1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAlmost everything I've read about Lenin has been bad, but I've read/heard some things that Lenin was a hero...? Did he do very good things AND very bad things?
Almost everything I've read about Lenin has been bad, but I've read/heard some things that Lenin was a hero...? Did he do very good things AND very bad things?
"He was too absurd to make me angry. Indeed, it was a waste of energy, for if you were going to be angry with this man you would be angry all the time."
Do you do always bad things or only good things? How can one ask something like that about a major politician of the XX century? Besides, many of the things he did can be viewed both good and bad depending on whom you ask.
Send me a PM if you need me.
I asked because I hear only good or only bad opinions of Lenin, and I don't know his achievements/bad deeds well enough to have an opinion.
"He was too absurd to make me angry. Indeed, it was a waste of energy, for if you were going to be angry with this man you would be angry all the time."
Than please give definitions of terms "good" and "bad" to classify his deeds.
"Россия для русских" - это неправильно. Остальные-то чем лучше?
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 it-ogo
"He was too absurd to make me angry. Indeed, it was a waste of energy, for if you were going to be angry with this man you would be angry all the time."
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.
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.
"Россия для русских" - это неправильно. Остальные-то чем лучше?
Have you heard the saying that "The victor writes the history"?
What people are taught in school and from media as history then forms what they think of as "facts".
But there are two sides to every story. Some things about him were good and some were bad.
In your case, assuming that you are American, then you come from a country that hates everything that Lenin stood for. Consider that you might have been the victim of propaganda... Some of the things that you have heard about Lenin are false or exaggerated.
Like people here have already said, there are usually two sides to a story.
The Russian state before 1917 (year of the revolution led by Lenin) was hugely unfair, corrupt and inefficient. 90% lived terrible lives, with no freedom and insufficient food, housing and clothing. Lenin wanted to change this because he believed in equality and freedom. Why should some of his countrymen starve when others lived in ridiculous oppulence?
The revolution that Lenin took part in led to the deaths of lots of people who might otherwise not have died. It meant that some people lost property that they valued or even needed. Some people starved to death in the first years after the revolution. It brought about lots of chaos. Socialism was forced on some people that did not want it - including religious people and people from ethnic minorities that were not interested in being part of a socialist state. Some people were unfairly exiled or executed in the tumult
All of this sounds very unpleasant and are reasons for many to hate Lenin.
Lenin, as I understand it, was a political genius in that he could translate the abstract writings of Marx into practical ideas that could be used in a country as Russia. Many of the things he said are relevant for todays society.
In the 1930s the change in Russia and the USSR was astonishing - foreigners who visited were blown away. The Russians had gone from a people of mostly opressed illiterate and starving peasants to a modern and forward thinking superpower.
Things were getting better. They took a horrible beating in the war, but without the USSR, Germany would have won....
The old Russia probably would not have been able to fight like the USSR did. Things got better and better up until about the 1970s. I think. None of this would have happened without Lenin.
One might think of "The maximum amount of benefit to the largest possible group of people" as an indicator of whether something is bad or good. Would Russia have been better off if Lenin had never been born?
Not sure!
I ran "lenin hero" in Youtube and got this:
An old British documentary that is a bit more objective than the Soviet meterial but still seems to have a high view of Lenin:
Whether I'm American or Canadian or British is irrelevant, unless I asked something like 'Why isn't Putin awesome like Obama?' (Which I didn't ask). BTW, not all Americans are how you've depicted them here.
"He was too absurd to make me angry. Indeed, it was a waste of energy, for if you were going to be angry with this man you would be angry all the time."
I'm just astonished at how some "chosen ones" can get personal on here and easily get away with it.In your case, assuming that you are American, then you come from a country that hates everything that Lenin stood for. Consider that you might have been the victim of propaganda... Some of the things that you have heard about Lenin are false or exaggerated.
Molodets, don't pay too much attention to those leftists who hate the U.S. and at the same time would assume everyone speaking rather good English to be Americans.
As for the subject, I'd say he'd done a lot of terrible things, but from what I've read on that, I have an impression he realized WHAT he'd done and tried to set the things back to normal, but then he died, and his successors continued pursuing even harsher politics. It's the time after 1925 what the USSR is mostly hated for, things like mass murders, mass starvation enforcement, etc.
"Hate"? You are wrong again and why don't you let people decide for themselves whether or not to pay attention?
Rather good??? English is my native language!!!
"He was too absurd to make me angry. Indeed, it was a waste of energy, for if you were going to be angry with this man you would be angry all the time."
Sure, I just assumed she might not know that for sure, and didn't want to reveal anything about it to her. I assumed the things would be better this way, but I'm really sorry if it offended you in any way.Rather good??? English is my native language!!!
Btw, can you now get on the 2nd chat?
Sigh! I am mentioning the bad things, aren't I ?
I just want to encourage that this person is trying to think for himself.
Where better to ask opinions about Lenin than in a Russian forum? The American view of Lenin is pretty much 100% dark, I think. It's well known what the US feels about communism.
So; he's already heard "your" side of the story, that Lenin was an evil mass murderer.
There may be someone here who feels that Lenin was a fantastic person who did only good. I don't. But I think he had many good intentions and that some of the things that he did were good.
If this is a troll question, which I am beginning to think that it might be, then I regret spending 15 minutes of my weekend on it.
[Lampada, since she's talking to me directly, can I please talk the same way to her?]
Open your eyes and see what I really said about that character.
Hanna, how do you like these Lenin's quotes?
A lie told often enough becomes the truth. - "Многократно повторенная ложь становится правдой"
There are no morals in politics
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
I have not gotten personal with you at all, and have explained my question several times now. I appreciate your reply, but just don't understand this attitude. But hey, if you think I'm a troll, go for it.
"He was too absurd to make me angry. Indeed, it was a waste of energy, for if you were going to be angry with this man you would be angry all the time."
The thing is that questions about who was Lenin in itself more likely than not could provoke highly emotional responses. That would qualify it as potentially trolling. That'a all. Not to worry.
Sorry, clearly I was wrong. I got irritated by another person who wrote in the thread and suspected trolling since that sort of thing has happened in this forum before. Apologies and hope my response was helpful.
Also, a lot of very young people come onto this forum and ask questions. I got the impression that you fell into this category too but it seems I was mistaken there too.
Well, Lenin is a sensitive subject no doubt, and I think I've said more than enough. I am not even Russian, and nothing that Lenin has done has affected me personally.
@Lampada - Interesting quotes and I appreciate your views which, no doubt are well founded.
This thread has explained various sides of this historical figure I knew very little about, which is what I was looking for. It's difficult to get an accurate idea of such a devisive character as Lenin. And I realise it's a sensitive topic for many people, but I tried to be 'neutral' to avoid the whole 'trolling' thing...
Anyway, I'll watch the video a little later, when I have time. Thanks for the replies
"He was too absurd to make me angry. Indeed, it was a waste of energy, for if you were going to be angry with this man you would be angry all the time."
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
Reply With Quote