Lenin

95 comments

Lenin himself wasn't the problem and the Statures for him are usually for being a Revolutionary and removing the Tzar.
Stalin was the actual problem.
- Let's be honest. Lenin is the problem. Karl Marx was a philosopher who spoke with a lot of figurative language. Which Lenin treated as all literal dogma. And I am here to tell you taking figurative work literally is one of the worst decisions you can make. Just like evangelicals who take the bible literally. When it isn't even a coherent work of fiction. Let alone a solid system of rule and law.
  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. As can be clearly seen in every major country that has tried Lenin's blind ideology. (Cuba had some special circumstances that kept it from spiraling as fast as the others. Plus Venezuela is still a bit early to call. But likely will get there) Or pretty much every major capitalist nation as well. With Lenin as the lynchpin consistently making bad decisions. (Stalin) I think it's probably safe to say he had good intentions. But was far out of his depth and it showed.
  And I'm not some liberal, or fascist critiquing from the right. Just a pro social democracy slightly libertarian leaning socialist.
  
  He wasn't the coolest or nicest person, but definitely better than the Tzars, under him Russia had its best years.
- Lenin was a counterrevolutionary that brutally suppressed any dissent and directly placed Stalin (being well aware of what a person he was) in a position that would make his later takeover possible.
  
  Lenin did not place Stalin, stalin took over. Other than that, yes.

You're showing statues of Lenin in countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure.
When Lenin took power, Russia had nothing. It was in the middle of WW1, there were regular famines, almost everyone was illiterate, and it was in no condition to establish a socialist economic plan. So, Lenin created a temporary economic model called The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is a centrally planned economy designed to rapidly develop infrastructure and industry in a country that has none. Lenin was already ceding power to the worker's councils when he died. Stalin decided he liked The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and did not cede power back to the worker's councils.
Those countries never experienced Communism. They never even experienced socialism. They destroyed those statues because they hated The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Living in a system designed for a short temporary economic boom for decades is no fun.
- So-called "dictatorship of proletariat" was simply a terror. Lots of philosophers and religious elite was killed just because they weren't compatible with communist ideology. Rich peasants who didn't even use others labor were either robbed or killed. Peasants lost their land and had to work for the country. People got killed just because some anonyms told they did something bad. I know this because it happened to my ancestors. My grand-grandfather lost his house, communists left only one room for his family. His friends, all good people, dissapeared. His daughters never played with neighbor's kids because of fear. My other grand-grandfather lost land and two horses. His brother was killed for not agreeing to give away his house. And my another grand-grandfather was killed because an anonymous letter. He was communist and thought he was safe as he did nothing wrong. His kids couldn't get education because they were "children of the enemy of the people". Much later my grandfather got a paper concluding that execution of his father was a mistake. It was horrible time, and lots of people thought the ones who were killed were "pests" or "enemies of the people", so killing them was good and beneficial for the society.
- countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure
  Oh, so like every single other place that tried to implement that deranged system? Thank you for this very important distinction.
  
  It's so very capitalist to look at failed attempts to escape capitalism which were sabotaged by capitalists as indication that the need to rebel is the problem.
  
  What about all these capitalist places that fell into fascism? What about the successful capitalist states that are currently falling into fascism?

Technically, none of these countries experienced "communism". They experienced tankie-led hell holes. Never trust a tankie. They'll ally with you to fight for "the people" and then stab you in the back when they get a taste of power and don't need you anymore.

Yup, countries run by fascists hate communism.
- Russia seems fine with it though
  
  75% of Russians have expressed increasingly positive opinions about the Soviet Union over the years. Only a small portion of those surveyed said they had negative associations with the Soviet Union. The economic deficit, long lines and coupons were named by 4% of respondents each, while the Iron Curtain, economic stagnation and political repressions were named by 1% each, the Levada Center said.
  
  But I'm sure it's because it's aCkhUaLly fAscIsT

People in the comments with a completely fictionalized idea of Lenin as some kind of libertarian hippie who hated Stalin's "authoritarianism" vs people in the comments with a completely fictionalized idea of Lenin as a "counterrevolutionary" (lol) or despot

This statue in Poland was few weeks long artist performance made few years ago near place, where Lenin's statue standed in Nowa Huta until 1989.

The photo of the USA Lenin statue isn't accurate. It resides in the Fremont neighborhood in Seattle, where it frequently has its hands and body splashed with red paint to represent the blood on Lenin's hands.
Just do an image search for it or check it out on google maps streetview.

France never experienced communism?
- Communists took part in a few governmental coalitions, but France never experienced communism.
  
  Not the whole France, but Paris certainly did in 1871.

Wtf I love capitalism now

Ackshully...

None of the lower countries had communism.
- Technically correct. They were under Stalins Marxism-Leninism, which was supposed to be a placeholder until true communism could be implemented.
  But it's a bit disingenuous to split that hair in this thread. The irony being that the latter are all countries that got to experience the kind of gouvernemental structure that Lenin facilitated.
- You can argue if they had sunshine scenario communism all day, but they certainly was under the oppressive thumb of USSR.
  
  Do not feed the troll. Strange fellas, lying on the internet, arbitrarily defining communism to suit their rose-colored ideology is no basis for a system of debate.
  True debate stems from a knowledge of history, past events and conditions that led to them, not some farcical comment (as the one you are replying to).
  If I went around in communist times claiming I knew what Marxism-Leninism was just because I read a manifesto, they'd send the secret police after me.
  
  I didn't say anything about communism being good or bad there, just that none of those countries ever lived under communism.
- True Communism is impossible to sustain in the real world. it requires someone unimpeachable at its head. It affords too much power and no accountability to those in charge. Even if it were to start out well, sooner or later corruption would seep in. Communism is impossible while human greed exists
  
  Capitalism is impossible to sustain in the real world. It's literally killing the planet which will result in the extinction of the human race.
  
  There would be no one "in charge". Communism and anarchy go hand in hand.
  human greed
  This is the lie that we have been fed all of our lives under capitalism. It's so ingrained in us that some of us can't even imagine a world of helping each other thrive instead of exploiting each other.
  
  The main issue with words like "socialism" and "communism" is that the definition of those words depends entirely on personal political biases, and most people unaware of this assume their personal definition is the same definition used by the person they're arguing with. The word "socialism" was in use even prior to Marx and has many definitions, and "Communism" is an ideal rather than an explicit governmental structure. That being the case, the word socialism can be understood to mean "the government acts in the interest of average people rather than solely for its ruling class," "workers themselves own the means of production rather than individuals or institutions," or "there should be some kind of welfare state." Communism can be understood to mean "a series of self-governing autonomous communities in the absence of social or economic hierarchy of any kind," "A marxist-leninist inspired system of state centralization which ostensibly governs on behalf of the people," or "any authoritarianism of any kind taking place at any point in history."
  All this is to say if you find yourself feeling strongly for or against "socialism" or "communism" and are in conversation with someone with the opposite perspective of that term, try to establish a mutual understanding of what is being disagreed upon before engaging. For example, I agree that any system which lacks checks on leadership (or strongly depends on leadership in general) has fundamental issues but I am still sympathetic to socialism, communism, and anarchism which are ideals which have not yet been achieved sustainably or meaningfully.