itt: People who literally did nothing wrong

>>1171614
>died like a bitch with the job half done
>did nothing wrong

Pick one

Other than creating one of the most violent and repressive states of all time and the Soviet Secret police and killing millions of people?

He was personally worse than Stalin, but in circumstances that didn't allow him to do as much.

File: 54245.png (127KB, 636x640px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 636x640px

>tfw end ruthless killings
>tfw end oppression
>tfw end serfdom
>tfw get painted as villain by imperialist, neo-colonialist racist capitalists
>tfw everyone buys it hook, line and sinker

>mfw I have no face for this

File: 1457402666040.jpg (103KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 625x626px

>Everyone ITT took it

>>1171621
This tbqhf

>>1171624
The USSR basically reinstated serfdom (sorry, I mean "war communism").

>end ruthless killings
Le mao

File: 1463141344870.jpg (149KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 640x960px

>>1171617
>>1171621
>>1171625
>Almost 100 years
>Still believeing bourgeois propaganda
>Still mad.

>>1171641
Is this some kind of communist version of Holocaust denial?

Where the Soviet Union was not repressive and Stalin and Lenin were good boys that didn't kill anyone?

>>1171655
Lenin was a fucking hero who did not a single thing wrong, and the USSR was greatest thing to ever happen to Russia.

Stalin on the other hand did quite a lot of things wrong.

>>1171662
>Lenin was a fucking hero who did not a single thing wrong

Other than creating one of the most violent and repressive states of all time and the Soviet Secret police and killing millions of people?

>>1171655
He hasn't mentioned Holodomor so no, he's not denying the Soviet Holocaust yet.

>>1171666
Nice imperialist propaganda you got there, pal

>>1171666
I'll repeat myself, Lenin did nothing wrong.

Say what you like about Stalin but Lenin did L I T E R A L L Y nothing wrong. And blaming him for later injustices within the USSR is like blaming Bismarck for the holocaust.

>>1171624
>Bolsheviks execute more people in one year than the tsars did during the entire empire
>this is clearly evidence the ruthless killings have ended

>>1171670
>terror, what terror?

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/redterror.pdf

>>1171675
>I'll repeat myself, Lenin did nothing wrong.
A lie said a thousand times becomes truth?

>>1171686
Don't you have some third worlders to exploit, capitalist shill?

>>1171688
Okay, remind me what he did wrong exactly?

>>1171691
Third worlders are exploiting themselves, haven't you been paying attention?
>>1171696
He overthrew a legitimate government, for one. On top of that, he was vital in the process of instituting the Soviet system, which utterly failed as both a political enterprise and as a means of labor organization.

File: 1447758970794.jpg (188KB, 939x1190px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 939x1190px

>inb4 reactionaries crying about the revolution

>>1171696
Other than the Red Terror and starving millions of people?

>>1171691
Don't you have a multitude of failed states and revolutions to cry over, tovarisch?

>>1171721
>Overthrew a legitimate government
Overthrowing the Russian empire was nothing wrong
>On top of that, he was vital in the process of instituting the Soviet system
The Soviet system was also nothing wrong.
>which utterly failed as both a political enterprise and as a means of labor organization.
It failed because they instituted right wing reforms culminating in Gorbachev's absolute retardation and worse still Yeltsin's neoliberal take over that crashed eastern Europe with no survivors.

>>1171727
>Red terror
Nothing wrong.

>>1171724
>muh terror
>ignoring the successful example of the revolution your country aided across the atlantic for no particular reason
>thus ensuring your own revolution would fail

Robespierre did everything wrong.

>>1171738
the only thing ensuring the fall of the revolution was everybody ganging up on France

>>1171727
Sounds like you're spooked desu senpai

File: 9966_125006142579.jpg (40KB, 234x298px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 234x298px

Engelbert Dollfuss

>>1171743
>France is winning the revolutionary wars
>but the terror has rotted the revolution within, leading inexorably to the directory and to Napoleon's ascendance

No, Robespierre and the radicals ruined everything.

>>1171730
>Overthrowing the Russian empire was nothing wrong
Not an argument.
>The Soviet system was also nothing wrong.
Also not an argument.
>It failed because they instituted right wing reforms
Not really, it failed because the West outdid it economically. Those right-wing reforms were necessary because the system itself was flawed.

>>1171721
>third worlders are exploiting themselves

i forgot, they're kidnapping themselves and willfully being raped, getting 0 education, and starving to death. the ones who join cults or terrorist organizations are brainwashed and given insane hyperbolic hope of how life could be better if they only did x and y

what a stupid fucking person you are

>>1171762
>Not an argument.
The preceeding argument was not an argument either then.
>Also not an argument.
Likewise
>Not really, it failed because the West outdid it economically. Those right-wing reforms were necessary because the system itself was flawed.
1. The west was already outdoing it economically before there was even such a thing as a Bolshevik, however the USSR made such huge economic advancements that even competing with the west was possible
2. Those right wing reforms simply were the flaws in the system, by the late 80s the reforms span so out of the control that the system collapsed entirely under the weight of liberalism.

>>1171655
Even the Soviets recognized Stalin as a monster by the 1960s and rehabilitated a huge number of people purged in the 30s and 40s.

That being said, Stalin presided over the transformation of the country from rural backwater to global mega-power with thermonuclear warheads and spacefaring capabilities. It's hard to separate the national pride from the evils of the man. Same with Lenin, although Lenin clearly was a different kind of person.

>>1171760
>he thinks Napoleon was a bad thing
The French Revolution was so violent because that's the only way genuine social revolutions happen. The American Revolution was just a bourgeois revolution, the average person saw no changes between the British and new American governments. The French witnessed the abolition of the aristocracy, the monarchy and the power of the church, and many economic reforms as well. These things don't happen without war and death. And the other powers invaded France to stop the revolution from spreading, so it's really quite remarkable that the French came through the conflicts relatively well.

>>1171768
I was mostly referring to Chinese and Indian industrialization.
>The preceeding argument was not an argument either then.
Neither is the OP. I told you things he did that could be considered wrong, gave you reasons to think so, and you said "no." I've provided an argument; you haven't.
>
1. The west was already outdoing it economically before there was even such a thing as a Bolshevik, however the USSR made such huge economic advancements that even competing with the west was possible
I genuinely don't understand what you mean to prove by this.
>2. Those right wing reforms simply were the flaws in the system, by the late 80s the reforms span so out of the control that the system collapsed entirely under the weight of liberalism.
But the system didn't work, those reforms were necessary.

>>1171849
USSR had nuclear warheads and spacefaring capabilites, sure. But the citizens were living in poverty and oppression. Prios bruh

ITT: Communists who want to ignore history VS neo-liberals who dont even know history

>>1171908
The french revolution just like the american gave freeduum to people, while the soviet just made it worse...
And when i say freedom i dont mean marxist soviet kind of freedom, where the government gives "freedom" thorough economic means through force. But by individual freedom of the individual.

>>1171918
it was still "progress" compared to what had come before, and Russia was fundamentally damaged by WW1 and WW2 leading to extreme paranoia and repression... In other words, just each country on their own terms instead of by grand theories of justice and democracy. Go to the border of Afghanistan and Uzbekistan and compare a Soviet-run country with the opposite.

>>1171926
>The french revolution just like the american gave freeduum to people, while the soviet just made it worse...
The British already had a liberal system in place, let's not forget that pretty much everything in the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence had philosophical and legal origins in Britain. America underwent relatively little social upheaval during the war, and the war itself was mild and gentlemanly. Compare to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e

>>1171929
>it was for the greater good
The west powers didnt rule countries like soviet did, they built railroads n shit but left it there so the people of said country could run it by themselves.
If u wanna compare countries, compare north korea and south korea, or Vietnam and nearby countries, or Soviet and any other western country.
Its a fact that soviet was shit and failed, hell west and east berlin...

File: hitler.jpg (433KB, 1536x2430px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 1536x2430px

>>1171614

>>1171624
Is this bait?

>>1171675
Lenin economically destroyed Russia, it didn't rebound until Stalin's reign in the late 20s.

File: burn.jpg (19KB, 700x479px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 700x479px

>>1171908
>the average person saw no changes between the British and new American governments

This is a counterfactual statement.

>>1171614
Lenin was a great man, but his discussion of the lumpenproletariat led to a lot of bloodshed and persecution that might not have happened otherwise

>>1171969
The civil war and WW1 destroyed Russia, Lenin was actually to the right of Stalin & Trotsky on economics, google "NEP"

>>1171970
Explain why.

>>1171621
The USSR was less repressive than what it replaced

>>1171976
>Civil war destroyed Russia

Lenin started the Civil war.

>>1171982
He started a social revolution and as Stalin said, name one social revolution that didn't involve the liquidation of the previous ruling class. Which class ever gave up their power voluntarily? It doesn't happen. Russia before the Soviets was backwards as fuck and what little development existed didn't benefit the average person in the slightest.

>>1171976
I'm not arguing whether Lenin or Stalin were leftist or rightist, I'm saying that Stalin was a smart man while Lenin and Trotsky were literal retards. Their industrial production decreased to absolute shit relative to even 1900, they only won the CIvil war because the White movement was a disorganized clusterfuck and in fact they were so shitty militarily they even lost to fucking Poland of all countries. There were like 4 consecutive famines between the revolution and Stalin, every with half a brain was fleeing the country because it became an unmitigated shithole and Bolsheviks were more concerned with legalizing faggotry, persecuting the church and checking their pronouns than actually improving the life of the people.

In essence Lenin has all the cons of Stalin but none of his pros.

>>1171983
>Russia before the Soviets was backwards as fuck and what little development existed didn't benefit the average person in the slightest.

Russia had the largest industrial growth in the world outside of Germany before the war.

>>1171666
>Lenin killed millions of people

Read a fucking book, Jesus Christ

>>1171992
>what is America
also, you don't understand just how dysfunctional and incompetent the entire Russia governing class was before the Communists came to power. They couldn't fight a war. They couldn't lift people out of poverty. They couldn't do anything; it was a pauper state.

>>1171614
But he died before he could complete the job, just like Hitler.

>>1171983
>name one social revolution that didn't involve the liquidation of the previous ruling class. Which class ever gave up their power voluntarily

American Civil War?
Pretty much any of the ones in Britain?

It's easier to believe the stormfags argument than this.

>implying Russia has ever improved itself

>>1171992
Based entirely on french investment. It would have dried up completely after the war

>>1172016
>american civil war
>social revolution

>>1172004
They abolished serfdom in the 1860s and many former serfs were getting at least some property, the kulak class was emerging and it was only a matter of time before they would be elevated into middle class. Lenin effectively destroyed this form of social mobility and when the war communism came about, the peasants actually saw it as a return of serfdom. It was downright terrifying.

I personally have no illusions about the tsarist government, but they at least made some SMALL improvement for the poor people while Lenin didn't do jack shit, robbed the peasants and threw thousands of people into his SLON labor camps which was effectively slavery.

>>1172016
>American Civil War?
ha
hahaha
Are you saying it didn't take the deaths of hundreds of thousands to end slavery in America?

And which ones in Britain. The English Civil War?

Daily reminder that Lenin was literally an agent of the foreign enemy, funded and protected by the German empire in order to destabilize Russia and secure a catastrophic land loss in the form of Brest-Litovsk treaty.

>>1172041
didn't work out so well for the Germans did it?

>>1172044
It would work out perfectly if Stalin didn't come to power.

>>1171614
>Lenin
>Fuckers who destroyed the already flawed ideology and turn it into dictatorial shit we know today.
>did nothing wrong

File: ben.jpg (171KB, 800x989px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 800x989px

Lets be serious, uncle Ben is unable to be hated.

>>1172029
No, I'm just saying the "liquidation of the previous ruling class" never happened. Slavery was only part of the civil war, that's just what you're told in 2nd grade to make you think it was a good guys vs bad guys war again. Tariffs, taxes, and states rights were the primary issues.

And yes the English civil war. Which you're probably going to try and deconstruct also just to try and fight over the already dead ideals that surround the rotting concept of communism. No need to circle jerk over a failed nation of tyrannical and unsuccessful leaders.

>>1171721
How in the world was the Tsardom more legitimate than the USSR?

>>1172063
I didn't imply the USSR wasn't legitimate, I implied that a legitimate government was overthrown before it was established. That legitimacy didn't come on the night the Romanov family died.

>>1172056
Any of the founding fathers at that. George Washington was one of the most respected and well revered men of his time. Like god level.

>AJ too
Although he can be pretty hated

>>1172056
https://www.change.org/p/national-reserve-and-the-congress-of-the-united-states-remove-benjamin-franklin-s-portrait-from-the-one-hundred-dollar-bill

My dad went on a tirade about SJWs when he heard there are people out there who hate Ben

File: 1394047742586.jpg (192KB, 1024x896px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1024x896px

Right is right and left is wrong

>>1172060
>states rights

>>1172060
Listen m8, you're the one with the bullshit historical theories. The slaveowning class was destroyed by force, stop denying it. Yeah, there were other issues but the central dispute was over slavery, if you don't agree with that you really, really suck at history. Quickly, you can look at the platform of the Republican Party in 1860, the history of the Republican Party before then, the history of Lincoln's support for abolition and association with abolitionists, the previous several crises that nearly led to war over the issue of slavery, the founding documents of the CSA which mentioned slavery throughout, etc. It was about slavery, it was a social revolution.

>>1172063
It wasn't, there's a reason why monarchies failed throughout Europe continuously around the time of WW1. WW1 was transformative because it showed once and for all how incompetent, corrupt and backward the ruling classes of Europe were.

>>1172073
>Le tip

>>1171969
The NEP was a roaring success.

>>1172056
>>1172069
>>1172071
>owned slaves
>made it so only rich white men can vote
>deserves to be respected

sure, they made a pretty great political system, but people who make them out to be anything other than good political scientists/lawyers/generals/diplomats is out of their mind

>>1171735
Who dat?

>>1172088
Me pounding your mother was a roaring success until you were born.

NEP was never even fully implemented and if it was it would be a cyclopean failure like everything Lenin ever conceived.

>>1172092
The country was created by white men for white men. If you don't appreciate its founder there's an entire continent you can relocate to.

File: 1433598621219.jpg (119KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 500x378px

>>1172102
like the Red Army?

>>1172016
M8, hundreds of thousands of people died in the Civil War and just as many people lost their rights

File: bij_bolszewika.jpg (47KB, 551x730px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 551x730px

>>1172115
Red Army was shit until Stalin.

>>1172134
actually it was great, it fought a multi-front war defeating multiple opponents including western powers

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War

>>1172137
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War

>>1172106
"All men are created equal"

>Doesn't give all men equal rights, let alone women.

You can continue living with your ass-backwards beliefs. Of you can move to a whole different continent

>>1172179
All men are created equal and blacks were not considered men.

Leninists BTFO ITT

>>1172389
I don't think we read the same thread.