The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Remembering Lenin - the First Great Communist Mass Murderer
On the 100th anniversary of his death, it's worth recalling that almost all the worst features of communist totalitarianism began under Lenin, not Stalin and other successors.

Today is the 100th anniversary of the death of Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union, the world's first communist state. While Lenin's successor Joseph Stalin has few modern Western defenders (even as the current Russian government has tried to rehabilitate him), Lenin still has many admirers among Western leftists. They tend to ignore the great evil he did or blame it on Stalin.
Nothing can be further from the truth. Most of the cruel oppressive features of Soviet totalitarianism actually began under Lenin. Stalin merely perpetuated them on a larger scale.
Let's take a little history quiz. Which of the following features of the Soviet state were first introduced under Lenin, and which by Stalin:
1. The Gulag system of slave labor camps
2. The Cheka (secret police agency eventually known as the KGB)
3. Collectivization of agriculture leading to mass famines
4. Mass executions with little or no due process
5. A one-party state, with bans on all opposition parties (including socialist ones)
6. Suppression of freedom of speech and religion
7. Confiscation of private businesses, including even small businesses
8. Invading other nations in order to spread communism there
9. State control of the media for purposes of promoting regime propaganda, and preventing distribution of opposition speech
If you answered Lenin, you were correct in every case! And virtually every one of these measures was also supported by Trotsky, Bukharin, and other Bolshevik leaders whom some Western leftists like to trumpet as potentially superior alternatives to Stalin. Had Trotsky rather than Stalin come to power after Lenin's death, he would have happily continued all of the above, and in some cases doubled down on it.
Policies 3 and 7 on this list were partially suspended or reversed under Lenin's New Economic Policy, beginning in 1921. But Lenin and other Soviet leaders were always clear that this was just a temporary expedient they intended to reverse as soon as possible.
The late Harvard historian Richard Pipes has an excellent overview of Lenin's oppressive policies and their consequences in his book Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime.
It's also worth noting that Lenin was the one who elevated Stalin to the position of General Secretary of the Communist Party, thereby greatly increasing the likelihood that Stalin would ultimately succeed him. It's unlikely Lenin would have done that if the two men had major disagreements on ideology and policy.
Did Stalin engage in any new forms of repression? Yes, as a matter of fact, he did:
1. Deportation of entire ethnic groups (most notably the Crimean Tatars). I doubt Lenin would have had scruples about this if he thought it might be useful. But he didn't actually do it, at least not on a large scale.
2. State-sponsored anti-Semitism. There was no shortage of anti-Semitism in Lenin's USSR. But Lenin didn't actively promote it and probably wasn't an anti-Semite himself. He even occasionally condemned anti-Semitism. On this issue, Stalin was much worse.
3. Large-scale purges of loyal communists. Lenin never did this, and Trotsky probably would not have had he come to power. This is the Stalinist policy that most alienated many Western leftists. How dare Stalin kill communist heroes like Trotsky, Bukharin, and others? But it was among the least of Stalin's crimes. Many of Stalin's communist victims were actually brutal oppressors themselves, and arguably got what they deserved (albeit, for the wrong reasons, and without due process). In fairness, Stalin also purged a lot of communists who weren't actively involved in repression, but just joined the Party to advance their careers (you can say the same thing about many Germans who joined the Nazi Party after it came to power).
If you add it all up, Lenin was the one who initiated the policies that caused about 90% of the repression and death in the Soviet Union. And these ideas weren't idiosyncratic to Lenin. They were backed by the vast majority of other communist leaders, as well, which is why later communist regimes tended to adopt similar policies to those of the Soviet Union and got similar results. Mao Zedong managed to exceed the Soviet Union in sheer numbers of victims (he had a much larger population to work with). Cambodia's Pol Pot killed a higher percentage of his population in a shorter period of time, and arguably managed to exceed both the Soviets and Chinese in sheer torture and cruelty. But these mass murderers were, on major issues, still largely following the model first established by Lenin.
With a few notable exceptions listed above, Stalin mostly just continued and expanded Lenin's evil policies. Ultimately, the root of the evil here wasn't the personality of any one leader, but the ideology Lenin, Stalin, and their comrades all sought to implement. But Lenin was nonetheless notable for being the first to lead a regime that pursued these policies, and set an example for all that followed. That is how we should remember him.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I wasn’t born yet in the 1960s and I would tend to say the racist giants of the Senate were clueless…but communism was an evil malignant force that killed tens of millions of people. So I am willing to give those senators the benefit of the doubt. Saddam was evil but he wasn’t malignant and in fact he wasn’t very powerful at all.
In hindsight, that's obvious. But at the time, Saddam was doing the equivalent of brandishing a fake gun in front of increasingly nervous coppers. But yeah, they probably shouldn't have shot him.
And, he didn't even overthrow the Tsars, as many leftists claim. Instead, he overthrew the (relatively!) liberal government that had overthrown them.
Really, no redeeming characteristics at all. The best you can say is that he wasn't quite as bad as Stalin. Just nearly as bad.
A high school history taught me that countries that are used to authoritarian regimes rarely if ever transition to democracies. So, it not all that surprising that the follow up to the Czars was another authoritarian regime. In the same way that fall of Russian communism ended up producing Putin. Democracies are not built in a day but in hundreds of years of slow development. Most students learn that modern western democracy has its roots in the Magna Carta signed in 1215.
Our “revolution” wasn’t very revolutionary because we had developed democratic institutions over decades as the British ignored their backwater American colonies with extreme weather and dangerous natives.
"So, it not all that surprising that the follow up to the Czars was another authoritarian regime."
AGAIN, the Czars were overthrown by a relatively liberal government, THAT was the follow up. Which is what Lenin overthrew to impose a straight up tyranny substantially worse than the Czars.
So, no excuses here.
The provisional government, filling a power vacuum, lasted only a few months. It probably could not have lasted much longer, even if Karensky had been wise enough to pull out of the War.
It only lasted a few months because the communists overthrew it. So, don't make excuses for them.
I don't think either M4e or cc is making excuses for the Communists.
Rather, the point is that the provisional government was unlikely to last, given Russian history. One authoritarian or another was going to take over.
That's like saying Floyd George was likely to die from the drugs he'd taken. What counts is what did kill him, not what probably would have absent other causes.
Brett's the one that started making counterfactual assumptions, i.e. that the provisional government would have survived but for communism.
bernard is pointing out that such a counterfactual is far from established.
I really don't know if the provisional government would have survived but for the communists overthrowing it.
Captcrisis seems remarkably confident it would have been short lived even if they hadn't, though.
You post as though the provisional government was historically significant enough that the Communists don't count as having overthrown the Tzar.
Were you just being pedantic?
Er actually
1. Brett said that the Bolsheviks didn't overthrow the Tsar - but that the Bolsheviks overthrew the relatively liberal regime that actually did overthrow the Tsar
2. Moderation4ever then said that Russia was always likely to have finished up with an authoritarian regime, because of its history. Which may or may not be correct but which does not refute Brett's point that the Bolsheviks did not - in fact - overthrow the Tsar, they overthrew the reltively liberal regime that did overthrow the Tsar
3. So no, Brett did not introduce counterfactuals, Moderation4ever (arguably) did. Brett then noted that he couldn't opine on Mforever's theory because what actually happened is that the Bolsheviks overthrew the Kerensky regime. That is not a counterfactual either. It's a factual.
4. But this - "You post as though the provisional government was historically significant enough that the Communists don’t count as having overthrown the Tzar" is shark jumping at Olympic level.
The "historical significance" of the provisional government has got nothing to do with whether the Communists overthrew the Tsar. Ditto the speculation that the provisional government would not have lasted long given Russia's autocratic history.
The question of whether the Communists (ie Bolsheviks) overthrew the Tsar is answered by :
(a) the fact that the people who did overthrow the Tsar were not the Bolsheviks and
(b) the regime that the Bolsheviks overthrew was not the Tsarist one
Your argument is that Jack Ruby assassinated JFK.....because he shot the guy who actually did shoot JFK. This is nuts.
When someone is being imprecise, correcting them even when there is no material change to their general thesis is pedantic.
And no one likes a pedant.
I’m not saying it’s not true, I’m saying go to M4Es post and think about why.
The “factuals” are in italics. The “counterfactuals” are in bold :
captcrisis The provisional government, filling a power vacuum, lasted only a few months. It probably could not have lasted much longer,
Brett : It only lasted a few months because the communists overthrew it.
bernard : Rather, the point is that the provisional government was unlikely to last, given Russian history. One authoritarian or another was going to take over.
So Brett has offered zero counterfactuals. Other folk have – and why not ? As Bernard explains it is certainly arguable – counterfactually – that the provisional government would not have lasted. It is also arguable – counterfactually – that absent a Bolshevik coup, it would have lasted. But we know – factually - that it didn’t last, and we know – factually – why it didn’t last. It was overthrown in a Bolshevik coup.
sarcastro : “Brett’s the one that started making counterfactual assumptions,”
So that is crap. As is this :
“Ie [Brett assumed] that the provisional government would have survived but for communism.”
As Brett confirms :
Brett : “I really don’t know if the provisional government would have survived but for the communists overthrowing it.”
"Your argument is that Jack Ruby assassinated JFK…..because he shot the guy who actually did shoot JFK.."
That does appear to be his reasoning. I don't know, is he claiming that history is transitive, just like multiplication, so that the actual order of historical events is irrelevant?
"countries that are used to authoritarian regimes rarely if ever transition to democracies"
you all "well, technically..."
That's what I'm calling out as pedantry.
I was simply pointing out, given the difference between "rarely" and "never", that Russia actually had started that rare transition, before the communists stopped it.
So you DO think it was a material distinction. And you think the provisional government was legit.
You just didn't make an actual argument to that effect.
sarcastro : you all “well, technically…”
“Well technically”, Brett said the Bolshies did not overthrow the Tsar, but a relatively liberal regime that had itself overthrown the Tsar. The point being that the Bolshies get no points for overthrowing that wicked old Tsar. Instead they get extra spanking for replacing a better than the Tsar regime, not the Tsar, with a much worse than the Tsar regime.
Mod4ever then commented that Russia would probably not have finished up liberal, because history. This did not, and was not intended to, refute Brett’s point that the Bolshies did not overthrew the Tsar. It was a perfectly reasonable aside about Russia’s prospects given its history.
And then Brett reminded us that Mod4ever’s point, later repeated by captcrisis and bernard, did not refute his point that the Bolshies did not overthrow the Tsar, but a relatively liberal replacement therefor.
Mod4ever’s point was a different one from Brett’s and Brett is perfectly entitled to insist that his point stands. It’s his own damn thread after all.
That’s what I’m calling out as pedantry.
No it’s not pedantry. What we had instead of pedantry was your weird suggestion that Jack Ruby shot JFK.
You seem to have an inner desperation to hand out some brownie points to the Bolshies – that “at least they got rid of the Tsar” (which of course they didn’t – except in the sense that they murdered him and his family in captivity) rather than simply accept that on this point Brett is right.
Sarcastr0 (incorrectly) calling out pedantry? Seems that S0 is only capable of incorrectly labeling things that he himself tries, but fails, to do.
Vinni, if you think I sweat the small stuff, you don't read me very carefully.
“if you think I sweat the small stuff, you don’t read me very carefully.”
Is exactly equivalent to:
“If you think I care about accuracy for other than tendentious purposes, you don’t read me very carefully”.
Fortunately, this will be available for future reference on those inevitable occasions when Sarcastro challenges others based on poor grasp of “facts”, in that he doesn’t read others very carefully and certainly doesn’t really care about such minutia as facts.
And then he dissolved the Russian Constituent Assembly. No idea what the alternate timeline where Russian democracy is given a chance looks like, because Lenin strangled it in the crib. Anybody who defends Lenin is a monster or only knows the Online Leftist Parody Version.
But the people that change names of cities and take down statues of Lenin are trying to erase history, right?? Btw, have you gone to a bar in Oceanside, CA and tried to pick a fight with a Marine for dragging down the statue of Saddam yet?? Can you please film it. 😉
I'd say that there should be a certain length of time after the overthrow of the previous regime when you get to destroy their statues. If you wait too long, 1) the statues are now historical artifacts and 2) the long wait is a tip-off that you're not really destroying them because of the previous regime, but because you're trying to intimidate your present-day enemies.
Jews don't demand that Italy tears down the Arch of Titus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Titus
Nimarata Hussein Haley took the CSA flag down and ate vindaloo…and then wiped her ass with the flag!! You will be replaced! And if you are still around the only way you will be allowed to get ahead is if you convert to Islam or chop your balls off…all praise to Allah!!
Good point about the White Russians.
And your dad can beat his dad up.
Enough that he rationalized a ton of political violence, but then do are you.
Brett : The best you can say is that he wasn’t quite as bad as Stalin. Just nearly as bad.
But that would still be inaccurate. Stalin may have done a couple of things that Lenin didn't do, but that doesn't mean that Lenin would not have, say, happily deported entire ethnic groups, had the need arisen. Though he would probably not have bothered with deportation - surely cheaper just to shoot them where they were.
It's all a question of context. If someone had shot Hitler in March 1938, he wouldn't have made it into a top 20 list of the 20th century's most bloodthirsty dictators.
We should remember what the people who knew Lenin best said about him :
"Lenin was more severe."
—Molotov, the only senior official to work for both Lenin and Stalin, when asked to compare them.
"Lenin “in general” loved people but . . . his love looked far ahead, through the mists of hatred."
—Maxim Gorky
"When we are reproached with cruelty, we wonder how people can forget the most elementary Marxism."
—Lenin himself
Textbook psychopath.
Textbook! Retroactive pop-diagnosis is a facile way to condemn someone. Lenin can suck without your doing violence to psychiatry.
Lenin was quite willing to do mass murder. But if you're dumb enough to play the mass-murderer comparison game, bottom line he didn't get a chance to kill as many people as Stalin did.
"Lenin can suck without your doing violence to psychiatry."
Oh that was child's play compared to the violence done to psychiatry by Lenin's creation.
Stalin was Lenin's creation?
Solzhenitsyn said that the gulag was the creation of Lenin, and the psychiatric hospitals were part of that.
Well, his 100 year old corpse does look better than Biden's 81 year old body (probably also more cogent).
100? he was 153 last year, (Lenin, not Parkinsonian Joe) OK, and I don’t usually look at photos of Corpses, but I have to agree with you, Vladimir looks like he’s taking a nap.
My Bad! (HT Afro-Amuricans) I guess his Corpse is only a 100 years old
Still looks fresher than Sleepy Joe
Frank
Lenin was 53 when he died. His corpse is now 100 years old.
The interesting question that is not answered would a Russian led by Lenin or Trosky have attempted to gobble up as much of Europe as Stalin did at the end of WWII. Would it have been easier for Western Europe and America to live with communism confined to Russia? There are and have plenty of blood thirsty leaders in the world. It seems we are tolerant of them when they limit goals to their own country and not push out into the wider world.
The Western democracies had tried strangle Russian Communism in its crib, so the Soviets were justified in their paranoia. And certainly they were not going to let Poland slip away, it being the route to large scale invasions of Russia in 1812 and 1941.
Russian Communism should have been strangled in its crib. The world would likely be a much nicer place if it had been.
You can't get there from here.
True, but counterfactual history is a popular hobby.
The Western democracies had tried strangle Russian Communism in its crib, so the Soviets were justified in their paranoia.
Not quite right. The Western democracies tried to get rid of the Bolshevik regime, because they wanted a Russian regime which would continue the fight against Germany in WW1. Straightforward miitary strategy.
It's true that some - like Churchill - favored strangling the Bolshevik regime for ideological reasons, and continued to argue that course even after WW1 ended. But Churchill was in a minority, and the small numbers of Allied troops were withdrawn pretty soon afterwards.
That would depend if there was an Operation Barbarossa.
Roosevelt did a lot to support Russian after the start of barbarosa . Unfortunately there was any good choices. Two evil empires that needed to be destroyed. The choice wound up being which would result in the fewest american deaths in the WW2.
There were strong arguments to support Russia early in WW2, but post stalingrad, the supplies to russia should have been significantly curtailed. The Supplies to Russia continued after the german surrender for the purpose of allowing russia to participate in the invasion of japan. Truman's late moves in early august 1945 got the russians to at least stop at the 38th parallel. Russia continued to invade manchuria after japan surrendered, held it for 2 years , then invited mao to take it over which help facilitate mao's complete take over of china in the civil war.
Large-scale purges of loyal communists.
I always have such mixed feelings about this. Nobody deserved the farce of Stalin's show trials. But if anybody did, "loyal communists" definitely did. In modern parlance, the members of the face-eating leopard party apparently never considered that the leopard would eat their face. Similar to modern soft on crime voters. I don't endorse them being the victims of crime. But if anybody deserves it...
Trump is pretty clueless but if he wanted to get retribution in 2025 it would be directed at Bush Republicans who nobody would feel sorry for because of the slaughtering and torturing of innocent Muslims stuff.
For a long time, I never understood the purges, but they actually make sense -- the people being purged were too committed to communist ideals to be entirely loyal to the party as lead by Stalin. Stalin did not want communists around who might think for themselves and oppose things that Stalin or the party did on principle. Communist ideologues might be very dangerous to his rule and had to be gotten rid of in favor of those who would hew to the Stalinists party line no matter what the party chose to do.
Couldn’t have been all bad. After all, in 1920 the Soviet Union became the first country in Europe to legalize abortion. That’s worth like +25 on the Cato freedom scale, isn’t it?
Not anymore—see Palestine.
Lenin, McCartney, they worked it out, why can't we, just, just "Get Along"?? (HT R. King)
Did Stalin engage in any new forms of repression? Yes, as a matter of fact, he did:
..........
2. State-sponsored anti-Semitism. There was no shortage of anti-Semitism in Lenin's USSR. But Lenin didn't actively promote it and probably wasn't an anti-Semite himself. He even occasionally condemned anti-Semitism. On this issue, Stalin was much worse.
Stalin did not introduce this. He revived it. The Czarist regime certainly engaged in state-sponsored antisemitism.
Albeit, Stalin's state sponsored anti-Semitism was from the baseline of communism as experienced by everybody else, which was already hellishly worse than Czarist rule. So Stalin managed to be worse than the Czars in anti-Semitism, too.
Everyone here agrees communism sucks.
But you seem driven to some impressively weird heights to ensure you hate them the most.
You are arguing general tyranny and targeted persecution are additive quantities and that the proper metric for antifeminism is based on their sum.
Which is just now how history works.
It doesn’t. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are communist countries. The key is having something valuable to export.
"metric for antifeminism"
a freudian slip?
There's a lot of breathing room between "sucks" and "sucks as much as communism".
And you seem weirdly driven to ensure they aren't hated as much as they deserve. To the point where I make a perfectly accurate historical observation, (The communists didn't overthrow the Tzars.) and you need to invent some odd principle of historical significance to dispute it.
'Being persecuted under communism is more immoral than being persecuted under capitalism' is playing a stupid game.
But in your eagerness to add to that, you're being incredibly reductionist, to the point of doing addition on things that as though they are quantities along a number line.
I did NOT say that being persecuted under communism is more immoral than being persecuted under capitalism. I pointed out that the communist persecution was more extreme. Because even the people who WEREN'T being singled out were treated worse, the baseline from which the anti-Semitism was applied was nastier.
If a capitalist society ever did the same things, it would be equally immoral. None ever has.
You're still treating this like a one dimensional metric.
Which is ridiculous.
And your distinction between extreme and immoral is a new goalpost for 'worse.' And also seems to switch from consequentialism to some unspecified moral paradigm.
I see you're one of those people who think that "capitalism" is just as immoral as "communism", even though the two are vastly different.
Marxists push this notion -- that seems to be readily accepted by pretty much everyone -- that "capitalism" is "rule by people who own the capital of society", and this somehow makes "capitalists" oppressive. The reality is, however, that the United States, and to a lesser extent Great Britain, the poster children of "capitalist" societies, aren't based on property. They are based on the protection of the individual from government -- and part of that protection is a protection of property rights.
All the harm that has been committed by "capitalist" societies have been committed in violation of their fundamental principles -- and this blog, in particular, is devoted to the cases that come up, that fight to keep government in its place.
In contrast, the harm committed by Communists is well within the philosophy of Marxism -- indeed, it almost demands it -- and thus, there is no way to create a Communist, or even a socialist, society, that doesn't end in blood and horror. It's baked into the cake -- or, alternatively, mixed into the omelette.
I see you’re one of those people who think that “capitalism” is just as immoral as “communism”, even though the two are vastly different.
No, that’s not what I said.
And what Marxists are you talking to? They're thin on the ground these days. Unless you're one of those who thinks "Marxism" means "not MAGA."
All the harm that has been committed by “capitalist” societies have been committed in violation of their fundamental principles
...
In contrast, the harm committed by Communists is well within the philosophy of Marxism
Oh hay this is the exact this I hear from communists, only reversed.
I'm no fan of communism, but I am a fan of people who are so anti-communist they fall through the mirror and sound exactly like 1980s communists.
'True Capitalism has never been tried, man!'
With regards to "thin ground", would you deny that the Black Lives Matter movement is explicitly Marxist? Marxism is alive and well in American politics, and it has many followers (many of whom don't even know they are Marxists). Democrats in particular, and many people in this very thread, have demonstrated time and time again they are willing to overlook the evils of Marxism and embrace it.
With regards to "Oh hay this is the exact this I hear from communists, only reversed." I cannot help but wonder: How many capitalists have said "In order to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs?" How many times do Communists have to start their reigns of terror immediately after they take power, to convince you that, yes, maybe Communists really do believe that murdering people wholesale is necessary to establish a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
Finally, with regards to the "excesses" of Capitalism -- I have yet to see anything horrible so-called Capitalist nations have done, and yet did so remaining within the ideals that the Declaration of Independence laid down, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights tried to prevent.
Once or twice, I have joked about Libertarian Concentration Camps: "You have been selected as an undesirable Citizen who needs to be executed. Report to the nearest Concentration Camp immediately. If you do not do this, we'll send another strongly-worded letter, but if you break into our home, we'll shoot you."
And finally, with regards to the 1950s Communist scare: Joe McCarthy was right. Communists were in high levels of government -- and they were undermining our freedom.
"I have yet to see anything horrible so-called Capitalist nations have done, and yet did so remaining within the ideals that the Declaration of Independence laid down, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights tried to prevent."
In fairness, the late 1800's, early 1900's robber baron capitalism was pretty bad. The robber barons were not nice people, and they weren't directly constrained by the Constitution because the founding fathers didn't really seem to foresee the scaling that resulted from the industrial revolution, and the laissez faire economics that worked in the 1700's didn't age well as the robber barons arose.
What saved us was that we were a democracy, and when the working stiffs had had enough of the robber barons they voted to add some rules.
Imagine if the Russian peasants could have decided that the whole collectivization thing wasn't working out, and merely voted for a new scheme. And when Stalin got out of hand, just voted him out. I submit that's the real difference between our system and theirs - when we want change, we can vote the bastards out.
Have you by any chance read the book "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by Burton Folsom? It makes a very compelling case that the excesses of the robber barons were enabled by Congress -- and that the robber barons who avoided Congressional funding also grew in more sustainable ways, and ways that cleaned up the environment and improved society as a whole.
Oh, and I almost forgot: "True Capitalism has never been tried!"
Well, technically that's correct, if you consider absolute absence of government (and its interference) to be "true Capitalism" -- but I cannot help but notice that "hampered, impure, meddled-with Capitalism" has been tried, in both the United States and Great Britain, as well as other places, and do you know what? It's produced far more prosperity than any Communist nation ever did -- prosperity that has benefited the entire world.
And what's more, considering that Capitalism is merely the Free Market, it's even succeeded in places like the Soviet Union, despite active efforts to send people to Gulags or even outright execute them for participating in it.
Wasn't Lenin also involved in the WWI German attempt to get Mexico involved, by attacking the Southwest US to distract us from the European war?
I seem to recall hearing about that, and a train with gold the Germans provided Lenin, to "fund the revolution". Taking Russia out of WWI and allowing the German military to focus on a single Western front.
That would seem unlikely, given the timing.
Soviet Communism has been dead for over 30 years and is not coming back anytime, anywhere soon. Defending the Red Terror or the Purges has been nonexistent for a long time (except by maybe a few decrepit Reds in faculty lounges and nursing homes). We should give this a rest.
Do you take the same view of fascism and Nazism, which have been dead for half a century longer ?
So, Red Terror and the purges are old news, "not coming back anytime, anywhere soon," not even worth talking about! Sure... It's not like our federal government is currently being weaponized against half the population or trying to suppress political speech in various ways (see here and here). It's not like there are plans afoot to disarm people based on their political views (see "red flag laws"). It's not like people are being disenfranchized or removed from ballots! It's not like we have political prosecutions! Why even talk about crazy stuff like that?!
Somin retails as reprimands for Lenin a list of historical counterfactuals, or near-counterfactuals, or speculations about what Lenin, or Trotsky, might have done. You cannot prove much with historical bunk; historical counterfactuals are always bunk.
This, however, is worth paying attention to:
If you add it all up, Lenin was the one who initiated the policies that caused about 90% of the repression and death in the Soviet Union. And these ideas weren’t idiosyncratic to Lenin.
Of course, it is poppycock to blame anyone for policies which had evil effects after they were pursued to irrational extremes by someone else—unless you can show, as Somin cannot in the case of Lenin, that the person who initiated the policies intended their irrational later manifestations. But that last sentence hits pay-dirt, although it indicts more policies and politics than Somin imagines, including his own.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that Soviet totalitarianism was not an institutionalist political movement. It was an opportunist movement right down to the ground. Like other leaders of opportunistic political movements, Soviet leaders, especially including Lenin, delighted to parade as rationalists.
Rationalist politics, unmoored to experience as they are by definition, risk extremist abuse. It is for that reason that it can be hard for some folks to distinguish between Soviet totalitarianism and Fascist totalitarianism. Both were rationalistic systems, practiced to extremes, with disregard for experience, and unmoored to institutionalist checks and balances. That is a lot of malign similarity—almost enough to make confusing those systems seem perspicacious.
Fans of capitalism, like fans of other rationalistic systems, tend not to notice, or even to disclaim, instances of rationalist similarity in the capitalist system. It too has been prone to over-reliance on rationalism. Capitalism’s advocates struggle energetically and persistently to escape institutionalist constraints—and posit rationalist arguments as justifications to do it. When capitalist ideologies have escaped constraints, capitalism too has gone to damaging and even horrific extremes. Indeed, when capitalist ideologues play accounting games to total up fatalities attributable to rival systems, it is commonplace for them to attribute to rival systems myriads of fatalities which by Somin’s methods might be blamed on capitalism.
Leaving New World slavery entirely aside, Central Africa toward the end of the 19th century examples the problem. Tens of millions of 20th century deaths in China, Indo-China, and even India come to mind. As do mass fatalities which happened in east-central Europe during WW II.
By mentioning that accounting game I do not intend in any way to enter into it. I intend instead to warn would-be historians of those events to stop trying to play that game. Rationalistic insistence in politics, practiced outside institutionalist constraints—far more than the particulars of political creeds—is the tendency which trends toward extremely destructive outcomes.
Leftists are STILL making excuses for Lenin.
Yes, some are but that is not unexpected. Some, not all by any means, have no problem quoting Hitler and talking about others poisoning the nation's blood. It is too bad that the good people in this world intrigue us so little and evil does so much.
I'm sure you can find one or two somewhere, though they are not nearly as common as neo-Nazis.
And I bet they don't like Biden nearly as much as the neo-Nazis like Trump.
So maybe back off of that.
Academia is full of proud self-proclaimed Marxists. I doubt there's a single proud self-proclaimed Nazi.
Are there really, though? I mostly see people saying they’re everywhere rather than actually proving academia is ‘full of’ them.
Best I could find was a 2006 AEI study that found an 18% number specific to social science. Where, if you cared to study the subject and not use it as a partisan brickbat, you would find Marxism has an utterly different meaning, Marx having invented a method of social analysis and all.
I mean, do you think all those Marxist social studies professors are into bloody overthrow of capitalism?
In fact, I’ve seen a shift from hating on Stalin to hating on Marx. I think because right-wing redbaiters want to take advantage of exactly this mis-definition to attack academia.
Marx was profoundly wrong about a ton of stuff, but leaning into ignorance so you can redbait him is just stupid.
You give Marx both too much and too little credit. Have you actually read much Marx or Lenin?
The method of analysis (dialectics) is fundamentally Hegelian with an admixture of Feuerbach. But he did light the fire that flamed into Boshivism
I have. This blog made me curious about it. Though I will admit the foundational stuff to be more boring than his criticism of Capitalism.
Marx was just the next iteration of enlightenment scholarship. Of course he built on previous people. Taking Hegelian analysis and applying it to history and economics and politics (and realizing they are connected) was not obvious at the time.
As to what Marxist sociology profs do these days, I don't know. But I do know it's not part of the communist project.
I've not read as much direct Lenin, just like summaries and commentary. I am intrigued by his idea of the final state of capitalism is imperialism. Though that sure does make the USSR look like hyproctites.
I tried some Trotsky. It was bad; or so confusing/badly translated it might as well have been bad.
Tell you what, Jack. You find one single neo-Nazi Academida, prove your point. If you think there are no Marxists, you're just willfully ignorant.
No new goalposts, buddy.
"Academia is full of proud self-proclaimed Marxists" is what you said. And it is based on ignorance of what Marxism means in the academic context.
You switched away from communism, so you could use the more ambiguous term. I don't think you did it on purpose, but I also don't think you much care about how wrong it makes you.
Why are we restricted to looking at academia for neo-Nazis?
There are not many there, true, but that doesn't mean there are not a lot of them around. Try the dinner table at Mar-a-Lago.
And Sarcastro is right. Many of the Marxists are pushing his sociology, not his economics. You'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of Marxist economists. The person talking about building gulags is Trump.
"Why are we restricted to looking at academia for neo-Nazis?"
I assume because it's the only place you'll find very many Marxists, so it's all about the contrast.
Your argument strikes me as the same vein as the Holocaust denier who tries to downplay the Holocaust by saying Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews, he "merely" killed hundreds of thousands.
It's still the State killing people.
As for all those "accounting games" that can attribute deaths to Capitalism -- far more often than not, the very things that people want to lay at the feet of Capitalism are caused by governments, and they are the results of governments violating the rights of individuals.
If Somin is really so anti-Stalin, then I would think that he would object to the Trump show trials. Nope. He is all in favor of jailing political enemies for their opinions.
Trump’s first military order was to have SEAL Team 6 assassinate a little American girl along with 9 other children. To be fair she did call him a poop head and so she had it coming! Buh Hunter.
It sounds ridiculous, but Presidents have ordered hits on American citizens before.
Didn’t Trump order people to hang VP Pence?
No. Trump has not even been charged with that.
Almost as if they're not show trials and Trump is on trial for breaking actual laws.
For most of US history life in the US for black people was pretty much as bad or worse than life under Communism. But Black History Month is racist or something.
I'm not sure that's a statement I'd make without doing a lot more work.
Yeah, and the reason you'd have to do a lot more work is because so many people prefer to memory-hole it while deriding other countries' authoritarian histories.
Jim Crow didn't apply everywhere, and even where it did apply you don't have anything like the Holodomor, or the Lysenkian crop failures.
I'm not saying it's false, I'm saying that's writing a helluva check you would need to do some real numbers to nail it down.
This kind of whataboutism for people inhumanity strikes me as silly. Trying to find some standard that ranks these holocausts is ghoulish. For some it was communism under Stalin, for a black American it was slavery, for a Jew it is Nazi Germany, for Irish the potato famine, and so on. No one will have a hard time finding examples of inhumanity. Lenin was a bad person. Whatever his goals he caused a lot of pain in this world. He has plenty of company in that regard.
I'll cop to it being bit of whataboutism, but understanding the universailty of forms of oppression and authoritarianism across politics and culture is crucial to understanding that they can happen anywhere, any time, and while the victims of Stalin & co deserve to be remembered, in the light of the current culture war shibboleths of CRT and DEI, with people like De Santis coring out universities and crank religious groups stripping libraries, it’s worth remembering that you can only do all that by memory-holing victims of repression in the US.
Let us say they're comparable.
The evidence is the lack of immigration by blacks. So whites came here in huge numbers but only a handful of West Indians emigrated to America prior to 1965. Both Obama and Kamala are children of Blacks that never intended to remain in America.
Before the INA of 1965, there was essentially no path for immigration to the U.S. for blacks. That's what the lack of immigration is evidence of.
The evidence that Nige's claim is wrong is the lack of emigration by blacks from the U.S.
Except we had very high levels of immigration from 1870 to 1920…so why weren’t those immigrants Black??
But there was migration of black people across the US.
No. Slavery existed for only a third of US history. Even then, most of the above dozen bad Lenin-Stalin oppression was not applied to Blacks.
Why would you need to apply different forms of oppression, when you already had them under the ultimate form of oppression short of outright Holocaust? Life for black people under Jim Crow was life in a brutal fascist dystopia.
What with the Great Migration, what percentage do you think lived in the South when Jim Crow was at it's height? I can't seem to find a number.
Oppression as you use it is a fairly elastic term. The goal of the oppressor in the Holocaust or the Holodomor was dead bodies. The goal of the oppressor in slavery was healthy bodies fit for work.
And the goal of the oppressor during Jim Crow was merely to allow some separation between Whites and Blacks.
'merely.'
Allow? It was using the force of law to require separation by private parties.
That's not all it did.
In some cases, yes. There were some Blacks who had to eat lunch with other Blacks. Not really comparable to what Lenin and Stalin did.
The ultimate communism where you owned the means of production.
Jim Crow? You mean which Black had to use different drinking fountains, or sit in the back of the bus? Minor, compared to the Lenin-Stalin tyranny.
Read a book sometime.
Live free or die, right? When taxes are a little too high white Americans will go to war.
Check out the stats on black people lynched during Jim Crow some time.
There more more Blacks lynched than Whites, but only because Blacks committed more violent crimes.
You don't have clue what you are talking about. Slavery is bad, was bad, but dead is worse.
Yes, that was my point, the Holocuast was worse than slavery, jeez.
"Vladimir Union".
His more famous brother was "Soviet".
Here is my translation of the Stalin-era humorist Mikhail Zoshchenko‘s short story “How Lenin Quit Smoking” (О том, как Ленин бросил курить):
I was expecting this to end with, "And so, Lenin shot his mother, and lived happily with his cigarettes and his father's pension."
#3 just isn’t correct. There was very little collectivization during Lenin’s time in power. The Lenin policy that led to massive famines was the forced grain requisition during the civil war. It is correct to say that collectivization was a desire of Lenin. It is correct to say that famine was caused by Lenin’s policies. But it is incorrect to say that Lenin’s policy of collectivization caused mass famine.
I’m also not sure that I entirely agree on number 3 regarding Stalin and the communist purges. I agree Lenin probably would not have done so, but because of lack of necessity. Lenin’s power was completely consolidated in the Bolshevik party. He had already purged the other communist and socialist factions by whittling them out until the Bolsheviks had a majority of the communist minority. But it was Lenin who put into place the ban on factionalism that Stalin later used to expel and then later purge other communists based on real or perceived disloyalty. Lenin had no problem purging and subjecting the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries who originally aligned with Bolsheviks after the October revolution. Stalin had been in charge of admitting new communist party members under Lenin which he filled with Stalin loyalists. I don’t know how Trotsky would have been able to consolidate power without purges had he come out on top up against Stalin.
As I’ve said many times before, the fact that Stalin etc. were mass murderers does not prove that people who advocate 30-something percent tax rates and a social security system or welfare or subsidized healthcare or subsidized tuition are all secret mass murderers who will kill you if given power.
Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, no communist, broke with Chancellor Bismark by agreeing to the world’s first state-sponsored pension system because he thought moderate social welfare programs would be in the best interests of social stability and would ultimately help preserve the monarchy, reasons that fit well within an otherwise very conservative worldview. Numerous European countries have higher taxes and more social welfare programs than the United States, but remain democracies with primarily market economies. And plenty of countries had avowedly anti-communist, supposedly conservative leaders who ended up being huge mass murderers. Hitler is the biggest example, but only one.
Back in Stalin's day , Rupert Murdoch's most conspicuous piece of college room decor was a bust of Lenin
With a few notable exceptions listed above, Stalin mostly just continued and expanded Lenin's evil policies.
I feel like this is burying the lede.
Yes Lenin's Russia had some horrible policies, but as Stalin's successors showed there's still variation in how you implement these policies.
The biggest evidence is Lenin's New Economic Policy. It shows Lenin as more of a pragmatist compromising his Communist ideals to help the economy. Sure, it was supposed to be "temporary", but it would hardly be the first "temporary" policy to become permanent. If Lenin survived Russia might have quickly established a mixed economy and with full Communism having been this weird short term experiment.
Stalin ignored the human and economic costs and killed the New Economic Policy resulting in the deaths of millions in the Holodomyr.
It doesn't seem credible to assume that Lenin would have pursued those policies to nearly the extent of Stalin.
Meh. I think it's fair to lay all these things at the feet of Lenin: not only did he get the ball rolling on most of these things, but he promoted the people who replaced him when he passed away.
It is safe to say that, had Lenin never gotten into power in the first place, that the horror unleashed on the Russian people, and on miscellaneous countries around Russia, would never have happened.
Lenin specifically didn't want Stalin to replace him, so he gets some pass on Stalin's crimes. Otherwise Yeltsin is even more guilty for Putin's crimes.
As for the alternate history of Lenin not getting into power. First, that alternate history needs to include no Communists getting into power, since Stalin from the start would probably have been worse.
Second, just like succession, you need to account for motive. The outcome of Stalin's succession and policies were terrible, but they weren't Lenin's intent.
Lenin surviving into his 80s as leader of the USSR still would have been bad for Russia and surrounding nations, but it certainly would not have been as bad as Stalin, and might have evolved into an ordinary repressive murderous dictatorship.
There are questions about whether Lenin actually dictated Lenin’s testament. When Lenin dictated a statement, he would sign the the dictation at the bottom. Lenin’s testament was not signed. That doesn’t necessarily mean it was a forgery, because according to Krupskaya the testament had been dictated a little earlier before Lenin’s third stroke. Krupskaya definitely did not like Stalin, so she would have had motive to do so.
Despite the mixed evidence, most scholars fall on the side of the testament being authentic, and it was certainly treated as authentic at the time.
I'm still not willing to give Lenin a pass, even if all you say is true.
The fact is, though, Lenin is a Communist, he did horrible things as a Communist, and even if we assume that someone nicer than Stalin would have taken his place, Lenin will still have blood on his hands.
Since this thread has so many counterfactual histories, I cannot help but provide one for myself: suppose Adolf Hitler died after a couple of years as dictator of Germany, and was replaced with someone who merely carried on what Adolf had in mind all along. Would we be arguing over how "nice" Hitler was, especially compared to his successor? Would we be arguing about whether or not he really wanted that successor?
The fact remains that Lenin is Communism's Hitler, as much as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro were as well. <Lenin set the Communist ball rolling, and Stalin merely continued what Lenin started -- because Lenin himself was a horrible monster, even if he would have moderated somewhat in his old age.
epsilon,
The problem with your counterfactual is that we have good evidence that Lenin was more moderate than Stalin (the NEP). The bulk of the case against Lenin isn't his actions, but that he created programs that Stalin did far worse things with. But we don't have evidence that Lenin would have done those same horrors.
That's not to say Lenin was a nice guy, he was responsible for mass killings afterall. But to lay all the horrors of Communism at Lenin's feet is to whitewash how evil Stalin was.
I'm not willing to whitewash Stalin's evil, but to push as hard as you are that Lenin wasn't as bad as Stalin is whitewashing Lenin's evil.
Which is the point of the post: everyone focuses on Stalin, but so many people then give Lenin a pass, without recognizing the role he played, both in being a mass murderer himself, and in creating a structure that made it easy for a monster like Stalin to exist.
Did I miss Reverend Sandusky’s rebuttal?
I saw Sarcastr0 fried to sneak one in there, and failed.
Funny how Somin always reminds me of Lenin and Stalin.