, and he primarily wanted to continue Lenin's market policies. You'd think Bukharin would be a slam dunk for communist-sympathetic-on-paper liberals to clamor about, but no, they choose Trotsky.

Yes, Trotsky was a madman, and arguably worse than Stalin. Reflects very badly on Lenin they he wanted Trotsky to succeed him.

I love Trotsky.

[DINGO Joe]

The Tsarist empire did a lot of bad things but it's absolutely hilarious to call it genocidal (it wasn't under Nicolas II) when you consider what came afterward.

I think the Circassians would beg to differ (though that predated Nicolas).  When discussing Russian history there's plenty of HP to go around.

While I haven't read the book, I did watch an interview with Alexander Watson for his book "The Fortress" about the siege and fall of Przemyśl to Imperial Russia in World War I and the Russians did certainly engage in advanced methods of ethnic cleansing at that point.  I guess the difference with Stalin, aside from scale, was that we has something of an equal opportunity liquidator, maybe the Ukrainians took a bigger hit because they had the most arable land, but not really because they were Ukrainian.