Trotskyite Origins of ‘Revolution! Sayings of Vladimir Lenin’ – Bodleian Library (2017)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Karl Marx stated that the working class must throw-off the shackles of a ‘false consciousness’ as enforced upon it by the controlling masters of capital – the bourgeoisie. What is this ‘false consciousness’? It is defined by Marx as the ‘inverted’ (and non-scientific’) use of the mind, which justifies a theistic religious oppression, and the mythology that an ‘unseen’ and ‘non-material’ world lurks behind the very real material world (of suffering and oppression), and controls it through the equally unseen hand of a theistic entity. The implications of this ‘inverted’ mind-set are tremendous, because through the perpetuation of theistic religion (even in its secular form), the capitalist system is maintained and justified through a bourgeoisie which presents itself as the ‘natural’ choice (decreed by god) to run society. Karl Marx (and VI Lenin) begged to differ, but not so Leon Trotsky – but more about him in a moment. Marx suggested that once the ‘inverted’ mind is recognised for what it is, abandoned and rectified, then a ‘true consciousness’ is adopted and developed. This views the material world correctly without recourse to fearing a non-material world that does not exist ‘behind the scenes’ as it where. Whatever evolutionary conscious awareness maybe – according to Marx – it is certainly not theistic or religious in nature. As the working class is taught to view things the wrong way around from birth, everything in that reality must be ruthlessly questioned and criticised to establish a grasp of reality as it is. Of course, like all great intellectual undertakings, this process is a matter of dialectical assessment and application of the mind. Opposites must be correctly assessed, and the correct dialectical action taken. As Marxist-Leninist Socialism is Scientific, this means applying a ‘scientific’ mind to all things working class – so as to benefit that class in its totality from the cradle to the grave. This signifies a radical improvement for each individual on a personal and public level – with a Socialist Society providing the optimum material conditions for an enhanced human existence. This is what the Scientific Socialism of Marxist-Leninism strives to achieve.

The book in question – ‘Revolution! Sayings of Vladimir Lenin’ was published in 2017 by the Bodleian Library (Oxford), probably in anticipation of the 100th anniversary of the Russian ‘October Revolution’ that brought the Bolsheviks to power. Generally speaking, the bourgeois press is either openly hostile to this Socialist Revolution (perpetuating all kinds of ahistorical disinformation), or more or less indifferent. This book is undoubtedly ‘bourgeois’, but whilst presenting the surface idea that the work of VI Lenin is being impartially conveyed, it is in fact pursuing quite a different agenda. This book is not anti-Socialist per se, and whilst in its brief Introduction it claims to have referenced the Marxist Internet Archive, there is an issue with the type of quotes selected, the presentation of those quotes without a proper historical context, an incorrect criticism of Joseph Stalin, and a complete omission of any of the substantial and continuous criticisms Lenin made about the thinking of Leon Trotsky for probably over ten year period (or more) prior to Lenin’s death in 1924. What this book does include, however, is an ‘edited’ quote that appears to show Lenin heaping praise upon Trotsky (something that Lenin never did – as we shall see).  This is the page from the book (which proves the ‘Trotskyite’ intentions of the authors):

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

This single (and altered) quote from VI Lenin proves the true Trotskyite nature of this book. This quote has two defining sentences missing, which when included confirms that Lenin is being sarcastic about Trotsky’s tendency to ‘disrupt’ routine Communistic planning and direction of policy (despite his organisational abilities which he later deployed in a world-wide attempt to bring-down the Soviet Union). The full quote can be accessed here Letter to the Congress and reads:

‘Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. 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.’

If this book was genuinely about VI Lenin, the authors would have included the fact that Lenin made serious criticism about Trotsky’s thinking – effectively accusing him of being bourgeois in his assessment of the principle of revolution and the needs of the peasants and workers, etc. Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, was constructively criticised by Lenin in an attempt to mould him into a better leader. This policy of Lenin’s must have worked, as Stalin’s Collected Works are fully inaccordance with the thinking of Marx-Engels and Marx-Lenin – even though Stalin had to guide the USSR through its early development and very tumultuous times (such as the Great Patriotic War – 1941-1945). Trotsky’s work, on the other hand, reads like a mimicry of Socialism – a bourgeois mirage or smoke-screen designed to mislead the workers down a dark ally from which they cannot escape. The camouflage employed by the authors to cover their Trotskyite tendencies is that of occasionally supplying a well-known Lenin quote between one or two suspicious or misleading ones, but it is this dubious use of quotes which is designed to do much damage to Lenin in the mind of the general reader. For instance, there are a number of non-contextualised quotes which give the impression that Lenin advocated the use of ‘terrorism’ – this is untrue. Both Marx and Lenin (and Stalin for that matter), where against the use of anarchic or indiscriminate violence, as its victims were often innocent members of the working class, who were further punished by a vengeful Bourgeois State! This is the type of ‘terror’ that is seen in the West today – usually of a religious nature. This is very different to the entire working class rising-up together and taking control of the means of production. This book makes no attempt to convey the true Marxist-Leninist attitude against terrorism, but instead conveys the false idea that Lenin supported indiscriminate terrorism – he did not.  A typical and non-contextual quote from this book reads:

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

This book is very poorly referenced, and one gets the impression that it is because the authors do not want the general reader to find-out for themselves the true context of such quotes – which when presented out of historical context – are designed to make Lenin seem monstrous. I have had to research each quote separately – so poor is this book’s referencing system. The full quote can be accessed here On Combating The Famine and actually reads:

‘Vladimirov’s data indicate that the old ration should not be changed. Measures must be taken to find what there is available in Petrograd.

All these data show that the workers of Petrograd are monstrously inactive. The Petrograd workers and soldiers must understand that they have no one to look to but themselves. The facts of abuse are glaring, the speculation, monstrous; but what have the mass of soldiers and workers done about it? You cannot do anything without rousing the masses to action. A plenary meeting of the Soviet must be called to decide on mass searches in Petrograd and the goods stations. To carry out these searches, each factory and company must form contingents, not on a voluntary basis: it must be the duty of everyone to take part in these searches under the threat of being deprived of his bread card. We can’t expect to get anywhere unless we resort to terrorism: speculators must be shot on the spot. Moreover, bandits must be dealt with just as resolutely: they must be shot on the spot.

The rich section of the population must be left without bread for three days because they have stocks of other foodstuns and can afford to pay the speculators the higher price.’

Not only was Revolutionary Russia invaded by fourteen countries from around the world (including the UK, USA, Germany, the Republic of China and Japan), but there was much turmoil within Russian as all foreign money and trade was immediately withdrawn in an attempt to punish the Russian working class for daring to stand-up to bourgeois tyranny, and quite literally ‘starve’ them out. Like any leader in such a position, Lenin takes control. He tells the workers to strive for their own survival and welfare – and in this time of warfare and hardship, the proletariat is to defend itself against class enemies at every turn. The combined interventionist forces were eventually defeated by 1921 under Lenin’s leadership – so that the ‘Soviet Union’ could be declared in late 1922. The so-called ‘Russian Civil War’ was in fact a mass invasion of Socialist Russia by the reactionary forces of the world in support of capitalism. None of this is made clear in this book because the Trotskyite author’s want to paint Lenin in a bad light, and make him appear to be thinking and acting like a contemporary ‘terrorist’ – whilst proper research shows clearly that as a great leader of a country – Lenin certainly was not a ‘terrorist’, driven by a misplaced religious zeal. This book attempts to disparage the Russian Revolution by sullying the good name of its leader – VI Lenin – and his successor JV Stalin. the authors do this to elevate the name of their hero Leon Trotsky – the true traitor to the Marxist-Leninist cause, and the true disparager of Scientific Socialism. This is typical of the dishonest Trotskyite tactic of ‘entryism’, whereby lies and deceptions are used to mislead the people. Whereas the authors contend that Stalin was ‘untrustworthy’, he was apparently trustworthy enough for Lenin to allow him to become Secretary-General of the Communist Party. The positives of this book are the well-known and inspirational sayings uttered by VI Lenin – but these are out-weighed by the ambiguous nature of many of the less well-known sayings (quoted out of context), which appear deliberately chosen to mislead the general reader along a negative path. This book gives ‘glimpses’ of the brilliance of VI Lenin – which the discerning reader might research further – but is designed to make the USSR appear to be premised upon Lenin’s ‘terrorism’, distorted by Stalin’s fanaticism, and saved by Trotsky’s intelligence – all three assumptions being completely wrong! Lenin was dialectically correct. Stalin was dialectically correct. Trotsky was dialectically incorrect – and Trotskyites would do well to recognise this fact! However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The Trotskyite authors can be out-manoeuvred simply by ‘acknowledging’ and ‘ignoring’ their ‘entryism’ and attempts at deception. The discerning reader should use the legitimate sayings of Lenin contained in this book to over-throw both capitalism and its bourgeois lackey Trotskyism!

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: