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
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.
Ah Ukraine that’s full of actual fascists who did a coup in 2014, and are now getting used by the west in a proxy war to weaken Russia as Loyd Austin so honestly admitted. Maybe the lesson there is not to let your country be used as a western proxy.
edit: I love how you chuds never have any response to this and just downvote because acknowledging this exposes that you’re just scumbags who don’t actually care about people in Ukraine
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
Lenin is a good author. I enjoy reading about communism, I have read Kropotkin and plan to read Lenin, etc. That being said communism sucks, unless you can find a way to distribute power, I suggest BTC, otherwise you will have another Holodomor/Great Leap Forward. Russian USSR quite literally sucked the life out of Ukrainian USSR like some sort of spirit sucker. RIP to all victims of Holodomor and Great Leap Forward 🕯️
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.
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…
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.
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?
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.
That’s just such an intellectually dishonest comment to make, the fact that you have to go back to 1933 really shows says everything we need to know here. The fact you’ve conveniently omitted is that famines were a common occurrence before the revolution, and one of the major factors driving the revolution. During the 1932 Holodomor Famine, the USSR sent aid to affected regions in an attempt to alleviate the famine. According to Mark Tauger in his article, The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933:
While the leadership did not stop exports, they did try to alleviate the famine. A 25 February 1933 Central Committee decree allotted seed loans of 320,000 tons to Ukraine and 240,000 tons to the northern Caucasus. Seed loans were also made to the Lower Volga and may have been made to other regions as well. Kul’chyts’kyy cites Ukrainian party archives showing that total aid to Ukraine by April 1933 actually exceeded 560,000 tons, including more than 80,000 tons of food
Some bring up massive grain exports during the famine to show that the Soviet Union exported food while Ukraine starved. This is fallacious for a number of reasons, but most importantly of all the amount of aid that was sent to Ukraine alone actually exceeded the amount that was exported at the time.
Aid to Ukraine alone was 60 percent greater than the amount exported during the same period. Total aid to famine regions was more than double exports for the first half of 1933.
According to Tauger, the reason why more aid was not provided was because of the low harvest
It appears to have been another consequence of the low 1932 harvest that more aid was not provided: After the low 1931, 1934, and 1936 harvests procured grain was transferred back to peasants at the expense of exports.
Tauger is not a communist, yet even he is forced to acknowledge that the Soviets really did try to alleviate the famine as best as they could.
The reality is that USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960’s, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:
Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 period while having better nutrition:
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.
I’m not sure if thats required here, but it’s totally possible without asking for government permission
Edit: i might be wrong here because of “legal speak” language barrier, but if I understand correctly you can make money from your business as a regular person just fine (legally). There’s just a limit on how much you can earn before needing yo register as a business
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
I didn’t say that communism hasn’t happened. It happens everywhere there’s more than one person present, until it is stopped by a fascist who starts building a hierarchy, demanding that one person be in control and set the agenda. Fear is the fertile ground in which ignorance blossoms. The reason that all governments are based in fascism is because they all ultimately believe in their own authority to enact violence on individuals. When the ignorance INEVITABLY collapses into violence, communism rises from the ashes in the form of mutual aide, community, schools, and basic infrastructure.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
Without taking any of the bad stuff from Lenin, from what I’ve read I know that by the end of his life he was not very fond of Stalin, and he was a little scared of Stalin was going to do with all the power. Not that Stalin’s alternative would’ve been a great guy…
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.
Add comment