Lenin had some legitimately good takes, e.g. that Stalin should, under no circumstance, ever be allowed to come to power. His analysis was also usually spot-on, but his solutions to things either hare-brained or naive, leading to, well, history. Or, put differently, on a scale from tragic hero to villain he's at least in the middle while Stalin is a straight-up villain.

[–] uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 year ago

Lenin ordered the Red Terror. The main difference between him and Stalin when it comes to willingness to use state violence was the size of the state. His solution to political decent was mass executions. While it was announced as a class war on the bourgeoisie, it began with a massacreof sociallists. In addition to kulaks and white army afficers, it targeted the former bolshenik allies Left Socialists, anarchists, and striking workers. The Red Terror featured the creation of the gulags and concentration camps, hostage taking, and torture.

[–] Cockmaster6000@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

I mean, is "hang more kulaks or you'll be hanged for treason" really that bad of a plan?

[–] LazyCorvid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nooo, you don't understand. It was the material conditions that were forcing Lenin to order Trotsky to murder his way through the free territory of Ukraine.

[–] doidera@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

forcing Lenin to order Trotsky

Sources?

[–] LazyCorvid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What exactly do you want a source for?

The claim that the soviets caused the conflict because of "material conditions" was a joke that was meant to make fun of tankies.

But you quoted "forcing Lenin to order Trotsky", which is why I don't exactly know if that's what you're talking about.

[–] CatradoraSomething@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The claim that the soviets caused the conflict because of “material conditions” was a joke that was meant to make fun of tankies.

ive never heard this claim, it was a civil war, anarchists weren't exactly all nice

[–] LazyCorvid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The anarchists worked together with the soviets, going as far as actually being a part of the red army and fighting together against the whites. Tensions between the two groups only rose because bolchevik commanders repeatedly attacked their autonomy.

That unity lasted until the reds had beaten the whites in moscow, after which they just invaded the Makhnovshchina.

The anarchists weren't all that nice and had oftentimes critiqued the bolshevists way of implementing communism, but they still worked together and tried to work with the Bolsheviks on equal footing. The Bolsheviks on the other hand repeatedly tried to undermine their autonomy and just betrayed them as soon as they thought that they didn't need them anymore and thus caused a civil war that killed 1.5 million people.