Was Lenin "evil"?

[bz249]

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

What did they do?

I am 100% sure that those Indian guys wanted to die somewhere near Passchendaele fighting against the Germans even if there would be no British colonial empire they would have volunteered for that. And the only reason that those Indians are not represented in the British Parliament because they did fully trusted the government in London anyway.

Alternatively you can ask some Irish

 

[Okawoa]

There is a horrible myth going around in Russia nowdays, mainly revolving around his Jewish heritage. Yes, it is the arch-typical "Jews did it".

I think he was a very competent administrator who was extremely talented and under constant stress. It is hard for us to look back but he was making a gamble that a completely new system of living was possible. I can't blame him for the Russian Civil War, Red terror would've easily been White terror if the aristocrats and officers succeeded in winning. Outside of the USSR his comments on Imperialism was extremely influential on kick starting anti-colonialist movements.

I think Lenin resembled early Mao, both who were fantastic leaders and just. His biggest mistake to me was moving the capital from St Petersburg to Moscow as it diminished the council-government and created this "Shadow of the Kremlin" effect, where the USSR fell back on violence to solve problems rather than international debate.

 

[Kovax]

The underlying theory may have been to create a paradise, and use dictatorial control to establish it, in the naïve hope that an established government would then voluntarily surrender power to anyone, much less to the "people". The ruthless actions to create that "paradise" quickly turned into a living hell (and a lot didn't live) for a significant number of those "people" he set out to help. The even more absurd notion that the country could run with just "laborers" and "the party" led to a near-total collapse of the economy, and rapid back-pedaling on several of those "It looked good on paper" ideas. If Lenin did indeed believe his own rhetoric, and truly thought that he was doing "the right thing", rather than using it as an excuse to grab absolute power, then I see him as a seriously misguided individual, rather than a monster.

The fundamental flaw with Communism is that once a society gets too large for peer pressure to maintain social equality and a "fair" distribution of both wealth and work (typically about 200-500 people, which works for a small hunter-gatherer tribe, but not for an urbanized industrial society), somebody has to decide who gets what, and whoever is in that position ends up with absolute power over those he decides for. At that point, there's no effective difference between that government and a dictatorship.

I'm left with one phrase to sum up the results: "What did you THINK would happen?"

 

[cacra]

I am 100% sure that those Indian guys wanted to die somewhere near Passchendaele fighting against the Germans even if there would be no British colonial empire they would have volunteered for that. And the only reason that those Indians are not represented in the British Parliament because they did fully trusted the government in London anyway.

Alternatively you can ask some Irish

What did Campbell-Bannerman have to do with Passchendaele? He was dead at the time!

Besides, is conscription a tyrannical act? I don't think so. Was Roosevelt a tyrant?

As for the Irish, it is hardily tyrannical to want to preserve the territorial unity of your nation: was Lincoln a tyrant too?

 

[bz249]

What did Campbell-Bannerman have to do with Passchendaele? He was dead at the time!

Besides, is conscription a tyrannical act? I don't think so. Was Roosevelt a tyrant?

As for the Irish, it is hardily tyrannical to want to preserve the territorial unity of your nation: was Lincoln a tyrant too?

We know that the British Empire was based on the free admission of the member states and not held by Force together. That's why the Union Flag flyes proudly over Singapore, Delhi and Dublin.

Having a colonial Empire is pretty tyrannival by contemporary standards.

(And somewhere around 1862 the NATO would have intervened into the ACW... so it was also a bloody mess by contemporary standards)

 

[cacra]

We know that the British Empire was based on the free admission of the member states and not held by Force together. That's why the Union Flag flyes proudly over Singapore, Delhi and Dublin.

Having a colonial Empire is pretty tyrannival by contemporary standards.

(And somewhere around 1862 the NATO would have intervened into the ACW... so it was also a bloody mess by contemporary standards)

Maybe you could argue that expanding the colonial empire was tyrannical but maintaining the empire? It doesn't sound tyrannical to me.

The thing is, every political entity is held together by force. The existence of force does not mean the existence of tyranny.

I bet you are in favour of giving sick children free healthcare: by definition this means using force to take wealth from other people to pay for it. Is giving sick children free healthcare tyrannical?

 

[bz249]

Maybe you could argue that expanding the colonial empire was tyrannical but maintaining the empire? It doesn't sound tyrannical to me.

The thing is, every political entity is held together by force. The existence of force does not mean the existence of tyranny.

I bet you are in favour of giving sick children free healthcare: by definition this means using force to take wealth from other people to pay for it. Is giving sick children free healthcare tyrannical?

If there is armed rebellion against universal healthcare than it is pretty much tyrannical. It is not 100% indicator... but it does not look like there was a significant pro-British group e.g. after India got it's independence.
So it was against the will of the Population.

 

[cacra]

If there is armed rebellion against universal healthcare than it is pretty much tyrannical. It is not 100% indicator... but it does not look like there was a significant pro-British group e.g. after India got it's independence.
So it was against the will of the Population.

Oh my mistake, I had no idea the Mughal Empire was a direct democracy. Can you provide polling data showing how it had the will of the people?

 

[bz249]

Oh my mistake, I had no idea the Mughal Empire was a direct democracy. Can you provide polling data showing how it had the will of the people?

Did I said the Mughal Empire was a direct democracy? No i said exactly the opposite... that EVEN the progressive states/people would be totally abusive tyrannical shitholes/assholes by modern standards.

 

[cacra]

Did I said the Mughal Empire was a direct democracy? No i said exactly the opposite... that EVEN the progressive states/people would be totally abusive tyrannical shitholes/assholes by modern standards.

So your argument is that Lincoln was a tyrant?

 

[bz249]

So your argument is that Lincoln was a tyrant?

In 1861 not, have he had a Slavic name and tried the same thing in 1999 he would be.

 

[cacra]

In 1861 not, have he had a Slavic name and tried the same thing in 1999 he would be.

FaIr enough, I think your moral compass is way off though.

 

[Arilou]

People tend to have a disastrously rosy view of colonial empires: There's virtually nothing that Lenin did in the USSR that the british didn't do in India. Except provide a decent education system.

 

[Imgran]

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.

I disagree that there can be genuine democracy in a one party state. The only possibility for democratic capability from a one party state is if every one joins the one party and factions within the party debate and settle policies based on party votes, in which case you do not have a party, you have an oligarchic Republican government such as the modern Chinese Communist Party, in which the government departments are more or less appendages of the party. Or the party itself becomes meaningless and the factions within the party become a de facto multiparty democracy, but I don't know if that exists anywhere. And regardless of what you have, one party states and corruption go hand in glove.

Multiple parties are necessary to a healthy democracy because there will rarely be consensus on anything. if you are not hearing consistent opposition to what the government is doing on at least a minority basis, and if you are not seeing a government regularly fail to get its way, you do not have a democracy. When opposition is never heard, or has no power to do anything other than protest, you do not have a democracy. Many authoritarian regimes have a quasi-democratic actions or a fig leaf parliament such as the Reichstag or the Imperial Duma, that does not make them democracies.

 

[Imgran]

There is a horrible myth going around in Russia nowdays, mainly revolving around his Jewish heritage. Yes, it is the arch-typical "Jews did it".

I think he was a very competent administrator who was extremely talented and under constant stress. It is hard for us to look back but he was making a gamble that a completely new system of living was possible. I can't blame him for the Russian Civil War, Red terror would've easily been White terror if the aristocrats and officers succeeded in winning. Outside of the USSR his comments on Imperialism was extremely influential on kick starting anti-colonialist movements.

I think Lenin resembled early Mao, both who were fantastic leaders and just. His biggest mistake to me was moving the capital from St Petersburg to Moscow as it diminished the council-government and created this "Shadow of the Kremlin" effect, where the USSR fell back on violence to solve problems rather than international debate.

You had me until you decided that Mao was a fantastic and just leader. Is it possible you used a wrong word? Mao was a fanatic leader, so was Lenin, mistaking "fanatic" for "fantastic" might be conceivable if your first language isn't English. I have no idea how you could have mistaken any part of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, or their Soviet counterparts, as "just" though.

 

[Imgran]

What did Campbell-Bannerman have to do with Passchendaele? He was dead at the time!

Besides, is conscription a tyrannical act? I don't think so. Was Roosevelt a tyrant?

As for the Irish, it is hardily tyrannical to want to preserve the territorial unity of your nation: was Lincoln a tyrant too?

I'm amazed by this reply considering the icon you use to represent yourself on this forum.

I have no input beyond this, but it's a fascinating juxtaposition.

 

[cacra]

I'm amazed by this reply considering the icon you use to represent yourself on this forum.

I have no input beyond this, but it's a fascinating juxtaposition.

It was a joke but I cannot change it due to probation.

 

[Fishman786]

What did Campbell-Bannerman have to do with Passchendaele? He was dead at the time!

Besides, is conscription a tyrannical act? I don't think so. Was Roosevelt a tyrant?

As for the Irish, it is hardily tyrannical to want to preserve the territorial unity of your nation: was Lincoln a tyrant too?

The British didn't introduce conscription in India during either war, it was a volunteer army. True, many Indians didn't really enjoy fighting in west to say the least, and perhaps they didn't quite know what they were getting into back home, but these were professional troops.


Also the British empire was certainly a tyrannical institution held together by violence against the will of the populace. British rule in India for instance was enforced by massacre, exile and torture. And this was during modern times, not in some distant past where the ideas behind human rights hadn't come into being yet.

 

[cacra]

The British didn't introduce conscription in India during either war, it was a volunteer army. True, many Indians didn't really enjoy fighting in west to say the least, and perhaps they didn't quite know what they were getting into back home, but these were professional troops.

From your source:
'It is quite impossible that I should return alive. [But] don't be grieved at my death, because I shall die arms in hand, wearing the warrior's clothes. This is the most happy death that anyone can die'.

Sounds like he knew what he was getting in for to me.

Also the British empire was certainly a tyrannical institution held together by violence against the will of the populace. British rule in India for instance was enforced by massacre, exile and torture. And this was during modern times, not in some distant past where the ideas behind human rights hadn't come into being yet.

Simply false, there are numerous examples of natives actually petitioning Britain to allow them into the Empire. The events you describe were extremely rare and were almost always done by a rogue administrator and not government policy. Britain introduced civilisation (in the sense with which we would recognise it) into India. before the British came Sati was still a widespread practice!

The fact is and will always remain that Britain was the best possible administrator of India at the time.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Simply false, there are numerous examples of natives actually petitioning Britain to allow them into the Empire. The events you describe were extremely rare and were almost always done by a rogue administrator and not government policy. Britain introduced civilisation (in the sense with which we would recognise it) into India before the British came Sati was still a widespread practice!

The fact is and will always remain that Britain was the best possible administrator of India at the time.

Excellent absurdist sarcasm - 10 out of 10!