Autoritäre Auswüchse beim #fuckBSW
#Lenin lässt grüßen
#Kommentar von Gunnar #Hinck #taz

Katja #Wolf wird öffentlich abgestraft, weil sie sich von Sahra #Wagendingens emanzipiert. Jetzt zeigt sich beim #BSE die dunkle Seite der Macht.

https://taz.de/Autoritaere-Auswuechse-beim-BSW/!6042786/

harry haller wrote the following post Tue, 01 Oct 2024 01:24:47 +0200

How Khrushchev derailed the locomotive of history

Machine translation from https://histoireetsociete.com/2024/09/29/comment-khrouchtchev-a-fait-derailler-la-locomotive-de-lhistoire/

We are among ourselves... in this blog which has broken ties with social networks and which seeks to build in our small collective a place of collective reflection since this is not permitted in the political-media space which is heading towards war , fascistization, clientelist divisions and the fear of facing both the past and the future. As I tried to explain, we are in a temporal paradox, that of a historical shift. It is clear that what we are facing is new, the solutions are unusual and require experimentation, collective reflection... But at the same time what prohibits this essential cooperation is the way in which we have managed to convince the working class, the youth, all the victims that there was no other alternative than individualist coping... What is happening is abominable and our leaders are leading us towards the apocalypse, but socialism, the collective, is worse. And we will not get through this without confronting this trauma of the past as the Russians and the Chinese do. Once again this translation by Marianne on the “Khrushchevian derailment” represents a contribution and as long as it is ignored there cannot be a revolutionary party and not even a reformist one. Since with the end of the USSR, there is no longer a reformist party, only parties which believe they can more or less control the pace of regression, negotiate it. (note by Danielle Bleitrach translation by Marianne Dunlop historyandsociety)

By Serguei Kostrikov and Elena Kostrikova (1)

This text is actually the conclusion of the book by Serguei Kostrikov and Elena Kostrikova, The locomotives of history: the revolutionary year 1917, a title which alludes to the famous phrase of Karl Marx: “Revolutions are the locomotives of History”. I do not believe I am betraying the authors by attributing a large part of the responsibility for the derailment of the locomotive to Khrushchev, even if he was not the sole cause. (notes and translation by Marianne Dunlop for History and Society).

We are convinced that the materials contained in this book, taken from Russian periodicals of the revolutionary year 1917, convincingly prove that the February bourgeois revolution and the great October socialist revolution were inevitable. Contrary to the predictions of its enemies, not only did Russia not sink into the abyss of oblivion, but it became one of the greatest world powers, it defeated the universal evil of fascism, it led the struggle of the advanced forces of humanity against oppression, for real democracy, for justice, for national and social liberation – this is the historical merit of the working people led by the Bolshevik Party.

Ideological opponents of Marxism will say with philistine sarcasm: "Well, where did your world power go, why did it collapse, where is your Marxism-Bolshevism?" The Soviet system, the socialist economy and the friendship between our peoples withstood the test of strength during the years of relentless war. In the USSR, unlike Tsarist Russia, there were no irreconcilable contradictions, no economic and social problems that could not be resolved within the framework of socialism. Our power has not disintegrated, it has been destroyed. At the end of the 20th century, we all witnessed a monstrous betrayal, the example of which is difficult to find in history. This betrayal was committed by representatives of the ruling "elite", who placed themselves at the service of external forces who had never stopped fighting against the first socialist country in the world.

The roots of the tragedy that occurred lie not in the vices of socialism, but in the fact that at a certain stage the leadership of the Communist Party ceased to rely on Marxist doctrine, did not not realized the need for its development. “Without theory we are dead,” Stalin warned. The world was changing, the international situation posed more and more difficult questions, and at that time the field of ideology in our country gradually stagnated.

After World War II, the authority of the USSR and socialism had reached an exceptionally high level. This is evidenced by the new role of our country in the world, the emergence of new socialist states, the rise to the forefront of communist and workers' parties in many countries, the development of the national liberation movement in the colonial empires. From the point of view of bourgeois ideologists and politicians, it was necessary to disrupt this wave of growth of the authority of socialism and the influence of Marxist ideology. And in the bourgeois camp, it was necessary to find ways to modernize capitalism. This is clearly seen not only in the alternation of conservative and liberal parties in power, the establishment of neoliberalism and neoconservatism in the economy and politics. Reactionary movements, including neo-fascists, have been revived. They also tried to penetrate the sphere of left-wing ideology, not only in their country, but also in socialist countries. Many left-wing organizations appeared. All of them are characterized by petty-bourgeois revolutionism, ultra-leftist phrases, distancing from Marxism-Leninism, its revision, attempts at petty-bourgeois interpretation in relation to new conditions, or a complete rejection of the doctrine and a struggle against her.

These groupings reflected the objective tendencies of Western societies in the conditions of the scientific and technical revolution and the socio-economic processes that it engendered. Engineers, technicians and other intellectuals, previously privileged, inevitably transformed into openly exploited “proletarians of mental work” and became politically radicalized. On the other hand, the many leftists reflected the struggle of the bourgeoisie against the true communist movement, against Marxism as such. It is important that we understand the main thing: in the West there was an active intellectual search aimed at creating ideological constructs that opposed or destroyed Marxism. This was a new major front of ideological struggle. And we had to meet this challenge with all our might.

Why, having created a powerful socialist state, having won the Great Victory, were we not prepared for confrontation in a new form? Why, after making a gigantic breakthrough into the future, were we not able to truly evaluate what we had accomplished and defend it when the time was right? Why did people who were not only dogmatic, who did not develop Marxism, but who were not Marxists at all, find themselves at the head of the party? ?

One of the reasons lies in the changes of people within the state and party leadership that took place in the post-war period, and especially after the death of Stalin. Our victory was dearly paid for. The human losses were heavy and irreplaceable. To a large extent, the war destroyed an entire generation of newly formed Soviets. These were, one could say, people of the future, in good physical and moral health. Children of workers and peasants who, without the war, would have become production managers, scientists, representatives of creative professions, military and political leaders.

They constituted an invaluable genetic heritage for the nation. Today, we miss not only them, but also their children, who would have been raised to become true Soviets, true patriots of their country. Those who were lucky enough to survive performed a true miracle: in a few years they restored what had been destroyed, created a superpower and were the first to make a breakthrough into space.

Unfortunately, while the best representatives of our people were fighting and creating, careerists with Party cards were sneaking into power, skillfully posing as ideological communists. In the mid-1950s, at the top of the party bureaucracy, whose vices had been ruthlessly combatted by Stalin, there was a rush for power. The results are known. First of all, the denunciation and liquidation of Beria, then "the dismantling of the anti-party group Molotov-Malenkov-Kaganovich and others." In the end, Khrushchev, ignorant but skilled in the art of intrigue, prevailed over all others.

Under Stalin, every civil servant, whatever his rank, knew full well that his position did not protect him from the most severe sanctions. With Khrushchev, the apparatchiks received a guarantee of immunity – that is, in effect, irresponsibility – from the party apparatus and bureaucracy. From that moment on, a process of massive and accelerated decay and degeneration of the ruling bureaucracy began. “The cadres decide everything” (2), said Stalin. The “dragon’s teeth” sown under Khrushchev produced poisonous sprouts for a long time. In the 1980s, Khrushchev-era “cadres” rose to the highest level of power. It was Khrushchev who allowed people like Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Yakovlev and their ilk to sneak into the highest ranks of the party. “We had too many 'Khrushchevs',” VM Molotov later recalled with bitterness.

For Khrushchev, the reckless “denunciation of the cult of personality” served above all his own justification and self-affirmation, and not at all the restoration of Leninist norms. He himself easily violated these norms by dismissing from office, dismissing from the capital or retiring all those who did not agree with his adventurist orientation and whom he considered dangerous to himself- even. He did not imprison them or shoot them just because he had cut himself off from this path. But he humiliated them mercilessly. Molotov, Malenkov, Zhukov, Shepilov, Furtseva and many others understood this perfectly. All this has not improved the party. But he undermined his authority, as well as the authority of socialism on the world stage. Like a merchant on the spree, Nikita squandered and squandered the gigantic moral and political capital acquired at the cost of the blood and sweat of our people..

Khrushchev undeservedly reaped the fruits of the victories won under Stalin. The breakthrough into space (3) allowed him for a time to distract attention from the socio-economic problems he had caused. With the arrival of Khrushchev, his line of extensive development of the country and the economy triumphed. The reckless and unbridled expansion of virgin lands at the expense of the restoration and development of the indigenous agricultural areas of central Russia, decimated by the war, is spectacular in appearance, including in terms of propaganda. But it was not justified. At the beginning of the 1960s, we had already drawn on state reserves, then began to regularly buy grain from abroad, financing foreign producers..

The failures of the economy and the rise in prices caused discontent among the population. This is how workers were shot at in Novocherkassk. During the entire Soviet period, no leader of the country had dared to do such a thing !

As a result, Khrushchev's policies translated for the USSR into senseless spending inside and outside the country, adventurous economic and political decisions, demagoguery, ideological swindling and propaganda, the split and weakening of the international communist movement, the loss of world authority, guidelines, ideals and the degeneration of party cadres. His arrogant troublemaking policies almost led to nuclear conflict with America in 1962.

Khrushchev's name is associated with stagnation in the field of ideology. An uneducated man with a petty-bourgeois mentality, he adopted the slogan “catching up with and overtaking the West in all areas” as his basic development strategy. In the very essence of this slogan was the idea not of our identity, not of the already realized benefits of socialism, not of reasonable sufficiency. The idea of ​​our backwardness and even a kind of inferiority was imposed on the Soviet people. Of course, Lenin also spoke of the need for Soviet Russia to “catch up with the advanced countries.” But he spoke about scientific, technical, cultural and industrial progress, about the advanced organization of management and production, on the basis of which a completely different society was to develop. Lenin reasoned from the position of a politician in the 1920s, at the head of a country devastated by wars and interventions and culturally and technically backward. Khrushchev, on the other hand, was the head of a superpower that had achieved enormous successes in economics, science and culture, and had managed to win an unprecedented war thanks to the achievements of socialism. It was necessary to view the pursuit of development dialectically, and not to chase after the bourgeois West. Khrushchev's slogan "catch up and overtake" was deeply philistine and reflected a petty-bourgeois view of development and its goal. We were asked to beat the enemy on their territory and according to their rules. Khrushchev psychologically oriented the population towards a consumer society, without taking into account the traditions of our peoples, economic expediency, state possibilities and probable socio-psychological, ideological and political consequences.

The obvious advantages of socialism, which allowed everyone to develop normally, healthily and creatively, were replaced by petty-bourgeois consumer instincts – “theirs are better, bigger, more beautiful”. The West has transformed itself into a glittering showcase of an infinite quantity of junk, of necessary and less necessary goods – a veritable Ali Baba's cave. Like a savage blinded by glitter from a tin can and abandoning real jewelry for cheap trinkets, Khrushchev's common man was ready to give his soul for chewing gum and Coca-Cola, not doubting not that all the benefits of socialism were guaranteed to him forever. We had lost our ideological “immunity” against capitalism! On a daily basis, the West has surpassed us.

After Stalin, ideology in the USSR stagnated. From Khrushchev onwards, no senior Soviet party leader, unlike his predecessors, wrote anything himself. At the same time, the new party “elite” was terribly removed from the lives of the people. Lenin and Stalin, driven by the desire for a just world order, knew how to ignite the masses with their ideas. In the most difficult hours, they were able to find words that were close and understandable to ordinary people, touching their souls and instilling in them faith in victory. They encouraged work and struggle. But he who does not consume himself will never be able to lead others.

They encouraged others to follow him. The soulless and bureaucratic “agitation” of the era of “stagnation” could only discourage the study of Marxism. Despite the numerous Marxist-Leninist universities, schools and circles where studies were formalized, the mass of the Party became politically and ideologically infantile and easily infected by petty-bourgeois instincts..

Our official ideological propaganda apparatus, headed by MA Suslov, did not find answers appropriate to the times, did not react correctly to the new phenomena brought to the fore by the processes of the scientific and technical revolution and globalization . Foreign ideology began to quietly seep into the vacated space, ideas were borrowed from Western philosophers, sociologists and economists. Certain academic institutions have become sanctuaries of opportunism: the Institute of the United States and Canada, IMEMO, IMRD, etc. A whole layer of intellectuals who did not think in a Marxist way was created. But it was they who found themselves at the time in the roles of advisors, consultants and speechwriters within the Central Committee of the CPSU. “Burlatski-Arbatov-Bovin” and others wrote speeches of leaders, party programs and resolutions on the most important issues.

The famous “thaw”, which made Khrushchev so beloved by our liberals and those of the West, did not occur by his will. He used it as a social backdrop to assert his power by crushing his predecessors and political opponents. Khrushchev and liberalism have little overlap. The character himself embodied petty-bourgeois radicalism. Khrushchev's "thaw" gave birth to the "sixties", these "adult children" of socialism. Why socialism? Because they owe him everything: a life saved from fascism, a better education, and even their creativity. With enchanting siren voices, they led naive novelists to sing about "the fog and the smell of the taiga", while they themselves firmly believed only in money. Like cuckoos, they destroyed and ravaged the nest that sheltered them. Biding their time, they were happy to relax in the houses of creativity and state dachas, gracefully entertaining the nomenklatura when they asked. They did not risk much, because they were firmly convinced that their Western patrons would not let them down. At the first opportunity, they “escaped” abroad. Today they are professors, like Nikita Khrushchev's son, in foreign universities, letting the people get out of the mud into which they have dragged them.

The real heroes of the sixties and seventies were very different. These young people who, following the example of their fathers and older brothers, built new cities and factories, built dams on the Angara and Yenisei, led the Baikal railway through impassable taiga to Love, explored space, made scientific discoveries, and simply worked honestly where the Motherland called them. They were true ideologues, true patriots, whose motto was: “As long as my dear country lives!” » (4). Current authorities try hard not to remember those times. But the monuments of this great era and its heroes are magnificent books and films, truly talented songs and much more..

What about today? Does our country, our people, the whole world have a socialist perspective or has the bourgeois “end of history” arrived? What needs to be done to give workers around the world hope for a better life? ?

First of all, do not deny our great past, draw from it the strength for a new breakthrough towards the future. The revolutionary teachings of Marxism are by no means obsolete. Its founders saw far. It is in their writings that the key to understanding the modern era is found. Let's return to Marxism, let's relearn to think scientifically, dialectically, from the point of view of the class, and not in a philistine way.

A hundred years ago, VI Lenin prophetically declared: “To imagine that world history moves forward smoothly and neatly, without occasional gigantic leaps backward, is undialectical, unscientific, theoretically incorrect. »

Which means: “There will be new victories, new fighters will rise!” » ; “A new October is coming ! » (4)

Notes :

1) The authors of the book “The Locomotives of History: The Revolutionary Year 1917” are two Russian historians specializing in revolutionary movements. Sergei Kostrikov heads the chair of history and political science at the Moscow State University of Management; Elena Kostrikova is a doctor of law, member of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. We published on H&S articles by their son, a journalist at Pravda.

2) This famous phrase from Stalin should not be misinterpreted: it simply means that choosing the right leaders (at all levels) is of the utmost importance.

3) 1957 : 1is Sputnik ; 1962 : 1is man in space. These projects were planned and prepared under Stalin.

4) Quotes from Soviet songs : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3KVAByJids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8QWh6LX38Q

#history #khrushchev #ussr

For more details (in Russian) on the methods and mechanisms of the collapse of the Soviet Union, see S.G. Kara-Murza, Manipulation of Consciousness - http://flibusta.site/b/478923

#USSR #soviet #russian #revolutions #Lenin #Stalin #bolsheviks #ideology #communism #socialism #history #study for #future

Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor. It is this truth, which forms a most essential part of Marx’s teaching, that Kautsky the “Marxist” has failed to understand. On this—the fundamental issue—Kautsky offers “delights” for the bourgeoisie instead of a scientific criticism of those conditions which make every bourgeois democracy a democracy for the rich.

Let us first remind the most learned Mr. Kautsky of the theoretical propositions of Marx and Engels which that pedant has so disgracefully “forgotten” (to please the bourgeoisie), and then explain the matter as popularly as possible.

Not only the ancient and feudal, but also

“the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of wage-labour by capital” (Engels, in his work on the state).[The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State]

“As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ’free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist” (Engels, in his letter to Bebel, March 28, 1875).

“In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy” (Engels, Introduction toThe Civil War in France by Marx).

Universal suffrage is

“the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the present-day state”. (Engels, in his work on the state).

Mr. Kautsky very tediously chews over the cud in the first part of this proposition, which is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. But the second part, which we have italicised and which is not acceptable to the bourgeoisie, the renegade Kautsky passes over in silence!)

“The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time. . . . Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and suppress (ver- und zertreten) the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business” (Marx, in his work on the Paris Commune, The Civil War in France).
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
Bourgeois And Proletarian Democracy
V. I. Lenin
— html: [marxists.org] or [marx2mao]
— pdf: [foreignlanguages.press]

#marx #engels #lenin #kautsky #renegade #prrk #democracy #class #1918 ">

7. La liberté de réunion peut être prise pour exemple des principes de la démocratie pure. Tout ouvrier conscient qui n'a pas rompu avec sa classe, comprendra du premier coup qu'il serait insensé de permettre la liberté de réunion aux exploiteurs, dans un temps et dans les circonstances où des exploiteurs s'opposent à leur déchéance et défendent leurs privilèges. La bourgeoisie, quand elle était révolutionnaire, soit en Angleterre en 1649, soit en France en 1793, n'a jamais accordé la liberté de réunion aux monarchistes ni aux nobles qui appelaient les troupes étrangères et « se réunissaient » pour organiser des tentatives de restauration. Si la bourgeoisie d'aujourd'hui, qui depuis longtemps est devenue réactionnaire, réclame du prolétariat qu'il garantisse à l'avance, malgré toute la résistance que feront les capitalistes à leur expropriation, la liberté de réunion pour les exploiteurs, les ouvriers ne pourront que rire de l'hypocrisie de cette bourgeoisie.

D'autre part, les ouvriers savent très bien que la liberté de réunion, même dans la république bourgeoise la plus démocratique, est une phrase vide de sens, puisque les riches possèdent les meilleurs édifices publics et privés, ainsi que le loisir nécessaire pour se réunir sous la protection de cet appareil gouvernemental bourgeois. Les prolétaires de la ville et de la campagne et les petits paysans, c'est-à-dire l'immense majorité de la population, ne possèdent ni l'un ni l'autre. Tant qu'il en est ainsi, l'égalité, c'est-à-dire la démocratie pure est un leurre. Pour conquérir la véritable légalité, pour réaliser vraiment la démocratie au profit des travailleurs, il faut préalablement enlever aux exploiteurs toutes les riches demeures publiques et privées, il faut préalablement donner des loisirs aux travailleurs, il faut que la liberté de leurs réunions soit protégée par des ouvriers armés et non point par les officiers hobereaux ou capitalistes avec des soldats à leur dévotion.

C'est seulement alors que l'on pourra, sans se moquer des ouvriers, des travailleurs, parler de liberté de réunion et d'égalité. Or, qui peut accomplir cette réforme, sinon l'avant-garde des travailleurs, le prolétariat, par le renversement des exploiteurs et de la bourgeoisie ?
Thèses sur la démocratie bourgeoise et la dictature prolétarienne (4 mars 1919)
V.I.Lénine
https://www.marxists.org/francais/lenin/works/1919/03/19190304.htm
#lénine #lenin #démocratie #dictature

Let the bourgeoisie continue to keep the entire apparatus of state power in their hands, let a handful of exploiters continue to use the former, bourgeois, state machine! Elections held in such circumstances are lauded by the bourgeoisie, for very good reasons, as being "free", "equal", "democratic" and "universal". These words are designed to conceal the truth, to conceal the fact that the means of production and political power remain in the hands of the exploiters, and that therefore real freedom and real equality for the exploited, that is, for the vast majority of the population, are out of the question. It is profitable and indispensable for the bourgeoisie to conceal from the people the bourgeois character of modern democracy, to picture it as democracy in general or "pure democracy", and the Scheidemanns and Kautskys, repeating this, in practice abandon the standpoint of the proletariat and side with the bourgeoisie.
“Democracy” and Dictatorship (December 23, 1918)
V.I.Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/dec/23.htm
#democracy #dictator #lenin #marx #kautsky

Lenin and the Art of the Impossible

The Tree of Woe contemplates the impossibility of revolution:

Every rock star began as a long-haired freak in a garage with a dream of a record deal and groupies. Every best-selling author began as a would-be writer being told that no one buys books. Every successful entrepreneur began by faking it until he made it. Every revolutionary began as a nobody. None of them had the odds on their side. Victory wasn’t assured; it wasn’t even plausible; it was so unlikely as to seem impossible! It was all a LARP… until it wasn’t.¹

The reason so many successful actors, musicians, and politicians are narcissists is that in order to become a highly successful actor, musician, or politician, you have to take long shots against long odds. Often the only people who take long shots against long odds are the people who are self-deluded enough to think they’re better than all the others who tried and failed.

People like Lenin.

#Lenin was a #self-deluded #nobody. He was a #loser. He had accomplished virtually nothing with his life except a stint in the #gulag. He was nowhere near as influential as the well-established figures who currently are prominent among the dissident right. He wasn’t even… #NickFuentes.

But Lenin he changed the world. Sure, he changed it for the worse — but he changed it. And so could we.

The advantage we have as #Christian #Nationalists presently subject to the #wicked #madness of #ClownWorld is that we know, as Bob Marley said, #Babylon is going to fall. Its fall is absolutely 100-percent guaranteed, because Clown World is a #rebellion against #God, God’s #Law, and God’s #Creation. It is a rebellion against #morality, #mathematics, #Nature, and #physics, and as such, it cannot possibly be sustained.

It is our job to be the hard place upon which Clown World shatters. Because Clown World is caught between a rock and a hard place, and the rock, being #JesusChrist, isn’t going to break.

Geschichtsschreibung in Putins Russland

Putins Russland - Das gespaltene Verhältnis zur eigenen Geschichte

Wladimir Putin vereinfacht und verfälscht russische Geschichte, um seine Macht zu stärken und den Krieg gegen die Ukraine zu rechtfertigen.#RUSSLAND #Geschichte #SOWJETUNION #Zarenreich #WladimirPutin #LENIN #STALIN
Geschichtsschreibung in Putins Russland

Today is the Centennial Celebration of Lenin's Death (Russian Tsar, not John)

 

Photo by Fenichel - Alexander Garden, Red Square, Moscow

 

Inspired by hearing this from someone recently emigrated from Russia, noting this day being historical, and sharing a post applauding (Murdoch's) _Wall Street Journal_f or mentioning it, but adding that it missed a bit of history, and/or geography,

David Satter posted on January 19. So where did the irreparable happen? Everyone knows - in Gorky (Leninsky). But David Satter demonstrates false erudition - he clarifies: "The first leader of the Soviet Union died on Jan. 21, 1924, in Gorki, Russia (now called Nizhny Novgorod), after repeated strokes."

Photo by Fenichel - Lenin's Tomb / Mausoleum

 
So, in the spirit of the day, and a nod to #history... and to the one who made it possible for me to take a few relevant photos.

Спасибо / Thank you. I was lucky to have a chance to see Moscow in pleasant times, Sochi Olympics, good times. (2014!) 10 yrs.

The title link leads to my Lenin page of #photography .

But for anyone who "comes here for the music", OK, here goes, in sync with today, but from the other Lennon, John.

Back in the USSR 🎶

I do hope the good people I celebrated with then, but who are suffering now, do find sunshine again, soon.

#myphoto #Russia #Moscow #Lenin #historical #truth #Leninsky #Gorky #Centennial #tzar #Russian #Beatles #music #musica #musique #musik #USSR 21January2024

Biografie über Lenin: Goodbye, Lenin

Vor 100 Jahren starb Lenin und noch immer spukt er in den Köpfen vieler Linker herum. Nun ist eine neue intellektuelle Biografie erschienen.#RussischeRevolution #Lenin #Biografie #LinkeSzene #Russland #Revolution #Buch #Kultur
Biografie über Lenin: Goodbye, Lenin

blame the commies...

#communists #lenin #women #videogames #incels #blame

Lennon not too pleased to stand in front of Lenin

#photo #TheBeatles #1960 #Lenin

I give my first impressions of him exactly as I entered them in my diary at the time: #trotsky #lenin #ussr #uk #germany #canada #halifax #lockhart #kerensky #ww1 #russianrevolution #brest #brest-litovsk #history ">

" February 15th, 1918. Had a two hours’ conversation with L.D.T. (Lev Davidovitch Trotsky).

He struck me as perfectly honest and sincere in his bitterness against the Germans.

He has a wonderfully quick mind and a rich, deep voice. With his broad chest, his huge forehead, surmounted by great masses of black, waving hair, his strong, fierce eyes, and his heavy protruding lips, he is the very incarnation of the revolutionary of the bourgeois caricatures.

He is neat about his dress. He wore a clean soft collar and his nails were carefully manicured.

I agree with Robins. If the Bosche bought Trotsky, he bought a lemon. His dignity has suffered an affront. He is full of belligerent fury against the Germans for the humiliation to which they have exposed him at Brest.

He strikes me as a man who would willingly die fighting for Russia provided there was a big enough audience to see him do it.”

Trotsky was angry with the Germans. At that moment he was not quite certain what the German reaction would be tohis famous declaration of “no peace and no war,” but he had a shrewd idea that it would be unpleasant.

Unfortunately, he was also full of bitterness against the English.

We had not handled Trotsky wisely.

At the time of the first revolution he was in exile in America.

He was then neither a Menshevik nor a Bolshevik.

He was what Lenin called a Trotskist — that is to say, an individualist and an
opportunist.

A revolutionary with the temperament of an artist and with undoubted physical courage, he had never been and never could be a good party man.

His conduct prior to the first revolution had incurred the severest condemnation by Lenin.
“Trotsky, as always,” wrote Lenin in 1915, “is, in principle, opposed to the Socialist Chauvinists, but in practice he is always in agreement with them.”

In the spring of 1917 Kerensky requested the British Government to facilitate Trotsky's return to Russia. Common sense seemed to indicate one of two courses: to refuse, on the grounds that Trotsky was a danger to the Allied cause; or to allow him to return unmolested.

As usual in our attitude towards Russia, we adopted disastrous half-measures. Trotsky was treated as a criminal. At Halifax, Nova Scotia, he was separated from his wife and children and interned in a prison camp at Amherst with German prisoners for four weeks.

His finger-prints were taken. Then, having roused his bitter hate, we allowed him to return to Russia.

I am giving Trotsky's own account of the incident. I learnt afterwards that it was substantially correct.

The outraged Trotsky came back to Russia, threw in his lot with the Bolsheviks, and relieved his injured feelings by writing a fiercely anti-British pamphlet entitled
“A Prisoner of the English.” Some trace of his resentment showed itself during our interview* I succeeded, however, in soothing him.

Memoirs Of A British Agent (1933)
by R. H. Bruce Lockhart

Dress up Lenin

#lenin for all the #dictator fans

Was ist Sozialchauvinismus? - Lenin 1915

Sozialchauvinismus ist das Eintreten für die Idee der Vaterlandsverteidigung in diesem Kriege. Aus dieser Idee ergibt sich weiter der Verzicht auf den Klassenkampf während des Krieges, die Bewilligung der Kriegskredite usw. In Wirklichkeit treiben die Sozialchauvinisten eine antiproletarische, eine bürgerliche Politik, denn was sie verfechten, ist in Wirklichkeit nicht die 'Verteidigung des Vaterlandes' im Sinne des Kampfes gegen eine Fremdherrschaft, sondern das 'Recht' dieser oder jener 'Groß'mächte, Kolonien auszuplündern und fremde Völker zu unterdrücken. Die Sozialchauvinisten machen den Volksbetrug der Bourgeoisie mit, indem sie dieser nachsprechen, der Krieg werde geführt, um die Freiheit und Existenz der Nationen zu verteidigen, und damit gehen sie auf die Seite der Bourgeoisie über, wenden sie sich gegen das Proletariat. Zu den Sozialchauvinisten gehören sowohl diejenigen, die die Regierungen und die Bourgeoisie einer der kriegführenden Mächtegruppen rechtfertigen und ihre Politik beschönigen, als auch diejenigen, die wie Kautsky den Sozialisten aller kriegführenden Mächte gleichermaßen das Recht auf 'Vaterlandsverteidigung' zusprechen. Da der Sozialchauvinismus in Wirklichkeit die Privilegien, Machtpositionen, Raubzüge und Gewalttaten der 'eigenen' (oder überhaupt einer jeden) imperialistischen Bourgeoisie verteidigt, ist er gleichbedeutend mit völligem Verrat an allen sozialistischen Grundsätzen und an dem Beschluß des Internationalen Sozialistenkongresses von Basel.“

– Lenin, Sozialismus und Krieg 1915

#sozialchauvinismus #zitat #lenin

Excellent, fascinating biography.

#Lenin
#Books

On Nov. 7, 1917, Bolshevik Red Guards under the command of the Revolutionary Military Committee seized power in Petrograd, then the capital of the Russian Empire, by capturing key government positions and laying siege to the Winter Palace.

#OTD #USSR #Lenin #OctoberRevolution

truly ahead of his time...

#aheadofhistime #lenin #incels #videogames

Litauen stürzt letzte sowjetische Denkmäler | DW | 02.09.2022

Statuen von Lenin und anderen Kommunisten wurden schon kurz nach der Unabhängigkeit 1991 entfernt. Seit Beginn des Ukraine-Kriegs verschwinden auch andere Skulpturen - und tauchen wieder auf: neben Ziegen und Vögeln...#Ukraine-Krieg #Litauen #Sowjetunion #Lenin #Stalin #KarlMarx #Hitler #Denkmal
Litauen stürzt letzte sowjetische Denkmäler | DW | 02.09.2022

Philip Zahner: „Adornos #Lenin|ismus“. Anmerkungen zur jüngsten Verballhornung der Kritischen Theorie ( 27.10.2019, Institut für #Wissenschaft und #Kunst, #Wien)
Runde Todestage sind so eine Sache: Oftmals dienen sie nur dazu, den dabei Erinnerten qua Ehrung ein zweites Mal zu Grabe zu tragen. Anlässlich von #Adorno|s 50. Todestag wird diese Tagung der Frage nachgehen, wie sehr Adornos heutige Nachrufer zu diesem Ritual des Vergessens durch Erinnerung beitragen – und worin die Aktualität des kritischen Theoretikers heute besteht.

https://www.mixcloud.com/red-q-read/quergelesen-260722/ #geschichte #kapitalismus #revolution #kautsky #ns #staat #linke

Vielleicht ist das am Ende der Grund, warum eine solche Bewegung ohne alle reale Folgen bleiben konnte: die Sorte Leute, die es geschafft hat, sich zu ihren Sprechern aufzuschwingen, will keine realen Veränderungen. Die Forderungen der #Bewegung, so wie sie sie interpretieren, sind illusorisch, undurchführbar oder ohnehin nicht ernst gemeint. Man muss der Tatsache ins Auge sehen, dass die bürgerlichen Intellktuellen Gift für jede soziale Bewegung sein werden. Sie kümmern sich um ihre eignen Belange. Und ihre Belange sind meistens fürchterlich neurotisch.
Was sie der #Gesellschaft abverlangen, sind komplizierte neue Wörter, die man lernen muss; umständliche Rituale, denen man sich unterziehen muss; aberwitzige Doktrinen, zu denen man sich bekennen muss. Die schiere Lästigkeit dieser Sachen erzeugt den Eindruck der Radikalität; wer so vehement eine neue #Sprache durchsetzt, lässt sich doch nicht gemässigt nennen! Aber alle diesen neuen Formeln und Doktrinen haben nur die eine Funktion und auch nur den einen Zweck: die Brücke zu zerstören zwischen der eigenen unmittelbaren Erfahrung, und zwischen den älteren und klareren Begriffen, in denen man sie beschreiben kann. Und das heisst: wirkliche Veränderung unmöglich zu machen.

https://dasgrossethier.noblogs.org/2022/07/neues-von-der-pseudo-linken-iii/ #usa #rassismus #linke #BLM #anarchismus #woke #occupy #religion #polizei #gewalt #literatur #boogalooboys #revolution #lenin #charlesmanson