Did Lenin improve Russia a lot?

[Babur]

Nah, Lenin improved Russia a lot.

Did he really however?

I would argue that his interpretation of Marxism was certainly unorthodox.He claimed that the peasants could play a junior role to the Proletariat in a Communist revolution.Marx himself was rather disparaging towards the peasantry but had to modify his views because of Russians backwardness compared to the industrial economies of Britain,France and Germany:

2) From the historical point of view the only serious argument put forward in favour of the fatal dissolution of the Russian peasants’ commune is this: By going back a long way communal property of a more or less archaic type may be found throughout Western Europe; everywhere it has disappeared with increasing social progress. Why should it be able to escape the same fate in Russia alone? I reply: because in Russia, thanks to a unique combination of circumstances, the rural commune, still established on a nationwide scale, may gradually detach itself from its primitive features and develop directly as an element of collective production on a nationwide scale. It is precisely thanks to its contemporaneity with capitalist production that it may appropriate the latter’s positive acquisitions without experiencing all its frightful misfortunes. Russia does not live in isolation from the modern world; neither is it the prey of a foreign invader like the East Indies.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...s/53_04_12.htm



Marx also argued that Workers would break their chains of oppression while it is clear that during the duration of the Soviet Union those chains remained far from broken.Lenin was brutal as is evident in this infamous telegram sent by him:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hanging Order

11-8-18


Send to Penza
To Comrades Kuraev,
Bosh, Minkin and
other Penza
communists

Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volost's must be suppressed
without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this,
because we have now before us our final decisive battle "with the
kulaks." We need to set an example.

1) You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public
sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the
bloodsuckers.
2) Publish their names.
3) Take away all of their grain.
4) Execute the hostages - in accordance with yesterday's
telegram.

This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for
hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out:
let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks.

Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this.

Yours, Lenin

P.S. Use your toughest people for this.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ad2kulak.html

[Trax]

Russian economy was doing really well before the war.
Without the war Lenin and his kind would never had any chance whatsoever.

[Babur]

Russian economy was doing really well before the war.
Without the war Lenin and his kind would never had any chance whatsoever.

well Stolypin's reforms may have achieved real progress had he not been assassinated

Lenin realized the problem of Russia becoming Communist. He realized that it first needed to fully industrialize by implementing a form of Capitalism, the NEP. Whilst it was quite effective, I'm not sure that it changed ''a lot''.

The NEP however was introduced in reaction to the unpopularity of War Communism which was argued to be a necessity during the Russian Civil War

[Dr. Croccer]

Lenin realized the problem of Russia becoming Communist. He realized that it first needed to fully industrialize by implementing a form of Capitalism, the NEP. Whilst it was quite effective, I'm not sure that it changed ''a lot''.

[gaunty14]

depends really. Define improved, socially, economically etc.

NEP did improve living standards a fair bit compared following War Communism albiet it was unsustainable. The land decree gave the peasants the land but it was shortlived. War Communism caused a famine and the CHEKA butchered hundreds of thousands of peasants with requisistioning. and the execution of political party members in the Red Terror.

in my opinion any good things Lenin introduced were removed by War Communism or by Stalin and the 5 yp/Collectivisation

[Babur]

depends really. Define improved, socially, economically etc.

well in all those criteria

NEP did improve living standards a fair bit compared following War Communism albiet it was unsustainable. The land decree gave the peasants the land but it was shortlived. War Communism caused a famine and the CHEKA butchered hundreds of thousands of peasants with requisistioning. and the execution of political party members in the Red Terror.

War Communism also provoked the Tambov rebellion and the Kronstadt Uprising.

in my opinion any good things Lenin introduced were removed by War Communism or by Stalin and the 5 yp/Collectivisation

Well the gulag system can trace its origins to the early years of Bolshevik rule.

[gaunty14]

edit: ah nevermind

[Babur]

edit: ah nevermind

ok

to those who voted yes, please justify why

[Il-Principe]

Well Lenin proved that revolution can work, but that it still doesn't change anything.

This means that he proved that it was possible to stage a communist revolution even in such a backward country as Russia. His story also (tragically) proved that although the revolution was successful, the lot of the people was not improved at all. The Russians still had to live under an oppressive state. Actually the Soviet Union proved to be much worse and much more gruesome than Tsarist Russia ever could be.

I'd also like to point out that Lenin was no Russian nationalist. On contrary, he was an anti-nationalist, meaning that he wasn't interested at all in improving Russia. His goal was no less than the whole world. The world revolution was his dream, he was ready to sacrifice everything for.

[Arch-hereticK]

A Labour Law gave workers an 8-hour day, unemployment pay and pensions. There was a huge campaign to teach everyone to read. Education: Science was encouraged. Free love, divorce and abortion were allowed.

The Tsar and his family were killed. That was a very good thing.


Factories were put under the control of elected committees of workers.

in the years 1918-1929 was relative freedom and significant experimentation with several different styles in an effort to find a distinctive Soviet style of art.
At first artists and writers were given a fair amount of freedom but many fled Russia because of their opposition to the Bolshevik government. Lenin was a traditional man in art. He hated the new 'isms' (Futurism, expressionism) and wanted art to be kept to traditional ways, yet he did nothing to discourage the spread of Futurism in Russia. Lenin showed his support to the art scene and wanted art to be accessible to the masses. He nationalised many private art collections and created the Museum of New Western Art in Moscow

wanted to make art more sympathetic to the masses and to encourage more participation in the arts. Many new art studios were set up in many cities. A considerable amount of tolerance was shown for these artists' criticism of the government.


There was a huge campaign to teach everyone to read. Education: Science was encouraged, and useless subjects like Latin and History were banned. Free love, divorce and abortion were allowed. Land was taken from the tsar and nobles and given to the peasants.

[Dr. Croccer]

The Tsar and his family were killed. That was a very good thing.

Executing a leader and his entire immediate family and retinue is very rarely a good thing. The Czar wasn't a malicious monster a la Stalin, and even if he was that doesn't excuse the fact that pretty much all others that were shot weren't

in the years 1918-1929 was relative freedom and significant experimentation with several different styles in an effort to find a distinctive Soviet style of art.
.

The period from 1917-1923 was of continuous war, oppression and lawlessness throughout what used to be the Russian empire. Peasants were the real loosers in the war, as they were oppressed by every side. During and after it, apart from the standard acts of violence, oppression and massacres towards peasants, the Bolsheviks consolidated their grip by massacring the hostile elements of the intelligentsia, the clergy and kulaks.

Btw, I'd rather have lived in Stalinist Russia than Tsarist Russia. Jus' sayin'.

I wouldn't... Sure, the average peasant had better education and there was higher social mobility, but that was rarely fruitful as all your produce was claimed by the regime and you lived under constant fear.

The human impact and the impact on society as a whole, however.. Would you say that it was worth it in the end?

Industrialisation always goes hand in hand with authoritarianism and repression of the working class. We shouldn't judge Russia much, as industrialisation in the West led to gross acts of disregard for human rights, a sharp decline in social mobility, and a large increase in the mortality rate. The chances of dying as an industrial labourer were twice that of a peasant. And that took place over at least 50 years, in some cases nearly 100. Stalin's industrialisation took barely 2 decades.

[Jingles]

Executing a leader and his entire immediate family and retinue is very rarely a good thing. The Czar wasn't a malicious monster a la Stalin, and even if he was that doesn't excuse the fact that pretty much all others that were shot weren't

Regardless, it had to be done. The whites couldn't be handed a figurehead.

I wouldn't... Sure, the average peasant had better education and there was higher social mobility, but that was rarely fruitful as all your produce was claimed by the regime and you lived under constant fear.

You forgot the improved standards of living. I'd rather live in a Stalin era apartment block, even a cheap one, than in a Tsarist slum. Also, the idea that the average working man was in a constant state of fear is preposterous - that wasn't even true of Hitler's Germany. Now, if you were a party member on the other hand...

Because the Soviets were never known to fabricate statistics...

Nice argument, except that the Soviets did actually need to know what the average literacy rate was. They were, despite any daft stereotypes you might have in your mind, trying to make life better for the soviet people. I love the way that people naturally assume all soviet statistics are BS, without stopping to think why those results were collected in the first place.

[Carach]

Nice argument, except that the Soviets did actually need to know what the average literacy rate was. They were, despite any daft stereotypes you might have in your mind, trying to make life better for the soviet people. I love the way that people naturally assume all soviet statistics are BS, without stopping to think why those results were collected in the first place.

in under 30 years the entire country were able to read and write, despite a conflict that ravaged much of the country, killed many of its populace. So really when all the fighting died down the reds had a total of what, 6 years in that time frame to enact this properly?

sorry if i cant see an entire country's population suddenly being able to read and write at a decent level in the space of 6 years, despite inequality and backwardness still being blatently apparent throughout Russia.

You forgot the improved standards of living. I'd rather live in a Stalin era apartment block, even a cheap one, than in a Tsarist slum. Also, the idea that the average working man was in a constant state of fear is preposterous - that wasn't even true of Hitler's Germany. Now, if you were a party member on the other hand...

I guess we can ignore the millions that died from starvation during this same time period then, as a result of the policies enacted by the reds throughout. Improved standard of living indeed.

[Heathen Hammer]

in under 30 years the entire country were able to read and write, despite a conflict that ravaged much of the country, killed many of its populace. So really when all the fighting died down the reds had a total of what, 6 years in that time frame to enact this properly?

sorry if i cant see an entire country's population suddenly being able to read and write at a decent level in the space of 6 years, despite inequality and backwardness still being blatently apparent throughout Russia.

Why not? 6 years is a lot of time.

I guess we can ignore the millions that died from starvation during this same time period then, as a result of the policies enacted by the reds throughout. Improved standard of living indeed.

You are aware, that starvations happened before revolution, right? And that famines in Southern Russia and Ukraine were caused by kulaks? And that after collectivisation there were no more famines, except for the one after WW2?

[Jingles]

in under 30 years the entire country were able to read and write, despite a conflict that ravaged much of the country, killed many of its populace. So really when all the fighting died down the reds had a total of what, 6 years in that time frame to enact this properly?

If Lenin managed to electrify Russia during the civil war, then enacting a proper education program shouldn't be a problem. You're forgetting that the highest literacy rate was achieved in 1956. That's plenty of time. I think you simply don't want to admit the "Reds" as you call them, actually did something right. Everyone knows the soviet schooling system was pretty damn effective, if nothing else. For example it was only after the Bolsheviks took power that education became free and compulsory.

sorry if i cant see an entire country's population suddenly being able to read and write at a decent level in the space of 6 years, despite inequality and backwardness still being blatently apparent throughout Russia.

But I guarantee you that even today, 99% of Russians can still read and write.

I guess we can ignore the millions that died from starvation during this same time period then, as a result of the policies enacted by the reds throughout. Improved standard of living indeed.

Alright, an estimated 3 million out of 160 million. Sorry, bro, but living standards did increase across the board from 1917 to 1953.

[Dr. Croccer]

You forgot the improved standards of living. I'd rather live in a Stalin era apartment block, even a cheap one, than in a Tsarist slum.

They weren't improved though, at least greatly in comparison to those in the West. The average American certainly had it far better in 1950 than he had it in 1900, the average Russian not so much. There still was zero social mobility and most of it that did exist was enforced. Famines occured at even a greater rate than during the Czarist period.

Also, the idea that the average working man was in a constant state of fear is preposterous - that wasn't even true of Hitler's Germany. Now, if you were a party member on the other hand...

Hardly. Peasants had to fear snitching on eachother and the government who took their possessions; the upper class feared purges and the middle class fear's were a mixture of those of the other two. If you were an ethnic minority, you were a potential target. If you were religious, you were monitored. f you had even a slightly critical opinion of the state you were monitored or even arrested. If you were a soldier who was captured by the enemy, you were treated like an enemy yourself. Pretty much everyone was viewed as a potential enemy by the state.

[Jingles]

They weren't improved though, at least greatly in comparison to those in the West. The average American certainly had it far better in 1950 than he had it in 1900, the average Russian not so much. There still was zero social mobility and most of it that did exist was enforced. Famines occured at even a greater rate than during the Czarist period.

So you're actually arguing that the average Russian had the same level of living standards in 1900 as he did in 1950? On the contrary too, there was much, much more social mobility. Look up how dachas worked, for example. And in addition to all of that, There were no famines in the USSR after collectivisation (excepting the one after the war following the fallout of the german invasion).

"Famines occured at even a greater rate than during the Czarist period." - seriously, I challenge you to back that up with evidence, really, I do.

Hardly. Peasants had to fear snitching on eachother and the government who took their possessions; the upper class feared purges and the middle class fear's were a mixture of those of the other two. If you were an ethnic minority, you were a potential target. If you were religious, you were monitored. f you had even a slightly critical opinion of the state you were monitored or even arrested. If you were a soldier who was captured by the enemy, you were treated like an enemy yourself. Pretty much everyone was viewed as a potential enemy by the state.

No, you really don't see what I'm getting at. These things were sometimes present, (not sure where that ethnic minority stuff is coming from, btw, just sounds like more stereotyping), but the point is that the state didn't have the capacity to organise terror in such a way over 160 million people. Do you have any idea just how many NKVD employees would be required to maintain such a level of monitoring? This in the days before CCTV and other modern surveillance techniques. A level of repression across the entire country on the level you describe is a mathematical impossibility. The GULAG system would have been overflowing big time.

[Ayleid]

Condition of the rural peasantry stays the same throughout the soviet period, Lenin's war communism gives rationale behind Stalin's brutality. Also Lenin set up the Gulags, great idea. He really didn't improve Russia. Apart from rebuilding Russia's industrial power base, after a civil war he caused, he didn't really do anything noteworthy of improving Russia. Sorry.

[Trax]

Condition of the rural peasantry stays the same throughout the soviet period

Yeah, in a way the new regime reinstated serfdom. Peasants didn't even have passports so they could not legally move into cities for example. Not sure when this system was abolished.

[Carach]

in a week i can collect the stuff ive read in a couple of books on the subject, but i've left them at home

I am in the unsure/no categories. Not much improvement ultimately came with the rise of the reds in Russia, just a whole lot of bloodshed.

The Tsar and his family were killed. That was a very good thing.

rofl, that is highly debatable. Especially when one considers his more liberal standpoints prior to war and execution.

u say the tsar and his family were killed as if this was some kind of bloodless revolution - in reality tens of millions ultimately died through various means as a result.

in the years 1918-1929 was relative freedom and significant experimentation with several different styles in an effort to find a distinctive Soviet style of art.

the years 1918 onwards were, for a time that u consider to be free and 'arty' (sorry but i find the arts largely irrelevant - and they certainly were not free during Soviet times either), i must reiterate, extremely bloody.

Nor can i condone ur claim to education drives when in reality this was not really the case either, and indoctrination certainly cannot be considered education in my view.