Was Lenin evil?
You'd have to answer the considerably more difficult question "what is evil?" Under most definitions, yes he was. He was a tyrant who killed people and stole property all for the sake of his morally bankrupt ideology. There's some argument to be made that he wasn't very evil by communist standards, but that's only because most communists were extremely evil.
>>288519
A bit.
>>288519
He consciously chose to efface the distinction between good and evil, which is the very definition of evil. For him there was not morality, only historical progress which would completely vindicate his deeds and misdeeds. He is the very archetype of modern totalitarian tyranny and its sense of self-validation through history, as opposed to mere brutal despotism that doesn't give a fuck.
I remember coming across a selection of Lenin's written orders and letters. I don't think there was a leader in history before him that commanded the execution and destruction of entire civil population with such calm nonchalance. Only a person who is utterly convinced of the righteousness of his acts not by his own moral conviction but by a "scientific" historical system can act this way. Truly amazing and terrifying.
>>288519
Basically yes and the 9nly reason we don't hate him more was that we hated Stalingrad more
>>288545
>only historical progress which would completely vindicate his deeds and misdeeds
This assumption requires a distinction between good and evil. Your argument is invalid.
Short answer (by the conventional model of humanist secularist ethics employed by the West): Yes, absolutely.
>>288519
But of course! The bourgoisie media says so, why should you apply critical thought to history. Gommunism bad.
>>288730
/leftypol/ please
>>288664
By those standards weren't a decent chunk of the american founding fathers evil?
Define evil.
>>288519
According to his enemies, yes.
>>288519
Not maniacally or malevolently evil, but yes what he did was evil
No historical figure was ever "evil" and no historical figure ever did anything "wrong". If you believe they were, you are addled by feels and unequipped to discuss history.
>>288967
>moral relativism 101
We are not judging Lenin, or any historical figure for that matter. We are not a jury and they don't stand on trial. But adopting those terms might help us understand and appreciate them and their motives.
>>288967
Good point. Let me just completely disregard all biases and social constructs of said society view history objectively. Dumbass
>implying
>>289014
Yes, let's. Or are you too weak and stupid to do that?
>>288519
Literally did nothing wrong.
>>288519
Not anymore so than Napoleon.
>>288519
He wholeheartedly thought he was doing the right thing, which usually leads to doing the opposite.
>>289193
to be fair, it's impossible for humans to be completely unbiased, but we should definitely try.
>>288530
Tbh under that premise many of the white leaders/commanders in the civil war were evil as well to a lesser extent, since they would steal from and forcefully conscript peasants (as in fight with us or we'll murder you). Hence why many peasants decided to take up arms and fight against both sides.
Although he's certainly more evil for causing all that shit in the first place.
>>292933
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
>>292964
>Although he's certainly more evil for causing all that shit in the first place.
lmfao
>>288519
No, he was just Mexican.
Shame he got... axed.
Looks like Stalin went a little over his... head.
He tried on a show size too big, so he tried to... cut it down a size.
His ideology turned out a bit... double-sided.
Born, but... cut a tad short out of the rest.
Tried to chill in Mexico, got a shave too... close for comfort.
Now he's got a natural-...cut hairstyle.
Looks like Stalin... shoved an axe into his skull. In Mexi...co. Ull. Mexicull.
He got Mexicul'd.
Shaved ice, Mr. Lenin? Why not axe in brains?
Got a bit more than... brain-freeze.
>>293134
You're thinking of Trotsky
>>288519
Yeah
>>288519
Would rather deal with him than Stalin. But overall, yes. No more deserving of condemnation than any other important revolutionary.
>>288519
Evil in the same way as poison is evil.
>>288749
>anything more radical than a moderate is either pol or leftypol
>There are people on this board RIGHT NOW who admire Napoleon but think Lenin was evil
>>293433
Dangit, they were basically the same, right?
>>293772
Lenin started a revolution, Napoleon ended one.
>>288519
He had good intentions, but people with good intentions tend to do the most damage. He caused a lot of people a lot of harm, but how evil he was is dependent on how much of his heart was in the revolutionary cause. Was he earnestly intent on making the world a better, more equal place? Or was he just using popular dissent to gain political power?
For what it's worth, Lenin was smart enough to realize the economic system he was implementing had serious flaws that would have to be addressed for it to function. Even if Lenin wasn't a good person, he had the knowledge and foresight that Stalin direly lacked when it came to matters of economic infrastructure. Lenin was a university graduate and a lawyer who was learned in political theory and economics; he knew what he was doing. Stalin dropped out of seminary school as a teenager; he was not qualified to be making decisions on the matter of macroeconomic theory. So Stalin put the pedal to the floor with the whole centrally-planned economy shit and never stopped to try to iron out the grievous errors that plagued it, whereas Lenin, had he lived, would have presumably made some attempt to do so.
That must be worth something, right?
First of all, that's a meaningless statement in terms of morality unless you're expecting me to just assume you're a cosplayer (i.e. traditionalist), which I am assuming, but you not thinking it was necessary to clarify shows just how deep in ideology you're stuck.
And kek, napoleon essentially spread the ideals of the French Revolution all over the damn place, he's basically the reason it survived in the way that it did.
Regardless, I thought we were talking about how killing innocent people and widespread restriction of sovereignty and civil liberties was bad? Surely that's what the people in this thread mean, and not just "he's evil because communism is evil because communists are evil." If we're talking about the evil things I think we're talking about, neither revolution or reaction justify those things.
And if we're saying context can justify it to any extent, I think revolution with the intention of helping common people is definitely more forgivable in the long term than establishing an empire for personal glory.
>>293793
>Vladimir "when the revolution calls I'm gonna starve me some Hohols" Lenin
>good intentions
>>288868
Whoever is in charge of a country that I am at war with.
>>293815
In this case it's whoever the propaganda machine of my home country told me wanted to rape my mom
>>293763
Anyone who uses the word bourgeois seriously is both a vapid idiot and guaranteed to be leftypol.
Nice spooks m8, how does it feel to chain yourself to unfeeling ideas?
>>288967
Nope. History is inherently subjective, as it is impossible to view it and not form opinions as to whether a person or thing was good or bad, right or wrong. Basic facts can be agreed upon objectively, but beyond that, there is no objective view of history, and anyone who says there is is either an idiot or a fool.
>>293834
Nice job outing yourself as an idiot. Bourgeosie just refers to a certain class of people who own things. You can use the term and be wholly in support of them. People usually don't nowadays because of its association with Marxism but you're a retard for thinking its only a commie buzzword
>>289193
Are you so full of vanity and hubris that you believe that you can give up all bias, withhold all judgment, and truly view history as an objective observer?
>>293821
That's what I just said.
>>293856
Everyone knows what bourgeoisie means, you troglodyte. But as you pointed out, it fell out of common usage due to association with marxist fools. Thus, today it is those fools and those fools alone who use it in any context besides mocking the lunacy of marxism. While it may once have been something else, today it really is nothing but a commie buzzword.
>>293876
I heard it spoken in some right-wing circles in Europe too. It's not entirely appropriated by teenage marxists quite yet.
>>293905
>For every shitty gommie teenager there's a shitty nazi teenager
have you ever been outside
>>293941
Yeah, quite a bit actually, and there's a lot of really, really stupid right wingers. Just as many liberal faggots. People are generally pretty stupid and don't base their opinions on anything other than feels and appealing connotations.
