Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 10:23, 9 July 2024

This is an archive of past discussions about Vladimir Lenin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cheka Sentence

The following sentence, while true, seems to have a biased tone. I would suggest rewriting it to a more neutral format. Darktravesty 20:46, 03 August 2007 (UTC)

"Workers were re-forming independent soviets; the Cheka broke them up. Independent newspapers criticized Lenin's government; the Cheka closed them down..."

Reference no.1

I'm not sure whether this is really that important, however, I was surprised to see such a large reference/citation for ReferenceNo.1! If this length is commonplace I would really appriciate knowing, otherwise, how could this be corrected? Eps0n 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a somewhat lengthy, if interesting footnote. The argument goes that material peripheral, but important background to the subject should go into a footnote, however if it's that peripheral, should it be mentioned at all? - particularly, if it has the length of a full blown article in its own right. Ultimately, it's a matter of taste, but it might be better if the author could paraphrase the principal argument of the quotation. Kbthompson 11:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag on Richard Pipes

Changed:

Anti-Communist historian and ultra-conservative politician Richard Pipes

To:

Historian Richard Pipes

First of all, let me state how much I personally despise Pipes.

See the: Richard_Pipes#Team_B section, I wrote this section, and for the past year, I have been defending this section from vandals and those who want to white wash Team Bs history, which I also wrote.

That said, I have to agree with User:J.R. Hercules, I don't know who User:J.R. Hercules is, but he is correct, Richard Pipes is a historian. Further, labeling Pipes with all of those labels is not encyclopedic. My view is consistent on this, I don't care who is doing the labeling, and who is being labeled.

Let people decide for themselves who Richard Pipes and Lenin are, any interested casual reader can go to Richard Pipes and read the Richard_Pipes#Anti-Communist section themselves. It always baffels me how ideologues on both the right and the left are so blinded in their ideologies that they can't let any deragatory information into their pet articles. Instead, they want to spoonfed readers their own POV. Don't insult their intellegence, most casual readers can easily detect bias. The most convincing article is an article which presents both sides, not one side. Some of you probably want to convince people that Lenin was a swell guy, some of you probably want to convince people that he was a criminal. Present both sides equally and let people decide for themselves, quit trying to spoonfeed readers, thats the whole concept behind NPOV. Travb (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Richard Pipes is first and formost a conservative politician and an anti-communist. If he is to be refered to as an "historian", it should be noted what his personal agenda is. Bronks 12:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Ultra Conservative part of that has all right to be deleted, it's biased and out of the spirit of wikipedia. However, not all readers have the time to read every article that's referenced to. We should put Anti-Communist in just so the average reader can have a small but efficient view on who Richard Pipes is, especially as he accounts for such a small part of the article.--Aun'va 07:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lenin's radio speech against anti-Semitism

I changed:

==Lenin's fight against anti-Semitism==

After the revolution, Lenin worked hard to combat Anti-Semitism in Russia. In a radio speech in 1919, Lenin said:

To:

==Lenin's radio speech against anti-Semitism==

In a radio speech in 1919, Lenin stated:

How did Lenin worked hard to combat Anti-Semitism in Russia? Please give referenced, specific examples. "Worked hard" is non-encyclopedic. Because how can you measure how hard someone worked? Teach me please, I dont know jack about Lenin, how did he work against Anti-Semitism, how was he opposed to Anti-Semitism? What kindof legislation did he pass for Jews? Did he give any other speeched? If so don't quote the speeches, reference the speeches. And please, don't respond to me here, respond to me in this article section, by adding verifiable sources which illustrates how Lenin worked hard for supported the Jews. Travb (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

On this whole question please see the points I have raised in 'What Is to Be Done?-Part III'. Some people get very confused about this whole issue, especially those who see Jewish people purely in a bogus racial terms. Lenin freely admitted people from a Jewish 'background' to the highest ranks of both party and state, but this has to be coupled with a wholesale campaign against those who actually practiced Judaism, which reached particularly crude heights during the 1921 campaign against religion. Lenin essentially had the same view of Jewish people as Martin Luther: they were alright as long as they 'converted' to the new ideology. White Guard 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a campaign by the Bolsheviks was against all religions, not just Judaism. Under Lenin and the Bolsheviks the Jews enjoyed more civil rights than at any time in their history in Russia. Trotsky himself is a hero for many Jews, as the greatest Jewish general ever. As for Martin Luther his venemous diatribes against the Jews have much more in common with the Tsarist, White and Fascist ideology. I could quote exactly what the Whites did to the Jewish women and children in their territory, but I'm afraid it might make people here physically sick.

Lenin often denounced Tsarist antisemitism, as well as the item mentioned in the article see for instance his Collected Works Vol 17 (London 1960-70) p 337 about the situation in 1914 where he opined that 'no other nationality in Russia is so oppressed and persecuted as the Jews'. Tsarist anti-Semitism was often used as a red-rag (literally!) to divert the oppressed masses from class-conflict to conflict against internal ethnic enemies - as for instance in the state-sponsored pogroms of 1905, in which the violence of the masses was succesfully diverted by the regime from the Tsarist establishment to Jews - resulting in mass-death of the latter. Colin4C 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see-Trotsky is a hero for many Jews?

See for instance the biography of Trotsky by Prof R. Wistrich (who holds the Neuberger Chair of Modern European History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem): 'Trotsky: Fate of a Revolutionary' (1979) and also the same author's 'Revolutionary Jews from Marx to Trotsky' (1976). Colin4C 09:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Would that include the Russian Chief Rabbi of the day, who said-"The Trotskies make the revolutions, but it's the Bronsteins who pay for them." Once again what I am getting here is a series of generalities, with no concrete examples, and then a completely fatuous diversion on to Tsarist anti-semitism and White atrocities. There were White atrocities; but this is a page about Lenin.

That should not have to be said, but it clearly does-ad nauseum. Just imagine trying to deduce the realities of Soviet life from the 'Stalin Constitution' of 1936. Yet here we are told that Jewish life in Soviet Russia can be deduced from a few anodyne generalities by Lenin about anti-semitism. So the attack on Judaism in 1921 was incidental, just a by-product of the attack on religion in general? But it challenged what it was to be Jewish in the first place, and included a 'trial' of the religion in the same courtroom as the Beilis travesty of 1913. Could there be anything cruder than that? It has been argued that the Soviet attack on Judaism was worse than that on Christianity;

The assault on Jewish religious life was particularly harsh and pervasive because a Jew's religious beliefs and observations infused every aspect of his daily life and were invested with national values and feelings...family relations, work, prayer, study, recreation, and culture were all part of a seamless web, no element of which could be disturbed without disturbing the whole. (Nora Levin, The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917, New York and London, 1988, pp. 70-1)

The logic behind the contention that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were for the Jews but against Judaism simply escapes me. No doubt some weakness in my rational capacities. I am sorry always to respond to an emotional diatribe with appeals to argument, specific examples and reason; but I can not help myself: its in my nature. White Guard 23:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

'Lenin, the new head of the Soviet government, had already written in 1914 that 'no other nationality in Russia is so oppressed and persecuted as the Jews. As a Marxist he sincerely believed that anti-semitism, like all forms of ethnic prejudice, was an outgrowth of class conflict which would evntually dissapear in a classless society. It was essentially a feture of reactionary feudal and capitalist regimes, exploited for the benifit of the ruling classes to sow division in the masses and deflect them from the radical cause. Lenin realised, moreover, that antisemitism was being turned against the Bolshevik regime by its most dangerous opponents - the White counter-revolutionaries - who took advantage of the fact that a number of the top Russian Communist leaders were of Jewish origin. Hence, for pragmatic as well as ideological reasons, he firecely attacked antisemitism in statements and speeches during the Civil War, and as early as 27 July 1918 the Soviet government defined instigators of pogroms as 'enemies of the Revolution' who had to be outlawed. Stringent legislation , backed up by education and propaganda, was employed to suppress antisemitism in the 1920,s though such feelings continued to persist, especially during the New Economic Party

(from 'Anti-Semitism' by R. Wistrich (1991) page 174) Colin4C 09:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear; once again, Colin, you are missing the point. The observation about Luther was for polemical effect; I did not say that Lenin's programme was like Luther's. What I did say was that for Lenin, as for Luther, Jews were acceptable, just as long as they were not Jews. You seem to believe that a series of pious statements and Marxist generalities are enough: they are not. The 1921 campaign was anti-Judaic which, for Jewish people, is just the same as anti-Semitic. You have given not a single concrete example of Soviet defense of the right to practice freely as a Jew, and not as a worshiper of Lenin's secular ideology. But let's look at his actions-or lack of them-in broader terms. In November 1920 Lenin received detailed Cheka reports of the pogroms carried out by First Cavalry Army, a Red formation operating in Poland;

A new wave of pogroms has swept through the district. The number of those killed cannot be established...As they retreated, units of the First Cavalry Army (and the 6th Division) destroyed, looted and killed the Jewish population...These are new pages in the history of pogroms in the Ukraine.

What did Lenin do about this? Why, nothing. These reports were consigned to oblivion by the words 'For the archives.' No actions, therefore, but lots of meaningless words; as I have said, the usual generalities and platitudes. "While condemning anti-semitism in general, Lenin was unable to analyse, let alone eradicate, its prevalence in Soviet society." (Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin, London, 1994, p. 203)White Guard 01:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I challenge there ever was a Radio Address. was it by voice or spark gap telegraph ? had the Tsar ever given a radio address ? who was the audience? If the US President or Brit PM had never spoken on the radio in 1919...Lenin did ? were the radios made during Tsarist era ? it's all quite remarkable. Hrothgar 21:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Dallas Hays, I do hope you are joking, if so it is funny, if not it a very "unique" point. Are you joking, since wikipedia is a club open to everyone, no matter how "absurd" their views, (which is both good and bad) I wouldn't be surprised if you were not joking.Best wishes, Travb (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Other minor changes

removed "intolerable" non-encyclopedic adjective

claiming--> stating WP:AWW my big pet peeve.

Removed the sentence:

"Disregarding the words of Lenin is often perceived to have been a fatal error."

By who?

Removed the sentence:

"Although many of these decried institutions and policies—such as secret police, labor camps, and executions of political opponents—were practiced under Lenin's regime, these techniques were all commonly used by the Tsars long before Lenin and were long since established as the standard means of dealing with political dissent in Russia."

We are talking about the alleged crimes on Lenin, not the alleged crimes of the Tsars. In addition, this sentence is unreferenced.

Removed the sentence:

However, this is most likely due to the sudden and dramatic revolution and change of government, not to mention the approaching civil war and intervention by 21 foreign nations.

Unreferenced apologist sentence.

Signed: Travb (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

However by so-doing this you have created this illogical piece of syntax, with a clunking great non-sequitor in the middle of it!:

Historian Richard Pipes has argued that policies such as handing sweeping power to the state, enforcing rigid party discipline, using terror as a means of political intimidation, and requisitioning grain paved the road to Stalinism. However, the scale was different: three times more political prisoners were executed in the first few months of Bolshevik rule than in over 90 years under the Tsar.

And following your point: if it is illegitimate to link Lenin's 'crimes' to the Tsar why is it legit to link them to Stalin as per Pipes? As for references I can provide several which link Tsarist tyranny with Soviet tyranny: see for instance Chamberlin's acclaimed 'The Russian Revolution' (1935), Princetown University Press. The opening chapters of this are a sobering reminder of the grisly slave-state the Tsars created, maintained by Terror and Torture, long before Lenin was even dreamed of. Colin4C 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't cut up other people's posts with your own, post underneath the other person's comments. See Misplaced Pages:Refactoring talk pages

As for references I can provide several which link Tsarist tyranny with Soviet tyranny: see for instance Chamberlin's acclaimed 'The Russian Revolution' (1935), Princetown University Press. Good, then add it, state who says it, and add it. Otherwise it is an unreferenced sentence. We are talking about references, not grammar. Travb (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jews and Judaism are linked, but not synonymous. The Jews are a people who historically have practiced Judaism, however some Jews are atheists. Many of the atheists around today are in fact Jewish. Belief in God is not necessarily a prerequisite for Jews, as the Jews were a tribe, and modern Jews tend to be descendents of that tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Please sign your posts using ~~~~ thank you. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Clunky sentence

I am not sure why this sentence is in the supporter, criticm section:

Leon Trotsky stated that a "river of blood" separated Lenin from Stalin's actions because Stalin executed many of Lenin's old comrades and their supporters, grouped in the Left Opposition. This was indeed to include Trotsky himself.

Thanks. Travb (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lenin and the Jews

According to Zvi Gitelman in the 1920's the Soviet regime made a serious attempt to combat anti-Jewish prejudice: 'Never before in Russian history - and never subsequently - has a government made such an effort to uproot and stamp out antisemitism' (Z. Gitelman 'Soviet Antisemitism and its perception by Soviet Jews' in Curtis (ed) 'Antisemitism in the Contemporary World (1986)) By contrast the White regime saw the Jews as part of a demonic world conspiracy and massacred over 100,000 of them - men, women and children often in an obscenely brutal fashion only the SS would approve of (see Wistrich, R, 'Anti-Semitism the Oldest Hatred' (1991) pages 171 to 191). Colin4C 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I refer readers to what I have written above about this whole issue, under Lenin's Radio Speech Against Anti-Semitism. White Guard 23:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pipes

This is what distinguished historian of the Russian Revolution Orlando Figes, in a newspaper article, says about our friend (but no friend of Lenin it seems) the noted 'historian' Pipes:

My main reservation is the tendentious nature of the editor's own role. Mr. Pipes, an emeritus professor of Russian history at Harvard, is famous for his low opinion of Lenin -- in The Russian Revolution (1990) and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (1994) he depicts Lenin as the devil incarnate -- and it is difficult to avoid the inference that his selection and interpretation of the documents in The Unknown Lenin have been slanted to support this view.

As Pipes's biased comments about Lenin have been allowed to stand in the body of this article I reverse my condemnation of the mighty Hercules and White Guards NPOV label. I now agree with them that the article IS biased - against Lenin. Colin4C 18:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pipes is not really a historian, at least not an objectiv one. He is first and formost an ultra conservative politician and an anti-communist. Bronks 19:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to take this article forward. I can see this is clearly going to be very difficult. Could I please have a source for the above quotation?

White Guard 23:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's from an article Mr Figes wrote for the New York Times on Oct 27 1996:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E1DB1230F934A15753C1A960958260 Colin4C 08:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read Pipes' book and it seems to me to be meticulously well-researched. To say that Pipes is not a historian is an unjustified slander. However Pipes certainly does have an anti-Leninist POV which shows through in his work. But I don't see why we have to keep on and on arguing about this article. Why not just include both Pipes' viewpoint and that of other historians, including a statement of where they depart from fact into opinion and subjective interpretation? In this particular article, with its controversial topic, the best way to achieve NPOV is not sticking to the facts (which are mostly disputed anyway), but to provide a fair balance between both left-wing and right-wing points of view. Walton monarchist89 09:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the opposing point of view to Pipes:

Although many of these decried institutions and policies—such as secret police, labor camps, and executions of political opponents—were practiced under Lenin's regime, these techniques were all commonly used by the Tsars long before Lenin and were long since established as the standard means of dealing with political dissent in Russia."

was removed by Travb, leaving a gaping non-sequitor and mangled sytax (which is not, however much it might be a source of solace to ungrammatical right wingers, enclyclopediac). Suffice to say that the link between the Tsarist tyranny and the Red tyranny has been made by umpteen writers (just two examples from a vast literature: chapter 1 of W.H. Chamberlin's standard 'The Russian Revolution' (1935) and a very interesting book by Alexander Yanov: 'The Origins of Autocracy: Ivan the Terrible in Russian History' (1981) University of California Press, which contra-Pipes concludes that the Russian autocractic tradition began in January 1565 rather than October 1917 and that Stalin's programme was uncannily similar to that of Ivan the Terrible (of whom Stalin was a fan - see the film about Ivan produced under his regime). Colin4C 10:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to Figes article on Pipes. Perhaps people would like to know how the article continues? Well, for the sake of balance, here we are;

Otherwise, however, Mr Pipe's editorial views are fully justified by the evidence. As one would expect, most of the newly released documents from the Soviet archives uncover Lenin's darker side. Three aspects of this in particular stand out.

One is Lenin's cruelty, his callous attitude to the helpless victims of his revolution and his calls for terror against his enemies. In one shocking letter of 1922, Lenin urged the Politburo to put down an uprising by the clergy in the textile town of Shuia; "the greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoise we succeed in executing...the better." One Russian historian has recently estimated that 8000 priests and laymen were executed as a result of this letter.

Another aspect is Lenin's contempt for his closest comrades (though not for Stalin, according to Mr. Pipes). Lev Kamenev was a "poor fellow, weak, frightened and intimidated." As for Trotsky, he was "in love with the organization, but as for politics, he hasn't got a clue."

All very revealing, is it not? It would seem that Ivan Grozny had more than one fan. I have absolutely no objection to the view that the Red Tyranny has to be seen in the context of Russian history as a whole. Lenin is not an aberration. Readers can check out the rest of this sorry story for themselves. White Guard 00:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's please try to put aside this POV debate. Pipes' views deserve to be included in this article, as do the opposing points of view. Clearly Figes, from the above combination of quotes, is rather more balanced between left and right than most writers on the subject, as he criticises Pipes but goes on to concede some of Pipes' criticisms of Lenin. Walton monarchist89 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added Pipes book "The Unknown Lenin" to the further reading section. I understand that this could be a controversial book. I`ve added it on the basis of flopping trough it's pages and seeing it contains original copies of documents Lenin produced. A friend of mine who is interested in revolutionary history thinks the book is interesting also. --PeterKristo 21:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV Section

I've removed the 'Criticism' section which just gives us various contradictory right and left wing POVs and contains stuff which links Lenin to Stalin's purges which happened 10 years after Lenin's death and for which various other deep historical currents in Russian history could be responsible for (see Vlasov: 'The Origins of Russian Autocracy'). This article should be about Lenin not Stalin. Colin4C 12:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Though Lenin advocated and helped to form a "Soviet democracy," it is often argued by Lenin's opponents on the right, like Kautsky, and on his left, like Kollontai, that he countermanded proletarian emancipation and democracy (workers' control through the soviets or workers' councils) by force. Historian Richard Pipes has argued that policies such as handing sweeping power to the state, enforcing rigid party discipline, using terror as a means of political intimidation, and requisitioning grain paved the road to Stalinism. However, the scale was different: three times more political prisoners were executed in the first few months of Bolshevik rule than in over 90 years under the Tsar.

Defenders of Lenin assert that these criticisms ignore many central events during Tsarist rule, such as the Russo-Japanese War, Bloody Sunday (1905), and World War I. They also mention that the scale of the circumstances which surrounded the Bolsheviks was different as well: a country ravaged by an unprecedently destructive world war, a mass of people kept historically illiterate by Tsarist autocracy, an oppositional force that fought to oust the Bolsheviks from power, etc.

Leon Trotsky stated that a "river of blood" separated Lenin from Stalin's actions because Stalin executed many of Lenin's old comrades and their supporters, grouped in the Left Opposition. This was indeed to include Trotsky himself.' Colin4C 12:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We cannot separate Lenin's actions against dissent from the later, more sustained, campaign of Josef Stalin. Stalin and his own form of Terror would not have existed but for Lenin; it is incredibly facile, both in historical and philosophical terms, to suggest otherwise. I realise, Colin, that you do not like any kind of argument at variance with your own, but for all those willing to take an objective view here is what Dimitri Likhachev says on the matter;

One of my goals is to destroy the myth that the crullest era of repression began in 1936-37. I think that in future, statistics will show that the wave of arrests, sentences and exile had already begun at the beginning of 1918, even before the official declaration, that autumn, of the 'Red Terror'. From that moment, the wave simply grew larger and larger, until the death of Stalin.

(Vospominaniya, St. Petesburg, 1995, p. 118)

Having said that I have no fundamental objection to the above excisions, which are, indeed, lacking in precision, clumsy and very badly phrased. I will, however, work in an appropriate reference to the 'genealogy of terror.'White Guard 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with White Guard. This one question keeps coming up; whether Lenin and Stalin's political legacies can be separated, or whether they were part of the same tradition of brutality. Colin4C, I suggest you read Solzhenitsyn. He himself fought in the Red Army in the Civil War and was originally a loyal Communist. Where he criticises Communism, therefore, one ought to pay attention to his critique. He argues that Lenin developed the system of terror and political imprisonment as a natural consequence of Marxism; Stalin just continued this tradition. In comparison, the Tsarist regime was relatively mild and humanitarian - those exiled to Siberia were not maltreated, and seemed to find it remarkably easy to escape. Lenin killed far more people than any Tsar since Ivan the Terrible; Stalin just continued his work. Trotsky is a biased source, far more so than Solzhenitsyn, and was trying to whitewash his own historical reputation by blaming Stalin for the evils of Soviet Marxism. Walton monarchist89 09:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn, whatever his past, is now a very right-wing Russian Nationalist and supporter of the Orthodox church. His interpretation of Lenin and the Communists as 'cosmopolitans' and somehow alien to the Russian tradition has been disputed by Robert Service in his recent (2000) widely acclaimed biography of Lenin. Russia has a very long history, both of repressive state apparatus and repressive Tsars and of massive revolts against it, by such as Pugachev and Stenka Razin etc. Lenin did not appear from nowhere - the whole of Russian History was pointed his way. Almost all the attempts by reforming liberals in the time of Tsar Nicholas II (now a saint....) were stymied by the Tsar leaving the jerrymandered Duma with no credibility when the Tsar was unexpectadly toppled from his throne in March 1917. As stated before Lenin's repressive measures were in the context of an extremely bloody and vicious (on both sides) civil war against the Whites and foreign regimes, which was very uncertain in its outcome. As for Lenin's responsibility for Stalinist terror, certain historians, such as M. Lewin in 'Lenin's Last Struggle' (1969) disagree and state that Lenin, tragically hampered by his final illness tried his damndest to try to muzzle mad-dog Stalin, before it was too late. Unfortunately it was too late...Colin4C 12:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You might care to dip into Ivan Bunin's Civil War diaries, Cursed Days, to get a slightly different view of of Lenin and the Bolsheviks from Solzhenitsyn. For Bunin-Russia's first winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature-they were little more than a gang of criminals, ruining his country. I hope Service's biography of Lenin-which I have not read-is better than the similar treatment he gave Stalin, which I had to stop reading because of the simply huge number of cliches and tired old phrases he trots out with depressing frequency (including one reference to 'hanky-panky' in Stalin's entourage; yes, that's right, 'hanky-panky'!). Anyway, Lenin's repression was bloody before the Civil War, and even bloodier afterwards. And of all the things he could have said about Stalin to condemn him for 'rudeness' must, as I have previously argued, count as one of history's greatest understatements. Lenin was not responsible for Stalin's Terror: rather Stalin simply built and improved upon a practice and technique already well-established. Lenin was not parachuted into Russian history: no more was Stalin. White Guard 23:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Amendments and alterations

I've made a number of changes, amendments and alterations. I am willing to discuss any of these with a view to establishing a degree of consensus. I realise that not everybody will agree with my revisions, but it is necessary to achieve some balance, and I hope I have tried to be fair. After all there still remains much with which I do not agree. Anyway, here we go.

1. Iskra was co-founded with Julius Martov.

2. Lenin's goal in WWI was not specifically the defeat of the Tsarist government, but the transformation of an 'imperalist war' into a 'war between classes.' This, of course, would embrace all of the combatants.

3. The story of the 'sealed train' is a myth: it was 'sealed' only in the sense that those inside were allowed to travel without the usual inspection of documents and passports. It was the German goverment's belief that Lenin would cause political upheaval in Russia. I doubt that Kaiser Wilhelm even knew he existed.

4. Lenin's opposition to the Provisional Government made the Bolsheviks a likely refuge for all those opposed to its policies. An 'obvious home for the masses' reads as if it has been lifted straight out of the Thoughts of Chairman Mao.

5. The previous version on the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly was, as I have said possibly the worst piece of bias and political manipulation that I have ever read on Misplaced Pages. I have now merely left it that it was closed down by force because the Bolsheviks lost the elections, an historically exact statement. I have followed this, though, with a sentence emphasising that this marked the beginning of a process of political repression, again an accurate statement of the facts. The long and tedious quotes from Lenin do not serve to advance the position in any meaningful sense.

6. The left-wing opponents of Lenin, in particular the Social Revolutionaries, did not seek to 'overthrow the Soviet state' but to end the Bolshevik dictatorship. Lenin did not respond by 'shutting down their activities' (how does one shut down activities?), but by initiating widespread persecution of dissidents of all shades of opinion.

7. The Cheka was established to challenge not just 'counterrevolutionaries' but political opponents of all kinds.

8. Lenin started the Civil War first by seizing power in October 1917, and second by dismissing the democratically elected Constituent Assembly in January 1918. To talk of 'deliberate continution' of the Civil War by anti-Communist forces and the Allied Powers is politically biased nonsense, as is the 'Stalinist' suggestion that this was the cause of the 1921 famine, which reached its height after the war ended. The famine was caused, in large measure, by Bolshevik policy towards the peasantry, in particular forced grain requsitions.

9. I've given one detailed example of Lenin's support for Cheka excesses.

10. The White armies were not exclusively 'Tsarist' in composition.

11. The section on Lenin and imperialism concluded with this intellectual gem; This would allow these countries admittance into the Soviet Union rather than simply forcing them to become part of Russia as would be in imperialist practices. Excuse me? The people of Georgia and Armenia might have a different view on this question.

12. NEP for Lenin was at best a tactical retreat. There is no reason to suppose that he would not have approved of Stalin's reversal of the policy in 1928.

13. Lenin's statement on anti-semitism cannot be allowed to stand in some abstract Platonic sense without reference to the actual fate of Jewish people under early Soviet rule. Otherwise it is no more than vacant propaganda.

I have thus removed-or balanced out-some of the 'agitprop' elements of the previous version, though what remains is far from ideal. Much more needs to be said about Lenin's early political influences-not all Marxist-his relationship with-and treatment of-former comrades in the RSDP, and the growing dictatorial and terrorist tendency within Russian Communism under his guidance. Above all, it is important to understand that Lenin laid foundations built upon by Stalin, by far his greatest disciple. White Guard 08:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with much of this, but I think it is very wrong to say Lenin started the civil war. (Although he knew it would come and was preapared for it.) Lenin lead a revolution that came to power with the support of most of the people. After that, the counter-revolutionaries launched the civil war, which was a war they could not win (even wwith forign support), as the support for the revolutionon was much strunger than the counter revolution. Bronks 09:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Just imagine if in your own country-wherever that is-a particular party or group seized power in a military coup, proceeding to eliminate most of the opposition and the established and legitimate forms of rule and governance? Now imagine further if in subsequent elections this same party obtained only 24% of the national vote and then simply dismissed-again by force-the newly assembled parliament or congress? Do you imagine your fellow countrymen would simply accept this situation, offering no resistence whatsoever? If you are honest I think the answer has to be no, and the obvious result would be civil disobedience at a minimum level and civil war at a maximum. Well, this was the situation in Russia in 1918. So on an objective level Lenin's actions must be said to have started the Civil War. I think, if you will forgive me for saying so, your view of both the Revolution and the subsequent Civil War is a little old fashioned. The Bolsheviks may have had majority support among the industrial working class in 1917 and early 1918, but this is far from saying that they had the support of the 'people' in the widest sense. Most of the peasants-by far the biggest sector of the population-supported the Social Revolutionaries. The counter-revolutionaries, moreover, were not all 'Tsarist reactionaries', but made up of a wide variety of groups and interests, which largely accounts for their ultimate defeat. What was strongest in 1918 was the peasant desire for land-not socialism-and that was the chief factor in the whole process underway. The Bolshevik promise of land-which in the end was to prove to be a lie-combined with the fear that the landlords might return determined the immediate political shape of Russia. Allied intervention was both peripheral and of minimal impact. White Guard 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Lenin and his party did NOT take power in a military coup. The military leadership was against the Bolsheviks!!! The communists came to power through the support of the workers and farmers and ordinary soldiers, i.e. workers in uniforms. That is not a military coup, that is a Revolution! Bronks 12:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Constituent Assembly, I removed the part "after losing the elections the bolsheviks..." as it is misleading : the soviet government was then a coalition of bolsheviks and left SRs. One major problem with the Constituent assembly was that the split in the SR was not reflected in them, that is why the left SRs at that time supported the dissolution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Russian_Constituent_Assembly#Meeting_in_Petrograd_.28January_5-6.2C_1918.29 83.214.14.140 14:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor's POV

I have removed this as it is both factually inaccurate, unreferenced and POV:

Terror and political coercion were thus to become an established feature of the Soviet system, growing in intensity over the years, reaching an apex in the late 1930s under Joseph Stalin.

Terror and political coercion did not grow in intensity over the years - there was a hiatus of some 10 years or so between the end of the Red Terror of the Civil War and Stalin's attacks on the kulaks (1930-32) and the Purges (1934-38), by which time Lenin was long dead. Colin4C 10:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There was not a 'hiatus', as you put it, but an intensification in arrests, mass shootings, suppression of dissent, and the use of concentration camps-all features of the Lenin system. I have given one or two examples in the text, both of a specific and a general nature, but I could drown you in them if you wish. Colin, I'm sorry, but I really do have to question both your political agenda and your understanding of Soviet politics from 1922 to the declaration of the first Five Year Plan, as well as your obvious and unhistorical desire to portray Stalin as some kind of 'bogey-man' or 'mad dog', as you put it, in language ironically reminiscent of Vyshinsky and the Moscow Trails. I will argue this point by point, if you wish; but please have the courtesy to raise the matter here before you reject my contributions as 'POV'. I think I have given you enough grounds since I first entered this page to understand that I cannot be dismissed so lightly White Guard 23:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just been reading Chamberlin's standard History of the Russian Revolution which he wrote ::

whilst resident in Russia in the late 1920's. He was an American correspondant for the Christian Science Monitor and was able to research and write about the revolution, including Trotsky's role, totally unmolested by the authorities. He remarks in the intro how all that changed when Stalin came to power and the Soviet Union closed in on itself and became some sort of closed-in madhouse of repression and censorship. From what I have read about the subject the Real Revolution in Russia was the one Stalin launched from 1928 onwards. Lenin and co's 1917 revolution was just pussy-footing around compared with the immense transformation Russia experienced in the Stalin years. And if you think this is just my IMHO I can give you lots of references. Arguably Stalin combined some aspects of Marxist-Leninism with much older systems of Tsarist tyranny and Russian nationalism. Yes, maybe I was wrong to call Stalin a mad-dog, perhaps he should be given the credit due to his own Russian Revolution. Colin4C 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no fundamental disagreement with anything you have written here. You are absolutely correct-the real Russian Revolution, it might truly be argued, came in 1928, accompanied by even greater forms of terror than that which were ushered in by the events of 1917 and 1918. It was a transformation of economic and social relationships on a scale hitherto unprecedented in history. It was also, it has to be said, the very policy that the Left Opposition, headed by Trotsky and Zinoviev, had been arguing for in the mid-1920s, when Stalin was still allied with Bukharin and the 'NEP wing' of the Communist Party White Guard 01:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is an attempt at moral equivalence, on both sides of this debate. I have no doubt that Lenin was ultimately the founder of much of what Stalin took to the nth degree, but, at the same time, it's not neutral to use words like "terror" or "coercion", true or not. For example, if I changed around the above disputed sentence, and called it NPOV, I think some of you would disagree:

"Peace and political freedom were thus to become an established feature of the Soviet system, growing in intensity over the years, reaching an apex in the late 1930s under Joseph Stalin."

Now, that's an extreme example (and, for that matter, false), but you get my point. Those on the anti-Lenin side would not like that. And yet they still want it the other way. See, the words "peace" and "freedom" as just as much meaningless platitudes as "terror" and "coercion", especially when deconstucting a figure like Lenin. One man's repression is another man's socialist paradise. Did the Soviet Union under Lenin engage in foundless repression? I'd say yes, but that's my view. There are multiple sources and opinions. Try stating them without endorsing them. None of this "'Lenin is guitless!' 'No! He's a monster!'" business.

For example, the argument that "Lenin wasn't as bad as Stalin" is flawed. Whether or not you agree with his motives, the government he built did kill people, undeniably. So what if it was fewer than Stalin? Whether or not Lenin commited evil (and I think we can all agree killing is evil) in the name of good (as Robert Mcnamara would put it) is contentious, and not something up for debate on Misplaced Pages: we state the perceptions, not the "facts" (unfortunately or not). Someone will always cry foul of facts, no matter the source. This is about being objective, presenting more than one view (views from reputable sources, of course, but you get my point I hope). And you can't be that by saying someone implemented "terror" and leaving it at that.

The same problem arises in the debate over the White and Red army. They both, clearly, commited atrocities. It is not right to say one is worse than the other because one's body count is higher, regardless of motive. It's not your responsibility to moralize, especially in the "my guy(s) killed fewer so it's justified" way:

"Yes, there was terror, extensive and brutal; but that of the Whites was more than matched by that of the Reds, and not just against counter-revolutionaries but peope who had been their allies and comrades in the political underground..." -- White Guard

Is it worse that they betrayed their former comrades? Assuming it's true, yeah. But we're both moralising if we accept that as objectively truth. Matched is no excuse. The Whites were scum, too. Period. "Too" meaning "also". Terror is subjective, unfortunately, to a Western audience that doesn't know the meaning of the word some 90 years after the Russian civil war...so you just can't put it that way. I'd say the same if you were trying to say how great the USSR was.

Not that I'm suggesting that you're doing this on purpose, but I notice that each side has the habit of countering each others arguments in this fashion...or simply by claiming the other side doesn't understand. Hey, maybe you're not doing this, but it certainly comes off that way...

I don't mean to be harsh, but, clearly, none of this is getting you nowhere.

So how do you make this neutral? Haven't got a clue. I'm just saying what I think you're doing wrong. Cheers -- Yossarian 03:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: On the whole Richard Pipes "thing": instead of giving him a title ("ultra conservative", "historian", etc.) why not just call him..."Richard Pipes". Let people look him up on their own.

Thank you for that, but I'm still not quite sure what your point is. That we should use no 'loaded' words in describing a particular political process, system or set of beliefs? That historical assessments should always be free of dynamic descriptive terms or any attempt at judgement? That bland euphemism should serve where possible bias may be suggested? That there was no 'Reign of Terror', merely the 'Reign of a very Large Number of State Sponsored Executions'? Fine it's an intellectual perspective, certainly, and a dare say an honest one; but it is not one that I find either meaningful or useful. I could not imagine writing about twentieth century dictatorships without using the word 'coercion'. And as for the use of the word 'terror', it was Lenin's regime that gave it both currency and legitimacy. So I do think the sentence quoted is useful and descriptive, focusing, as it does, on forms and modes of political practice. You may not happen to like it; but it is true notwithstanding.

The point I was making about the Red Terror in the above was intended for polemical effect, as part of an ongoing debate on these pages. This, I think, is where you will find the most 'loaded' terms, and I freely confess I vigorously countered each point in a deliberate attempt to undermine what I considered to be a particularly facile Lenin bias. The real point here was that the Terror could be justified against genuine political dangers faced by the Soviet regime, against those who would employ it to an equivalent or even higher degree. In this regard it could be perceived as a question of survival, a position being defended by my interlocutor. But could it also be justified against those who simply had a different point of view, who may not have been Bolsheviks but were still socialists and who represented no physical danger to the state? If not, then Terror was simply an end in itself, a part of a new political culture.

Oh yes, you can be as 'harsh' as you like: I welcome robust debate, and indeed let's search for objectivity. But what you can not do is reduce history to 'bloodless discourse' in pursuit of an elusive neutrality. For that, too, serves its own political purpose. White Guard 05:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you can't be "bloodless". But my point was that I perceived you guys justifing the actions of one party by pointing out atrocities by the other. See, I don't think your method has been effective (the point by point business)...I mean, it just makes you sound like your defending the Whites over the Reds because you think they didn't kill as many people (the guy you're arguing with is sounding the same way, but in reverse). I know that's not what you mean, but it could sure be read that way. Certainly it's important to outline both sides of the issue, positive and negative, but it's not logical to suggest that you can counter another argument simply by offering a "your guy did the same thing...but it was worse" kind of argument.

I mean, I agree about the Red Terror (despite a lot of misconceptions). The results of the Bolshevik revolution were tragic, and a blot on the reputation socialism from which it still hasn't recovered. But many of my fellow lefties might not agree. I hate Ronald Reagan (correction, I loathe Ronald Reagan with every ounce of being I can afford to waste upon him), but he was right about one thing: it was the evil empire. But that doesn't justify helping Contras, you know? My point is, there are those who could come up to us and say that the Bolshevik party was entirely justified in every execution (in the same way Anne Coulter can defend McCarthyism, a lesser form of the same evil, IMHO), and that calling it a terror (which it was) is intellectually dishonest. But you can call it the "Red Terror", because that's a name that some historians have given it. I should have been clearer: it's not that you can't say these things, it's that you have to say them through the mouths of others. Truthfully. The same goes for those that claim the positive. The trick is not to write it yourself (sorta), if you see what I mean. Think of yourself as a documentarian, taking all the interviews and compiling them. Don't worry about getting it "right". Just report it right. For better or for worse, Misplaced Pages is about presenting the views that constitute neutrality, regardless of what is truly, objectively correct, and of the editor's own view. Try writing something that's not "anti" Lenin once in a while. Something that doesn't get your hackles up. The blood is in the other, as Hegel might say, so you're not obligated to provide your own. Hope that clarifies it. Cheers --Yossarian 08:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to reply to one of your points, Yossarian, I am thinking, all things considered, that maybe an adjective to describe where a historian is coming from, politically, or in any other way, is not a bad thing, in the sense that a lot of history writing seems to me to be as much about the author's POV and spiritual autobiography as about what really happened in history in real reality. And maybe it is epistimologically or ontologically impossible, anyway, to describe what really happens in real reality, divorced from our perception of it, our cultural and class background our gender and ethnicity etc. As per some of us leftist's bug-bear Mr Pipes, I am thinking now that he probably does have the right to be called an historian, but that we could qualify that with 'conservative', 'ultra-conservative' or whatever. Similarly if an historian is of a Marxist bent we can call him a Marxist historian or whatever. Certain adjectives also have the beauty of not being absolute terms (which could be philosophically disagreable) but are relative to other terms: thus 'left' and 'right'. Thus I think it is fairly uncontroversial to describe Pipes as 'right-wing' and Trotsky as 'left-wing', even if by some miracle one of the other of them had somehow stumbled on absolute truth. Colin4C 11:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, "ultra-conservative" is a tad loaded...I mean, he is (a Reaganite, no?), but it's hard to justify saying that...just conservative would probaly be more apt. The problem is one of perception: if a leftist, for example, looks at "historian Richard Pipes" they might say "That Pipes is an ultra-conservative, and we need to show his bias." Which is what you're saying, I think. Fair enough. But if someone more conservatively minded comes along and sees that addition they might go "They're labelling him a conservative in order to discredit his opinion as pure bias." I don't think that's true at all, but this is about objectivity and consensus...so sometimes we can't do what we think is most right. Only what is right by will of the mob (okay, it's not that bad, but you get me). Anyway, if you're dead set on it, I'd go with an noun adjunct, rather than an adjective. Like, his position under Ronnie. Or whatever. That could bring up other issues, but it is an alternative.

Still, I think that it'll be a problem no matter what. Like, with your example on Trotsky. He was pretty unabashedly left-wing. When we talk about Trotsky we know what his political position is. It would be redundant to call Trotsky "left-wing" in an article like this (people would laugh). Pipes is a controversial figure in this case. Not merely because he is right wing (he IS), but because by stating that people will think there's an alterior motive. If we were using Trotsky in the same way as the Pipes reference, it's pretty clear why we're using him, and no descriptor is necessary. So why not treat Pipes the same? If people don't know who Leo is, they go to his article. If people don't know who Pipes is, they can go to his. If they know who he is, they already understand his bias, and probably need not be reminded. While, personally, I think that it would be fine to establish the historian's bias, in-article, I suspect others would read too much into it. Cheers--Yossarian 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yossarian, I think, just think, we may be able to do business. You have an interesting and subtle mind, and a reasonable grasp of a few of the issues I have been trying to tackle-with limited effect, I have to confess-on this page. Read over what I have written above since the opening debate on the murder of Nicholas II. In particular I would ask you to pay close attention to the points I have been making in 'What is to be Done?', parts I-III. Then, I think, we might be able to talk in a little more detail. Also go back to the previous version of the main page before I became involved-if the bias does not leap up and slap you on the face I will be amazed. I must say, as a first reaction, that I simply do not agree, can not agree, with your perspective on the writing of history: without engagement it would be reduced to a meaningless and disconected set of facts. Now, take a history book down from your self, any history book, and then open it at any page. Inevitably the historian 'intrudes', defines, clarifies and describes. How else can you write history? If I write a monograph or a paper on the Red Terror I simply have to use the word 'terror'-outwith sourced context-in describing the operation of a given set of policies. You see I would have no problem with any attempt to justify the rate of execution under Lenin, because this would, for me at least, confirm a point-that mass execution became a part of the system, confirmed even by a 'positive' assessment of this process. I would then have to ask why and what purpose it served? History, all history, is engagement. Otherwise it becomes no more than 'listing', a form of second-rate chronology.

Now, you will find as you read over my stuff that I do become increasingly polemical; but that, quite frankly, was because I considerd much of the feed-back hysterical and second-rate. I think you have already detected this in the ill-informed and subjective comments about Richard Pipes. I do not mean to be unkind, but the 'debate' has become a little like a tutorial in forms of argument and presentation. It has improved as I have gone along, though there are still problems; amongst other things I am having to repeat the same points time and again because they appear not to have been understood (I'm now about to do it once again in the section below). You have been honest enough to declare your own politics, so I will declare mine, assuming you have not already deduced what they are: I belong to the conservative and libertarian right and have the same feelings about Lenin as you do about Ronald Reagan. However, as I have said before, I believe in simple historical truth, where this can be achieved, an would never knowingly twist the facts to suit my ends. But the facts, I repeat, have to be engaged critically and placed in context: otherwise all meaning and sense is lost. White Guard 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See, I agree with that. History does need its blood...but the problem is, or as far as I can tell, that Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy puts the kibosh on how much you and I, personally, can put into this. Sometimes it really does come down to numbers. It doesn't really have to come off the page (it is an encyclopaedia, after all). But you're right. The business of reporting history through neutrality is dry. Very dry. But it's the task we've assigned ourselves.

Perusing this a tad more, your debate is really coming down to a historical debate. A debate of historical interpretation, I give you that, but a historical one nonetheless. For example, it is truly neutral to present both views of the Tsar's execution, rather than to merely say it is debated, or to favour one position over the other.

I think you both should focus more on compromise: obviously any strong, preconcieved views of Lenin are not going to change, so you're not getting anywhere with arguing history. What is true is not what has to be determined.

I don't think much of Lenin either way. Perhaps more negatively than positively...but the man was complex, so I'll give him credit where credit is due. To me he was just another intellectual (heck, an aristocrat...hero of the working class, indeed) cum commie trying to implement ideas he hadn't understood the gravity of, with people dying needlessly as a result (it gets more and more tragic as the years go on...Kim Il-sung, Pol Pot, etc.) Perhaps he was a man who had the well being of his people in mind with all he did, but it's something that can't be determined objectively. Too much blood. I mean, the Allies dropped firebombs on Dresden. Truman dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima. These were great evils. But many say they were necessary. Are Truman and the Allies to be villified? They did defeat Hitler. But they did kill innocent people. As did the Bolsheviks. But were they not defending what they percieved as freedom? This is all just defending the ends with the means, which just doesn't work. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, you know? If we can call the Red Terror evil (which it was), then we can call the firebombing of Dresden evil (which it was). Well, we can't on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is really about neutrality. It's bloodless. It's the worst system...except for all the rest. We respect the views of others to a degree, whether they regard Lenin as a monster or Lenin as a blameless. Synthesis, gentlemen. Synthesis. I don't think the tone here has been one of respect. You guys need to lose the bile. I understand this is polarizing, but is arguing going to help? Cooperate. Collectivize, if you will.

But yeah, I think I could be safely catagorized as "ultra-left" (free health care, free education, free internet, free speech...I'd scare the hell out of so called "liberals" in the States...), but apologist for the USSR I am not. I just happen to think, aesthetically, hammers and sickles are snazzy...note the sig. So there's my bias.

Anyway, you can see where I'm coming from. Certainly this debate can find a middle ground. --Yossarian 04:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no disagreement on any of these issues, but I think, perhaps, that you may be in danger of confusing the somewhat partisan comments that may appear here with what I for one would consider appropriate for the article itself. I really have no fundamental problem with concepts of neutrality other than to say that the article itself must have stood in violation of every criterion of such a concept, though only those with detailed knowledge of the subject would understand this. Read what it said-before my edits-about the Bolsheviks and the Constituent Assembly. Quite frankly this, as I have said, was the worst piece of political bias I have ever read. It was for this and other reasons (all given above) that I put the POV tag on the page, though I had to fight for its retention. I would never, repeat never used adjectives like 'bad' or 'evil' or anything close to describe the actions of historical figures, no matter how much I believed this to be true; but there are other, more subtle ways of manipulating history without it being obvious to the uninitiated. The page on Lenin came close to nothing but manipulation, sad to say, and it is true of a great many others. I treat people as they treat me, though I never descend to personal insult and invective, so I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by 'lose the bile.' Please read again all my contributions in the above debate. I am a polemicist, yes; but before that, above that and after that I am a historian. White Guard 05:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

'The worst piece of political bias' you have ever read? Really? Have you ever looked at this one for instance?: White movement. No mention of White atrocities, White Terror, White genocide against the Jews. NOTHING. Colin4C 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet again I have to tell you that none of this is relevant to a page about Lenin. Please try to think coherently and take any concerns you have about these issues to the appropriate location. White Guard 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...I should have said the bile is more the tone of the whole thing. Everyone's been fairly well behaved, but it could be a bit more civil (for example, coming in and proclaiming this article is all a bunch of propaganda won't win you many friends). I dunno. Maybe I'm just reading into it. There is a lot of bias in this piece, definitely. I'm seeing it from both sides, though. I think "He was very concerned about creating a free universal health care system for all, the emancipation of women, and teaching the illiterate Russian people to read and write" is one bias. Who says that? Lenin himself? The person who inserted it into the article? The interpretation of "terror and coercion" becoming part of the Soviet apparatus is another bias. No doubt terror and coercion were parts of the Soviet government, but this is where it gets tricky. It's very much you coming to that conclusion (one I'm inclined to believe, but that's not the point). Misplaced Pages has no problem with that interpretation if it comes from an independant (of Misplaced Pages) historian. Drawing conclusions on subjective historical events is a point of view. If it's written as the point of view of the editor of the article, then it becomes the article's point of view. The articles can't have a point of view. They have one of neutrality. Neutral is not saying the Soviets use terror. Neutral is not saying Lenin was undisputablely social progressivew when it came to women (I think he probably was pretty liberal that way, but it's not my place to state it as fact). You can say both those things without endorsing either.

As for your arguments, I think good points have been made (some are subjective to what the reader is ultimately inclined to believe, but so be it). However, history is never going to be truly precise, especially its interpretations. Those points are, indeed, polemical. Polemics are anethma to neutrality. Working toward consensus, rather than toward debate, is a more effective use of your time. White Guard, how can you work with Colin? Colin, how can you work with White Guard? You have to put aside what you are inclined to believe, and decide what vies should be expressed. Both the ones you are presenting are important. The debate (which I've read a great deal of) is pretty much repetitive at this point. You're beating a dead horse. You've both presented a lot of good information and sources. Why are you trying to reject some over the others? Why aren't you implementing them into this artice (which, might I add, is rather scant on sources)? It doesn't matter that you don't like Source, or you don't like Solzhenitsyn. Both have something to say, right or wrong. It's not fair to the reader to present only the view that Lenin was evil. It's not fair to the reader to present only the view that Lenin was good. People should be allowed to draw their own conclusions. Cheers, --Yossarian 02:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again comrade Yossarian. Just to say that, though White Guard, has described me (in a Stalinist way) as a saboteur, I have removed his POV piece on post-Lenin terror because:

• 1 - It was stuck in the middle of the article: thus violating chronology. If we follow this logic we would be putting stuff about Maggie's war in the Falklands in the middle of the Winston Churchill article, because, arguably, she was following his agenda. IF we have to include controversial claims by whatever historian about Lenin's legacy vis-a-vis Terror or whatever (and why not the Health Service as well?) they would best be put at the end of the article.
• 2 - He has still not proven (what is in fact false) that Terror was 'growing in intensity', but has rather elided the Terror of the Civil War with Stalin's Terror and joined up the middle with some isolated acts of Terror in the 1920's. In reality in the late 1920's Terror diminished in intensity and then in the 1930's rose in intensity and post-1938 diminished in intensity again and after Stalin died was abandoned as a bad idea by Krushchev who dismantled Stalin's police state. Cheers, Colin Colin4C 11:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

More Terror

Could we have some comments about the relevence of this latest piece from White Guard....(which I haven't cut, merely copied...):

Terror and political coercion were thus to become an established feature of the Soviet system, growing in intensity over the years, reaching an apex in the late 1930s under Joseph Stalin. Some early examples of this process may suffice. In August 1924 there was a rising in Georgia against which was suppressed with considerable brutality, the Soviet press later admitting to some 4000 executions. (Vera Brodio, Lenin and the Mensheviks, Aldershot, 1987, p. 155). In Petrograd-now Leningrad-a state of emergency was declared in December 1924, during which several hundred people were arrested, sometimes from the street. The suppression of dissent was also to reach deep within the ranks of the Communist Party itself. Lenin's resolution at the tenth party congress to outlaw 'factions', was used against any view contrary to the established political line. In September 1923 many of the remaining members of the Workers' Opposition were arrested and imprisoned in various labour camps, where most were later to be executed. The anti-faction resolution was also to be used successively against senior party figures, from Trotsky downwards, creating a widespread atmosphere of fear and intimidation throughout the 1920s.

As for myself I just like to say that:

• 1, All these events happened after Lenin was dead, or non-compis-mentis so arguably have no place in a bio of Lenin. I have certainly never seen them cited in any bio of Lenin I have seen.
• 2, They don't prove that the terror and coercion was 'growing in intensity', just that there were certain acts of terror and coercion between the time of the Civil War and the assault on the kulaks and the Purges by Stalin.
• 3, As for the Georgian killings, do I detect the hand of comrade Stalin? The same Stalin who was criticised by Lenin for his heavy-handed behavior in that same region when the latter was alive.
• 4, If we are to include such comments in a bio of Lenin, then maybe they should be put in a final section called 'Lenin's Legacy' or some such. Colin4C 12:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Colin, you know very well that I put these details in to counter your assertion that there had been a ten year 'hiatus', as you put it between the end of the Red Terror and the beginning of Stalin's attack on the kulaks. You see, what I have been arguing for all along is that Lenin and Stalin belong to the same political process; that Lenin defined the system and Stalin built upon his foundations. Stalin is not an aberration, a 'mad-dog', or a Martian; he belongs to Russian history; he belongs to Bolshevism and, ultimately, he belongs to Lenin. Here is a quote from at least one 'bio' of Lenin that you have clearly not read; "Lenin had transformed the dicatatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the Party, and Stalin went further by making the dictatorship of the party into the dictatorship of one man...Stalin finished building Lenin's totalitarian pyramid, and under him the Politburo came to resemble the court of the Inqusition." (Dimitri Volkogonov, pp. 313-4). And still further, "Even when he was seriously ill, Lenin never lost sight of his obsession with 'cleansing Russia for a long time', and he continued to give Stalin instructions to carry out his punitive orders through the Cheka. Stalin was still following Lenin's advice in the 1930s, although in his own original way...he had learned much from Lenin. From the moment in May 1918 when Lenin had signed the order appointing Stalin to control food production in the south of Russia, and had vested him with extraordinary powers, Stalin had become accustomed to making decisions without regrad to justice, to morals, elementary human feeling or mercy." (p.269)

I have already said to you-though once again you seem blind to the point-that I could drown you in references to Soviet state terror prior to Collectivisation if you so wish.

Stalin was not in Georgia in August 1924. You seem to detect the hand of Stalin in every enormity of the Bolshevik state, quite in keeping with the Manichaean position you have taken on this all along. Please try to resist the attempt to view these questions devoid of historical context.

The page is not simply a 'bio' of Lenin but a description of the political culture arising from his writings and actions; so it is both relevant and meaningful to make reference to outcomes and consequences in the course of the article.

Colin, I rather though I would have heard from you long since on some of these points. I have also been surprised somewhat by your rather more sober assessment of Russian history in your post on Stalin prior to the above. I suspect Yossarian has given fresh impetus to the old you, arising Dracula style from the crypt. Do not be deceived. White Guard 01:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think he's been as wrong in going about this as you have, so don't blame me! ;) --Yossarian 05:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You may have bamboozled comrade Yossarion, White Guard, but I am not so easily fooled by your incoherent rhetoric and illogicality. For instance I still don't understand your claim that the terror after the Civil War was 'growing in intensity'. Do you honestly expect us to believe that there was more terror after the Civil War than during it? This is simply not true and is just an indication of your right-wing POV - which we know about already. Colin4C 16:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Incoherent rhetoric and illogicality? Illogicality-wonderfull! I would have though everything I said in the above was both clear-and logical-but if you would like further clarification on any specific point-or more information-please ask. Alas, one step forward and two steps back. I have told you before, Colin, that I am immune to childish invective. It's regrettable that you have descended once again to foot-stamping frustration; it serves no useful purpose, merely demonstrating a certain incapacity for mature debate. More important, it's not worthy of you; for I know you can do better. I'm sorry also you have resorted to removing sourced statements-a new tactic on your part-which must be contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. What I have been trying to tell you, repeatedly so, is that terror under Lenin was an established part of the Soviet system, which did indeed grow both in refinement and sophistiction over the years. I also put forward examples to counter an unhistorical and unsourced statement on your part. I freely confess that my politics are conservative-I have never made any secret of that; but as I have also stressed time and again-most recently in the above-I would never allow this to corrupt the historical record. I will be happy to continue discussion with you on the activities of the Cheka and the uses of state terror in the 1920s in relation to the polity established by Lenin, if you so wish. But I urge you not to sabotage the development of this article, and to remove statements simply because you do not like them. White Guard 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Some statements may be sourced, but they are irrelevent to Lenin's career, as they happened after his death, as I pointed out before. And you still haven't given a reference for the untrue statement that terror was 'growing in intensity' in the later 1920's. Objecting to your insertion of controversial right-wing Povs in the middle of the article is not 'sabotage', to use your own 'childish invective' (and didn't Stalin accuse political oppenents he disagreed with as 'saboteurs' I seem to recall.....?).Colin4C 10:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Creation of Gulag

There is a reference in The_Gulag_Archipelago that 'original decrees issued by V.I. Lenin shortly after the October revolution' were the framework for the Gulag system. Shouldn't it be included here? Blufox (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lenin's Theoretical Work

How is there only a single sentence on Lenin's literary productions?! Scarcely any mention of things like "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism," which continues to be discussed in academic circles today. Lenin, whatever else may be said about him, contributed a serious body of intellectual work on imperialism and Marxist theory, which should be noted in this article. Nicolasdz 11:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

When a politician and an important historical figure also produces a body of theoretical work the problem then arises of what to include and what to leave out. A life of Marx, for instance, could focus on theoretical work to the exclusion of all else; that of Lenin clearly could not. Ultimately, its a question of proper balance and, above all, ensuring that the whole thing does not become too unwieldy. There is, I think, some mention of Lenin's theoretical work; but by all means work in some more specific references-or a dedicated section-where you feel this is appropriate. White Guard 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I will look into expanding the section on "Imperialism..." soon either here or the Leninism page as I've just finished a dissertation on it and should (theoretically) be able to fill it out a bit. I schneider 01:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Vladimir Lenin

I've started an approach that may apply to Misplaced Pages's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

This section does not belong here. More improtantly, it is devoid of any scholarly, objective sources. Seems that there has been Zionist inflitration of this page. It will be removed because if Lenin's stance on Jews is to be vividly described, then there should be equal emphasis given to other nationalities.

Those Zionists. I tell ya. They have their hands in everything! Incorrigable scamps! 9/11? The Jews. The Holocaust? The Jews (for some reason). Your mom's hernia? Masons. But them Jews must have had a hand in it. I'm surprised they aren't draining your precious bodily fluids as we speak...MEIN FUHRER! I CAN WALK! --Yossarian 04:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

POV warriors

I don't have the patience to argue with POV warriors. I notice that since my edits, large sections critical of Lenin have been removed, along with some sections which were positive toward Lenin.

Colin4C's comments are particularly troubling, but he is being egged on by White Guard, whose behavior is similiar. Hopefully there will be a Arbitration or mediation soon on this page, and if necessary, the POV warriors will be forced aside to allow less biased editors to edit this page unmolested.

It is clear from reading one paragaph of Colin4C's comments on this talk page that he has a clear bias and clear agenda. I am troubled by Colin4C recentlying erasing the above referenced critical information about Lenin. I have no patience with any editor who want only one POV in the article: their own. I am sure there are right wing POV warriors here, like maybe White Guard, but I just got so tired of this POV war on this talk page, I gave up reading it.

Both Colin4C and White Guard talk a lot about sources, but to my knowledge they have added none since I removed the unsourced statments. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Every word is supposed to be referenced. One of these two said their were upteen sources, yet didn't add a single one. This behavior is sloppy and lazy editing.

I am no expert of Lenin and neither are most people who come here to read this article. Please don't tell me about the sources on the talk page, I am not here to get in a long debate with right and left ideologues on the talk page. I just joined this long POV war, and I don't have the interest or the patience to go back through years of archived arguments. Despite what some editors think, deluded about their own self importance and wit, the only people who are interested in their arguments back and forth are those who are doing arguing. For many of us, we don't care. We just want a decent wikiarticle which doesn't make us cringe when we read it.

Instead of talking about sources on the talk page: ADD THE SOURCES IN THE ARTICLE.

Anyway, I am not going to waste my time here getting in peity revert wars with ideologues of all political spectrums. Life is too short.

It is a real shame that there is so much collective knowledge of Lenin among all of the wikipedians here, including the knowledge of Colin4C, White Guard and others, but two or three ideologies are blocking this article from going from a:

mediocre, biased article, prone to major revert wars, with certain sections completely unreferenced, and the constant loss of a lot of solid referenced material,

...into a really good article.

I strongly suggest an arbitration or mediator in the near future. I think this is the only way this article will ever progress.

Have fun bickering. Please keep comments about this on this talk page, since I am washing my hands of this article, I won't read any comments directed to my talk page about this subject.Travb (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right: it's a waste of time. I tried to introduce some balance into this by flagging up the obvious bias I saw, with a view to proceeding in a more positive direction, affirmative, where necessary and critical, where necessary. But I now believe that Misplaced Pages is worthless as a source of information, and only good for pushing agendas. Have a look at the contributions of the latest 'warrior' on the Joseph Stalin talk page. None of this is worth the effort. People, read some good books, think for yourselves, and ignore Misplaced Pages for the biased rubbish it is. I personally have finished with this. Colin, it's all yours. White Guard 01:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

White guard and Colin, it is possible to reach consensus, and for those who refuse to reach consensus, to marginalize them. This just requires a large amount of patience, cunning, and diplomacy. I could spend a lot of time on this article, negotiating with the POV warriors, and marginalizing those POV warriors who refuse to comprimise: but I don't have the patience. Giving up and throwing up your hands is the wrong thing to do. If you do this the other ideology wins, and everyone on wikipedia and all of our million of readers lose.

I think all major ideologies can live in harmony on this page, but that requires a real diplomat.

As I wrote here:

User_talk:Ruy_Lopez#Sad_that_you_are_giving_up

User_talk:Ruy_Lopez#Giving_up_is_the_wrong_thing_to_do

White guard AND Colin: Don't give up! Misplaced Pages is a powerful tool, it is the only tool that allows normal, unfamous people like ourselves to speak to the entire English speaking world. What other site allows your comments to be in the top ten on Google? Travb (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to say that my somewhat acrimonious debate with White Guard was, despite its length, mostly a somewhat rarified meta-commentary on the concept of POV and NPOV in relation to this article. I do not claim to be an expert on Lenin, though I found that I was constrained by the terms of the debate to dig out and read a few books on the subject from the local library... My main theoretical objection was to viewing Lenin's historical record with the benifit of hind-sight, using our knowledge of Stalin's crimes to retro-actively damn Lenin for them, and also the current fad for viewing the Communist era in Russia as a single unified entity, under the label of 'a failed experiment in social engineering'. As Chou-en-Lai said 'It is too early to say'. Lenin is not the worst thing which could have happened to Russia. What people fail to appreciate is that Fascist ideology - the Black Hundreds, the Pogroms, the Protocals of the Elders of Zion had their birth in Russia. Russia could very easily have developed the way of Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany and twentieth century history could have been even worse than turned out to be the case. Therefore I think that it is wrong to use Lenin as a whipping boy for stuff that happened after he was dead. Maybe if we got in a time-machine and assasinated Lenin on the streets of Simbirsk when he was 10 years old and then returned to the present we might find the whole world dominated by some mighty Russian Fascist Empire and all of us forced to eat cabbage soup and recite Pushkin three times a day...Who knows? Colin4C 11:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you too can kiss and make up, and come to an amblicable (Sp?) (reasonable) comprimise. Thanks for sharing your viewpoints. I personally have no patience for people who delete things simply because they don't match their own POV. I try really hard not to do this myself. Anyway, happy editing, User:White Guard maybe left so now the article is all yours. Reminds me of the Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing essay, the most tenancious editor often wins. Travb (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As I recall someone (maybe you....) selectively deleted certain statements in the article, claiming they were unreferenced - which resulted in a sort of non-sequitorial grammatical and logical gibberish which was unworthy of being called an encyclopedia entry. It was then that I cut the Gordian knot...You maybe also be interested to learn that White Guard has engaged in several wikipedia edit wars in several different articles with different editors (i.e. not just me - or rather with me only in this case). Look at his parting words in the Stalin article, for instance, for a sterling example of his wit and wisdom Colin4C 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotation verification request

At Polish-Soviet War there is a quote attributed to Lenin that we cannot verify online. Perhaps somebody familiar with works not online, or with a better translation, can help in verifying the following quote: "That was the time when everyone in Germany, including the darkest reactionaries and monarchists, declared that the Bolsheviks would be their salvation." It refers to the period of somewhere in 1918-1921.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism

With respect to the intro:

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known by the name Lenin (help·info) (b. April 22, 1870 – d. January 24, 1924), was a Russian revolutionary, a communist politician, the main leader of the October Revolution, the first head of Soviet Russia, and the primary theorist of the ideology that has come to be called Leninism, which is a variant of Marxism.

I thought that 'Marxism-Leninism' was the correct term and that it was not designated and theorised as such until after Lenin was dead. Confusingly wikipedia has a Leninism article, a Marxism Leninism article and a Marxist-Leninist article redirected to Marxism Leninism) which all seem to me to be about exactly the same thing viz: the posthumous synthesis of Lenin's theoretical work. If you want to be even more confused read the spurious nonsense on the talk pages of these two articles - which claim that the concepts of Leninism and Marxist-Leninism are different. Colin4C 10:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you were referring to my comment, right?

"'Leninism' is, in the strictest definition, Lenin's Marxism . Marxism-Leninism refers more to totalitarian state ideologies than to revolutionary ideology that forms the crux of Lenin's Marxism (which is NOT synonymous with Trotsky's Marxism, either)." There's this Orwellian feeling when two unidentical (especially in the sense that they aren't exactly the same) terms are combined together to make one.

I'll reiterate: one ideology refers mainly to state affairs, while referring to revolutionary affairs merely in terms of a historical tribute; the other refers mostly to revolutionary affairs and the world at large, expanding on the works of Karl Marx here - while leaving the state affairs pretty much where Marx left it off (something about his criticism of utopian socialism in regards to outlining in detail a future socialist society of sorts). Darth Sidious 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lenin got on that train in Zürich as a Marxist, and got off it in Petrograd as a Leninist.... ---Nt351 14:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)