Vladimir Lenin: A Monster or a Product of His Time and Circumstances?

[Debater Slayer]

In some discussions about historical figures and the context in which they lived, I have wondered how historical context and circumstances could change our perception of Lenin's biography during his time as the head of Russia and then the USSR.

In your opinion, was Lenin really a monster beyond the norms of his time, or was he merely another relentless leader from the extremely turbulent period of the early 20th century? Would his opposition had been better if they had defeated him in the civil war and held power instead?

There are two things I should note here: first, I have noticed that a lot of the harshest narratives about Lenin and Marxist-Leninist anti-imperialists like Guevara tend to come from Western sources, especially ones colored by anti-communist and sometimes pro-Western sentiments that cloud historical context and accuracy. Many in the third world side-eye such sentiments, especially since a lot of us have living (or recently deceased) parents or grandparents who lived under the colonial rule of Western powers, mainly Britain and France, or ones who experienced the effects of American interventionism and military aggression. Against this backdrop, Western sources that demonize anti-imperialist revolutionaries aren't usually met with a lot of enthusiasm.

Second, many non-Western sources as well as some Western ones view the likes of Guevara and Ho Chi Minh as liberators and freedom fighters who strove to rid their countries of imperialism, but some of these sources also focus on said figures' anti-imperialism so much that they overlook or don't sufficiently address the more questionable parts of their careers and leadership, such as Ho Chi Minh's mass executions during the land reform.

I'm more interested in historically grounded views in this thread. It's common and easy to say that X or Y historical figure was either a saintly hero or a diabolical mass murderer, but that rarely takes into account historical context and norms of the time in which they lived. In this thread, I'm aiming to explore different views on Lenin in the context of his time, circumstances, and peers.

 

[Stevicus]

In some discussions about historical figures and the context in which they lived, I have wondered how historical context and circumstances could change our perception of Lenin's biography during his time as the head of Russia and then the USSR.

In your opinion, was Lenin really a monster beyond the norms of his time, or was he merely another relentless leader from the extremely turbulent period of the early 20th century? Would his opposition had been better if they had defeated him in the civil war and held power instead?

There are two things I should note here: first, I have noticed that a lot of the harshest narratives about Lenin and Marxist-Leninist anti-imperialists like Guevara tend to come from Western sources, especially ones colored by anti-communist and sometimes pro-Western sentiments that cloud historical context and accuracy. Many in the third world side-eye such sentiments, especially since a lot of us have living (or recently deceased) parents or grandparents who lived under the colonial rule of Western powers, mainly Britain and France, or ones who experienced the effects of American interventionism and military aggression. Against this backdrop, Western sources that demonize anti-imperialist revolutionaries aren't usually met with a lot of enthusiasm.

Second, many non-Western sources as well as some Western ones view the likes of Guevara and Ho Chi Minh as liberators and freedom fighters who strove to rid their countries of imperialism, but some of these sources also focus on said figures' anti-imperialism so much that they overlook or don't sufficiently address the more questionable parts of their careers and leadership, such ad Ho Chi Minh's mass executions during the land reform.

I'm more interested in historically grounded views in this thread. It's common and easy to say that X or Y historical figure was either a saintly hero or a diabolical mass murderer, but that rarely takes into account historical context and norms of the time in which they lived. In this thread, I'm aiming to explore different views on Lenin in the context of his time, circumstances, and peers.

I try to differentiate between actual, provable historical facts, as opposed to opinionated characterizations, such as referring to a historical figure as a "monster," as a way of demonizing them or making them appear worse than historical figures which are idolized as "heroes" (which is also subjective and opinionated).

If someone is simply reciting provable, verifiable facts, that would be one thing. But if someone is trying to use history to pass some sort of sanctimonious moral judgement about an individual, a society, country, or a political ideology, then that may be where such discussions go awry.

Regarding Lenin, he was born in the Russian Empire, saw its many injustices, and chose to make it his life's work to oppose, fight against, and ultimately overthrow the government he saw as responsible for those injustices.

Does being a revolutionary, in and of itself, make one a "monster"? Did Lenin have any kind of moral, civil, and/or legal right to oppose and overthrow the government he was living under? Does anyone have that right?

One thing that should be mentioned is that Lenin died when he was 53, and one might speculate as to what might have been different if he had lived. Some people might say that Lenin was an honorable leader and was trying to do right by his people, but that it was Stalin who was the real "monster," mainly because of the first five-year plan and the great purges associated with Stalinism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I try to differentiate between actual, provable historical facts, as opposed to opinionated characterizations, such as referring to a historical figure as a "monster," as a way of demonizing them or making them appear worse than historical figures which are idolized as "heroes" (which is also subjective and opinionated).

If someone is simply reciting provable, verifiable facts, that would be one thing. But if someone is trying to use history to pass some sort of sanctimonious moral judgement about an individual, a society, country, or a political ideology, then that may be where such discussions go awry.

Regarding Lenin, he was born in the Russian Empire, saw its many injustices, and chose to make it his life's work to oppose, fight against, and ultimately overthrow the government he saw as responsible for those injustices.

Does being a revolutionary, in and of itself, make one a "monster"? Did Lenin have any kind of moral, civil, and/or legal right to oppose and overthrow the government he was living under? Does anyone have that right?

One thing that should be mentioned is that Lenin died when he was 53, and one might speculate as to what might have been different if he had lived. Some people might say that Lenin was an honorable leader and was trying to do right by his people, but that it was Stalin who was the real "monster," mainly because of the first five-year plan and the great purges associated with Stalinism.

I was thinking more of Lenin's actions in general rather than just whether he had the right to overthrow the previous government. For instance, was the Red Terror an abnormally relentless and brutal state apparatus at the time, or was it in line with the norms of the time for revolutionary leaders? Did Lenin kill or abuse more people than other people of his time would have, or was he just a typical man from that era in this regard?

I'm interested to see different thoughts on this, and I don't have a certain answer yet, myself, although I definitely lean toward the position that Lenin was ruthless and indiscriminate enough in a lot of his violence that he simply shouldn't be used as a revolutionary role model today. His ideology, on the other hand, had some immensely useful concepts such as anti-imperialism, although I also wouldn't say that he translated the theory into action so well.

 

[Augustus]

I'm more interested in historically grounded views in this thread. It's common and easy to say that X or Y historical figure was either a saintly hero or a diabolical mass murderer, but that rarely takes into account historical context and norms of the time in which they lived. In this thread, I'm aiming to explore different views on Lenin in the context of his time, circumstances, and peers.

Generally, I find it useful to consider things in terms of what the alternatives could reasonably have been. Too many historical criticisms compare X with a baseline of zero harm as opposed to comparing it to some approximation of "expected harm".

So for example, people might look at religious wars and say "without religion we would have had 20 million fewer deaths therefore religion is bad as it causes violence", rather than considering that any other ideologies that replaced religions would also have been involved in many wars and created millions of deaths, perhaps even more.

In this case, what would the continuation of tsarism look like?

On the optimistic side, given reforms had been ongoing, there would have been an increasingly democratic constitutional monarchy akin to the European states. The pessimistic view is reactionaries would have stopped reforming society and continued oppressive autocracy into the future.

"Expected harm" would have been quite high though which counts in Lenin's favour, and starting from a low baseline of societal development means many people can benefit from reforms even accounting for Bolshevik oppression and violence.

On the downside, Lenin believed in an extreme utilitarianism where the ends justify any means. Everything was zero sum, it helped revolution and was thus good and permissible, or it helped the enemies of the people and must be eradicated at all costs.

Some Marxists cling to the idea that Stalin betrayed the revolution and if only Lenin had survived or had been replaced by Trotsky then things would have been much better and Marxism would have succeeded. Lenin was just as ruthless as Stalin though.

There have been countless violent millenarian/utopian ideologies throughout history though and they all end up the same way, with failure and increasing violence as the failure cannot be admitted without undermining the system.

Most Communists were highly moral, and many made great personal sacrifice for what they believed was the greater good. Seeing them as 'monsters' is a bit facile.

Even a cursory glance at history should convince one that individual crimes committed for selfish motives play a quite insignificant part in the human tragedy, compared to the numbers massacred in unselfish loyalty to one’s tribe, nation, dynasty, church, or political ideology, ad majorem gloriam dei... homicide committed for selfish motives is a statistical rarity in all cultures. Homicide for unselfish motives is the dominant phenomenon of man's history. His tragedy is not an excess of aggression but an excess of devotion... it's loyalty and devotion which makes the fanatic." - Arthur Koestler

It is hard to look past no Lenin, no Stalin, No Hitler, no Mao, No Pol Pot, perhaps no WW2 etc. and assume the likely outcome would have been better than this. Lenin isn't directly responsible for all of this, but he took the path of utopian violence and that tends not to lead anywhere positive.

If you could kill one figure in history, there is at least a reasonable case that killing Lenin would be likely to produce the greatest net good.

 

[Stevicus]

I was thinking more of Lenin's actions in general rather than just whether he had the right to overthrow the previous government. For instance, was the Red Terror an abnormally relentless and brutal state apparatus at the time, or was it in line with the norms of the time for revolutionary leaders? Did Lenin kill or abuse more people than other people of his time would have, or was he just a typical man from that era in this regard?

I'm interested to see different thoughts on this, and I don't have a certain answer yet, myself, although I definitely lean toward the position that Lenin was ruthless and indiscriminate enough in a lot of his violence that he simply shouldn't be used as a revolutionary role model today. His ideology, on the other hand, had some immensely useful concepts such as anti-imperialism, although I also wouldn't say that he translated the theory into action so well.

As for the Red Terror, I suppose it can be compared to the Great Terror which occurred in France after the French Revolution - or any other revolution or civil war - such as the 1911 Revolution in China, or even the English Civil War in the 17th century where the battle cry was "Off with their heads!" I odn't think there will ever be any final, definitive "moral answer" to questions like this, especially since we're talking about judging people who are already dead.

What I have observed is that it appears to be fact of life in the human condition, that when a population is oppressed and abused enough, they will eventually rise up and fight back against their oppressors.

This has been true going all the way back to the Roman Empire and the Spartacus uprising (aka the First, Second, and Third Servile Wars). No doubt Spartacus raised a great deal of terror among the Roman citizenry, yet today he is looked upon as a hero. What makes Spartacus a hero and Lenin a monster? What criteria or test are we using to make such determinations?

I think it should also be noted that the study of history is not the practice of law, nor was it ever meant to be. That's the problem with so many politicians being lawyers, they tend to look at history like they would look at the law. They look at someone like Lenin, declare him a criminal, and then trot out a laundry list of crimes against him. That's how we end up with conclusions about history like "Lenin was a monster!" I've noticed it's generally the same in how public perceptions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others were formed in the minds of the public.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Generally, I find it useful to consider things in terms of what the alternatives could reasonably have been. Too many historical criticisms compare X with a baseline of zero harm as opposed to comparing it to some approximation of "expected harm".

So for example, people might look at religious wars and say "without religion we would have had 20 million fewer deaths therefore religion is bad as it causes violence", rather than considering that any other ideologies that replaced religions would also have been involved in many wars and created millions of deaths, perhaps even more.

In this case, what would the continuation of tsarism look like?

On the optimistic side, given reforms had been ongoing, there would have been an increasingly democratic constitutional monarchy akin to the European states. The pessimistic view is reactionaries would have stopped reforming society and continued oppressive autocracy into the future.

"Expected harm" would have been quite high though which counts in Lenin's favour, and starting from a low baseline of societal development means many people can benefit from reforms even accounting for Bolshevik oppression and violence.

On the downside, Lenin believed in an extreme utilitarianism where the ends justify any means. Everything was zero sum, it helped revolution and was thus good and permissible, or it helped the enemies of the people and must be eradicated at all costs.

Some Marxists cling to the idea that Stalin betrayed the revolution and if only Lenin had survived or had been replaced by Trotsky then things would have been much better and Marxism would have succeeded. Lenin was just as ruthless as Stalin though.

Stalin ruled for longer and had more time to manifest his ruthlessness, and I don't know that Lenin would have turned out the same. I don't doubt that he could have, but given the historical record as it happened, I don't see a solid basis to conclude that Lenin was as ruthless as Stalin even if only because the latter was so consistent in his brutality during almost three decades in office.

There's also the central question of whether Lenin's ruthlessness was an anomaly for his time. Of course, we would see a leader like him as a brutal tyrant today, and rightfully so. In his own time and circumstances, though, was he an outlier or just another revolutionary? Would the Mensheviks or Tsarists have been less brutal? I think these are significant questions because, as you said, the comparison isn't between Lenin and a baseline of zero harm. It's between Lenin and alternatives who had their own issues.

There have been countless violent millenarian/utopian ideologies throughout history though and they all end up the same way, with failure and increasing violence as the failure cannot be admitted without undermining the system.

Most Communists were highly moral, and many made great personal sacrifice for what they believed was the greater good. Seeing them as 'monsters' is a bit facile.

Even a cursory glance at history should convince one that individual crimes committed for selfish motives play a quite insignificant part in the human tragedy, compared to the numbers massacred in unselfish loyalty to one’s tribe, nation, dynasty, church, or political ideology, ad majorem gloriam dei... homicide committed for selfish motives is a statistical rarity in all cultures. Homicide for unselfish motives is the dominant phenomenon of man's history. His tragedy is not an excess of aggression but an excess of devotion... it's loyalty and devotion which makes the fanatic." - Arthur Koestler

It is hard to look past no Lenin, no Stalin, No Hitler, no Mao, No Pol Pot, perhaps no WW2 etc. and assume the likely outcome would have been better than this. Lenin isn't directly responsible for all of this, but he took the path of utopian violence and that tends not to lead anywhere positive.

This raises the question of whether someone could be moral purely based on motives rather than actions. Personally, I believe some of Lenin's goals—such as empowerment of the poor and reforming extreme classism—were quite good, but the way he pursued them was marked by a blasé attitude toward brutality as long as it served his greater goal. Even if some of his goals were moral, could it be said that he was a highly moral person considering what his actions were? I believe consequences, not just motives, strongly factor into questions of morality.

If you could kill one figure in history, there is at least a reasonable case that killing Lenin would be likely to produce the greatest net good.

Why do you think so? Compared to any major historical figure who inspired large-scale violence either directly or through ideological influence, why would Lenin be special?

For example, Leninism inspired at least some desirable outcomes in certain countries, such as the Cuban Revolution and Vietnam's resistance to French colonization and then American invasion. It also inspired undesirable outcomes for both countries, such as Castro's decades-long tyranny and the mass executions in Vietnam during the land reform. It's extremely hard to argue about "net good" when the pros and cons are so conflicting and variable depending on who you ask, although in terms of death count alone, I could see why Leninism would be a strong candidate as one of the most practically harmful ideologies.

I tend to view the pros and cons of any ideology or historical figure's actions relative to specific regions, though. If you ask an Egyptian which historical figures caused the most harm, an Egyptian-centric answer could be any of the spearheads of the British invasion and colonization of Egypt, but this wouldn't hold on a global level. Simiarly, the harm Lenin caused, whether directly or through his ideological influence, targeted specific groups and wasn't any more global in scope than, say, the harm caused by the British Empire. Asking a Russian, American, or Chinese person would probably yield a different answer as well. So I usually find the concepts of "greatest net good" or "greatest net harm" in historical contexts to be largely moot and highly subjective at best.

 

[Stevicus]

In this case, what would the continuation of tsarism look like?

On the optimistic side, given reforms had been ongoing, there would have been an increasingly democratic constitutional monarchy akin to the European states. The pessimistic view is reactionaries would have stopped reforming society and continued oppressive autocracy into the future.

I think the Kerensky-led Provisional Government might have brought about some positive reforms, although Kerensky was one of history's more tragic figures. His regime probably would have survived if not for the attempted coup by Kornilov, during which Kerensky had to appeal for help from the Red Guards to protect his government. After the coup attempt was put down, Kerensky politely asked the Red Guards to return the weapons they were given to fend off Kornilov. The Red Guards refused, and Kerensky really had no other loyal troops to count on anymore.

If you could kill one figure in history, there is at least a reasonable case that killing Lenin would be likely to produce the greatest net good.

Kerensky wanted a democratic, parliamentary system like the British, but he was stuck in the middle between two factions which ultimately consumed him. Of course, the bigger problem was World War I itself, and the death toll and devastation that war was bringing to Russia. But let's say that we send a temporal assassin back in time to kill Lenin at some point before 1917. The overthrow of the Tsar was already a done deal; Lenin had nothing to do with that. If we assume that Lenin's absence disempowers the Bolsheviks and allows Kerensky's regime to continue, then, given the eventual outcome of the First World War, Russia would have been at the victors' table at Versailles, a major power which would be in a position to demand their share of the spoils of victory. They would still be in control of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states, but they might have also demanded Constantinople - along with the Bosporus and Dardanelles. Perhaps even more. The Russians have also had a centuries-long interest in the Balkans, as they share a bond of kinship with Serbia and Orthodox states. This attitude would have likely continued even under a democratically-elected parliament.

I guess the only real question is whether the Russians were really so down and out that they couldn't hold out any longer. If Kerensky could have rallied his forces to hold out for another 6 months or a year, then they would have been on the winning side as a full military ally. As such, they would also get a share of the reparations from the Central Powers, but by the same token, Russia would still need engineers, technicians, and others to help build and expand their industrial base and transportation infrastructure, plenty of which could be found in Germany and the former Austro-Hungarian Empire.

I would suggest that a hypothetical Kerensky regime would probably find much in common with the government of the Weimar Republic, even despite whatever enmities existed between their previous rulers, Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas (who wouldn't be killed, but exiled to Tibet). They might find room to cooperate with each other, even perhaps to the point of getting too cozy for Britain's or France's comfort. Also, Lenin and the Bolsheviks killed off much of the right-wingers of Russia, but under Kerensky, they would still be around and possibly building up a fascist/nationalist movement similar to other movements arising throughout Europe.

Conceivably, without Lenin, you could still have Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and possibly some right-wing fascist dictatorship in Russia, allied with Hitler. Or maybe Kerensky would maintain power and Russia would still be allied with Britain and France - which would have been enough to stop Hitler in any case.

 

[Augustus]

Stalin ruled for longer and had more time to manifest his ruthlessness, and I don't know that Lenin would have turned out the same. I don't doubt that he could have, but given the historical record as it happened, I don't see a solid basis to conclude that Lenin was as ruthless as Stalin even if only because the latter was so consistent in his brutality during almost three decades in office.

Stalin was more deadly, but was he more ruthless? 2 people can be equally ruthless but create different outcomes due to other factors.

Stalin killed more people perhaps due to the circumstance of taking over a divided party where many people didn't support him. Perhaps personal temperament or paranoia. Probably due to these and numerous other factors.

But, Lenin was pretty explicit that whatever it took to further the revolution and defeat its enemies was morally justifiable.

This is what I mean by ruthless.

There's also the central question of whether Lenin's ruthlessness was an anomaly for his time. Of course, we would see a leader like him as a brutal tyrant today, and rightfully so. In his own time and circumstances, though, was he an outlier or just another revolutionary? Would the Mensheviks or Tsarists have been less brutal? I think these are significant questions because, as you said, the comparison isn't between Lenin and a baseline of zero harm. It's between Lenin and alternatives that had their own issues.

I do draw a line between utopian violence and 'normal' violence.

If the Whites had won there would have been violent reprisals and oppression certainly.

The use of violence to accelerate progress by cleansing and purifying a society removes constraints though. Normal violence has a tangible and achievable goal, for example eradicate enough communists to end resistance and use enough force to keep dissent at manageable levels.

When the goal is human perfection and an end to suffering, anything is acceptable because the end justifies the means. Forget the sentimental attachment to the idea an individual human life has value, that is just bourgeoise weakness. The greater good is all that matters and the utopian upside can support any amount of short term harms.

When the goal is impossible but you are justified in using unlimited violence to achieve it, this is something different. It justifies unlimited, and generally increasing violence until the goal is abandoned for something that can actually be achieved.

Utopian totalitarianism is thus qualitatively different from normal autocracy, even very violent autocracy.

This raises the question of whether someone could be moral purely based on motives rather than actions. Personally, I believe some of Lenin's goals—such as empowerment of the poor and reforming extreme classism—were quite good, but the way he pursued them was marked by a blasé attitude toward brutality as long as it served his greater goal. Even if some of his goals were moral, could it be said that he was a highly moral person considering what his actions were? I believe consequences, not just motives, strongly factor into questions of morality.

By moral I mean driven by moral factors rather than simply narrow self-interest or routine management of resources.

Whether someone is actually moral is a subjective judgement.

Personally I would weigh in probability of success, consequences, etc.

Why do you think so? Compared to any major historical figure who inspired large-scale violence either directly or through ideological influence, why would Lenin be special?

For example, Leninism inspired at least some desirable outcomes in certain countries, such as the Cuban Revolution and Vietnam's resistance to French colonization and then American invasion. It also inspired undesirable outcomes for both countries, such as Castro's decades-long tyranny and the mass executions in Vietnam during the land reform. It's extremely hard to argue about "net good" when the pros and cons are so conflicting and variable depending on who you ask, although in terms of death count alone, I could see why Leninism would be a strong candidate as one of the most practically harmful ideologies.

I tend to view the pros and cons of any ideology or historical figure's actions relative to specific regions, though. If you ask an Egyptian which historical figures caused the most harm, an Egyptian-centric answer could be any of the spearheads of the British invasion and colonization of Egypt, but this wouldn't hold on a global level. Simiarly, the harm Lenin caused, whether directly or through his ideological influence, targeted specific groups and wasn't any more global in scope than, say, the harm caused by the British Empire. Asking a Russian, American, or Chinese person would probably yield a different answer as well. So I usually find the concepts of "net good" or "net harm" in historical contexts to be largely moot and highly subjective at best.

Of course different peoples will have different views, but in terms of total impact Lenin was definitely global.

Most people don’t make all that much difference. Replace any British official and the outcome is similar. The same geopolitical forces exist, the strategic importance of Egypt and the Suez Canal to major powers still exists.

Lenin was someone who was personally important, as someone like Hitler was.

Without Lenin there is a decent chance the Russian history plays out very differently and there is no Communist Russia. Far from a certainty, but a realistic possibility. In that case you probably wouldn't get Hitler and the Nazis (as anti-Bolshevism was an important factor in their ideology and rise to poser), probably no WW2 (although a smaller scale war may have happened), no Stalin, no Mao, Pol Pot, etc. as they relied on Soviet support, no Cold War which impacted much of the world.

It's always speculative and subjective, but imo if there were no WW2 or 20th C totalitarianism, most outcomes are likely to be better.

 

[Augustus]

Conceivably, without Lenin, you could still have Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and possibly some right-wing fascist dictatorship in Russia, allied with Hitler. Or maybe Kerensky would maintain power and Russia would still be allied with Britain and France - which would have been enough to stop Hitler in any case.

Do you think you could get Hitler/Nazism in power without the threat of Bolshevism, a Communist Germany, and all the street violence which helped make their name, etc?

Personally I don't really see it happening.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you think you could get Hitler/Nazism in power without the threat of Bolshevism, a Communist Germany, and all the street violence which helped make their name, etc?

Personally I don't really see it happening.

The threat of Bolshevism was only one of many factors. However, as I mentioned, another possibility would be a cooperative relationship between the Weimar Republic and a democratically-elected government in Russia (under Kerensky or some other elected leader). Even if the threat of communism is hypothetically removed from either country, the hard-right nationalists would still be around.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Stalin was more deadly, but was he more ruthless? 2 people can be equally ruthless but create different outcomes due to other factors.

Stalin killed more people perhaps due to the circumstance of taking over a divided party where many people didn't support him. Perhaps personal temperament or paranoia. Probably due to these and numerous other factors.

But, Lenin was pretty explicit that whatever it took to further the revolution and defeat its enemies was morally justifiable.

This is what I mean by ruthless.

I don't see a major distinction here, personally, because many political or ruling figures throughout history have considered it morally justifiable to do anything to pursue their goals. This could range from maintaining or consolidating power (as in political purges and systematic massacring of opponents) to "perfecting" society (as in Marxism-Leninism). The French Revolution included a variant of this, and so did the Russian Revolution.

Not all historical figures who practiced this "end justifies the means" approach stated it as explicitly as Lenin did, but it's clear from the actions of many of them that they had little or no hesitation in doing so. Marxism-Leninism ended up being an especially harmful manifestation of this line of thinking because of how much traction it gained during the 20th century, although its underlying concept of "violence for the greater good" wasn't the first or last of its ideological kind. It just stressed it in more explicit terms than a lot of similarly utopian ideologies.

Also, even someone who claims readiness to engage in infinite violence to reach an ideal state of social harmony will only live 70-80 years on average, unless they're overthrown or killed. It doesn't make a practical difference whether such a leader believes in utopian violence, which would be endless because society will obviously never become perfect, or believes in violence only insofar as it serves his own reign. In the context of our average lifespan as humans, "infinite" and "lasting through a leader's whole life (or close to it)" are practically the same.

The main problem, in my opinion, comes from continuity of such harmful ideologies across successive regimes. There are many murderous tyrants in history, but having a series of them in succession as was the case with the USSR results in unmatched amounts of death and suffering. In that context, I wonder whether the magnitude of destruction caused by an ideology is more of a function of its adoption of a principle like "the end justifies the means" or more due to the amount of dedication its spearheads have throughout successive regimes or political parties (e.g., in the USSR).

I do draw a line between utopian violence and 'normal' violence.

If the Whites had won there would have been violent reprisals and oppression certainly.

The use of violence to accelerate progress by cleansing and purifying a society removes constraints though. Normal violence has a tangible and achievable goal, for example eradicate enough communists to end resistance and use enough force to keep dissent at manageable levels.

When the goal is human perfection and an end to suffering, anything is acceptable because the end justifies the means. Forget the sentimental attachment to the idea an individual human life has value, that is just bourgeoise weakness. The greater good is all that matters and the utopian upside can support any amount of short term harms.

When the goal is impossible but you are justified in using unlimited violence to achieve it, this is something different. It justifies unlimited, and generally increasing violence until the goal is abandoned for something that can actually be achieved.

Utopian totalitarianism is thus qualitatively different from normal autocracy, even very violent autocracy.

It seems to me that there are too many motives behind violence for there to be a meaningful grouping of "normal" violence under one label, though. For instance, would religious violence and imperialist violence fall within the category of being utopian, or would they be "normal"? After all, a lot of religious violence in history was based on the notion of spreading "truth" or pursuing a perceived greater cause. Similarly, following the Enlightenment, "rationalism" partially underpinned the idea of "civilizing" other cultures via colonialism and conquest, and this served as one of the motives behind genocides and "white man's burden" thinking.

Imperialist violence in particular rarely relented when empires sought to expand their territories or "civilize" people. Sometimes it would only notably decrease in frequency or intensity after genocides or subjugation of entire peoples. Each empire was different from the others, of course, so I'm speaking very broadly here, but hopefully my point is clear about why, in some cases, I find it extremely difficult to draw a distinction between utopian violence and "normal" violence. The idea of normality requires a common or standard approach or MO, and I think the motives behind many instances of violence in history are too variable and context-specific to establish such normality.

Of course different peoples will have different views, but in terms of total impact Lenin was definitely global.

Most people don’t make all that much difference. Replace any British official and the outcome is similar. The same geopolitical forces exist, the strategic importance of Egypt and the Suez Canal to major powers still exists.

Lenin was someone who was personally important, as someone like Hitler was.

Without Lenin there is a decent chance the Russian history plays out very differently and there is no Communist Russia. Far from a certainty, but a realistic possibility. In that case you probably wouldn't get Hitler and the Nazis (as anti-Bolshevism was an important factor in their ideology and rise to poser), probably no WW2 (although a smaller scale war may have happened), no Stalin, no Mao, Pol Pot, etc. as they relied on Soviet support, no Cold War which impacted much of the world.

It's always speculative and subjective, but imo if there were no WW2 or 20th C totalitarianism, most outcomes are likely to be better.

I'm aware that Lenin's impact was global; I'm just saying that many other ruthless leaders were global in their impact as well. In that regard, Lenin wasn't different from many other historical figures.

There's also the question of whether someone like Lenin would have still appeared in one society or another. I'm a firm believer that every single person is a product of human nature, socioeconomic circumstances, upbringing, exposure to certain ideas or beliefs, etc. If we attribute the roots of all of the issues you listed to Lenin, why can't we go back a step further and say that if the Russian Empire hadn't been unjust, Lenin would have never developed Marxism-Leninism or managed to hold power in the first place? His ideology gained traction partially as a result of the perceived injustices imposed by previous rulers, so it seems arguable that we can kick the can down the road and attribute later issues to the Russian Empire's actions as well, even if partially.

Most of the other issues you listed also involved multiple actors of arguably equal or at least very similar levels of influence and power, and it's impossible to know whether the absence of Lenin would have really prevented some of them. Would Hitler and the Nazis have simply found another way to rise to power? Would the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have still formed their own violent utopian ideologies and imposed them on millions of people?

Also, the Cold War was an extremely mutual affair: since the US pursued it with no less vigor than the USSR did, I don't think I would rule out the possibility of a similar power struggle with another global superpower even if the USSR had never existed. Some similar tensions are now happening between the US and China, and competition for hegemony between global powers far predates both the USSR and the US anyway.

Contemplating these historical scenarios and hypotheticals reminds me of an argument I have encountered among a lot of "New Atheist" circles: "if we could go back in time and prevent Christianity and Islam from being founded, the world would be such a better place." But this seems to me extremely speculative and unevidenced. There's no evidence that humanity wouldn't come up with similar ideologies or religions, especially considering that a lot of the appeal within the major world religions is rooted in human nature (e.g., desire for community, meaning, connection with a guiding influence, etc.).

There's also no way to tell with any degree of meaningful certainty how history would have shaped up without these major influences on human history. Maybe it would be similar to now, maybe it would be worse, and maybe it would be better (and as I said earlier, even "worse" and "better" are highly subjective and variable depending on who you ask and where). There are too many interconnected variables for a change in one of them to have yielded predictable or deterministic results.

I lean toward the position that history in such a hypothetical, different timeline would be at least broadly similar to our own just because human nature would be the same, and ultimately, much of our history is shaped by our nature and the fact that humans are primarily not rational actors. We have created all of the ideologies that exist today; I don't see why we wouldn't create similar ones in a different historical timeline.

 

[Augustus]

It seems to me that there are too many motives behind violence for there to be a meaningful grouping of "normal" violence under one label, though. For instance, would religious violence and imperialist violence fall within the category of being utopian, or would they be "normal"? After all, a lot of religious violence in history was based on the notion of spreading "truth" or pursuing a perceived greater cause. Similarly, following the Enlightenment, "rationalism" partially underpinned the idea of "civilizing" other cultures via colonialism and conquest, and this served as one of the motives behind genocides and "white man's burden" thinking.

By "normal" violence in a political sense, I mean violence utilised to achieve a limited objective: capture territory, suppress a revolt, weaken enemies, etc.

Utopian violence is that used in pursuit of an impossible goal - the perfection of humanity itself.

Norman Cohn describes the history of such utopian violence in the medieval period in his book The Pursuit Of The Millennium which is an interesting read:


It is characteristic of this kind of movement that its aims and premises are boundless. A social struggle is seen not as a struggle for specific, limited objectives, but as an event of unique importance, different in kind from all other struggles known to history, a cataclysm from which the world is to emerge totally transformed and redeemed. This is the essence of the recurrent phenomenon – or, if one will, the persistent tradition – that we have called ‘revolutionary millenarianism’. As we have seen again and again in the course of this book, revolutionary millenarianism flourishes only in certain specific social situations.

For what the propheta offered his followers was not simply a chance to improve their lot and to escape from pressing anxieties – it was also, and above all, the prospect of carrying out a divinely ordained mission of stupendous, unique importance... what emerged then was a new group – a restlessly dynamic and utterly ruthless group which, obsessed by the apocalyptic phantasy and filled with the conviction of its own infallibility, set itself infinitely above the rest of humanity and recognized no claims save that of its own supposed mission. And finally this group might – though it did not always – succeed in imposing its leadership on the great mass of the disorientated, the perplexed and the frightened...

[and this is the] the very essence not indeed of chiliasm as such but of militant, revolutionary chiliasm – the tense expectation of a final, decisive struggle in which a world tyranny will be overthrown by a ‘chosen people’ and through which the world will be renewed and history brought to its consummation

Not all historical figures who practiced this "end justifies the means" approach stated it as explicitly as Lenin did, but it's clear from the actions of many of them that they had little or no hesitation in doing so. Marxism-Leninism ended up being an especially harmful manifestation of this line of thinking because of how much traction it gained during the 20th century, although its underlying concept of "violence for the greater good" wasn't the first or last of its ideological kind. It just stressed it in more explicit terms than a lot of similarly utopian ideologies.

Many people are ruthless, but when considering "the ends justifies the means" the ends matter as much as the means.

A goal of perfecting humanity justifies a much bigger sacrifice.

Put pithily by Bertold Brecht - "What violence would you not commit to exterminate violence?"

Imperialist violence in particular rarely relented when empires sought to expand their territories or "civilize" people. Sometimes it would only notably decrease in frequency or intensity after genocides or subjugation of entire peoples. Each empire was different from the others, of course, so I'm speaking very broadly here, but hopefully my point is clear about why, in some cases, I find it extremely difficult to draw a distinction between utopian violence and "normal" violence. The idea of normality requires a common or standard approach or MO, and I think the motives behind many instances of violence in history are too variable and context-specific to establish such normality.

Throughout history, imperialist violence has very much tended to be limited and strategic, although obviously it can still be highly immoral and cause great harm.

For example, the Mongols might destroy a city that resisted them, but the purpose was to make other cities capitulate without violence as sieges were very time consuming or cost many lives.

Imperialism has tended to result in some form of 'compromise', usually a far from equitable one, but something tangible.

Also, even someone who claims readiness to engage in infinite violence to reach an ideal state of social harmony will only live 70-80 years on average, unless they're overthrown or killed. It doesn't make a practical difference whether such a leader believes in utopian violence, which would be endless because society will obviously never become perfect, or believes in violence only insofar as it serves his own reign. In the context of our average lifespan as humans, "infinite" and "lasting through a leader's whole life (or close to it)" are practically the same.

The main problem, in my opinion, comes from continuity of such harmful ideologies across successive regimes. There are many murderous tyrants in history, but having a series of them in succession as was the case with the USSR results in unmatched amounts of death and suffering. In that context, I wonder whether the magnitude of destruction caused by an ideology is more of a function of its adoption of a principle like "the end justifies the means" or more due to the amount of dedication its spearheads have throughout successive regimes or political parties (e.g., in the USSR).

There are many murderous tyrants, yet the 20th C totalitarian regimes were still unusually violent across the board. Getting many tyrants in succession is a function of the ideology.

As Trotsky said: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”

Totalitarianisms aimed to "remake man" through violence and "reeducation".

In his autobiography, [Arthur] Koestler concedes that his readers may find it difficult to understand how he, as a recruit to Communism, came to be “ashamed of having been to a university, to curse the agility of his brain, the articulateness of his language, to regard such civilized tastes and habits as he had acquired as a constant source of self- reproach, and intellectual self-mutilation as a desirable aim.”...

[Bertold Brecht highlighted] four “crimes”: those of pity, loyalty, dignity, and righteous indignation, none of them acceptable sentiments in a Communist agent.
Williams Pfaff - The Bullet's Song: Romantic Violence and Utopia

Creating a situation where it is highly moral to kill without pity, and that it is both weak and immoral to feel any qualms about this, indeed resistance to this justified your own execution.

If your own survival may depend on you being more fanatical than the next person, this helps perpetuate the ideology as alternative perspectives are treasonous. So intellectuals were often purged and replaced with compliant thugs and apparatchiks.

Most of the other issues you listed also involved multiple actors of arguably equal or at least very similar levels of influence and power, and it's impossible to know whether the absence of Lenin would have really prevented some of them. Would Hitler and the Nazis have simply found another way to rise to power? Would the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have still formed their own violent utopian ideologies and imposed them on millions of people?

Also, the Cold War was an extremely mutual affair: since the US pursued it with no less vigor than the USSR did, I don't think I would rule out the possibility of a similar power struggle with another global superpower even if the USSR had never existed. Some similar tensions are now happening between the US and China, and competition for hegemony between global powers far predates both the USSR and the US anyway.

I agree if you take 2000 years then there will be violence, progress, regress, etc. and that there isn't a 'living harmoniously in castles on the moon' timeline we missed out on because of one or 2 bad events

In specific periods, specific changes taken can make meaningful differences though, and we can make some probabilistic judgement as to whether the 'expected harm' for the average scenario would be less.

20th C Europe was always likely to have at least one major conflict, but many harms could have been avoided with different eventualities.

While some kind of nationalist German regime emerging was highly probable, or perhaps a Marxist one, I think it is hard to make a case that the Nazis weren't one of the worst things that could plausibly have happened in 1930s Germany.

As a universal ideology, communism had greater reach than most. We see a lot of "populism"/anti-establishment political movements worldwide at the moment, but these are far more fragmented and localised.

I think it highly likely that the 20th C would have been less deadly without the Nazis and the Bolsheviks in power though. What the knock on effects of this would be in the 21st C and beyond is where things get completely unknowable though.

Contemplating these historical scenarios and hypotheticals reminds me of an argument I have encountered among a lot of "New Atheist" circles: "if we could go back in time and prevent Christianity and Islam from being founded, the world would be such a better place." But this seems to me extremely speculative and unevidenced. There's no evidence that humanity wouldn't come up with similar ideologies or religions, especially considering that a lot of the appeal within the major world religions is rooted in human nature (e.g., desire for community, meaning, connection with a guiding influence, etc.).

The irony of this from New Atheists is that they are basically the heirs of the Evangelical Protestant tradition.

But in this case their error is that they assume Classical Greece was rational, secular and scientific (sometimes even proto-humanist) which is utter nonsense.

 

[Estro Felino]

A Nihilist.
A monster.
A murderer.

 

[ajay0]

In a world ravaged by privileged feudalistic lords and exploitative capitalists who form less than one percent of humanity, I feel that socialists and communists were a necessary evil for the empowerment of the middle and lower classes which formed around 99 % of humanity.

The threat of socialism and communism forced even the democratic capitalist countries to develop worker rights and privileges and empower the masses on a socio-economic standard, so as to prevent discontentment that could create a breeding ground for revolution of a socialist or communist nature.

The despotic Chinese, French, and Russian rulers were removed from power by revolutions as well, which similarly forced other aristocratic kingdoms in the world to pay better focus to governance and welfare of the masses, and not to take their privileged position for granted.

The threat of revolution brought up many reforms at a social, economic and political level which promoted the faster development and progress of the masses around the world.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

It has never done mankind any good to stop recognising an unloved person as a human being ("monster").

 

[Laika]

If you could kill one figure in history, there is at least a reasonable case that killing Lenin would be likely to produce the greatest net good.

As a minor historical note, there was a real chance Lenin could have been identified and arrested in the run up to the October revolution and it could have significantly affected Russian history.

Following a failed attempt at a popular revolution by the Bolsheviks in July (known as the 'July Days'), there was orders to arrest Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders, with Lenin staying in a series of safe houses and being in disguise (see picture below). While fleeing arrest, Lenin wrote The State and Revolution which became the ideological blueprint of the Soviet state. Lenin was the most vocal and aggressive advocate of a revolution in October, with major figures such as Zinoeviv, Kamenev and Stalin, being originally far more cautious and critical of the idea. Stalin eventually came around to it, as did Trotsky who joined the Bolsheviks very late (having been in New York when the first February revolution happened and then held up in exile in a British concentration camp in Canada for part of 1917).

At a critical meeting of the Bolshevik Central Committee on October 10th 1917, Lenin had to come out of hiding and was the chief advocate for an insurrection and the vote came out as 10 for, 2 against. Two weeks later, on the night of October 24th/October 25th, the revolution happened. Lenin's pivotal role in arguing for an armed uprising in Bolshevik party meetings means that if he'd been arrested, it is plausible the revolution may never have happened at all (or perhaps happened later under less favourable circumstances).

 

[Vouthon]

Do you think you could get Hitler/Nazism in power without the threat of Bolshevism, a Communist Germany, and all the street violence which helped make their name, etc?

Personally I don't really see it happening.

Impossible to say, however I think that the Treaty of Versailles by itself and the Great Depression would have spurred a revanchist dictatorship in Germany, wedded to the fact that the judicial system let Hitler's putsch off lightly in 1924 at his trial, because it was riddled with far right sympathisers.

Anti-Bolshevism was very convenient for the Nazis in justifying the 1933 Enabling Act after the Reichstag fire and later in justifying the Lebensraum policy in the East but both of these in fact were not directly related to Communism. The currents underlying them would have manifested anyway, just perhaps in a less deadly fashion imho.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

To be historically accurate: the Nazis had long labelled themselves as socialists. It is not surprising that the National Socialist movement emerged from the SPD (Social Democrats) in 1914. I highly recommend Willy Huhn (in German, but an online translator should work).

Die Ideen von 1914 und die Folgen - ça ira-Verlag

Die Ideen von 1914 und die Folgen Willy Huhn Die Identifizierung des Militarismus mit dem Staatssozialismus ist übrigens nicht erst…

www.ca-ira.net

 

[Estro Felino]

Impossible to say, however I think that the Treaty of Versailles by itself and the Great Depression would have spurred a revanchist dictatorship in Germany, wedded to the fact that the judicial system let Hitler's putsch off lightly in 1924 at his trial, because it was riddled with far right sympathisers.

Anti-Bolshevism was very convenient for the Nazis in justifying the 1933 Enabling Act after the Reichstag fire and later in justifying the Lebensraum policy in the East but both of these in fact were not directly related to Communism. The currents underlying them would have manifested anyway, just perhaps in a less deadly fashion imho.

I am a proud and staunch Socialist.
Russian intellectual Anna Kuliscioff influenced Italian Socialism, since she was the partner of Andrea Costa, the founding father of Italian Socialism.

Unfortunately Leninism murdered anyone: not only the Royal Family, but also priests, kulaki, innocent people.
Russians were murdered for no reason.
Annihilation and nihilism. And anti-Christian rage.

Lenin was funded by Rockefeller. Enough said.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

Lenin was funded by Rockefeller.

So?