Russia (bbabo.net), - The anniversary of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin has died down and died down on the vastness of the Russian Internet. On January 21, 100 years have passed since this “most humane man,” “leader of the world proletariat” and “leader of the World Revolution” in one person died. He died at the almost young age of 53 for a politician, either from the “poisoned bullet” of the revolutionary Fani Kaplan, as his fans should believe, or from syphilis of the brain, as evidenced by medical documents published during the years of “perestroika permissiveness”. However, this is probably not so important - by and large, what is the difference from Kaplan or from syphilis? The main thing is something else - a correct understanding and assessment of the personality and role of the Leader in Russian history. And here, for the sake of “objectivity,” it seems that it must be said that the personality and historical significance of V.I. Lenin’s activities still remain the subject of heated debate. It would be necessary, but it doesn’t work out - this common cliche is not applicable in this case, if you really approach it objectively.
Not applicable because there is no substantive discussion. When the arguments and facts of one side are responded to by the other with hysteria, curses and threats, insults and denunciations, this is not a discussion, although it is consistent with the Bolshevik tradition and Lenin’s own methods of conducting polemics with opponents. After all, Ilyich, as you know, was not particularly shy in choosing “polemical” expressions and mercilessly branded not only his political opponents, but even on the “philosophical front”, far from party-political problems, where, it would seem, one could be calmer, he fought, without making the slightest concession to those who displeased him.
Thus, one of the greatest philosophers, Hegel, who was guilty of the fact that, according to Ilyich’s indignant exclamation, he “feels sorry for God!!”, was labeled as an “idealistic bastard.” And Dostoevsky’s works have been characterized as “moralizing vomit.” What about Hegel or Dostoevsky? These are, as they say, trifles. Armed with a “class approach,” the leader of the world proletariat, caring for the interests of workers and peasants, also gave general instructions concerning everyone who did not understand the genius of Marxist-Leninist teaching, he must have believed: “send God and the philosophical bastard defending him to the cesspool.” And how can it be otherwise, after all, V.I. Lenin was convinced that “every little god is a corpse.” Such “polemical” formulations were revealed by his indignantly seething mind.
This direct, without any “bourgeois falsifications,” Lenin’s speech, in itself, quite eloquently testifies to the level of intelligence, education and culture, and the level of morality too. But, the “faithful Leninists” will say, just think, the leader had the weakness (and who is without sin?) to call names and blaspheme, but this is all for the speedy victory of the World Revolution, in order to take away power from the landowners and capitalists, and transfer it to the working class and labor peasantry, and build a new, previously unprecedented, socialist state. Discussing such speeches, talking once again about how Lenin, after the “victory of October,” “transferred power” to the workers and peasants, obviously makes no sense. But with what was actually a priority for him - the construction and strengthening of a new Russian statehood or the use of the Russian state as a “motor”, and the Russian and other peoples of Russia, and Russian resources as “fuel” for the “World Revolution” , we need to finally figure it out. Moreover, this is not so difficult to do, unless, of course, normal traditional human morality is replaced by “revolutionary” one, and the brain is not affected by neurosyphilis or something like that.
First of all, we must be aware that Lenin, de facto, was not the creator of the Soviet state, but the destroyer of the Russian Empire. Generally speaking, destruction and creation, being essentially opposite processes, naturally attract people with significantly different psychological characteristics. And it is obvious that the mentality or, if you like, the mental structure of a subject prone to destruction, inspired by the words: “we will destroy the whole world of violence to the ground,” cannot suddenly fundamentally change and rebuild, because this subject finally managed to destroy hated order, and now the task is to “retrain from swindlers to house managers.” Therefore, the most “fiery revolutionaries”, after society returns to more or less normal, gradual development, as history shows, as a rule, one way or another, are “wiped out” of the first roles, and they themselves go into the “opposition”, lamenting about “betrayal” ideals of the revolution."
V.I. Lenin is rightly considered a great revolutionary. He was precisely a revolutionary “to the core,” but he was not noticed in creative activity, real, and not projectorial. The Soviet Union was built under the leadership of I.V. Stalin, who, by the way, had to fight the “old Bolsheviks” during this construction and repress almost the entire “Leninist guard,” which Trotsky quite rightly accused him of, and after him the “rebuilt » official Soviet historical science. Lenin’s contribution to the “foundation” of Soviet statehood (the consequences of which we are still disentangling) consisted in the arbitrary establishment of internal “national” borders and pushing the formulation of a “union of equal republics” as the best form of constitutional structure of “the world’s first state of workers and peasants " And Stalin, as we know, had to make a lot of efforts to abandon in practice this supposedly beautiful and absolutely unviable formulation, inapplicable to real state building. And in this case, the “leader of the world proletariat” obviously thought first of all about the prospects of the coming World Revolution, and took care in advance about the constitutional provision for the admission of new members to the Union - future Soviet republics, which will certainly arise after the victory of the socialist revolution in other countries. So, one set and solved specific practical problems, established life here and now, and the other dreamed of a “fire” on a “global scale” and tried in every possible way to fan it.
It is worth noting, by the way, that the differences in mentalities and psychological attitudes of Stalin and Lenin largely stemmed from differences in origin and were manifested in significant differences in lifestyles. If Lenin came from a quite wealthy family (he served his first exile, punished by “bloody tsarism,” not just anywhere, but on his grandmother’s estate) and spent almost his entire pre-revolutionary life traveling around Europe, without working, and yet, not needing funds not only to travel, but also for treatment from the best doctors for himself and his wife, then Stalin really came from the people, was born into a poor family, and before the revolution spent years in the opposite direction of Europe, in Siberian exile, in harsh Turukhansk region. If Lenin married a party comrade and, in fact, never created a normal family and had no children, then Stalin had an ordinary, normal family, children, whom he found time to raise. It is also characteristic that Stalin made Lenin’s beloved “Internationale” only the party anthem, and the actual Stalinist national anthem of the USSR became a completely different song. And this, not to mention his attitude to traditional morality, Stalin was not shaken by the word God, and, unlike Lenin, he never renounced the traditions of his people.
So Lenin and Stalin are two essentially different human types. And their affairs are completely different. Actually, this is exactly what L.D. Trotsky, who knew both of them very well and worked side with each of them for years, constantly repeated, who, moreover, gave many arguments to prove that it was he, Trotsky, and not Stalin, who was a true successor of Lenin's work. And an objective examination of the issue shows that it is very difficult to argue with this. The fact that the “Leninist guard” repressed by Stalin turned out to be Trotskyist, in fact, “Leninist-Trotskyist guard” speaks volumes. The similarity of personal circumstances, origins and lifestyles of the two main leaders of the “Great October Revolution” is also indicative. Trotsky, like Lenin, came from a very wealthy family, and also spent most of his pre-revolutionary life traveling around Europe, also without working and without being constrained by funds. Just like Lenin, he married a party comrade, and also “was not created for family life,” he left his wife with young children (one of the daughters was 4 months old) in Siberian exile and went abroad, “devoting himself entirely to revolutionary work." And just like Lenin, he abandoned the traditions of his people and considered himself first and foremost a revolutionary, not a Jew.
It is therefore not surprising that for both Trotsky and Lenin, the main task of life was the World Revolution, and the specific practical task was the destruction of all “forms of exploitation”, in general everything “bourgeois”: religion, morality, culture, family and, of course, , private property and the state. It is clear that such destruction is far from easy and not overnight. Therefore, the revolution, once started, should not stop, but should engulf the entire globe with its “fire” and become “permanent” - carry constant, ongoing radical changes in absolutely all aspects of human life and society, and, ultimately, lead to the creation - development of a new person. Yes, Lenin and Trotsky did not manage to live to see the time when such “working out” would be on the agenda. But we see that their revolutionary ideas live on today, and they are in good hands - the hands of the new revolutionary guard of the Macron-Bidens and the Swabian-Gates.
Donald Trump, who has the courage to call a spade, did not accidentally say that the Biden administration is “radical left-wing Marxists who want to destroy America.” Biden and Co. are really working according to Marxist patterns, directly according to the classic Marxist work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” and are consistently destroying these fundamental forms of organization of human civilization. First of all, the state, then the family, and now they are seriously engaged in preparing for the abolition of private property.
But these are just “flowers”. The modern “revolutionary guard” of globalists, continuing the work of Lenin-Trotsky, also seeks to impose on all humanity a “new morality” that does without God and affirms the relativity of good and evil, declaring traditional moral norms to be harmful prejudices; and a “new culture,” a cancel culture that abolishes “all forms of discrimination,” everything that “promotes exploitation and inequality.” Moreover, along with “racism and “colonialism””, “incorrect” children’s fairy tales, inconvenient historical and natural science facts, as well as school grades and even the very difference between the smart and the not so smart are subject to cancellation and/or “reformatting”. The distinctions between the healthy and the mentally ill, law-abiding citizens and criminal also gradually being abolished. They do not forget to “blur the boundaries” between humans and animals, and have almost abolished the differences between men and women, creating many new “progressive” “genders”.
It is this “new culture”, promoted by the globalists ruling the collective West, which actually abolishes the “old” man, that Russia is opposing today. And Lenin’s ideas in this confrontation, in the struggle for traditional morality, family, and national sovereignty, are by no means on our side. Therefore, it would be necessary to say goodbye to the “mausoleum”, and its contents should be sent to where V.I. Lenin came from to Russia to make a revolution - to Switzerland, or perhaps directly to Davos, to the “headquarters” of the current generation of adherents of the World Revolution. Moreover, judging by their participation in shamanic rituals, even a mummy will be good for something.