Lenin himself wasn’t the problem and the Statures for him are usually for being a Revolutionary and removing the Tzar.
Stalin was the actual problem.
Let’s be honest. Lenin is the problem. Karl Marx was a philosopher who spoke with a lot of figurative language. Which Lenin treated as all literal dogma. And I am here to tell you taking figurative work literally is one of the worst decisions you can make. Just like evangelicals who take the bible literally. When it isn’t even a coherent work of fiction. Let alone a solid system of rule and law.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. As can be clearly seen in every major country that has tried Lenin’s blind ideology. (Cuba had some special circumstances that kept it from spiraling as fast as the others. Plus Venezuela is still a bit early to call. But likely will get there) Or pretty much every major capitalist nation as well. With Lenin as the lynchpin consistently making bad decisions. (Stalin) I think it’s probably safe to say he had good intentions. But was far out of his depth and it showed.
And I’m not some liberal, or fascist critiquing from the right. Just a pro social democracy slightly libertarian leaning socialist.
He wasn’t the coolest or nicest person, but definitely better than the Tzars, under him Russia had its best years.
Lenin was a counterrevolutionary that brutally suppressed any dissent and directly placed Stalin (being well aware of what a person he was) in a position that would make his later takeover possible.
Lenin did not place Stalin, stalin took over. Other than that, yes.
Lenin placed Stalin as an enforcer to do the dirty stuff for him. It would be very naive to assume Lenin didn’t know the risk involved of putting a former mob gangster in such a position.
deleted by creator
Germany send Lenin from Switzerland to Russia, Lenin helped Germany in WW1, he wasn’t super smart.
You’re showing statues of Lenin in countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure.
When Lenin took power, Russia had nothing. It was in the middle of WW1, there were regular famines, almost everyone was illiterate, and it was in no condition to establish a socialist economic plan. So, Lenin created a temporary economic model called The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is a centrally planned economy designed to rapidly develop infrastructure and industry in a country that has none. Lenin was already ceding power to the worker’s councils when he died. Stalin decided he liked The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and did not cede power back to the worker’s councils.
Those countries never experienced Communism. They never even experienced socialism. They destroyed those statues because they hated The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Living in a system designed for a short temporary economic boom for decades is no fun.
deleted by creator
So-called “dictatorship of proletariat” was simply a terror. Lots of philosophers and religious elite was killed just because they weren’t compatible with communist ideology. Rich peasants who didn’t even use others labor were either robbed or killed. Peasants lost their land and had to work for the country. People got killed just because some anonyms told they did something bad. I know this because it happened to my ancestors. My grand-grandfather lost his house, communists left only one room for his family. His friends, all good people, dissapeared. His daughters never played with neighbor’s kids because of fear. My other grand-grandfather lost land and two horses. His brother was killed for not agreeing to give away his house. And my another grand-grandfather was killed because an anonymous letter. He was communist and thought he was safe as he did nothing wrong. His kids couldn’t get education because they were “children of the enemy of the people”. Much later my grandfather got a paper concluding that execution of his father was a mistake. It was horrible time, and lots of people thought the ones who were killed were “pests” or “enemies of the people”, so killing them was good and beneficial for the society.
countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure
Oh, so like every single other place that tried to implement that deranged system? Thank you for this very important distinction.
It’s so very capitalist to look at failed attempts to escape capitalism which were sabotaged by capitalists as indication that the need to rebel is the problem.
Failing to account for greed for power some people have is in itself a fatal flaw, to be honest. Anyone who advocates for the exact same actions and glorifies the USSR knows what they are doing, they’re hoping to come out on top after their desired revolution. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those kinds of people on this platform…
Are Leftists advocating for the exact same actions as the USSR, or are Capitalists gaslighting the ignorant into believing they are?
No, I’m just saying tankie infestations are so widespread and loud that they have a decent amount of leverage on what the average person thinks of communism, and tankie opposing leftists are either not loud enough, or not numerous enough.
Victim blaming.
Out of curiosity, how do you think governments in large capitalist economies (such as the US) properly account for greed for power and keep it in check? Do you think they are doing a good job on that front?
Poorly, but not worse than a dictatorship(such as the USSR).
What’s your point?
You might want to turn that incredibly critical eye you’ve got for communism back in on capitalism, that’s all.
I… am?
What is this, I am against dictatorial abominations, so that means I am in favor of capitalist abuse? I am literally saying that opposition to capitalism is shooting itself in the foot by tolerating the existence of authoritarian “communists”.
Unless you’re an actual tankie, your words towards me make no sense.
That’s objectively false. USSR managed to provide everyone with food, housing, healthcare, education, and jobs. Nobody worried about losing their job and ending up on the street or that they wouldn’t be able to retire in dignity. People had reasonable work hours and enjoyed over 20 days vacation. None of the capitalist regimes around today are able to achieve these things.
“USSR managed to provide everyone with food, housing, healthcare, education, and jobs”
the victims of the holodomor would like a word
failed attempts
They didn’t fail. I mean you can criticize the ussr, but it was not capitalist
which were sabotaged by capitalists
What a weird thing to say. The USSR had sovereign control over the largest country in the world by far + a lot of allies. The capitalists can’t even get rid of north Korea. Its not the capitalists, the system is just shit
the need to rebel is the problem
I mean its fine to rebel, but if your goal is communism I will bet on another case of “tHatS nOT rEaL coMMUnIsM”
Communism doesn’t include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence. The two concepts are antithetical. The USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism.
How do you prevent people from trading and owning property without violence?
Education. The reason that fascists are raising hell about wokeness is that Capitalism depends on ignorance.
Ok, can you “educate” me why I need to get rid of my private property?
And fascists practiced economic policies of “corporatism”, not capitalism
Communism doesn’t include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence
Very convenient, since nothing will ever meet this standard, so you will be able to say “that’s not communism” for the rest of your life. Actually sounds like the definition on anarcho capitalism
The two concepts are antithetical
Maybe to you, but many of the people in power at the time believed they were on the way to communism
USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism
I know of two common definitions of capitalism: “a system mostly organized around a profit-motive” and “a system in which individuals are mostly free to enter into consensual contracts”. I don’t see how the USSR is close to either of these. It was closer to fascism, tho there are also large differences
“Nothing will ever meet this standard” ~CHINESEBOTTROLL
If CHINESEBOTTROLL says it, then it must be true.
The two concepts are antithetical, even if the ignorant and corrupt claim it for themselves. Modern Christianity is antithetical to the Gospels of Christ, and that remains the case even as America slides into Christofascism. Fascists have always been steeped in irony because their core beliefs are based in the ignorance of ego.
You having an ignorant concept of capitalism doesn’t have any bearing on reality, except that it causes you to ignore the atrocities of the system that keeps you fat and happy.
the atrocities of the system that keeps you fat and happy.
You misunderstand. That is not capitalism but CRONY-capitalism. The two concepts are anrithetical. In REAL capitalism everyone respects the non-agression principle and therefore everyone is free. Crony capitalism is actually the LEAST capitalist system and is closer to socialism, because the government does stuff. I am very smart
What about all these capitalist places that fell into fascism? What about the successful capitalist states that are currently falling into fascism?
What about them? The choices here are not “what we have now” vs “trust the people that want to try communism again”
My point is about the flawed argument : “communism is bad because the attempts have failed”. Well, there are more capitalist attempts that failed than communist ones, so the argument doesn’t hold.
My argument is not “look how many attempts have failed” but “look, of all of these many attempts, every single one has turned into a kafkaesque nightmare”. At this point it is not even clear that “successful communism” is something that can exist in our world
On the other hand, while many (depending on your perspective you might even say most) capitalist systems fail, there are absolutely some that work ok. Of course nothing is perfect in the real world. But the life of say a danish person is not only materially well off, but also free and full of dignity, which was true of none of the experiments in communism
I’m pretty sure many Chinese are well off, free and full of dignity.
It’s also easier to be a successful country when you’re not under ambargo just because you’re not sold to capitalist companies. Did the US left even one communist country live normally?
But more importantly, how many successful capitalist countries, today, aren’t going fascist at full speed?
Technically, none of these countries experienced “communism”. They experienced tankie-led hell holes. Never trust a tankie. They’ll ally with you to fight for “the people” and then stab you in the back when they get a taste of power and don’t need you anymore.
Yup, countries run by fascists hate communism.
Russia seems fine with it though
But I’m sure it’s because it’s aCkhUaLly fAscIsT
So are we discussing countries were fascists live in or run by fascists? Because Russia is 100% the latter
Russia is a partially neoliberal bourgeois democracy(aka dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) they do stuff like invade Ukraine/Iraq/Afghanistan while being distinct enough from fascism that it is more accurate to just call them neolibs
You used so many words to tell us you don’t know what fascism is. Another victim of western education system.
More like, another victim of living next to Russia
Plenty of people live next to Russia just fine last I checked.
Check in Ukraine
People in the comments with a completely fictionalized idea of Lenin as some kind of libertarian hippie who hated Stalin’s “authoritarianism” vs people in the comments with a completely fictionalized idea of Lenin as a “counterrevolutionary” (lol) or despot
deleted by creator
This statue in Poland was few weeks long artist performance made few years ago near place, where Lenin’s statue standed in Nowa Huta until 1989.
The photo of the USA Lenin statue isn’t accurate. It resides in the Fremont neighborhood in Seattle, where it frequently has its hands and body splashed with red paint to represent the blood on Lenin’s hands.
Just do an image search for it or check it out on google maps streetview.
deleted by creator
France never experienced communism?
Communists took part in a few governmental coalitions, but France never experienced communism.
Not the whole France, but Paris certainly did in 1871.
For two months yes, or Strasbourg for a few days in 1918. But nothing comparable with the “actually existing socialism” of USSR and its satellites.
That Romanian statue is dope
Wtf I love capitalism now
Ackshully…
None of the lower countries had communism.
Technically correct. They were under Stalins Marxism-Leninism, which was supposed to be a placeholder until true communism could be implemented.
But it’s a bit disingenuous to split that hair in this thread. The irony being that the latter are all countries that got to experience the kind of gouvernemental structure that Lenin facilitated.
You can argue if they had sunshine scenario communism all day, but they certainly was under the oppressive thumb of USSR.
Do not feed the troll. Strange fellas, lying on the internet, arbitrarily defining communism to suit their rose-colored ideology is no basis for a system of debate.
True debate stems from a knowledge of history, past events and conditions that led to them, not some farcical comment (as the one you are replying to).
If I went around in communist times claiming I knew what Marxism-Leninism was just because I read a manifesto, they’d send the secret police after me.
You are right, I just couldn’t help it the bait was too great.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That’s a whack article whose author is pretty confused. Antihierarchical action is inherently not authoritarian unless you are creating new hierarchy. Also isn’t it convenient that our system of liberalism is good and just and normal people believe it but only crazy dangerous psychopaths believe in a ideology founded on liberation from the forces that oppress us.
There are plenty of articles discussing how capitalists are fucking psychopaths too.
I didn’t say anything about communism being good or bad there, just that none of those countries ever lived under communism.
@Duke_Nukem_1990 @BeigeAgenda, correct, the key is the sovereignty of the people, not that of a single person or a small elite, this would reduce the communist system to a mere fascist dictatorship just as rotten as capitalism called democracy and where banks and multinationals dictate the rules, thereby it is not a democracy.
No true communistman.
True Communism is impossible to sustain in the real world. it requires someone unimpeachable at its head. It affords too much power and no accountability to those in charge. Even if it were to start out well, sooner or later corruption would seep in. Communism is impossible while human greed exists
Capitalism is impossible to sustain in the real world. It’s literally killing the planet which will result in the extinction of the human race.
Yup, what’s your point?
That Communism is looking pretty sustainable rn.
Nope, it’s still failed every time it’s been tried
What is your suggestion?
I’m not really too educated on theory, but this seems disingenuous. Yes it has failed, and so has our current capitalism, ime.
I think in USA, we have a unique situation to give it another spin, and for it to be successful.
The only way to reign in the runaway greed train is to introduce some type of socialism, and that is a natural progression en route to “true” communism. Which, imo, is going to take a very long time, realistically.
I love how these trolls just regurgitate the same few lines they memorized. It’s like talking to bots.
There would be no one “in charge”. Communism and anarchy go hand in hand.
human greed
This is the lie that we have been fed all of our lives under capitalism. It’s so ingrained in us that some of us can’t even imagine a world of helping each other thrive instead of exploiting each other.
I’ve recently begun to dive into my own indoctrination, and it is quite wild how effective it has been.
I think if anything, capitalism goes against our nature. But also, tbf, it’s worth pointing out, and I only have an anecdote for you, that people do seem to behave differently in large groups compared to smaller, where the larger group tends to lend itself to our worse nature, but even that can be atributed to external forces in some regards.
i’ve just began to dig into theory… Peeling layers of capitalist suffering complex off in the process.
Tbh I don’t know. Communism feels like our natural state, and getting back there is going to be extremely hard with the hole we’ve dug for ourselves.
In my recent dive into the literature, I’ve found that I’m a pretty extreme leftist… But growing up in a capitalist society ive learned to shun people, avoid at all costs, and I’ve become basically a hermit, denouncing all forms of govt as futile, especially given our current circumstances as a species.
Sorry for the rant. I’m still eating my shell.
And yet, whenever communism is tried, a tyrant rises to the top.
…which means that it isn’t communism. Come on, try to keep up.
Exactly, Which brings us back to my initial point… True communism is impossible… try to keep up…
You didn’t say true communism is impossible, you said true communism is impossible to sustain. Why are you moving the goalpost instead of just taking the L? Lol
The main issue with words like “socialism” and “communism” is that the definition of those words depends entirely on personal political biases, and most people unaware of this assume their personal definition is the same definition used by the person they’re arguing with. The word “socialism” was in use even prior to Marx and has many definitions, and “Communism” is an ideal rather than an explicit governmental structure. That being the case, the word socialism can be understood to mean “the government acts in the interest of average people rather than solely for its ruling class,” “workers themselves own the means of production rather than individuals or institutions,” or “there should be some kind of welfare state.” Communism can be understood to mean “a series of self-governing autonomous communities in the absence of social or economic hierarchy of any kind,” “A marxist-leninist inspired system of state centralization which ostensibly governs on behalf of the people,” or “any authoritarianism of any kind taking place at any point in history.”
All this is to say if you find yourself feeling strongly for or against “socialism” or “communism” and are in conversation with someone with the opposite perspective of that term, try to establish a mutual understanding of what is being disagreed upon before engaging. For example, I agree that any system which lacks checks on leadership (or strongly depends on leadership in general) has fundamental issues but I am still sympathetic to socialism, communism, and anarchism which are ideals which have not yet been achieved sustainably or meaningfully.
As a Romanian I’ve never seen that statue
“Imagine no posessions” - John ‘Vladimir’ Lenin
F that bald pos
