Lenin promises peace, land, and bread

Lenin withdrew Russia from war and NEP produced great results in a short time. It's not his fault that reactionary pigs wanted a war.

I..I thought Lenin was the good communist guy and things only got bad when St..Stalin took power.

Stalin was less keen on hanging peasants from trees and war communism was even worse than the post-NEP economy.

I'm glad Lenin died.

The NEP should have stayed in place tho. Bukharin was the man to do it. Trotsky would've been even worse than Stalin.

Bukharin on the right and Trotsky on the left. Stalin was the correct timeline.

Your thinking is so confused I'm not sure where to begin. Unless you are saying he set off the civil war by carrying out the revolution Lenin didn't start it, hostile forces where already arrayed against the communists the moment they took over. Talk about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in this thread ignores all practical realities of the situation (Russia was collapsing before Nicholas abdicated, the civil war had already begun, Germany was able to get such great terms because how poor of a position Russia was in, and Lenin signed it because he was afraid of being forced to sign a more ruinous treaty later because the military was in shambles by that point allowing the Germans to march largely unopposed.) with one person thinking they did it only because they assumed global communism would make it moot. The civil war intensified shortages of food and material that Russia was suffering from before it broke out making both sides resort to sordid old style foraging (taking whatever you can from whatever village you come across to feed your troops) to win.

The "peace, land, and bread" slogan was nonsensical at least in the short term. Bread required peace. External peace was easy enough. Internal peace was impossible without the communists immediately jettisoning most of their demands that incensed their opponents like "land" after the revolution. There was no way they were going to get that land any time soon without armed conflict. Any armed conflict was going to be intense when you have two sides unwilling to comprise or afraid any comprise will slowly spell their doom combined with both of them so sorely lacking for war material the situation degrades to "either you start pillaging or lose to those willing to do it".

The ussr got most of thebrest litovsk land back after the germans collapsed

>Overthrowing a newly established democratic government in a coup isnt instigating a civil war
lol fuck off leftypol

One of the main reasons the postmodernist movement was born WAS former Marxist intellectuals being disillusioned with the Russian revolution. Stop making uneducated guesses based on no evidence but your own bias.

Who are you quoting?

> he was afraid of being forced to sign a more ruinous treaty later because the military was in shambles
One of the major reasons it was a shambles was because of Lenin's idea of infiltrating the military with provocateurs though

>how many communist/marxist around the world looked at the russian revolution and thought, "holy shit, what was I THINKING?!" before trashing it all together?
Apparently a lot, because the purges killed millions upon millions. At this point look who communism attracts: it's basically a eugenics tool at this point.

lmao fucking right. They want a bloody revolution, but don't want to take responsibility for the blood. They want to talk about reactionaries, but don't want to admit that people are reacting to their crimes against humanity in the first place.

Things were shit way before Lenin got there and you vastly overestimate the amount of power he had though I imagine some communists propagate the idea that everything happened because of their genius tactics.

Bolshevik and Menshevik infiltration of the army was a major factor in the February revolution succeeding, the soldiers Soviets were a pretty big deal

If you're not being sarcastic, which is believable because of that pervasive myth, the Gulag programs, Cheka flaying people and the "go to Siberia" meme all started with Lenin. Stalin of course threw those policies into maximum overdrive but Lenin's hands aren't clean.

>Lenin didn't start it
He absolutely did. If you credit Lenin for the Revolution, then he also deserves the credit for the Civil War that came with it. It is a package deal.

>hostile forces where already arrayed against the communists the moment they took over
Hostile forces? You mean the actual Russian government, trying to reassert its authority? There were plenty of leftist groups that weren't big fans of the Bolsheviks, either.

>Russia was collapsing before Nicholas abdicated
Not really. The Central Powers were clearly losing by this point in the war. Russia was actually in a very good situation in terms of the military, up until the February Revolution. The February Revolution created a lot of confusion within the Russian army, setting the stage for the Bolsheviks to take over.

>Germany was able to get such great terms because how poor of a position Russia was in
Russia was doing fine until Lenin overthrew the government. Germany in 1917 was getting weaker every single day because of the British blockade, to the point there were instances of German soldiers on the Eastern front were actually starting to desert from lack of food.

You have something more in depth? In Coup d'Etat (p.51) the author talks about how the Vikzhel was critical to their success by refusing access of the railways to anti Bolshevik forces. Elsewhere I've read their power was largely limited to a select few cities. On Wikipedia the army receives almost no mention when it comes to the February Revolution and the take over of Saint Petersburg. This article briefly mentions on the first page that Bolsheviks had some support in the army but makes no further comments on it sites.bu.edu/revolutionaryrussia/files/2013/09/Red-Army-Mass-Mobilization.pdf and takes place mostly after the February revolution.

No one forced the reactionaries and moderates to fight the Bolsheviks. Instead they voluntarily chose to fight and die. No one forced them to be counter-revolutionary either, they could have chosen to convert but didn't. Literally asking for it.

It's important to note not all the Soviets initially supported either the Bolsheviks or Mensheviks, they were ad-hoc councils to decide on matters relating to the war with the general collapse of an organized high command, nontheless the Menshevik and Bolshevik members (Especially Menshevik) of them heavily advocated for supporting the revolution and overthrowing the Tsar to negotiate a peace and formation of a republic. The "Red Guards" were a minority that only ever numbered 200,000 across the entire nation before October and the shit really hit the fan

I agree with everything else except that Russia was fine before the revolution. The revolution only succeeded because things weren't fine with Russia. For a detailed exploration see Russia’s First World War. A Social and Economic History (b-ok.org/book/1106404/c72a1e). The short version things were things were looking good or at least too not bad at the very beginning and then went downhill bouncing back uphill in a couple of ways before going downhill again before the eve of the revolution.

>the reactionaries and moderates to fight the Bolsheviks. Instead they voluntarily chose to fight and die. No one forced them to be counter-revolutionary either, they could have chosen to convert but didn't. Literally asking for it.
The Bolsheviks could have just let the Czechs leave the country but nooOOo they had to try and disarm them and get BTFO'd by beer-bellied angry meatballs.

>democratic
Hell the provisional government wouldn't had been overthrown if he listen to the popular will to stop the war

The whole Czech Legion thing is more complicated than what you're making out, you had members of the legion who were commies trying to encourage them to join the Bolsheviks and the Bolsheviks paranoid they'd join the entente mission to support Kerensky, it was never going to end well

Absolutely but i'm putting it simply because i don't think would be able to comprehend a complex situation.

Collateral.

Before the revolution Russia was a hellhole for the common people, the only reason the civil war lasted as long as it did was because of western interference

Western support to the Whites was half arsed as fuck and more concerned with taking their munitions back, Japan did more for the White cause than Britain and America combined

>No once forced the reactionaries...

'Stop thrashing around like that as I torture you, you might hurt me, and then I'd have to defend myself,' says the communist bugman.
Le reactionaries, le moderates... the Bolsheviks intitiated the war when they launched the coup, and every government that installs itself by coup always claims that the opposition 'has nothing to worry about' before they are disappeared.
The fact that you can believe this shit with a straight face and probably roll your eyes at anyone who disagrees shows that you should be killed as an act of mercy, you insectoid fuck.

No one forced the Bolsheviks to start a fucking uprising either so what's your point? If you think any country would go through such a massive change in government without elements wanting to fight against it you're naive.

>i am pretending to be retarded because i think the other guy is one

the civil war was caused by the whites and the famines by kulaks

No one forced the commies to kill tens of millions of people and start hopeless wars but they did. The traditional forces had no choice. The communists banned them from owning their homes, their land, and even their livelihoods by stealing their tools as means of production. They even banned religion for two decades,punishable offences by gulag included owning holy books and holding services. There was no choice. There is no choice still- there's no reason commies shouldn't be executed today.
>implying the USSR wasn't a hellhole for everyone altogether
At least Russians could have a religion and own land/homes. In fact, the empire had a form of collectivism that entitled people farming to a slice of land, which is more than they got under Soviet collectivism which banned personal incentives and ownership.
>the only reason the civil war lasted as long as it did was because of western interference
youtube.com/watch?v=Sah_Xni-gtg&t=2s
Western capitalists built communism from the ground up. The records prove that they were supplying pro-communist forces.

Some did, some didn't. Communism the god that failed is a book written by intellectuals who renounced Communism after seeing its effects.

>The communists banned them from owning their homes, their land, and even their livelihoods by stealing their tools as means of production. They even banned religion for two decades,punishable offences by gulag included owning holy books and holding services
None of that applicable to October 1917, if you're going to make the argument at least be sensible about iot by citing actual shit like their subversion of the newly proclaimed Russian republic which had a lot of potential

>the civil war was caused by the whites
So you're saying communists didn't initiate a communist revolution? They hadn't agitated in 1905 when Lenin said there was no hope of revolution? They hadn't planted the seeds with Sergei Nachaev?
>the famines by kulaks
Stalin said in a speech that they were performing an "offensive" on kulaks for not surrendering the grain they made to the government. If they had true socialism, aren't the workers entitled to the fruits of their labors? That's how you know communism is a lie. Secondly, this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921–22
The soviets caused 5-7 million deaths by famine a decade earlier. They had a famine after ww2. They imported food from the US during the cold war. The Russian empire had tried collectivism before and it replaced it. The Soviets brought back failed collectivism and removed private incentive from it, further fucking the situation.

The Kulak thing has only very recently been revised user, even anti-communist propaganda said the Kulaks did it for decades

Can't tell what you're posting here. The transitional period was a flop. Communist issued prikaz no. 1 decimated the Russian war effort, they were effectively in control before 1921 and facilitated Russia's economic and social failure throughout the time. There was no potential for Russia during the transitional period with Nicky's relatives turning down rulership.The duma had blocked reforms for the decade prior. They even had to be dissolved prior due to the government being bogged down by them.

>1921
That's way after the horse had bolted, the Russian Republic proclaimed in February had all the potential in the world to not suck dick if the Bolsheviks got gunned down instead of being allowed power

This. You'll just never hear this from Cold War propaganda.

>even anti-communist propaganda said the Kulaks did it for decades
Um no sweetie citing some dumbass comic as a political truth that the Soviets admitted themselves to does not help your case.
history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111stalin.html
>"An offensive against the kulaks is a serious matter." -Stalin declaring war on his own people
Yes I've posted this before and I'll keep posting it until you get it.So why did the USSR not give the means of production to the working class that demanded it? Why did the USSR not entitle them to manage the fruits of their labors again? Given that the Soviets already proved that they could not feed their people in the great famine of 1921-22, why did the Soviets think they should carry on with bad management practices? The Lenin's new economic program was basically the Soviets throwing their hands up in the air when they realized they couldn't unfuck the situation they created in the first place.

t. broscience expert

The monarchists were around before the Bolsheviks.

>Bolsheviks before the Revolution
>The Czar is an evil imperialist! Look how he oppresses places like Poland, Finland, and Ukraine! The provinces deserve independence.

>Bolsheviks after the Revolution
>Wait.....why are all the provinces suddenly declaring independence? Why are they trying to leave our socialist paradise? They are reactionaries! They must be stopped at all cost!

It's a comic book produced by the CIA user, this is what the CIA legitimately believed happened

>Russia was doing great before the overthrow
lol

Is that comic really all you've got? Because whenever people say this, they always hold up that comic but nothing else.

>Russian Republic proclaimed in February had all the potential in the world to not suck dick if the Bolsheviks got gunned down instead of being allowed power
Reconcile their failings then. What potential did they have and why did the communists issue commands to the army in 1917?
>inb4 "I'm just going to keep repeating potential over and over again"- reasons only please.Repeating a claim over and over again doesn't do anything for context or argument.
So communists aren't coherent in their ideology?

It serves as a timestamp, until the post cold war no one gave a single fuck about the holodomor and assumed it actually was the Kulaks fault. That's why I said it's only recently been revised

Been reading the Black Book of Communism lately?

Yes. What's your point here?
>It's a comic book produced by the CIA user
Sauce?
>this is what the CIA legitimately believed happened
No, in fact look up the CIA's pdf's on the USSR. There's a study on how inefficient the Soviet system is intrinsically.Here's one of a few:
cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000497165.pdf

retarded comic user claims the CIA gave it's honest beliefs in < case study comparing economies

>So communists aren't coherent in their ideology?
Is any political system? Even in modern democratic society you have party factions who disagree on a large range of issues within their own ideology

Part of me thinks that guy was joking. I didn't respond to it earlier because I assumed it was.

I'm not even sure how much power the Duma had at or before that point.

>So communists aren't coherent in their ideology?
I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. There were different types of communists some of which disagreed strongly with what would become the ruling party who got that way by purging said communists and pretty much anybody else that disagreed with them.

It's not that they're not coherent. It's that they aren't homogeneous.

>Sauce
My mistake, it was the FBI

I've never read it. Having said that, one should be able to draw rational conclusions of the negatives in communism purely based off of what the Soviets admitted to. Combine that with the glasnost period of declassification and the fact the western intelligence agencies were actually underestimating Soviet cruelty the entire time.
>Is any political system? Even in modern democratic society you have party factions who disagree on a large range of issues within their own ideology
So what was the point in saying that because communists disagree that they must be somehow redeemed by that? Put your posts together side by side.
>I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion
Listening to what communists say and reading what their authors say first of all.Obviously if they can't agree on even fundamental principles it's not very coherent.

I never claimed they were redeemed, just that a lot of Marxists condemned the Soviet Union for being a repressive shithole

Read the pic you just dropped. How can you suggest that the workers didn't have a right to fight against the oppression caused by the USSR denying them the right to the MoP and their own products?I'm not saying that people didn't fight back against Soviet oppression, they did. It was their right to.

Some of the document is contradicted by other sources. Healthcare was not great but they hat a lot of doctors and universal coverage (including healthcare for prisoners).

>because communists disagree that they must be somehow redeemed by that?
How did you get that from that?

>Listening to what communists say and reading what their authors say first of all.Obviously if they can't agree on even fundamental principles it's not very coherent.
How is this different from every other ideology?

Compare Russia's situation in 1917 to that of Germany and you'll quickly realize that things were much worse in Germany during that time. It was only because of Bolshevik meddling that things started to fall apart in Russia.

>Some of the document is contradicted by other sources
Like?They suffered constantly from brain drain. That's what happens when the government tries to pay doctors marginally more than unskilled day laborers.

>How can you suggest that the workers didn't have a right to fight against the oppression caused by the USSR denying them the right to the MoP and their own products?
Where the fuck are you getting this shit from? Literally all I've said is Cold War propaganda placed blame of the kulaks just like the Soviets did

You're mixing capitalism with communism.

Meanwhile imperial Russia had:
>3-4% GDP growth
>a plane designed with a larger wingspan the a 747 and a tank with 5 times as much engine power than the heaviest British tank
>agricultural reforms set to prevent shortages(and would've prevented both the Soviet famine of 1921-22 and the Holodomor)
>Set to match the infrastructure of the west in 30 years(it took the Soviets 50)
>it took the soviets over a decade to bring industry back up to 1917 levels
>"A black market emerged in Russia, despite the threat of martial law against profiteering. The rouble collapsed and barter increasingly replaced money as a medium of exchange[9] and, by 1921, heavy industry output had fallen to 20% of 1913 levels. 90% of wages were paid with goods rather than money. 70% of locomotives were in need of repair, and food requisitioning, combined with the effects of seven years of war and a severe drought, contributed to a famine that caused between 3 and 10 million deaths.[10] Coal production decreased from 27.5 million tons (1913) to 7 million tons (1920), while overall factory production also declined from 10,000 million roubles to 1,000 million roubles. According to the noted historian David Christian, the grain harvest was also slashed from 80.1 million tons (1913) to 46.5 million tons (1920)."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism
>actually had freedom of religion
>freedom of speech existed in that every press wasn't run directly by the government
>freedom of express(no manufactured and controlled anti-art movements)

>Literally all I've said is Cold War propaganda placed blame of the kulaks just like the Soviets did
One panel in an off comic is not the definitive story behind the causes of the Holodomor. It doesn't mention Stalin exporting food at the same time either.

It mentions him refusing food aid, which is probably even worse than exporting to be quite honest with you

>It mentions him refusing food aid, which is probably even worse than exporting to be quite honest with you
Giving away food is definitively worse than not accepting food.

He's not giving it away, he's selling it on the market and then not accepting free food

>It was only because of Bolshevik meddling that things started to fall
Things started to fall apart before that and the Bolsheviks needed that to have any hope of succeeding.

>Compare Russia's situation in 1917 to that of Germany
Unlike Russia Germany was able to crush its communist uprisings.

>Germany was able to crush its communist uprisings
Germany's communist uprising was a joke no one except modern stormies take seriously, it was crushed by a SocDem fucking government

t. cointel goblinos antifada

I had a lot of ‘wtf was I thinking’ moments, then I realized none of it actually matters. there are probably people today living on siberia who dont even know what happened or what is currently going on beyond their little frosty shithole

I wasn't aware that Germany had an uprising in 1917.

Life expectancy wasn't that low. It was similar to that of the US in the 1960s, and that was in spite of widespread smoking and drinking.

Germany had a communist uprising in 1918-19. It was crushed quickly and didn't do much. /Pol/ and the far right have been screaming about it ever since though.

Don't forget it was crushed by the same socialist government that supposedly stabbed them in the back to promote Judeo-Bolshevism

>/Pol/ and the far right have been screaming about it ever since though.
Conveniently leaving out a few facts? And it's because normies say it never happened, and Hitler talking about jews causing the Kiel revolt didn't happen.

>Kiel revolt has to do with Jews
Fucking brain damage

>I'm not even sure how much power the Duma had at or before that point.
As long as you admit it was fucking democratic at all. Lenin would never have gotten that much traction if those idiots disobeyed the Russian people by continuing the war

>pretending you heard of it before I posted it

>Something that wasn't the Kiel revolt
You're pulling my leg aren't you user?

You're right I should make a Kiel revolt graphic

600 gorillion dead christian aryan slavic children slaughtered and devoured by satanic judeo-bolshevik cannibals

Yeah you should, and be humiliated it had little to no Jews (not that some left wing Jews didn't capitalize on it)

The SPD also supported Germany entering WW1. Politics is funny.

He did exactly what was promised.
The land was seized from the Aristocrats and redistributed between the peasants.

>(not that some left wing Jews didn't capitalize on it)
I like how you put this exception in, because now if I have under a dozen jews to point out you'll just say those were the only ones, even if they were the ringleaders. Honestly though, we have:
>Bolsheviks before Yezhovshchina were 80-85 % of high level officials, Putin, Israel times, and Solzhenitsyn all said that.
>Bela Kun in Hungary and his ringleaders are all jewish.
>German revolution largely carried out by jews, ending in failure.
>US communist party officers largely jewish with only a couple notable examples(that trend even carries on somewhat today in the CPUSA)
>communism invented by jews to begin with
>the main force of communism in the Baltic states and Poland was the General Jewish Labor Bund
>and they were being financed by the International Jewish Labor Bund
I don't know at which point you're finally going to admit how jewish communism is.

Nothing you're going on about has fuck all to do with Kiel

As opposed to what? Nicky had already proven to be an absolute fucking moron completely unwilling to stop the war and completely willing to keep sending Russian's into the grinder, there was absolutely no Democratic tradition in Russia and the one time they've tried in Modernity they've become a de-facto one party state under a strongman, If we strike out ardent white republicans and ardent white monarchists then who the fuck is left?

>They suffered constantly from brain drain.
That didn't become a major problem until after the USSR fell because of how tight of a leash they kept on people through things like the propiska system.