Lenin A View

This essay is from Strobe Talbott, a stupid name used by one of Clinton's apparatchiks. It seems that he had a good understanding of communist operations and was not a fool. He tells us that Lenin was a rogue and an opportunist who regarded Marx's writing as drivel but useful. The article seems to have been scanned and there are some oddities in the text.

The Spectre And The Struggle
QUOTE
(6 of 17)
Marx had foreseen [ wrongly ] a chain reaction of spontaneous uprisings by the working classes against the powers that be in their own countries. Yet Russia's Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 was primarily the denouement of a tumultuous interaction of events—World War I, the dry rot of the Romanov dynasty, mutinies against the Tsar's commanders and German machinations to encourage Russia's withdrawal from the war—none of which had anything to do with the class struggle. The working class in Russia, to the extent that it existed, ended up a bystander rather than a key actor. The old order that was cast onto the trash heap of history consisted of an enfeebled aristocracy and a corrupt officialdom rather than a fully developed bourgeoisie or capitalist class.

Historian James Billington in his recent book, Fire in the Minds of Men, has noted that Vladimir Lenin was "a professional revolutionary before he became a Marxist." Lenin embraced Marxism because it was a very potent ideology for the purposes he had in mind. In fact, even as he played fast and loose with the letter of Marxism, Lenin was, in a way, being true to its spirit. "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways," wrote Marx, "the point is, to change it." As Lenin set out to alter the world, he found in Marx's philosophy some useful tools and weapons.

Marx's emphasis on class conflict provided Lenin with an easy category for identifying his enemies. Also, Marxism was posited on the ideas of a single absolute truth, the predestined victory of the cause, and the fallibility and expendability of the individual. Therefore it lent itself to the suppression of dissenters and vidual [ sic - individuals? ]. Therefore it lent itself to the suppression of dissenters and the extermination of opponents. Lenin, with his knack for hortatory pungency, reduced the past and future alike to two pronouns and a question mark: "Who, whom?" No verb was necessary. It meant who would prevail over whom? And the question was largely rhetorical, implying that the answer was never in doubt. Lenin and those who followed him would prevail over "them," whoever they were.

Marx believed that any revolution carried out in his name would lead to the establishment of a socialist state, a temporary phase during which a revolutionary elite would rule in the name of the working class until all vestiges of the old order were dismantled. Then socialism would give way to true Communism; the state would wither away. So would the elite, or "the dictatorship of the proletariat," as it became known.

Lenin regarded all that as foolish, but not terribly inconvenient. He paid a certain amount of lip service to the Marxist prophecy, while in his policies he set about battening down the here and now of socialism and deferring forever the promised millennium of true Communism. The last thing he wanted, or would tolerate, was any move that would cause the state to wither or that would mitigate the dictatorship of the Communist Party.

From the beginning, the new state was built on four interrelated means of control: centralized and absolute authority, bureaucracy, terror and militarism.
UNQUOTE
Some sense there I think.

 

Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.


Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP KeyHome Page

Updated on 23/06/2018 21:29