Was Lenin "evil"?

[AvatarOfKhaine]

I still do not understand how Lenin 'destroyed' any democracy. Firstly, there was no democracy in Russia in 1917-18 in anything but name. Secondly, the most democratic element that existed in Russia at that time - Soviets - were actually retained and kept existing in the Soviet Union.

I find it strange that Western tradition equates 'democracy' with 'multi-party system'. One can exist without the other. There could be a multi-party system without democracy and democracy without multi-party system.

Could Conservatives, Monarchists, Social Democrats, Mensheviks advance in the political system of the Soviet Union? And when did the Soviets actually make the real decisions? There was no democracy as the full range of political ideals were not allowed to be represented and therefore the people "demos" were not sovereign. And therefore rule by the people "demo-cracy" was not in place in the Soviet Union.

A multi-party state was in place in the Constituent Assembly, and while not perfect it was far better than the overt dictatorship of the Politburo and the Chairman.

 

[CruelDwarf]

Did the Whites really pursue an equivalent to "War Communism"?, everything about that policy was far worse than the Whites from what I've read.

The correct anwer to that question is 'What Whites?'. Whites never had any coherent policy on anything and their governing practices were about as dictatorial as Red ones and sometimes way worse.

Let's also not forget many of the Leninists of the time, and figures such as Trotsky massively opposed the end of War Communism and the introduction of the NEP so that move seems to not be part of "Leninism" but more part of relenting to pressure.

War communism was ended with the war. Rather obviously. And New Economic Policy was more or less unmitigated disaster anyway, so opposition to it was pretty sensible attitude in any case.

Could Conservatives, Monarchists, Social Democrats, Mensheviks advance in the political system of the Soviet Union?

No, and there is no need for them to advance anything in the Soviet Union. Communist party as a whole was very much sufficient to conway the will of the people at least until the moment when fractionalism was forbidden in it.

And when did the Soviets actually make the real decisions?

For most of the 20s they kinda did. You know until the moment when Stalin crushed the fractionalism within the party in his struggle with his political opponents.

There was no democracy as the full range of political ideals were not allowed to be represented and therefore the people "demos" were not sovereign. And therefore rule by the people "demo-cracy" was not in place in the Soviet Union.

OK, then there not a single democractic country exist in the world. Because in most places parties advocating nazism, slavery and similar stuff are forbidden. Therefore 'full range of political ideals' is not represented.

A multi-party state was in place in the Constituent Assembly, and while not perfect it was far better than the overt dictatorship of the Politburo and the Chairman.

Constituent Assemby was non-functional in the first place. And there was a about 7 to 8 years gap before dictatorship of Politburo and a Chairman was established.

 

[Eusebio]

I still do not understand how Lenin 'destroyed' any democracy. Firstly, there was no democracy in Russia in 1917-18 in anything but name. Secondly, the most democratic element that existed in Russia at that time - Soviets - were actually retained and kept existing in the Soviet Union.

I find it strange that Western tradition equates 'democracy' with 'multi-party system'. One can exist without the other. There could be a multi-party system without democracy and democracy without multi-party system.

You completely misunderstand me; by "Soviet democracy" I mean just that: the democratic nature of the Soviets. After the Kronstadt rebellion and the ban on factions at the 10th Party Congress in 1921 this democracy was dead. Yes, it was a degeneration under the stress of civil war with the most politically advanced sections of the working class forming the core of the new Red Army, and yes, Lenin had come to power on the back of the Bolshevik's position as the strongest advocates of Soviet democracy (which is why I said the depiction of him as some Stalin-like figure is absurd), but when push came to shove during the civil war Lenin oversaw the banning of free speech, debate and political input from outside the inner circle of the Communist party, even from other revolutionary factions. It was a mistake I can't forgive him for.

 

[BootOnFace]

The People were not sovereign in the USSR, the Party was. And this was Lenin's intention from the start. I assumed he thought the Party would hand the reins to the people and the state would "dissolve" as soon as the USSR was properly socialized, but that's not what happened. And you can say the ends justify the means all you want but when the ends are the historical Soviet Union, you really have some explaining to do.

 

[Grosshaus]

I still do not understand how Lenin 'destroyed' any democracy. Firstly, there was no democracy in Russia in 1917-18 in anything but name. Secondly, the most democratic element that existed in Russia at that time - Soviets - were actually retained and kept existing in the Soviet Union.

I find it strange that Western tradition equates 'democracy' with 'multi-party system'. One can exist without the other. There could be a multi-party system without democracy and democracy without multi-party system.

It is true that Russian democracy was very unmature and included multiple parties hostile to democracy. The thing is there were also democratic elements, such as the rising influence of mensheviks and social revolutionaries thanks to both popular vote and internal democracy within those parties. People started to feel included - even more so after their parties supported the bolsheviks in ousting reactionary elements from power and succeeded in that. But a leader that had even vaguely supported democracy would have stopped at that and started governing jointly with the left-wing parties, whether though a national assembly or soviets is not relevant. Lenin did consistently the opposite bit by bit crushing any moderate left opposition.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Whether evil or not, Lenin did inspire some truly dreadful music.

 

[pithorr]

Why do you even discuss about democracy with a guy who has no idea what it is and even never experienced it IRL

 

[Eusebio]

Whether evil or not, Lenin did inspire some truly dreadful music.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

All awful.

 

[Calad]

I still do not understand how Lenin 'destroyed' any democracy. Firstly, there was no democracy in Russia in 1917-18 in anything but name. Secondly, the most democratic element that existed in Russia at that time - Soviets - were actually retained and kept existing in the Soviet Union.

Lenin completely disregarded elections of 1917. Had he only wanted socialist revolution with democracy this election would have been a huge victory, but HIS party did not win. So Lenin closed Duma and started terror against all other parties. Rest is history.

I find it strange that Western tradition equates 'democracy' with 'multi-party system'. One can exist without the other. There could be a multi-party system without democracy and democracy without multi-party system.

Because you cant give any examples should indicate to you how serious your findings are. Democratic system simply is not possible without accountability, this is why you need multi-party system. All single party systems are simply oligarchies.

 

[bz249]

Because you cant give any examples should indicate to you how serious your findings are. Democratic system simply is not possible without accountability, this is why you need multi-party system. All single party systems are simply oligarchies.

Theoretically the Swiss governing body could be a single-party bloc with different fractions (since 1848 there was only 12 occasions where the composition of the government is changed, and it was only in 2008 when it involved not one but two seats out of seven) but in case of an election landslide something migth happen (not that an election landslide in Switzerland is possible at all). But the Swiss system is so decentralized that the composition of the government is almost irrelevant. So it does not really resemble the situation in Soviet-Russia.

 

[Calad]

Theoretically the Swiss governing body could be a single-party bloc with different fractions (since 1848 there was only 12 occasions where the composition of the government is changed, and it was only in 2008 when it involved not one but two seats out of seven) but in case of an election landslide something migth happen (not that an election landslide in Switzerland is possible at all). But the Swiss system is so decentralized that the composition of the government is almost irrelevant. So it does not really resemble the situation in Soviet-Russia.

Swiss system is a good example what country composed of Soviets could have been: a huge decentralized state built on Socialist principles.

 

[Calad]

I'm a history teacher in Belgium and here is what we say about Lenin:

- He was a revolutionary and as such opposed to democracy. Leninism proposes a "ruling group" of professional revolutionaries because he believed the workers could not be relied upon to make the right choices (in short => voting for him). Why was this: repression and "superstition" religion. His group of professional revolutionaries had to lead the way.
Does this make Lenin bad? I think not. Lets not forget that he was living in a quasi-absolutist totalitarian tsarist state. Democracy did not exist in Russia as such and so it is logical that Lenin was not a fullblooded democrat.

- His economic policies were disastrous. But this is also due to the fact that WW I was going on, followed by the Civil War and a war against Poland. War ruins economy. And to his advantage, he tried to better the economy with his NEP.

In short: Lenin is a highly controversial figure. Not only because of his life, but what happened after he died (stalinism, ...). So it is very difficult to get a balanced picture of the guy. And people tend to forget that he was a man of his age. You mentioned the Red Terror. Off course this was very bad and should not be erased from memory. But at the same time, the Whites were doing the same...

That is the most naivest way to see power. Surprise Lenin only trusted his own small circle who held absolute power and fanatical followers. Had he fought under any other banner, people would say without hesitation that he was a dictator, tyrant and fanatic who destroyed Russian culture. Czarist Russia had Duma, and Duma had multiple of elections. Even Soviet council had elections. Lenin destroyed this all.

Lenin had no economic policy: he believed state should own all, everything. Workers had to be militarized, they had no right to decide where to live and how to use their money. War Communism was essentially stealing. In the end he had to allow NEP because whole country was simply not operating. Nothing was working, living standards were all time low and living standards started to recover only after death of Stalin. This is why history of USSR mentions very little what happened on 20s and before 1936 when Stalin took power, because nothing was being done.

Lenin founded totalitarianism in Russia, Stalin only expanded it into party itself. That was his legacy.

 

[Vincentst]

Did the Whites really pursue an equivalent to "War Communism"?, everything about that policy was far worse than the Whites from what I've read.

Offcourse, but the Whites didn't have to. They got a lot of foreign support. The Reds got nothing. (source)

To be clear: I do not and will never claim that War Communism was good in any way. But I think it was an extreme measure, driven by extreme circumstances. It was the only way the Reds could remain in power, so they took it. Understandable from their (not my) point of view.

 

[Vincentst]

Lenin founded totalitarianism in Russia, Stalin only expanded it into party itself. That was his legacy.

I think nobody will deny that.

That is the most naivest way to see power. Surprise Lenin only trusted his own small circle who held absolute power and fanatical followers. Had he fought under any other banner, people would say without hesitation that he was a dictator, tyrant and fanatic who destroyed Russian culture. Czarist Russia had Duma, and Duma had multiple of elections. Even Soviet council had elections. Lenin destroyed this all.

Lenin had no economic policy: he believed state should own all, everything. Workers had to be militarized, they had no right to decide where to live and how to use their money. War Communism was essentially stealing. In the end he had to allow NEP because whole country was simply not operating. Nothing was working, living standards were all time low and living standards started to recover only after death of Stalin. This is why history of USSR mentions very little what happened on 20s and before 1936 when Stalin took power, because nothing was being done.

The question "Is Lenin evil?" is already ambiguous on its own. If one tries to argue that he did it for what he believed and as such was not all evil, one could be seen as an advocate for Leninist policies.

That was really not what I intended.
As a historian I just try to understand why Lenin took so extreme measures and so sometimes you have to place yourself in his position. Again: I do not in any way claim that he was only good.

Evil or good... There's just more to the picture than these two adjectives...

 

[Cavalry]

Lenin founded totalitarianism in Russia, Stalin only expanded it into party itself. That was his legacy.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is something mentioned first by Marx and practiced by Lenin. It is a measure to an end. The theory is as long as the Government works for the majority's interest it can do whatever it see fit. The enemies of the State sure did it too!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

 

[Henry IX]

Your definition of evil will shape your response to this question:

If you base your definition on intention, then Lenin is not evil - he was trying to establish paradise.

If you base your definition on outcomes then your response will vary based on how you weigh various factors - by some measures the Soviet Union was a significant improvement on the Russian Empire, by other measures it was a mess. This will also depend on how you view say individual freedom and democracy vs the alienation of labour and the exploitation of the working class.

If you base your definition on the morality of each individual action then Lenin is evil. His willingness to torture and kill his enemies and murder innocent people puts him in a small group of super-evil people of the 20th century. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Each of these moral standpoints has various philosophers who support it, and no single definition of evil is agreed upon.

So in answer to the OP: yes, no, maybe.

PS: for what it is worth I think his actions are sufficient for him to be classed as evil. I rate action over intention

 

[magritte2]

Whether evil or not, Lenin did inspire some truly dreadful music.

That's clearly the most serious black mark on his legacy.

 

[bz249]

If you base your definition on outcomes then your response will vary based on how you weigh various factors - by some measures the Soviet Union was a significant improvement on the Russian Empire, by other measures it was a mess. This will also depend on how you view say individual freedom and democracy vs the alienation of labour and the exploitation of the working class.

Judging by the outcome is kinda questionable anyway, because looking back from our current day perspective any figure with historical importance is almost 100% certainty a brutal, ruthless tyrant since that's how the world was.
On the other hand after the industrial revolution there is a constant stream of technological development so it again almost certain that living in Nazi Germany was way safer and more comfortable than living during the reign of Frederick the Great.

What can be probably analyzed whether the convergence between Russia and Western Europe accelerated or decelerated during his time (but than again there was a civil war, so most likely a divergence occured no matter what the Reds have done).

 

[cacra]

Judging by the outcome is kinda questionable anyway, because looking back from our current day perspective any figure with historical importance is almost 100% certainty a brutal, ruthless tyrant since that's how the world was.

Lloyd George, Asquith, Campbell-Bannerman....

What did they do?