Why didn't Lenin succeed?

Why didn't Lenin succeed?

at what?

If he didn't have a stroke I think the USSR might have been successful.

USSR had much promise but failed to be actualized

He did, get over your infantile disorder

N

He didn't read bordiga ofc

Because he tried to replace hierarchy with slightly different hierarchy. State capitalism a shit, yo.

But all documentaries suggest he didnt, kept autistically screeching about the revolution, then it happens without him, then he finally gets in power and doesnt really do much to the people rebel against him because conditions didnt improve

He got shot by Fanny Kaplan and had health complications possibly related to that incident and so he didn't live very long after the world inter-imperialist war.

Parties don't make socialism

Historical materialism is wrong and he didn't realize the inherent problem of hiearchy and domination

Because export of revolution failed, uprisings in Germany and Hungary (and also riots in Italy) were crushed

He did though


breddy gud

The char literally fell without Lenin, he was irrelevant

have you actually read history?

and black bloc does

And as we know once the tsar was dipposed the revolution was won and nothing happened afterwards. Lenin totally didn't get the Bolsheviks to topple the provisional government or have an influential role during the civil war. Total bum.

WHHHHYYYY!!

no. is that a problem?

When trying to discuss historical figures? Yeah. You should probably read about them.

Not The Char!!!!

Here's a spoiler then: without the Bolsheviks, Russia would have become just another liberal democracy. Also, you seem to underscore Lenin's contribution to pre-1917, but that's another story.

You mean without Lenin, because he was the one mainly pushing for the removal of the idea of democratic faggotry

Sure but I just don't like implying the gr8 man theory of history, nor that the bolshies were a hivemind. There were fierce debates about the issue even in their ranks.

There is another myth that needs to be exploded – the myth that social revolutions are made by tightly disciplined cadres, guided by a highly centralized leadership. All the great social revolutions are the work of deep-seated historic forces and contradictions to which the revolutionary and his organization contributes very little and, in most cases, completely misjudges, The revolutions themselves break out spontaneously. The "glorious party" usually lags behind these events – and, if the uprising is successful, steps in to commandeer, manipulate, and almost invariably distort it. It is then that the revolution reaches its real period of crises: will the "glorious party" re-create another system of hierarchy, commination and power in its sacred mission to "protect the revolution," or will it be dissolved into the revolution together with the dissolution of hierarchy, domination and power as such? If a revolutionary organization is not structured to dissolve into the popular forms created by the revolution once its function as a catalyst is completed; it its own forms are not similar to the libertarian society it seeks to create, so that it can disappear into the revolutionary forms of the future – then the organization becomes a vehicle for carrying the forms of the past into the revolution. It becomes a self perpetuating organism, a state machine that, far from "withering away", perpetuates all the archaic conditions for its own existence.

There is far more myth than reality to the claim that a tightly "centralized" and "disciplined" party promotes the success of a revolution. The Bolsheviks were split, divided, and riddled by factional strife from October, 1917 to March, 1921.

He failed and anyone who says otherwise is a moron, at the new he died and left a shitty country in shifty conditions