Best Soviet leader?

[Krasnyy]

Sorry, I'm at work and using my phone so I can't detail this post much.
Who do you feel was the best Soviet leader?
I say Nikita Krushchev since he ended all the oppression and slavery that went under Stalin. He also opposed privatization. And from an Anti-Fascist perspective he was an excellet general during The Great Patriotic War, for he (and other generals like Zhukov) sent the Nazis (I dont call them National Socialist, for one they weren't even socialist, and two, the term "National Socialist" is pretty ambiguous and can apply to any nation, thats why I don't call the Bolsheviks or the Red Army as communists, becase te term communist can also apply to anyone) running scared.

I like Brezhnev a bit but he was kind of brain-dead for most of his time as GS. Even while he was brain-dead, Brezhnev admitted he didn't even support the war in Afganistan.

And of course I like the original Bolsheviks since they founded the USSR in the first place.

[Sinister Intents]

I'd have to say Lenin was pretty good as a leader... Though fuck Lenin. Fuck all of the former dictators of the Soviet Union

[Crabbensmasher]

Gorbachev. We have him to thank for a lot of things. Bring on the hate

[Sinister Intents]

Second to Lenin, Khrushchev

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

how could I possibly deny the allure of Brehznev's luxurious eyebrows, to choose any other would be truly counter-revolutionary

[motion denied]

Sverdlov.

[Goblin]

Lenin and Stalin were the only good ones. Khrushchev was a hypocritical shit who restored capitalism.

[Sinister Intents]

Should just say Stalin 'cuz he's the most famous, right?

[Zukunftsmusik]

hi, bolshevik sickle, bye, bolshevik sickle

[Krasnyy]

hi, bolshevik sickle, bye, bolshevik sickle

1. Don't know what you're talking about
2. *Hey Bolshevik Sickle, bye Bolshevik Sickle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krasnyy]

I'd have to say Lenin was pretty good as a leader... Though fuck Lenin. Fuck all of the former dictators of the Soviet Union

And your opinion on the Tsarist Russia? I personally admired their Christian Orthodox culture, but I hated how it was state law, not to mention autocratic. At least the USSR was a buereracracy, slightly less oppressive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krasnyy]

Lenin and Stalin were the only good ones. Khrushchev was a hypocritical shit who restored capitalism.

No, it was State Capitalism. Lenin from the beginning admitted the USSR was State Capitalism. And by definition Capitalism means Free Enterprise and Privatized industries. The USSR did not allow for privatization, it was a state command economy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sinister Intents]

And your opinion on the Tsarist Russia? I personally admired their Christian Orthodox culture, but I hated how it was state law, not to mention autocratic. At least the USSR was a buereracracy, slightly less oppressive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My opinion of Tsarist Russia is just as starkly negative as my opinion of the Soviet Union, and Russia currently under Putin. I find no positives in states/nations/governments. Fuck the oppression, fuck them all.

[Zukunftsmusik]

So you're a trot who admires Brezhnev and orthodox christianity.

Troll harder.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

No, it was State Capitalism. Lenin from the beginning admitted the USSR was State Capitalism. And by definition Capitalism means Free Enterprise and Privatized industries. The USSR did not allow for privatization, it was a state command economy.


1. No, that's not what capitalism means, sickle. I know you're a bit slow on the intake or wherever it is you pasta these ideas from (PoFo maybe, seems that level of daftness);
2. "command economy" is a general slur construed on the basis of liberal criticism to infer that it is a "over-centralised" and cumbersome bureaucratic planning organisation, which was far from the disorganised truth of competing industrial interests and improvised dealings.

[Sinister Intents]

BolSickle do you like governments?

[Art Vandelay]

My opinion of Tsarist Russia is just as starkly negative as my opinion of the Soviet Union, and Russia currently under Putin.

So you consider there to be no qualitative differences between a semi-feudal and burgeoning capitalist state, collectively under the direct influence of tsarism and the Russian orthodox church, and a modern capitalist government, or a workers state having undergone a socialist revolution? That's just sloppy and lazy political analysis, sorry to say.


I find no positives in states/nations/governments.

What do you think socialist transformation will look like, if not a prolonged period of sustained coordination among workers states, in their struggle against class alien forces?


Fuck the oppression, fuck them all.

A state is precisely that, a tool of class oppression; quite frankly, I stand for the ruthless suppression of the bourgeoisie, in conjunction with the proletarian dictatorship.

[bropasaran]

or a workers state having undergone a socialist revolution?
Workers state? Never was such a thing. Maybe in Zapatista Chiapas. A socialist revolution in Russia? Only in a part of Ukraine.

[Art Vandelay]

Workers state? Never was such a thing. Maybe in Zapatista Chiapas. A socialist revolution in Russia? Only in a part of Ukraine.

The idea that a workers state is a contradiction in terms is a shoddy political analysis. Not really sure what else to say, since there isn't much but a blanket statement to comment on. Chiapas and the Zapatistas are actually an interesting example of an attempt to drop out, within a highly isolated area, of the global capitalist system; that being said, it certainly isn't socialist (as if that was a possibility), let alone even having that as a goal on a subjective level. Your mention of the Ukraine, I'm assuming is in reference to the anarchist 'free territory,' which I've stated my views on, many times on the board. If you're arguing that October was a capitalist revolution, you're more then welcome to join the chorus of the SPGBers and the like, but I wouldn't expect it to be taken very seriously.

[bropasaran]

The idea that a workers state is a contradiction in terms is a shoddy political analysis.
I didn't say that. It isn't a contradiction in terms, being that theoretically there can exist a state whose structure is (direcltly) democratic, and thus have the possibility to be a state of the workers. But, as I said, there never existed such a state, maybe Zapatistas have something like that, but I haven't looked into that much.


If you're arguing that October was a capitalist revolution
I could maybe even say a feudalist one, being that it resulted in a state-controled economy and workers were treated by the ruling politicians and bureacracy in a manner reminescent of serfhood, or worse. It doesn't really matter that much how it's called, but what is a fact is that if socialism is understood to be an idea of and a movement for emancipation of the workers, the bolshevik ideology, revolution and regime were all anti-socialist throughout.

[Krasnyy]

So you're a trot who admires Brezhnev and orthodox christianity.

Troll harder.

The only thing that separates Trotskyism from Marxist-Leninism is that Trotskyism is internationalist/war communism, while M-L is SiOC. But as as far as economics go, Trotskyism is the same as M-L.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zukunftsmusik]

The only thing that separates Trotskyism from Marxist-Leninism is that Trotskyism is internationalist/war communism, while M-L is SiOC. But as as far as economics go, Trotskyism is the same as M-L.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So where does Brezhnev and orthodox christianity come into this?

[Zukunftsmusik]

I could maybe even say a feudalist one, being that it resulted in a state-controled economy and workers were treated by the ruling politicians and bureacracy in a manner reminescent of serfhood, or worse. It doesn't really matter that much how it's called, but what is a fact is that if socialism is understood to be an idea of and a movement for emancipation of the workers, the bolshevik ideology, revolution and regime were all anti-socialist throughout.

It's quite astonishing to deny the emancipatory potential in 1917 and the years to follow. Of course what came out of the revolution (or rather its degeneration) wasn't socialism - this is quite evident. But your "analysis" throws every trace of class analysis, detail, nuance and historical perspectives out of the window, and your attempt at discrediting the bolsheviks (which might or might not be justified, depending on the circumstances) ends up, quite ironically, to be basically an idealist argument about great men of history. The russian revolution can't be reduced to the bolsheviks.

[Remus Bleys]

This talk of a workers state is problematic for various reasons. And no I'm not one of those ultralefts who thinks that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a state. My problem is that proletarian dictatorship cannot be conflated with any talk of workers government because it's clear what proletarian dictatorship is - the dictatorship of proletarian interests.
What is a workers government, though? A democracy with only workers in charge? A state with a workers party in charge - what defines this workers party anyway? To reduce proletarian to these things is to make socialism a problem of management, a problem of a legal title. What if a self proclaimed workers party gained control of the state, what about local and Democratic workers cooperatives - are these proletarian dictatorship?
The answer is obviously no, but if you think that proletarian dictatorship is simply an issue of democracy or parties controlling a state (not to suggest that the vanguard isn't the most vital organ of the class) why is the answer no?

[Sasha]

kovalevich, sobolev, makhno, kollontai, shlyapnikov...

[DOOM]

Lenin and Stalin were the only good ones. Khrushchev was a hypocritical shit who restored capitalism.

As if capitalism was ever abolished.

[Sasha]

kovalevich, sobolev, makhno, kollontai, shlyapnikov...

Oh wait, we where not talking about soviet leaders as in important figures in the soviets, you are talking about that counter revolutionary scum that first neutered and then abolished them.... Nevermind.

[Krasnyy]

As if capitalism was ever abolished.

Tsarist Russia was feudalist. Feudalism is more like optional slavery with benefits. But if by capitalist you mean that Tsarist Russia benefited the bougouisie then yeah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[boiler]

I think Lenin was the best leader and then Joe Stalin was second best. I don't like any of the leaders after Stalin they helped to destroyed the Soviet Union all in their own individual ways.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

1. Don't know what you're talking about
2. *Hey Bolshevik Sickle, bye Bolshevik Sickle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you're getting a lot of attention and you're just a troll, but seriously BS you must be the saddest, loneliest troll around to keep coming back and making all this effort.

Poor you.

[Krasnyy]

I know you're getting a lot of attention and you're just a troll, but seriously BS you must be the saddest, loneliest troll around to keep coming back and making all this effort.

Poor you.
I have friends in real life, I just get on RevLeft when I'm not with them. Plus most other websites suck. Plus I'm a leftist, so naturally I'm going to get on a leftist website.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

For those who are out of the loop, why did "bolsickle" originally get banned in the first place?

As for my answer to the question, at the risk of getting yelled at, Lenin and Stalin did a pretty damn good job.

[Krasnyy]

For those who are out of the loop, why did "bolsickle" originally get banned in the first place?

As for my answer to the question, at the risk of getting yelled at, Lenin and Stalin did a pretty damn good job.

1. No idea, I just got here and he was bamned months ago. I looked through his posts but he seemed like a cool guy I guess.

2. Damm straight

[La Guaneña]

Lenin, Kollontai and Stalin.

[Five Year Plan]

This talk of a workers state is problematic for various reasons. And no I'm not one of those ultralefts who thinks that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a state. My problem is that proletarian dictatorship cannot be conflated with any talk of workers government because it's clear what proletarian dictatorship is - the dictatorship of proletarian interests.
What is a workers government, though? A democracy with only workers in charge? A state with a workers party in charge - what defines this workers party anyway? To reduce proletarian to these things is to make socialism a problem of management, a problem of a legal title. What if a self proclaimed workers party gained control of the state, what about local and Democratic workers cooperatives - are these proletarian dictatorship?
The answer is obviously no, but if you think that proletarian dictatorship is simply an issue of democracy or parties controlling a state (not to suggest that the vanguard isn't the most vital organ of the class) why is the answer no?

Setting aside your unclear use of the phrase "workers' government," which has a very specific meaning in the Bolshevik political tradition which should not be conflated with "workers' state," the answer to your question about what makes a proletarian dictatorship a proletarian dictatorship is, in a single word: program.

[DasFapital]

Gorbachev

[Goblin]

For those who are out of the loop, why did "bolsickle" originally get banned in the first place?

As for my answer to the question, at the risk of getting yelled at, Lenin and Stalin did a pretty damn good job.

I believe he got banned for racism.

[Remus Bleys]

Setting aside your unclear use of the phrase "workers' government," which has a very specific meaning in the Bolshevik political tradition which should not be conflated with "workers' state," the answer to your question about what makes a proletarian dictatorship a proletarian dictatorship is, in a single word: program.

The talk of workers state and workers government can and have been used in order to justify some more liberal trends within "the left." I think that slogan is something to abandon, but it doesn't matter I guess as it's just a Slogan.
And whilst I agree with proletarian dictatorship is the program (I think, or at least hope, such was shown in my post) I think the programmatic side of it has to go into more depth, for a better explanation.
The communist program of course is the destruction of all previous social relations, a coordinated and centralized task carried out by the revolutionary class ("even if it's a minority") that will birth the new world in a coordinated effort (not necessarily conscious effort). Proletarian dictatorship is the destruction of the current state of things and the birth of communism, it cannot be reduced to "workers controlling everything" but rather a coordinated effort that destroys capitalism.

[Brotto Rühle]

They all sucked, for various reasons. It should ring a bell when you hear "X led the revolution!!!!". No, if an entity that isn't the class is "leading" the revolution... I have serious doubts in the content of it.

[Krasnyy]

I also think there should be no personality cults in communism. As much as we all probably want to be worshiped or feel as though we need to worship someone, it simply is stupid. While you can thank a man/woman for guiding a revolution, to give them all the credit is imprudent. The heroes should be all those who collaborated.
Unless they actually were some kind of deity (I.e. Jesus), but even then you can't depend on those figures to always be there for you. Because an element of capitalism (specifically Wrlfare Capitalism, as opposed to Libertarian Capitalism) is dependence on the governments and corporations.
Where as in communism (as well as in general communalist ideologies), people depend on each other equally. Not one person is placed as importance over others.

Even Lenin and Stalin said they didn't like their personality cults, for the simple fact that knew tha only the proletariat can liberate itself, the Bolsheviks only lite the light to how them the way.

[Five Year Plan]

The talk of workers state and workers government can and have been used in order to justify some more liberal trends within "the left." I think that slogan is something to abandon, but it doesn't matter I guess as it's just a Slogan.

Slogans are arguments, and the arguments put forward can matter at specific political junctures. It's a matter of context-dependent tactics, not a matter of unconditionally embracing or rejecting a slogan independent of context.


And whilst I agree with proletarian dictatorship is the program (I think, or at least hope, such was shown in my post) I think the programmatic side of it has to go into more depth, for a better explanation.By program, I don't mean just a written document. A program is the conceptual crystallization, not necessarily a written one, of an organization's practical action, which necessarily has embedded within it an understanding of how present actions relate to a vision of the future. A revolutionary socialist program is one that is driven to undermine capitalist economic and political institutions. It is not reducible to the single question of nationalization of property.


The communist program of course is the destruction of all previous social relations, a coordinated and centralized task carried out by the revolutionary class ("even if it's a minority") that will birth the new world in a coordinated effort (not necessarily conscious effort). Proletarian dictatorship is the destruction of the current state of things and the birth of communism, it cannot be reduced to "workers controlling everything" but rather a coordinated effort that destroys capitalism.Your point is precisely what is wrong with people who point only to this election being called off by the Bolsheviks, or that "democratically elected" assembly being dissolved, and declaring these to be sufficient mechanisms by which the Bolsheviks became a new bourgeoisie. Program exists at a different plane than this or that isolated action, stripped of context.

[Remus Bleys]

Slogans are arguments, and the arguments put forward can matter at specific political junctures. It's a matter of context-dependent tactics, not a matter of unconditionally embracing or rejecting a slogan independent of context.
Yeah that's what I was saying... But it's been treated precisely what this to support reactionary things. Notice impossibles reply to 9mm, that was partly what I was croticizing.

By program, I don't mean just a written document. A program is the conceptual crystallization, not necessarily a written one, of an organization's practical action, which necessarily has embedded within it an understanding of how present actions relate to a vision of the future. A revolutionary socialist program is one that is driven to undermine capitalist economic and political institutions. It is not reducible to the single question of nationalization of property.
Of course. Many aspects of what the party is must be done. writing what is part of communism cannot be written about. Sure Marx based the manifesto and his theses after the classes struggle, but writing about it only fulfills historical tasks, not formal tasks. The program of the party is called upon by the proletarian movement, but is formed from the whole of history. Communist program consists of theses being put into action. And no, these theses and documents aren't necessarily written done.
ie I don't think we disagree.

Your point is precisely what is wrong with people who point only to this election being called off by the Bolsheviks, or that "democratically elected" assembly being dissolved, and declaring these to be sufficient mechanisms by which the Bolsheviks became a new bourgeoisie. Program exists at a different plane than this or that isolated action, stripped of context.
Gee Thanks for telling me! I was actually saying that! Wow, I really like
How you connected those two.

[bropasaran]

It's quite astonishing to deny the emancipatory potential in 1917 and the years to follow. Of course what came out of the revolution (or rather its degeneration) wasn't socialism - this is quite evident. But your "analysis" throws every trace of class analysis, detail, nuance and historical perspectives out of the window
It comes down to differences between libertarian socialism and state "socialism" in views of what are classes, what is socialism and what are conditions for socialism.

The debate about the October "revolution" is pretty much explained here:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append4.html

[Prometeo liberado]

Pretty sure it's these two. Pretty sure.







http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608039538072619572&pid=1.7

[Fourth Internationalist]

Reading this thread makes me want to cry.

[Zukunftsmusik]

It comes down to differences [...] in views of what are classes, what is socialism and what are conditions for socialism.

It sure does. Speaking of which: how was the russian revolution feudal?

[bropasaran]

Main means of production are nationalized, economic masters are part of the political ruling class, workers are in a state of bondage something like half-slaves. Somehow both feudalism and USSR come to mind when looking at that description. I think I read that Bukharin at one point called USSR 'neo-feudal'.

[motion denied]

Main means of production are nationalized, economic masters are part of the political ruling class, workers are in a state of bondage something like half-slaves. .

What is a 'half-slave'? How were the workers under bondage slavery? How does the proletariat guide a feudal revolution?

From your thorough analysis, I could conclude that welfare states were feudal too. See, as you do not mention capital at all (way to analyze capitalism/feudalism btw), it's easy to say that, according to you, every imperialist state is also feudal.

[Comrade Jacob]

Stlenin. IMFHO

[Sinister Intents]

Stlenin. IMFHO

StaLenin?
Saint Lenin?

[Althusser]

Lenin obviously.

Stalin would have to come in second, but there were a lot of problems with Stalin. His line on the national question was very good in theory, but he was a great Russian chauvinist. (I know he was Georgian) He also claimed that the SU was a classless society in 1937. His position on two-line struggle, which Hoxha mimicked, was pretty much just having you show-tried and shooting you for being an enemy of the people. The idea that dissent within the party comes from "the outside" for the purpose of sabotage is a revisionist position.

Everyone post Stalin was just managing an imperialist power. Soviet social-imperialism was a real thing. The SU just degenerated into great power politics with their global division of labor that doomed plenty of third world revolutions to revisionism and capitalist restoration.

[Geiseric]

There were many "leaders" of the revolution, most of them were killed by stalin though.

[Krasnyy]

There were many "leaders" of the revolution, most of them were killed by stalin though.
Stalin and Lenin were both power-hungry, Stalin especially.

Krushchev wasn't power hungry, we was pretty obedient to Stalin.

[Blake's Baby]

Lenin was 'power hungry'?

Is that why he managed to get himself exiled to Switzerland, just so a mere 15 years later he could come back and be King Kommissar?

Man, really, I'm not like a super-Lenin fanboy but to claim he was 'power hungry' is just ridiculous.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Stalin and Lenin were both power-hungry, Stalin especially.

Krushchev wasn't power hungry, we was pretty obedient to Stalin.

Why do you have your tendency set as Trotskyist?

[Krasnyy]

Why do you have your tendency set as Trotskyist?
Why are you asking this?

And it's because I believe in international communism (I.e. Bolshevism or Trotskyism), as opposed to National Communism (Stalinism).

[#FF0000]

honestly it's hard to tell if krasnyy is a troll or just stupid. it really is masterful work if trolling.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why are you asking this?

And it's because I believe in international communism (I.e. Bolshevism or Trotskyism), as opposed to National Communism (Stalinism).

I asked because you claimed Lenin was power-hungry.

Stalinism isn't national communism. It's just anticommunism.

[Marshal of the People]

I admire Lenin and dislike the rest. Though I believe that Lenin was setting the USSR up for defeat with his complete centralisation of power and everything.

[Krasnyy]

Also, didn't the USSR end up rejecting Socialism one one country?
Stalin's administration ordered for the invasion of Finland, and after the Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets did liberate Eastern Europe from NS Germany control, even though they set up "communist" dictatorships.

Also, Lenin did reject Socialism in one country, but he did believe that every "socialist country" deserved the right to self-determination.

[Marshal of the People]

Also, didn't the USSR end up rejecting Socialism one one country?
Stalin's administration ordered for the invasion of Finland, and after the Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets did liberate Eastern Europe from NS Germany control, even though they set up "communist" dictatorships.

Also, Lenin did reject Socialism in one country, but he did believe that every "socialist country" deserved the right to self-determination.Stalin did not care at all about the people of the world. He only cared about himself and perhaps his family, but he treated his people like animals and would have treated every person in the world the same if he got the chance, he was a power-mad/hungry, schizophrenic-paranoid tyrant who didn't care about the revolution, socialism or communism when he was in power and probably not before either.

[The Lizard King]

Lenin. Hands down. Everybody who disagrees is either a tankie or a revisionist.

[BolshevikBabe]

Lenin was just about the best from pretty much every angle I can think of, although my ranking of Soviet leaders from best to worst goes roughly in chronological order.

[DOOM]

Gorbi 100%

[maoist70]

Stalin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Lenin. Definitely.

He may have been something of a control freak, and a little bit too convinced of his own ideological correctness, but he was the one person who managed to keep the entire Party together during his lifetime. The moment he died was the moment the Party splintered.

[RedWorker]

Gorbachev.

[Rafiq]

The biggest problem, of course, is that talking of "leaders" in understanding the nature of executive power in the Soviet union from the October revolution onwards is simplistic and almost childish.

Lenin was not necessarily a "leader" who had to carry out all the tasks a head of state would, as this was something divided by different positions, and so on. He was of course a symbolic leader of the international proletariat, no doubt. The political developments in the Soviet union following the end of the civil war paved way for grandiose heads of state, though I must stress that Stalin was, at least initially relatively conservative as far as the excersising of real power goes - a comparison to napoleon is wrong. And I think that is partially the problem - Stalin was like the decaying corpse of the French revolution after the reign of terror, except there was no Napoleon to extend its life span (Tukhachevsky's death assured this).

On to the point, when one talks of Soviet leaders this can vary from Sverdlov to Dzerzhinsky, from Frunze to Bukharin, they were all leaders in their own respect. The simplistic notion of a dynasty from Lenin to Gorbachev is complete nonsense.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Chernenko. His was the shortest.

[exeexe]

Nestor Makhno because he fought for free soviets
Here is the story in brief - Lenin and Trotsky lovers pay special attention
http://jakecarman.com/2013/10/26/the-peasants-revenge-painting-oil-on-canvas-oct-2013-for-the-occassion-of-n-makhnos-125-birthday/

[Max]

Lenin of course. Stalin transformed the USSR into a oppressive regime.

[Dagoth Ur]

Thank God the Bolsheviks took down that bandit king Makhno. As glorious as the Vietcong crossing the border to Cambodia to exterminate the KR.

[The Intransigent Faction]

The biggest problem, of course, is that talking of "leaders" in understanding the nature of executive power in the Soviet union from the October revolution onwards is simplistic and almost childish.

Lenin was not necessarily a "leader" who had to carry out all the tasks a head of state would, as this was something divided by different positions, and so on. He was of course a symbolic leader of the international proletariat, no doubt. The political developments in the Soviet union following the end of the civil war paved way for grandiose heads of state, though I must stress that Stalin was, at least initially relatively conservative as far as the excersising of real power goes - a comparison to napoleon is wrong. And I think that is partially the problem - Stalin was like the decaying corpse of the French revolution after the reign of terror, except there was no Napoleon to extend its life span (Tukhachevsky's death assured this).

On to the point, when one talks of Soviet leaders this can vary from Sverdlov to Dzerzhinsky, from Frunze to Bukharin, they were all leaders in their own respect. The simplistic notion of a dynasty from Lenin to Gorbachev is complete nonsense.

Would Alexandra Kollontai qualify, then? :)

[Kaoxic]

Lenin!

[Geiseric]

Leon Trotsky and Lenin stood out as the most influential revolutionaries of the 20th century. Their ideas contrasted with Stalinism, and had Lenin not died, he would of stood against the bureaucracy.

[Smash Monogamy]

Boris Yeltsin.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

because of Chernenko there's essentially disabled access to Lenin's mausoleum so yeah

beat that

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

Although I am opposed to the state capitalist Soviet system and regard only the democratic period from October 1917 to the January 1918 dissolving of the Russian Constituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks during which true democratic processes were carried out in the name of the Russian people as the true popular Socialist period of the Soviet Union, I think the best Soviet leader was Vladimir Lenin.

[Kaysone]

Do you mean in terms of physical appearance? I like them all personally, I'm not Stalin's biggest fan but he had his good qualities too. His moustache, for example. Ideologically, I mean even Gorbachev claims that he was trying to save the USSR from collapse, I believe he had good intentions, but history had different plans apparently. Gorbachev was a pragmatist, for sure (though of course the more ideological or dogmatic leftists would see this as a fault, of course), but we do live in the real world, not the world of theories and abstract ideas.