Thread: Lenin: Good or bad?

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Than please give definitions of terms "good" and "bad" to classify his deeds.

Good = improving living conditions for his people. Bad = unneccesary violence. You didn't understand what I meant by good/bad? An example: Hitler was bad. He may have done some good things for some people, but I certainly don't think Hitler was a hero. And I know more about Hitler than I do Lenin... which is why I asked...

Originally Posted by Molodets

Good = improving living conditions for his people. Bad = unneccesary violence. You didn't understand what I meant by good/bad? An example: Hitler was bad. He may have done some good things for some people, but I certainly don't think Hitler was a hero. And I know more about Hitler than I do Lenin... which is why I asked...

You see, the biggest issue here is that Hitler HAD substantially improved living conditions for his people. Of course, his was evil towards everyone he outlined as his foes in his "My struggle" book. So, unfortunately, your definitions don't work very well in Hitler's case. But, I think in Lenin's case they work a way better. Since 1917 when Lenin's party gained the power and until early 1924 when he died the living conditions for people significantly deteriorated as well as the unnecessary violence had significantly increased. So, according to your definition, Lenin was very bad.

Having said that, the evaluation of a politician performance is pure subjective. For example, the "necessary" violence vs the "unnecessary" violence by its own has no objective definition to start with. Also, the "living conditions" very much depends on the interpretation. If you live in a prison, the correctional officers' living conditions are many-fold better than yours. And during Lenin's time a lot of previously wealthy people have become poor, imprisoned, and dead whilst the previously poor people and former criminals and political/terrorist prisoners have become the "correctional officers" so to speak. How can you establish the "improvement" in living conditions in that case?

As a general rule, since the class struggle at the time was primarily between the Aristocrats/Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat perhaps the most objective way to evaluate the outcomes of the October Revolution of 1917 is the treatment of the Peasants class. The social fight was declared to be between the 'rich' and the 'poor', but in reality the middle class and the peasants did not want to participate in the fight preferring neither side. And Lenin lured many peasants to his side by promising them collective ownership of the land. The land ownership was the ultimate dream for the peasants at the time and many of them perceived the 'collective' part as a substitute for 'no landlord', that is everything the peasants will produce would be divided among the peasants themselves. But, once the main struggle had finished, the peasants found out that the taxes they have to pay is many-fold higher than in the previous 'oppressive' regime. So, this way the peasants were used up and betrayed. So, the peasants started to fight back producing less and less up to a point where the proletariat found out the food had become too expensive and their regime may crush. So, what they've done is usually referred to as 'the collectivisation' - they formed the 'collective ownerships' which basically meant 'collective with the proletariat' and called all other forms of the ownership - illegal, prosecuting the law-breakers. This way it had become apparent that the revolution was not about the struggle between the 'rich' and the 'poor', and not about improving living conditions of the people, but merely to establish a dictatorship of one specific class - the proletariat, which will elect its representatives (=the nomenclature) to run the country. Everyone who would disagree with what the nomenclature had decided would be prosecuted by law. But all that happened a couple of years later after Lenin died, so probably it's not fair to make Lenin 100% personally responsible for that, however both Lenin's followers and adversaries usually reason it was inevitable.

I tried to answer you question, but now I'm not sure it helped.

Originally Posted by Molodets

Good = improving living conditions for his people. Bad = unneccesary violence. You didn't understand what I meant by good/bad? An example: Hitler was bad. He may have done some good things for some people, but I certainly don't think Hitler was a hero. And I know more about Hitler than I do Lenin... which is why I asked...

Well, all the activity of Lenin (as it was claimed) was directed towards the goal of ultimate improving living conditions for all the people worldwide. Most probably he believed it himself. And he believed that all the violence was absolutely necessary. So from this point of view he is perfectly good.

On the other hand, his project (world revolution and just society of plenty and happiness) finally failed and all the violence appeared to be in vain. So from this point of view he is perfectly evil.