Was Lenin "evil"?

[liefwarrior]

Recently several of my friends covered the Russian Revolution and ensuing Civil War in their History class. From what I have heard their teacher seems to be deeply anti-communist and they have come out of it declaring the Lenin was an amoral tyrant. I happen to disagree with what they have said, and so set about arguing with them over it. Now I have come here, both for assistance & to find what the general consensus on Lenin is.

From the start we are going to be using the criteria provided by those who have proposed the idea of Lenin as "bad".

• Their first issue is the dissolution of the Russian Constituent Assembly. They claim that this shows Lenin was opposed to democracy.
• Their second issue is the Red Terror. They claim that this shows Lenin was tyrannical.
• Their third issue is the Povolzhye famine, they claim that this was a result of the economic policies Lenin introduced (he was "stealing the farmer's food"...). Supposedly this shows that Lenin had poor economic policy and did not improve the lives of the common person.

From this we can gather an idea of what they define as a 'bad leader'. There are two things I want to know: if you believe that their analysis of their examples is correct and if there are other examples of Lenin being a 'bad leader'.

 

[BBBD316]

Was any political leader good?

 

[Vincentst]

I'm a history teacher in Belgium and here is what we say about Lenin:

- He was a revolutionary and as such opposed to democracy. Leninism proposes a "ruling group" of professional revolutionaries because he believed the workers could not be relied upon to make the right choices (in short => voting for him). Why was this: repression and "superstition" religion. His group of professional revolutionaries had to lead the way.
Does this make Lenin bad? I think not. Lets not forget that he was living in a quasi-absolutist totalitarian tsarist state. Democracy did not exist in Russia as such and so it is logical that Lenin was not a fullblooded democrat.

- His economic policies were disastrous. But this is also due to the fact that WW I was going on, followed by the Civil War and a war against Poland. War ruins economy. And to his advantage, he tried to better the economy with his NEP.

In short: Lenin is a highly controversial figure. Not only because of his life, but what happened after he died (stalinism, ...). So it is very difficult to get a balanced picture of the guy. And people tend to forget that he was a man of his age. You mentioned the Red Terror. Off course this was very bad and should not be erased from memory. But at the same time, the Whites were doing the same...

 

[pithorr]

Lenin spoiled marxism and led it to the dreadful direction. He was a pure evil.*

*) I'm in a loupist mode today.

 

[Dina1954]

Lenin spoiled marxism and led it to the dreadful direction. He was a pure evil.*

*) I'm in a loupist mode today.

Agree but Stalin and Beria was more evil.

 

[Tyon]

Whether Lenin was good or bad entirely depends on which side of the Cheka rifles you were.

 

[Klausewitz]

- He was a revolutionary and as such opposed to democracy.

Hundreds of thousands of revolutionaries who tried to built democracies in their countries and died for their troubles would like a word with you.

 

[Captain Frakas]

He was a revolutionary but was opposed to democracy (he crushed soviets) is closer to reality than "he was a revolutionary and as such was opposed to democracy" which have no sense.

 

[Pyoro]

"Evil" is such a loaded word. He did evil things, but I don't think he was evil in the sense that his motivation was evil. He thought that what he did was necessary to make it to the promised end-goal, a true communist state where everyone was happy, basically.

Which of course shows again that often the worst things are done with the best intentions, but morally I wouldn't call him evil for that. Growing up in the Russia of that time I can certainly understand the need to believe in some sort of ultimate solution to make it "to the promised land". Leninism just is his replacement religion.

Hundreds of thousands of revolutionaries who tried to built democracies in their countries and died for their troubles would like a word with you.

It's rarely the "first wave" of revolutionaries who make it there, though. They tend to be too radicalized to actually go for a democracy even if they win. But, yeah, your point is of course true.

 

[pithorr]

Whether Lenin was good or bad entirely depends on which side of the Cheka rifles you were.

You probably mistook Lenin with Feliks Edmundowicz

 

[Tyon]

You probably mistook Lenin with Feliks Edmundowicz

No why? Lenin signed the decree to form the Cheka. Doesn't matter whether he ran the daily business of the Cheka.

Just imagine for a second if I were to make this distinction on certain Nazi Organisations.

 

[pithorr]

No why? Lenin signed the decree to form the Cheka. Doesn't matter whether he ran the daily business of the Cheka.

Just imagine for a second if I were to make this distinction on certain Nazi Organisations.

OK, he did indeed.

 

[Vincentst]

Hundreds of thousands of revolutionaries who tried to built democracies in their countries and died for their troubles would like a word with you.

You misunderstood me. I did not intend that a revolutionary is necessarily anti-democratic. I used the word in a way Lenin used the word. He called himself a revolutionary because he thought that his objectives could never succeed in a democracy. I used the word in the leninist meaning. But you are right that I forgot to mention that.

 

[bitmapmedivh]

"Evil" is such a loaded word. He did evil things, but I don't think he was evil in the sense that his motivation was evil. He thought that what he did was necessary to make it to the promised end-goal

This describes basically every political leader ever. Very few people have truly evil motivations or think of themselves as being evil. And even those with objectively evil motivations are able to rationalise those motivations as being in service of a greater good.

Lenin was an evil, power hungry bastard in every sense of the word.

 

[Denkt]

Lenin was a revolutionary which meant he greatly changed the society he eventually lead. For a bunch of people Lenin was really bad for another bunch of people Lenin was really good.

Was any political leader good?

If a leader is good or bad is quite arbitrary and depend on your moral view.

 

[cacra]

I think you are really missing the point in asking whether he was evil. He was not, the man was so deluded he genuinely believed in what he was doing. I don't think the famines were planned (although anyone with a undergraduate level understanding of economics could have predicted them) but we shouldn't judge him on what he intended to do, we should judge him on what he did do - and he did do an immense amount of evil to his fellow man.

 

[Cavalry]

From the start we are going to be using the criteria provided by those who have proposed the idea of Lenin as "bad".

• Their first issue is the dissolution of the Russian Constituent Assembly. They claim that this shows Lenin was opposed to democracy.
• Their second issue is the Red Terror. They claim that this shows Lenin was tyrannical.
• Their third issue is the Povolzhye famine, they claim that this was a result of the economic policies Lenin introduced (he was "stealing the farmer's food"...). Supposedly this shows that Lenin had poor economic policy and did not improve the lives of the common person.'.

well, that's the difference between a teacher and a revolution leader!
At least Lenin promised "Peace, Land and Bread" and he gave it! The opposed leaders at the time only promised you a better life in the heaven!

On the democracy, all the good revolutions or even democracy in war use "dictatorship" or die very soon, Caesar, France, England... etc. The counter-revolution forces use dictatorship measure anyway!

Paris Commune is an example of too much, too early of democracy! No wonder why it died fast!

 

[Eusebio]

The myth of Lenin as a vanguardist totalitarian is far from the truth, but as he oversaw the destruction of Soviet democracy, yes, I would say bad or "evil".

 

[CruelDwarf]

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.

 

[AvatarOfKhaine]

I'm a history teacher in Belgium and here is what we say about Lenin:

- He was a revolutionary and as such opposed to democracy. Leninism proposes a "ruling group" of professional revolutionaries because he believed the workers could not be relied upon to make the right choices (in short => voting for him). Why was this: repression and "superstition" religion. His group of professional revolutionaries had to lead the way.
Does this make Lenin bad? I think not. Lets not forget that he was living in a quasi-absolutist totalitarian tsarist state. Democracy did not exist in Russia as such and so it is logical that Lenin was not a fullblooded democrat.

- His economic policies were disastrous. But this is also due to the fact that WW I was going on, followed by the Civil War and a war against Poland. War ruins economy. And to his advantage, he tried to better the economy with his NEP.

In short: Lenin is a highly controversial figure. Not only because of his life, but what happened after he died (stalinism, ...). So it is very difficult to get a balanced picture of the guy. And people tend to forget that he was a man of his age. You mentioned the Red Terror. Off course this was very bad and should not be erased from memory. But at the same time, the Whites were doing the same...

Did the Whites really pursue an equivalent to "War Communism"?, everything about that policy was far worse than the Whites from what I've read.

Let's also not forget many of the Leninists of the time, and figures such as Trotsky massively opposed the end of War Communism and the introduction of the NEP so that move seems to not be part of "Leninism" but more part of relenting to pressure.