I believe that Lenin was indeed a good leader because of the way he controlled his people and ran the country. While many think Lenin was brutal and paranoid in appointing the Cheka and having them execute so many Russians; I think it is fairly justified. Of course he should have been more lenient on his opposition and not has the Cheka massacre so many people, especially in relation to the Red Terror; but there were many Tsarists out there and they were definitely a threat. Lenin needed to protect himself, his supporters and his fellow communists and he achieved that with the use of the Cheka. He was always thinking of his people, promoting new laws such as the NEP to improve the lives of the lower classes, which had never been done before, giving them better wages in the factories, better working conditions and lives! While communism was not a good idea in the long run because it was executed properly and you know a horrible idea, the concept is effective and very persuasive. Lenin was also a fantastic speaker, he could sway his audiences and gain supporters very quickly when giving a speech.
Overall I think Lenin was a very good leader who had trouble following through with his promises and may have been too paranoid but was empathetic to his people and brought up his peoples moral and support for him.
A lot of the arguments on this website for the no side are slightly misleading. The question is was he a good leader not was he a good man.
If you asked me weather Vladimir Lenin in my opinion was a good man then I would say no. In some cases I think It’s true that he was an over paranoid man who acted like a child when he didn’t get his way (When he disassembled the general assembly for disagreeing with his views.) . You can consider him responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Russians but you can also say he is responsible for the modernization of Russia and for ridding Russia of a leader who really wasn’t doing anything for Its people anymore.
Before Lenin Russia was living in an outdated world falling far behind in all aspects compared to the rest of the world. He Created a movement that changed Russia forever. If the Bolsheviks never existed and they never took Russia in 1917 or ever then Russia would still be living under the influence of the Tsar. Which in my opinion would not be beneficial to the country.
People say the way he dealt with the Tsar was horrible. I say it was. He murdered him and his family in cold blood. Lenin’s fault in this was the way he killed the Tsar and his family not in overthrowing them. If it hadn’t been Lenin then someone would have done it eventually.
The Tsar was not a good leader in my opinion. He killed people to suppress them just like Lenin. Not as much but still.
He Believed he was entitled to lead because ‘god’ put him there. He never earned his leadership or proved that he truly wanted it. Lenin did.
Lenin was morally an awful leader. If you asked me weather in general he was a good leader I’d say yes. In my opinion he was a clever cunning persuasive man who converted the majority of one of the biggest country in the world into his followers. He took power swiftly and without much resistance from anything. The people generally loved him.
Now holding power was a different matter. He came to power by exploiting the current governments weaknesses and promising exactly what the people needed and wanted to hear. In my opinion he didn't really follow through with his promises which in a way made him a bad leader.
Some could say he was a bad leader because in the end he didn't really care about the people. It all depends on what you define as a good leader and weather morals are involved. Everyone has their own opinion.
Lenin was a good leader; he had many great leadership skills. His slogans were genius; he attracted so many people to side with him. The factors that he used in his speeches, such as equality was great for him, the people of Russia loved the fact that he seemed to care about equality. Lenin was a modest man, and did not have any personal ambition. Saying that Lenin wasn't a good leader is quite wrong. Saying that he was a bad guy isn't what this topic is about, he might have been a bad guy but his leadership skills kept Russia going for quite a while, therefore he is a good leader. When Lenin set up the Cheka, he used it to his advantage to enforce the Soviet control, and secure his power which was pretty smart. Overall he might have not been a good person morally, but he was a great leader.
Lenin was a good leader but not necessarily a good person. Lenin was good at making decisions and trying to “fix” anything that hadn't gone so great. He was aware about everything that was going on in Russia but the way he handled anything that he didn't like was brutal. When he decided to make the Cheka to kill anyone who opposed him this is when the realization that he wasn't a very good person came up. He could have handled it differently. He was a very paranoid person which drove him to make these decisions, he was obsessed and attached to the power he had and he didn't want to lose it therefore he came up with brutal ideas to keep his power. He was a good leader in deciding and being aware of Russia’s situation but he’s not morally a good person.
Other points suggest he is a bad leader because he was harsh and killed people. This makes him morally bad but it doesn't make him a “Bad” leader. Lenin put Russia in the modern age and adapted to the needs of the people(New economic policy). Not only this but he was able to basically talk everyone into following with quotes like “Bread Peace Land”. Even though not all his statements came to be he was able to bring about a massive uprising by seizing control. He wasn't only a good speaker either, he was a strategist, when Lenin actually seized power he captured all of Russia's key points like the train and communications as well as using the cheka to his advantage. So just because he killed the Tsar and his family doesn't mean he is a bad leader. People just confuse being morally good and good.
The 'no' votes have so many flaws to their argument its almost unbearable to read. 'Lenin was a bad guy' - Sweet Jesus.
'Lenin ordered the murder of Tsar Nicholas II'' - Okay, you appear to defending someone who left Russia in an incredible state and was the main reason as the why Lenin ultimately got into power. Had Tsar Nicholas II known what he was doing and actually acknowledged he needed to improve his country after the 1905 revolution then the 1917 revolution would had never occured. This is the man who didn't condemn guards killing his own people which was the catalyst for the 1905 revolution. Nicholas didn't really have a clue what he was doing when governing the country. He was poorly educated, didn't want to rule the country and was in fact a 'bad guy' himself.
The 1918 Civil War was hardly surprising now, was it?. A new form of governing appears in Europe, Germany is having a revolution of its own, the leaders of Europe and the World are petrified this new 'communist' system is coming to get them and take over the world. Why do you think the US intervened and then the UK did? Once UK troops refused to fire on their 'brothers' (The Russian Red Guards) then they quickly removed themselves due to fears of an uprising.
''and don't forget who he put in line to come after him: Stalin.'' - No he didn't. Far from it. Lenin in fact, before his death, warned against Stalin and said that power shouldn't be given to him. Lenin, after his return to Russia from Finland stated a number of things in his April Theses in 1917 that himself and Stalin did not agree on. Lenin didn't approve of the Provisional Government. Stalin did. If Lenin had his way, then Trotsky would had undoubtedbly replaced him. Stalin, rather deviously, ensured that Trotsky appeared to the Russian people as an idiot after Lenin died and Stalin died to Trotsky about the date of Lenin's funeral. The headline 'Trotsky is a no show at Lenin's funeral' did nothing for his reputation.
'Over throw a provisional government that was on its way to democracy' - Are you serious? Like, seriously? What did the provisional government achieve, really? It couldn't even remove itself from the Great War due to the pressure France and the UK put on Russia over War Credits. Lenin and the Bolsheviks sorted that issue out in a few days. The Provisional Government also promised land reforms, which, also, never happened. Then the ''genius idea' of letting the Bolsheviks and Trotsky out of prison because of the Kornilov Affair and the fear that Kornilov was attempting a coup, illustrating quite evidently the lack of control or power the Provisional Government had. - Despite all this, you think the Provisional Government was going to bring Democracy? Move over.
Lenin had his faults, granted. But we're talking about a country that had series issues here. Remember that.
Vladimir Lenin was the greatest example of a politician who is truly for the people. Before he lost power he decriminalized homosexuality (first nation on earth to do so). He ended Russia's involvement in an extremely costly war (WW1).He also believed that the USSR should be run by a group of people rather than one man. Shortly before his death he expressed his concerns over "Comrade Stalin". His true successor should have been Leon Trotsky.
He restored equality and helped the workers get some more money. He was truly a peoples person and touched so many people that they were queuing to pay their respect to him. He helped people with money and kept as many people as he could happy. Overall a good leader and a good person
Just because Lenin adopted Marxism, doesn't mean he is a bad political leader. The civil war in Russia must be happened ,then Russians can move toward development instead of staying in monarch. All thanks to Lenin. Lenin is the only person can see the most important aspect of communism. Most people think that aspect is "distributed the wealth equally, so that everyone will be the same and no one will be jealous of another." The most important aspect of communism is that government will control and influence it's people. If the government officials were good and smart leaders, the country and it's people will be peaceful and enjoy prosperity of that country. Lenin is a good leader and therefore Russia move from monarch to development.
He had many good ideas to help the Russian Government and it's people. He was elected leader and wasn't leader by force. He has made many people happy for the promises he has made and kept of Peace, Land, and Bread. He has stopped fighting in World War 1, and he made the promise of land by giving the land taken from the people to the people. He gave "bread," by actually getting more food and supplies out of the war and to the Russian people, and "bread," I think is another way of saying a better economy. Thank you.
This man who, had basically everyone who opposed him killed, who had ordered the murder of Tsar Nicholas and his family, who started a civil war because most disagreed with the Bolshevik party, who abolished all political parties, and who was practically Robespierre is considered good? Doesn't sound right to me. Not even to mention the destruction of Russia's economic system which was replaced by socialism, which disallows private property. He fell back on to capitalism, and don't forget who he put in line to come after him: Stalin.
I don't think that Lenin was someone that anyone should really aspire to be like as a leader. He was a devout follower of communism and it's fair to say that the entire political philosophy has shown itself to be ineffective. I say it speaks to his quality as a leader.
He was a horrible leader whose only goal was to kill those opposing him. Although he got Russia out of monarchies, i do not admire the way he did it. It is inhumane to murder the royal family that had nothing to do with Nicholas's poor choices as Czar. He was a terrible tyrant and killed many innocent lives.
What else are you supposed to say? He murdered his own people for an agenda, and now somehow he is glorified? I think the grass is a little greener in peoples minds these days. The past always looks better than the present of the future.
He also paved the road for stalin, and there is no debating that he was a terrible man.
I'm not saying he was a good person. Bad people can be good leaders, IE Hitler killed 9 million Jews but brought Germany out of an economic crisis. Lenin had a powerful mind when it take to persuasion. He not only persuaded the Russians to start a revolution, but he persuaded many countries to join the soviet union.
Lenin introduced ideas for the people of Russia would would better their conditions. However, after gaining power, Lenin changed his path. He disturbed and gave the Russians a harder time than they expected. He brought terror and fear in the country. No one dared to question his wrong or say a word. He controlled the people with terrible tactics which were unacceptable. His goal was to bring the Russian people out of the rule of Czar and bring goodness, instead he made the conditions worse than they were during Czars rule. Therefore, Lenin was not a good leader at all.
It is completely amazing to me the level of ignorance expressed on this topic.
International socialism has killed well over 100 million people in the last century with Lenin being the head rube of that steal the wealth banking plan. Yes, communism is a banking scheme with one purpose, control. It has never, nor will it ever promote equality. This is, unless your idea of equality is a handful of oligarchs pilfering the life and wealth of the Earth. Its 2014 people! Stop saying 'communism just hasn't been implemented fully'. The death and destruction you see in every communist nation is communism!
Lenin personally can be traced to at least 50000 executions in his short career.
Was he a good leader? If you think having a gun pointed at your back and marched off to murder and rape all those that appose the supreme leader than yes, he was fantastic.
Lenin is yet another example, in my opinion, of someone who wanted power in order to impose their own vision on other people, rather than to positively affect their lives. His decision to pull Russia out of the war, leading to a civil war, has been debated a lot and many consider it to have been a bad one. His numerous attempts to introduce Communist policies resulted in disaster and thus he had to abolish them and introduce yet more policies only to abolish those as well because they were too Capitalist. Although it's obvious you can't please everybody, it seems like Lenin didn't try. He adopted whatever policies would ensure he stayed in power and was not what the people wanted when the Tsar abdicated. He didn't have any legitimacy when he took over. It seems like so long as you have charisma/image, you are considered a good leader, regardless of how effective you were.
While I do not deny Lenin's genius, it is quite confusing as to why anyone would consider Lenin to be a "good" leader. A good leader is someone who is support both by his fellow leaders and by the people he SERVES. As a tyrant, Lenin disposed all of opposition with the Cheka and brutally killed opposing parties. Although Lenin was a strategist and opportunist, he was a great mind at the wrong time. His dangerous motivation and dedication to the Socialist movements of Russia could have been could have been used in far better hypothetical situations. When asking yourself is Lenin was a good leader or not, one should consider why he exterminated and outlawed opposing political parties and individuals. If Lenin was a just leader he would have been able to back his views and provide the people with a strong reason as to why his leadership was an advantage to the
Vladimir Lenin, was a good example of leadership, as a speaker, and getting people to follow him. But as a moral leader, he was awful, he promised communism to his people, but after a few months , in my opinion, it slightly changed to a dictatorship, as he used power like the Cheka and the Red army to hunt down and prosecute anyone that disagree with him. And it wasn’t only with the peasants, at a certain point, his advisors as well would be prosecuted, if they disagreed with him. He also would do anything, as long as his ideals and decisions were being carried out.