What if Lenin had died in 1964?

Jose Scott
Jose Scott

Let us assume Lenin had Castro tier genetics and lived until 1964 (age: 93) instead of 1924 (age: 53). Let us also assume that he held onto power all this time, similar to Fidel. How would the USSR have looked? What woul have changed, what would have stayed the same?

Attached: 910953d.jpg (65.35 KB, 640x360)

Noah Thompson
Noah Thompson

The same but with less executions

Noah Kelly
Noah Kelly

The same but with less dead innocents and MORE DEAD KULAKS.

Attached: stfupedophile.jpg (103.03 KB, 686x454)

Austin Thomas
Austin Thomas

Definitely things would have been better. No factional fighting would lead to earlier massive industrialization. There would be far lighter purge, leading to better military organization would lead to better performance in WW2, meaning that post WW2 Soviet Union would be far stronger and far more diplomatically and economically influential

Ayden Williams
Ayden Williams

i suppose like most historical figures that didn't die before the world wars he would have become boring.

Luis Morales
Luis Morales

Like Stalin
BUT BETTER

Famine probably would've happened
Purges might have been delayed or not even have been a "big event". Less factionalism is to blame.
Same emphasis on industrialization.
A bigger emphasis on preserving proletarian democracy even during the inevitable world war.

I wouldn't know though. Pure optimistic speculation.

Also we'd be living in the World Socialist Republic by now.

Attached: 9f6efcaaab0e75a404e32c20fd6c6991bdce6fdec94c2c9142b7193606829382.jpg (137.05 KB, 1200x813)

Noah Rodriguez
Noah Rodriguez

Bump

Jaxson Reed
Jaxson Reed

he probably would have led the USSR to its destruction by listening to that retard trotsky and attempting global revolution with no regard to the safety of the USSR itself, and by the time Hitler came knocking (or some other dictator supported by the west) the USSR would have had no allies and the entire world would have been in a military alliance against it led by the UK. Seriously theres no way the Bolsheviks survive into 1964 with Lenin, he was a man that served his purpose at the time and nothing more.

Julian Cook
Julian Cook

Less sectarianism and less corn. He’d defiantly have a cult of personality that would make finding a successor hard.

Owen Davis
Owen Davis

he probably would have led the USSR to its destruction by listening to that retard trotsky and attempting global revolution with no regard to the safety of the USSR itself
STFU ☭TANKIE☭
and by the time Hitler came knocking (or some other dictator supported by the west) the USSR would have had no allies
The had no allies IOTL. It was just coincidence that Hitler was at war with Britan when he was at war with the soviets. This would probably still be the case because Hitler though German Armies were invincible.

Nolan Gray
Nolan Gray

2799599
Lenin conducted multiple purges what are you talking about. They didnt involve killing but there were purges nonetheless

Samuel Fisher
Samuel Fisher

he probably would have led the USSR to its destruction by listening to that retard trotsky and attempting global revolution with no regard to the safety of the USSR itself
Guess what, Stalin didn't prevent the USSR from falling either

Benjamin Hernandez
Benjamin Hernandez

Why do some Trots don't seem to understand that Stalin was simply doing his best after the German Revolution was lost
The fact that there's no cornunist parties, is a glimmer of hope for everybody tbh

Andrew Collins
Andrew Collins

Part of the reason Hitler signed the non-aggression pact with Stalin was because of his round earlobes, do you think he does the same thing with someone who has a known jewish grandmother? Also as pragmatic as Lenin was, I doubt he ever does the machiavellian move of signing the pact (assuming the nazis still would) because it would be a full reversal of every speech and writing he has made since 1905. Also, I don't think Lenin (and Trotsky) make the mistake Stalin makes, believing fascism is nothing more than capitalism without its contradictions. I think they would have realized the threat fascism actually was.

Eli Williams
Eli Williams

Zizek actually talked about this once. His question was "What if Lenin had lived ten years longer?" And his answer is interesting.
What happened, then, when in his last years Lenin became fully aware of the limitations of Bolshevik power? It is here that once again we should oppose Lenin and Stalin: in Lenin’s very last writings, long after he had renounced the utopia of State and Revolution, we can discern the contours of a modest ‘realistic’ project for what Bolshevik power should do. Because of the economic underdevelopment and cultural backwardness of the Russian masses, there was no way for the country to ‘pass directly to socialism’; all the Soviet power could do was combine the moderate politics of ‘state capitalism’ with an intense cultural education of the inert peasant masses – not ‘communist propaganda’ brainwashing, but simply the patient, gradual imposition of developed standards of civilisation. Facts and figures revealed ‘what a vast amount of urgent spadework we still have to do to reach the standard of an ordinary Western European civilised country … We must bear in mind the semi-Asiatic ignorance from which we have not yet extricated ourselves.’ So Lenin repeatedly warns against any kind of direct ‘implantation of communism’: ‘Under no circumstances must this be understood to mean that we should immediately propagate purely and strictly communist ideas in the countryside. As long as our countryside lacks the material basis for communism, it will be, I should say, harmful, in fact, I should say, fatal, for communism to do so.’ His recurrent motif is thus: ‘The most harmful thing here would be haste.’ Against this stance of ‘cultural revolution’, Stalin opted for the thoroughly anti-Leninist notion of ‘building socialism in one state’.
Does this mean that Lenin silently accepted the standard Menshevik criticism of Bolshevik utopianism, embracing their idea that revolution must follow necessary preordained stages? It is here that we can observe Lenin’s refined dialectical sense at work: he was fully aware that, in the early 1920s, the main tasks for the Bolsheviks were those of a progressive bourgeois regime (general education of the population, etc.); however, the very fact that it was a proletarian revolutionary power undertaking these tasks changed the situation fundamentally – there was a unique chance that these ‘civilising’ measures could be implemented in such a way as to break with their limited bourgeois ideological framework (general education would be really in the service of the people, rather than an ideological mask for propagating narrow bourgeois class interests, etc.). The properly dialectical paradox is thus that it was the very hopelessness of the Russian situation (the backwardness compelling the proletarian power to initiate a bourgeois civilising process) that could be turned into a unique advantage.

Attached: LeninEnSuizaMarzo1916--barbaroussovietr00mcbr.png (76.93 KB, 387x527)

Aaron Bell
Aaron Bell

Lenin or Trotsky would’ve sen more aid to communist parties globally, causing liberal government having to placate the large Communist mass in their own country, and sent more military aid to the CCP potentially leading to a pre-WW2 victory of the Chinese Civil War.
Without the molitov ribbentov pact German would still be at war with the west (the pact was done a month before the polish invasion) so it wouldn’t’ve made a difference to Soviet survival.

Zachary Mitchell
Zachary Mitchell

thank you for sharing this

Justin Smith
Justin Smith

it wouldn’t’ve made a difference to Soviet survival.
Soviet Union was hardly ready to effectively face the German Army, or any other massive foreign invasion by 1941, for a multitude of reasons, a massive restructuring and modernization of the army being the most direct cause, let alone two years earlier. Compare the rough equivalent effectiveness of the Soviet Army during the Winter War and during Bagration to see what a massive difference five years of on-hand experience can make. When you get a chance to postpone the inevitable crisis in, especially when you're barely pulling your self out of the one before, you take it. You don't want to be caught with your pants down if you can give yourself a chance to at least pull them up, do you?

Brody Torres
Brody Torres

Probably better agriculture but worse industry in economic terms. I think the USSR would've been more stable and would've been more open to alliances with capitalist states in the 1930s. But I doubt whether its performance in WW2 would've been any better.

There would be far lighter purge, leading to better military organization
The purges were one of the main reasons why the Red Army was able to win in WW2. It was riddled with ex-Tsarist officers and fascist sympathisers.

Colton King
Colton King

A bit different, but the trends would have been the same and the internal contradictions would have been the same. Single people don't determine the outcome of an entire state.

Gabriel Gomez
Gabriel Gomez

ITT: we argue woulda coulda shoulda and nothing happens. Nothing is of significance in this metaphysical realm of 'if Lenin lived for 1 to 1000 years' is of importance.

Attached: 06ccf4e3da2c5a0289a1a6b1bd24707f3c20824ff9685b0deeb1cbc7116f56bf.png (10.5 KB, 255x191)

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit