Patrick Stewart wasn't even meant to be in this role, but he just walked onto set one day dressed as Lenin and he just kept talking in one long incredibly unbroken sentence, moving from topic to topic so that no one had a chance to interrupt, it was really quite hypnotic.
Then the casting director said that he doesn’t play Lenin, Patrick Stewart reacted to that by belittling him and the rest of the Film crew and tabled a motion to exclude him and his staff from the film set.
lenin also said: "resistance is futile. your life as it has been is over. from this time forward, you will service us." then some time later stalin fucked a hologram. without shame.
He couldn't see that in 5 years he would be usurped by Stalin and millions of his countrymen murdered, yet understands economics in the 25th century. You commies are sub human
He says “Peace Bread and Freedom.” The actual slogan was “Peace Bread and Land.” The BBC might’ve left out the “land” part, because that slogan would only include the peasantry, which the BBC had Lenin earlier in the show saying “could never be revolutionary.” Lenin never said that. I recommend reading “To The Rural Poor” written by Lenin to be distributed by Iskra to the Russian Peasants in 1902.
I believe he did change his position fairly substantially between the aftermath of 1905 and when he wrote his April Theses. He took a much more orthodox Menshevik line of that issue if I remember. Its only when they split he finally got rid of all that baggage and started thinking more creatively.
Actually both were used. Peace, Bread and Freedom was used primarily in the cities and Peace, Bread, Land primarily in the rural areas where land ownership was THE issue for the majority of the population.
They portray the Second Party Congress in the same dishonest manner. They pretend that they had a vote to expel the Bund(I’m assuming to imply antisemitism on the part of the RSDWP), and the economists simply walked up and left? Ridiculous. The Bund demanded they be the sole representative of the Jewish Proletariat, and they lost the vote. They then motioned to reform the RSDWP into a federal organization with the Bund as a constituent party. After that proposal failed 41-5, they walked out. The economists also protested the RSDWP consolidating their foreign representative org under Iskra, so the Union of Russian Social Democrats, the two economist delegates, walked out in protest as well.
Well there is nuance. The peasantry can be a strong auxiliary to the worker's revolution, but can not play an independent, leading role. The whole of Russian Marxism came out of a debate with the Narodniks about the role of the peasantry and the proletariat. Plekhanov and the Russian Marxists emerged from the broader revolutionary tradition by insisting on the historical necessity of capitalist development, and the development of the proletariate as the revolutionary class.
@@Ashley-1917 This entire debate is just a matter of historical trivia at this point considering such a 'peasantry' is a thing of the past. Today's rural working poor are a completely different class no matter what country you're talking about. There are definitely things that still apply though, don't get me wrong, like the grey area of peasant landowners who have a pseudo-private stake in their family farmland or whatever, and are an impediment to revolution and one of the main reasons the peasant class has historically been seen as antagonistic to the urban proletariat and communist movements.
Captain Picard: Computer, activate holodeck program Picard-Alpha-7. Computer: Holodeck program Picard-Alpha-7 activated. Please specify desired scenario. Captain Picard: I would like to experience the full life of Vladimir Lenin, from his birth to his death, with as much detail as possible. Computer: Understood. Please stand by while program loads. Captain Picard steps onto the holodeck and finds himself transported to a replica of Lenin's childhood home in the Russian town of Simbirsk. He looks around in wonder, taking in the sights and sounds of a bygone era. Picard: Computer, begin simulation. The simulation begins, and Picard finds himself living Lenin's life, experiencing everything as if he were actually there. He witnesses Lenin's early years, including his education, his radicalization, and his eventual rise to power in the Bolshevik Revolution. As time goes on, Picard becomes more and more immersed in the simulation, forgetting that he is in a holodeck and living Lenin's life as if it were his own. He experiences the turmoil of the Russian Civil War, the formation of the Soviet Union, and the struggles of Lenin's final years. Finally, after many long hours, the simulation comes to an end. Picard stands on the holodeck, feeling a sense of awe and wonder at the life he has just lived. Picard: Computer, end simulation. The simulation fades away, and Picard is left standing in an empty holodeck, his mind still reeling from the experience. He knows that he has just lived a life that few people have ever experienced, and he is grateful for the opportunity to have done so.
Lenin never ever once denied the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, ever. The political block between the proletariat and peasantry is what the Bolsheviks had stood for from day one.
Lenin never “stood” for anything. He’s one of history’s great power-seeking murderers, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. Lenin was an upper middle class young lawyer; what did he know or care for the worker or peasant ? Marxism was just his rationalization for killing those who had the power, and drawing it all to himself.
@@lemons1559 Imagine all the people, livin' for today, imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too, imagine all the people, livin' life in peace. Oooooowwwoohhhh.
Finding out that such a complementary portrayal of Lenin exists in the English language is baffling to me. No wonder Patrick Stewart was so passionate in Star Trek when he described space communism. He knew the source material so well.
“And that is how we will seize the means of production for the workers!” “But replicators do all our production.” “You really need to get in character, Number One.”
It's the single greatest portrayl of him I've ever seen in anything. Not only is he the spitting image of him, but every single thing you get from reading Lenin - his fastidiousness, his fussiness, brittleness, authoritarian tendencies, his precision, his utter contempt for fancy rhetoric and high faultin metaphysics, his scathinh anger, a man who seemed to spend every single second of every day of his entire adult life attuned to the question of revolution - all of it is conveyed here in the most masterful of performances, with the most intricate of subtleties. Its superb. In a drama with some absolutely magnificent performances (the actors behind Bismark, Wilhem II and Nicholas I, for example, are astonishing) the fact that almost steals the whole seriese is a testament to his skill.
He was a great thinker and revolutionary. His works are still read and praised to this day. His work on imperialism and capitalism was really interesting and added to what Marx and Engels wrote about.
@@bmoore7817 even with that, he’s still a great man. Stalin had some major faults and I have many criticisms of him but without him no way Nazi germany would’ve fell. Stalin was the reason the ussr industrialized so fast knowing what would come. How he did that might not have been the best way to do it though.
In Episodes 6 and 12 , Patrick really SHINED bright in his rendition of the Bolshevik leader Lenin. And those are my favorite two episodes of the series, FALL OF EAGES
He speaks with a 'class accent' since English is being substituted for Russian... it works pretty well. Now lets hear the TV Kaiser speak with a German Accent and the Czar's Children with Russian accents, despite them all being Native English speakers who apparently preferred English to their national tongues. Which is harder to understand TV fantasy or Historical reality....?
Executive producer: "Patrick, we want you to play Lenin. We think it would be a landmark role for you." Stewart: "But the make-up... The likeness..." E-P: "We, uh...We can do it." Stewart [quietly, looking down]: "Yes. Yes of course."
Not **NEARLY AS FAST** as the conservatives will betray you! Look as our Do-Nothing Congress regarding Climate Change, for starters. We've fallen very far, very fast...
The way Stewart delivers the line "Hasn't the _clown_ read any books?!" is possibly one of my favourite line reads of all time. I'm not personally a Leninist, but he just makes the man so damn witty and likable.
I have seen Patrick Stewart in many roles, going as far back as his portrayal of Sejanus in I Claudius, but this is by far his best performance (sorry Trekkies). To say he is spot on as Lenin is a massive understatement. By the way, Fall of Eagles is an excellent and accurate historical drama. Not much action but the acting is superb.
Patrick stewart is a fine actor, but Lenin obviously wasnt British, he could speak English and apparently he did with an irish accent but as soon as you have a british dude playing a historical russian you lose me... would much rather read subtitles and hear the actors use the native language anything else is just inaccurate. and definitely not "spot on".
Tell that to the lady who hung herself and her husband. And millions of others. Marx would disown this man -- as did the many true Communists who languish in Castro's dungeons. You can't fast-forward through Capitalism.
@@BibleAlivePresentations This is just untrue. Lenin was not a “fake Marxist”. He was genuinely Marxist when many fell to revisionism. Also, “millions dying” was not the fault of Lenin, for he himself was not responsible for them, and nor were other Bolsheviks.
Natural disasters under capitalism, where only the rich are protected and the poor are left to die: "It couldn't be helped, it truly is a display of how powerful mother nature is." Natural disasters under socialism, where significant sacrifices are made to help those in need (eg: Stalin sending grain and tractors to Ukraine): "THIS IS LITERALLY WORSE THAN THE HOLOCAUST!!!!!!!! THIS IS HITLER TIMES BY 1 QUADRILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
He is Lenin! This is such a great series, one of my all time favorites. A number of these actors would star together in the BBC series Tinker Tailor and Smiley's People, including Stewart!
Lenin's warning to Trotsky about avoiding personalities really makes sense, especially after looking into the audiobooks of Lenin arguing against Trotsky.
@@sexybeast4593 This one was more a history book, but it does have a fair amount on the conflict between personalities. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-h7_ZcOOORSo.html
Prior to the October Revolution, Lenin had some disagreements with Trotsky's ideas but wholly adopted them in his April Theses. He drastically altered the official party line of the Old Bolsheviks and came over to the course of Trotsky's theories. You can see this yourself. Lenin also complimented Trotsky on multiple occasions but people love to point to the trade union discussion (Trotsky later announced he was incorrect in that debate) as it is one of the only fundamental disagreements Lenin had with Trotsky and even then Trotsky later corrected his opinion of it in hindsight. Below are some excerpts from Lenin's will and a personal letter from him to Trotsky to see what he really thought of him by the end of his life. "Then, I intend to propose that the Congress should on certain conditions invest the decisions of the State Planning Commission with legislative force, meeting, in this respect, the wishes of Comrade Trotsky - to a certain extent and on certain conditions." Lenin is in agreement with Trotsky. "Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work." Lenin remarks on Trotsky's self-assurance and states that he is very focused on administrative affairs. Despite this, Lenin still notes that Trotsky is perhaps the most capable man in the Central Committee. "I shall not give any further appraisals of the personal qualities of other members of the C.C. I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky." The above excerpt sees Lenin detailing that Trotsky's previous unrelation to the Bolshevik party prior to 1917 should not be used against him. He also recalls that Zinoviev and Kamenev were against the October Revolution while Trotsky was for it. Trotsky says it best, "The question how seriously and permanently I came over to Bolshevism is not to be decided either by a bare chronological record or by the guesses of literary psychology. A theoretical and political analysis is necessary. This, of course, is too big a theme and lies wholly outside the frame of the present article. For our purpose it suffices that Lenin, in describing the conduct of Zinoviev and Kamenev in 1917 as “not accidental,” was not making a philosophical reference to the laws of determinism, but a political warning for the future." If you want such a theoretical and political analysis of Trotsky joining the Bolshevik party, you won't be hard-pressed to find it among Trotsky's writings. If you really want a firm basis you should get familiar with these works of his. "Esteemed Comrade Trotsky, I earnestly ask you to undertake the defense of the Georgian affair at the Central Committee of the party. That affair is now under “prosecution” at the hands of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky and I cannot rely on their impartiality. Indeed, quite the contrary! If you would agree to undertake its defense, I could be at rest. If for some reason you do not agree, send me back all the papers. I will consider that a sign of your disagreement. With the very best comradely greetings, Lenin March 5, 1923" This letter outlines that Lenin had confidence in Trotsky on this issue and had 'the very best comradely greetings' to him.
I know! When I first saw this series years ago, I said to a friend I would totally follow Patrick Stewart in a revolution to overthrow Capitalism, hahaha!!!!
Lenin is possibly the most ruthless and self sacrificing person in recorded history. When I say self sacrificing I do not mean that he was good, but that he was willing to give all of himself to a cause
@@rubenlarochelle1881 yeah overthrowing the tsar was great, and the provisional government justifiable, but I'm not convinced that Lenin would've been any better than Stalin in the long run.
It was so cool to see this series switch from Lenin and the Tsar. I actually did come to care a little for Nicholas as I watched from since he was just a young man all the way to the end. However, despite Lenin's intensity, I wanted nothing more than for his regime to take over.
That was great, watched the lot in two sittings. Captain Picard meets Jim Hacker - Good acting! and there must have been a few Dr. Who actors in the mix too. Thanks for posting.
Patrick Stewart was GREAT as Lenin. Energetic, confident in himself and laser-focused. What a contrast to the hand-wringing (Franz Josef, Czar Nicholas) or impulsive (Wilhelm II) royals. And Nadezhda Krupskaya becomes his devoted helpmate. It's also interesting to see the contrast with Tsarina Alexandra, who often bullies Nicholas. Krupskaya is totally subordinate to her forceful husband.
@@sock4238 I'm no communist, if that's what you're implying. You might note that the show is called "The Fall of Eagles." The intelligent viewer wants to know why they fell.
@@bertilliozephyrsgate6196 The BBC has an interest in distorting the reasons for "The Fall of Eagles" to the benefit of their wealthy backers. And nah I'm not accusing u of anything mate dont worry.
@@seanohare5488eh depends on who you ask that’s just how history is aside from what the Japanese and Germans did the tsarist regime had to end. Lie after lie execution after execution was more widespread then even the days of the Soviet Union in the century it took the us to industrialize the USSR did it in 10-20 mistakes were made nothing is perfect but it was far better for the lower and middle class then any other period in Russia’s history
@@seanohare5488 The Bolsheviks saved Russia from the clutches of an evil, authoritarian Empire. The USSR had a lot of flaws and people like Stalin were certainly evil, but they saved countless lives from poverty and destitution and raised the living standards of the people to an extraordinary degree. We should never forget that.
@@mortalclown3812 If you are genuinely sad about people not being very intelligent on average, you should probably stop contributing to it by blaming social media. Because that's wrong, the education crisis is a lot more complicated than that. It's easier for you to just blame modern things and modern people for using them, but guess what? That's an intellectually lazy point of view. If you want people to be more intelligent, inspire them by thinking harder about what you say before you say it, and try not to spread an incomplete, watered-down version of the truth. Thanks.
@@Wveth to be fair, it isn't just the education system that's at fault here, not anymore at least. Social media and digital media in general are a major issue and they are making people stupid. Shorter attention spans, ability to read, write and do maths are delayed/take longer to learn (for children), more anxiety and higher stress levels overall. "Intelligence", whatever that may be exactly, is irrelevant here, it's a lot more concrete and fundamental than any kind of supposed "general intelligence". I personally don't blame modern people for using modern technology, I do it myself, but there clearly is a problem that needs to be addressed.
This is so good it makes the hairs on ones back stand up. I have read some arguments for how Stalin was just a continuation of Lenin but I think they make a pretty weak case. The more I read on the Russian revolution, the more I suspect the World would have been quite different If that man had just lived for another five years or so.
@John Doe Lenin was doing what he could to get rid of Stalin already in 1923 but he dies before he could get the guy out of the way. If he had gotten another five years I think Stalin would have ended up in Siberia in good time. The difference between Stalin and the early bolsjeviks are that the bolsjeviks could change stuff. They were capable of understanding that you could rule by giving people what they want and need and they could compromise with their own ideas and with each other. Stalin just didnt do those things. He wanted to rule by terror, period. That is a crucial difference. In five more years Lenin could have time to establish a functioning party apparatus that might perhaps have stopped another dictator from ascending. The most important question is of course the land issue. The model of collectivization they chose was based on depriving peasants on the only thing they really wanted, land, which led the peasants to fight back in every way they could. Stalin reacted to this in by reinstating serfdom and thus the state was doomed to be at war with its own people until it broke apart. Had Lenin and his followers held on to this model they would have gotten the same result. Had they, how ever, had more common sense than Stalin they might have tested collectivisation in one district or so, realized it would lead to civil war more or less (it did) and then chosen another type of collective modernization, based on the type of collective work the peasants already practiced. This could have put the Soviet union and communism on a very different path of developement. Being at war with the countryside, treating it as a colony just like the tsar did, was the original catastrophic rift that Stalin built into the Soviet system, without that, a lot of new possibilities might have opened up. The issues with the NEP system were miniscule compared to Stalinism.
@John Doe Lenin supported Stalin for a short while and then realised the man was a bad Apple and tried to outmanouver him but it was too late. I have no doubt that there were plenty of models of collective farming that could have worked, and without Stalin it is possible that different models could have been allowed within the vast USSR. It is also possible that peasant culture in Ukraine and Russia proper was quite different and voluntary collectivization could work on one side of the border and not on the other. The problem with tsarist russia was that it forced all that saw the very obvious need for change into exile. This meant the socialists of that time had no experience of their own country and and its countryside in particular. A few more years of experimententing could have been very valuable. I have no doubt Makhnov had many qualities however he was very bad at holding on to power and that was fatal in itself. The interesting thing is not what dogma supposedly worked or not, the interesting thing is how dogmatic vs how flexible the bolsjeviks could have been without Stalin.
@@HerrAndreasSkog You're right but there is no way they would have let Lenin live another 5 years. The Communist leaders were already becoming extremely corrupt and they had good reason to get Lenin out of the way after he turned against Stalin's clique. There is some circumstantial evidence he was poisoned - Stalin claimed "Lenin asked for poison" (no one else heard this), there was no toxicology report during the autopsy, and there was a rush to mummify him which prevented any subsequent exhumation or analysis of the body.
17:59 Picard: "The first duty of the revolutionary is to fight those forces and personalities which obstruct the socialist revolution" Wesley: "... sir?" Picard: "It is the GUIDING principle upon which communism is based. And if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and take up arms against the bourgeoisie you don't deserve to wear that budenovka"
"I am Vladimir Ilich Lenin of the Soviet Union. Resistance is futile. Your life, as it has been, is over. From this time forward, you will service... us."
Wonderful portrayal of Lenin! I saw the scene where he was ill and confined to bed and I know he had a lot of stress. What was he in ill with in this episode?
Literally said to avoid personalities in the same video you're watching. It's not even worth energy pointing out, you will just have to let life disabuse you of such stupid notions
