Was Vladimir Lenin really that bad?

Question

I know that communism had bad after affects but he was just trying to make a better Russia, i mean things were pretty bad before him. So Stalin was definately bad, but was Lenin? What did he do?

Answer 1

Sorry Doc - the Tsar was a terrible despot - punishments included being chained to your wheelbarrow, towing barges along the Don, Volga or Dneiper - people were suffering great hardships whilst the Tsar lived in huge luxury.

Lenin was bad - but not as bad as those who followed him.  He was ruthless in the pursuit of power, and hated being being considered in the wrong.  The Red Terror only lasted some 6 weeks and its victims are numbered in the

thousands, not hundreds of thousands.

The problem with Lenin is that his regime must be judged with against the background of WWI and then a civil war.  Civil wars are always terrible things - and atrocities were committed by all sides (there were at least 4 main combatant armies - Red, White, Green (a peasant army) and Interventionist).

Lenin's greatest follies were:  To maintain the party organisation in power as it had been in exile - rigid discipline, no room for debate about policy once the policy was set and with a militaristic / clandestine nature about it.  And to use the expropriation of peasants' grain to feed the cities; this meant that the countryside would long remain hostile to Bolshevism.

On the plus side, he instituted the New Economic Policy - (NEP), allowing a degree of private enterprise in the system.

SO overall, yes he was bad, but nowhere near as despotic as the Tsar, and nowhere near as bad as Stalin.

Answer 2

Things in Czarist Russia were not nearly as bad as the people were led to believe.  The general feeling was that the Czar was uncaring and not the least bit concerned for his people.  The truth is, he lead a life of grandeur but was held in isolation by his advisers.  The war had not gone nearly as well as the people had hoped.  They saw his relationship with the other crowned heads of state in Europe and were told that this was a war of royalty and not the people, yet it was the blood of the people that was shed.

Yes, Lenin was bad.  If you opposed him, you generally got a bullet in the back of the head.  Entire families were spirited away in the middle of the night.  Lenin brought destruction, misery and chaos to Russia.  Entire villages were burned (with people still in them), many were left homeless.  Land owners were stripped of their holdings and the continent slipped into a vast darkness.

Answer 3

Lenin is one of the greatest men to walk the face of the Earth.  Quite often, he is lumped in with Stalin and others who simply followed Leninism in name only.  Following Lenin's death, Stalin, who had already turned on Lenin in secret, openly came out and attacked Lenin's policies.  Stalin did this by attacking Leon Trotsky.  Trotsky often came to the same conclusions regarding theoretical issues as did Lenin, however, he did so independently of Lenin, where as Stalin only paid Lenin lip service.  Stalin claimed Trotsky had deviated from Leninism while hiding, destroying, and manipulating Lenin's works in order to prevent people from learning the truth about Stalin's betrayal.  The capitalist enemies of Marxism and Leninism, without doing any research or work, simply claim that Lenin and Stalin are one and the same, falling into the very trap that Stalin created.  

With that said, what did Lenin do?  Lenin helped set the scene for a proletarian revolution, a true proletarian revolution.  Following Marx's example (based on the Paris Commune of 1871: a body elected by universal suffrage comprised of the working class) of what a communist government should look like, Lenin outlined the soviet in his work "The State and Revolution."  The soviet would a body elected by universal suffrage that would serve as both a legislative and executive body.  This body would be held accountable to the laws it enacted because the members could be removed at the will of the people if any member of the soviet failed to do his or her duty.  Members of the various soviets would be paid the wage of the average worker to prevent people from making politics a career and to put an end to opportunism.  Why is this important?  because it would keep officials from becoming out of touch with the people.  Government officials would not resort to corrupt and immoral means to stay in power.  The capitalist often refers to this, claiming that in a communist society, everyone would make the same amount of money; this is not true.  Lenin also worked to bring all people into the new Soviet government.  He helped to establish non-party member congresses around Russia so that all people would be able to voice their opinions and influence the government.  In this way, early Soviet Russia was far more democratic than England or the United States.  Lenin was also a huge proponent of women's rights.  Lenin taught the proletariat how to build a worker's party and successfully overthrow a capitalist government using political means.  Many claim that the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 through a violent uprising.  This is not true.  In October of 1917, the proletariat of Russia, took to the streets and seized factories and other important buildings and stations, with very little opposition.    

Now, the natural question following this short explanation of Lenin and his accomplishments is, 'If Lenin was so good, what happened?'  Like a science experiment, it is often very difficult to get something right the first time.  How does one implement an entirely new social order, especially in such a backward country as Russia?  It is also very difficult to succeed in the face of so many unforeseen events that occurred following the October Revolution in 1917.  The Allies, following World War I, invaded Soviet Russia in an attempt to overthrow the new government.  Various elements in Russia who wanted supreme power (Tsarist generals, and other bourgeois parties) started the civil war that drove Russia to the edge of a huge collapse.  It was during the civil war that Stalin really began to betray Lenin and the proletariat, by advocating policies that were counterproductive.  It should be noted that Stalin, as well as many of his lapdogs, were against the October Revolution, preferring to work within Kerensky's bourgeois and so-called "democratic" government.  It is decisions and opinions such as these that show Stalin's true colors and desire for personal gain.  Lenin was aware of some of Stalin's activities, but wanted to work with Stalin to bring him back into the fold, believing that Stalin was a good organizer and still useful to the Bolshevik movement.  It was only after Lenin suffered his first stroke that he began to see Stalin as the danger that he truly represented.  By this time, however, Stalin had developed a huge following of people (thanks to his excellent organizational skills) who were devoted to him, not the proletariat.  Many of this people were vicious and incompetent individuals, but as long as they followed Stalin's orders, they moved up in Stalin's bureaucracy.  Lenin, working with Trotsky, attempted to denounce Stalin, but Lenin suffered a second stroke that kept him bedridden until his death in January 1924.  

One story about Lenin, that helps one gain a view of his personal side revolves around Trotsky's young children.  The two men lived and worked in the same building, known as the Smolny in Petrograd.  Whenever Lenin would run into Trotsky's two sons, he would always make time for them, playing and laughing, exhibiting a child-like quality that is often lost in history.

Does this mean Lenin was always a warm, cuddly figure? of course not.  He certainly had his hard side that was shown often, but one must remember something.  The capitalist often condemns the communist for brutality, while ignoring capitalisms own brutality.  A perfect example can be found in the Paris Commune.  The Communards took about 63 hostages in an attempt to force the nationalist forces at Versailles to stop killing captured workers.  When some of these hostages were executed, many vicious men themselves, the capitalists of the world condemned the Communards as murderers.  However, when the Commune was overthrown, thousands upon thousands of Paris workers were slaughtered on the streets without trials.  The capitalists of the world turned their heads and ignored the bloodbath.  

A modern day example can be found in the United States.  The US talks about human rights, decrying countries in violation of human rights because the these countries have no use for the US government.  However, when a nation or organization is useful to the US, the government turns its back on human rights records and often supplies these nations with the means to continue their attacks on humanity.  Now, I am by no means advocating human rights abuse, but one should take in the whole picture and understand where information comes from, before forming an opinion or thought.

Answer 4

Lenin just didnt think how communism could work in the long term personally if the russian people could know what would have happened they would have stuck to a czarist government and gave nick the boot or formed a democracy by taking a leaf out of the americans book but lenin was certaintly better then stalin by 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000... miles