Was Lenin Any Better Than Stalin?

[The Count]

From my experience of reading the posts on this site, it seems as if the majority of Communist RevLeft members are fond of Lenin, far moreso than his devisive successor, Stalin. However, when juxtaposing the two, the revering of Lenin and demonization of Stalin seems hypocritical. This is due to them being surprisingly similar in both their views and leadership style, despite having a few theoretical differences. Three aspects that made me question the opposite views of these leaders are purges within the Communist Party, their economic policies and acts of oppression.

When you think of purges within the Communist Party, you probably think of Stalin. However, Lenin actually perpetrated the first purge, expelling 136,000 members out of the Party (Boyle, 2004). Perhaps even more surprising is the fact that some of Stalin's economic policies were more Communist than Lenin's. The most obvious example being that while Lenin encouraged private enterprise in agriculture, Stalin forced all farms to become State-owned collectives. Both of them implemented measures in order to weaken labor unions; Lenin denied them a say in management, while Stalin made strikes illegal. Stalin's acts of oppression and squashing of discontent are well-known; however, acts such as when 500 people were murdered in Petrograd as a reprisal for an assassination attempt on Lenin are nearly unheard of (Boyle, 2004).

My question is, why is Lenin so widely regarded as a great leader whereas Stalin is often demonized?

Sources are from Manifesto, The Words that Changed the World: The Communist Manifesto by David Boyle.

[Optiow]

Lenin was converting to state capitalism --> socialism --> communism.

Stalin just stayed in state capitalism.

~Lenin was the brains behind the movement, and he wanted change. Stalin did not want change. Lenin was an internationalist, but Stalin wanted to keep 'socialism' in one country.

Lenin was smarter by a whole than Stalin was. Lenin had practical ideas, Stalin just made up his mind without thinking of the consequences.

[Nolan]

Lenin was converting to state capitalism --> socialism --> communism.

Stalin just stayed in state capitalism.

~Lenin was the brains behind the movement, and he wanted change. Stalin did not want change. Lenin was an internationalist, but Stalin wanted to keep 'socialism' in one country.

Lenin was smarter by a whole than Stalin was. Lenin had practical ideas, Stalin just made up his mind without thinking of the consequences.

Dumb response. There is no substance behind anything you said here, except for Lenin being the brains of the Bolshevik revolution.

[Nolan]

Because a lot of Trots like to build an image of Lenin as some kind of libertarian socialist and Stalin as a betrayal of that. Others just refuse to see the similarities. It's probably only a matter of time before some Trotskyist split condemns Lenin as the first Stalin and poses Trotsky as the true spirit of Bolshevism. In the same way some people call Castro a traitor and wish Che had been in charge.

Saying Stalin's policies were "more communist" doesn't really make sense. War communism was geared completely to the war effort. Lenin had to do something due to the material conditions of the time, that being complete and utter ruin in the aftermath of a bloody civil war. This policy contributed to problems Stalin had to deal with, but it was needed at the time. I don't think I need to point out that labor unions are redundant in the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it would be nice to have a source. Or is Boyle where you're pulling that from?

[Macera]

I think it's important that we look at thing's in their respective contexts. I would say that Stalin was not inherently a non-Internationalist because he called for the development of Socialism in Country, I think it was a result of the fact that revolutions weren't happening in other countries and he thought it was more important to defend the Soviet Revolution. Now do I agree that Stalin took a number of revisionist positions when it came to the International Workers Struggle, yes I do.

On purges and Lenin, I would answer purges happen they're was I'm sure a context to his support of purges and the one I think your referring to was the mass entrance of opportunists after the success of the revolution and his call to weed them out of the Party,but they aren't as unilateral as people would paint them.

The belief that everyone in the Party did everything Lenin said without inner-Party debate is a joke and a result of the misunderstanding of democratic centralism. The purge was a proposal of Lenin's that was discussed and debated and then put into action. Democratic Centralism is not how some people believe it to be which is everyone listens to the dictates of the leaders. This is a dangerous misconception that has caused uncalled for attacks on communists.

[Born in the USSR]

From my experience of reading the posts on this site, it seems as if the majority of Communist RevLeft members are fond of Lenin, far moreso than his devisive successor, Stalin.

Becouse Lenin died so early and Stalin had to do all the grunt work of socialist construction in the USSR.

There is a sort of so cool leftists who love only dead revolutionaries and support only failed revolutions.

If Che Guevara was not killed in Bolivia in the distant 1967, his portrait would not flaunted on T-shirts of Western leftists.Yes, if Che was alive, he definitely would not be a hero - THEIR hero. He would be a "dictator" - as Fidel or Stalin. They prefer Che to Fidel just because Che died, and Fidel lives and continues to build a new life in Cuba. They love only those revolutionaries who are killed and hate with a fierce hatred all of the remaining survivors. Because it is always easy to say about the dead that he would not have done this or that - all that does not fit into their beautiful childhood fantasies about a bloodless revolutions, revolutions that satisfy everyone, including traditional oppressors and "cool" thieves of all stripes.

"t's not hard to die in this life. To make life is much harder! " (Mayakovsky). Yes - and particularly difficult is to make life for others, for the people. It's hard, thankless, seemingly endless, as the constant weeding the garden, occupation. Boys in berets and T-shirts say that the heroes do not weed gardens. This "boring" business they leave for "dictators".

[WeAreReborn]

Becouse Lenin died so early and Stalin had to do all the grunt work of socialist construction in the USSR.

There is a sort of so cool leftists who love only dead revolutionaries and support only failed revolutions.

If Che Guevara was not killed in Bolivia in the distant 1967, his portrait would not flaunted on T-shirts of Western leftists.Yes, if Che was alive, he definitely would not be a hero - THEIR hero. He would be a "dictator" - as Fidel and Chavez. They prefer Che to Fidel just because Che died, and Fidel lives and continues to build a new life in Cuba. They love only those revolutionaries who are killed and hate with a fierce hatred all of the remaining survivors. Because it is always easy to say about the dead that he would not have done this or that - all that does not fit into their beautiful childhood fantasies about a bloodless revolutions, revolutions that satisfy everyone, including traditional oppressors and "cool" thieves of all stripes.

"t's not hard to die in this life. To make life is much harder! " (Mayakovsky). Yes - and particularly difficult is to make life for others, for the people. It's hard, thankless, seemingly endless, as the constant weeding the garden, occupation. Boys in berets and T-shirts say that the heroes do not weed gardens. This "boring" business they leave for "dictators".
I disagree it isn't because they died or lived. It is because once you live long enough in power they see how it corrupts you. That is why people are Anarchists. They see the detrimental effects authority has not only on the ruler but they people the ruler oppresses as well. So you can keep believing that Stalin was a great man and if only he ruled longer it would have been Communist! But that is bullshit. I think Marxism can work but Stalin wasn't working towards that.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Yes. For the love of god, Lenin was an actual revolutionary and communist. Stalin was a power hungry reactionary who should have been hung and shot.

[Kléber]

Lenin's purge of the party was expulsions, not executions. The Soviet prison system was not a particularly deadly one until the "reforms" of Naftaly Frenkel either. Lenin never claimed that Soviet society had achieved socialism, because he considered wage inequality in the Soviet economy to represent "state capitalism," a retreat from communist principles, and there to be a bureaucratic deformation in Soviet political life, inherited from Tsarism. It was Stalin who oversaw the end of the maximum salary in 1931 and legitimized growing inequality in the USSR (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-millionaires-reg-t140732/index.html?t=140732) by declaring socialism to be constructed in 1934, as well as destroying any hope of Soviet democracy by wiping out all strands of opposition and independent communist thought in the country.

Trotsky was not against building socialism anywhere, in fact his supporters were the first and most ardent proponent of industrialization and collectivization. He merely opposed policies that benefited Soviet bureaucrats at the expense of the world revolution.

[EvilRedGuy]

Stalin didn't really do anything compared to Lenin, or atleast didn't have the same ideas as Lenin. Or maybe im mistaken.

[Thirsty Crow]

Lenin's purge of the party was expulsions, not executions. The Soviet prison system was not a particularly deadly one until the "reforms" of Naftaly Frenkel either. Lenin never claimed that Soviet society had achieved socialism, because he considered wage inequality in the Soviet economy to represent "state capitalism," a retreat from communist principles, and there to be a bureaucratic deformation in Soviet political life, inherited from Tsarism. It was Stalin who oversaw the end of the maximum salary in 1931 and legitimized growing inequality in the USSR (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-millionaires-reg-t140732/index.html?t=140732) by declaring socialism to be constructed in 1934, as well as destroying any hope of Soviet democracy by wiping out all strands of opposition and independent communist thought in the country.

Trotsky was not against building socialism anywhere, in fact his supporters were the first and most ardent proponent of industrialization and collectivization. He merely opposed policies that benefited Soviet bureaucrats at the expense of the world revolution.And I would add that Lenin's ban on the factions within the Party was designed as a temporary solution, which during Stalin turned into a permanent policy.
Yeah, Lenin was far better, theoretically (SioC, non-anatagonistic classes anyone?) and strategically.

[Widerstand]

This is largely an irrelevant matter IMO. Nobody should give a shit who of these two were the better humans, because frankly, what does it matter? What matters is what of their work still has relevance. Their policies surely don't, as they were very specific reactions to the Russian situation. One may agree or disagree with them, but if they try applying them to modern day situation, they can only come to horribly wrong conclusions. What is interesting are their theoretical contributions to Marxist thought, and frankly, I don't see how Stalin has made any good.

[William Howe]

Lenin attempted to further a global revolution and worker liberation.

Stalin attempted to further a global empire and bearocratic tyranny.

[Rafiq]

Lenin will always be my favorite Bolshevik.

He had a Cat and a cool beard.

[William Howe]

Lenin stands as my favourite leader of history, even though I tend more to Trotskyism.

Also, yes, his beard is a major factor. :thumbup1:

[The Count]

Thanks for all of the responses. I'll respond to the comments that I'm able to.


Because a lot of Trots like to build an image of Lenin as some kind of libertarian socialist and Stalin as a betrayal of that. Others just refuse to see the similarities. It's probably only a matter of time before some Trotskyist split condemns Lenin as the first Stalin and poses Trotsky as the true spirit of Bolshevism. In the same way some people call Castro a traitor and wish Che had been in charge.

This seems like the conclusion that I was heading towards.


Saying Stalin's policies were "more communist" doesn't really make sense. War communism was geared completely to the war effort. Lenin had to do something due to the material conditions of the time, that being complete and utter ruin in the aftermath of a bloody civil war. This policy contributed to problems Stalin had to deal with, but it was needed at the time. I don't think I need to point out that labor unions are redundant in the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it would be nice to have a source. Or is Boyle where you're pulling that from?
I simply meant that some of Stalin's policies seem more Communist than Lenin's. It is true that Lenin had to gear his policies towards the war effort, so I suppose that's a worthy explanation. I thought it was well known that trade unions in the Soviet Union were quite consistently being shut down or repressed. It does say this in Boyle's book as well, but I've read about it from other sources that I can't recall.


This is largely an irrelevant matter IMO. Nobody should give a shit who of these two were the better humans, because frankly, what does it matter?I wasn't asking who was a better person. I was asking why, if they're so similar, are they viewed in such a different light as leaders?

It's true that Lenin was an internationalist, while Stalin believed in 'Socialism in one country'. Also, I found Born in the USSR's point about Lenin being able to die early as a martyr, and Stalin actually having to expand on the framework of Socialism quite interesting.

[Ovi]

Was Lenin Any Better Than Stalin?
And that's what socialism comes down to after all.

[Thirsty Crow]

Also, I found Born in the USSR's point about Lenin being able to die early as a martyr, and Stalin actually having to expand on the framework of Socialism quite interesting.How the hell could he be a martyr if he didn't die a violent death? :blink:

[The Count]

How the hell could he be a martyr if he didn't die a violent death? :blink:
My bad, I didn't use the word martyr correctly. However, you understand what I meant by it.


And that's what socialism comes down to after all.
Since I know that a bunch of people are going to thank you for that post...

I'm trying to learn about the history of Communism and how Marxism has been applied. You don't have to be condescending about it.

[Muzk]

The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism" (whereas he himself is a real and true "nationalist-socialist", and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; "offended" nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest- to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades.


Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution.


Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post -

[mosfeld]

Random quotes from Lenin concerning Stalin

Right.. coming from a Trotskyite. You're asking for this one:

Trotsky on Lenin/Leninism

“The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession. […] The entire edifice of Leninism is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay” (Trotsky, Letter to Nikolay Chkeidze).

Lenin on Trotsky/Trotskyism

“Everybody knows that Trotsky is fond of high-sounding and empty phrases. [….] There is much glitter and sound in Trotsky’s phrases, but they are meaningless. [….] Trotsky is very fond of using, with the learned air of the expert, pompous and high-sounding phrases to explain historical phenomena in a way that is flattering to Trotsky” (Lenin, CW 20, 330-5).

“The old participants in the Marxist movement in Russia know Trotsky very well, and there is no need to discuss him for their benefit. But the younger generation of workers do not know him, and it is therefore necessary to discuss him. [….] Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as 'Lenin’s cudgel'. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i. e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that 'between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf'. In 1904—05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left 'permanent revolution' theory. In 1906—07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg. In the period of disintegration, after long 'non-factional' vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas” (CW 20, 346-7).

“Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion” (CW 20, 448-9).

“Trotsky, on the other hand, represents only his own personal vacillations and nothing more. In 1903 he was a Menshevik; he abandoned Menshevism in 1904, returned to the Mensheviks in 1905 and merely flaunted ultra- revolutionary phrases; in 1906 he left them again; at the end of 1906 he advocated electoral agreements with the Cadets (i.e., he was in once more with the Mensheviks); and the spring of 1907, at the London Congress, he said that he differed from Rosa Luxemburg on 'individual shades of ideas rather than on political tendencies'. One day Trotsky plagiarizes from the ideological stock-in-trade of one faction; the next day he plagiarizes from that of another, and therefore declares himself to be standing above both factions” (CW 16, 391).

“What a swine this Trotsky is—Left phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Zimmerwald Left! He ought to be exposed if only in a brief letter” (Letter to Alexandra Kollontai).

“Trotsky arrived, and this scoundrel at once came to an understanding with the Right-wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldians! Just so! That is just like Trotsky! He is always equal to himself – twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can” (Lenin, quoted in “Labour Monthly”).

“Trotsky unites all those to whom ideological decay is dear, all who are not concerned with the defence of Marxism; all philistines who do not understand the reasons for the struggle and who do not wish to learn, think, and discover the ideological roots of the divergence of views. At this time of confusion, disintegration, and wavering it is easy for Trotsky to become the ‘hero of the hour’ and gather all the shabby elements around himself. The more openly this attempt is made, the more spectacular will be the defeat” (Lenin, CW 17, 22).

“The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time” (Lenin CW 23, 80).

“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense” (Lenin CW 23, 9).

[chegitz guevara]

From my experience of reading the posts on this site, it seems as if the majority of Communist RevLeft members are fond of Lenin, far moreso than his devisive successor, Stalin. However, when juxtaposing the two, the revering of Lenin and demonization of Stalin seems hypocritical. This is due to them being surprisingly similar in both their views and leadership style, despite having a few theoretical differences. Three aspects that made me question the opposite views of these leaders are purges within the Communist Party, their economic policies and acts of oppression.

When you think of purges within the Communist Party, you probably think of Stalin. However, Lenin actually perpetrated the first purge, expelling 136,000 members out of the Party (Boyle, 2004). Perhaps even more surprising is the fact that some of Stalin's economic policies were more Communist than Lenin's. The most obvious example being that while Lenin encouraged private enterprise in agriculture, Stalin forced all farms to become State-owned collectives. Both of them implemented measures in order to weaken labor unions; Lenin denied them a say in management, while Stalin made strikes illegal. Stalin's acts of oppression and squashing of discontent are well-known; however, acts such as when 500 people were murdered in Petrograd as a reprisal for an assassination attempt on Lenin are nearly unheard of (Boyle, 2004).

My question is, why is Lenin so widely regarded as a great leader whereas Stalin is often demonized?

Yes, when I shoot someone invading my apartment, it is completely the same as someone stalking and murdering someone for fun, because both of us killed someone.

Marxism teaches us to look at CONTEXT, as well as details.

Lenin's purge came at the end of the Civil War, in which many of the best militants had died, and in which many career seekers had joined the Party. Lenin saw the rise of a powerful bureaucracy, which was using the revolution to obtain privilege for itself. His purge of the party was to get these folks out of the Party, because the working class no longer had the strength to assert itself. Furthermore, none of these folks were imprisoned or killed because of this purge.

Stalin, on the other hand, purged party militants and Old Bolsheviks, and anyone who opposed him politically. The life span of someone purged under Stalin could be measured in months.

They are completely different actions.

[DaringMehring]

Chegitz only scratched the surface. Anyone who can't see the differences between Lenin and Stalin, or still buys into all the old Stalinist canard, doesn't have enough critical thinking to be of value in the class struggle today. But of course, their choice to follow a wrong, decrepit way of thinking makes them irrelevant except as a lingering block to progress anyway.

[Rafiq]

Lenin's policy's may have seemed more Capitalist, but that's only because he wanted to go from Capitalism-Socialism-Communism.

[Born in the USSR]

Lenin's purge came at the end of the Civil War

Stalin, on the other hand, purged party militants and Old Bolsheviks, and anyone who opposed him politically.

They are completely different actions.

No difference - both were the acts of a civil war.

The pont is that civil wars never finish with a last shot at the front,they goe in the simmering phase, the attenuation of which can last for a long time.You can't understand the events in the USSR in 1920s-1930s if you forget about this.

The point is that the class struggle in the Soviet Union didn't disappeared. It just changed it's form: an open confrontation between political and military forces turned into the struggle within the Party and Soviet state apparatus. There there were groups that objectively reflected the interests of the remaining smallholders and the emerging bourgeoisie of "the Soviet
type. "

The purge of 1937 was the final act of the civil war in Russia , not the massacre of innocents -that is the Marxist explanation of events.