Can anyone recommend a good biography of Vladimir Lenin?

[El Kabong]

I don't mean to derail this fine thread, but in my personal construction of socialism its about everyone having something, not about everyone having the same standard. I'm all for competition and wealth etc., but I'm also for raising the quality of life for those in society who have the least. That's all I'll say on the subject because I don't want to spark a debate here.

What does it teach the poor people when the "something" they have was just aquired by the government from someone who earned it and then just handed over to them and it's not due to anything the poor people have done? Kind of a hollow victory huh? Government should not be in the business of charity on an everyday basis...I can understand if natural disasters/wars/etc happen but just to give ever single day to people who don't work and don't try hard....it just enables their behavior.

There is no motivating factor to work in a socialist society or a welfare state, which is why most socialist leaders have to massacre people to keep the others "motivated".

[CFH]

I don't mean to derail this fine thread, but in my personal construction of socialism its about everyone having something, not about everyone having the same standard. I'm all for competition and wealth etc., but I'm also for raising the quality of life for those in society who have the least. That's all I'll say on the subject because I don't want to spark a debate here.

What does it teach the poor people when the "something" they have was just aquired by the government from someone who earned it and then just handed over to them and it's not due to anything the poor people have done? Kind of a hollow victory huh? Government should not be in the business of charity on an everyday basis...I can understand if natural disasters/wars/etc happen but just to give ever single day to people who don't work and don't try hard....it just enables their behavior.

There is no motivating factor to work in a socialist society or a welfare state, which is why most socialist leaders have to massacre people to keep the others "motivated".

I really don't feel like engaging in a 5-page discussion in which nothing is resolved, so I will just say that I literally agree with none of what you said.

[El Kabong]

I really don't feel like engaging in a 5-page discussion in which nothing is resolved, so I will just say that I literally agree with none of what you said.

OK, so which Socialist leader did NOT massacre large groups of people? Lenin's Red Revolution was not without loss of a great number of lives and for what? It's not as if the Russians ended up much better than they were.

Why Lenin why not focus on Mao or Stalin? Don't those guys tickle your fancy CFH? Focusing on Lenin is as pointless as focusing on Che Guavera or Leon Trotsky

[CFH]

I really don't feel like engaging in a 5-page discussion in which nothing is resolved, so I will just say that I literally agree with none of what you said.

OK, so which Socialist leader did NOT massacre large groups of people? Lenin's Red Revolution was not without loss of a great number of lives and for what? It's not as if the Russians ended up much better than they were.

Why Lenin why not focus on Mao or Stalin? Don't those guys tickle your fancy CFH? Focusing on Lenin is as pointless as focusing on Che Guavera or Leon Trotsky

I'm not going to address the first part of your post for the reasons I have already mentioned, but again I do not necessarily agree with your position. First, the is a huge difference between democratic socialism, socialism, and communism. Furthermore, many so-called "communist" leaders are nothing more than dictators who use their ostensible ideologies to justify their positions. I guess I did end up briefly addressing that point, but whatever.

As for the second part, why Lenin? Because I find him fascinating (in particular his perspectives on colonialism) and I want to learn more about him. Mao has never really interested me and I already know a lot more about Stalin than I do about Lenin. I don't think focusing on any historical figure is pointless (at least not from a historians perspective), I don't understand why you would think that was the case. I find Lenin as interesting as I do someone like Nixon, but it doesn't necessarily mean I relate to either one of them (though I do think, if not for the Vietnam War, that Nixon could have been an extremely good President, but I digress). Lenin, whether you like it or not and regardless of whether you agree with him, had a massive impact on the course of history in the 20th century, why wouldn't someone interested in history want to study him?

[El Kabong]

Damn you, you good natured Canadian! You passed up my baiting you.


I understand you finding historical figures and events interesting, it's more the political views I don't understand, but that's a different topic for a different day.

[Nameless]

Damn you, you good natured Canadian! You passed up my baiting you.


I understand you finding historical figures and events interesting, it's more the political views I don't understand, but that's a different topic for a different day.

Every socialist system doesn't lead to despotism, especially as socialism and communism are far different though historically linked, personally, I am not against some kind of moderate socialism a bit like in Canada but I would never accept a communist or a hardcore socialist system neither. But you're right, we're good natured

[Gandalf]

Damn you, you good natured Canadian! You passed up my baiting you.


I understand you finding historical figures and events interesting, it's more the political views I don't understand, but that's a different topic for a different day.

Every socialist system doesn't lead to despotism, especially as socialism and communism are far different though historically linked, personally, I am not against some kind of moderate socialism a bit like in Canada but I would never accept a communist or a hardcore socialist system neither. But you're right, we're good natured

Socialism seems to be such a dirty word in the US media, particularly in the more right wing outlets. I have no idea why really, as a socialist model is something that can be beneficial for any society.

There are too many -isms about. I can understand the dislike of communism, totalitarianism and fascism (which appears to be what America is becoming drawn to), but socialism, as I interpret it, is a relatively benign -ism which can actually be a cause for a lot of good.