Log in

View Full Version : One of the Most Unfounded Things - that I have Ever read



elijahcraig
18th July 2003, 11:25
Here is the sick article from Time Magazine-Leaders and Revolutionaries: V.I. Lenin:

V.I. Lenin
BY DAVID REMNICK

Not long after the Bolsheviks had seized power in 1917, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin filled out a bureaucratic questionnaire. For occupation, he wrote "man of letters." So it was that a son of the Russian intelligentsia, a radical straight from the pages of Dostoyevsky's novel The Possessed, became the author of mass terror and the first concentration camps ever built on the European Continent.

Lenin was the initiator of the central drama--the tragedy--of our era, the rise of totalitarian states. A bookish man with a scholar's habits and a general's tactical instincts, Lenin introduced to the 20th century the practice of taking an all-embracing ideology and imposing it on an entire society rapidly and mercilessly; he created a regime that erased politics, erased historical memory, erased opposition. In his short career in power, from 1917 until his death in 1924, Lenin created a model not merely for his successor, Stalin, but for Mao, for Hitler, for Pol Pot.

And while in this way Lenin may be the central actor who begins the 20th century, he is the least knowable of characters. As a boy growing up in Simbirsk, Lenin distinguished himself in Latin and Greek. The signal event of his youth--the event that radicalized him--came in 1887, when his eldest brother Alexander, a student at the University of St. Petersburg, was hanged for conspiring to help assassinate Czar Alexander III. As a lawyer, Lenin became increasingly involved in radical politics, and after completing a three-year term of Siberian exile, he began his rise as the leading communist theorist, tactician and party organizer.

In his personal relations with colleagues, family and friends, Lenin was relatively open and generous. Unlike many tyrants, he did not crave a tyrant's riches. Even when we strip Lenin of the cult that was created all around him after his death, when we strip away the myths of his "superhuman kindness," he remains a peculiarly modest figure who wore a shabby waistcoat, worked 16-hour days and read extensively. (By contrast, Stalin did not know that the Netherlands and Holland were the same country, and no one in the Kremlin inner circle was brave enough to set him straight.)

Before he became the general of the revolution, Lenin was its pedant, the journalist-scholar who married Marxist theory to an incisive analysis of insurrectionist tactics. His theories of what society ought to be and how that ideal must be achieved were the products of thousands of hours spent reading.

"The incomprehensibility of Lenin is precisely this all-consuming intellectuality--the fact that from his calculations, from his neat pen, flowed seas of blood, whereas by nature this was not an evil person," writes Andrei Sinyavsky, one of the key dissidents of the 1960s. "On the contrary, Vladimir Ilyich was a rather kind person whose cruelty was stipulated by science and incontrovertible historical laws. As were his love of power and his political intolerance."

And while in this way Lenin may be the central actor who begins the 20th century, he is the least knowable of characters. As a boy growing up in Simbirsk, Lenin distinguished himself in Latin and Greek. The signal event of his youth--the event that radicalized him--came in 1887, when his eldest brother Alexander, a student at the University of St. Petersburg, was hanged for conspiring to help assassinate Czar Alexander III. As a lawyer, Lenin became increasingly involved in radical politics, and after completing a three-year term of Siberian exile, he began his rise as the leading communist theorist, tactician and party organizer.

In his personal relations with colleagues, family and friends, Lenin was relatively open and generous. Unlike many tyrants, he did not crave a tyrant's riches. Even when we strip Lenin of the cult that was created all around him after his death, when we strip away the myths of his "superhuman kindness," he remains a peculiarly modest figure who wore a shabby waistcoat, worked 16-hour days and read extensively. (By contrast, Stalin did not know that the Netherlands and Holland were the same country, and no one in the Kremlin inner circle was brave enough to set him straight.)

Before he became the general of the revolution, Lenin was its pedant, the journalist-scholar who married Marxist theory to an incisive analysis of insurrectionist tactics. His theories of what society ought to be and how that ideal must be achieved were the products of thousands of hours spent reading.

"The incomprehensibility of Lenin is precisely this all-consuming intellectuality--the fact that from his calculations, from his neat pen, flowed seas of blood, whereas by nature this was not an evil person," writes Andrei Sinyavsky, one of the key dissidents of the 1960s. "On the contrary, Vladimir Ilyich was a rather kind person whose cruelty was stipulated by science and incontrovertible historical laws. As were his love of power and his political intolerance."

Since the Soviet archives became public, we have been able to read the extent of Lenin's cruelty, the depths of its vehemence. Here he is in 1918, in a letter instructing Bolshevik leaders to attack peasant leaders who did not accept the revolution: "Comrades! ... Hang (hang without fail, so that people will see) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers ... Do it in such a way that ... for hundreds of versts around, the people will see, tremble, know, shout: 'They are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucker kulaks' ... Yours, Lenin."

Among those artists and writers who survived the revolution and its aftermath, many wrote paeans to Lenin's intelligence that sound like nothing so much as religious songs of praise. The poet Mayakovsky would write, "Then over the world loomed/ Lenin of the enormous head." And later, the prose writer Yuri Olesha would say, "Now I live in an explained world. I understand the causes. I am filled with a feeling of enormous gratitude, expressible only in music, when I think of those who died to make the world explained."

By the Brezhnev era, Lenin's dream state had devolved into a corrupt and failing dictatorship. Only the Lenin cult persisted. The ubiquitous Lenin was a symbol of the repressive society itself. Joseph Brodsky, the great Russian poet of the late 20th century, began to hate Lenin at about the time he was in the first grade, "not so much because of his political philosophy or practice ... but because of the omnipresent images which plagued almost every textbook, every class wall, postage stamps, money, and what not, depicting the man at various ages and stages of his life ... This face in some ways haunts every Russian and suggests some sort of standard for human appearance because it is utterly lacking in character ... coming to ignore those pictures was my first lesson in switching off, my first attempt at estrangement."

When Mikhail Gorbachev instituted his policy of glasnost in the late 1980s, the Communist Party tried to practice a policy of regulated criticism. The goal was to "de-Stalinize" the Soviet Union, to resume Khrushchev's liberalization in the late 1950s. But eventually, glasnost led to the image of Lenin, not least with the publication of Vassily Grossman's Forever Flowing, a novel that dared compare Lenin's cruelty to Hitler's. While he was in office, Gorbachev always called himself a "confirmed Leninist"; it was only years later when he too--the last General Secretary of the Communist Party--admitted, "I can only say that cruelty was the main problem with Lenin."

After the collapse of the coup in August 1991, the people of Leningrad voted to call their city St. Petersburg once more. When Brodsky, who had been exiled from the city in 1964, was asked about the news, he smiled and said, "Better to have named it for a saint than a devil."

David Remnick, a New Yorker staff writer, is the author of Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1994



This is the kind of disgusting slanderous propaganda which should be wiped from the face of the earth.

commie kg
19th July 2003, 05:42
That was pure crap. They're trying to say that Lenin meant for the states like Pol Pot's Cambodia and Stalinist Russia to exist.

The guy's a fucking idiot.

Charlie
19th July 2003, 17:05
This has been posted before. The punch-line is that they're comparing Lenin to Hitler. Complete bollocks.

Marxist in Nebraska
21st July 2003, 23:40
It is a favorite tactic for the right, and for many anarchists as well, to confuse Lenin and Stalin. I think it reflects a poor understanding of the Russian Revolution and its major players. They printed this article in Time magazine... how many times did Time make Stalin or Hitler "Man of the Year", their highest honor? I rest my case...

Elect Marx
24th July 2003, 07:07
Heh, good case MIN, that article is sickening. They should do a rational comparison, like Bush and Hitler. You know this one MIN. Go to it http://www.democracymeansyou.com/serious/d...racy-failed.htm (http://www.democracymeansyou.com/serious/democracy-failed.htm)

YKTMX
24th July 2003, 14:13
Yeah, my favourite bit from that piece is that they say Lenin built the first concentration camps in Europe, YET they have Chruchill as some kind of god?! Oh yeah, he was using poison gas on Kurdistan before Saddam was a twinkle in his daddy's eye, and who built the camps during the Boer war? Yeah, our great saviour (also racist, imperialist, class warrior) Winston fuckin' Churchill. Time Magazine, pfff.

Marxist in Nebraska
24th July 2003, 19:18
Comrade YouKnowTheyMurderedX,


Yeah, my favourite bit from that piece is that they say Lenin built the first concentration camps in Europe, YET they have Chruchill as some kind of god?! Oh yeah, he was using poison gas on Kurdistan before Saddam was a twinkle in his daddy's eye, and who built the camps during the Boer war? Yeah, our great saviour (also racist, imperialist, class warrior) Winston fuckin' Churchill. Time Magazine, pfff.

Exactly. I looked up the Man of the Year archives on time.com. Churchill was MotY twice. Stalin also was named twice, and Hitler once. Three of the most unapologetic murderers of the 20th Century combine to share five MotY awards!!!

Also, I find it interesting that Stalin is identified on the Time site as "Soviet Political Leader" when Khrushchev (MotY 1958) is a "Soviet Dictator." Their propagandizing apparently will not allow them to admit the US's critical ally in World War II was a mass-murdering dictator.

Urban Rubble
24th July 2003, 19:40
Wait wait wait, they gave Stalin and Kruschev man of the year ? Isn't that like a huge compliment ? I'm confused.

Marxist in Nebraska
24th July 2003, 19:57
I do not think that Stalin was an authentic communist. I think the damage he did to the working class in the USSR was never repaired by the leaders who followed him (that includes Khrushchev). Perhaps you consider Stalin or Khruschev to be admirable (I am not assuming or insinuating anything!), but I really do not. Thus, making either of them MotY does not seem a compliment to communism.

Stalin was probably credited (at least the second time he was MotY) for helping the USA smash fascism in Germany and Italy. Stalin was actually made into a teddy bear by US propagandists during World War II, because he was an ally.

Kez
25th July 2003, 14:46
you know what the biggest irony of all this shit is???

That in state in revolution in the first paragraph he wrote:
"What is now happening to Marx's theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the "consolation" of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie.

The same applies more to Che Guevara