all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

How much of this was Lenin as opposed to Stalin? Usually the defense I see is that Stalin did all the bad stuff but Lenin and Marx had great ideas.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago

    Marx had great ideas, and died long before the Russian Revolution occurred.

    Lenin was fond of contradicting himself in the pursuit of power for the Bolshevik Party. He couped a democratic socialist government and kickstarted a civil war, and then implemented a deeply repressive authoritarian state with precious little in the way of "workers' rights" or "political freedoms".

    Stalin was a paranoid lunatic who made the political prisoner system into a resource for mass slave labor with high mortality rates. Not to mention worsening every issue under the sun during his regime - from the right to quit one's job (very bourgeois, comrade, wanting to control your own labor!) to collectivization of farms to the bureaucratic mess that was Stalinist-era requisitions to public infrastructure. Oh, and he also performed multiple genocides and massacres, allied with the Nazis to invade Poland and the Baltic States, and supplied the Nazi regime with war materiel for the first two years of WW2.

  • source
  • parent
  • 57 comments in c/historymemes@piefed.social view that post
    [–] 58 points 8 months ago (44 children)

    Low estimates are nine million dead and the high estimates are that he killed thirty million of his citizens.

  • source
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    Western propaganda! TO THE GULAGS WITH YOU.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 8 months ago (16 children)

    Oh never mind Stalin was nine to thirty million dead Lenin was only four to fourteen million.

    I keep confusing these mass murdering communist heads of state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago* (6 children)

    Okay Stalin was just a dipshit but most people you're counting against Lenin died in circumstances legitimately out of his control (the civil war and the famine resulting thereof). He was still a dipshit, but not a mass murdering dipshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 10 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    I mean, I don't know how much blame I'd ascribe to Lenin, but his 'war communism' policy was very much a contributor to the famine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    I mean true but save for some weird decisions (something something bag men) that strictly goes under the war part; I can forgive the Bolsheviks for not pulling punches while fighting literal fascists, and they did address the problem as soon as they knew about it. War communism didn't need to be as brutal or as far-reaching as it was, but for the most part it was an acceptable play in a terrible situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (3 children)

    The famine in question (early '20s, not the later famine that resulted from de-kulakization) was made much worse because Lenin kept exporting food during it. The Bolsheviks did this because it was their only source of the foreign credit they needed to buy the machine tools and whatnot they needed to ramp up their industrial sector. I wouldn't call that "war communism", just straight "communism" as per Marx they felt industrialization was everything.

    Interestingly, the only reason the death toll from this earlier famine wasn't even larger was that Herbert Hoover (of all people) organized an international relief effort that at one point was feeding about 10% of the USSR. When the agricultural situation improved, the Bolsheviks neglected to tell Hoover.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    The famine in question (early ‘20s, not the later famine that resulted from de-kulakization) was made much worse because Lenin kept exporting food during it. The Bolsheviks did this because it was their only source of the foreign credit they needed to buy the machine tools and whatnot they needed to ramp up their industrial sector.

    I really think you're mixing up the famines. Export of food to acquire industrial capital was a major motivation during the Holodomor. During the Russian Civil War, the motivation was to keep the Red Army fed and in the field without having to make concessions to the peasants, independent regions, or demobilizing any troops.

    I wouldn’t call that “war communism”, just straight “communism” as per Marx they felt industrialization was everything.

    War Communism is a reference to a specific set of policies adopted during the Russian Civil War.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    I really think you’re mixing up the famines.

    I'm not mixing up the famines. During both famines the USSR was using agricultural products (their only significant export) to acquire industrial capital. The reason I'm talking about the first famine is that we're talking about Lenin here, who was long dead by the second famine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 3 points 8 months ago

    To my knowledge, grain export was not a major contributor to the first famine, especially since the Allied blockade wasn't even lifted until the famine was already underway. Even as late as 1923 Soviet imports of food was considerable (and much of the remainder being consumer goods and raw materials, not industrial machinery) with industrialization not being emphasized until the 14th Party Congress in late 1925.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    But Lenin has a fancy sarcophagus so he gets a free pass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    It's ironic that you say "sarcophagus" because the only reason Lenin was mummified was that King Tut's tomb had been discovered just before his death. Pravda had covered the discovery extensively and the Bolsheviks decided to capitalize on Tut's popularity by preserving Lenin's corpse -- in hilariously amateurish fashion, since mummification was not something regularly done in Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Bro, I mix them up too. Don't worry. I know that Lenin came first and that he didn't want Stalin to take over after him because he was too radical or something. But saying no to Stalin is like saying no to Putin. The word doesn't exist to them. But when it comes to numbers and statistics of who did what, I fuck it up constantly. I'm also not at all super knowledgeable about Russian history. Had a brief obsession with the Romanov dynasty, which is its own can of fucked up worms, but when it comes to communism, it's just so uniquely awful and demotivating to hear and read about that I tune out. Communism to my brain, is the gray apartment blocks where everything looks the same and there is no life and beauty anywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago (15 children)

    What are you referencing? Even in the most anti communist historical interpretations the vast amount of deaths are usually attributed to Stalin, not Lenin.

    If we're talking about the holodomor..... That began in 1932, roughly 8 years after Lenin had already died.

    I'm not claiming that there aren't any valid criticisms of the Russian revolution, however I think attributing all that criticism to Lenin is just historically inaccurate.

    We also have to view history within the context of their own time when evaluating things like social morality. Was the Soviet revolution devoid of crimes against humanity, no. But I think it would be hard to argue that it wasn't a vast improvement compared to the literal tyrannical rule of the Romanov family.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    First of all, I don't really know of anyone calling Konstadt rebellion to be led by anarchist. They were ardent communist who became disillusioned over time due to poor working conditions.

    Secondly, out of the 15k men who held the fort, it's thought that around 10k escaped to Finland during the fighting, all while killing around 10k soldiers of the red army.

    I don't really think this really fits within the scope of the argument that Lenin murdered 9 million people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Demands of the Kronstadt Rebellion

    1. In view of the fact that the present soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, immediately to hold new elections by secret ballot, with freedom to carry on agitation beforehand for all workers and peasants. 2. To give freedom of speech and press to workers and peasants, to anarchists and left socialist parties. 3. To secure freedom of assembly for trade unions and peasant organisations. 4. To call a non-party conference of the workers, Red Army soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and Petrograd province, no later than 10 March 1921. 5. To liberate all political prisoners of socialist parties, as well as workers, peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with the labour and peasant movements. 6. To elect a commission to review the cases of those being held in prisons and concentration camps. 7. To abolish all political departments, since no party should be given special privileges in the propagation of its ideas or receive the financial support of the state for such purposes. Instead, cultural and educational commissions should be established, locally elected and financed by the State. 8. To remove all road block detachments immediately. 9. To equalise the rations of all working people, with the exception of those employed in trades detrimental to health. 10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all branches of the army, as well as the Communist guards kept on duty in factories and mills. Should such guard attachments be found necessary, they are to be appointed in the army from the ranks and in the factories and mills at the discretion of the workers. 11. To give peasants full freedom of action in regard to the land, and also the right to keep cattle, on condition that the peasants manage with their own means, that is, without employing hired labour. 12. To request all branches of the army, as well as our comrades the military cadets, to endorse our resolution. 13. To demand that the press give all our resolutions wide publicity. 14. To appoint an itinerant bureau of control. 15. To permit free handicraft production by one's own labour.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    First of all, I don’t really know of anyone calling Konstadt rebellion to be led by anarchist. They were ardent communist who became disillusioned over time due to poor working conditions.

    ... would you like to remind me what the second point in the demands made by the sailors was?

    Secondly, out of the 15k men who held the fort, it’s thought that around 10k escaped to Finland during the fighting, all while killing around 10k soldiers of the red army.

    Fucking what

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    would you like to remind me what the second point in the demands made by the sailors was?

    Demanding freedom of speech doesn't really make you an anarchist?

    Fucking what

    "Both sides suffered casualties on par with the civil war's deadliest battles. The American consulate at Vyborg estimated 10,000 Bolsheviks dead, wounded, or missing, including 15 Congress delegates. Finland asked Russia to remove the bodies on the ice, fearing a public health hazard after the thaw. There are no reliable reports for rebel deaths, but one report estimated 600 dead, 1,000 wounded, and 2,500 imprisoned".....Faced with the prospect of summary executions, about 8,000 Kronstadt refugees (mostly soldiers)[200] crossed into Finland within a day of Kronstadt's fall, about half of the rebel forces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Hey, I'm gonna be real with you, yeah? The 1917 Revolution wasn't just the Bolsheviks' doing, y'know? Loads of groups had a part in it. But the Bolsheviks took advantage of the whole situation to impose their own structure. And when anyone didn't see things their way, they had no problem killing 'em, just so no one would question their ideas.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Demanding freedom of speech doesn’t really make you an anarchist?

    I wonder why they were demanding freedom of speech for, specifically, left-socialist and anarchist groups?

    They must have mentioned them for no particular reason. /s

    Both sides suffered casualties on par with the civil war’s deadliest battles. The American consulate at Vyborg estimated 10,000 Bolsheviks dead, wounded, or missing, including 15 Congress delegates.

    1. That number offered by the American consulate isn't backed by Soviet archives, which cites ~3,400 dead of their own.

    2. "Dead or wounded" is a much broader category than "Dead"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I wonder why they were demanding freedom of speech for, specifically, left-socialist and anarchist groups?

    and...... Meaning they weren't a commune of just anarchist. Just a year before they were all congratulated by Trotsky himself for being such ardent communist. As I said in the first place they were disgruntled with the system, but that doesn't automatically make it an anarchist rebellion. No one claimed there weren't anarchist among them.... It was the early 1900s in Russia, you couldn't throw a stone without hitting an anarchist.

    isn't backed by Soviet archives, which cites ~3,400 dead of their own.

    Ahh yes, the soviet's.... Famous for accurately archiving their casualties......

    Dead or wounded" is a much broader category than "Dead"

    And this is the reason for your dramatic rebuttal, or are we just being pedantic now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 3 points 8 months ago

    and…… Meaning they weren’t a commune of just anarchist. Just a year before they were all congratulated by Trotsky himself for being such ardent communist. As I said in the first place they were disgruntled with the system, but that doesn’t automatically make it an anarchist rebellion. No one claimed there weren’t anarchist among them…. It was the early 1900s in Russia, you couldn’t throw a stone without hitting an anarchist.

    This you, buddy?

    First of all, I don’t really know of anyone calling Konstadt rebellion to be led by anarchist. They were ardent communist who became disillusioned over time due to poor working conditions.

    Ahh yes, the soviet’s…. Famous for accurately archiving their casualties……

    Oh, is that where we're at? Other than the speculations of the American embassy at the time, which would not have had much access to sources beyond the talk circulating amongst mid-level Soviet officials, who were unlikely to have been exceptionally loose-lipped around the Americans, whose numbers are we relying on now?

    And this is the reason for your dramatic rebuttal, or are we just being pedantic now?

    "Wow, you really think it's IMPORTANT that I tripled the number of dead???"

    Yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    The minute Lenin took power there was a food crisis in Russia and arranged for every scrap of grain taken from Ukraine. A series events unfolded over the coming years that would ultimately lead to the Holodomor under Stalin much later. It’s a long and complex tale that I’m sure some believe is fake news.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    The Holodomor is only related to Lenin insofar as the system Lenin established with 'war communism' was not agriculturally robust, and the backpedaling of the NEP didn't outlast him.

    All the major factors of it - the mass collectivization, the export of food from starving regions, the export of food from the Soviet Union itself, the deportation of 'kulaks' to Siberia, etc etc etc, were all Stalinist initiatives. Maybe you could argue that if Lenin had legitimately improved Soviet agriculture it wouldn't have happened, but other than that, I don't know that there's a strong argument for putting Lenin - shithead though he was - in with the causes of the Holodomor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Lenin sent Stalin to Ukraine to do what was necessary to get the grain. Unless I’m misremembering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I think your timeline is a little mixed up. To my memory Stalin wasn't involved with Ukraine at all (except passing through when he had his taste of military service against the Poles) during Lenin's lifetime. That was like, 1921 or so. Stalin was a bit-player at the time. Lenin died in 1924.

    The Holodomor happened around 1932.

    Lenin did cause food shortages by grain seizures, but, again, to my memory, Stalin was not a key part of that. And Lenin's grain seizures weren't focused on Ukraine, nor as idiotic and arbitrary as Stalin's. Just callous, feeding the Red Army during the Russian Civil War at the expense of the starvation of workers and peasants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    It’s possible, it’s been a good few years since I read up on it all.

    I’ve got a copy of Red Famine on my nightstand so might give it a go again.

    What my intention was to say though was that Lenin’s hands certainly weren’t clean in Ukraine and that the famines started early and lead up to Holodomor, started with Lenin as a result of his choices for the fledging Soviet and continued with Stalin with his hatred of Ukraine.

  • source
  • parent
  • The Russian famine of 1921 was largely due to a drought combined with the aftermath of WW1 and the Russian revolution. You could argue that Lenin's policies didn't effectively combat the famine, but I think it would be hard to argue that he instigated it. Also, I think you are misremembering the timeline of the soviet's impact on Ukraine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Churchill starved 4 million Bengali to death.

    And the high estimates of excessive deaths in British occupied India is 100 mil?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    So because British imperialism was bad, mass death in the Soviet Union was okay?

    It seems like you're learning the wrong lessons from history...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    It’s that same style whataboutism that Trumpers love to do: “what about Biden?” It’s fucking annoying and I hate Joe Biden. When your only argument is pointing to what someone else did, you don’t really have an argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago

    Primus~ "You shot my wife! You bastard"

    Secundus~ "But she murdered an entire city block, she's a monster!"

    Primus~ "Whataboutism! You are just like a Trumper."

    Secundus~ "You got me, I apologize."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago

    Countdown to a brigade of triggered tankies:

    3... 2... Oh wait, this is piefed

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    haha certain persons cof cof... ml... cof cof.. 'll have a brain bleeding

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    People who think Bernie Sanders is right-wing hate this post

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    So piefed is like entirely anti communist?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I'm anti-bolshevik, not anti-communist.

    If you think disdain for dictators who overthrow democratically elected socialist governments is anti-communist, that's a you problem, man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Leninism, stalinism and Maoism leads straight to fascism - historically speaking.

    But communism is a destination - not a journey, damnit. Those ideologies merely suppose how you reach that destination, and as you can see they do not...

    ...because they lead to fascism.

    A centralized committee?! A one party system?!?! No, mon signor. No bueno. That's centralization of power. It's power to the people, not some git in a suit spewing sweet nothings.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Did you mix up Lenin and Stalin? Weird to see shade thrown at Lenin, spose Marx and Engels were also mass murdering criminals?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 14 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Lenin couped a democratic socialist government, started a 4-year long civil war in the process, implemented mass imprisonment of political dissidents, suppressed workers' rights and freedoms, and attempted to wage wars of aggresion against neighboring states, including crushing the anarchists of Ukraine.

    Lenin has a better reputation, and legitimately is not as bad as Stalin... but Lenin is still fucking horrible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Admittedly a lot of my surface knowledge of the character comes from Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast and he paints a more nuanced picture of Lenin than just 'gross war criminal'. I think focusing on just his failures and crimes does a disservice to history tbh, I don't hate your meme I just think Stalin fits better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment