Jump to content

Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Abrikosov

The Abrikosov mentioned in the article refers with a hyperlink to an article about Abrikosov. However, this is another Abrikosov. If you look at the birthdates you will see what i mean.

Who wrote what is to be done?

Has "what is to be done" been written by Nikolai Chernyshevsky or by Lenin, or by both, or there are two different books with the same title in the same historical period, in the same nation and from similar political point of view?

Chernyshevski's is a book, Lenin's is a political article. mikka (t) 17:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Lenin's "political article" has 206 pages! It is a kind of homage to Chernyshevsky's work, though quite different in form and content - the earlier book being a novel written from a Populist not Marxist point of view.--Jack Upland 23:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, I would hardly say they occured at the same time period, as Lenin read Chernyshevsky's book while growing up.

Needs work

This entire passage needs work, though I'm not quite sure what do to with it. I edited the first paragraph, but I still don't feel 100% comfortable with it. I don't understand the usage of the "[[" in the second paragraph.

Lenin became paralyzed on his right side after the second stroke in December of the same year, from the assassination attempt. His role in government declined.

The city of [[before death that no memorials be created for him, various politicians sought to better their own position vicariously by association with Lenin after his death, and his character was elevated to almost mythical status, with statue after monument after memorial springing up in his honor.

At the end of the article is an apparent link to another language (listed as "by") which doesn't exist. I tried a "ba" prefix (Bashkir) which produced a link, but the old link remains. I can't find it when I go back to edit. Can someone fix it? - Rt66lt 01:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Old talk

"The Testament" is much misunderstood - it actually critises *all* of Lenin's potential successors


I wonder..."Vladimir Lenin" is a bastard name that he would never have used. While Mr. Ulyanov's first name was, indeed Vladimir, Mr. Lenin's first name was "Nikolai". Of course, nobody calls him "Nikolai Lenin" anymore, but I'm still not sure I like it. Perhaps it would be best if the page was just under "Lenin"... john 03:34 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ulyanov's (Lenin's) first name was indeed Vladimir. Nikolai was only used in a viariety of false identity papers which were manufactured for

Lenin in order to avoid arrest, most recently in summer of 1917. Althought Ulyanov later adopted Lenin as his last name, he kept Vladimir. Baleksan

Almost all modern history texts (at least in English, I don't know about any other languages) call him "Vladimir Lenin", so I think we should stick with that... Kwertii
Actually, I'd say most modern history texts call him "V.I. Lenin", but you're probably right. I wonder how this happened. It's not as though we call Trotsky "Lev Trotsky", for instance. john 22:14 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There was some content at Vladimir I. Lenin. I redirected that page here but I would suggest that someone who knows about the topic goes back to see if there is anything worth merging. Kitwe 12:55, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this point but I think he had also spent several years abroad before his 1895 exile. It was during this period where he was exposed to a lot of Marxist literature, some of which he brought back to Russia with him. If anyone out there knows the details correctly, I would like to see it added to the article.

Lenin was died in Moscow, not in Nizhny Novgorod!

Hmm. Shouldn't Kerensky be his predecessor, rather than Michael II of Russia? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 08:45, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Probably. Checking on some dates (Gregorian calendar)suggest the following line:

Actualy none of the four had full control over Russia which had fallen into a state of chaos earlier that year. Any ideas of how to describe Kerensky in the table of succession? User:Dimadick

The correct timeline is:

I wasn't a Wikipedian when john made his contribution on 6 June, so as a new kid on the block may I add my two cents worth to the debate about Lenin's name. It is simply not true that he ever used the name "Nikolai" - he did not. He was always Vladimir, both under his original surname Ulyanov, and later under his pseudonym Lenin. Any decent reference work will list him as "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov". He only ever changed his surname, not his given name or patronymic. The spurious idea that he was called "Nikolai" came from the Russian practice of referring to a person as "N. <surname>" in situations where only their surname is known or relevant. The "N" stands for the Russian word "nom" meaning "name". It does not stand for "Nikolai". This was a fabrication by non-Russian-speaking people who did not understand this little bit of Russian linguistic culture, and it does not reflect historical reality at all. Unfortunately the error has been repeated ad nauseam in the English-speaking world, to the point that Americans, Australians, British etc people now look twice when they see "Vladimir Lenin", because they have the name "Nikolai Lenin" firmly stuck in their heads, and the true name doesn't look right to them. But ask any Russian what Lenin's first name was, and they will say "Vladimir". Ask them if Lenin was ever known as "Nikolai" and they will answer "Definitely not, that is a foreign notion but an untrue one".

I would be prepared to live with an entry along the lines that Vladimir Ilyich Lenin is sometimes referred to in the West as "Nikolai Lenin", but is not and has never been referred to as such in Russia.

I have not updated the article yet because I am frankly very surprised that nobody else has picked up on this egregious error. I hope to hear other points of view before going in for the kill. JackofOz 07:08, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'll defer to your seemingly greater knowledge...the fact that he is sometimes called "Nikolai Lenin" should be mentioned in the article, though. Do you have any internet sources that would fully explain all this? john 08:50, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User Mir Harven has added much POV material. For instance, the statement that "Lenin was the central progenitor of the 20th century Totalitarianism in all its mutations. The bloodiest of all centuries in human history is his true legacy" is more his subjective opinion than historical fact. I am removing the entire last paragraph. --Jose Ramos 05:12, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agree. That was pretty blatantly POV. Kwertii 07:02, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You'll have to do more than just self-congratulorily agree. For instance: analyze the role of individual in history (did anyone in pre-WW1 world even blurrily predict the 20th cent. totalitarian state (not even in London's fantasy "Iron heel"; you'll have to refute Kolakowski's meditations on Lenin's role at the end of the 2nd volume of "Main Currents of Marxism"- the best and most comprehensive history of Marxist mataphysical origins (from German Neoplatonic tradition via Hegel) to Lenin's assimilation of Tkatchev and Nechayev's legacy; also, impossibility of rightist totalitarianism (Mussolini, Hitler) without climate of hysteria among petite-bourgeoisie instigated by fear of Communist terror. I would welcome very much a more nuanced view on "possibilities" and "probabilitis" of Soviet Communism (for instance, just like the article on Saddam gives a balanced view-his, one might say progressive secular reforms as well as his atrocities. But-the article on Lenin will not remain as dry as it had been. The most important political figure of the 20th century, who had dwarfed Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Churchill or Roosevelt beyond dispute-deserves more.
Mir Harven 13:16, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I see Mir Harven has added his paragraph back even though two (plus me, three), people see it as a very non-neutral POV. Especially his views regarding fascism, the "literally 'raping'" whatever, "the bloodiest of all centuries in human history is his true legacy". And so on and so forth. Mir Haven's paragraph has been removed. - Lancemurdoch 06:37, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The text has been reverted since Communist-like dogmatics do not have the right to silence "others" here-as they did during their "golden years" from 1917-1990. If you have argument to counter the contention on Lenin's work (and soon, I'll write something about his oeuvre)-please, do it. But do not vandalize the page.Mir Harven 10:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mir Harven is the one vandalizing the page. He is not content to let the facts speak for themselves; he insists on telling people what to think. And what he thinks everyone must think is very one-sided and uses extremely POV language. --Jose Ramos 10:45, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ahem...well, try to argue your point. My is well covered in the most authoritative texts on Communism-in fact, I almost literally rewrote what Kolakowski had written in "Main Currents of Marxism", vol.2, on Lenin-that he RAPED his insecure party. Kolakowski wrote also that Lenin was as convinced as Luther that the will of GOD or HISTORY spoke through his voice. Or-maybe one could consult the "Black book of Communism" ? Or Bryan Caplan-http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm . I will add further material on Lenin and his role- and invide those who have different opinion to express theirs. But- this page will not be either vandalized or watered down without explication.Mir Harven 13:37, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Regardless of who you lifted those ideas from, it is still quite POV. Ideas do not cease to be POV just because a knowledgable source believes them. Many, many people have written POV analyses of Lenin from both sides. There's nothing inherently wrong with that; it's just not what one puts in an encyclopedia. Our goal is to be NEUTRAL. Including statements such as "The bloodiest of all centuries in human history is his true legacy" is not NPOV. Additionally, "almost literally rewriting" someone else's text constitutes borderline plagiarism, and is not suitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia on those grounds alone. I wonder if you actually believe all this, or if you are a troll with far too much time on your hands.. I'm reverting the page. I request that someone with sysop powers lock it until Mir Harven loses interest. Kwertii 22:54, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...maybe this (I'll refrain from the comment) is right-this purportedly "NPOV"y encyclopedia is so saturated with common prejudices that it's a waste of time to try to alter anything that smacks of snobbish leftism. But, before turning back in disgust-just a few points.As for "plagiarism", it is well known that ideas are "in the air" and no "literal" originality is possible: Shakespeare was a complete plagiarist (he took all the subjects from other sources), or, even more- in social sciences and humanities, virtually everything is plagiarism: Marx's ideas on class struggle are "stolen" from French historians, his historiosophy from combination of Hegel and Hess etc. In the case of Lenin and Kolakowski-the latter uttered "le mot juste" and I simply passed it on. I could've said in the vein of Orwell that all animals are equal but pigs are more equal- and this would be the same. So, spare me personal insults ("troll" etc.) some people, it seems, are quick to resort to when their dear beliefs are sent down the toilet. As far as NPOV approach is concerned- I've visited the Hitler page. It's a complete failure-a failure rooted in popular misconceptions (notwithstanding the fact that the article itself has many valuable and interesting info), or, to put it bluntly- in "holocausting" Hitler, while he was, essentially, totalitarian wannabe conqueror of the East.Hitler was a "Jew-killer" (among other things), but, first and foremost, he was a totalitarian leader whose principal goal was to crush the Communism and build German empire in the East by enslaving and killing Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe (after all, he killed at least 4 times more Russians than Jews). So much for his motives. In the article Hitler's principal motivation is portrayed somehow "psychoanalytically", as anti-Semitism- not "ideologically" or "politically". Fine. Why not appy the same criterion to our comrade Lenin ? For instance: we can read at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part4 a rather fair and banal diagnosis:"Lenin repeatedly indicated that large-scale killing would be necessary to bring in his utopia, and did not shrink from this realization. His speeches and writings overflow with calls for blood: "Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them." "We'll ask the man, where do you stand on the question of the revolution? Are you for it or against it? If he's against it, we'll stand him up against a wall." As Pipes sums up, "Lenin hated what he perceived to be the 'bourgeoisie' with a destructive passion that fully equaled Hitler's hatred of the Jews: nothing short of physical annihilation would satisfy him." Moreover, "The term 'bourgeoisie' the Bolsheviks applied loosely to two groups: those who by virtue of their background or position in the economy functioned as 'exploiters,' be they a millionaire industrialist or a peasant with an extra acre of land, and those who, regardless of their economic or social status, opposed Bolshevik policies." And here we got a "psycho"-Lenin, whose motives are centred around pathological hatred of Russian upper classes. But, what the heck. Who I'm wasting time with ? I'll revert it now, just for the sake of having done something.Mir Harven 00:52, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well-I noticed one thing more: I wrote on Lenin: "Lenin was the central progenitor of the 20th century Totalitarianism in all its mutations." and we read at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/his1c.htm "...Like his pupils and emulators Mussolini and Hitler, Lenin won power .." So-looks I'm plagiarising again.Mir Harven 01:03, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

before executing many of Lenin's closest colleagues and followers

Incorrect; gives false impression of close sequence in time; barely relevant here it its present form.

  1. This event iss distant from the moment of grabbing power. You might as well write "before winning the WWII".
  2. The article is about Lenin, not Stalin.
  3. they were Stalin's colleagues as well.
  4. they were killed not because they were Lenin's friends, hence irrelevance to the article.

If you want to mention this event, please make a more elaborate phrase. there is actually more to say how Stalin and Lenin ar related besides Stalin's killing their common friends. Mikkalai 00:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm a (100%) descendent of Volga Germans, grew up in Russia, and was always very curious about Volga Germans and their history, however I never heard of Lenin's German roots. Could you please post references regarding his mother?

his real name was Phil McRack but he changed it before he was 5. I would know.

--203.121.196.155 08:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)Ketchup

India vs. Russia

The fact is that people in many countries chose to pay respect to Vladimir Lenin (see List of places named after Lenin and List of statues of Lenin) for very incomplete lists - just to get the idea. But the article in its present form omits this somewhat important fact. An image of Lenin's statue in India, preferably with some comment about other countries honoring his life, would only help the article. This isn't really POV, just providing missing facts. As for the Petropavlovsk image, I just didn't like this specific photo - there are some unexplained people in the bottom and the context is missing. The Indian one is better, since it doesn't have any distracting details. However, I don't mind both of them being present. Paranoid 23:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dictator

The following quotation

"беспрекословное подчинение единой воле", "беспрекословное повиновение воле одного лица", "беспрекословное повиновение воле советского руководителя, диктатора" (В.И.Ленин ПСС. Lenin, Complete Works, vol. 36. pages 200, 201, 203.)
"unquestioned subjugation to the united will", "unquestioned subjugation to the will of a single person", "unquestioned subjugation to the will of the Soviet leader, the dictator"

justifies the right to call Lenin dictator whenever appropriate in the article (compare: dictatorship of the proletariat). Mikkalai 19:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. Read accounts of how Lenin had to constantly fight with fellow Party leaders over decisions. He was more often than not in a minority within his party.

You call his own quotations rubbish? Him being a minority is a ridiculous statement. This could be at the beginning, when there were no bolsheviks or mensheviks. Once Lenin won for good, he kept the power for good. As for fighting, fighter he was, and name caller, too. Mikkalai 01:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Brest-Litovsk, the peace treaty with Germany, was only signed when Lenin convinced the Bolshevik leadership to do so. Bukharin wanted the continuation of war, Trotsky advocated an intermediate position, and Lenin wanted peace. For example, over one question, Lenin stated - “I have been forced to resign my position in the CC, and that is what I am now doing, and to retain my liberty to carry out agitation in the organisations of the grassroots of the Party and in its Congress”. Would he say this if he was dictator?

Yep, he would. Ivan the Terrible acted just like thus: threatened to go into monastery. And he actually left Moscow a couple of times. Lenin's threats to resign (on multiple occasions, by the way) were but the tool to impose his will. And these threats worked, you know. Mikkalai 16:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You moron, Lenin as a dictator is a ridiculous proposal, not even the most ardent anti-communists could ever claim that Lenin had despotic tendencies. I think you are falling for some severe American propaganda AS USUAL! Stalin no doubt was despotic, but all the decisions while Lenin was about were collectively made by the Politburo. Yes Lenin threatened to resign on several occasions and this often swayed the argument in his favour, but this is not despotism, for it is a legitimate means of democratic argument. The party knew how essential Lenin was and therefore could not afford to lose him. Lenin used this as a political tool yes! But don't all politicians use what is at their disposal? I think you need to consider the definition of Dictator and compare it to the traits of Lenin. You will find it hard to be conclusive.

No more ridiculous than calling a person you don't know a moron. I suggest you to learn Russian and read a couple of volumes of Lenin's complete works. You may start from the phrase at the beginning of this section. Mikkalai 16:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Lenin was dictator and murderer (and a fanatical one too) .. He ordered extra-judicial hangings, issued personal decrees thoughout his time in power. read Robert Service's book Lenin - probably the best and most accurate biography on the bloke. --max rspct 19:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)





"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all. I am just like everybody else. " Vladimir Lenin


Thus our anti-communist foes have just been discredited and their claims just went to crap.

To be more precise - all the struggle for nonsensical Communist ideas went to crap and Lenin saw that, he was right, now thanks to that we saw despotism/partocracy, exalting some individuals above all and stripping most people of honest oportuninty to rise by keeping all down, doing well at discrediting the Communism itself. Thanks, Vladimir Il'ich at admitting that.–Gnomz007(?) 15:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


I take that irrelevant to the topic response as your moral defeat.

Wanting to have people killed, or killing them does not make you a dictator necessarily. Every post-WWII American president, had they been tried by the same standards used at Nuremberg would have all be convicted as war criminals. That being said, that does not make them dictators.

Just to mention, this quote at the start re "dictator" could be yet another total mistranslation, I'm not an expert in Russian, but it wouldn't be the first time that someone has deliberately forgotten the differences and subtly of English or another language to translate something to suit them.

A little Russian is enough to recognize the word in question as a loan word from the Latin dictator. What is missing is context; the Roman dictator did hold absolute power for six months, after which he was out of office and his actions reviewable. Given that Lenin wrote and acted, until March 1921, as though the Bolshevik government were temporary, a holding action until relieved by the World Revolution, it may be that the analogy applies. Septentrionalis 18:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have read Lenin's collected works and calling him a dictator would be untrue. It is very easy to confuse Stalinism with Leninism because both the West and the East throughout the Cold War tried very hard (but for different reasons) to convince people that Lenin led to Stalin and that Stalin's policies were a continuation of Lenin's. Stalin represented the leader of a dictatorship, there is little to argue about there. Lenin, on the other hand, led/rode a wave of revolution as the leader of the Bolshevik Party. He is very clear about the tasks of a fledgling Workers' State in State and Revolution (1917), including the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat (DotP). I suppose if one does not understand the role of the DotP then Lenin might appear like a dictator, but it is still a real stretch of the imagination to place this title upon him.

Double negative ambiguity

Toward the end of the page is this sentence:

Modern anatomy no longer thinks that morphology alone cannot be decisive in the functioning of the brain.
I don't know what is meant by morphology here, so I don't know whether this sentence is logically correct. In any case, the double negative should be replaced with either one or zero negatives, depending on the intended meaning.

I noticed this, too. If it was intentional, it does not make sense. If just now anatomists believe morphology is relevant, it implies they would not have back in Lenin's time. If that was the case, the study would not have been conducted. I'm removing "cannot" from the sentence. I am fairly certain that this will make the statement true as well as unambiguous.

Initial picture

The top picture is not a photo but a painting of him - one with a five o'clock shadow as well as half of his face enveloped in shadow, surrounded by shadows. This is about a step above the Trotsky as a jew-devil paintings. I'm removing this, and will look for a suitable replacement in terms of copyright. Ruy Lopez 07:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image restored. You are right but please provide a new image first. It is not so bad, since it survivied 2 years here.
People have different tastes, and it will be no good if we start running around and ripping off what we don't like. Please provide a better one and see whether others will agree that it is a better one. BTW, someone already replaced the title image of Stalin some time ago arguing it was too good :-). Mikkalai 16:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The picture might not even be so bad, but it is so dark with shadows everywhere it makes it look like Lenin is in some bad horror movie. Interestingly enough, I am scanning Lenin's Collected Works, which are public domain, onto the Internet, so perhaps I will scan his photo from there myself, which I know will be public domain. Ruy Lopez 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pseudonym

"Lenin" was one of his revolutionary pseudonyms. He is believed to have created it to show his opposition to Georgi Plekhanov who used the pseudonym Volgin, after the Volga River; Ulyanov picked the Lena which is longer and flows in the opposite direction. He is sometimes erroneously referred to in the West as "Nikolai Lenin", though he has never been known as such in Russia.

I see a couple of problems with this paragrpah.

As noted in Robert Service's biography, Lenin, along with most Russian revolutionaries at the time, used dozens of pseudonyms and stories about the significance of the name are probably apocryphal.

The last sentence is not even arguably true, though. Nikolai Lenin was the original pseudonym. I've removed that sentence accordingly.

I've tried to tidy this up. Previously there were two contradictory and apparently erroneous explanations of the name in the article. Clearly there is a reference to Lena.
On the topic of Nikolai. (Reference to Old Nick and Machiavelli??) Lenin certainly signed off as "N Lenin" - but this is explained in "Old Talk" above as meaning "name". But I have found a 1918 article by American Communist John Reed calling Lenin Nikolai[1]. Certainly he is usually called Vladimir Lenin, and only the American Far Right calls him anything different now.--Jack Upland 23:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I deny being "Far Right", and I'd like to see a citation for anything published officially as "V. I. Lenin". I maintain that there are V.I. Ulyanov and Lenin, names for the same name. But "Lenin" has no first name, even though his intimates would have called him Vladimir. Henry Troup 21:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The claim above that "Nikolai Lenin was the original pseudonym" is one of the great misconceptions of our time:

  • The fact that John Reed called him "Nicolai" Lenin does not prove that this was Lenin's original pseudonym. All it proves is that John Reed got it wrong, and people in the West have been copying this error ever since.
  • It is indeed a fact that he has been called "Nikolai Lenin" by uneducated writers in the West - and we should refer to that, but only to correct and stop perpetuating this myth.
  • Ulyanov's original 1895 pseudonym was one word, "Lenin". No Nikolai, no Vladimir, just "Lenin". It was a political pseudonym, not one for everyday use. He remained "Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov" legally, and was known simply as "Lenin" in political contexts. Later, much later, this name Lenin replaced his surname Ulyanov. He went from Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
  • In Russian, when a person's first name and patronymic are not known (or in this case, non-existent), it is common for "N." to be attached to their surname when they are being referred to in writing. There are various theories why "N." is used; one such theory is that it stands for "nikto", meaning "no one". (And see "name" argument referred to above). That's unimportant. What's important is that any Russian reading "N. Lenin" would have known this was more or less equivalent to "Mr. Lenin", and would not have assumed the N meant his given name started with the letter N. To indicate that his given name started with N, one would write "N. I. Lenin", not just "N. Lenin". In Russian, the patronymic is a fundamental part of the name, it's not just some optional extra like middle names in English. For example, they would always shorten the full name Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin to "V. V. Putin", never just "V. Putin".
  • Lenin may, perhaps, have called himself "N. Lenin". But I challenge anybody who thinks he ever called himself "Nikolai" Lenin to come up with some documentary evidence of that. (What others, such as John Reed, called him, does not count). No other reputable and credible encyclopedia says this was the case.

JackofOz 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Leadership

It appears this may have been already debated upon. However Lenin was never "leader" of Russia, nor was he ever leader of the party. The head of the government at the time was probably Rykov, though this may need to be checked. But I tell it was never Lenin! Lenin is only considered leader of the party through his sheer influence, but as it has been previously said, he was never dictatorial and often had to fight massively for change example the New Economic Policy. Therefore I think that it should be removed that Lenin had a predecessor or was leader at all of Russia or the Communist Party.

Yes he was de-facto overall leader, by a common understanding. Please provide references about other opinions.
Although a significant correction is due: he was leader of the Soviet Russia, which at times was but a tiny fraction of Russian Empire. mikka (t) 22:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobility

This article was included in Category:Russian nobility. I can't find any indication in the article that Lenin was a noble, so I have removed this category. Please add it back if I am mistaken. Pburka 20:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stalin and Marxism-Leninism

Removed the sentence "which was later developed into Marxism-Leninism by Stalin". Can the original poster point to Stalin's specific theories? "Socialism in one country" was a policy of the right oppostion, and specifically of Bukharin. Also, what is the need to mention Stalin the first sentence, why not Marx, or Trotsky? I think the poster betrayed his own feelings on the matter here. I think my change is much better.

Kingcal 14:03, 22 July 2005 (GMT)

Lenin and human rights

What are the objections to the statements in my version? The historical facts are documented in historical research. Ultramarine 21:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • You did not provide any reference to historical research. The extremist website you copied the text from is not a solid reference.
  • The famine is irrelevant to the topic of the article, i.e., biography of a person. All the more it is irrelevant to the section called "human rights."
  • The section title itself is an anachronism. We don't write about "human rights violations" in Ancient Rome or during the American Civil War. But I can tolerate it as long as accusations are kept reasonable. mikka (t) 22:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, the websites I listed gives references to historical research done by scholars. Lenin is at least partially responsible for this famine and thus it is a a large scale human rights violation. Ultramarine 22:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
You will also find these scholarly works particularly illuminating:
  • Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674076087.
  • Pipes, Richard (1995) Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. Vintage. ISBN 0679761845.
  • Pipes, Richard (1991) The Russian Revolution. Vintage. ISBN 0679736603.
  • Rummel, R.J. (1996). Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917. Transaction Publishers ISBN 1560008873.
  • Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300103220. Ultramarine 23:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Listing a bunch of books is not a solid reference required. Just as you listed a bunch of ardently anti-communist books, I can list the same bunch of leninist-stalinist ones. Please quote which facts prove that Lenin was directly responsible for famine, whole or part. mikka (t) 23:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The authors are respected academic scholars who have done extensive research. Ultramarine 23:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Read my lips: facts, please. mikka (t) 23:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Read my lips. I have given facts supported by well respected academic scholars who have done extensive academic research. Ultramarine 23:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
OK. I looked at your last version, and it indeed contains only facts and almost all of them are correct. (And by the way I did not delete two other pieces of your addition) But the deleted part bears no relation to "human rights". What is wrong that Lenin sent food to cities? The statement is that there was less hunger in cities is simply ridiculous. That lenin sold food abroad requires verification as to the time frame. But still, there can be serious reasons for doing this, and to put this to absolute blame is just propaganda. "Whites' grain reserves" sounds like oversimplification. Even there were such (which I don't quite remember but I will not argue), how did they manage to collect these reserves? One of the reasons why a relatively small bunch of bolsheviks eventually grew in numbers and overcame the "whites" is because the Whites were even larger robbers than commissars. Do you think Whites paid for grain with gold or hard currency? mikka (t) 23:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
You are disputing the facts. I have given my academic references. What are yours? Please, no original research. Ultramarine 23:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I am disputing your interpretation and I dispute some facts. You did not provide references to facts. A bunch of books is not a reference. A reference is a quotation or a page number. Yes, I am being difficult, just as someone is being nasty. mikka (t) 04:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course, mikka is just being difficult. Ultramarine, I think you are using the right approach by citing your academic sources. The refusal of certain editors to accept legitimate sourced material from mainstream scholars exposes their extreme POV views. I am not as knowledgeable on Lenin as I am on Stalin, but since your contributions are right on target on the equally troubled Stalin site (where POV bullies seem to hang out), I trust you are doing an honest job here, too. Keep up the good work!--Agiantman 04:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine is a POV warrior and the subject of a RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ultramarine. He does not seem to know the difference between a factual statement and a factual statement laden with heavy POV. Allow me to attempt to explain, Ultramarine: Saying "X people died while Lenin was in power" is a factual statement. Saying "Lenin ruthlessly and mercilessly caused the horrible deaths of X innocent people" is POV-pushing.
As such, I have no problem with the facts you're trying to add here, Ultramarine. My only problem is with the way you phrase them. Now, let's list the facts:
  • The controversy surrounding the continuity between Lenin and Stalin.
  • The policy of War Communism which included requisitioning supplies from the peasantry.
  • A famine occured in 1920-1921.
Given these facts, and others you did not cite, I propose the following paragraphs:

(title: Lenin's most controversial policies)

Many communists, especially Leon Trotsky and his supporters (see Trotskyism) argue that the large scale repression and murder that occured under the regime of Joseph Stalin is one of the greatest differences between Stalin's administration and Lenin's. Trotsky himself famously stated that "a river of blood" (Stalin's victims) separated the two. Many anti-communists, on the other hand, claim that there is a continuity between Lenin and Stalin, with Stalin's methods being merely a more extreme version of Lenin's. The debate is complicated by the fact that the Russian Civil War raged during most of Lenin's time in power - thus it is difficult to determine which of Lenin's policies were meant to be only wartime emergency measures and which were meant to be more permanent.

In order to keep the Red Army supplied with weapons and food during the Russian Civil War, Lenin introduced the harsh policy of War Communism, which involved requisitioning all agricultural surpluses from peasants, with little or nothing given in exchange. This led many peasants to drastically reduce their crop production, which in turn sparked retaliation from the Bolsheviks, who accused those peasants of intentionally sabotaging the war effort. War Communism caused great hardship for many peasants, and may have been one of the factors that led to the famine of 1920-1921 (along with a severe drought and the damage caused by 6 years of war). In 1921, after the Civil War had been won, Lenin put an end to War Communism and introduced the New Economic Policy.

On August 30, 1918, in Petrograd, Cheka leader Moisei Uritsky was assassinated. The same day, there was an attempted assassination of Lenin himself by Fanya Kaplan. Lenin was shot and wounded, but survived. However, the events of that day convinced him that some larger counter-revolutionary organization, perhaps affiliated with the Whites, must have been operating in Soviet Russia. As a result, Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders decided to respond with overwhelming force, both as retribution for the events of August 30 and as a deterrent for any similar future attempts. This led to mass arrests, executions, and the creation of a labor camp system based on the old Tsarist katorga labor camps. Thousands of real or suspected counter-revolutionaries and "class enemies" were sentenced to death between 1918 and 1922; the estimates vary between 50,000 and 200,000 (the large margin of error is due to wartime conditions). [2]

Feel free to add your other references at whatever points in the text you consider appropriate, and, of course, mention anything else you would like included. It has been proven on the Talk page of Criticisms of communism that we can work together to achieve NPOV, Ultramarine - if you want to. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Mihnea Tudoreanu, thanks for you conciliatory approach, unlike those who simply delete referenced texts and templates. The protection of this page has thus both been necessary and valuable. I will present more detailed references. Hopefully you will revise the above text, which I consider an interesting start. Ultramarine 16:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Lets use the The Black Book of Communism, which is the work of no less than 6 scholars, including several who where Communists prior to their research. Using the Julian calender, the October revolution was on October 25. The Communists started closing down independent newspaper and radio stations the day after (p. 54). On November 13, on order was sent out that all who were suspected being an "enemy of the people" should be imprisoned (p. 55). Starting in January 1918, war prisoners were being tortured and killed on a large scale (p. 60-61). Starting in May, food was being "requisitioned" from the peasants (p. 66). Also in May, several working-class demonstrations were bloodily suppressed (p. 68). There were around 110 peasants uprisings in July and August (p. 67). In June 1918, the Cheka already had 12,000 members (p. 68). On the 9 and 10 of August, Lenin sent out telegrams ordering mass executions, deportations, and concentration camps. (p. 72-73). Trotsky also supported starting concentration camps (p. 63). All of this was before the assassination attempt on Lenin.
In May 1919, there were 16,000 people in concentration camps, in September 1921 there were more than 70,000 (p. 80). There were large scale rapes of "bourgeoisie women" documented in 1920 (p. 105). The food requisitioning are documented on p. 97 and p 120-121. The war on the peasantry, including the use of poison gas, death camps, and deportations are documented on p. 92-97 and p. 116-118. In 1920 Lenin ordered increased emphasis on the food requisitioning from the peasantry, at the same time that the Cheka gave detailed reports about the famine (p. 121).
Some other detailed references can be found here [3]. Ultramarine 16:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
i know i've not been actively involved in this dispute, but i really don't like the proposed addition. there is a continuity between many of Lenin's policies and Stalin's, it should not be stated as POV. the two major Stalinist policies i can think of that were not based directly in Leninism is "aggravation of the class struggle" (justification for ending democratic centralism and concentrating CPSU power) and the Stalinist purges. however, collectivization and full-scale nationalization, as well as the elimination of the bourgeoisie such as dekulakization are not specifically "Stalinist" in nature, as the history of several other Communist states shows.
your opening sentence mentions Trotsky. Trotsky was a Bolshevik ally of Lenin but it is unclear to me whether Lenin would've necessarily favored Trotskyism over Stalinism. the former ideology was much more radical in nature. of course Trotskyists have a natural interest in claiming they're the true heirs of Lenin but this seems to me, like i said, unclear and i'm not sure their POV is relevant in this article.
in any case i think the proposed passage belongs in a History of the Soviet Union section or perhaps on another Marxist-related article. relevant points can be brought up without adding a long passage about debate regarding continuity between Leninism and Stalinism. the other two paragraphs may have some more relevance. J. Parker Stone 09:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the first paragraph is not vital to this article. Something similar to this is vital to for example Joseph Stalin and Criticisms of communism. Ultramarine 16:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
You're right, it isn't, but I wrote that paragraph to expand on a point which you made in the current first paragraph ("Some communist supporters argue that Lenin was innocent of the large scale human right violations associated with Stalin"). If you feel that this does not belong in the article, I can agree to its removal. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
You will notice that I removed the mention of "human rights". This was for a very good reason: As Mikka pointed out, "human rights" is an anachronism - the concept didn't yet exist when Lenin was in power. The Black Book of Communism, as you have to admit, is a very, very biased book. It can be used to explain the anti-communist POV, but it cannot be used as a neutral source. I will go see what communist sources have to say about the events. Meanwhile, feel free to write an edited version of my paragraphs with more information added in. We shouldn't digress too much into this matter, however; an overview of Lenin's "dark side" is certainly useful in a biography of him, but a detailed analysis belongs more in the Criticisms of communism article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I find your description of human rights strange. That murder and torture are morally wrong are not new concepts. The United States Constitution (1783) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1793) lists human rights. It it true that the United Nations created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. But if this should be the defining year, then Hitler was not guilty of human rights violations.
The Black Book of Communism is an academic work by six respected scholars who have done extensive research. Several were Communists before starting the research. I listed several other academic sources earlier. Give academic sources supporting your position, instead of blank denial. Ultramarine 12:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I propose the following. I see no reason that Wikipedia should ignore or be brief on documented and interesting history.
Recent historical research has highlighted the many human rights violations during Lenin's regime. From the Black Book of Communism (Using the Julian calender): The October revolution was on October 25. The Communists started closing down independent newspaper and radio stations the day after (p. 54). On November 13, on order was sent out that all who were suspected being an "enemy of the people" should be imprisoned (p. 55). Starting in January 1918, war prisoners were being tortured and killed on a large scale (p. 60-61). Starting in May, food was being "requisitioned" from the peasants (p. 66). Also in May, several working-class demonstrations were bloodily suppressed (p. 68). There were around 110 peasants uprisings in July and August (p. 67). In June 1918, the Cheka already had 12,000 members (p. 68). On the 9 and 10 of August, Lenin sent out telegrams ordering mass executions, deportations, and concentration camps. (p. 72-73). Trotsky also supported starting concentration camps (p. 63).
On August 30, 1918, in Petrograd, Cheka leader Moisei Uritsky was assassinated. The same day, there was an attempted assassination of Lenin himself by Fanya Kaplan. Lenin was shot and wounded, but survived. As a result, Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders decided to respond with overwhelming force, both as retribution for the events of August 30 and as a deterrent for any similar future attempts. This led to the particularly intensive period of oppression called the Red Terror.
In May 1919, there were 16,000 people in labor camp based on the old Tsarist katorga labor camps, in September 1921 there were more than 70,000 (p. 80). There were large scale rapes of "bourgeoisie women" documented in 1920 (p. 105). In total, 50,000-200,000 summary executions of "class enemies" occurred during Lenin regime.
During Russian Civil War, Lenin started "requisitioning" supplies from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry. The food requisitioning are documented on p. 97 and p 120-121. The war on the peasantry, including the use of poison gas, death camps, and deportations are documented on p. 92-97 and p. 116-118. In 1920 Lenin ordered increased emphasis on the food requisitioning from the peasantry, at the same time that the Cheka gave detailed reports about the large scale famine (p. 121). The long war and a drought in 1921 also contributed to the famine. Finally, Lenin allowed relief organizations to bring aid but later had most of the Russian members organizing the aid liquidated. Foreign relief organizations suspended aid when it was revealed that the Soviet Union preferred to sell food abroad in order to get hard currency rather than feed its starving people. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are between 3 and 10 million. For comparison, the worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths [4][5][6]. Ultramarine
the idea that we can trust the neutrality of a document based on your view that it's "very academic" is ill founded.
Everyone, please sign your posts or all those controversial articles discussions turn in a mess. I do not belive that neutrality if a source is needed to be questioned as long it has any facts proven by records, or at least it can be noted as important opinion, or opinion causing a notable controvesy. The Black Book of Communism looks like partisan and probably shold not be noted, since I see no other specific books noted. So where is that venerable non-partisan book you need here?
And what about that section neutrality? If one considers the Revolution a violent coup, it is all OK. But it is all-wrong if one considers him a legitimate ruler. Well it would be good to find something like in Augusto Pinochet - hmm, Suppression of opposition - it does not fit - opression of "class enemies" - is it not a crazy label invented by Bolsheviks, actually there is no justification for all those atrocities - all those rubberstamps were applied to dead people to justify the crime. As long as communist regime has ended(Ancient Rome is too ancient to have documented crimes against it's population, Union still stands, thank you very much), why consider Lenin a legitimate ruler, every life lost to communists is a crime againt humanity, every hardship suffered due to new policy is opression, make it opressive policies or opressive measures. Sure historians and revisionists still trade on the dead, but find me a historian who did not. I doubt that any number which is not derived can be disregarded as made-up, just list em all.–Gnomz007(?) 21:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's read Human rights, I'm not sure, this was not a well known concept by that time, so probably must not apply. I'm obviously undereducated, but for some reason I think that the scale of Lenin's inhumane measures was unprecedented, taking in account the population maybe compared to Inquisition, but the comparison must be unfair. –Gnomz007(?) 22:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Rereading the thread I find that I'm repeating earlier arguments, human rights do not really apply, I'm afraid that a good caption is 'Lenin's most controversial policies(plagiarism). BTW, I thought that Whites/Greens/Reds all were robbers, but Reds were bigger terrorists. I guess there is lacking article White Terror, and actually the Russian Empire was beheaded, see White movement "lacking central coordination, the White forces were never more than a loose confederation of counter-revolutionary forces" –Gnomz007(?) 00:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I have already listed several other books. Much research has been possible after the fall of Communism opened the Communist archieves. But the Black Book of Communism is especially noteworthy because it has six respected academic authors, including several who were Communists before starting the research. Please, do not just give a blank denial. Ultramarine 23:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to this and don't mean to further problematize an already charged debate. But from long experience I think it would be fair to note that any relationship between NPOV and academically vetted sources is, at best, coincidental.
For example, the books that Ultramarine has cited are primarily from American presses. This has already been treated, unequivocally, in the NPOV discussion (see "Anglo-American focus"). mikkalai is quite right in this regard; most opinions can be substantiated through reference to a carefully culled subset of the available literature. Although I haven't actually read the texts cited by ultramarine, I can still say with relative confidence that the texts likely constitute perspectives compatible with American political objectives, which, to put it mildly, are interested in depicting and approaching (dealing with) Communism in a particular way. For a text on this type of issue (on an unrelated topic, however), try "Orientalism" by Edward Said (Vintage).
More generally, it's not good practice to cite academic texts in support of NPOV as if they were absolute authorities. Most academic texts are polemics. The peer review process is primarily one of trimming the fringes, rather than verification of a single authoritative viewpoint. Furthermore, since it's a consensus-driven process, systemic bias permeates the whole thing. The only guarantee you get is that the text isn't written by a particular (currently stigmatized) type of maniac. If you want an example of how questionable "academic" texts can get, try Googling the (academically published and quite seriously received) writings of the "Hiroshima Surivivor" Araki Yasusada.
Basically, it seems like ultramarine is confusing NPOV with "justified using an unapproachably authoritative source". This is fine by me, I love playing that game, but academic sources aren't unapproachably authoritative. Ultramarine, please stop falling back on "six respected academic authors, who are also Communists", because what is being said, again and again, is perfectly clear and not a blank denial. "Fine then, read the books, then come back with specific arguments after you have" is not an acceptable response to this - it insults the reader's analytical capacity. Perorative 09:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

How can anyone still not see that the concept of "human rights" if applied to early 20th century is an anachronism. These humanity concepts evolved for centuries and "human rights" in this very formulation were not invented yet. It doesn't make a mass murder tolerable or collective punishment acceptable. These should be presented as condemnable, but in appropriate term. Human rights isn't among such terms for the time of Lenin as it wasn't for the time of US slavery of the civil war. --Irpen 01:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

This is the problem also with democide and genocide - none of many terms we use were defined before some convetion. I have, then I've said about other books — I meant the article, not the thread - there can be surely other books offering alternative version, but disregarding them as communist, would be POV, a communist has the right to be recognised as person, so if Mikka brings out his promised communist apologetics, then thats the way the cookie crumbles.
I think that there can be a wording in English other than human rights. Its just Cain did not break any commandment - killing Abel he just sinned, because the commandmets were not there. It's just wrong, to apply current standards to old happenings, American Settlers surely broke current Building code many times. Atrocities != human rights violations.–Gnomz007(?) 04:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Very well then. When the article gets unprotected Template:POV-title-section has to be added to the top of "Human rights" section if users insist in not changing name. --Irpen 05:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have already previously argued that you are wrong about human rights. However, I would accept changing the title to something like "Mass executions, concentrations camps, and famine". Ultramarine 05:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I see no reason why those numbers should be disregarded, since you cite other sources agreeing. I think that some arguable facts mustbe qualified like "historians speculate about the scale of famine damage, based on precedents in Imperial Russia". It is certainly his fault that his government went over dead bodies.–Gnomz007(?) 05:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
They do not speculate but estimate based on historical research. They especially do not speculate using "precedents in Imperial Russia". If you want to claim something like that, cite sources. Ultramarine 05:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not attacking your numbers, I'm just pointing out that communists would demand that all charges of famine causes be taken from Lenin, based on "famine not violence" rhethoric. I'm being stupid, that comparion with tsarist Russia crop failures would be fair regardles of was it used by historians or not.(interesting enough - famine is follows all mass-murderers [7])–Gnomz007(?) 06:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You are right that communist supporters often argue that the Communists cannot be blamed for the famine. In my text have tried to cite some of the evidence that the Communists were partially responsible. You are also right regarding famine and dictators. According to Amartya Sen, a prominent economist, no functioning liberal democracy has ever suffered a large scale famine. Ultramarine 12:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Amartya Sen was writing as a Bengali nationalist, intent on blaming the British, instead of the war, for the famine of 1943-4; and this is a misquotation. Septentrionalis 16:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy." [8]
That is largely because "liberal democracy" is a fuzzy term which you can define in any way you see fit, to exclude the countries you don't like. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind, all this, the argument is (revolution seeking to establish despotism)=>(famine) link.–Gnomz007(?) 18:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
They are responsible. I do not want to be the reason for NPOV dispute, now I read, A.Buskov, Red Monarch(actually about Stalin), he acts as a Communist supporter, but his speculations(does not cite no numbers at all) serve Lenin right - he points out that the whole scenario of revolution was outlined in France, including terror/famine/requisitioning/enemies of people/intervention, curiously omitting concentration camps(how he overlooked this novely and a couple of others), meaning Lenin must have known of everything, he just scaled up, tweaked the scenario to seize power better and come on top himself. Those are core methods of seizing power, but if you use them - that is your fault - you sign up for all this.
Bushkov's point was that revolution was inevitable and scenario can not be changed, but in that case we will have to remove Lenin as not responsible for revolution itself - which is ridiculous.
As for the title problem it is a good shorthand word but I do not see a problem with the descriptive title. –Gnomz007(?) 06:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

(A comment on the Bushkov book, that guy resorts to plain insults to Romanovs and government after Ferbruary coup, picturing Bolsheviks as the only reasonable guys, I think if that book would have been published without all that name-calling, it would be under 50% of content, I'm guessing he will never be published in English)–Gnomz007(?) 16:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose a more neutral and standardized title: Criticisms of Lenin's government. Because that is what the section is about, isn't it? Criticisms. This is the standard title used for similar sections in many other articles. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism is too inclusive, facts, especially of that magnitude is just a small subset of what critcism can be, since you can list absolutely non-neutral statements under it. But since there is an argument, I agree that it may do. If you list just casualties, then the usual title is Death toll (estimates) –Gnomz007(?) 18:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
It may do. But it should then also include other facts, like the dispersion of the Constitution assembly when the Marxists only gained a minority vote in the democratic election. Ultramarine 09:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Clearly, if we are going to do a full analysis of the Soviet government between 1917-22, it should go under one of the articles concerning the history of Russia and the Soviet Union. I don't mind a few paragraphs being included here, but I'd like to avoid the kind of situation where less than half of the article on a certain person is biographical, and the rest discusses his involvement in this or that controversial issue. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The article already contains many other facts from that period, should all of these be excluded? Or only the negative ones, like previously? Since Lenin was an authoritarian ruler, he was responsible for the crimes that occured under his regime. Ultramarine 14:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
If you have a better version, please show it so we can discuss it. Ultramarine 16:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of Lenin's regime

The Black Book of Communism tries to revive the biggest lie of this century: Stalinism equals communism. But conditions to do this are becoming increasingly unfavourable. The source of this falsification, the Stalinist regimes of the Soviet Union and its satellite states, has disappeared. Many archives have been opened. New documents revealing the real role of the Stalinist terror come to light daily.

Anti-Lenin campaigns are used to scare workers and youth away from revolutionary ideas and struggle. For socialists today, it is therefore necessary to answer the lies and slanders directed against Lenin and the Russian revolution.

The image of an unbroken line from Lenin to Joseph Stalin, and on to Leonid Brezhnev and Mikhail Gorbachov, is maybe the biggest falsification in history. Publications like The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression - by Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin (Harvard University Press, 1999) - say nothing about the policies of the Bolsheviks led by Lenin or the decisions made immediately after the October revolution in 1917. They hide the enormous struggles of the 1920s, started by Lenin himself, to stop the rise of Stalinism. They cannot explain the one-sided civil war Stalin conducted in the 1930s against anyone connected to Lenin.

One distinguished historian who did differenciate between Lenin and Stalin was EH Carr, who described how Lenin’s regime encouraged the working class to take an active part in the business of the party and the nation. That position on democracy and workers rights’ was completely opposite to the dictatorship established by Stalin. It was the workers’ councils, the soviets, which took power in October 1917, and it was their elected and recallable delegates who appointed the government. Workers’ rights, including the right to strike, were enshrined. The setting up of factory committees and collective bargaining were encouraged. The Bolsheviks were not in favour of banning any party, not even the bourgeois parties, as long as they did not take up armed struggle. In the beginning, the only organisation banned was the Black Hundreds, which was made up of mobs organised as a proto-fascist party specialising in physical attacks on radicals and pogroms against Jewish people.

EH Carr died before the Communist achieves were opened. In addition, he supported both Hitler and Stalin. You can read more here [9].

The claim that all the repressions of the Civil Wars are recently revealed is a silly exaggeration. From the newspaper censorship to the shootings by the Cheka, they were commonplace by the time of Lockhart's British Agent, and doubtless long before. Septentrionalis 22:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree to this point, archives did not uncover anything unanticipated. But Lenin has done far too much damage - many of his policies just begged for an armed resistance and did not he contribute to bringing Stalin, who really cancelled NEP, which was not planned initially. BTW revolutionary struggle kills, and it empowers not the altruistic people but the strong and cunning.–Gnomz007(?) 00:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
And, BTW, that should be the final proof, in a long series of proofs, that Gnomz is nothing but an hysterical, POV-pushing philistine.
OK, I withdraw, but I leave my final points, crude but I hope to the point:
  • While democracy in some form may have been intended(I have done an opposite statement, which was incorrect), it did not work out and came to leading people to "happiness" with iron fist. (suppresions, shootings, labor camps)
  • It is more important what was done and not what was intended, you can not refute the criticism of particular actions by saying, that it is only because some antisocial elements are preventing me from doing my good thing.
  • You bring bad guys with you - that is you to blame, even if you criticise their "bad inclinations"(дурные наклонности).(struggle aginst Stalin)
  • Communists always say that the wrongdoers are just outcasts of the party, which led to perpetual flip-flop in "History of the CPSU", as well as wiping out the previous team; yet nobody denounced Lenin, but his results were not too much different from the other lot, just not that organised.
  • If whatever is currently called Communism was actually Stalinism, then you better invent a new word to sell it, for 70 year in the package marked Communism™ came a particular product.(Stalinism = Communism)

Bottom line, do not include rhetoric statements like first two paragraphs if you do not want it to be replied as if they were part of actual argument, or even your complete argument, they sounded flamebait to me, and I bit. Your hysterical philistine(hmm, painfully familiar word), –Gnomz007(?) 04:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 

         You, sir, are retarded- kthnx

Removal of Two-version template

Is anyone against? Ultramarine 19:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not approve until the other side in the late war actually edits, or there is consensus on this talk page - neither of which has happened. Septentrionalis 16:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


In Defence of the Neutral Point of View

I think that to quote the Black Book of Communism (which viruntly Anti-Commnunist) without mentioning to an equal degree about the great deal of criticisms of it like the many fabrication its been accused of is a complete violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. Also I think that one of two things should happen:

1) The section titled Criticisms of Lenin regime should be deleted

or

2) Their should be a section titled Praises of Lenin's Regime added.

I appreciate the fact that some you (the Anti-Communists) may have had some personal experiences concerning which I, not being from any of the former Soviet Socialist Republics, can't really vouch on too much. But at the same time the purpose of Wikipedia is to be neutral and if you can't bide by this policy and put your personal feelings aside then I think that it is best that you bank down from taking part in editing this article. User:Leon Trotsky 12:23 29 August 2005

Thanks for not being patronizing as some, I have never intended to edit that article with my attitude towards this person and books plus oral tradition I have — just trying to stop that I see as rhetoric and dubious logic, but unfortunately I only second it.
While it is not fair that concrete citations are from a single book, this section needs to be where, or those facts would just disappear, it needs refining at most. Otherwise it may be dissolved in the Head of the Soviet state, losing some things not related to Lenin, but retaining most facts.
You should discuss that with the author, but I presume he/she can get those facts from more references not marked by such controversy, and why don't you just point out the falsified facts, if rebuttals are available.
Neutrality of critics is an oxymoron, and many articles have critics section, allowing the subject to make his statement in the general parts of the article.
If you can write a solid praises section which will fit - you are welcome.
The possibility of omitting all the inhumane policies sanctioned by Lenin is completely beyond my grasp. I'm gone, I unwatch this page. –Gnomz007(?) 06:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for Scarcity in the Soviet Union

The reasons for the deaths in the Soviet Union is because of scarcity and the deaths during the Russian Civil War. It would be very hasty to blame the Civil War on the Bolsheviks because Bolsheviks because it wasn't like the Bolsheviks were fighting the themselves, they were fighting an armed uprising of the White Russians.

The famines were caused by scarcity which in turn were caused by two things:

A) The workers' revolution failed to spread internationally and Socialism like any other political ideology (eg. Capitalism, Fuedalism) has to expand to survive.

and

B) The country the Proletariet (working class) and the Bolsheviks (workers' representatives) inherited was a very backwards country.

Both of these things were way out of the Bolsheviks control.

User:Leon Trotsky 14:10 30 August 2005

You might find this interesting [10]. Ultramarine 00:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Leon, also, the United States, Japan, France and England sent troops into Russia to fight the Red Army. These actions prolonged the civil war-- causing much more famine-- something to this day looked down upon by russians.--So Hungry 23:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for the Repression of "Dissidence" in the Soviet Union under Lenin (Part 1)

The reason that the Bourgeoisie were repressed in a Proletarian Dictatorship was to defend against the re-establishment of a Bourgeois Dictatorship. Who a country is democratic for depends on who owns the 'Means of Production'. A workers' state is democratic for the Proletariet and Bourgeois state is democratic for the bourgeoisie.

In a capitalist society for instance, a person can't criticize their boss because they'll get fired (thus undermining freedom of speech). The average person can't express their opinions on television because they can't afford a channel (thus undermining freedom of press). And the list goes on.

Bullshit. You can critisize your boss. Being fired is not such a big deal as compared to being shot, no? And some bosses are reasonable enough to actually hear dissenting views and _not_ fire you. "The average person can't express treir opinion on TV" because average person is too lazy to get ass from the sofa and do something to get some political visibility (for example, research how local government spend budget money, and sue it if you find something. You'll get on TV). This is good. I do not want any random moron to be able to appear on TV.
the average person is highly oppressed in a capitalist system, and cannot ever hope to raise enough money to put a decent political opinion on television, and if they happen to be able to save up enough to afford even a few minutes of air time, someone in the bourgeois class class will quickly outspend them in opposition. As for your boss, the boss capitalist sees the employee as property, an asset that he can do so with as he pleases. It would be alot more dangerous to confront your boss in a capitalist system than on a communist one. If you were to confront or expose a crime of your bosses, then he could go to the extent of having you taken care of, either through devaluing your labor-power or more underhanded and devious schemes that would be affordable to him but never to yourself. Solidusspriggan 11:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

And in terms of electing parties the Bourgeosie (Capitalists) will give billions of dollars to the parties that they support which allows these parties to campaign a whole lot more affectively. They control the press which means the parties the capitalists support get favourable media coverage. The Capitalists also get lobbyist to veto any legislation they're against and to promote any legislation that they support.

I can refute everything of this, but I won't waste my time. These tales about how "bad" is life there on the other side of the iron curtain were heard by me and rest of former USSR population thousand times. Maybe enough? Answer me please just one question. Why people were constantly trying to escape from East Berlin to West, despite dangers of being shot by machine gun fire, sniper, or electric shock on the barbed wire? Why practically no one wanted to go in opposite direction (which was totally unobstructed)?
The capitalists have the government in their hands in an advanced capitalist system. Even in the rare case that a fair election is held, the richer candidate will almost always win. Legislation favoring the greatest corporate doners will always take priority over that of the working class who can only ask nicely, and have no money to bribe with. As for german gate crossing, one word explains the phenomenon...greed. The majority of the people obviously didnt try to cross, only the petty bourgeois. Why defend the petty bourgeois? they wouldnt ask for defense of anything except wealth that they can, by nature, never obtain. Solidusspriggan 11:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Leon Trotsky 16:55 30 August 2005

Reasons for the Repression of "Dissidence" in the Soviet Union under Lenin (Part 2)

Oh and other thing which I was just looking up on most of the repressing of dissidence called the "Red Terror" in the west I believe was during a Russian Civil War and with the threat of invasion by the US, Europe and Japan and most wars countries will suspend civil liberties in a time of war.

Terrorism and Communism by Leon Trotsky

User:Leon Trotsky 22:21 30 August 2005

You cannot cite Trotsky as proof, recent reserach has shown that he participated in many of the human rights violations, although he later tried to hide this, as noted above. Ultramarine 12:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Red Terror was Bolshevik term for deportations, imprisonment, hostage taking and shootings by "class", a definition considered defined only within Bolshevik ideology. Terror temporarily excluded activists of political parties(the reasons for that differ with POV), except it included Left SR for excess activity. –Gnomz007(?) 02:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


stop screwing up wikipedia

zealots like you people need to stop screwing up wikipedia. nobody cares about your 150,000 word screeds bemoaning every last point of order and trying to explain that the word 'killing' is some capitalist plot and it offends you to the bone and its not neutral etc etc etc. no, lenin and stalin didnt 'kill' anyone, so to speak?

not even Mao has this much crap going on in his article, and he is at least as controversial as lenin or stalin.

if you cant understand the idea of NPOV then kindly stop typing.

it is completely unacceptable to have 'two versions' of an article. if the article cannot be rewritten so that its just one version, then both of the 'conflicting' versions must be overflowing with horse shit.

debate is healthy

Personally I found the debate on this discussion page extremely interesting. I don't think they are screwing up wikipedia. People are just using the mechanism wikipedia provided to debate the finer points of what is an extremely significant figure in world history. In the meantime, if you can't be patient enough to read both versions of the articles, read the differences in opinion and make up your own mind, maybe you should stop using wikipedia and most definitely refrain from leaving comments entirely devoid of anything constructive.

criticisms

This criticism sections is unusually high on the ToC, it is written by various wikipedians righting their own prose, and not actual critics... This section should be broght to a higher quality. First of all, the article is about Lenin, if criticism section is in there it must be about the subject of the article (Lenin), not "Lenin's Regime". Second of all, it is incredidbly ridiculous to let wikipedians right their own prose and use it as criticisms... all criticisms must come from critics, not wikipedians and ofcourse not Lenin himself! There are tons of past and contemporary critics of Lenin so we shouldn't have any problem finding sources...

Proposals:

  • First Proposal:
  1. Title of section "Criticisms of Lenin" or "Critics of Lenin"
  2. Move the section to its an appropriate place (ie: the bottom, like most criticism sections.)
  3. Rewrite, adding actual criticms of Lenin by past and present critics.

-or-

  • Secpond Proposal: Remove this section alltogether if nobody can agree on nuetrality. However, if we can can give this Lenin article a good criticisms section (there are many critics out there that should be represented) then there shouldn't be any NPOV disputes. Otherwise, if we can't come to a conclusion, why even bother to have a section which is of poor quality and is highly disputed?


And here are some criticisms of Lenin someone forwared to me... And, there are also many more out there from credible and contemporary sources too:


I'm going to opt for proposal #2... I currently don't have time to rewrite the criticism section, all the research would conflict with the 16 hours I'm taking inorder to graduate soon so... If anyone wants to write a criticisms section please reply and say so.--So Hungry 14:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

human rights and famine

Lenin is at least partially responsible for this famine and thus it is a a large scale human rights violation

Not to defend Lenin in any way, but famine is not automatically a human rights violation. If it was brought about deliberately, or knowingly tolerated, it would be a human rights violation, otherwise, it may just be a screwup. I mean, we don't list the dustbowl as a human rights violation under Coolidge's presidency (nor, for that matter, the widespread discrimination against non-white minorities in the US at the time). Arguably, it doesn't even make sense to talk about "human rights violations" in a historical context prior to 1948 because prior to that date, human rights did not exist as an accepted international legal concept that could be violated.

Lenin and Paris Commune

Considering that Lenin was so influenced by and so fond of the Paris Commune, there should be at least one reference to it from this entry. Perhaps I'll just add at the end of his biography, if that's ok, that his body was wrapped in an old communard flag...

Lacking a big chunk.....

There is a great hole in the article in regards to his involvement in bringing the Bolshevik party to power, etc - it basically jumps from before the revolution to his death. Having just taken a Soviet History course, it seems to me a lot more content could (and should) be added in regards to this period, as it is basically that time period that makes him notable to history......DonaNobisPacem 18:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Missing chunk is work of vandals. restored. mikka (t) 00:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Muchos better.....DonaNobisPacem 01:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Anastasia's Murder

Lenin sent a telegram to order the murder of the young lady shown in this photograph. This is an integral part of his totally ruthless and sick character, and should be mentioned in this article.

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanov, 1910

Wallie 15:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Father of this young lady ordered to shoot quite a few thousand people who protested against their brutal treatment at factories and Siberia mines. The prety young lady herself had a nasty habit to whip her servants and will surely grow into a malicious bitch. Have you never read about slaughtering royal families for political reasons? mikka (t) 17:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure, one can always find a case for the defense. However, I would not like to die the way she did, and believe she did not deserve it. Whether or not political, it is still murder. Wallie 21:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
So Roosevelt was ruthless and sick when he ordered to nuke Hiroshima, with thousands of young ladies. Or they were not ladies? They were probably yellow japs. And look who is here on the pic: pretty white princess, right from a fairy tale. That's why you are worried about her, but not about Lena massacre or Bloody Sunday, yes?. mikka (t) 22:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Roosevelt was very sick at the time. In fact he was dead. (Truman gave the order CPMcE 17:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)). Of course I am concerned about these other events, and they should be mentioned too, in the articles on the relevant people. Two wrongs do not make a right, you know. Wallie 16:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Royal Family

Please don't keep removing any mention of Lenin's part in the killing of the Royal Family, children and servants. He is proven responsible. Can you imagine that junior ranks would carry out such a deed without orders, or even have the power to detain them. No. All parts of Lenin's character have to be included. This is an integral part. All Russia (Russians) should not have to bear the guilt of this enormous crime. Only the man who ordered it. Wallie 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't speak for "all russia". Half of it in these times would gladly tear tsar into small pieces. Another half would pray for him. mikka (t) 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
so be it, of course lenin supported the execution, however stating that lenin is "personally responsible" for "brutal murder" sounds like a villification. Using the words "execution" as opposed to "brutal murder" is more historically accurate, since it was a political action. I also recommend moving this entry about the execution of the Tsars somewhere under the "revolutionary activity" topic, since it doesnt really fit in thie the pseudonym information. Solidusspriggan 22:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I suppose that "personally responsible" and "brutal murder" are not the correct terms for encyclopedias, which tend to use coded language that experienced readers can quickly interpret. Wallie 06:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't ironize. Encyclopedia use plain language. mikka (t) 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The statement is partially false. Just as I am confusing Roosevelt and Truman, you better check your facts, and in reputable sources, too.

"Lenin ordered the executions of the Russian Royal Family and their servants. Soviet historians claimed for many years that local Bolsheviks had acted on their own in carrying out the executions, and that Lenin had nothing to do with them, but Trotsky later confirmed Lenin's part in these events. [11]"

Also, if you want something like this, its place not in the intro, which is a summary of the article, not a horror movie trailer. Please find a proper context in the article body. mikka (t) 01:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, i didn't think that source was reputable, none the less i tried to make the statement more closely represent the already cited material. I also attempted to de-villify, since someone thought that mentioning the "royal family" didnt include the children and also decided to add the children to villify. If anyone adds any more information about the royal families execution, please add it under "revolutionary" subtoppic and not the intro Solidusspriggan 01:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the issue has been resolved, thank you mikkalai.

Frankly, I don't understand all this fuss about killing tsar. At this time everyone was killing everyone else. WWI was just ended. Human life was 2 cents. Next day Lenin himself was shot. This time was not for tree huggers. thanks God no one listed this event into the List of major violation of Human Rights. I am also surprized with the double and triple standard: the whole world admires this butcher Napoleon or pities this incapable Nicholas II, who brought the country to disaster in the first place. mikka (t) 01:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mikkalai. Sorry, Wallie, but do you think that the American Revolutionaries didn't kill any pretty young girls? How about Sheridan during the Civil War?
Is it because she was a Royal? Cromwell had Charles I beheaded, yet there's a statue of him in the British Parliament.
The tragedy of the Bolsheviks under Lenin is that they killed the sailors at Kronstadt. That's worth shedding a tear over. CPMcE 09:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, the French revolutionaries killed their king and hundreds of others. American revolutionaries killed many. In a revolution against a powerful figure like a King or a Tsar it is almost always neccessary to execute the ruling old families because of the power base that that family holds in the nation could form counter-revolutionary forces, or try and use their prestigeous position for other means. Solidusspriggan 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Further Reading section

The further reading section seems a bit too long and unweildy. Would anyone with a familiarity of these texts mind paring it down a bit?--TheGrza 08:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Lenin and German Gold (Parvus article)

Some of you Lenin experts may be interested of reading and editing the Israel Helphand (Parvus) article, in which someone claims that Lenin received several millions in Gold by the German Emperor and that Lenin was a paid German agent! Overall, the Parvus wiki article is not neutral and needs to be rewritten. Bronks December 10, 2005.

Lenin's brain study accurate?

Soviet icon Lenin died of syphilis-experts say

this statement

Further research was continued by the Soviet team, but the work on Lenin's brain was no longer advertised. It has been suggested that one of the reasons for this was that evidence for neurosyphilis may have been discovered in the tissues of his brain, which may have contributed to his strokes and possibly even maddness during his life.

could someone cite sources? i've done a little historical research on the subject of lenins brain study and have found nothing containing the term "neurosyphilis", and nothing relating this to madness or strokes.

It's been talked about forever -- see, e.g., http://poxblog.typepad.com/poxblog/2004/06/the_enigma_of_l.html . Nothing conclusive that I know of, though. Ahasuerus 12:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

ok now its actually covered in the premature death section.

Lenin's "Truth" quote

Removing Lenin's "Lies become Truth" quote for two reasons:

1. Generally, this quote is merely attributed to him. There appears to be no evidence available to determine the issue of whether he is in fact the originator. At the very least, no evidence has been provided in the article.

2. It appears out of context. Even if Lenin were the originator, the context of the quote is unknown, and not provided. In particular, it is unknown if Lenin intended this comment to be descriptive or prescriptive, i.e. a statement of how things are, or an endorsement of fabrication.

Juxtaposing this quote with his early study of propaganda methods implies a link that may never have been intended by Lenin. If you have evidence that Lenin said this as a justification to fabricate propaganda, please provide it. Otherwise, the quote as presented could mislead.

agreed, the quote is entirely out of context with a very clear bias. There is specific space in Lenin's Wikiquote page for attributed quotes such as this. Solidusspriggan 09:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

New subsection: Dictator

Some editors persistently throw out Vladimir Lenin from List of dictators. I find it pretty much ridiculous, because not only Lenin himself in his works wrote that the leader of the state of dictatorship of the proletariat is dictator, but he was regarded as such by his political opponents (pretty much exterminated), as well as by notable writers and historians.

Since I expect that ardent Leninists-Trotzkyists/Maoists will outcry, I am not adding this section immediately, but starting to collect quotations and references in support. mikka (t) 20:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • George Vernadsky (notable historian, article missing, son of Vladimir Vernadsky) Lenin: Red Dictator (1931):
    "The activity of Lenin may be viewed from various angles, and there are various possible estimates of its results. But however it may be judged, there can be no denial of the fact that his personality exerted tremendous influence on the course of political development in Russia, and through Russia upon the whole world. For the effectiveness of his tactics, Lenin must be enrolled among the most formidable political leaders of men. Adherents of Lenin have compared him as a revolutionary figure with Robespierre and also with Cromwell. In political leadership, he probably outranks Robespierre. The comparison with Cromwell can be better applied to his political role. Like him, Lenin not only knew how to fight the old order, but also how to organize a revolution and direct it in a definite channel."
mikka (t) 20:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Some claim that Lenin could hardly be dictator, e.g., pointing out that Lenin had to work hard to enforce his vision of treaty with Germany. So what? It was in the beginning. mikka (t) 20:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Lenin was not THE dictator of the Soviet Union. The Proletarian Dictatorship developed into the dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party during the civil war (although with mass support), but Lenin was not the indisputable leader or “dictator” of the Party. All decisions in the Bolshevik party were taken through democratic centralism and there were many questions in which Lenin could not get his opinion through. Bronks december 16, 2005.
  • Dictatorship of the proletariat does not imply a dictatorship in the classical sense. Dictatorship of the Proletariat is actually a democratic idea. Leading up to and after the revolution Lenin worked to build soviet democracy It was only during and after the civil war that more power was concentrated withing the bolsheviks and later the CPSU. Lenin was in no regard dictator though. Solidusspriggan 01:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, that's what I expected. I was told this for 40 years. But you know, after 1990 quite a few people think differently (and before 1930 as well). And the number of communists who believe that theory=practice decreased sharply. mikka (t) 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

from what I understand lenin was quite adamant about defending democracy in the state. obviously during the civil war there was some consolidation of power to the CPSU politburo but not to the point of establishing dictatorship. take into account that if a dictatorship was formed as such, stalin would not have felt the need to consolidate so much power in the late 20s and 30s when the really sharp decrease in theory vs practice took place. Also, since the 90s there has been a huge outpouring of anti-communist and anti-lenin crap spewed by russian oligarchs and other russians to further their own bourgeois interests. Anything they can think of, Lenin was mad, lenin was gay, lenin only carried out the revolution for fame and money, just absurd stuff. Critics of communism have made extremely illogical assumptions as to why the USSR fell. You know as soon as gorbachev came to power lenin was rolling in his tomb. Solidusspriggan 22:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You probably have a very specific understanding of "democracy". The vast, overwhelming majority of Russia were peasants. Somehow they didn't enjoy Lenin's "democracy". mikka (t) 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

well in america, almost half of the votes in a presidential election could be thrown out due to the electoral college. Not only that, but representative democracy doesnt take into account any of our opinions directly AND all lawmakers are much more prone to vote in favor of private companies interests rather than that of individuals. this iss not a problem we would have seen in soviet russia, here in the US it is, in a marxist view, bourgeois democracy. Soviet democracy technically closer to direct democracy than any mocking gesture of democracy here in the united states. If a dictatorial rule was established already, then why did stalin need to consolidate so much power after lenins death? Please remember Lenin's final testament warning about stalins bad policy and power hungry tendancies. Solidusspriggan 21:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

List of overruled Lenin's decisions

If you claim he was not dictator, please list Lenin's opinions during 1919-1923 which were overruled by politburo. mikka (t) 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Just answer the question. mikka (t) 17:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How about: "...I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post [as Secretary-General] and appointing another man in his stead..." Lenin[12] Bronks 20 december 2005.
so you could put limitations on the case against this proposition. Look, there is a section on "'head of the soviet state" which covers most of the facts. Adding a" dictator" subsection is not only obviously disputed but is unneeded as his ruling years are covered. even stalin's article doesnt have a section titled "dictator", it just briefly mentions that "his extreme concentration of power and the means of its execution defines him as a dictator." Just leave it be, the article is in pretty good shape as it is. As for the list of dictators leave him off of it, if Lenin is allowed to be put on it then tens if not hundreds more people could be added including some presidents I'm sure. During a civil war you have to take some control or things will fall apart.
just keep changing the parameters of your argument until it fits.....what a wonderful strategy, i have to remember that when trying to weasel something into an article.
    • I don't agree that Lenin had "absolute power" during the civil war. As the leader of the red army, Trotsky had a huge influence over the Bolshevics during the civil war, and didn’t just follow Lenin blindly. (and during the civil war, even Stalin and Voroshilov were “powerful” enough to ignore a lot of things Lenin told them to do and not to do.) Zinoviev, the leader of the ComIntern in those days had a lot of "power" and influence over the international communist movement. And Sverdlov was “powerful” enough to alone make the decision to execute the tsar and the royal family, and informed Lenin about this only after they had already been killed. (this according to russian anti-communist historian Dmitri Volkogonov.) Bronks 22 december 2005.

Curious. I did not see that the "Dictator" thread had been continued in another place. Who is "Mikka"? The postings from this person are consistently right-wing; relating faithfully the arguments of all of the Cold War historians and academics on Lenin - those from the West and the former Soviet Union. These all beat the same drum: Lenin led to Stalin. Leninism, they would say, was, more or less, the same as Stalinism. There proof of this was always suspect. A case in point would be when "Mikka" quoted Vernadsky. Vernadsky played a common game amongst historians and political commentators with respect to Lenin: he gave partial explanations of Lenin's ideas and motivations, typically furnished with half-quotations from Lenin that would be invariably out of context. I have spent some time reading the original source material from Lenin, and the Cold Warriors almost never related to the reader the context that Lenin was writing from, or speaking in. It's like explaining a 2-car accident by referring only to 1 car. Without the entire context, how is one to understand the full picture? The fact is that Western academics and political leaders had every interest in making Lenin appear like a dictator because it solidified their argument that the REVOLUTION itself was a bad thing - not something that their workers needed to look to for guidance. In the former Soviet Union, the Stalinist leadership had an interest in making it look as if Lenin was a nationalist, etc, because it made it easier for Stalinists to argue that their ideas were consistent with Lenin's. Discussions of Lenin as a "dictator" are almost always ahistorical in the academic community (and apparently here as well). Lenin led the Bolshevik Party through a revolution, it failed as a result of EXPLAINABLE, MATERIAL conditions, and it turned inward as the balance of class forces shifted from revolutionary to counter-revolutionary (represented by the rise of Stalin). Focusing on Lenin as a dictator, when he wrote copious amounts of material, in line with what Marx and Engles wrote, on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DotP), is preaching to the choir. The DotP was a historical reality. It was a class dictatorship that depended organically and directly upon an INTERNATIONAL revolution. If one does not analyse Lenin's, and the young Soviet State's, actions through this filter, then one will be obligated to focus on simplistic, linear theories that read "Lenin+Stalin=Soviet Totalitarianism". Again, without the historcial, dynamic context that places Lenin's words into the environment of the social forces at work (class forces, some might write), Lenin's actions will INEVITABLY appear dictatorial in the sense that Stalin's might, but does this type of ahistorical analysis appropriate for this forum?

Russian Ancestory

Is it safe to say that Lenin had no Russian ancestory? The article seems to imply that he was Kalmyk, German and Jewish.

Please learn that in many cases ethnicity is not defined by genes. Anyway, it is not safe even in eugenics sence. How do you knwo that his calmuk grandma was not humped by a cossack? Think about all this branching in time and you will understand that the question is rather nonsensial. Even Jews, despite their strict lineage laws, are mixture of all caucasians in the world plus some arabs and moors. mikka (t) 02:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


POV in "Early life"

Please provide the citation supporting the info marked by the "fact" template.--AndriyK 10:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

please cite sources before removing, fact/pov/sources template

Another of Lenin's Overruled Decisions

Lenin also voting to have Kamenev and Zinoviev expelled from the Bolshevik party after they before the October Revolution which was over ruled. They had called to collaborate with the Menshaviks if I remember correctly. Leon Trotsky 6:39 21 December 2005

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a talk and argue shop.

One can put all the criticisms one likes about Lenin's regime, but those criticisms in turn will be criticized, and judging by the recent criticisms that were just placed, there is plenty to counter-criticize! The article before that had what many would say is an adequate amount of objectivity, UNTIL this subjective drivel slithered onto the scene. -- Kozlovesred

Agreed, thank you Solidusspriggan 04:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not delete referenced material. Ultramarine 07:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not add irrelevant material. This is an artile about Lenin, not about Soviet Union. mikka (t) 07:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Other articles about leaders have criticisms. Please do not delete well-sourced information. Ultramarine 07:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This article has much information about his regime. But none of the common criticims. This is POV, I will shortly be adding back the material unless a good explanation for the deletion is given. Ultramarine 07:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The article does not contain advocacy either; thus, at the present time, it is NPOV. I would rather keep it this way than have a messy criticisms and advocacy section added in. Other articles about leaders have criticisms (and advocacy), and they tend to be a hopelessly POV mess. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, note that the article on George W. Bush does not have a criticism section. Neither do Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Jacques Chirac (to name a few recent leaders), or Napoleon I of France, Otto von Bismarck, Winston Churchill, or even Adolf Hitler. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously false. For example, the article about Hitler mentions the Holocaust many times. Ultramarine 10:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Your argument, Ultramarine, seems to boil down to "if a certain claim about Lenin is sourced, it should go in the article". Taken to its logical conclusion, this would compel us to include everything every historian has ever written about Lenin - an absurd idea. There must be some criteria for exclusion of sourced comments on a topic, because otherwise every wiki article would be little more than a long list of comments by various authors. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously massive human rights violations fulfill every critera of important events. Ultramarine 10:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Claimed human rights violations. And I'm still waiting for some exclusion criteria from you. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously no exlusion criteria would exclude mass-murder. Are you arguing this? Ultramarine 11:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Allegations of mass murder have been made against Napoleon I of France, Otto von Bismarck, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush and many others. Since most articles on wartime politicians do not feature such allegations, I conclude that yes, they may be excluded. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Possible errors in other articles do not justiy new ones. For example, spelling errors in other articles are not justification for doing the same here. Add information to these other articles, do not delete here. Ultramarine 12:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
But I do not consider them errors. I consider it sound policy to be wary of controversial content. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Again NPOV is not an excuse for hiding information. Well-referenced information by respected historians. Ultramarine 11:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mihnea. Leave it how it is or ronald reagans article will need to get what it deserves.
No valid reason for violating NPOV in this article has been given. As such, the material should be restored. Ultramarine 10:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The material violates NPOV by giving only one side of the issue. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Then add sourced information, if there is any. NPOV is not an excuse for hiding informationUltramarine 11:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, possible errors elsewhere is not justification for new ones. The large scale human rights violation during Lenin's regime are documented by many historians and as such should be mentioned.Ultramarine 12:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, I consider it sound policy to avoid controversy. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, agreed, leave it alone ultramarine. Solidusspriggan 12:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am glad reason has triumphed here. This gives me much faith in Wikipedia. I have deleted Ultramarine's revisions, and I will continue doing so as long as he insists on the addition of anti-contextual knowledge. Hats off to the other wikipedians who see through the gigantic anti-communist propaganda machine of US socialization.

NPOV is not an excuse for hiding information. Obviously, mass-murder should be mentioned. Again, add sourced material if other views are needed. Ultramarine 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It is extremely strange that the article should go into great detail about the worship of Lenin but at the same time blankly refuse to include his victims. Ultramarine 12:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, I have and will continue to delete these criticisms so long as flagrantly biased information is added. Add a section praising Lenin's regime and I will think differently.

Please give an explanation why NPOV should be violated in this article.Ultramarine 23:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Please sign your commentsUltramarine 23:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? Because that is the stated intent of ANY encyclopedia, to attempt informing the public in as objective and neutral way as possible. As I said before, include a section praising "Lenin's regime" and I'll think differently, even though that will just inflate the article to a level that is not necessary. Kozlovesred

Please read Wikipedia NPOV. Views should not be hidden and NPOV is not an "equal space" policy which you seem to think. Add your own sourced information if you have any. Do not delete sourced information. Ultramarine 23:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
And you have deleted all changes I have made, even thouse outside the criticisms section. Without explanation. Unacceptable. Ultramarine 23:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What is unacceptable is your insistence on a flagrantly biased interpretation of "Lenin's regime" in an article not on "Lenin's regime," but on Lenin! And note that I did not delete your changes outside the criticisms section, I modified them. It is true that Trotsky has been accused of human rights violations, but there is more to it than that.

Then why is there much information about his regime. If this is included, then criticisms should also be included.Ultramarine 13:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides, the burden is on you to add a section praising "Lenin's regime." I think the article is perfectly adequate without either a criticisms OR a praises section. (Kozlovesred 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Give the Wikipedia policy where this is required.Ultramarine 13:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Ultramarine is an adamant anti-communist, he claims capitalism is best. Unfortunately instead of being constructive to capitalist and libertarian articles, he spends most of his time adding critisisms to marxist and soviet articles(as you can see by his contribution history). (similar to how intelligent design proponents are always attacking evolution rather than trying to validate and add to their own theory. It's too bad because it seems he has lots of useful information to contribute, but squanders it on attacking communism related articles. Solidusspriggan 04:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, add hominem. Discuss the facts, not the persons. Ultramarine 13:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

German support of Lenin

Germany gave large sums of money both before and after the revolution in order to achieve the peace on the Eastern front. See the books by Richard Pipes about the Russian revolation. Ultramarine 13:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Germany did NOT support Lenin and the Bolsheviks. That’s a lie that the tsarists launched to try to discredit the communists. (Also the Stalinists later used the same lie against Trotsky saying he was allied with the Germans!)
  • After the October revolution, Germany kept the war going when the Bolsheviks tried to end it, and soon Germany invaded Soviet Russia (together with many other countries) and tried to overthrow the Bolsheviks during the so called “Civil War”. (A war that the Bolsheviks could not have won without massive support from the russian people.) Also, the German government suppressed all bolshevik-supporters in Germany and murdered the German communist leaders such as Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and Leo Jogiches. Bronks 30 December 2005.
  • not only was germany's government generally anti-communist and persecuted communists within its own country, but lenin had many disagreements with many of the active "communist" movements within germany. The Whites took advantage of the former in more ways than one.

PS. Richard Pipes is hardly neutral, he is a outspoken communist hater.

Richard Pipes has many thousands of references, usually from original Russian sources. I suggest that you read his work. Please also read some general history, the German Empre never murdered Rosa Luxemburg or invaded the Soviet Union after the treaty.Ultramarine 13:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have read Richard Pipes double volume of the Russian Revolution. His sources on the “german gold-issue” are not based on any real documents, but documented rumors, myths and even pure lies. Bronks 31 December 2005.
That is your opinion, do you have any published work to back up this claim? Otherwise, it should be included.Ultramarine 23:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine (grasp the military name), your extreme right-wing sympathies have no place on a website that seeks to be as objective as possible. Your attempts to tell history from one point of view will continue to be rejected by Wikipedians who seek NPOV.

Please follow NPOV. See the arbcom cases which has stated that well-sourced material should not be removed. Ultramarine 23:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Sign your commentsUltramarine 23:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine is not entirely incorrect here. Though not necessarily a really coherently formulated military and foreign policy strategy, there was some intermittent support of Lenin's Bolsheviks from the coming Germans, along with their efforts to destabilize regimes in Petrograd that sought to maintain Russia's commitments to the war against Germany. If other editors do not consider Ultramarine's source (Richard Pipes) satisfactory, I recommend Keenan and Gaddis. 172 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • After the fall of the Soviet Union, Richard Pipes was chosen by the new post-soviet leaders in Russia (Yeltsin etc) to lead the new era campaign against the former soviet leaders (especially Lenin), based on former “secret documents” that he was free to interpret and use any way he wanted. Richard Pipes is not neural in his writings. During the cold war he was an outspoken communist-hater in the US and he was recruited by Ronald Reagan as an adviser to the US National Security Council. But even Reagan had a hard time with Pipes’ ultra anti-communism and had to let him go after Pipes had made statements that the West should go to war against the USSR. (source: New York Times, March 19, 1981 & Washington Post, October 21, 1981). So a communist-hater that even Ronald Reagan couldn’t stand is not going to help us write a neutral article on Lenin! (Are we going to let Hitler write the history of the Jews?)

--Bronks 1 january 2006.

One really good example of how Richard Pipes chooses to miss-interpret some of his “secret documents” is a letter from Lenin to Berzin (the soviet representative in Switzerland) dated august 14, 1918, in which Lenin suggests that Berzin should ask “the Berliners” to contribute with some money. Richard Pipes uses this document as a source to claim that the Bolsheviks had financial support from the German government in Berlin, while in fact, when Lenin wrote “the Berliners”, Lenin was referring to a group of German communists and bolshevik-supporters, not the German Government!!!

--Bronks 1 january 2006.

    • So, just because Pipes has “sources” to refer to doesn’t automatically mean that he will use them correctly.

Not only does Pipes chose to interpret many his “sources” in the ways that fits him and his political views, there are also many sources that Pipes chooses to completely ignore and hence uses censorship! One part of Pipes campaign against Lenin is to try to portray Lenin as an Anti-Semite and try to make him responsible for killing Jews. For this, Pipes decides to ignore all the sources and documents of Lenin proving his fight against Anti-Semitism including the voice recording of Lenin’s speech: О погромной травле евреев[13]. --Bronks 1 january 2006.

A person is not an ideology: maintain chronological biography

If criticisms are to be inserted, I strongly suggest that they be inserted in the already existing section about Lenin's time in power, rather than in a separate section of their own. They are not criticisms of Lenin's entire activity, but criticisms of a specific period in his life. On a somewhat related note, page attributions should be inserted as <!-- comments --> rather than visible text that disrupts the flow of the article. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

White army

Was not only monarchist or tsarist. It included supporters of liberal democracy, peasant rebellions, and other socialists. Ultramarine 15:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

if you actually click the link for tsarist i think you will see those factions are more than sufficiently covered. ^_^Solidusspriggan 15:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You are actually arguing that anyone will interpret "the White Army(tsarist)" as including socialists and liberal democrats?Ultramarine 15:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm actually arguing if anyone cares they will click on the link for tsarist, i really thought it was appropriate since that white army was primarily russian imperial/nationalists regardless of what form of government they advocated, if its going to be an issue i suggest we just switch it back to monarchist, no one had qualms with it before and the monarchists were the majority of the movement. during the american civil war the south were the confederates although there were many other economic, nationalist, and political interests involved, we still refer to it as the confederate army. Solidusspriggan 15:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
"the monarchists were the majority of the movement. during the american civil war"!? Please read some general history! "white army was primarily russian imperial/nationalists regardless of what form of government they advocated". Obviously logically incorrect. Ultramarine 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
please take a punctuation course, while i forgot to capitalize the D i did use a period, dont be sill man. and to make it clear "white army was primarily russian imperial/nationalists regardless of what form of government a minority advocated". The End. Solidusspriggan 16:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me see. You are arguing that the white army had majority of supporters for the Tsar? Extermely dubions, since the Tsar was removed by various right and left forces, not by the Communists. Do you have some source for stating that most of the White forces supported reinserting him? Ultramarine 16:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you are confusing "anti-Red" and "White". There were plenty of other forces that opposed bolsheviks and which were not aligned with White Movement. What is more, there was no common "White Army", unlike Red Army. Please read some history before you start questioning well-established things. And to mix peasant rebellions into White Army is totally mistaken. Please read also "White-". mikka (t) 17:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

At most, stating that many of the leaders wanted a constitutional monarchy would be correct. See for example this about Aleksandr Kolchak and the "Omsk Platform" [14] Ultramarine 17:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Kolchak was indeed groping in an unfamiliar environment. In November 1918 he issued his "Omsk platform," a complex document that called for the end of Bolshevism and the renewal of the war against Germany. (By this time the armistice between the Allies and Germany had already been signed, but it was only an armistice, not a peace treaty, and German forces still occupied vast areas of western Russia.) To carry out these tasks, the platform called for the creation of a "Unified Russian Army" free from "political influence" -- apparently a reference to political commissars and perhaps soldiers' soviets as well. Civil government was to be free from military control except in war zones. The platform promised to establish local self-government and grant autonomy to "small nationalities in their manner of living" -- a point of contention with many subject peoples, especially the former Baltic provinces, which desired to be sovereign nations. Civil liberties would be guaranteed. In economic affairs, the platform advocated the use of foreign captial to aid development, elimination of fixed prices, and a guarantee of the right of workers to form labor unions.
Since this mentions neither constitutions nor monarchy, it fails to document Ultramarine's claims. It does promise civilian administration, but that was normally the case, even under the tsars. Septentrionalis 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Removal of sourced material

Do not delete sourced material you do not like. Wikipedia is not your soapbox! If you think that the information should be presented somehow else, then makes changes, do not delete material for ideological reasons. Ultramarine 04:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not your soapbox. Do not add material for ideological reasons. We had this discussion already. Stop repeating yourself. (70.237.240.189 05:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

And you have not given any good explanation for deletion of well-sourced material. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is not a propaganda vehicle. Ultramarine 05:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to repeat myself in this context. One need only look at the discussion above for more reasons than mine over why the decision to delete POV material is made. That is all. (Kozlovesred 06:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

If you have any good reasons for deleting well-referenced material, state them here. Ultramarine 06:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Famine

I see no mention of the very large famine that Lenin's requisitioning policy contributed to. When I added sourced material, it was immediately deleted. Why? Ultramarine 06:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

soucre some scholarly publications rather than websites sometimes, anyone can go to google and find information that is already on the internet, if you have something constructive, objective, nontangental, and new to add then please do. I recommend visiting your local research library. I have not once seen you add any information that doesn't fit with what you believe is ideal according to your user page, if you did maybe your contributions would be taken more seriously...as with previous discussions with you by me and others I know it will not lead to consensus so I will leave it at that like the above user did. Solidusspriggan 07:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I gave 3 references and these references in turn state exactly what scholarly work they used.Ultramarine 07:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Here they are: [15][16][17]. Note that the first is a long list of scholarly estimates.Ultramarine 07:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
most importantly it is the issue that the information is not cruciall and it can be found online, if you feel the need add a link, also, please cite sources appropriately, author, title, year, page number, publisher.
This information can already be found in the links. Look for example at the second link where it is found very easily. Ultramarine 08:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
when i said add a link i did mean to add a link in the external links and to leave the essentially copy-pasted hypertext out of the article.
I can certainly add external links. But that is no explanation for deleting important infomration from the article. Obivously, a famine casuing 3-10 million deaths should be mentioned.Ultramarine 09:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

it is mentioned, if there is a wikipedia article on the famine then please simply put the word "famine" in 

wiki link markup like so: [[specific article name|famine]]

Obviously some details about the numbers killed and the circumstances should be mentioned. You are deleting details about the famine causing 3-10 million deaths, but keeping "Children were taught stories about "granddaddy Lenin" while they were still in kindergarten, quite similar to the adulation accorded to the Founding Fathers in US schools."Ultramarine 09:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

well if there isnt an article on the famine itself i suspect that it shouldn't be considered so important, so either find an article on the topic or leave it be, no one is adding the tens of millions killed by capitalist shortcomings throughout history to the articles associated with capitalism, if you wanna go add those statistics then add these maybe that would be help us reach a consensus.

This is not an article about capitalism (or communism). It is about Lenin. Obivously one of the most important event during this regime should be mentioned in some detail. Remember, Wikipedia is not your soapbox [18]. Why not instead delete the details about WWI? Ultramarine 10:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
your right, it isnt my soapbox, and im not treating it as such since im not the one making false historical claims like those about lenin's "allies" and tangental additions to articles about only minutely related subjects. i suspect it is only your soapbox, excuse me for interfering with your agenda. You refuse to try and reach consensus here, leave it be, while your personal opinion is that it is one of the most important events during his regime we see it as not very significant when contrasted with most of the events during the russian revolution and civil war. you can't seem to find or justify writing an article on the situation so it cant even be that important to you. We are through here.Solidusspriggan 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I have given extensive sources, you have given none. Your own personal opinion is uninteresting, cite sources. Read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:cite sources. It is simply ridiculous to call 3-10 million deaths "not very significant". Ultramarine 10:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, please use proper punctation and write using proper sentence structure.Ultramarine 10:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
If no one gives a good explanation for why a famine causing 3-10 million deaths should not be mentioned in some detail, I will shortly restored it. Ultramarine 20:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: Matthew White quotes several estimates for the famine alone, which range from 3 to 5 million. He also quotes several estimates for total deaths, some of which rule out any higher estimate. Overpopulation.com cites the Soviet figure from Pipes of 5.1 million. To get any higher, one must believe Caplan, who gets the years of the famine wrong.Septentrionalis

Head of soviet state

I dispute the neutrality and factual accuracy of the "head of soviet state" section on the basis of it being enti-communist, biased against the government of the time, and in direct political opposition by some present day wikipedians to the ideas of the past. Until a less terrible and more objective view is presented (especially user:ultramarine's constant POV additions and deletions.) Trying to attribute atrocities to lenin that were commited by both the opposition to the bolsheviks as well as bolsheviks other than lenin with citations from dubious or biased sources is politically motivated propaganda and there is no room for it on wikipedia.129.15.107.90 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please cite sources for your claims like I do. All my claims have been backed by respected, academic sources. You do not like the facts, fine. No excuse for deletions.Ultramarine 22:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
you always cite questionable internet sources or politically charged sources. So I have to agree with keeping of this totally dispute due to the biased and edits full of hate and resentment towards lenin, marx and their ideals. You almost always skew the facts and delete important parts of sentences to further your self-stated interests of liberla democracy and capitalism. Ill read through it, visit my library, and get back to that article to see if we can get that template off with a fair and accurate version of events. Solidusspriggan 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
(even though I would rather not have the template there because it makes the article look bad. I think the dispute should have been resolved during the pax wikipedia in december ((when ultramarine took his break from his revisionist editing for a while)).

I concur with Solidusspriggan. Facts look different when viewed with different perspectives, and perspectives look different when viewed with different facts. The facts Ultramarine chooses to include in Lenin's article stem from his own perspective of anti-communism and pro-capitalism, as well as a belief in objective Kantian morality. I don't fault him as a person for it, but as long as an article on Lenin carries that bias, I think it's fair for the template to be there, or else we should modify all of Ultramarine's myopic revisions. (70.237.240.189 00:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

I move to modify all of ultramarine's myopic revisions. I am doing some library research on the subject this week and then I will try to compile a sufficient version of the section, I suspect primarily the paragraphs constantly edited by ultramarine near the end that are full of his rhetoric.Solidusspriggan 01:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's have some democracy for once! (Kozlovesred 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Please cite sources for your claims like I do. All my claims have been backed by respected, academic sources. You do not like the facts, fine. No excuse for deletions. Ultramarine 09:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
this is a very common response from ultramarine, i think he has a bot/program assisting him because the exact same sentences and phrases come up when a dispute is to be had. either theres a program involved or he is highly unimaginative and monotonous...not only that but everytime he says "wikipedia is not your soapbox" it usually is involving a dispute where he is trying to further his own stated interests.Solidusspriggan 10:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are arguing with emotions and have no facts. Again, you dislike what happened, fine. That is no excuse for denial and blanking. Remember, an encyclopedia is not your website, give verifiable facts.Ultramarine 10:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
error, does not compute.

"I'm convinced he's a robot produced by the CIA. Take his user-name: Ultra Marine. His level of contributions is quite phenomenal.... ...In the long term, I fear that Resistance May Be Futile." - Ultramarine user page.

Deleted material

"Historical research, especially after the fall of Communism opened the Communist achieves, has shown many negative aspects of Lenin's regime. From the Black Book of Communism (Using the Julian calender): The October revolution was on October 25. The Communists started closing down independent newspaper and radio stations the day after (p. 54). On November 13, on order was sent out that all who were suspected being an "enemy of the people" should be imprisoned (p. 55). Starting in January 1918, war prisoners were being tortured and killed on a large scale (p. 60-61). Starting in May, food was being "requisitioned" from the peasants (p. 66). Also in May, several working-class demonstrations were bloodily suppressed (p. 68). There were around 110 peasants uprisings in July and August (p. 67). In June 1918, the Cheka already had 12,000 members (p. 68). On the 9 and 10 of August, Lenin sent out telegrams ordering mass executions, deportations, and concentration camps. (p. 72-73). Trotsky also supported starting concentration camps (p. 63).

After the assassination attempt on Lenin and the succesful assassination of Cheka leader Moisei Uritsky on the same day, Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders decided to respond with overwhelming force, both as retribution and as a deterrent for any similar future attempts. This led to the particularly intensive period of oppression called the Red Terror.

In May 1919, there were 16,000 people in labor camp based on the old Tsarist katorga labor camps, in September 1921 there were more than 70,000 (p. 80). There were large scale rapes of "bourgeoisie women" documented in 1920 (p. 105). In total, 50,000-200,000 summary executions of "class enemies" occurred during Lenin regime.

During Russian Civil War, Lenin started "requisitioning" supplies from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry. The food requisitioning are documented on p. 97 and p 120-121. The war on the peasantry, including the use of poison gas, death camps, and deportations are documented on p. 92-97 and p. 116-118. In 1920 Lenin ordered increased emphasis on the food requisitioning from the peasantry, at the same time that the Cheka gave detailed reports about the large scale famine (p. 121). The long war and a drought in 1921 also contributed to the famine. Finally, Lenin allowed relief organizations to bring aid but later had most of the Russian members organizing the aid liquidated. Foreign relief organizations suspended aid when it was revealed that the Soviet Union preferred to sell food abroad in order to get hard currency rather than feed its starving people. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are between 3 and 10 million. For comparison, the worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths [19][20][21]."

As can be seen, it is extremely well-referenced. However, the communist supporters seems to be extremely afraid to let other know of this and immediately revert all attempts to insert it.Ultramarine 11:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

These are reverted not because everyone here is a communist supporter, but because many of these things are tangental and hardly relevent to lenin's biographical article. The spiel from the black book of communism should probably be in the criticisms of communism article or an article detailing soviet atrocities, the actions after the assassination attempt are already covered here I believe. Remember! Wikipedia:Stay on topic, beyond POV disputes, this is the primary reason that I believe your edits are usually reverted.
An example of the irrelevance of those statistics in the lenin article:
There were large scale rapes of German women by American soldiers in world war 2 documented, but it would be absurd to add that to the FDR article. How about all the deaths in the american civil war? should we attribute those to Lincoln? Hundreds of communists have been imprisoned, deported, and tortured by the American government over the years. Thousands of humans across the US and the world died during the great depression. Christians and criminals were killed in arena battles during the heyday of the ancient Roman Empire. All of these we can go find statistics for, but we dont throw these statistics around in the articles of the rulers of the time. Those statistics belong elsewhere, in articles concerning the topic of the statistic and not who was alive and head of the state at the time.
After doing a little research into some of those statistics you named I've found there are multiple ranged figures and you have taken the upper ranges or the higest ranged figures of deaths and imprisonments i could find. This further hurts the willingness of wikipedians to accept your word or even your citations due to the selective nature of their inclusion.
Try and write for wikipedia with reputable scholarly books and articles with proper citations, because I would be concerned with the neutrality and accuracy of some of these sources)...and be sure to add the information into appropriate articles. This will contribute not only to the quality of wikipedia but to the upstanding academic nature of the community here. Solidusspriggan 12:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well worded about Lincoln and the american civil war Solidusspriggan, I agree with what you say!

---Bronks 25 January 2006.

If there is something wrong with other articles, correct them. There is a difference between wars deaths and deliberate executions of civilians, often innocent of even having a different political view. I give ranges, not the highest numbers. For the rest, original research without sources which is not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 13:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

for users joining the discussion this subject of "deleted material" is a continuation of the "head of soviet state" dispute. The "totally disputed" tag remains because of the anti-communist, out of context, and politically motivated information added, subtracted, and manipulated by user:ultramarine.

There is nothing wrong with those other articles, and should be nothing wrong with this one in the same way. User ultramarine puts very high, the highest possible, ends on the ranges of deaths, he also villifies Lenin constantly and adds highly irrelevent(to the article at hand) statistics. There are articles where such statistics are appropriate and I encourage ultramarine to contribute to those articles rather than adding tangental and villifying information to this article. Criticisms of communism, the article on the famine, articles on soviet atrocities etc are all appropriate places for many of these statistics. Please contribute constructively to these articles rather than destructively to this one. The state of the issue at hand is that ultramarine is the only user disputing our exclusion of his biased and out of context tangental edits A more accurate and neutral version of the section is in the works by a few wikipedians here which will be released soon at which time I will remove the template added by my intelligentsian brother who advocated for its removal. Ultramarine has no intention of reaching consensus or compromise. Anyone who favors to better this article in the name of neutrality and non tangental additions of only slightly related or entirely unrelated statistics associated with the times more than the ruler?:

  1. Aye Solidusspriggan 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) as well as in the interest of the WikiProject Soviet Union

Another user adding his agreement. (Kozlovesred 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Aye as well. GeorgeSears

pictures

I'm going to add a cartoon picture of Lenin from the era that doesn't portray him in such a dark light as these other photographs. (Kozlovesred 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

Mikkalai, you know more about this than I do. How do I get this picture (http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~vbonnell/images/tov_lenin_ochishchaet.jpg) onto the page? (Kozlovesred 02:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

if the picture isnt copyrighted you may upload it to wikipedia with the "upload file" link under the toolbox on the left side of the page. be sure to include a description of either the copyright or lack thereof, there will be a drop down box with options for you to select. name it something short and appropriate and then add it into the article like you would a normal wikipedia image. If you like ill go ahead and take care of it later, just ask. I always did like this cartoon and think it an appropriate addition to this article.Solidusspriggan 03:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Solid. It should be on there. (Kozlovesred 03:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

Syphilis

Now I'm not going to go changing anything in the article about Lenin's supposed syphilis. But what I have to say is: so what? Revolutionaries can't have sex? Inessa Armand was quite the looker, I say! Kozlovesred 07:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox

As stated clearly, Wikipedia is not a a soapbox.[22] Here is some of the well-sourced material that the communist supporters delete immediately. Note that they even delete criticisms from anarchists!

1. "Historical research, especially after the fall of Communism opened the Communist achieves, has shown many negative aspects of Lenin's regime. From the Black Book of Communism (Using the Julian calender): The October revolution was on October 25. The Communists started closing down independent newspaper and radio stations the day after (p. 54). On November 13, on order was sent out that all who were suspected being an "enemy of the people" should be imprisoned (p. 55). Starting in January 1918, war prisoners were being tortured and killed on a large scale (p. 60-61). Starting in May, food was being "requisitioned" from the peasants (p. 66). Also in May, several working-class demonstrations were bloodily suppressed (p. 68). There were around 110 peasants uprisings in July and August (p. 67). In June 1918, the Cheka already had 12,000 members (p. 68). On the 9 and 10 of August, Lenin sent out telegrams ordering mass executions, deportations, and concentration camps. (p. 72-73). Trotsky also supported starting concentration camps (p. 63).

After the assassination attempt on Lenin and the succesful assassination of Cheka leader Moisei Uritsky on the same day, Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders decided to respond with overwhelming force, both as retribution and as a deterrent for any similar future attempts. This led to the particularly intensive period of oppression called the Red Terror.

In May 1919, there were 16,000 people in labor camp based on the old Tsarist katorga labor camps, in September 1921 there were more than 70,000 (p. 80). There were large scale rapes of "bourgeoisie women" documented in 1920 (p. 105). In total, 50,000-200,000 summary executions of "class enemies" occurred during Lenin regime.

During Russian Civil War, Lenin started "requisitioning" supplies from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry. The food requisitioning are documented on p. 97 and p 120-121. The war on the peasantry, including the use of poison gas, death camps, and deportations are documented on p. 92-97 and p. 116-118. In 1920 Lenin ordered increased emphasis on the food requisitioning from the peasantry, at the same time that the Cheka gave detailed reports about the large scale famine (p. 121). The long war and a drought in 1921 also contributed to the famine. Finally, Lenin allowed relief organizations to bring aid but later had most of the Russian members organizing the aid liquidated. Foreign relief organizations suspended aid when it was revealed that the Soviet Union preferred to sell food abroad in order to get hard currency rather than feed its starving people. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are between 3 and 10 million. For comparison, the worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths [23][24][25]."

2. *What were the most important human rights violations committed under Lenin's rule?

3."On the other hand, libertarian socialist Emma Goldman went further and also accused Trotsky himself of violating both human rights and the principles of socialism during his time as Commissar for War [26]."

4.POV, unsourced: "perceived enemies of the Revolution, usually those who were actively conspiring against the Bolshevik government, were put in labor camps"

Take your "Black Book" elsewhere. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the cover of that book has a raging agenda. As for number 4, we're working on that. Kozlovesred 17:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

False, the Black Book of Communism is a respected academic book published in University Press by six historians. It has received extensive praise, see this [27]. Also, I cited many other sources beside this book.Ultramarine 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

While it is considered an acedemic source it is also quite a biased source, there are more neutral and more leftist sources that could be cited, higher end statistics on deaths during the reign of certain leaders, for example, are located in the black book, where a more neutral/historically accepted source would list them as lower, and an equally biased book from the left would cite the statistics as much lower. Personally I would like the lowest statistics to be true just as ultramarine would like the highest statistics to be true, but the truth is they are somehwere in between, this is the case with much information in the black book. So actually it is the truth that the book does have an agenda, just because it was published in university press doesnt mean it isnt biased. How appropriately titled this discussion topic is, since it is very much ultramarine's soapbox. GeorgeSears

PLease don't delete references to trotsky because you don't like how he behaved. Many people have been accused of human rights violations but that doesnt mean we should ignore all that they say.Solidusspriggan 16:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why is the criticism of his view deleted. See point 3 above. Extremely pov to only allow one side. Please read about the Wikipedia policy of NPOV.Ultramarine 16:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
both sides are clearly presented
Even though Lenin supported and helped to form a Soviet democracy, it is often argued that Lenin
countermanded proletarian emancipation and democracy (workers' control through the soviets or workers
councils) and that this paved the road to Stalinism. However, Trotsky argued that this perspective ignores
other factors and that a "river of blood" separated Lenin from Stalin's actions.
sounds like both sides are presented to me and most brigts.

I added some information instead of using the word "usually actively conspiring" i used "many accused of" which is in fact the truth, many were accused of this, this doesnt prove their guilt of course. Also, stop making thesee changes to this section we have already discussed and decided is POV in ultramarine's favor and needs a major revsion to clean out all of the edits of this nature which he has included. PLease read the following policies:

  1. Wikipedia:Stay on topic
  2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  3. Wikipedia:Check your facts
  4. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  5. Wikipedia:Edit war

All of which user:ultramarine has violated in this section of this article.Solidusspriggan 16:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As usual claims without sources. Again, please anwer. See point 3 above. Extremely pov to only allow Trotsky's view and not the other side. This is not allowed in Wikipedia. Please read about the Wikipedia policy of NPOV.Ultramarine 16:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the other point of view was clearly stated, your addition is not totally unfounded...for once, although it has NOTHING to do with POV/NPOV conflict so i dont know why you are using a misleading edit summary. I fear for the integrity of any article you edit since your edits are so full of the following actions.

  1. adding tangental information
  2. adding biased information
  3. adding incorrect information
  4. adding poorly cited information
  5. participating in Edit wars

Please read all of these policies, these are not allowed in wikipedia. A small pov/npov dispute is nothing comapred to your constant inclusion of these type of edits, please read these policies. Click the links and they open a new page if you didn't know, since I dont think you took the time to read them the first time I posted them.Solidusspriggan 17:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop repeating yourself, cite sources and give examples, and answer my questions. Ultramarine 17:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

start reading, read my examples above, as for sources, just about any article ultramarine edits is proper citation of ultramarine's violation of these policies, please see user:ultramarine's contributions.Solidusspriggan 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Trying ad hominem instead? Ultramarine 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

you just asked for sources concerning your violatins of said policies, I simply provided a place for someone to find hundreds of references to these constant violations, the majority of wikipedians that are concerned about the issue have reached consensus on the hard of state section above, at least 3 people have posted what they think about your constant POV edits to that section, now leave it alone,wikipedia is not your soapbox. Now we are finished here.Solidusspriggan 00:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

=talk page archive

It has come to my attention that this talk page is excessively long and cluttered, I created a Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive1 page but I really don't know if there is some process for archiving or if I should just "move" the current talk page to that and this one will be clean now? If anyone knows please chime in. Solidusspriggan 00:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

inline citations that are weblinks need to be re-done as proper citations - has a POV tag plange 05:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Lenin/Archive_1&oldid=825313847"