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

[Estro Felino]

So?

So his revolution was not credible.
The revolution had already taken place, and there already was a republic, and a Prime Minister, Kerenskij.

Evidently some godless dynasties wanted one of their peers to undo Russian society and civilization.

 

[Laika]

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 think you'd need a historian (or a number of historians) to answer this accurately and do it justice. But my guess is the consensus view is that Lenin was a transitional figure between the more "limited" dictatorial and autocratic systems of the 18th and 19th century, and the "totalitarian" systems of the 20th century. i.e. Lenin was arguably more violent than his predecessors (i.e. the Tsarist government and the Provisional Government), but was less violent than his successors (i.e. Stalin, who presided over famines, mass deportations and forced labour camps, with each atrocity staking up multiple millions of victims).

Lenin presided over the Soviet state during Russian Civil War (1917-1923), the Russian famine (1921-1922) as well as suppressing uprisings and opposition, such as closing to (Democratically elected) Constituent Assembly (January 1918), suppressing the uprising of the Bolsheviks former allies, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries (July 1918), invading the Menshevik (liberal social democrats) in Georgia (February 1921), wars with and then defeating Anarchist Ukraine (1920-1921), suppressing the Tambov rebellion (including by the use of poison gas/chemical weapons) (1920-1922) and the Kronstadt Rebellion (March 1921). And this isn't anywhere near a complete list of all the internal revolts and threats they faced- which also included negotiating Russia's exit from World War I with the Germans and Austrians and overseas intervention in the Russian Civil War by France, British, the U.S. and Japan.

But in essence, you end up with a similar kind of historical debate on how far Lenin's repression was driven by the force of events or by ideology, as you have with whether Hitler always intended to enact the Holocaust or if the Final Solution was an improvised response to internal pressures within Nazi Germany and the Nazi Party. Historians can take both sides and made a valid compelling case for each, but you'd probably still see agreement that the idea of mass repression as well as the state apparatus to put it in to effect existed and developed under Lenin. It just took time and development for Stalin to ramp it in to an efficient, industrialised machine of state sanctioned murder and repression.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

It was not his revolution, but he was responsible for the actions that eventually led to it.

 

[Estro Felino]

It was not his revolution, but he was responsible for the actions that eventually led to it.

Why did he murder the Imperial Family?

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

He didn't murder anyone, the Bolsheviks did that. The reason: they (justifiably) feared a bloody counter-revolution with the reinstatement of the tsar.

 

[Estro Felino]

He didn't murder anyone, the Bolsheviks did that. The reason: they (justifiably) feared a bloody counter-revolution with the reinstatement of the tsar.

There was an alternative. Exile.
Even if the czar's son would have died soon, so Nicholas II had basically no male heir.

He did that because he hated Christianity. And he wanted to eliminate the Imperial Family because they were the descendants of those who had made Russia a Christian Nation.
That's why they have been proclaimed saints. Martyrs of Christendom.

 

[Laika]

Why did he murder the Imperial Family?

If you kill the Romanov Royal Family- including all the children who could be future claimants to the Tsarist throne- then there is no-one left for counter-revolutionaries to rally around when they want a restoration. e.g. Charles II of England (restored 1660) and Louis XVIII of France (restored 1815).

The last Emperor of China Puyi was used as a front for the Japanese puppet state in Manchuria (1934-1945) but was captured by the Soviets, handed over to the Chinese Communists and underwent 're-education'. They used him as a propaganda coup of how humane the Chinese system was. Puyi died just as the Cultural Revolution started in China and his life story is depicted in the film The Last Emperor.

 

[Stevicus]

There was an alternative. Exile.
Even if the czar's son would have died soon, so Nicholas II had basically no male heir.

He did that because he hated Christianity. And he wanted to eliminate the Imperial Family because they were the descendants of those who had made Russia a Christian Nation.
That's why they have been proclaimed saints. Martyrs of Christendom.

I think the Tsar wanted to go to England, but he was rejected by King George, who didn't want him there. The Kaiser could have demanded that the Bolsheviks hand over the Romanovs if they wanted to, during the negotiations for the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. There were any number of people who could have thrown the Tsar a lifeline so he could save himself and his family, including his own military leaders who pretty much threw him to the wolves. I guess they just didn't like him very much.

The Allies could have softened the blows against Russia simply by agreeing to a five-word phrase: "Peace without annexations or indemnities." The fact that they refused to do so gives complete discredit to the Allied cause, not just in WW1, but in the aftermath as well (including the Treaty of Versailles and the Red Scare/Palmer Raids).

 

[Estro Felino]

I think the Tsar wanted to go to England, but he was rejected by King George, who didn't want him there. The Kaiser could have demanded that the Bolsheviks hand over the Romanovs if they wanted to, during the negotiations for the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. There were any number of people who could have thrown the Tsar a lifeline so he could save himself and his family, including his own military leaders who pretty much threw him to the wolves. I guess they just didn't like him very much.

That's absolutely untrue. They prevented them from leaving Russia, they basically imprisoned them.
There were so many countries they could go to: I can just name Italy, where the Queen Elena was a friend to the Russian Imperial Family.

The Allies could have softened the blows against Russia simply by agreeing to a five-word phrase: "Peace without annexations or indemnities." The fact that they refused to do so gives complete discredit to the Allied cause, not just in WW1, but in the aftermath as well (including the Treaty of Versailles and the Red Scare/Palmer Raids).

It doesn't add up...because the Americans and the British had just defeated Germany, and the czar had been their ally, in the fight against the German-Austrian colossus.
Let's say that Rockefeller funded Lenin. And that explains it all.
There are demoniac forces behind all this

 

[RestlessSoul]

The Bolsheviks used terror as an instrument of state from the very beginning. They centralised all power under the central committee of the Communist Party, quickly established the Cheka to purge the Soviets of “counter revolutionary elements” and “enemies of the people”, and unleashed the Red Terror which was consciously modelled on the terror of the French Revolution. None of this happened by accident; it was deliberate strategy, devised and enacted by Lenin, who was not of a nature to contemplate dissent of any kind.

 

[Laika]

Lenin was funded by Rockefeller. Enough said.

Pretty sure that's false. In 1974, Antony C. Sutton published Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution which tried to connect the two. Sutton also wrote books titled Wall Street and FDR (1975) and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (1976). In all three books, Sutton is trying to portray 20th century history as an effort by wealthy elites to foster a "corporate socialism" to enrich themselves.

Let's say that Rockefeller funded Lenin. And that explains it all.
There are demoniac forces behind all this

I hate to break it to you but human beings are perfectly capable of being sadistic monsters without the help of satanic forces (or american billionaires). We are a deeply screwed up species.

 

[Estro Felino]

Pretty sure that's false. In 1974, Antony C. Sutton published Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution which tried to connect the two. Sutton also wrote books titled Wall Street and FDR (1975) and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (1976). In all three books, Sutton is trying to portray 20th century history as an effort by wealthy elites to foster a "corporate socialism" to enrich themselves.

...or simply to had an ally in Russia that would have given him free access to the immense raw materials and fuels Russia still own.
Easy as that. Greed.

I hate to break it to you but human beings are perfectly capable of being sadistic monsters without the help of satanic forces (or american billionaires). We are a deeply screwed up species.

Being a Christian, I had another vision, but I respect yours.

And by the way, there must be a reason why Stalin fought and repressed Trotskism. What do you think it is?

 

[Estro Felino]

The Bolsheviks used terror as an instrument of state from the very beginning. They centralised all power under the central committee of the Communist Party, quickly established the Cheka to purge the Soviets of “counter revolutionary elements” and “enemies of the people”, and unleashed the Red Terror which was consciously modelled on the terror of the French Revolution. None of this happened by accident; it was deliberate strategy, devised and enacted by Lenin, who was not of a nature to contemplate dissent of any kind.

Pasternak who wrote Doktor Zhivago wanted to underline the destructive machine of those years.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

One way to answer this is to look at the American Revolution, which as against against monarchy rule, occurred without being so atrocious. It did not require overthrowing the monarchy, but rather it was about carving a niche for a new way; live and let live. That same monarchy is still around and supported. Both could exist side by side. Marxism required digging a hole for others, to create the illusion of rising above; relative reference illusion. Stalin had to dig the hole, even deeper, to keep the relative reference illusion alive. He had to get rid of anyone with common sense that spoiled the magic trick illusion.

The analogy is like the modern economy. You can introduce new products to the market and if it resonates; iPhone, it will grow market share, organically. On the other hand, you can appear to succeed if you place part of the market in a hole; regulate fossils fuels, and then supplement green energy; rebates, free charging, fast track, etc., to create the illusion green energy makes more economic sense. That is the difference between organic and contrived as was Democracy versus Marxism. This topic is trying to create a relative reference illusion with revisionist history. This appears to be a tactic taught by Lefty education. Dig a hole for religion to make Atheism look innocent is part of the magic trick. But the American revolution that did not have to dig a hole and still lasted saw the importance of religion; freedom of religion.

 

[Laika]

And by the way, there must be a reason why Stalin fought and repressed Trotskism. What do you think it is?

Stalin and Trotsky represented competing visions for what Socialism/Communism would look like after Lenin's death. It was both a power struggle between two people for the succession and between competing strategies and ideological groups within the Communist Party as they try to win supporters amongst the party faithful to their claim for leadership.

Stalin won because, frankly, he was the better politician. As General Secretary, he was in a position to appoint loyal subordinates in local positions of power and essentially remake the party in his image. These administrative tools gave him an edge, which had been neglected by his competitors for power- Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, being the most likely claimants in the 1920s. Stalin was able to tactically manoeuvre, using Kamenev and Zinoviev against Trotsky, then working against all three of them when he was strong enough.

Stalin's attempt to portray himself as the heir to Lenin, say by writing The Foundations of Leninism, and improvise the policy of building "socialism in one country" as a more pragmatic alternative to world revolution (the latter strongly supported by Trotsky) during the more internationally stable period of the mid-1920s, helped too.

Trotsky had his share of gifts and he made some significant contributions in organising the October Revolution itself and as Commissar for War (head of the Red Army) during the Russian civil war. He was a talented writer and orator as well. But when it came to internal party struggles, he was really bad at winning over and keeping his supporters.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

These are some good points. The revolutions in some countries sent a clear message to would-be tyrants and other aristocrats in the world that they can no longer assume to have any "divine right" to do whatever they wanted. Of course, the feudalistic lords and princes didn't go down without a fight. There was some pushback with the Metternich System, which led to another round of revolutions in 1848.

The fact was, industrialism made cities larger, and improvements in transportation and communication helped facilitate revolutionary ideals to cross national boundaries. The "cattle" (aka "peasants") were becoming more numerous, more restless, more densely packed in cities, more easily riled, and much more difficult to keep under positive control. The old methods of governance were becoming antiquated due to technological, industrial, and scientific progress. There was no stopping it. Those who insisted on remaining backward were in for a world of hurt in the years and decades to come.

Religion was no longer as effective in putting the fear of God into people as it had been in previous centuries. It was no longer a matter of feudal lords managing small peasant villages in rural settings. The stakes were getting higher. The challenges of statecraft became more and more complex, as they had to try to come up with new and inventive ways to keep the masses reasonably content, while the upper classes could still maintain their positions of power and wealth. Censorship was never really that effective (books and pamphlets were portable and could be smuggled), and brute force might keep some people in line for the short-term, but it weakens a regime in the long run.

Some statesmen and national leaders ostensibly favored an agenda which would entail being decent, humane, and liberal towards their own people in the homeland, while directing their attentions outward for aggression and exploitation. France and Britain are two notable examples of countries which tended towards liberalism at home, while being able to pay for it with the wealth of their colonial empires. Plus, it also gave the masses something to believe in, in terms of nationalism, national pride, and patriotism (since religion wasn't getting the job done anymore). But not every country was doing quite so well, and there were others who wanted in on the action. There was fierce competition and bitter rivalries between nations. It all came to a head when WW1 started.

This is the world that men like Lenin and the socialists of the time were born into. This is what they were seeing, not some perceived liberal utopia of "freedom" and "democracy." Simply put, they didn't like the world as it was and believed that a complete change was in order. They were mostly dealing with governments and other elites who, for all intents and purposes, murdered for money - to enhance their own wealth to live a life of luxury while most everyone else in the world lived in squalor, degradation, and deprivation (which still pretty much remains the case today).

So, I guess the key question one might ask is, were Lenin and other socialists really "monsters," or did they have to become monsters in order to oppose and challenge an already-existing "monster"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Trotsky had his share of gifts and he made some significant contributions in organising the October Revolution itself and as Commissar for War (head of the Red Army) during the Russian civil war. He was a talented writer and orator as well. But when it came to internal party struggles, he was really bad at winning over and keeping his supporters.

He was also correct about Stalinism and its "socialism in one country."

 

[PureX]

Many Russians will say that they are living under an imperialist dictator, now. Imperialism is actually the term THEY use for it (they will avoid calling Putin a dictator, however). Although most of them would not suggest a Leninesque solution. They would actually prefer a more open, honest, democratic solution.

The truth is that they feel the same degree of hopeless ineffectualism toward their government as we do toward our own. Money, power, stupidity and ego rule, and people feel they have almost no control over any of it. The only solution is socialism, but that still hasn't been worked out in terms of implementation. The criminals and bully boys among us always seem to manage to derail it before it can become impervious to them. Maybe it never can, as they are us and we are them. But I believe it will be achieved, relatively soon, or we are going to destroy ourselves. Lenin has little to do with it.

 

[Laika]

One way to answer this is to look at the American Revolution, which as against against monarchy rule, occurred without being so atrocious. It did not require overthrowing the monarchy, but rather it was about carving a niche for a new way; live and let live. That same monarchy is still around and supported. Both could exist side by side. Marxism required digging a hole for others, to create the illusion of rising above; relative reference illusion. Stalin had to dig the hole, even deeper, to keep the relative reference illusion alive. He had to get rid of anyone with common sense that spoiled the magic trick illusion.

The analogy is like the modern economy. You can introduce new products to the market and if it resonates; iPhone, it will grow market share, organically. On the other hand, you can appear to succeed if you place part of the market in a hole; regulate fossils fuels, and then supplement green energy; rebates, free charging, fast track, etc., to create the illusion green energy makes more economic sense. That is the difference between organic and contrived as was Democracy versus Marxism. This topic is trying to create a relative reference illusion with revisionist history. This appears to be a tactic taught by Lefty education. Dig a hole for religion to make Atheism look innocent is part of the magic trick. But the American revolution that did not have to dig a hole and still lasted saw the importance of religion; freedom of religion.

I don't really know how best to respond to this, but for the benefit of my American readers I'm going to divide my answer into a long "leftie" version and a short "patroitic" version. Skip to the short version if you want to feel good about yourselves. I know you want to.

The American Revolution: The Long "Leftie" Version

If you are trying to compare the American and the Russian revolutions, it's natural to think that the Soviet Union's development from Lenin, to Stalin represents an inevitable and ideologically moral driven decline in to a dehumanised totalitarian hellscape, populated by gulags, famines and purges. However, the outcome of the American revolution was far from certain and it didn't progress in a straight line either.

Its admittedly a stretch but you can argue that the American Revolution "failed" to achieve the ideal of self-government by the states (as under the Articles of Confederation in 1781-1787) and instead led to the centralisation of power in the hands of a central government (under the 1787 Constitution which the US still has today). For a historian (who'd be more qualified and informed to make that case than me), it would be safer (both in terms of the evidence and the consensus of opinion) to say that the original ideals for the American revolution had to undergo significant revisions in order to have a practical and working system of government.

After achieving Independence, the U.S. had a series of rebellions where American citizens revolted against their own (new) system of government. These were mainly about taxes, because while Americans hated paying taxes to the British, they also hated paying taxes to their own government.
After the Continental Congress failed to pay the salaries of army soldiers, the Newburgh Conspiracy attempted to make George Washington a "king" of the U.S (Washington rejected the suggestion in the strongest possible terms). Shortly after, the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 saw the people march on the U.S. capital in Philadelphia at the time, with the State government basically shrugging and insisting defending the Continental Congress wasn't their problem. (the lesson draw from this episode is why Washington D.C. isn't part of any US state).

There were also rumours circulating that the King of Prussia had been invited to become a Constitutional Monarch in America (also known as the 'Prussian Scheme'). But it was the Shays' Rebellion that was the final push that got Americans to take the lack of a central government seriously, as the confederation couldn't raise taxes, pay the national debt, or keep order, etc and led to the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

Once the new constitution was drafted, the Anti-Federalists opposed it because it took powers away from the states, did not originally codify a bill of rights and the prospect of an indirectly elected President (and Senate) was, frankly, downright 'monarchial'. When the First Presidential Election was held, New York was deadlocked and couldn't submit electoral college delegates on time, while North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified the Constitution yet. At the time, Vermont was technically still an Independent Republic. Under George Washington, you had the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794) and under John Adams there was the Fries' Rebellion (1799-1800). The Alien and Sedition Acts restricted free speech due to fears over the Qausi-War (an undeclared navel war) between the US and France. The Supreme Court decided it has powers for judicial review to decide if bills are unconstitutional in 1803 with the Marbury v Madison case, while skipping over the fact the text of the Constitution doesn't actually say the Supreme Court has the right to do so. And after the 1800 election went to the House of Representatives and was resolved on the 36th ballot, the U.S. passed the twelfth amendment to reform the electoral college so it could "work"... sort of... ignoring the elections when it didn't.

So early American history is messy and it was not the smooth journey from declaring independence to having a functioning constitution, with Washington and Adams as the first and second President. Given the obstacles Americans had to overcome to build their republic, they have alot to be proud of. But I am being kind here by missing out the "three fifths of all other persons" who were slaves which, it goes without saying, greatly complicates the moral legacy of the American revolution's achievements and led directly to the U.S. civil war.

The American Revolution: The Short "Patriotic" Version

 

[Estro Felino]

Many Russians will say that they are living under an imperialist dictator, now. Imperialism is actually the term THEY use for it (they will avoid calling Putin a dictator, however). Although most of them would not suggest a Leninesque solution. They would actually prefer a more open, honest, democratic solution.

You don't take Russians' religiosity into account.
Russians are very religious.
You can't compare a Leninist system that persecuted priests with a "slightly undemocratic" regime where the President protects the Russian Church, according to the caesaropapist principle inherited from the Byzantine Empire. Caesaropapism - Wikipedia