Lenin

Whats the Veeky Forums consensus on this guy? Was he a great revolutionary leader or another idealistic retard?

Also, any good books or documentaries about him?

Doesn't get enough credit for Stalin's "work"

Just another corrupt tyrant.

Whilst I don't agree with his politics, to say he wasn't a genius, nor potentially a 'Great Man' would be completely untrue

German agent.

The NEP proves he wasn't an idealistic retard.

Ok.

Whats the NEP?

Going with market socialism for a while instead of "ideologically pure" planning to help the economy recover after all the wars and devastation.

Can you recommend any good sources about the guy? Preferably ones that aren't right or left wing biased lmao

>vanguardism
power hungry retard like the rest of his bolshevik cronies

Well they sure fucked themselves up the ass with that one

Well they sure fucked themselves up the ass with that one

New Economic Policy. Similar to modern China's "state capitalism".

Well they sure fucked themselves up the ass with that one

He was an opportunistic dictator who took advantage of the Tsar's incompetence and the people's dissatisfaction to start a civil war and establish an autocracy. The government he built spent the next eighty years being plagued by corruption, infighting, and an absolute infestation of mass-murdering sadists, before finally collapsing. He's the chief reason that Russia (and Eastern Europe as a whole) remains an economic backwater dominated by cronyism and repression.
Stalin saved his legacy, it was Lenin who set up the first Gulags and initiated the first purges of non-bolshevik groups that fought in the revolution. Stalin provides an easy scapegoat for lefties who like communism but cannot defend the horrors of the Soviet Union.

The first gulags were set up by the tzaristic regime before.
That regime was all kinds of fucked up already. Enough that most people saw a massive improvement in Lenin.

The New Economic Policy. After imposing harsh economic conditions during the Civil War (War Communism), Lenin switched to the NEP to help the Russian economy recover. It allowed some private trade, for example. Therefore, it was ideologically questionable within the party and Stalin eventually chose not to back it.

Highly idealistic and charismatic leader, used way too often by his party for populist mechanics.The myth became larger than the person, just as planned, but he died too soon. Everything went downhill afterwards.

To this day people goes on for hours on how Lenin was a good man and Stalin was the bad one, like it was just a unfortunate turn of events that took over the revolution, when since day one it was always the plan.

>The first gulags were set up by the tzaristic regime before.
Yes, Katorga system was repurposed for the new commie government, as well the secret police and other repressing structures.

Anyway, Lenin was full of shit. Hence why he didn't allow Russia to have a democratic process after the Tzar was killed. He employed dirty politics, intimidation and eventually civil war (3 times) just to subvert any chance of Russia resisting his party.
He and his buddies wanted the power instead of someone else having it. It was as simple as that. Their beliefs were completely phony and mostly lies.
Hence why the Kronstadt sailors rebelled when they saw what communism actually looked like. Of course the Soviets then murdered them.
The Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Tsarist regime. They overthrew the government that overthrew the Tsarist regime.

Funny thing is how there's to this day "anarchy-communists" people, considering the communist party exterminated all anarchy allies after using them as cannon fodder.

Russian Civil War fucking devastated the early USSR, so they thought they should rely on market dynamics and small private ownership for a few years to bring the economy back to normal. The Russian public, particularly in cities, distrusted the NEPmen who they saw as bourgeois outsiders getting rich while they languished in postwar poverty. Soviet politicians were more ambivalent, because while the activities of the NEPmen directly opposed the foundational ideology of the USSR, these activities also developed the Soviet economy and hastened the transition to socialism.

In 1927, new leader Stalin launched his first five year plan which replaced the NEP with a system of heavy industrialization, collectivized agriculture, and technological proliferation.

kike

>technological proliferation.
>agriculture

This freeze my seeds

>does no matter how much people we killed, the important part is that people are happy now. Our people, at least. You are with us?

Every time

I don't see the irony there

What? The Five Year Plans electrified the Soviet countryside and brought collectivized peasants industrial farm equipment.

communist fucking hate anarchists, and yet some anarchists are willing to give it a try

Yeah and Ancoms and MLs hate each other because of that.

The real animosity comes from 1936, when Soviet agents decided that Spanish anarcho-communists could not properly defend their territory and violently seized control of eastern Spain.

>brought collectivized peasants industrial farm equipment.

Let me guess kulaks deserved, amrite

>Suport Lisenkoism

Stalin was a Lamarckist, influenced by Trofim Lysenko. Woe betide anyone who belived in any other evolutionary theory in those days. Also he force industrialization to prepare URSS for a large scale war just like hittler did with germany.

>Our country now have money
>And by country I mean our party!

There's only two ways to defend this. Either you are part of the privileged elite , or a complete tool.

Industrialization began in 1927 retard, a good five years before the Nazis would take power and 12 years before the invasion of Poland.

While Stalin may have expected war with imperialist neighbors to be inevitable, he wasn't industrializing the USSR for the specific purpose of defending against Germany.

Literally sent by the Germans to Russia to stir shit.

Nope, in fact it brought Russia out of the war.

>Either you are part of the privileged elite , or a complete tool.

That was true pre-revolution. After the revolution you had a different class of elites and a improved living conditions.

Yeah sure, not everyone was equal but it was an improvement.

What can be a consensus on a man who replaced an oppressive regime with even more genocidal and oppressive regime that cannot possibly work?
I don't think there's much to discuss so I don't know what's the point.

And 30 years later half of Germany would be under Russian control

What makes you think the USSR was more repressive and genocidal? At least under Soviet times, ethnic minorities could attain high office

>Still avoid to admit Stalin support to psudoscience.

>While Stalin may have expected war with imperialist neighbors to be inevitable, he wasn't industrializing the USSR for the specific purpose of defending against Germany.

Yes, and conjunte invasion of Poland, the German–Soviet Frontier Treaty, and Winter War were a mere strategic defences. Stalin was an imperialist by himself, he wanted expand soviet influence by militar force.

I was talking about modern views on Lenin/Stalin politics you idiot

>Yeah sure, not everyone was equal but it was an improvement.

But you answered already Fucking tool

And yet, due entirely to the policies of Soviet Russia modern central Asia is a political clusterfuck of competing ethnic groups controlled by Russian speaking majorities. And the Aral Sea's gone.

But no! Goyim, the Soviets did nothing! NOTHING!!!!!

Stalin's industrialization isn't disputed by anyone.

This is a weird hill for you guys to die on

Due to numbers of people killed and level of oppression before and after the Bolsheviks took over.

>tens of millions starved and murdered due to sheer incompetency or malicious and paranoid leadership
>no political opposition or dissent permitted
>but at least this one brown person can join the CCCP

Hardocre commies hate blacks and gays.

Like the jews :^)

Provide statistical evidence suggesting that the USSR was worse than the Russian Empire in that regard

Jews actually fared poorly under Stalin, but Caucasians, Central Asians, and Balts attained high office for essentially the first time

Provide valid reliable sources suggesting that massacres in neighboring countries like Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and so on never happened or were exaggerated or that collectivization or the actions of the newly established Cheka didn't lead to hundreds of thousands of people killed or imprissoned (or exiled to Siberia) killing more people in two or three years than the tsarists regime throughout the entire century as it's commonly known.

Dude, he could not achieve that without a repressive authoritarian political machine, he use the state for their own interest.

Volkogonov's biography - the original Russian version (English translation is heavily cut by Shukmann). Robert Service's, if you want 'Freudian' analysis of certain actions of Uljanov, but otherwise identical biography.
It should be noted that Uljanov left very little of biographical information, even if his 'works' has been collected to 56 volumes.

Dzugasvilis innovation was killing party members (Bolseviks) - in other worse: those loyal to Uljanov -, every other form of terror was tought and implemented by Uljanov with the practical help of Iron Felix and Bronstein. He started 'red terror', on his iniative Red okrhana was formed, he insisted on liquidation of money, he started (but retreated - for tactical reasons; NEP was a temporary solution and political control was intensified during it and Chekists made work of foreign investors impossible) forced collectivization of agriculture, he ordered genocide of Don Cossacks, he insisted on 'beating, shooting and hanging' of bourgoise; that is, physical elimination of said 'class'.
What was not completed during his lifetime, was duly continued by Dzugasvili.

'B-but, but if Bronstein, if Kamenev!'. Impossible, neither wanted to do the ungrateful job at Secretariat - which controlled flow of information, especially of personel - which the Georgian was willing to do. Add that to the fact, that he was member in Politbyro and (the Bolshevik) Soviet and there you go: not a change of anyone else succeeding Uljanov.
And Bronstein wasn't exactly 'humanitarian' either and there is absolutely nothing that succeds his rule might been less brutal.

After they were properly assimilated in the "soviet culture" of course.

This pic is therefore 100% true.
I found out that late Marx and other socialist called Berenstein or something were pretty right about something. They knew that the freer the marker the freer the people. That is correct (and this opinion and the criticism of early Marx work is called revisionism). However they also say that it's good because it predates natural comming of communism (so basically you don't have anything even your wife). As we all known this never happened so I guess I can give those Marxists that they were at least partially right.

Why is Lysenkoism relevant to this conversation? Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union in ways that cannot be denied

That's not how this game works. I'm not denying that brutal action was taken to establish the Soviet Union, and then to ensure that the Stalin clique had full control of power.

YOU made the claim that the Soviet Union was more violent than the Russian Empire but cannot provide a shred of evidence to suggest this.

>so basically you don't have anything even your wife

What the hell are you talking about

That's my reaction to communism too.

Jews were removed from top government positions during the Great purge, but they still remained - up to WW2 - highly overpresented in the party and it's organs. For example Kiev NKVD leadership during the Ukrainian hunger-genocide was made 39% of Jews, Russians closely following and the field personnel was 75% Jewish - a number that stayed steady from 1919 to the mid-30's.
That, of course, doesn't mean shit. After the February revolution and October coup, first time Jews had the possibility of having goverment posts and they of course used that possibility. But majority of Jews did not vote for the 'majority' wing of Russian Social Democratic Party - or the 'minority' (but most who voted the SD party, did vote the 'minorities'), but the Bund and especially the Zionists (Jewish nationalists wanting to form Jewish state in Palestine).
After Bolshevik coup and cementing of their hold to power, there obviously was no other choice but the Bolsheviks and thus Jews joined in high numbers.

It is not hard to understand why the muzhik tought of 'Jewish conspiracy': with the revolution and coup, it was the first time they (80% communal peasants, never visiting Peter and Moscow and especially no the Pale) first and foremost saw Jews at all and on the position power.

Nah m8 Marxists don't want to abolish either personal property or monogamy

Or countries?

Yeah Trotsky was probably at this point the most powerful Jewish official in modern history

>Why is Lysenkoism relevant to this conversation?

Because show the very nature of Stalin favoritism in Lysenko over his psudoscientific bullshit, Also over 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism at one time and overall, scientific research in genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953. Due to Lysenkoism, crop yields in the USSR actually declined as well.

Marxists are antistatists. Nations ought to be ruled not by governments, but by the people.

Jewish official, who didn't regard himself Jewish: to Kiev rabbi asking for help against pogroming Don Cossacs, he told that he wasn't Jewish and turned his back.

>Marxists are antistatists.

hahaha Central planning of economy without central authority is doom to fail.

There are so many versions of socialism. I'm pretty sure the most classic ones did want to end private property. Owen's socialist concept was also supposed to ban marriages.

gonna post a book chart on him soon

But yeah the entire point of marxism is that it's doomed to fail. Again and again. But the history is quite interesting from the very beginning until Lenin's death. There was something incredibly creepy about this early period. It really seemed like an international threat. Stalin never abandoned the plans to spread the revolution but he was more pragmatic.
Also thank God for 1920.

It's a mystery which communists believed their bullshit. At least a couple understood that it's not effective but the idea was right. Kim Philby had a major breakdown when he found out the truth about the socialist paradise.
Stalin enjoyed spartan conditions.
For some officials in the late Cold War period the one purpose of the system was to support their priviledged lives.

Not all the socialist are marxist (like ricardian socialism by example), but all the marxist are socialist or aim to achieve that.

Based desu

Idealistic tard
Diverted energy from truly humanitarian movements to feel like a big "revolutionary."
In reality he was also a huge brainlet

>just an idiot

Also kept a serf in a cage and probably permitted the gruesome murder of the royal family

>bloodthirsty regime
>but at least they muh minoritiez
Jesus, don't you idiots ever grow out of your elementary school conditioning?

>nah Marx never really speculated on the exact mechanisms by which the proletariat would distribute resources.
So the literal founder of communism didn't know how achieve it. What a surprise this bullshit didn't work even when marxist are practically improvising in every step.

One step backwards, two step forward

>it was Lenin who set up the first Gulag
The gulags were Trotsky's idea.

What is market socialism? Tried looking it up but couldn't wrap my head around it.

I love everything about this post

Indirectly responsible for more deaths than any other person in history.

His intentions were truly good however, which makes him the most tragically ironic person in history.

Plain anarchists (those who have the circled A as their symbol) are anarcho-communists, dude.

>dominated by cronyism and repression.
as all countries should be

>The gulags were Trotsky's idea

At least the traitor got what he deserved.

He won Russian battle royal against dozens of autistics of the same caliber. Maybe he wasn't the perfect revolutionary, but tactical genius for sure.

More like a political genius, a manipulator of the masses.

Lenin had a big hand in setting them up, to say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

>justified all this amount of bullshit with such romantic idealization
who the fuck says i'm idealizing anything? scientific advances were made at the cost of political freedoms, but it's not for me to say whether the costs were worth it or not, that's the job of someone much more knowledgeable than I am.
>This is no very scientific thinking but contradictory and biased.
what are you even saying? did i ever say that sicence and politics were inseparable in the soviet union? any advance in science made would always be "proof" of the superiority of socialism in the party's eyes, that's quite natural in a one-party state where the party needs to uphold its ideological legitimacy.

>Yes, they were productive in the production of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
and?? those were all deadly weapons no doubt, but all of which require a lot of intellectual brilliance to create, which the conditions of those complexes created although, ironically, they were symbols of the police-state's repressive power but also its ability to consolidate resources and intellectually capable people all in one place. the fact that the soviets focused on building deadly weapons, anyway, is not so much a symptom of militarism as of paranoia that the west was out to destroy the ussr and the country needed to be armed to the teeth to prevent that from happening, a reasoning that was apparently confirmed by the utter destruction of the nazi invasion of WWII.

It's awful funny to think that intellectual marxists were disgusted with the "primitive" tribalism that came with nationalism, so they developed a system that benefitted their "people" and reeducated/murdered all non-hackers. They pretended as if they were not playing upon the same tribalist barbarism which they critiqued.

> Tfw too smart for civility

I like this pic because it shows how the cultural Marxist meme is in large part bogus. The communists were for the most part very conservative in terms of mores.