I can understand getting fooled and believing all the bad stuff about Mao and Stalin, but I genuinely don’t understand how libs treat Lenin like a great evil. They can’t even give Lenin the “his revolution got out of hand when he died” point. I really don’t see what Lenin did that was extreme. The provisional government was about to be overthrown by reactionaries and they already attempted so before the October Revolution. He took power by popular support and most of his factions enemies were foreign to Russian soil.
Remember that netflix docu series about the tsar family where they intercut a recreation of their execution with a historian calling it(paraphrased) the most hideous and bestial crime of the 20th century?
Well, to paraphrase Molotov, Lenin was even more harsh than Stalin, particularly to his allies. During the height of the revolution and civil war, if he got a letter from a peasant claiming communist party corruption or malfeasance in an area, he would deputize a university professor and some students to go check it out, and if evidence was found of that corruption or malfeasance to their satisfaction (which had no real legal precedent) they had the discretion to either eject them from the party or, depending on the severity of the offense, just straight up execute them, no trial. Which happened fairly regularly. It was not a case of “We have investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing.”
Even if you think the evidence standards were lax in the USSR during Stalin’s time (which imo they were basically the same as pretty much everyone else’s at the time, they were just far more aggressive at pursuing legal actions against high level party members and generals) at the helm, he still always had trials before executing people, even going as far as trying people in absentia, something that Lenin would have considered a ridiculous liberal facade.
Don’t get me wrong, these were harsh people, but in comparison to the consequences that would face them and the millions peasants they led if they failed, I don’t think they were unnecessarily harsh.
Even if you think the evidence standards were lax in the USSR during Stalin’s time (which imo they were basically the same as pretty much everyone else’s at the time
Yeah people who complain about this don’t compare 1930s Soviet courtrooms to 1930s U.S. courtrooms (because that would be whataboitism, not, you know, having perspective). Think of all the people who had confessions beat out of them or got railroaded on the flimsiest of evidence. Think of all the black people who never made it to the courtroom at all.
You don’t understand, the real tragedy is that powerful people had to face consequences for their actions. USSR bad because everyone was executed, but also USSR bad because the elite (lol) was never punished ever
Another one I’ve seen is blaming Lenin for the Russian Civil War and thus hanging all the war deaths on him as well as the deaths from the subsequent famine. He did advocate for turning the imperialist war into a revolutionary (edit: civil) war, so it’s not completely absurd, but how many would have died if Russia had stayed in WWI? Insert the Mark Twain quote about the two reigns of terror.
can understand getting fooled and believing all the bad stuff about Mao and Stalin
I think part of the reason libs and fascist can push just about any kind of propaganda on the masses is because the left has historically been on the back step when acknowledging valid self criticisms.
Implying that people are fooled into believing “all the bad stuff” about Mao or Stalin implies there aren’t valid criticisms to be had. Mao’s cultural revolution in large parts were total failures, there is no reason to shy away from this fact. The CCP and Mao himself had no qualms about recognizing faults in that revolution and readjusting accordingly.
The same can be said for Stalin’s idea of revolution in one nation. The expansion of communism exclusively through the lens of Russian nationalism led to undue levels of violent reactionary nationalist rising to oppositional power.
Every revolution is going to get some things wrong, the whole point of self criticism is to acknowledge where it went wrong, and how to fix it or avoid it in the future. By disregarding valid criticism in the same manner as one would invalid criticism, it opens space for the right to levy any criticism no matter how fantastic.
I can understand getting fooled and believing all the bad stuff about Mao and Stalin, but I genuinely don’t understand how libs treat Lenin like a great evil. They can’t even give Lenin the “his revolution got out of hand when he died” point. I really don’t see what Lenin did that was extreme. The provisional government was about to be overthrown by reactionaries and they already attempted so before the October Revolution. He took power by popular support and most of his factions enemies were foreign to Russian soil.
According to the historical documentary film Anastasia (2020), he personally
Remember that netflix docu series about the tsar family where they intercut a recreation of their execution with a historian calling it(paraphrased) the most hideous and bestial crime of the 20th century?
Anti-communists can’t help but reveal themselves as Nazis example #320,455,980,656
My favorite shot (aside from the one that killed bloody Nicky)
Something doesn’t belong here, I wonder what it could be?
wow I didn’t know lenin was dead before 1905
The only thing they did wrong was not executing the romanovs in public.
I wanted it on video smh
Well, to paraphrase Molotov, Lenin was even more harsh than Stalin, particularly to his allies. During the height of the revolution and civil war, if he got a letter from a peasant claiming communist party corruption or malfeasance in an area, he would deputize a university professor and some students to go check it out, and if evidence was found of that corruption or malfeasance to their satisfaction (which had no real legal precedent) they had the discretion to either eject them from the party or, depending on the severity of the offense, just straight up execute them, no trial. Which happened fairly regularly. It was not a case of “We have investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing.”
Even if you think the evidence standards were lax in the USSR during Stalin’s time (which imo they were basically the same as pretty much everyone else’s at the time, they were just far more aggressive at pursuing legal actions against high level party members and generals) at the helm, he still always had trials before executing people, even going as far as trying people in absentia, something that Lenin would have considered a ridiculous liberal facade.
Don’t get me wrong, these were harsh people, but in comparison to the consequences that would face them and the millions peasants they led if they failed, I don’t think they were unnecessarily harsh.
Yeah people who complain about this don’t compare 1930s Soviet courtrooms to 1930s U.S. courtrooms (because that would be whataboitism, not, you know, having perspective). Think of all the people who had confessions beat out of them or got railroaded on the flimsiest of evidence. Think of all the black people who never made it to the courtroom at all.
You don’t understand, the real tragedy is that powerful people had to face consequences for their actions. USSR bad because everyone was executed, but also USSR bad because the elite (lol) was never punished ever
Another one I’ve seen is blaming Lenin for the Russian Civil War and thus hanging all the war deaths on him as well as the deaths from the subsequent famine. He did advocate for turning the imperialist war into a revolutionary (edit: civil) war, so it’s not completely absurd, but how many would have died if Russia had stayed in WWI? Insert the Mark Twain quote about the two reigns of terror.
I think part of the reason libs and fascist can push just about any kind of propaganda on the masses is because the left has historically been on the back step when acknowledging valid self criticisms.
Implying that people are fooled into believing “all the bad stuff” about Mao or Stalin implies there aren’t valid criticisms to be had. Mao’s cultural revolution in large parts were total failures, there is no reason to shy away from this fact. The CCP and Mao himself had no qualms about recognizing faults in that revolution and readjusting accordingly.
The same can be said for Stalin’s idea of revolution in one nation. The expansion of communism exclusively through the lens of Russian nationalism led to undue levels of violent reactionary nationalist rising to oppositional power.
Every revolution is going to get some things wrong, the whole point of self criticism is to acknowledge where it went wrong, and how to fix it or avoid it in the future. By disregarding valid criticism in the same manner as one would invalid criticism, it opens space for the right to levy any criticism no matter how fantastic.