Was Vladimir Lenin a Good Guy?

No. Not nuts like Stalin, but definitely not a good guy. Hard, deadly, fanatical. He's the guy that ordered the death of the Imperial Family, I have no doubt about that. And also willing to kill a bunch of other people to see his vision established. There might have been less crazy if he had survived and Stalin had not, but no, definitely not a good guy in any normal sense of the word.

[quote] I’ll admit I’m not the smartest person

OP = Denis Shapovalov

Nope. He’d have had a bigger death toll if he lived long enough. On the other hand he had a pet cat.

I agree with R1, he wasn't a good guy but might've probably been better than Stalin.

Lenin took sex out of the legal system after the Revolution.

The gays could do whatever they wanted .

[quote]OP = Denis Shapovalov

And I thought that was a tennis player. And even imagined that he had a Chinese player as a fuckbuddy.

This book will help you understand Lenin's political ideology and struggle in historical and economic contexts. Highly recommended.

[quote] This book will help you understand Lenin's political ideology and struggle in historical and economic contexts. Highly recommended.

From Lake Geneva to the Finland Station.

Indeed.

at first, r5. That happens in revolutions, at first, but then the puritans take over. The same thing happened in the French Revolution, and the Cuban, but weirdly the people that hate Christianity the most somehow always get back to the shittiest versions of Christianity: the Puritan bullshit. It happens every fucking time, and I am not sure why.

I will say, next time somebody wants to do Nicholas and Alexandria, shelve that and do the Lenin story. People like OP would actually like to know what the hell happened there, and hollywood would rather give them costume dramas and nonsense. They could actually tell a very interesting story instead of always doing the same damn thing.

He's the Washington+Jefferson of Soviet Russia, with his share of faults too.

he was my least favorite Beatle.

R11 To its credit, "Reds" includes many interviews with John Reed's radical contemporaries, which are much more interesting than Warren Beatty's unsuccessful struggle to portray John Reed. Reed's own book, "Ten Days That Shook the World" is exciting eye-witness journalism. Lenin wrote an introduction for the 1922 edition.

I do remember that r14, and that was a very nice touch.

[quote] "Reds"

What a bizarre exercise that was. How could a pretty-boy and other rag-tags from La-La-Land have anything intelligent to say about a foreign revolution?

And I'm going to harp on this a little more. People like OP would actually like to understand the world they live in. And I wish we could all accommodate that a little more. Costume Dramas are fun, and I like them, but you know what, Robespierre matters just a little more than Marie Antoinette. And Lenin matters just a little more than the Czar. I wish Hollywood would let that happen once in awhile. I wish we could get some more series about the Revolutionaries that actually shaped this world (for better or worse, yeah, not looking for everyone to pretend) than the usual Royalty was awesome and everyone else sucked nonsense.

R15 obviously Warren Beatty was more than a pretty face, if you hadn't realized so far.

R18 Yes, he was/is also a manwhore.

and now we will all focus on Warren Beatty for no particular reason.

In fact a Hollywood that actually took the last 50 years seriously would be much more useful than the Hollywood we have. It's not exactly their job to teach us all history, but you know what, they could. they do more or less in some ways, they love the civil rights movies, and that's fine. but there are also other things they could teach, like the Soviet Union and the modern middle east and really a lot of things. they really are just being lazy here.

There’s a reason Leninism ≠ Stalinism. Lenin was well acquainted with Marxists in Central and Western Europe. He had been living in London for many years before 1917. The failure of the 1905 revolution in Petersburg accelerated conditions that left the vast majority of Russians living in poverty. As Western Europe was bogged down in WWI and Russia was trying to fight off the Finns’ in their war of independence, the Russian people finally had had enough.

Lenin was no saint, but he and his acolytes wanted to demolish the aristocracy so that non-aristocrats could prosper. He himself was not a peasant. He graduated from law school. He had been arrested a few times for protesting against the tsarist government. Eventually he married and moved west until the 1917 February revolution. Most Americans do not know that there were two Russian revolutions in 1917. The February one ousted the tsar. The October one ushered in the communists. Soviet, in Russian, means “council,” which is how Lenin sought to govern – through local councils.

One of the first things he did was move the seat of government from Petersburg to Moscow. Peter I moved to Russian capital to Petersburg in an effort to westernize Russia. But the only people who were eligible to be westernized were the aristocracy. Moving the capital back to Moscow was a ploy be Lenin to connect better with regular Russians. He also passed tons of laws about equality of all people, races, ethnicities, native languages, etc. Homosexuality was decriminalized.

Lenin led the Soviets until his death in early 1924. He had been ill for the previous two years or so. Stalin stepped into the vacuum and when Lenin died, he had already consolidated a lot of power. Stalin was monstrous and the rest is history.

none of which makes Lenin a "good guy" r22. I agree there are complications, and that is why I'm not really kidding around when I say I wish people could get the Lenin Story, and not always just the Czar story. We actually, all of us, really need to understand this stuff if we want to understand our modern world.

[quote] It's not exactly their job to teach us all history, but you know what, they could. they do more or less in some ways,

'Less' is the operative word in that sentence.

Speaking personally, I'm as sceptical to anything from La-La-Land as I am from John Reed and his grandiosely-titled journalism.

I think Hollywood tries sometimes, really. Sometimes, especially lately with the civil rights movement, they try. I want them to try a little harder with the actual modern world of the Soviet Union and what the hell happened there.

And actually, the Americans was not a bad start to that.

Leo de Caprio announced he wanted to do Lenin a few years ago.

I never saw this one—

R23. I agree with you. In his decades in the west, especially during WWI, Lenin agitated to make the war about crushing capitalism. And Lenin’s version of socialism was impure. He set up an oligarchy that continues now in modern Russia.

Americans were taught to admire the tsars because they were not the Soviets. But Russian tsars were truly bloodthirsty.

Lenin did not order the tsar and his family killed. He wasn’t even in charge when they were exiled to Yekaterinburg and was enraged when he learned that they had been executed in custody.

He was a mensch, a brah, he was maxxin’ and chillaxin’. He put the social in socialism.

Anyone who looks to Hollywood for history will never get the whole accurate story. Depending on the ideology of the filmmakers or the prevailing view in fashion at the time, historical movies tend to either be nostalgic fantasy or dystopian fantasy, instead of the truth which usually falls between the two just like the modern era does.

No. None of the revolutionaries are "good guys."

OP, please consider reading material beyond your usual gossip magazines, columns, and forums.

And marie, I'm going to take OP at his word, that he would actually like to know about this stuff. And I get what you are saying r29, but there are definitely times when Hollywood softens and other times when it hardens. They are very soft when it comes to royalty and very hard when it comes to revolutionaries. they could stand to occasionally do a second look at revolution and revolutionaries. They don't have to lie, just occasionally try to confront revolution on its own terms would be enough.

[Quote] [R18] Yes, he was/is also a manwhore

I was/am too. I'm also productive and pretty. Not as famous as Warren I suspect :)

R31 revolution scares Hollywood, because even though they like to portray themselves as revolutionary leftists, they know that if a real revolution from the left or the right was to ever happen in this country they would be on the chopping block.

I think that is a thing r33. It sounds like we're in the 1930s but seriously, I think there is that thing. I just don't think they like it, which is kind of silly but actually real.

I seriously would love to hear from some people here. I know some of you bitches are total Hollywood types, screenwriters, directors, agents, whatever. I think some of you actually know that place. Is there a thing, is there a reason nobody could ever do a truly revolutionary movie? Have you ever tried to pitch a thing like that? What happened?

Let's forget that he was a communist for a moment, but you cannot describe any world leaders, past and present, with a simple two word phrase a "good guy", it's far more complicated than that, being a ruler, you had to compromise whether you wanted or not, even for dictators, they had to make concessions from time to time. A "good" leader would have no choice but made many bad decisions during his time, if OP had rephrased his question "Was Vladimir Lenin a BAD Guy?", I would assume the replies would be more sympathetic.

maybe r36. Let's try this: Napoleon was good guy. No, really not, not a good guy in any normal sense of the word. But I don't think that makes the whole question ridiculous. No, not a good guy, probably a bad guy in any real sense. Changed the world, but not good. I think we can go with that.

You're deep. Deep. SMH.

[quote] Is there a thing, is there a reason nobody could ever do a truly revolutionary movie?

R35 What is your definition of a 'truly revolutionary movie'?

I was told 20 years ago in college that a French film called 'Themroc' was truly revolutionary and/or anarchistic.

It contained a few minutes of homo-erotica when Patrick Dewaere was being stripped but it was otherwise incomprehensible.

Mr Squeaky-voice Peterson says the Leninists and the Marxists were OK for their time

There can never be true communism. Communism only works in small tribes of humans and Lenin knew that. All communism becomes a dictatorship. The Romanovs needed to be taken out. WWI was a total disaster. After the war all of Europe started removing the bloat of Kings, Emperors, and Czars. Like all revolutions all through history there was good and bad. Lenin was so much much better then the butcher Stalin. Karl Marx by the way was a total piece of garbage. Horrible and mean person and he stunk literally. Napoleon? He gave us Napoleonic Law which was revolutionary and he was a brilliant general. BUT NEVER start a land war with Russia! Napoleon also bathed every day which was absolutely unheard of. I love history and that’s my PhD

Communism is just a red herring!

All revolutions have figures that were important but never really mad it to the end to see the fruits of their labor. Then, it (and usually when) the revolution produces a tyrantical society, people inevitably think about “what could have been” if only “X” was still alive.

And the answers is the exact same shit. If Lenin had lived and Stalin had died, then you would be asking if Stalin was a good guy.

....

[quote] Yurovsky now came into the room with his Cheka squad, armed with revolvers, told the prisoners they had been sentenced to death, and shot Nicholas dead. The other guards immediately opened such a hail of fire that some of them were wounded in it. Tsarina Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana and Marie all fell dead, as did three of the servants. The fourth, the maid Anna Demidova, was sliced to pieces by bayonet thrusts. The terrified tsarevich, spattered with his father's blood, was shot, bayoneted and finally finished off with two shots from Yurovsky. Anastasia, the last Romanov alive, was bludgeoned with rifle butts and stabbed with bayonets.

Your friend may as well be a Nazi.