Was Lenin "evil"?

[AvatarOfKhaine]

it was caused by deliberate policy to the same extent Stalin's famines were, which was my point.



The problem is, and this is actually shown by the quote up there, they didn't even protect trade: They deliberately inflicted a set of unequal tariffs and then used military force to prevent the indians from retaliating.

Stalin's famines were also a result of peacetime policy, whereas the Bengal Famine of 1942 was mitigated by the circumstances of war.

Stalin's USSR had many famines both before and after the war, and it was his terrible agricultural policies in collectivisation that caused this and could have been changed prior to or post War but was not while the Bengal of 1943 had been a one-off*.


* This assumes one makes a distinction between Company rule and the Raj.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Stalin's famines were also a result of peacetime policy, whereas the Bengal Famine of 1942 was mitigated by the circumstances of war.

Stalin's USSR had many famines both before and after the war, and it was his terrible agricultural policies in collectivisation that caused this and could have been changed prior to or post War but was not while the Bengal of 1943 had been a one-off*.


* This assumes one makes a distinction between Company rule and the Raj.

British India had big peacetime famines too, with two major ones in the 1890s.

 

[cacra]

“[Before a British Parliamentary Committee in 1840] Montgomery Martin stated that he . . . was convinced that an outrage had been committed ‘by reason of the outcry for free trade on the part of England without permitting India a free trade herself.’ After supplying statistical data of Indian textile exports to Great Britain, he pointed out that between 1815–1832 prohibitive duties ranging from 10 to 20, 30, 50, 100 and 1,000 per cent were levied on articles from India. ... ‘Had this not been the case,’ wrote Horace Wilson in his 1826 History of British India, ‘the mills of Paisley and Manchester would have been stopped in their outset, and could scarcely have been again set in motion, even by the power of steam. They were created by the sacrifice of Indian manufacture. Had India been independent, she could have retaliated, would have imposed prohibitive duties on British goods and thus have preserved her own productive industry from annihilation. This act of self-defence was not permitted her’” (Clairmonte 1960: 86-87).

Who?

I am sorry I have never heard of him, what economic qualification did he possess?

 

[cacra]

How did Britain "win"? It ultimately lost control of India, and today it is losing control of its own home territory. Scotland will separate in the near future, while British police can't even enforce the laws of the state in places like Rotherham. Thankfully for British women, they will soon have strong, masculine Asians as husbands rather than impotent Anglo-Saxon liberals, so all may not yet be lost.

Made me chuckle, fair play lad.

 

[cacra]

But you are first saying that Britain eradicated "bad" practices and then say that everything that was bad about British culture was okay because it was part of british culture. Also, "might makes right"? Really? Britain "won" because of superior technology and divide and conquer practices, not because they were morally superior.

Look, is Roman culture superior to the culture of the Gaulic barbarians? I think 99% of the world would say probably so. That is not to say you cannot find certain aspects of Gaulic culture that isn't 'good' but you have to dig around through a lot of fecal matter to find it.

It isn't that 'might makes right' it is just that the Indians were incapable of defending themselves. If Britain didn't administer them another power would have and the results would have not been as pleasant.

 

[AvatarOfKhaine]

British India had big peacetime famines too, with two major ones in the 1890s.

And so far as I know, both times changes were made to accommodate this. My (A Level) understanding of Stalin (and my teacher is a massive socialist) suggests that he failed to adapt Collectivisation at all.

 

[Arilou]

And so far as I know, both times changes were made to accommodate this. My (A Level) understanding of Stalin (and my teacher is a massive socialist) suggests that he failed to adapt Collectivisation at all.

That's not quite true: He did make adaptations, it's just that like the british, they were inadequate. (and often focused on the wrong thing)

 

[AvatarOfKhaine]

That's not quite true: He did make adaptations, it's just that like the british, they were inadequate. (and often focused on the wrong thing)

I'm actually curious about this, my teacher is a bit of an "anti-revisionist" and a "tankie" so I'm curious about these adaptations if you would be so kind. Not to doubt your case but my teacher is the kind who would likely mention these adaptations if he could and so I'm curious about these.

(I should note I mean this seriously and sorry if it comes off as me saying "I should know this so you're lying" as that definitely isn't my intention.)

 

[Jorsalfar]

Who?

I am sorry I have never heard of him, what economic qualification did he possess?

Montgomery Martin? He was a British civil servant (ended up as Colonial Treasurer of Hong Kong (1844-45)) and writer. Founding member of a handful of societies, among them the Statistical Society of London.

His works include Political, Commercial, and Financial Condition of the Anglo-Eastern Empire, Past and Present State of the Tea Trade, East and West India Sugar Duties, Analysis of Parliamentary Evidence on the Handloom Weavers, The Colonial Policy of the British Empire, The Statistics of the British Colonies, and a good deal more. His writings mostly focuses on India and China, but he has a couple of publications on the Americas too.

I would be inclined to think he had at least a basic understanding of British policies towards its colonies at the time.

 

[Imgran]

His understanding does seem to be wrapped up in mercantile ideas that were still popular in that era. His point does prove that Britain learned nothing from its affray with the American colonies about trying to stack the trade angle in their own favor.

 

[Arilou]

His understanding does seem to be wrapped up in mercantile ideas that were still popular in that era. His point does prove that Britain learned nothing from its affray with the American colonies about trying to stack the trade angle in their own favor.

He was actually a strong free-trade advocate. The point is that the british didn't actually practice free trade with their colonies, rather relying on a fairly extensive protectionist regime. It's just that the tools you can use to squash competition are much more varied when you can just use your army rather than having to "only" use the civilized tools of trade. An indpendent country has means (like retaliatory tariffs) that a subjected colony has not.

 

[L'Afrique]

Look, is Roman culture superior to the culture of the Gaulic barbarians? I think 99% of the world would say probably so. That is not to say you cannot find certain aspects of Gaulic culture that isn't 'good' but you have to dig around through a lot of fecal matter to find it.

It isn't that 'might makes right' it is just that the Indians were incapable of defending themselves. If Britain didn't administer them another power would have and the results would have not been as pleasant.

No, most people wouldn't say that.

For all your whining about sources the main thing you're demonstrating here is that you lack knowledge of what the indian subcontinent or the british empire were actually like before or during the conquest. And for that matter I'm guessing you don't know jack about ancient gauls either

 

[kaufenpreis]

Nowhere. It was a natural phenomenon.

 

[Jos de trol]

Excellent absurdist sarcasm - 10 out of 10!

Britain did not only introduce civilisation it also built railroads and schools

 

[cacra]

No, most people wouldn't say that.

For all your whining about sources the main thing you're demonstrating here is that you lack knowledge of what the indian subcontinent or the british empire were actually like before or during the conquest. And for that matter I'm guessing you don't know jack about ancient gauls either

I know women were burnt alive along with their deceased husbands in India - hardly the epitome of human civilisation - after the British came that stopped.

 

[frolix42]

People get hung up on the word "evil". Lenin was well-meaning, but the same could be said of virtually all leaders.

Would anyone care to make the case that Lenin's effect on the world was not overwhelmingly negative?

The morality of the British Raj seems off topic.

 

[Semper Victor]

And so far as I know, both times changes were made to accommodate this. My (A Level) understanding of Stalin (and my teacher is a massive socialist) suggests that he failed to adapt Collectivisation at all.

British rule in India began and ended with famines, the massive 1770 Bengal famine and the 1943 Bengal famine. Major famines were a constant of British rule until the widespread adoption of the Famine Code after 1900. It took the British 130 years to adapt, while native Indian rulers had always put in place paliative measures during famines (Mughal laws were particularly harsh in this respect). During the Deccan famine of 1877-78, many peasants fled from lands under direct British rule to the territories of the Nizam of Hyderabad, who at least was trying to limit the effects of the famine in his principality.

 

[Kovax]

As for the original topic question, Lenin appears to have been an example of what happens when some well-meaning person with an education and not much practical experience tries to force people against their will to adopt some "Utopian" scheme that looks good on paper, but doesn't survive contact with reality.

The concept of "Communism", where each individual contributes according to their abilities and receives according to their needs, functions fairly well in a small closed society where just about everyone knows everyone else, and peer pressure keeps people from lying about their abilities and needs. Once you get beyond the size where you start having "strangers" in your midst (200-500 people), it becomes necessary to enforce the division of labor and the distribution of wealth through selected individual representatives, who therefore become "rulers", and you no longer have "Communism", but some form of dictatorship. While "nearly perfect" for a small hunter-gatherer tribe, it simply doesn't function "as advertised" in a large industrial and mobile society.

When it became evident that the public was not going to stand for it willingly, and that some of the basic underlying principles needed to be re-thought, Lenin chose to use force to make people accept it ("until they're ready for it"), rather than consider that perhaps he may have neglected to consider a few small details about the practicality of his ideas. His ideas weren't necessarily "evil", but his decision to force them on others by violence, if "necessary", definitely crossed the line.

 

[Cavalry]

The concept of "Communism", where each individual contributes according to their abilities and receives according to their needs, functions fairly well in a small closed society...
...
When it became evident that the public was not going to stand for it willingly, and that some of the basic underlying principles needed to be re-thought, Lenin chose to use force to make people accept it ("until they're ready for it"), rather than consider that perhaps he may have neglected to consider a few small details about the practicality of his ideas. His ideas weren't necessarily "evil", but his decision to force them on others by violence, if "necessary", definitely crossed the line.

I think Communism is for the future when technique advances make working is the joy not the "work". And there is redundant products and food that a people will no longer think about keep some separate for himself.

Lenin's society is not yet communism, but a "Workers' State"!

 

[Sir Davis]

A problem was that Russia was not in the right technological era to start achieving Communism, A nation needs to be Industrial and the USSR at it's infancy was an agricultural society and this lead to rushed industrialisation. Also it can be considered that what he did was for the long term and that ends justify the means.