NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a topic from a thread that went off-topic.

Anyway, as a matter of fact, Lenin drove a Rolls-Royce. I also read that the only thing Lenin didn't that Stalin did was kill Communist Party members.

i wish the hardcore communists and socialists will just acknoledge that the russian revolution was never ment as the glorious working mans war they keep making it out to be. it was instead, organized by a few very evil men that had nothing else in mind but to become supreme rulers of that country. lenin was evil, stalin was evil, and trotsky was evil.

Neither. I feel that, under Stalin at least, it was a socialist dictatorship. It had collective labor, centralized control of everything, and banned religion, the "opiate of the masses". So while it may not have been a true communist state, Stalin was one of the few dictators on the far left.

And Lenin drove a Rolls-Royce. Oh, my. Of course, he didn't actually buy the Rolls-Royce, it was a spoil of war.

Oh, did you forget that too? Alot of the people Lenin sent to Siberia were White Russians. Who had just thought a vicious and very protracted civil war against the Bolsheviks. And, lest we forget, the Tsars sent people to Siberia too. Lots and lots of people.

They also used secret police, and had people shot for little reason. The Bolshevik Revolution was something that had to happen, when it happened. If it hadn't been the Bolsheviks, the Tsars and the 'provisional government' both would have been swept away by something, if possible, worse.

And before you start on how Stalin was evil incarnate, he was better than Trotsky. Trotsky advocated going to war, and spreading mass revolution. Stalin was quite content in Russia, killing his own people. And forget what happened to Poland and the Baltic states and so on, they had been part of Russia less than 40 years before hand.

I don't agree with the tsars sending people to Siberia either. And brutally slaughtering people, whether at home or abroad, is wrong. And if the Rolls-Royce truly was a spoil of war, everyone should have had the use of it.

I can't stand dictatorship. I'm proudly a democratic socialist.

I don't agree with the tsars sending people to Siberia either. And brutally slaughtering people, whether at home or abroad, is wrong. And if the Rolls-Royce truly was a spoil of war, everyone should have had the use of it.

I can't stand dictatorship. I'm proudly a democratic socialist.

That would be one freakin' big Rolls Royce... :shock:

Lenin was a true leader of the Proletariat... he was working towards reform towards the end of his life. The NEP, for example, allowed small-scale capitalism to take place.

Lenin was a true leader of the Proletariat... he was working towards reform towards the end of his life. The NEP, for example, allowed small-scale capitalism to take place.

he was a power hungry rich man who tricked the russian people into risking their lives just to get the damn bolshevicks(sp?) into power so they could oppress the masses for 70 years.

Lenin was a true leader of the Proletariat... he was working towards reform towards the end of his life. The NEP, for example, allowed small-scale capitalism to take place.

You would agree, though, that Stalin was a better leader of Russia than Lenin's choice Trotsky would have been, yes? And Val, no.

Lenin was a true leader of the Proletariat... he was working towards reform towards the end of his life. The NEP, for example, allowed small-scale capitalism to take place.

You would agree, though, that Stalin was a better leader of Russia than Lenin's choice Trotsky would have been, yes? And Val, no.

oh, ok then. wait a minute, dont you have anything else to say? perhaps try to trick me into buying into your socialist nonsense?

Lenin was a true leader of the Proletariat... he was working towards reform towards the end of his life. The NEP, for example, allowed small-scale capitalism to take place.

You would agree, though, that Stalin was a better leader of Russia than Lenin's choice Trotsky would have been, yes? And Val, no.

Trotsky was well and truly mad... One of the few good things Stalin did was to have him assassinated.

Lenin was a true leader of the Proletariat... he was working towards reform towards the end of his life. The NEP, for example, allowed small-scale capitalism to take place.

You would agree, though, that Stalin was a better leader of Russia than Lenin's choice Trotsky would have been, yes? And Val, no.

oh, ok then. wait a minute, dont you have anything else to say? perhaps try to trick me into buying into your socialist nonsense?

ME? A SOCIALIST?! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! HA HA!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! HA HA!

Lenin was a true leader of the Proletariat... he was working towards reform towards the end of his life. The NEP, for example, allowed small-scale capitalism to take place.

You would agree, though, that Stalin was a better leader of Russia than Lenin's choice Trotsky would have been, yes? And Val, no.

oh, ok then. wait a minute, dont you have anything else to say? perhaps try to trick me into buying into your socialist nonsense?

Oh look. Someone who clearly has no idea what they're talking about and thinks they can try and argue a point about which they know nothing.

Please continue, Roania.

Lenin was a true leader of the Proletariat... he was working towards reform towards the end of his life. The NEP, for example, allowed small-scale capitalism to take place.

You would agree, though, that Stalin was a better leader of Russia than Lenin's choice Trotsky would have been, yes? And Val, no.

Trotsky was well and truly mad... One of the few good things Stalin did was to have him assassinated.

yes, i will agree with you there.

Lenin was a true leader of the Proletariat... he was working towards reform towards the end of his life. The NEP, for example, allowed small-scale capitalism to take place.

You would agree, though, that Stalin was a better leader of Russia than Lenin's choice Trotsky would have been, yes? And Val, no.

oh, ok then. wait a minute, dont you have anything else to say? perhaps try to trick me into buying into your socialist nonsense?

ME? A SOCIALIST?! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! HA HA!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! HA HA!

please forgive me. what are you then?

Is a dictatorship of the proletariat one where you kill everyone who doesn't agree with you, and some who do? If that's the case, then the Soviet Union was the perfect example.

Lenin was a true leader of the Proletariat... he was working towards reform towards the end of his life. The NEP, for example, allowed small-scale capitalism to take place.

You would agree, though, that Stalin was a better leader of Russia than Lenin's choice Trotsky would have been, yes? And Val, no.

oh, ok then. wait a minute, dont you have anything else to say? perhaps try to trick me into buying into your socialist nonsense?

Oh look. Someone who clearly has no idea what they're talking about and thinks they can try and argue a point about which they know nothing.

Please continue, Roania.

fine, i dont agree with you. but you dont have to be an ass about it

Is a dictatorship of the proletariat one where you kill everyone who doesn't agree with you, and some who do? If that's the case, then the Soviet Union was the perfect example.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is basically the single-party government of the workers.

Trotsky was well and truly mad... One of the few good things Stalin did was to have him assassinated.

The problem with Communism was not that it was twisted to evil ends. Stalin was someone who had to exist, and if not him then circumstances would have conspired to bring forward someone else like him. He is needlessly vilified.

The problem with communism was, as Bukharin originally noted, that it stretched the transitional phase out too long. There was never any *real* attempt at reaching Marx's ultimate ideal.

Of the workers. Well, Stalin was arresting workers in the middle of the night. If it's supposed to be of the workers, then why are the workers suffering?

Marx's ultimate ideal is pretty much unattainable in this day and age... Even I accept this.
A liberal socialist system does more, in my opinion, than create a 'stop-gap' measure until some utopian society magically creates itself.

Marx's ultimate ideal is pretty much unattainable in this day and age... Even I accept this.
A liberal socialist system does more, in my opinion, than create a 'stop-gap' measure until some utopian society magically creates itself.

And that's just it. If the 1st International had followed Bukharin, then that ideal would have been reached in a time when it was possible. That's why communism failed to capture hearts and minds.

And no, Marx's original ideal was for the proletariat...there's a difference. Slight, I know, but still there.

It is unattainable because we live in an imperfect world. In fact, if everyone was good and perfect, I honestly believe capitalism would work.