Russians commemorate anniversary of the death of V.I. Lenin

[Sky]

Leaders of the Russian Communist Party on Monday laid wreath at the mausoleum of Bolshevik leader Vladimir Ilich Lenin's on the Red Square to mark the 84th death anniversary of the founder of the now defunct Soviet Union.
"For the contemporary communists, involved in an active and intense struggle with the power of capital, Lenin is not merely a symbol", Russian Parliament Duma's Deputy Speaker Ivan Melnikov said.

"He remains our ideological leader, whose ideas, works, experience and approaches in political strategy and tactics are even today very useful in our daily work," he added.

However, Communist Party chairman Gennady Zyuganov, who is contesting March two presidential polls, was not present at the ceremony as he is on a tour to China.

In Lenin's hometown Ulyanovsk on the Volga, a grand memorial has been reincarnated as the memorial of the Soviet Era, where thousands of personal documents and photos donated by people across the nation are to be exhibited.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1146613

V.I. Lenin was a great proletarian revolutionary and thinker, continuer of the cause of Marx and Engels, and the leader and teacher of the working people of the entire world.

Not since Marx had the proletarian struggle for emancipation given the world a thinker and leader of the working class of Lenin’s stature. He combined scientific genius, political wisdom, and perspicacity with great organizational ability, an iron will, courage, and daring. He had a boundless faith in the creative powers of the popular masses, was close to them, and enjoyed their total confidence, love, and support. All of Lenin’s activity embodied the organic unity between revolutionary theory and practice. As leader and man Lenin possessed a selfless devotion to communist ideals and to the cause of the party and of the working class and a supreme conviction of the righteousness and justice of that cause. He subordinated every fact of his life to the struggle for the emancipation of the toilers from social and national oppression. He loved both his homeland and was a consistent internationalist. Intransigent toward the class enemy, he had a touching concern for comrades. He was highly exacting toward himself and others and was morally pure, simple, and modest.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Personally I don't care about his life or death. He was a total asshole in debates; his politics and theory and what these helped the Russian working class and socialist movement do are the important things.

[Comrade Rage]

It's already been 84 years of the Great Lenin's passing? Man.

It's good to hear about what's going on in Russia. I wonder what'll happen in America.

[Comrade Rage]

Personally I don't care about his life or death. He was a total asshole in debates; his politics and theory and what these helped the Russian working class and socialist movement do are the important things.The first section of your post is a joke, right?

[Cult of Reason]

Russians commemorate anniversary of the death of V.I. Lenin

Great. Are they going to finally bury him, now?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Personally I don't care about his life or death. He was a total asshole in debates; his politics and theory and what these helped the Russian working class and socialist movement do are the important things.

And Trotsky wasn't an asshole? :glare:

Seriously, how was Lenin the person an "asshole" in debates?

[Comrade Rage]

Great. Are they going to finally bury him, now?What's wrong with the mausoleum?


And Trotsky wasn't an asshole? :glare:

Seriously, how was Lenin the person an "asshole" in debates?Are you actually taking that shitheap of a post seriously?:confused:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lenin is indispensable not because "had a touching concern for comrades" but because of his understanding of imperialism and all the other things he gave to the struggle which can help workers achieve power.

I guess I'm trying to "bend the stick" away from the hero-worship of Lenin as a person. There were plenty of great communists over the years who loved the working class and their comrades and had other great personal attributes, but if they didn't have the right politics or learn from the struggle like Lenin, who gives a sh**?

Regarding the asshole comment: I bet Lenin made more than a few comrades cry after tearing their arguments apart. I'm sure he tried to make up for it later, but he was hardcore when he made political arguments.

[RebelDog]

V.I. Lenin was a great proletarian revolutionary and thinker, continuer of the cause of Marx and Engels, and the leader and teacher of the working people of the entire world.

Not since Marx had the proletarian struggle for emancipation given the world a thinker and leader of the working class of Lenin’s stature. He combined scientific genius, political wisdom, and perspicacity with great organizational ability, an iron will, courage, and daring. He had a boundless faith in the creative powers of the popular masses, was close to them, and enjoyed their total confidence, love, and support. All of Lenin’s activity embodied the organic unity between revolutionary theory and practice. As leader and man Lenin possessed a selfless devotion to communist ideals and to the cause of the party and of the working class and a supreme conviction of the righteousness and justice of that cause. He subordinated every fact of his life to the struggle for the emancipation of the toilers from social and national oppression. He loved both his homeland and was a consistent internationalist. Intransigent toward the class enemy, he had a touching concern for comrades. He was highly exacting toward himself and others and was morally pure, simple, and modest.

I don't know whether to cry or announce your engagement to Lenin's mummy. But seriously, Lenin was a state capitalist who ruthlessly destroyed working class attempts to establish a communist society. The most advanced workers/pheasants of the Ukraine and the workers/sailors of Kronstadt were used as fodder against the whites and Germans and then crushed by the Bolsheviks when they had served their propose and had now to submit to the tyrannical rule of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks. Lenin has taught us one thing at least: we must never allow a professional elite to use the working class for their own ends whilst claiming to 'emancipate' them. The working class must free itself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know whether to cry or announce your engagement to Lenin's mummy. But seriously, Lenin was a state capitalist who ruthlessly destroyed working class attempts to establish a communist society. The most advanced workers/pheasants of the Ukraine and the workers/sailors of Kronstadt were used as fodder against the whites and Germans and then crushed by the Bolsheviks when they had served their propose and had now to submit to the tyrannical rule of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks. Lenin has taught us one thing at least: we must never allow a professional elite to use the working class for their own ends whilst claiming to 'emancipate' them. The working class must free itself.

Years of struggle was an elaborate trick on the working class, eh? If he and the bolsheviks and the workers and soldiers and peasants who supported the revolution wanted state-capitalism, there would have been easier ways to go about it. Also Stalin would have had an easier time and wouldn't have had to purge and kill so many radicals and workers connected to the revolution.

Claiming that the Bols had an elaborate plan to be attacked by the Whites and the West as a pretext to taking war powers as they did is like the liberals in the US that claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

[spartan]

Great. Are they going to finally bury him, now?

What's wrong with the mausoleum?

Idol worship is dangerous and, more often than not, leads to Totalitarian personallity cults (See every State Capitalist Dictatorship in existence):D

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lenin is indispensable not because "had a touching concern for comrades" but because of his understanding of imperialism and all the other things he gave to the struggle which can help workers achieve power.

But his stuff on imperialism was limited to "popular outlines" and articles. Furthermore, he overrated colonialism the moment he wrote Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, just months after he wrote his "popular outline."

I've got more here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-theory-imperialism-t69324/index.html) (imperialism vs. macro-capitalism).


Regarding the asshole comment: I bet Lenin made more than a few comrades cry after tearing their arguments apart. I'm sure he tried to make up for it later, but he was hardcore when he made political arguments.

I'm very interested to know more about this, actually. :blushing:

[Jimmie Higgins]

But his stuff on imperialism was limited to "popular outlines" and articles. Furthermore, he overrated colonialism the moment he wrote Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, just months after he wrote his "popular outline."

I've got more here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-theory-imperialism-t69324/index.html) (imperialism vs. macro-capitalism).

Well I think "Imperialism the Highest State of Capitalism" is valuable in understanding some of the relation between state power and capitalism. But I wasn't saying that that is his only contribution, I was just using it as an example. I'm not familiar with "Macro-capitalim" so I'll have to take a look.




I'm very interested to know more about this, actually. :blushing:He was relentless in making his arguments - I don't mean personal or abusive, just unrelenting in arguing his politics with his comrades.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't think he made his comrades cry as much as he was a "crybaby" (always threatening to resign on major issues, at least before and during the civil war).

At least he wasn't a consensus-no-matter-the-contradictions guy like Brezhnev (contradictions within Soviet foreign policy, in particular).

[RedAnarchist]

Great. Are they going to finally bury him, now?

Lenin just wanted to be buried in a working-class grave didn't he? They should allow him to rest in such a grave rather than be some display.

[Herman]

He was relentless in making his arguments - I don't mean personal or abusive, just unrelenting in arguing his politics with his comrades.

Yes, as a person he could be hard to debate, due to his intimidating debate tactics and his continuing persistance. I think he did make one or two communists cry during debates...

He had wonderful political ideas though, and that's why we should admire him.

[Holden Caulfield]

I wonder what'll happen in America.

probably shit all,

yes Lenin had his faults but for establishing (or at least trying or starting) the first communist state, and for his exstensive writings he deserves our respect and he should be remembered,

im suprised Putin didn't try to hijack this event as an excuse to show Russian national pride/power, or would he not like Lenin being a filthy capitalist (not that i think his views would get in the way of him making a move for the popularity)

[Colonello Buendia]

The problem with the Mausoleum is that Lenin wanted to be treated like any person, Stalin made the Mausoleum to make Lenin an Idol, a god almost. We as leftist leftists should be objective, not like cultists, Stalin made a cult out of Lenin. and I am surprised Putin didn't attend

[Ismail]

and I am surprised Putin didn't attendProbably thought it wouldn't give him much points among the nationalists.

Stalin fought a foreign power in one of the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century and showed how "strong" (nationalistic sense) "Russia" was. So nationalists love him.

[Colonello Buendia]

the only reson the Lenin Memorial exists was Stalin attempt to create a marxist cult, so I don't understand why a nationalist wouldn't attend

[MT5678]

As an anarcho-syndicalist, I am saddened by this Cult of Lenin. Lenin was no true socialist. He surrendered to the bourgeois with his NEP, claiming it was for stability to safeguard the revolution. A true socialist would have fought on until the bitter end, be it defeat or victory. Remember, Marx warned that the struggle might last decades.

This might be idealistic, but revolutionaries have ideals. Lenin had none.

[Ismail]

the only reson the Lenin Memorial exists was Stalin attempt to create a marxist cult, so I don't understand why a nationalist wouldn't attendWhen I see nationalists wave banners and shit, I usually see Stalin, not Lenin.


He surrendered to the bourgeois with his NEP, claiming it was for stability to safeguard the revolution.And Stalin ended the NEP. Do you now think that Stalin is a true socialist? :rolleyes:

I think you're simplifying things. The purpose of the NEP was to improve relations between the peasants and workers, who didn't like eachother and to be a transition between the "war" phase where focus was put on fighting for survival rather than agriculture and such.

[spartan]

Didnt Lenin originally want to have a Bourgeois Capitalist Republic? (I am sure i read it somewhere).

I think that Lenin rightly saw that Russia hadnt industrialised or developed Capitalism (Which is necessary to create the material conditions necessary for Socialism) and thus he advocated this system as a temporary measure.

Of course things never worked out like that in the end, but it would have been intresting, to say the least, if it did end up like that.

[Cryotank Screams]

Great. Are they going to finally bury him, now?

Guess I'm not the only one who thinks Lenin's mummy should be laid to rest. :D

[redarmyfaction38]

The problem with the Mausoleum is that Lenin wanted to be treated like any person, Stalin made the Mausoleum to make Lenin an Idol, a god almost. We as leftist leftists should be objective, not like cultists, Stalin made a cult out of Lenin. and I am surprised Putin didn't attend

quite right comrade, part and parcel of the "counter revolution" carried out by uncle joe was the "deification" of lenin by the state.
lenin insisted throughout the russian revolution that he was one of many.
in reality stalin recognised this and carried out the murder of the 600 leading bolsheviks, the exile of trotsky and imprisonment of many thousaNDS OF "dissidents".

[RebelDog]

Gravedigger:

Years of struggle was an elaborate trick on the working class, eh? If he and the bolsheviks and the workers and soldiers and peasants who supported the revolution wanted state-capitalism, there would have been easier ways to go about it.Well a good proportion of the working class and peasants wanted communism and tried to build it but ended up with Bolshevik state-capitalism through the often brutal repression of the soviets and the empowerment of the bureaucracy. When Lenin said "all power to the soviets" he clearly didn't mean it. What is this easy way to establish state-capitalism?


Also Stalin would have had an easier time and wouldn't have had to purge and kill so many radicals and workers connected to the revolution.The Russian revolution had embarked on its true Bolshevik path when the Bolsheviks seized power and the best/most advanced working class revolutionaries had long been dealt with before Stalin became the new tsar.


Claiming that the Bols had an elaborate plan to be attacked by the Whites and the West as a pretext to taking war powers as they did is like the liberals in the US that claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy.Where did I claim this. I said that the Kronstadt sailors and the Ukrainian rebels were used to fight the Whites/Imperialists, and when the fighting was done and the Bolsheviks were strong enough, they were crushed because they rejected the Bolshevik state-capitalist programme and wanted communism. Comparing me with 9/11 conspiracy nuts is not going to change history and the legacy of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm comparing your logic to 9/11 conspiracy theorists because you see the result of history and believe it was some kind of plot rather than the result of processes and conflicts and so on.

The Bolsheviks were committed revolutionaries who were a leading part of a revolution that failed to achieve worker's power. Rather than trying to understand why it failed and became the horrors of Stalinism, you claim it was a secret plot all along.

When people like Makhno failed to maintain anarchist politics and ideals in his army, was it a plot all along - or was it because of the circumstances which prevented an army on egalitarian and anarchist lines? Personally I think Makhino wanted communism but failed due to politics and his historical situation - the same with the Bolsheviks.

[spartan]

The Bolsheviks were committed revolutionaries who were a leading part of a revolution that failed to achieve worker's power.

Which revolution was that?

I seem to remember a revolution in February 1917, where millions of Russians rose up, which forced the Tsar to abdicate and lead to the Social Democrat, Alexander Kerensky, becoming leader of a provisional government.

If you are talking about what happened in October of that same year, where a minority of higher ups and the Bolsheviks seized power, in what can only be described as a coup, then i think i know what you are talking about.

Just to make sure that we all know what we are talking about here, a revolution is when the majority of people in a country rise up and overthrow the ruling order (Which is exactly what happended in February 1917), whilst a coup is when a small minority of people, usually with already established positions of power (The Bolsheviks were one of the, if not thee, biggest party in Parliament at the time, and were also in control of the majority of the Soviets in and around St.Petersburg), force the current leadership of the ruling order to stand down in favour of them (Which is exactly what happened in October 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power from the provisional government).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Which revolution was that?

I seem to remember a revolution in February 1917, where millions of Russians rose up, which forced the Tsar to abdicate and lead to the Social Democrat, Alexander Kerensky, becoming leader of a provisional government.

If you are talking about what happened in October of that same year, where a minority of higher ups and the Bolsheviks seized power, in what can only be described as a coup, then i think i know what you are talking about.

Just to make sure that we all know what we are talking about here, a revolution is when the majority of people in a country rise up and overthrow the ruling order (Which is exactly what happended in February 1917), whilst a coup is when a small minority of people, usually with already established positions of power (The Bolsheviks were one of the, if not thee, biggest party in Parliament at the time, and were also in control of the majority of the Soviets in and around St.Petersburg), force the current leadership of the ruling order to stand down in favour of them (Which is exactly what happened in October 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power from the provisional government).

So according to your logic, after workers overthrew the Tzar, the bols had a bloodless coup without the support of the same people who just overthrew the Tzar? Why wouldn't they just then overthrow this "coup" if they didn't support it?

The bols argued that power should be with the soviets rather than the parlement and I think that's a viable way for workers to run society. Unfortunately it failed in Russia due to objective circumstances as well as subjective mistakes.

[Redmau5]

and were also in control of the majority of the Soviets in and around St.Petersburg)

Which kind of contradicts your argument about the 'coup'. The Bolsheviks clearly had enough support from workers if they were able to control most of the major Soviets (which were after all, comprised mostly of workers).

Anyway, I thought you were a Leninist?

[KC]

I seem to remember a revolution in February 1917, where millions of Russians rose up, which forced the Tsar to abdicate and lead to the Social Democrat, Alexander Kerensky, becoming leader of a provisional government.

Actually the February Revolution lead to the abdication of the Tsar and the formation of a provisional government under Prince Georgy Lvov. Kerensky wasn't involved until after the July Days.


If you are talking about what happened in October of that same year, where a minority of higher ups and the Bolsheviks seized power, in what can only be described as a coup, then i think i know what you are talking about.

The Bolsheviks seized power from a bourgeois-"democratic" provisional government and handed it to the soviets. With mass support (there's a reason the only fighting was at the Winter Palace, and even that was minimal). Are you saying you're opposed to the handing of power to the soviets?

People like you always criticize the actions of the Bolsheviks yet when asked what they should have done you never have an answer. So what should they have done? Help maintain bourgeois power against the will of the Russian people? What should they have done?

Also, you do realize the definition of coup, right?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm very interested to know more about this, actually.

"He would break off relations with his closest friends if he thought they were hampering the movement; and he could approach an opponent of yesterday in a simple and comradely way if the cause required it. He was as blunt and straightforward as ever. He loved the country, the verdant forests, the mountain paths, and lakes; but he also loved the noise of a big city, and crowds of workers, his comrades, the movement, the struggle, life with all of its facest. However, watching him closely from day to day, one could observe that he became more reserved, more considerate of people, and more reflective. The years of exile were hard to bear and drained much of Lenin's strength. But he became the fighter the masses needed and the one that lead them to victory." - Nadezhda Krupskaya (Lenin's wife)

[Sky]

If you are talking about what happened in October of that same year, where a minority of higher ups and the Bolsheviks seized power, in what can only be described as a coup, then i think i know what you are talking about.How do you reconcile this allegation of a coup when there were well over one million Russian workers on strike in September-October 1917? It is a distortion to write that the Bolsheviks seized power: on 7 November 1917, the Petrograd soviet of workers and soldiers' deputies passed a resolution transferring all power to the soviets. There was no coup, but a completely legal, peaceful of transfer of state power to the working people.

In regard to the events of February 1917, the Bolsheviks provided leadership to the outbreak of strikes and demonsrations in the Petrograd and Vyborg areas:

Gradually, the Bolsheviks in Petrograd recovered from their initial disorientation and got down to work. On the day the shooting started, three Bolshevik CC members were arrested. The Vyborg local committee assumed the function of leadership in Petrograd. From the morning of 27 February onwards, all the forces of the Petrograd organisation were sent out to the factories and barracks. Arsenals were raided. The Bolshevik V. Alexeyev organised the young workers of the Putilov plant into an assault group to attack the police, to seize their weapons. On the evening of the 27, the Bolshevik leadership, consisting mainly of the Vyborg committee, met to discuss what action was needed to transform the general strike into an armed insurrection. The order was given to fraternise with the troops and disarm the police, to raid the arms stores and arsenals and arm workers. The workers needed no urging!

Having been caught off guard at first, once the scope of the workers’ action became clear, the Bolsheviks began to react, supporting the strike and working to extend it. More and more workers were becoming incorporated into the strike movement. By 25 February there were 300,000 on strike in Petrograd. The strike wave had turned imperceptibly into a general political strike: trams, small workshops, printers, shops, all were swept up into action begun by the women workers. Leaflets were issued with slogans: “Everyone in struggle! Onto the streets!” “Down with the tsarist monarchy!” “Down with the war!”
http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism/part6-1.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

My opinion on the mausoleum and Lenin the "harmless icon" (The State and Revolution), as succinctly put by the active Russian Marxist Boris Kagarlitsky:

Yeltsin and the mausoleum (http://www.greenleft.org.au/1997/286/16223)


The mausoleum as both tomb and reviewing stand had a profound symbolic meaning. The Soviet leaders turned Lenin's body, like his actions when alive, into a pedestal for themselves. They rested on him at the same time as they trampled him underfoot.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Great. Are they going to finally bury him, now?
Great, bring back the "bury lenin" shit... :glare:


Personally I don't care about his life or death. He was a total asshole in debates; his politics and theory and what these helped the Russian working class and socialist movement do are the important things.
Lenin was not an asshole. He said the truth. Unfortunately, some comrades don't want to here that and got upset. But Lenin did not subscribe to idealism and he did not try to appeal to someone's emotions. It may seem harsh, but sometimes it is the only way to bring comrades back to reality and away from idealism and emotion.


And Trotsky wasn't an asshole? :glare:

Seriously, how was Lenin the person an "asshole" in debates?
They seem to prefer lies over truth. Yeah, the bourgeoisie were always good at appealing to emotion- through lies. Cover up the truth so no one cries. And Lenin was an asshole for doing so? What a bourgeois idealist position for one to have. :glare:


Lenin just wanted to be buried in a working-class grave didn't he? They should allow him to rest in such a grave rather than be some display.
Interesting coming from an anarchist. It probably just makes you upset to see.

Lenin should not be buried.


As an anarcho-syndicalist, I am saddened by this Cult of Lenin. Lenin was no true socialist. He surrendered to the bourgeois with his NEP, claiming it was for stability to safeguard the revolution. A true socialist would have fought on until the bitter end, be it defeat or victory. Remember, Marx warned that the struggle might last decades.

This might be idealistic, but revolutionaries have ideals. Lenin had none.
Revolutionaries cannot be idealist. If they are then they become blinded by them, as you apparently have. Lenin based decisions on necessity, not ideals. That is what must be done if communism is ever to be attained. Lenin argued for what was needed, the NEP was needed. The revolution needed to be secured, there was no other way to do it. It's easy to blame, but these were difficult times. There was no other decision to be made. What made him a great revolutionary was that he did not become distracted by bourgeois idealism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Assuming that the "harmless icon" stays put until the big revolution, if folks like myself led the way, we'd be the first to bury the corpse. :(

[It takes a revolutionary Marxist to give Lenin a proper burial and spare his corpse the further misery of being trampled underfoot.]

[Comrade Nadezhda]

^^^ Assuming that the "harmless icon" stays put until the big revolution, if folks like myself led the way, we'd be the first to bury the corpse. :(

[It takes a revolutionary Marxist to give Lenin a proper burial and spare his corpse the further misery of being trampled underfoot.]

I just thought I would ask this out of curiousity of a fellow comrade and Leninist:

(1st) Why do you think it is preferable to bury him? ,

(2nd) Are you arguing on the basis that Lenin himself wanted to be buried?

and

(3rd) Why do you think burying Lenin is honoring him more?

[I have mixed feelings on this issue. (1.) Lenin himself wanted to be buried. and (2.) It can be argued either way that it is disrespectful/respectful. I would feel it is more respectful, however, there is the whole issue of what he himself did want. So, I was curious of your take on the matter.

[Die Neue Zeit]

(1) The corpse has become a "harmless icon" (in Lenin's own words). Also, consider the Kagarlitsky article above with regards to the Soviet leaders. :(

underfoot."]

(2) That Lenin himself wanted to be buried is a good reason, too - but not as good as the first. :(

(3) It honors Lenin by killing the personality cult created around him by Stalin (who coined the term "Marxism-Leninism" as part of this cult, BTW). [b]However, like I said, it takes a revolutionary Marxist to give Lenin a proper burial.

For the present time, Lenin should be kept there as a symbol of revolutionary defiance (that Yeltsin failed to "bury" Lenin was a good thing)!

[RedAnarchist]

Interesting coming from an anarchist. It probably just makes you upset to see.

Lenin should not be buried.

It doesn't upset me, its just bizarre how the USSR could have used his body like that, just displaying it like the early Christians used to do with the body parts of their saints.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

(1) The corpse has become a "harmless icon" (in Lenin's own words). Also, consider the Kagarlitsky article above with regards to the Soviet leaders. :(

underfoot."]

(2) That Lenin himself wanted to be buried is a good reason, too - but not as good as the first. :(

(3) It honors Lenin by killing the personality cult created around him by Stalin (who coined the term "Marxism-Leninism" as part of this cult, BTW). [B]However, like I said, it takes a revolutionary Marxist to give Lenin a proper burial.

For the present time, Lenin should be kept there as a symbol of revolutionary defiance (that Yeltsin failed to "bury" Lenin was a good thing)!
Yes, you make a good point there. That was a major concern prior to his death [reducing to "harmless icons"]. The reactionary bourgeoisie must not bury Lenin, we know the only reason would be to attempt to bury the bolshevik revolution [perhaps, allow them to forget history :(] Lenin must be given a proper burial following a future revolution - by the revolutionary Marxists.