Lenin...

[Caid Ivik]

I can say this thread is especially pointed for EdricO and Earthnuker, our greatest marxist-socialists, which have adored russian leftist revolter and now the world's most famous mummy, Vladimir Iljic Uljanov, called Lenin, as the best show of communist, whose try to make a socialitstic paradise perished after his quick death and replacement by his "guardian", evil Stalin. So, what are the proves, that show Lenin's acts would really lead to what we call "communistic utopia"?

[The_Sadukar]

as for me I don't have any proof, but I just chose to belive in Lenin would have lead us to the communistic utopia if he had been in control for a while longer.

[Anathema]

First, I believe that Lenin at the very least intended to make a true communist society (notice deliberate dodge of the word nation).

Secondly, in the years after his death his succesor Stalin did realise a vast economic growth and the rise of a substantial industry, but this new wealth wasn't put to the good of the people, but went straight to the army. That is why people eventually lost faith in the communist party.

[Edric O]

Lenin was in power for only 6 years. That's less than many American presidents...

Actions speak louder than words. Lenin not only talked like a true communist, but his revolutionary measures and reforms showed him to be a true communist indeed. He gave the people everything he promised, and was under way to create a Communist Utopia, although that was still a VERY distant goal. There's no way to tell whether he would have made it to the end or not, but I believe he would have.

Stalin, for his part, was nothing more than a traitor of the communist cause. Almost anyone in the communist party would have made a better leader than that bloodthirsty maniac. In his final days, Lenin wrote a letter warning the party that "Stalin will lead the Soviet Union to ruin". Unfortunetaly for us all, Stalin's men intercepted the letter, and it was only revealed some 30 years later after Stalin's death...

[Anathema]

My point was, that it is possible to create a modern society with a proper infrastructure without capitalism. I agree with what you said about Stalin.

[The_Sadukar]

As do I.

[Caid Ivik]

"Oppressed society, which doesn't want to use weapons against oppressors, deserves its oppression." - Lenin

So, this is a true communism?

[Edric O]

What does that have to do with communism?

It simply says that if you are oppressed and you don't want freedom, then you should stay the way you are. Sounds fair to me.

[Egeides]

To the two communist-leninists: you believe in planned economy? Don't you think that a communism not based on planned economy would work better anyway? Planned economy brings bureaucratic super-structures which brings to concentrate the power of an entire state, brings every buraucracy's problem (corruption, slowwwww, inertia...).

How do you believe a planned economy may bring something else than Soviet Union? How?

[Caid Ivik]

Not only the way of making the socialism has to be violent, even the results aren't the best. Economy has proven it is best, when the government does NOTHING with that.

[Edric O]

Caid, isn't it funny how you argue here against using violence in the fight for freedom, yet at the same time you support the war in Iraq...

Speaking of violence, tell me, how exactly was modern democracy first established? By sending the all-powerful monarchs flowers and candy? No, by WAR and REVOLUTION.

As for capitalism leading to strong economies - oh, I have no doubt about that. Capitalism does lead to a powerful economy... by exploiting the poor and showing no mercy to the innocents who live in misery and die of starvation.

You want the government to do nothing that interferes with the economy? Then let me welcome you to Corporate Fascism, where corporations make the laws and you can either work for them as a worthless slave or die in poverty.

Egeides, I haven't quite made up my mind whether the kind of economy I believe in can be classified as "planned" or not. In any case, it's not "planned" in the Stalinist meaning of the word. (i.e. BADLY planned)

[Dude_Doc]

It would be better of course if corporations never had that kind of power. And I believe that wasn't their first plan.

[TMA_1]

notice that if you put a bunch of teens together, that they talk optimistically on serious subjects. They have the solution for many things they see as problems. They may even study what they look at as right.

If you stick a bunch of middle aged and older people together. You usually get a more realistic view on things. They have been through the world for a while, and understand the opinions they once had as children as silly. Not because the ideas were wrong, but because they dont work, and usually lead to even greater problems.

Look at Dune, paul knew the dangers of the future, the wars and murders that would be done in his name. He couldnt stop it. The fremen blindly followed him in fanatical optimism that they would be victorious. They finally recieved the things they wanted, and found them to be much worse than they could ever hope for.

Things arent as simple as childhood dreams.

[Egeides]

Still, there are also some things that were found during young years (let's say 12-30) and are kept thereafter. Many known persons say it's in their yound years they got the best ideas, probably because once they found a way they of course wont find also an opposite path and say both work.

[me=Egeides]is a little half-asleep.... so, sorry for being unclear[/me]

[Caid Ivik]

Caid, isn't it funny how you argue here against using violence in the fight for freedom, yet at the same time you support the war in Iraq...

Speaking of violence, tell me, how exactly was modern democracy first established? By sending the all-powerful monarchs flowers and candy? No, by WAR and REVOLUTION.

As for capitalism leading to strong economies - oh, I have no doubt about that. Capitalism does lead to a powerful economy... by exploiting the poor and showing no mercy to the innocents who live in misery and die of starvation.

You want the government to do nothing that interferes with the economy? Then let me welcome you to Corporate Fascism, where corporations make the laws and you can either work for them as a worthless slave or die in poverty.

He don't talk about just a violence. He talk about elimination of whole classes. Violental, brainwashing, oppressing. Don't make an analogy with Iraqi war. If Americans would bypass Basra and enslave its whole population, then it would be comparable. Also my ideology is against the violence, altough in some cases there have to be used force, but with caring for minimal losses of the innocents. Wars against monarchies (altough not everytime it was for good) were violent and destructive, because they were named as "class-fights". Problem of communism is, that there cannot be a real ideological opposition. There is impossible to live with capitalist thinkings (like self-responsibility or esthetism) in such state. It has to change your mind. In today's democracy you can do what you want. Nearly, but think you can about anything. Enjoy it, because if your revolution comes, then if you find it not a good idea, you won't be able to think about the previous state. THIS, where you live, is the freedom. Other way is oppression. Maybe for you not, but think about the others.

Corporate fascism is your antiutopical imagination. State isn't as economically strong as private properties, but still has the other powers. Human, who do nothing, I mean who don't WANT to do anything, shouldn't have same quality of life as hard-workers. Altough laws are still same for all. Common, communism is just for lazy ones - especially lazy by mind.

[Edric O]

LOL, every time TMA doesn't have something to contribute to a topic, he comes in and says that we're all idiots, but he's better because he sees his own idiocy... ROFLMAO. :)

You can keep your pessimism to yourself, TMA. I'd rather do something worthwhile with my life, than you very much.

Now, going back to the topic at hand:

He don't talk about just a violence. He talk about elimination of whole classes. Violental, brainwashing, oppressing. Don't make an analogy with Iraqi war. If Americans would bypass Basra and enslave its whole population, then it would be comparable.

Lenin was a bit too violent for my liking, true, but his ideas were sound. And how exactly were they any worse than your beloved "war of liberation"? Bush is doing the exact same thing: violently removing the ruling class. Except that Bush is doing this to the ruling class of another country, not his own.

Wars against monarchies (altough not everytime it was for good) were violent and destructive, because they were named as "class-fights". Problem of communism is, that there cannot be a real ideological opposition. There is impossible to live with capitalist thinkings (like self-responsibility or esthetism) in such state. It has to change your mind. In today's democracy you can do what you want. Nearly, but think you can about anything. Enjoy it, because if your revolution comes, then if you find it not a good idea, you won't be able to think about the previous state. THIS, where you live, is the freedom. Other way is oppression. Maybe for you not, but think about the others.

Now you are simply not making sense. How exactly is opposition "impossible" in communism? You can think and believe in anything you like. You can refuse to participate in the system, just like some people do with capitalism (i.e. they go somewhere where they can live by themselves and be self-sufficient). Since it will be a communist democracy, you will enjoy the same civil rights and freedoms as you are now, if not more. So what is the problem again?

Human, who do nothing, I mean who don't WANT to do anything, shouldn't have same quality of life as hard-workers.

Of course. That's part of the core principles of communism. But those people are very, very rare, and most of them suffer from some sort of mental problem.

Common, communism is just for lazy ones - especially lazy by mind.

Now you're getting pathetic, not to mention being utterly hypocritical. Capitalism equals natural selection. Survival of the fittest. Not the most hard-working, or the most worthy, but the one who can betray, steal and enslave others better. Communism equals brotherhood and compassion.

Capitalism makes us nothing more than animals, while communism sets us apart as human beings.

[SurlyPIG]

Lenin was scarcely better than Stalin and certainly worse than several of the tsars. He was a total hypocrit; the system he revolted against was almost identical to the one he established after it. The only major differences between tsarism and communism were monarchistic power vs single-party power and better planning on part of the communists. He loathed the totalitarian rule of the tsars but he was no better. His very first week as leader he slaughtered the Romanov family including a deathly-sick pre-teen boy and a six-year-old girl. He wasn't a marxist either because he believed in revolution; on of the key points in marxism was that it would occur naturally and that there would be no need for violence to implement it.

In short, the only difference between him and the tsars was that he wasn't a Romanov. Though I do agree that Stalin was FAR worse.

PS : Does anyone else notice how much he looks like Yuri in that photo?

[TMA_1]

huh? all you did was bash me edric. Not only that, you have not pointed out the truth that the politics you wish to spread have never been in true use. All you have is educated guesses how well it would work. Sure there have been small groups that have catered to that, but they held the same virtues and concepts. They were a c"ommunity". A nation isnt though. You say a lot of nice things, but how do you know those nice things will work?

[Edric O]

Hmmm, you might have good points there, Ace. I have to admit that I need to look more into this. Lenin was certainly the violent type - the question is whether or not that violence was necessary at the time.

But like I said, I need to look more into this.

TMA:

huh? all you did was bash me edric.

Precisely. Because that is also what you did.

Not only that, you have not pointed out the truth that the politics you wish to spread have never been in true use. All you have is educated guesses how well it would work. Sure there have been small groups that have catered to that, but they held the same virtues and concepts. They were a "community". A nation isnt though. You say a lot of nice things, but how do you know those nice things will work?

Ask that question to George Washington and the rest of your founding fathers. The exact same thing applies to what they tried to do - implementing a new and revolutionary system that had never been tried in practice before.

[TMA_1]

does that mean the ideas you and other people have will work? Who says that america is revolutionary? There is no such thing, we just took ideas from other people. We were founded on the enlightenment, full of idealism and all that fluff. I dont think it works too well either. If you lived in america and knew of the curruption that a republic or democracy grew, then you would understand.

[Egeides]

TMA: Corruption that you see in a democracy or republic is probably lower than what it is in a monarchy or any system that is more oppressive and regulates less by law. The Middle Ages were known as an age where people were afraid to go out at night, where there were pick-pockets, etc. (Ok, there weren't only bad stuff, but these things existed).

About ideas, I think that any idea is a first pace to do something, should it be leninism, social democracies or anything. Democracies, before, were also only ideas in the times of monarchies.

[nemafakei]

TMA, change will always occur - and those who instigate such change must form their ideas somehow.

Beware as much the illusion of impotence as the illusion of capability.

[Anathema]

In America at the time of the independence war, there was relatively little poverty and it was mainly the middle class that stould up for their rights. There weren't any social changes or anything, so the independence war was sort of a conservative revolution lol.

[TMA_1]

true nema, but many ideas that seemed plausable to people have failed. Some things that we dream of cannot come to be. You are right in focusing on the outcome of what a nation does and not what it is in character. But wouldnt the character of a nation change it's resultant standards of politics? There is always change, but shouldnt we stop change that is dangerous? I dont know what would come of edrics ideas if they were put in place, but I do know that mankind is an inharently evil force. The bad outcome (in my opinion) would not be because of edric's idea, but people who enforce the sort of government he is talking about. The way a nation changes will alter it's capabilities. Either for good or bad. My philisophical views on mankind tell me that it is impossible and too idealistic for it to work.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I thought that stalin was a good leader in some areas. There was less analphabetism in Soviet during his rule and afterwards. He helped to defeat the worst enemy of humanity ever, Adolf Hitler, and most of the most known communist leaders were "evil" if that is what you say stalin was. examples are Mao and Lenin, as someone else said Lenin was not much better than Stalin.