Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

A poster on another thread reminded me of a discussion I once had. I'm curious how other people think about it.

In historical terms, how does Washington rank? I think it is indisputable that he is more important than Lenin. Lenin's ideas didn't survive as viable political practice for even 70 years. Washington's influence continues to grow after 230 years.

[Gopher]

This is an interesting question.

I've read little on Washington, but I've been able to see films of Lenin and read some of his writings, so it'd be an uneven comparison.

Lenin seems to have been pretty damned brilliant to me, even charismatic with crowds, but a comparison between the two, as national "founding fathers," or whatever, I've never seen that before.

Usually its Adam Smith vs. Marx, no?

In any case, Lenin's ideas about world revolution faltered. But didn't Washington's foriegn policy advice -- avoid foreign entanglements, particularly in Europe -- go by the wayside, too?

[Hater Depot]

Lenin got a lot of innocent people slaughtered and founded a totalitarian state that impoverished and immiserated tens of millions for 70 years. No contest who comes out better on those terms.

[Bulsajo]

Washington vs. Lenin?
It seems like a relevant disscussion...













...from 20 years ago.

[Pligganease]

1) Washington siad that America should avoid two-party politics.

2) Washington said that America should stay out of foreign affairs.

3) Washington never wanted to be the leader of the country.

There is no Washington influence.

[bucheon bum]

#2- no. he said stay away from entangling alliances. Stay away from foreign policy?

And that was our policy until the first world war.

#3- Has nothing to with influence.

On the other hand, he did retire after 2 terms, setting a precedent. Only until FDR won a 3rd term did anyone dare break the trend.

[Kuros]

[desultude]

[Leslie Cheswyck]

[funplanet]

Lenin was a major influence, no doubt about that. He was quite smart (a law degree...but only practiced for a short time) and really became disillusioned after his brother was executed at St. Petersburg for being involved in some anti-Czar dissident work.

There is very littel "good" about Lenin's "work" in the early days (murders, pogroms, deportations-suggested by Stalin actually) but his 5 year NEP (new economic program) which he was starting to initiate may have been a major breakthrough had he lived. Some archives suggest he may have decided to go more to the right, albeit slowly, to move the country in a more peaceful direction, both politically and economically. Afterall, he had eliminated most of his enemies by then except for Stalin.

Washington is still revered and loved in America and other parts of the world. A reluctant warrior (not counting his days in the French and Indian Wars), a reluctant politician...all he wanted to do was live his days in peace at Mt. Vernon. Too bad most American politicians have not heeded the advice of men like Washington and Jefferson...the world would be a much better place.

[Gopher]

[Yu_Bum_suk]

There's no doubt that Washington was very important as a figure in his time (and a general), but there's a good reason why we refer to most of ideology of the revolution as 'Jeffersonian'. If it weren't for Washington, I think it's quite possible that someone else could have stepped into the breach and history may still be much the same. Certainly that wouldn't seem the case with Lenin.

[Ya-ta Boy]

To me, Washington's influence was his committment to the small 'r' republican ideal. In his day there were few existing examples, Venice being the best known, and all of them were very small states. Republicanism had never been tried on a large scale. At the end of the war he was the winning general with an army at his command. Had he been power hungry or a man of weaker character, he could easily have marched on Philadelphia, dissolved Congress and been proclaimed king with little opposition. Neither Cromwell nor Napoleon were able to resist the temptation. Also along the same lines, he was an inpirational figure to the French at the start of their Revolution as well as to the Latin Americans. Today, nearly all countries are republics of one kind or another. Clearly, Washington had an impact on that reality. He was the 'first'.

What I understand Washington to have said about entangling alliances was that there are no permanent friends or enemies in foreign affairs. He was also speaking to a small weak country in a world of giants. His advice to a large powerful country might have been different, we'll never know. His dictum was followed for a century and a half, until World War II/the Cold War, a 50 year aberration because of a special condition. You might say that Bush II is returning to Washington's idea with his Coalition of the Willing. It's a little too early to say for sure though.

[On the other hand]

I think the closer comparison is between Lenin and Lincoln, in the sense of using violence on a massive scale to effect revolutionary change("revolution from above" is how Barrington Moore described the Civil War).

One could argue that Lincoln engaged in less outright murder than Lenin did. Then again, what difference is there, really, between shooting an unarmed person in the head and drafting him into a war zone?

Plus, when an entire region of the country gets burned to a crisp, ya gotta figure that at least a FEW untimely deaths are gonna result from the effects.

[bucheon bum]