What if Lenin...

[Master Che]

What if Lenin didnt die so prematurally and Stalin never gained power? I believe the Soviet Union would of started off much better. And how would the world be today?

[Urban Guerrilla]

They would also still have Trotsky. If Lenin was in power for longer, I can bet the Soviet Union would still be around today. Stalin set them back longer and knew nothing of Military and trusted just about no one. :hammer:

What did people think of Nikita Khruschev?

[Zingu]

Would not have changed anything, Marxist theory is based in material reality, qualitative change, and the masses, not the will of a single man.

[Xvall]

Don't know. If Trotsky hadn't industrialized the Russian infastructure in the same manner that Stalin did, things may have changed. Quite frankly, I have no damn idea.

[Led Zeppelin]

If Trotsky hadn't industrialized the Russian infastructure in the same manner that Stalin did, things may have changed.

Yes, we would be praising Hitler at Himmler-Lives.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 8 2005, 03:21 AM
What did people think of Nikita Khruschev?
Revisionist beaurucrat asshat.

Y'know, sometimes Mao hit the nail on the head . . .

[KC]

What if Lenin didnt die so prematurally

How is dying at 54, in the 1920's, premature?

[Led Zeppelin]

How is dying at 54, in the 1920's, premature?

The 1920's were not the middle ages, average life expectancy was about 65.

[Urban Guerrilla]

The man had 4 damn Strokes :che:

[KC]

EDIT: Stop talking about this, I don't want to derail the topic and I regret posting in the first place.

[wet blanket]

What if I had a unicorn with wings and enough food to feed everyone in the world????

[Scars]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 8 2005, 08:07 AM
What if I had a unicorn with wings and enough food to feed everyone in the world????
I'd give it a carrot.

Anyway, I think that there is agood chance that WWII could have been lost. Stalin was a far better wartime leader than Lenin. I think that it would have been interesting to see what he would have done in regards to the economy, most specifically the NEP.

[Roses in the Hospital]

Anyway, I think that there is agood chance that WWII could have been lost. Stalin was a far better wartime leader than Lenin. I think that it would have been interesting to see what he would have done in regards to the economy, most specifically the NEP.

I disagree, if Lenin was in power through the 1930s there's a good chance that Franco would have lost the Spanish Civil War, significantly weakening European Facsism. Similarly I think it's more likely that Lenin would have given more help to the left in Germany pre-nazism, so there's a good chance Hitler wouldn't have gained power in he first place. Almost certainly there would have been no Nazi Soviet pact, so Germany wouldn't have been in such a strong position when she started moving Eastwards. Also, Trotsky was the man who created the red-army, so would be in a fairly strong position to command it. And, the obvious one is that at least when war broke out the USSR would have some generals left...

[Scottish_Militant]

Theres an old saying "if your Auntie had balls she'd be your Uncle"

I don't think we can look back and say that "if" Lenin had lived longer everything would have been great, you can see from Lenins writtings at this time that the growth of a new buerocracy was well under way and I dont think any individual would have had the power to halt this, as its source lay deeply rooted in the international role of the revolution and its defeat in many areas.

[Black Dagger]

The 1920's were not the middle ages, average life expectancy was about 65.

It was actually about 40 in Russia in 1920...

[More Fire for the People]

I do not see why it would matter if he lived longer, as he retired from his position as chairman before he died. Perhaps he would have stayed on longer if he were in good health, until 1929 maybe?

I think if Lenin had lived longer, he would have definately put more input into his successor (which mind you was not Stalin -- Stalin became premier of the Soviet Union in 1941, he became General Secretary in 1922). While Stalin was an "okay" leader, he was not the best. I do see Stalin becomming the General Secretary of the CPSU but Lenin would probably have chastized him on issues of political repression and dissidence. Stalin may have even became premeir as most of the other Bolsheviks were either non-charismatic or didn't have the guts (Trotsky for one).

What do I think would have happened under Lenin's leadership from 1917-1929?
1. Industrialization and investment in heavy industries;
2. Collectivizaiton of agriculture;
3. Greater support of Baltic, Polish, Finnish, Prussian, and Swedish communists;

[Poum_1936]

How is dying at 54, in the 1920's, premature?

He was shot in the early years of the soviet repubulic which did not help his health at all. It would later lead to his strokes which handicapped Lenin for the last two years of his life.

These "What if..." questions are ridiculous. Whats happened has happened. Yes its possible that Lenin through a correct perspective, Lenin would have been able to stop Stalin (highly unlikely, Stalin was a product of the bureaucracy, they would have found another front man if need be) and keep the comintern from stupid ideas which could have stopped the rise of Hitler and Franco.

But if Lenin lived it would have made little difference. Lenin's colossal presitge, in itself would have done little to stop the counter revolution. It may have delayed the degeneration of the revolution by a few years and modify some of history. But the bureaucracy was already there during Lenins time and with the isolation of the revolution in a backwards country, degeneration was envitable. As Krupskaya commented at a Opposition meeting "If Ilych [Lenin] were alive, he would probably already be in a prison." Alittle over exaggerated for the time, but it speaks for itself. IF lenin lived to during the Moscow trials, he probably would have "confessed" to being an agent of the Germans.

[cccpcommie]

we would have raped germany..the economy would have been stronger and intelligence would have proven stronger as well..they{germany} would not have even been able to attack russia..

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:23 AM
Would not have changed anything, Marxist theory is based in material reality, qualitative change, and the masses, not the will of a single man.
I agree, the USSR would still have been screwed, but there are some subjective factors that could have made things turn out much differently.

One of the legacies of Stalin is how Stalinist politics played out in other revolutions. I think Lennin would have put more importance on helping these revolutions suceede through argueing and debating their strategies and then that would bolster the USSR if thoes revolutions won out. Under Stalin, Stalin wasn't relying on revolutions in other countries so he often sabotaged other movements for what was convienient for the USSR (third-phase, pact with the nazis and so on).

[Hiero]

Stalin set them back longer

Thats stupid, Stalin set them forward in technology, living conditions, life expectancy and education.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:34 AM

Stalin set them back longer

Thats stupid, Stalin set them forward in technology, living conditions, life expectancy and education.
Yes but the philosophy of the movement regressed.

If Lenin lived longer, he probably would of made sure Stalin did not ascend to power. Trotsky would be an obvious backing, but the thing was I doubt Lenin knew who should take over. Like t has been said it likely wouldn't have mattered, and there are mistakes there to learn from. So in those regards we have a starting point.

[More Fire for the People]

Trotksy barely had enough balls to smash the Konstradt workers, I doubt he could pull off being a leader of the masses. Might I remind you, no Trotskyist "vanguard" party has ever lead a revolution.

[Urban Guerrilla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:34 AM

Stalin set them back longer

Thats stupid, Stalin set them forward in technology, living conditions, life expectancy and education.
Yeah, all those camps and people sick and starving really helped the people out. He was completely ignorant of War and failed to listen to his Generals until the end of WW2 :che:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 9 2005, 05:10 PM
Trotksy barely had enough balls to smash the Konstradt workers, I doubt he could pull off being a leader of the masses. Might I remind you, no Trotskyist "vanguard" party has ever lead a revolution.
Has there ever been a trotskyist group big or influential enough to be considered the "vangaurd party"?

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 9 2005, 05:10 PM
Might I remind you, no Trotskyist "vanguard" party has ever lead a revolution.
And where have all the Marxist-Leninist revolutions gotten us?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Would not have changed anything, Marxist theory is based in material reality, qualitative change, and the masses, not the will of a single man.
To believe history would not have changed "anything" if Lenin was alive, is in my opinion idealistic.

Let's not talk about marxist theory. Let's talk about reality.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Oct 9 2005, 01:13 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Oct 9 2005, 01:13 PM)
Diego [email protected] 9 2005, 05:10 PM
Might I remind you, no Trotskyist "vanguard" party has ever lead a revolution.
And where have all the Marxist-Leninist revolutions gotten us? [/b]
Brief moments of building socialism before revisionist like Deng Xiapong and Kruschev gained power. This is why recall and criticism must be the most used tools of the proletariat.

[Led Zeppelin]

Diego Armando sounds exactly like me.

Cool.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 8 2005, 08:07 AM
What if I had a unicorn with wings and enough food to feed everyone in the world????

Best responce on the topic so far.

-_-

Sometimes I wonder how people can be so naive with these "historical" questions. :mellow:

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 9 2005, 04:10 PM
Diego Armando sounds exactly like me.

Cool.
Haha.

Not exactly, no. I simply view Stalin as the best choice candidate at the time, I don't really support him, especially his centralization of the party (which is over-exagerated by Trotskyist) and actions with Comintern. If Trotsky had his way the Soviet Union would have been a hippie love fest of confused policy, cowardice, and anti-worker campaigns. And he was a careerist wanker.

[Hiero]

Trotsky would be an obvious backing

Canidates for leadership only begin to show their true qualities when they are competition for leadership. So Lenin still may not have lived long enough to give support for Trotsky or Stalin.

And may i make it clear that Lenin, nor anyone in the party had power to give leadership, the still had to be voted in by the Central Commitee.


Yeah, all those camps and people sick and starving really helped the people out.

The rise of the Soviet Union under Stalin meant that more sick people had access to hospitals.

[Led Zeppelin]

And may i make it clear that Lenin, nor anyone in the party had power to give leadership, the still had to be voted in by the Central Commitee.


Actually the entire party "voted them in".


Not exactly, no. I simply view Stalin as the best choice candidate at the time, I don't really support him, especially his centralization of the party

I don't exactly support him either, and I agree with you on his centralization of the party and actions with Comintern.

[Xvall]

If Trotsky had his way the Soviet Union would have been a hippie love fest

You're not doing a good job convincing me against him.

[wet blanket]

If Trotsky had his way the Soviet Union would have been a hippie love fest of confused policy, cowardice, and anti-worker campaigns.
Prove it.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 10 2005, 12:13 AM

If Trotsky had his way the Soviet Union would have been a hippie love fest of confused policy, cowardice, and anti-worker campaigns.
Prove it.
Confused Policy: Trotsky was both a nationalist (he was a Zionist) and a "pure" internationalist ("permanent revolution"), how is this possible?

Cowardice: Notice that Trotsky stopped "fighting for the cause" when he could no longer advance his career with it?

Anti-worker campaigns: Konstradt.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by Diego Armando+Oct 10 2005, 08:30 PM--> (Diego Armando @ Oct 10 2005, 08:30 PM)
wet [email protected] 10 2005, 12:13 AM

If Trotsky had his way the Soviet Union would have been a hippie love fest of confused policy, cowardice, and anti-worker campaigns.
Prove it.
Confused Policy: Trotsky was both a nationalist (he was a Zionist) and a "pure" internationalist ("permanent revolution"), how is this possible?

Cowardice: Notice that Trotsky stopped "fighting for the cause" when he could no longer advance his career with it?

Anti-worker campaigns: Konstradt. [/b]
Don't get me wrong, I'm no trot, and I know about all the things you've mentioned... but you missed my point. You CAN'T prove what would have been had trotsky taken his 'rightful' seat on the USSR throne instead of Stalin. In fact it's pretty useless to even bother speculating and arguing about it.

[Scars]

The other thing that no one has thought about is Trotsky's personality. Trotsky, by all accounts, was very much for the Trotsky-Party and I think that sooner or later there would have been a major falling out within the central committee and either he would have purged a load of people, or been dethroned.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 08:13 PM
To believe history would not have changed "anything" if Lenin was alive, is in my opinion idealistic.

Let's not talk about marxist theory. Let's talk about reality.
Marxist theory is the interpretation of reality.

There is nothing Lenin could do to establish real, living Socialism; the material conditions were not there.

[Led Zeppelin]

the material conditions were not there.


They were there in 1932, what is your point?

[red_che]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Oct 9 2005, 07:13 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Oct 9 2005, 07:13 PM)
Diego [email protected] 9 2005, 05:10 PM
Might I remind you, no Trotskyist "vanguard" party has ever lead a revolution.


And where have all the Marxist-Leninist revolutions gotten us? [/b]
Well, Marxist-Leninist parties have advanced the proletarian revolution several steps forward by leading many victorious revolutions around the world. Trotskyite revisionists and anti-Leninists were the only ones pulling back the progress of proletarian revolution in Russia, China and elsewhere. <_<

[Black Dagger]

Well, Marxist-Leninist parties have advanced the proletarian revolution several steps forward by leading many victorious revolutions around the world.

How can you say that any ML revolution has been successful or &#39;advanced&#39; world revolution, when all of these victorious revolutions have &#39;succeeded&#39; in capitalist states?


Trotskyite revisionists and anti-Leninists were the only ones pulling back the progress of proletarian revolution in Russia, China and elsewhere.

Whenever something goes wrong it&#39;s someone else&#39; fault? As a marxist, you should be more criticial. Examine your ideology, the actions of Leninist &#39;leaders&#39; and parties and so forth, rather than trying to delegate blame to others, and in turn, delegating your thinking&#33;

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 04:11 AM
Well, Marxist-Leninist parties have advanced the proletarian revolution several steps forward by leading many victorious revolutions around the world.
Bullshit, MLM revolutions have all been monumental failures. Peasant revolts, forced labor, and bureaucratic planned economies have not helped the international proletariat in the slightest.



Whenever something goes wrong it&#39;s someone else&#39; fault? As a marxist, you should be more criticial. Examine your ideology, the actions of Leninist &#39;leaders&#39; and parties and so forth, rather than trying to delegate blame to others, and in turn, delegating your thinking&#33;
Couldn&#39;t have said it any better. :)

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 11 2005, 02:24 AM
They were there in 1932, what is your point?
Well, we all have our own views about Socialism, but definately from 1917-1924, they weren&#39;t there, why did he have to iniate the NEP anyways?

[Poum_1936]

Trotskyite revisionists and anti-Leninists were the only ones pulling back the progress of proletarian revolution in Russia, China and elsewhere.

How did Trotskyists pull back progress in proletarian revolutions? Since, it is claimed the USSR was socialist. And we cant forget it was Trotskyist policies the gutted the 1927-28 Chinease revolution. Oh, and in Spain, the "fascist Trotskyite spie&#39;s." Though a few years down the road Stalin made "peace" with Hitler.


Well, we all have our own views about Socialism, but definately from 1917-1924, they weren&#39;t there, why did he have to iniate the NEP anyways?

At the time, there was wide spread peasant revolt culminating into the Kronstadt revolt. The peasants were not happy with the state of affairs so the NEP was introduced to keep the peasants happy. War communism just was not working for them. If the working class did not ensure the peasants were content, the peasants would have moved their support to the camp of reaction. The NEP was to save the revolution in the short term but in the long run it was a stranglehold.

A small but worthy defination at MIA:

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/n/e.htm#nep

[Socialistpenguin]

Confused Policy: Trotsky was both a nationalist (he was a Zionist) and a "pure" internationalist ("permanent revolution"), how is this possible?

I don&#39;t suppose you have any proof of this? Or, like many claims of "Marxist-Leninists", are we supposed to take this on good faith?


Cowardice: Notice that Trotsky stopped "fighting for the cause" when he could no longer advance his career with it?
WTF are you talking about? What the hell did you expect him to do while in exile? How could he effectively combat the bureaucracy in exile? And again, proof that he gave up the cause, please?


Anti-worker campaigns: Konstradt.
Yes, because we all know Stalin was a friend of the people, made out of sugar and candy canes <_< Yes, and we know that Stalin didn&#39;t demand incomprehensibly high grain quotas from the Ukranians, causing famine which could be felt throughout the 90s, and that he NEVER imprisoned innocent civilians, guilty of only expressing dissenting views. <_<

[patrickbeverley]

Lenin was no communist. A principle of central importance to Communism is that of free elections, one which Lenin abandoned very shortly after the revolution.

I don&#39;t see how the Soviet Union would have been better under the rule of a man who threw the democratically elected party out of parliament.

[wet blanket]

Yes, because we all know Stalin was a friend of the people, made out of sugar and candy canes Yes, and we know that Stalin didn&#39;t demand incomprehensibly high grain quotas from the Ukranians, causing famine which could be felt throughout the 90s, and that he NEVER imprisoned innocent civilians, guilty of only expressing dissenting views.

ummm aren&#39;t you aware of Uncle Joe&#39;s National People&#39;s Candycane Day?
check your history

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 10 2005, 01:43 AM
If Trotsky had his way the Soviet Union would have been a hippie love fest of confused policy, cowardice, and anti-worker campaigns. And he was a careerist wanker.
Im no Trot but i dont think it would have turned out that way, but if it did it would have left less of a stain on the communist reputaition.

P.s and stain wasn&#39;t a careerist wanker?

[More Fire for the People]

Yes, and we know that Stalin didn&#39;t demand incomprehensibly high grain quotas from the Ukranians, causing famine which could be felt throughout the 90s, and that he NEVER imprisoned innocent civilians, guilty of only expressing dissenting views.
Ignorance. The Ukranian famine was caused by the counter-revolutionary Kulaks (rich peasants) which destroyed farmland and killed cattle.

[Socialistpenguin]

Ignorance. The Ukranian famine was caused by the counter-revolutionary Kulaks (rich peasants) which destroyed farmland and killed cattle.
Has anyone else seen the programme QI, in which, if the contestants say a wrong and obvious answer, a siren is triggered? I was thinking, maybe we could set something up when answers like this are given.

How long are "Marxist-Leninists" going to cling on to this belief that the "kulaks" were to blame for the famine? Furthermore, what proof is there that kulaks DID induce sabotage? The peasantry reacted to the shitty treatement they were given under "Great Comrade" Stalin. This is just a short list:
1. "Comrade" Stalin said that joining the farm co-operatives was purely voluntary. How come then, that almost EVERY obstacle was put in front of those seeking to start a farm of their own? For example the allocation of land and seed was delayed, they were given the worst land, half of what they had before, the loss of their vegetable gardens and the inability to recover their implements, cows or horses. Heavier grain quotas were given to them and fines for failure to fulfil them.
2. From Lev Kopelev, a part activist in the Ukraine, says:


" I hear the children... choking, coughing with screams. And I saw the looks of the menL frightened, pleading, full of hate, dully impassive, extinguished with despair or flaring up with half-mad daring ferocity. "Take it. Take everything away. There&#39;s still a pot of borscht on the stove. It&#39;s plain, got no meat. But still it&#39;s got beets, taters and cabbage. And it&#39;s salted&#33; Better take it, comrade citizens&#33; Here, hang on. I&#39;ll take off my shoes. They&#39;re patched and re-patched, but maybe they&#39;ll have some use for the proletariat, for our dear Soviet power."
Yep, kulak activity if I ever saw it (&#33;) <_<

[Young Juche League]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 8 2005, 04:00 AM

If Trotsky hadn&#39;t industrialized the Russian infastructure in the same manner that Stalin did, things may have changed.

Yes, we would be praising Hitler at Himmler-Lives.
Precisly, it was Stalin who saved the USSR from fascism, and thus the world. I don&#39;t offer unquestioning loyalty to everything Stalin did, but he was primarily a force for good.

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, we all have our own views about Socialism, but definately from 1917-1924, they weren&#39;t there, why did he have to iniate the NEP anyways?

Because they weren&#39;t there.

That doesn&#39;t mean the material conditions weren&#39;t built afterwards.