In the great book, A People’s Tragedy, Orlando Figes argues that Lenin’s ideological foundations are as much from the Russian narodnik tradition of revolutionary terrorism as from Marxism. Lenin’s older brother was a narodnik who tried to assassinate the Tsar. The event apparently had a big impact on the young Lenin.
Dostoyevsky goes into even more chilling detail in this personality type in his book “Demons.”
>The key difference between a normal utilitarian and a Leninist: When a normal utilitarian concludes that mass murder would maximize social utility, he checks his work!
I don't know why, but this is one of my all time favorite Bryan quotes.
To me Lenin’s violence seems like it wasn’t so much in order to achieve his policy goals, but just to maintain his hold on power. Most of the violence was in the context of the Russian civil war, and some of it just in the context of eliminating political opponents.
If anything Leninism seemed very flexible on policy. The initial takeover of power went against traditional Marxism which suggested that it wasn’t the right time. And later the “new economic policy” stuff was basically a compromise against Marxist principles to be better in practice.
The worst thing about communism wasn’t really their policies, it was the way they maintained political power through violence. The lack of any institutions like checks and balances between executive and judicial branches.
But Lenin created the context of civil war deliberately. He wanted to transform World War 1 into a violent class war across all of Europe. It was not some accidental outcome.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks started the civil war with a violent coup and the dismissal of the newly-elected Constituent Assembly. The October Revolution was not a spur-of-the moment flexibility. It was exactly what Lenin wanted to do, and he explained it in 1903 in his book “What is to be done?
It was impossible to implement their desired policies without implementing a revolutionary government that rules based on terror. Lenin understood that it was the only was to implement his policies. Lenin opposed checks and balances becuase they would not enable him to implement his policies.
The NEP was a temporary means to consolidate power. Lenin had every intention to push towards total socialism once the economy stabilized. Lenin died before he could implement his policies, so Stalin accomplished it afterwards.
Inevitable given the context of the July Days, the October coup and their dismissal of the Constituent Assembly, probably yes.
But if the Bolsheviks had allowed the Constituent Assembly to remain and consolidate its power, no, not inevitable. The Socialist Revolutionary party had broad support from the peasants and they were willing to work within the Constitution. All factions of SR had working majority in the Constituent Assembly.
Some form of violence and instability was inevitable, but the total civil war that actually occurred was to a large extent driven by Lenin.
You cannot seize power in violent coup and then wonder why there was a civil war. It was their goal, not an accident. The Bolsheviks played a huge role in pushing Russia towards civil war before their coup. For example, their first uprising in July.
Again, civil war across all Europe was Lenin’s goal.
And by the way virtually all the Bolshevik leaders were opposed to taking power when Lenin arrived via train from Switzerland. Without Lenin in Russia, there likely would have never been a Bolshevik coup.
Not sure that ChatGPT agrees with you. You probably wrote a bad prompt.
Here is its reponse to my query:
Q: How important was Lenin in driving Russia towards civil war?
A: Bottom line
Lenin did not create the underlying crisis — that was baked into Russia’s collapse in 1917. But he transformed a highly unstable situation into a full-scale civil war by rejecting compromise, seizing power, dissolving alternatives, and forcing all opposition into armed conflict.
So: Civil war was very likely without Lenin, but Lenin made it broader, bloodier, and more decisive..
Great illustration of a radical extremist mind set, but I'd argue that it applies to any radical extremism, not just Leninism. The deadly combo of (a) ends justify means and (b) the radical or his the faction lead or the fuhrer decides (or just tacitly accepts like many of the brainless fanatics do) what ends are good. So this thinking applies to Leninism but also to Fascism and militant anarchism (not of a Kropotkin style). Agree?
1) Developed a theory in his books for how to channel that extremist mindset into gaining power over the government (the one-party totalitarian dictatorship)
2) Actually accomplished it within his lifetime. Very, very few radical theorists accomplish this.
3) And because Russia was a Great Power, his model was exported to much of the rest of the world.
4) His model lasted almost 80 years and is still influential today.
I think that he was the most important man of the 20th Century.
There's a very strange masochistic element in Russian culture. They seem to savor their suffering, and use it as a cultural distinction (from the decadent West) and a redemptive quality of their civilization. I suspect that the people who actually experienced the suffering (as opposed to pensioners in modern Novosibirsk or accountants in Moscow) felt rather differently. But I can't be certain.
Yes, if you read Russian history, it is not hard to understand why. They live in a very tough neighborhood, both in terms of climate, domestic tyrants, and foreign enemies.
This and yesterday’s piece on organ donation is a terrific mini-series on the limits of utilitarianism.
And as you note, the question rests on who gets to decide what represents the greater good. And that’s a means to get to the appeal of libertarianism (which of course has its own limitations).
thanks for sharing this. It is very much appreciated. To my mind, heart and soul, this speaks to the very basics of our current situation and historical foundations... It begins with the parent and child "do it because I said so, its for your own good" and "don't do that (hand on stove)" or should we (can we) change to "if you do that this will happen. It is your choice and here are the equal and opposite reactions" ... just a few thoughts and feelings running through my head this sunday morning..
Nihilists are different. Here is an example of a nihilist legend Nechaev that was a prototype of Verkhovensky - a key character in Dostoevsky's Demons (published in 1871-2). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Nechaev
They talk as if mass murder is a means to an end, but act as if mass murder is an end in itself. I choose to believe their actions over their words.
The supposed goal of making the omelet is a fig leaf for their real desire, which is to break millions of eggs.
In the great book, A People’s Tragedy, Orlando Figes argues that Lenin’s ideological foundations are as much from the Russian narodnik tradition of revolutionary terrorism as from Marxism. Lenin’s older brother was a narodnik who tried to assassinate the Tsar. The event apparently had a big impact on the young Lenin.
Dostoyevsky goes into even more chilling detail in this personality type in his book “Demons.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodniks
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1847924514?tag=fivebooks001-20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demons_(Dostoevsky_novel)
If several billion have to die so that a couple of million can live in utopia, won't it be worth it?
The essence of Marxist/Leninist/Maoist dogma. And it hasn't come close to working yet.
>The key difference between a normal utilitarian and a Leninist: When a normal utilitarian concludes that mass murder would maximize social utility, he checks his work!
I don't know why, but this is one of my all time favorite Bryan quotes.
"You can't make an omelet with cracking a few eggs" said the person who was cracking eggs directly into the trash.
(I didn't make this up, and I doubt the person I heard this from invented this saying themselves either)
To me Lenin’s violence seems like it wasn’t so much in order to achieve his policy goals, but just to maintain his hold on power. Most of the violence was in the context of the Russian civil war, and some of it just in the context of eliminating political opponents.
If anything Leninism seemed very flexible on policy. The initial takeover of power went against traditional Marxism which suggested that it wasn’t the right time. And later the “new economic policy” stuff was basically a compromise against Marxist principles to be better in practice.
The worst thing about communism wasn’t really their policies, it was the way they maintained political power through violence. The lack of any institutions like checks and balances between executive and judicial branches.
But Lenin created the context of civil war deliberately. He wanted to transform World War 1 into a violent class war across all of Europe. It was not some accidental outcome.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks started the civil war with a violent coup and the dismissal of the newly-elected Constituent Assembly. The October Revolution was not a spur-of-the moment flexibility. It was exactly what Lenin wanted to do, and he explained it in 1903 in his book “What is to be done?
It was impossible to implement their desired policies without implementing a revolutionary government that rules based on terror. Lenin understood that it was the only was to implement his policies. Lenin opposed checks and balances becuase they would not enable him to implement his policies.
The NEP was a temporary means to consolidate power. Lenin had every intention to push towards total socialism once the economy stabilized. Lenin died before he could implement his policies, so Stalin accomplished it afterwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F
I don’t think Lenin created the context of civil war, I think that was essentially inevitable. ChatGPT agrees with me :-P https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68d063ac4a5c81919ee8202cc176323c
Inevitable given the context of the July Days, the October coup and their dismissal of the Constituent Assembly, probably yes.
But if the Bolsheviks had allowed the Constituent Assembly to remain and consolidate its power, no, not inevitable. The Socialist Revolutionary party had broad support from the peasants and they were willing to work within the Constitution. All factions of SR had working majority in the Constituent Assembly.
Some form of violence and instability was inevitable, but the total civil war that actually occurred was to a large extent driven by Lenin.
You cannot seize power in violent coup and then wonder why there was a civil war. It was their goal, not an accident. The Bolsheviks played a huge role in pushing Russia towards civil war before their coup. For example, their first uprising in July.
Again, civil war across all Europe was Lenin’s goal.
And by the way virtually all the Bolshevik leaders were opposed to taking power when Lenin arrived via train from Switzerland. Without Lenin in Russia, there likely would have never been a Bolshevik coup.
Not sure that ChatGPT agrees with you. You probably wrote a bad prompt.
Here is its reponse to my query:
Q: How important was Lenin in driving Russia towards civil war?
A: Bottom line
Lenin did not create the underlying crisis — that was baked into Russia’s collapse in 1917. But he transformed a highly unstable situation into a full-scale civil war by rejecting compromise, seizing power, dissolving alternatives, and forcing all opposition into armed conflict.
So: Civil war was very likely without Lenin, but Lenin made it broader, bloodier, and more decisive..
I largely agree with ChatGPT’s answer.
Great illustration of a radical extremist mind set, but I'd argue that it applies to any radical extremism, not just Leninism. The deadly combo of (a) ends justify means and (b) the radical or his the faction lead or the fuhrer decides (or just tacitly accepts like many of the brainless fanatics do) what ends are good. So this thinking applies to Leninism but also to Fascism and militant anarchism (not of a Kropotkin style). Agree?
I agree with that, but it was Lenin who:
1) Developed a theory in his books for how to channel that extremist mindset into gaining power over the government (the one-party totalitarian dictatorship)
2) Actually accomplished it within his lifetime. Very, very few radical theorists accomplish this.
3) And because Russia was a Great Power, his model was exported to much of the rest of the world.
4) His model lasted almost 80 years and is still influential today.
I think that he was the most important man of the 20th Century.
He would have made Lex Luthor proud!
MEANS justify the END, it seemed here to me.
... his the faction?
There's a very strange masochistic element in Russian culture. They seem to savor their suffering, and use it as a cultural distinction (from the decadent West) and a redemptive quality of their civilization. I suspect that the people who actually experienced the suffering (as opposed to pensioners in modern Novosibirsk or accountants in Moscow) felt rather differently. But I can't be certain.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/hell-on-earth
Yes, if you read Russian history, it is not hard to understand why. They live in a very tough neighborhood, both in terms of climate, domestic tyrants, and foreign enemies.
>> ... Crime and Punishment, first
>> published four years before
>> Lenin’s birth in 1870.
That is unclear. What happened in 1870? Dostoevsky's work was published? Or Lenin was born?
This and yesterday’s piece on organ donation is a terrific mini-series on the limits of utilitarianism.
And as you note, the question rests on who gets to decide what represents the greater good. And that’s a means to get to the appeal of libertarianism (which of course has its own limitations).
thanks for sharing this. It is very much appreciated. To my mind, heart and soul, this speaks to the very basics of our current situation and historical foundations... It begins with the parent and child "do it because I said so, its for your own good" and "don't do that (hand on stove)" or should we (can we) change to "if you do that this will happen. It is your choice and here are the equal and opposite reactions" ... just a few thoughts and feelings running through my head this sunday morning..
Lenin and Raskolnikov appear to be nihilists to me: might makes right and the end justifies the means. In the end no standard but raw emotion rules.
Nihilists are different. Here is an example of a nihilist legend Nechaev that was a prototype of Verkhovensky - a key character in Dostoevsky's Demons (published in 1871-2). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Nechaev
Nihilism + Marxism = Leninism.
Lenin fits the character of Nechaev almost perfectly.
Laws were made for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools