§755 Leninism (Bolshevism) (1917-1924): III-67.

III-67 (§755):

A new sect of Philsophers
Contemptuous of death, gold, honours and riches:
Shall not be bordering on the German mountains,
Shall have a support and presses to follow them.

(Une nouvele secte de Philosophes
Mesprisant mort, or, honneurs & richesses:
Des monts Germains ne seront limitrophes,
A les ensuivre auront apui & presses.)

NOTES: A new sect of Philsophers: = the Bolsheviks led by Lenin, a new sect of Marxism in Russia: « Of course: Classes are led by parties and parties are led by individuals who are called leaders... This is the ABC. The will of a class is sometimes fulfilled by a dictator. What mattered was that the anointed individual, the man selected by History to possess the gnosis at the appointed time, should understand and so be able to interpret the sacred texts. Lenin always insisted that Marxism is identical with objective truth. ‘From the philosophy of Marxism’, he wrote, ‘cast as one piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic premise, a single essential part, without deviating from objective truth.’ He told Valentinov: ‘Orthodox Marxism requires no revision of any kind either in the field of philosophy, in its theory of political economy, or its theory of historical development.’ Yet the curious thing is that, for all his proclaimed orthodoxy, Lenin was very far from being an orthodx Marxist. Indeed in essentials he was not a Marxist at all. He often used Marx’s methodology and he exploited the Dialectic to justify conclusions he had already reached by intuition. But he completely ignored the very core of Marx’s ideology, the historical determinism of the revolution. Lenin was not at heart a determinist but a voluntarist: the decisive role was played by human will: his. He was also a revolutionary to his fingertips, and of a very old-fashioned sort. He believed that revolutions were made not by inexorable historical forces (they had to be there too, of course) but by small groups of highly disciplined men responding to the will of a decisive leader. In this respect he had much more in common with the French Jacobin revolutionary tradition of 1789 - 95, and even with its more recent exponents, such as Georges Sorel, than with the instinctive Marxists, most of whom were German and who saw the triumph of the proletariat almost as a Darwinian process of evolution.» (Johnson, 1991, p.53-55).

« The truth is, Lenin was too impatient to be an orthodox Marxist. He feared the predicament foreseen by Engels when he had written, ‘the worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the moment is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents... he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination.’ Russia was a semi-industrialized country, where the bourgeoisie was weak and the proletariat small, and the objective conditions for the revolution not nearly ripe. It was this dilemma which led Lenin into heresy. If ‘proletarian consciousness’ had not yet been created, was it not the task of Marxist intellectuals like himself to speed up the process? In 1902, in What Is To Be Done?, he first used the term ‘vanguard fighters’ to describe the new role of a small revolutionary élite. He drew an entirely novel distinction between a revolution created by a mature ‘organization of workers’, in advanced capitalist countries like Germany and Britain, and ‘an organization of revolutionaries’, suitable for Russian conditions. The first was occupational, broad, public: in short a mass proletarian party. The second was quite different: ‘an organization of revolutionaries must contain primarily and chiefly people whose occupation is revolutionary activity... This organization must necessarily be not very broad and as secret as possible.’ As such it had to forgo the ‘democratic principle’ which required ‘full publicity’ and ‘election to all posts’. Rosa Luxemburg, the most gifted as well as one of the more orthodox of the German Marxists, recognized Lenin’s heresy for what it was: so serious as to destroy the whole purpose and idealism of Marxism. She attributed it to Lenin’s faults of character, both personal and national: ‘The “ego”, cruched and pulverized by Russian absolutism,’ she wrote, ‘reappeared in the form of the “ego” of the Russian revolutionary’ which ‘stands on its head and proclaims itself anew the mighty consummator of history.’ Lenin, she argued, was in effect demanding absolute powers for the party leadership, and this would intensify most dangerously the conservatism which naturally belongs to every such body’. Once granted, such powers would never be relinquished. Leninism is not only a heresy; it was exactly the same heresy which created fascism. Italy was also a semi-industrialized country, where Marxists were looking for ways to speed up the coming of revolution. Italian Marxists too, were attracted by Sorel’s notions of revolutionay violence. In 1903, the year after Lenin first used the term ‘vanguard fighters’, Roberto Michaels, in his introduction to the Italian translation of Sorel’s Saggi di critica del Marxismo, urged the creation of a ‘revolutionary élite’ to push forward the proletarian socialist millennium... In the years before 1914, from his impotent exile in Switzerland, Lenin watched the progress of Mussolini with approval and some envy. As Marxist heretics and violent revolutionary activists, Lenin and Mussolini had six salient features in common. Both were totally opposed to bourgeois parliaments and any type of ‘reformism’. Both saw the party as a highly centralized, strictly hierarchical and ferociously disciplined agency for furthering socialist objectives. Both wanted a leadership of professional revolutionaries. Neither had any confidence in the capacity of the proletariat to organize itself. Both thought revolutionary consciousness could be brought to the masses from without by a revolutionary, self-appointed élite. Finally, both believed that, in the coming struggle between the classes, organized violence would be the final arbiter.» (Johnson, id., p.55-58).

Death, gold, honours and riches
: These words represent the bourgeoisie in its large sense, against which the proletariat led by the revolutionary élite should stand in the struggle between the classes, ‘death’ referring to the ecclesiastics concerned with the spiritual “life-after-death” (Ionescu, 1976, p.428), ‘gold’ to the capitalists, ‘honours’ to the royal and the noble, and ‘riches’ to the bourgeois proper.

Shall not be bordering on the German mountains
: During the Great War Russia was bordering immediately on Germany, but the postwar peace treaties of the countries concerned (1920-1922) shall separate them utterly geographically through the independence of the intermediate countries such as Poland (independence declared on November 3, 1918), Lithuania (on Dec. 11, 1917), Latvia (on Nov. 18, 1918) and Estonia (on Feb. 24, 1918) (cf.
PenguinAtlas 2, p.128 and p.130). By the way, the expression ‘the mountains’ of Germany seems so irrelevant to the affair of Russo-German frontier whose regions are nearly plain that it shall be also understood as hinting the high-level German Marxists such as Marx, Engels and Rosa Luxembug, from whom the Bolsheviks are far deviating.

: = « suivre (to follow), aller à la suite de (to come in deference to).» (Godefroy).

A support to follow them
: = the Cheka (secret police), the mightiest organization of protection for the Bolsheviks (the Russian Communist Party since March 8, 1918): « It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the decision to use terror and oppressive police power was taken very early on by Lenin, endorsed by his chief military agent Trotsky; and that it was, as Rosa Luxemburg feared it would be, an inescapable part of his ideological approach to the seizure and maintenance of authority, and the type of centralized state he was determined to create. The original Bolshevik armed force was Trotsky’s military-revolutionary committee of the Petrograd Soviet. Immediately after 25-26 October 1917, this committee became a sub-committee of the Central Executive and was given security jobs including fighting ‘counter-revolution’, defined as ‘sabotage, concealment of supplies, deliberate holding up of cargoes, etc’. Its constitution was made public in a Sovnarkom [the Council of People’s Commissars, the first Workers’ and Peasants’ Government] decree of 12 November 1917. As it was charged with examining suspects, it set up a special section under Felix Dzerzhinsky, a fanatical Pole who was in charge of security at Smolny [the Smolny Institute, from which the Bolsheviks initially operated]. However, when on 7 December 1917 the military committee was finally dissolved by another Sovnarkom decree, Dzerzhinsky’s section remained in being, becoming the ‘All-Russian Extraordinary Commission’ (Cheka), charged with combating ‘counter-revolution and sabotage’. The decree which created the Cheka was not made public until more than ten years later (Pravda, 18 December 1927), so that Lenin’s security force was from the beginning and remained for the rest of his life a secret police in the true sense, in that its very existence was not officially acknowledged. There was no question that, from the very start, the Cheka was intended to be used with complete ruthlessness and on a very large scale.» (Johnson, id., p.67-68).

« Almost immediately after the Cheka came into being, a decree set up a new kind of ‘revolutionary tribunal’, to try those ‘organize uprisings against the authority of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government, who actively oppose it or disobey it’, and civil servants guilty of sabotage or concealment. The tribunal was authorized to fix penalties in accordance with ‘the circumstances of the case and the dictates of the revolutionary conscience’. This decree effectively marked the end of the rule of law in Lenin’s new state, then only weeks old. It dovetailed into the Cheka system. Under the Tsars, the Okhrana was empowered to arrest, but it then had to hand over the prisoner to the courts for public trial, just like anyone else; and any punishments were meted out by the ordinary civil authorities. Under Lenin’s system, the Cheka controlled the special courts (which met in secret) and carried out their verdicts. As the Cheka arrested, tried, sentenced and punished their victims, there was never any reliable record of their numbers. When Lenin transferred the government from Petrograd to Moscow for security reasons, and placed Sovnarkom within the Kremlin, he encouraged Dzerzhinsky to set up his own headquarters independently of Sovnarkom. A large insurance company building was taken over in Lubyanka Square; inside it an ‘inner prison’ was built for political suspects; and from this point on the Cheka was an independent department of state reporting directly to Lenin.» (Johnson, id., p.68-69).

« The most disturbing and, from the historical point of view, important characteristic of the Lenin terror was not the quantity of the victims but the principle on which they were selected. Within a few monts of seizing power, Lenin had abandoned the notion of individual guilt, and with it the whole Judeo-Christian ethic of personal responsibility. The watershed was Lenin’s decree of January 1918 calling on the agencies of state to ‘purge the Russian land of all kinds of harmful insects’. Probably the most important Cheka official next to Dzerzhinsky himself was the ferocious Latvian M.Y. Latsis. He came nearest to giving the Lenin terror its true definition:

The Extraordinary Commission is neither an investigating commission nor a tribunal. It is an organ of struggle, acting on the home front of a civil war. It does not judge the enemy: it strikes him... We are not carrying out war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not looking for evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Soviet power. The first question we ask is – to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education or profession? These questions define the fate of the accused. This is the essence of the Red Terror.

There is no essential moral difference between class-warfare and race-warfare, between destroying a class and destroying a race. Thus the modern practice of the genocide was born.» (Johnson, id., p.70-71).

Presses to follow them: = The Bolshevik newspapers Pravda and Isvestia: « It is significant that, when he [Lenin] had so much else to do, he gave priority to controlling the press. In September, just before the putsch [coup], he had publicly called for ‘a much more democratic’ and ‘incomparably more complete’ freedom of the press. In fact under the republic the press had become as free as in Britain or France. Two days after he seized power, Lenin ended this freedom with a decree on the press. As part of ‘certain temporary, extraordinary measures’, any newspapers ‘calling for open resistance or insubordination to the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government’, or ‘sowing sedition through demonstrably slanderous distortions of fact’, would be suppressed and their editors put on trial. By the next day the government had closed down ten Petrograd newspapers; ten more were shut the following week. Management of the news was entrusted primarily to the Bolshevik party newspaper, Pravda, and the paper of the Soviets, Isvestia, now taken over by Sovnarkom.» (Johnson, id., p.64-65). In this perspective, V. Ionescu’s interpretation of the phrase ‘support and presses’ as ‘the press and the propaganda of the party’ (Ionescu, id.) is confused and insufficient because ‘the press’ and ‘the propaganda’ are almost synonymous, whereas he is lacking in penetration into the word ‘support’ categorically different from the propagandist means.
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 


Koji Nihei Daijyo

Author:Koji Nihei Daijyo
We have covered 143 quatrains (§588-§730) concerning the World Events in the 19th century after Napoleonic ages [1821-1900] in the Prophecies of Nostradamus, and 218 in the 20th [1901-2000] (§731-§948).

Latest journals