Make your argument for the worst person who's ever lived.
I say it's Lenin.
>tricked the starving, war-weary Russian people into giving him authority
>dismantled the parliament, soviets, and all other democratic institutions to hoard power for himself
>killed 8 million Ukranians, and countless others
>set left-wing ideology back by a century, by destroying it's moral high ground and allowing it to be portrayed (correctly) as evil and inhumane
>generally ruined Russia and eastern Europe, leaving them decades behind the west even today
Mao, pretty much the same thing, but for East Asia
>forced massive population boom from 600 million to over 1 billion people within thirty years fucking up everything, land and resource use in asia
>destroyed ethnic national identities of peoples in asia (Tibetans, Manchus, Uyghurs, Mongols)
>destroyed Chinese civilization, culture and identity, turning them into uncloth, barbaric trash and peasants
>created a hivemind of a billion soulless chinese jews, while distancing china from russia and creating a parasitic relationship with the US we can't get out of
>chinese people devoid of feelings, emotions, happiness, empathy. like soulless communist drones
>split apart korea, caused vietnam and the entire southeast asia to fall under communism
>destroyed the environment, making half of china uninhabitable, due to smog, land degradation, etc
>destroyed Chinese civilization, culture and identity, turning them into uncloth, barbaric trash and peasants
This most of all. People from 19th century China would spit on their descendants for discarding their 3000+ year old culture
Despite China's past and present status as the most literary (defined by the number of individual written works) society in the world, most tradition was oral tradition. If the cadres destroyed the village book that contained all the birthdates, to promote the new communist calendar, you still remembered when you were born. If you had to sing patriotic songs for decades, you still didn't forget your village tunes.
Also the Confucian practice stressed memorization, such that every candidate for exams was expected to have all the classics by heart. Therefore, even if every single copy were burned, no classics would be lost.
Another point to make is that the Chinese viewed communism as coming along with a continuous process that started with manchu domination, civil war, foreign concessions, civil war, Japanese invasion, civil war, and cultural revolution. Bad centuries happen. Most Chinese, if they have to think of the epochal defining event in Chinese history don't think of Mao. I mean what did Mao even do? Burn the books and kill the scholars? That's Fa Jia, or classic legalism. Qin's minister Li Si supervised the complete destruction of the literature and culture of the six states, and left only the technological works to be copied to the new imperial writing system. The Communist Party might as well be called the legalist party.
When most Chinese think of the tyrant that ended the old world, they think of Qin Shihuang. Therein lies the difference. Westerners think of Hitler, not Caligula, but the Chinese have a deep attachment to their history. "What? Another death star? Give me a break! We've been through this before."
>the kaiser started wwi
And here we are, more than one century after the events that culminated in wwi, still discussing the causes of the war, studying one of the most complex moments in history, drowning ourselves in bibliography. If only we knew that anon had the answer: it was the kaiser's fault all along.
Nobody says he did, and it doesn't change the fact that stating that he started the war shows how little that person knows about the lead-up to the war. If there's one thing I can't stand is someone saying 'x is guilty, he/they started the war'. There's no such thing, it wasn't just someone's fault.
My advice is to read some books on the subject. It's an intriguing and amazing case of study and there's plenty of literature covering every aspect of that period of time.
true but they were the stupid ones to allow their civilization to fall into such awful state that allowed a bunch of commies to take over because they failed to industrialize the country.
> this eternally butt-blasted bourgeoisie
Not exactly. You see there is Soviet Union and there are Soviets. Soviets (councils of workers/soldiers/etc.) got created in 1916-1917 semi-independently from Bolsheviks and were (essentially) the backbone of the February Revolution.
Bolsheviks took over and reformed Soviets into Soviet Union, but put their own Party in charge (after October Revolution, since Bolsheviks were the ones running things) which led some people to claim that Lenin destroyed the purity of Soviets. Kinda retarded idea, if you ask me. Soviets were the emergency measure, not proper government.
Reality check: provisional government was not democratic in any modern sense.
They came to power during a coup and were simply claiming they wanted to abolish Russian caste system, introduce democracy and stop war. However, they didn't do shit. Literally. By June they even started selling nobility titles (which led to second attempt to overthrow provisional government in July; October was the third attempt at Revolution).
The democratic institution (i.e. Western-style representative democracy, not Soviet direct democracy) you are thinking about was Constituent Assembly.
However, once Bolsheviks pulled out (they basically got boycotted by the united right-wingers and social democrats), the Assembly did not have a quorum (at least 56% - 400 out of 715 were necessary; without Bolsheviks there was less than 255). And so it effectively got dissolved without making a single decision.
So - no. There wasn't a single moment there was a social democracy.
Thanks, altho i always assumed in the final month or so, there was actually progressive legislation (most proggresive of its time) and pushed stuff like free chruch from state etc. so yeah...correct me if i am wrong.
No, lenin at least was led to his barbarianism by delusions of a better future.
I'd put up for vote Genghis Khan, mostly in how much he failed his sons. The fact that they started a war with eachother immediately after his death shows that he was a hedonistic ooga booga and that he really didn't have a justification for his massacres.
don't you think a more competent revolutionary statesman might be more deserving of that title? Maybe someone who was near-universally admired for his benevolence and humility and whose state didn't turn on itself immediately after his death?
> in the final month or so
That would be Directorate and the third incarnation of Provisional Government, that happened after Kornilov's attempt at junta in August.
> most proggresive of its time
Not that I'm aware of.
Most of the stuff happened either during first coalition government (due to pressure from Soviets) or after October Revolution (elections, for example). Even universal suffrage was introduced in Russia (Finland, to be precise) ten years before that and in Australia/New Zealand even earlier. Moreover, some of the stuff first coalition government introduced got abolished during second coalition government.
Either way, there wasn't any comprehensive reforms (ministers didn't last longer than a month or two, as a rule), except for removing restrictions on things or promising better future. The Bolsheviks were pretty revolutionary (pun intended), but not the Provisional Government.
> didn't turn on itself immediately after his death?
If you are talking about Civil War it was not related to Lenin's death in any way. War essentially begun months before Kaplan shot Lenin.
Firstly, industrialization didn't even really begin until near the end of Washington's life. To criticize a pre-industrial figure for being "bourgeois" is beyond asinine.
secondly, Washington was not bourgeois in any reasonable sense of the word. He inherited a massive plantation that used slave labor and never ran a factory or storefront, he was firmly part of the landlord class.
Probably both of us.
the October Revolution was the most tragic event in Russia's history since the destruction of the Novgorod Republic. It doomed Russia to at least another century of autocratic dictators who cared more about their ideology than the well-being of the people they ruled.
> the most tragic event
Population supported communists during Civil War, during WWII, and during collapse of USSR (though it did not have enough organization and firepower to depose Gorbachev/Yeltsin).
You should switch to the "those dumb untermensch Slavs didn't know what's good for them" routine.
thanks for waiting until after I mentioned it to point that out.
Free labor, in which (1) workers choose their jobs voluntarily, through entering into contracts, rather than through coercion, (2) in which workers have the right to leave their jobs at any time if they are unhappy with the conditions of work, and (3) in which workers' incentives should be financial (i.e., wages) rather than coercive (i.e., whippings and beatings), was not invented until the early 19th century and certainly not ubiquitous until the middle of it.
Wage labor was not viable with mass-scale plantation agriculture, which mostly had to be replaced with inefficient small tenant farms after the Civil War due to an inability to keep cotton prices globally competitive (sugar fared better). The problem of paying farm workers persists even today in our era of hyperabundance, with industrial farms being unable to pay migrants living wages in order to stay competitive with produce from the rest of the world.
Finally, the abolitionist movement didn't kick off in the US until after free labor was ubiquitous, and to expect an 18th century planter to have abided by our moral standards is incredibly presentist. But even without the social pressure of abolitionism to inform his decisions, Washington ordered every slave he legally could have free in his will upon his wife's death.
The population also supported pogroms. Just because something's popular doesn't make it right, and that's doubly true when talking about autocratic states that censor everything they can to protect themselves.
The first "the population" did upon being freed by Hitler, was to re-establish churches, destroy Soviet symbols and pogrom the Jews to such an extent even the nazis themselves were surprised. And they did it spontaneously.
Yo. Reality check #2: the only mass murders of Jews and the rest was semi-supported by population in recently annexed Western Ukraine and Baltics (Estonia and Latvia, mostly). Guess who was doing the murders?
And Belarussians loved Reich so much, they got almost third of them wiped out during insurgencies and guerrilla operations against the liberators. Except that somehow doesn't count, yes?
Literally everyone who wasn't a member of Stalin's inner circle. I don't think starting a huge civil war, the spikelets laws, war communism, repeatedly causing massive famines, annihilating the yeomanry, purging the military, or the show trials were beneficial to anyone but the most ambitious and callous Russian politicians.
The only communist revolution that has ever improved the lives of the people was the Cuban one.
Some weirdass Ukrainian propaganda, I guess. I kinda lost track after "pogroms in Nazi-occupied Ukraine were committed by the KGB agents that pretended to be Bandera followers".
> Just because something's popular doesn't make it right
Are you talking about democratically elected government? Because that's what we are talking about. Oh, wait. It's the "those dumb untermensch Slavs didn't know what's good for them" routine.
My apologies. Please, continue.
> the people greeted them as fucking liberators
Clarify "people", shitface.
Having a few collaborators does not make the whole nation supporters of Nazis.
Even among Latvians soldiers (that's 2 divisions for Nazis) majority was still fighting in Red Army. Despite Latvia being one of the recent additions to the USSR and being overrun by Nazis in 1941.
Banning other political parties and using secret police to terrorize the population into submission (killing at least 200,000 people in the process) is a far cry from democracy. You are moron who fails to understand some of the the most basic underpinnings of democracy if you think the RSFSR was democratic.
Also thanks for ignoring my point about censorship and going back to calling me a racist. You sure showed me.
Lenin literally thought workers were too stupid to run things by themselves and needed to be lorded over. He uses the phrase "unquestioning obedience" at least ten times in his writings as being required.
>the dictatorship of the proletariat shall not be desecrated by the practice of a lily-livered proletarian government.
> Everyone now readily “votes for” and “subscribes to” resolutions of this kind; but usually people do not think over the fact that the application of such resolutions calls for coercion—coercion precisely in the form of dictatorship. And yet it would be extremely stupid and absurdly utopian to assume that the transition from capitalism to socialism is possible without coercion and without dictatorship.
>Every solution that offers a middle path is either a deception of the people by the bourgeoisie—for the bourgeoisie dare not tell the truth, dare not say that they need Kornilov—or an expression of the dull-wittedness of the petty-bourgeois democrats, of the Chernovs, Tseretelis and Martovs, who chatter about the unity of democracy, the dictatorship of democracy, the general democratic front, and similar nonsense.
>The conscious (and to a large extent, probably, unconscious) representatives of petty bourgeois laxity would like to see in this granting of “unlimited” (i.e., dictatorial) powers to individuals a departure from the collegiate principle, from democracy and from the principles of Soviet government. Here and there, among Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, a positively hooligan agitation, i.e., agitation appealing to the base instincts and to the small proprietor’s urge to “grab all he can”, has been developed against the dictatorship decree.
>thus there is absolutely no contradiction in principle between Soviet (that is, socialist) democracy and the exercise of dictatorial powers by individuals.
>But be that as it may, unquestioning subordination to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of processes organised on the pattern of large-scale machine industry. On the railways it is twice and three times as necessary. In this transition from one political task to another, which on the surface is totally dissimilar to the first, lies the whole originality of the present situation. The revolution has only just smashed the oldest, strongest and heaviest of fetters, to which the people submitted under duress. That was yesterday. Today, however, the same revolution demands—precisely in the interests of its development and consolidation, precisely in the interests of socialism—that the people unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of labour.
>Dictatorship, however, presupposes a revolutionary government that is really firm and ruthless in crushing both exploiters and hooligans, and our government is too mild. Obedience, and unquestioning obedience at that, during work to the one-man decisions of Soviet directors, of the dictators elected or appointed by Soviet institutions, vested with dictatorial powers (as is demanded, for example, by the railway decree), is far, very far from being guaranteed as yet. This is the effect of the influence of petty-bourgeois anarchy
Not him, but maybe the fact that the government had to make extensive use of secret police, rigid censorship, assassinations, and mass internal exile in order to maintain their power is a good indication.
> extensive use of secret police, rigid censorship, assassinations, and mass internal exile in order to maintain their power is a good indication.
The problem here is that it didn't. At the very least, not more than, for example, USA.
Not to mention Reds won the Civil War (despite all the international support Whites had), won the WWII (with population providing a lot of support to the Communists), and then, during the referendum, demanded to keep the USSR.
That's three events of actual "good indication" where Bolsheviks could not use the "secret police, rigid censorship, assassinations, and mass internal exile", but still got the public support.
And don't try to use Purges of 37/38. They had nothing to do with "maintaining power".
> I have literally no idea who McCarthy is and how he relates to peasants in the Soviet Union.
You might want to try Google. Or duckduckgo, since Google went to the Dark Side.
what the fuck does Putin have to do with literally any of this?
Maybe you should take a break from the computer, you seem to be hallucinating and imagining that people are saying things completely tangential to the topic at hand.
> what the fuck does Putin have to do with literally any of this?
Russian government went into full anti-commie mode (there are rumours of communists being called "enemies of the people", of all things) and Putin recently made (yet another) anti-Soviet declaration (this time against Lenin personally).
And here (>>591324) we have someone from Russia, apparently being in the anti-Lenin camp.
You are 100% delusional
>not more than, for example, USA
The Gulags in their heyday held (by the absolute lowest supportable estimates) twice as many prisoners per capita as the modern US prison system, which is cited by people of all stripes as overly punitive. The FBI conducted at most a handful of raids that resulted in the deaths of some political pariahs, typically black nationalists. There was no system of mass internal exile, and rigid government censorship of communist views ceased after the 1950s. Artists and speakers had infinitely more freedom in the USA than in the USSR, where new art movements were suppressed for being too hard for workers to understand.
>won the WWII (with population providing a lot of support to the Communists)
When you're choosing between being the victim of genocide vs the victim of an oppressive government, I think pretty much everybody would choose the oppressive government.
The communist states were generally very oppressive societies, but their sphere of influence was relatively minor compared to the US - which fucked up the third world much more effectively while allowing great political, and moderate social, freedom for it's own citizens.
> in their heyday
After WWII, with all the Nazi soldiers and collaborators? Oh, my. How horrible. Soviets should've patted them on the head and let them all go home.
> The FBI conducted at most a handful of raids that resulted in the deaths of some political pariahs, typically black nationalists.
You've been talking about assassinations that Bolsheviks made to stay in power. Why are you changing topic so suddenly?
> There was no system of mass internal exile,
What does "internal exile" even mean? Because being on probation is something that actually happens in the US of A.
> and rigid government censorship of communist views ceased after the 1950s.
You are kidding, right?
> When you're choosing
Between being almost definitely killed by the Wehrmacht troops right now, or having a very good chance of surviving. Nobody got a memo from Nazis "fight us, or be sent to camps".
Your question was what do anti-Lenin sentiments have to do with Putin. I answered the question, did I not? Or was that one of my delusions?
> You are putting words in other peoples' mouths
Russia and Putin have nothing common, is that what you want to say?
nice goal post moving, but you wont see me defending US foreign policy. That said, I don't think turning your neighbors into client states and using your military to crush peaceful protests in those states is good foreign policy. Neither was supporting the Derg.
>After WWII, with all the Nazi soldiers and collaborators
I was using numbers from before the war. Most of those Nazis and collaborators didn't survive long enough to be counted.
>Why are you changing topic so suddenly
Because I presumed that when you said the US government assassinated political dissidents, I was assuming you were referring to COINTELPRO. If not, please show me where else the US government killed American political dissidents.
>What does "internal exile" even mean
being shipped to a gulag in Siberia.
>You are kidding, right?
No, are you?
>Nobody got a memo from Nazis "fight us, or be sent to camps".
No they didn't. I was pointing out that it was a stupid fucking example to use to show popular support for the USSR.
>is that what you want to say
No, I already said what I needed to say. The Russian poster didn't imply anything about Putin, you just wanted an excuse to set up a straw man and knock it down.
You are not concerned at all with history or historical truth. You are undebatable because you are "debating" only to stroke your ego and add confirmation to your shaky and ill-thought-out beliefs. You have made love of the USSR some core part of your personality for whatever reason and are apparently unwilling to accept the possibility that it might have had a worse government than the United States.
People can democratically elect mass lynchings, but that doesn't make it right. Just by slamming into any phrase the word democracy you are not morally justifying it.
I reccommend Orwell's "What is Fascism?"
>Free labor... certainly not ubiquitous until the middle of [the 19th c.].
>was not invented until the early 19th century
That's fucking wrong though. Eastern Europe, much of Asia, etc. may have been semi-feudal until well into the 19th century, but a) even in those places, there was usually *some* free wage labor, even if it wasn't the dominant mode, and, more importantly b) wage labor was not a new concept in the Western world in 1800. Not by a long shot. Wage labor had become increasingly common in Western Europe from the Late Middle Ages on (mostly in growing towns) and was well established by the 1700s. I'm not saying that it was the dominant mode of life in the 1400s and 1500s, but it certainly existed, and by the 1600s and 1700s was what drove the commercial pre-industrial/psuedo-industrial growth of England, the Netherlands, etc. This is ignoring earlier precedents of free labor in the classical world. Yes, slaves were hugely prevalent in the ancient world, but that's not the same as saying that free labor wasn't around.
Not to mention the fact that free labor (not feudal, not slave) was by far the dominant labor force in the 1600s and 1700s New England and Mid-Atlantic colonies. So you're not even right just for North America.
I agree point about the inefficiency of free labor for large-scale farming, and there was definitely an expansion of the free labor marker and ideology in the 18th c. that contributed to abolitionism, but to say that free labor wasn't a thing until the 19th century, (or, indeed, to say it wasn't a massive, hugely game-changing thing in the previous centuries) is flat-out wrong.
Not to mention that, as detailed in Ron Chernow's book, Washington's slaves were keep in very good conditions and were given a comparitively good deal of freedom within the plantation. Probably one of the most benevolent slaveowners.
I'm just paraphrasing my antebellum US history professor so please forgive my lack of sources and my initially too authoritative tone (I was feeling a bit zealous defending George).
Since you seem to be an authority, do you have sources I could look up? I was under the impression that nearly all urban workers in the US before the industrial revolution were bonded for years at a time in paternalistic relationships with their bosses / master artisans / what-have-you (which would negate the "workers have the right to leave their jobs at any time" bit)