NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading about Leninism earlier today, curious of the differences between it and Stalinism/Trotskism, and found this: Lenin's Ideal was in a Democratically Elected Communist Official, who'd run the government for his term, and then there would be another election. And it was not intended to be spun the way Stalin did it either, with only Communist Higher Ups being able to vote. No, it was one man, one vote.


Rather interesting. Possibly, had Lenin not suffered those dibilitating strokes, the Soviet Union might not have been such a bad nation as it turned out to be. Maybe Communism might have actually worked, and been the benefit of the people, not the bane.


Anyone have any opinions, speculations, etc?

Please, no flaming about Commie SOBs, etc. I'm looking for intelligent responses.

Typical.

Thats how most good ideas are.

But would democratically-elected communism work in Russia? I don't know what it is like there now, but I know Russia does not have a long tradition of democracy.

The only historical democratic movement I know of in Russia is the Decembrist Uprising. Which failed.

not much news there. but lenin was pretty bad too, the whole 'end justifies the means' thing with engineering famines for some reason or another. but if he had lived a little longer maybe the state would have withered away, who knows?

I was reading about Leninism earlier today, curious of the differences between it and Stalinism/Trotskism, and found this: Lenin's Ideal was in a Democratically Elected Communist Official, who'd run the government for his term, and then there would be another election. And it was not intended to be spun the way Stalin did it either, with only Communist Higher Ups being able to vote. No, it was one man, one vote.


Rather interesting. Possibly, had Lenin not suffered those dibilitating strokes, the Soviet Union might not have been such a bad nation as it turned out to be. Maybe Communism might have actually worked, and been the benefit of the people, not the bane.


Anyone have any opinions, speculations, etc?

Please, no flaming about Commie SOBs, etc. I'm looking for intelligent responses.

That's interesting. It's certainly true that Lenin's untimely departure and Stalin's ascent to leadership set the course of the Soviet Union in a direction millions have regretted. It's a little like speculating on what might of happened had Abraham Lincoln not been assassinated at the beginning of his 2nd term and been able to guide the post-war efforts in the South.

I was reading about Leninism earlier today, curious of the differences between it and Stalinism/Trotskism, and found this: Lenin's Ideal was in a Democratically Elected Communist Official, who'd run the government for his term, and then there would be another election. And it was not intended to be spun the way Stalin did it either, with only Communist Higher Ups being able to vote. No, it was one man, one vote.


Rather interesting. Possibly, had Lenin not suffered those dibilitating strokes, the Soviet Union might not have been such a bad nation as it turned out to be. Maybe Communism might have actually worked, and been the benefit of the people, not the bane.


Anyone have any opinions, speculations, etc?

Please, no flaming about Commie SOBs, etc. I'm looking for intelligent responses.

In Lenin's gummint one man gets one vote. Unless that strategy didnt achieve the anticipated results. Then one man gets one bullet.

not much news there. but lenin was pretty bad too, the whole 'end justifies the means' thing with engineering famines for some reason or another. but if he had lived a little longer maybe the state would have withered away, who knows?

I believe Lenin himself set up a dictatorial government.