FC2ブログ

§756 Nikolai Lenin violently seizing power (1917-1991): V-52.

V-52 (§756):

It shall be a King who shall give the opposite,
Those in exile shall be elevated to the reign:
Those of a caste like Hypolite swimming bled,
And shall flourish long under such an ensign.

(Un Roy sera qui donra l'opposite,
Les exilés eslevés sur le regne:
De sang nager la gent caste hyppolite,
Et florira long temps soubz telle enseigne.)

NOTES: Those in exile: « Lenin left Zurich to return to Russia on 8 April 1917. Some of his comrades in exile accompanied him to the station, arguing. He was to travel back through Germany at the invitation of General Ludendorff, who guaranteed him a safe passage provided he undertook not to talk to any German trade unionists on the way. War breeds revolutions. And breeding revolutions is a very old form of warfare. The Germans called it Revolutionierungpolitik [policy of revolutionizing]. If the Allies could incite the Poles, the Czechs, the Croats, the Arabs and the Jews to rise against the Central Powers and their partners, then the Germans, in turn, could and did incite the Irish and the Russians. If the Germans used Lenin, as Churchill later put it, ‘like a typhoid bacillus’, they attached no particular importance to him, lumping him in with thirty other exiles and malcontents.» (Johnson, 1991, p.49); « Pravda resumed publication on 5 March [1917]. Kamenev and Stalin hurried back from Siberia to take charge of it eight days later... The other Bolshevik with clear ideas of his own was Trotsky. In May [1917] he arrived in Petrograd from America... » (Johnson, id., p.59).

It shall be a King who shall give the opposite, Those in exile shall be elevated to the reign: The Bolshevist political stiffness excluding all the reformative or conciliatory alternatives shall give Lenin leading his faction a narrow chance of seizing power in October 1917: « The auguing comrades thought Lenin would compromise himself by accepting German aid and tried to dissuade him from going. He brushed them aside without deigning to speak and climbed on the train... Arriving at Beloostrov on Russian soil, in the early hours of 16 April, he was met by his sister Maria and by Kamenev and Stalin, who had been in charge of the Bolshevik paper Pravda. He ignored his sister completely, and Stalin whom he had not met, and offered no greeting to his old comrade Kamenev whom he had not seen for five years. Instead he shouted at him, ‘What’s this you have been writing in Pravda? We saw some of your articles and roundly abused you.’ Late that night he arrived at the Finland Station in Petrograd. There he launched into the first of a series of speeches. The last took two hours and ‘filled his audience with turmoil and terror’. The grim lack of humanity with which Lenin returned to Russia to do his revolutionary work was characteristic of this single-minded man.» (Johnson, id., p.49-50); « His absolute self-confidence and masterful will were never, for a moment, eroded by tactical calculations as to how people were likely to react. Moreover, he was seeking power in a country where traditionally people counted for nothing; were mere dirt beneath the ruler’s feet. Hence when Lenin returned to Petrograd he was totally unaffected by any wartime sentiment. He had said all along that the war was a bourgeois adventure. The defeat of the Tsar was ‘the least evil’. The army should be undermined by propaganda, the men encouraged ‘to turn their guns on their officers’, and any disaster exploited ‘to hasten the destruction... of the capitalist class’. In January 1917 he doubted whether ‘I will live to see the decisive battles of the coming revolution’. So when the Tsar was sent packing six weeks later he was surprised. To his delight, the new parliamentary regime opted to continue the war, while releasing political prisoners and thus allowing his own men to subvert it. The Bolsheviks would overturn the new government and seize power by opposing the war [a King who shall give the opposite]. Pravda resumed publication on 5 March [1917]. Kamenev and Stalin hurried back from Siberia to take charge of it eight days later. Then, to Lenin’s consternation, the two idiots promptly changed the paper’s line and commited it to supporting the war! That was why, the second Lenin set eyes on Kamenev on 3[sic] April, he bawled him out. The Pravda line promptly changed back again. Lenin sat down and wrote a set of ‘theses’ to explain why the war had to be resisted and ended. Stalin later squared his yard-arm by confessing to ‘a completely mistaken position’ which ‘I shared with other party comrades and renounced it completely... when I adhered to Lenin’s theses’. Most other Bolsheviks did the same. They were overwhelmed by Lenin’s certainty. Now they must exploit warweariness to oust the parliamentarians. He was indifferent to how much territory Russia lost, so long as a nucleus was preserved in which to install Bolshevism. He had concentrated exclusively on building up a small organization of intellectual and sub-intellectual desperadoes, which he could completely dominate. It had no following at all among the peasants. Only one of the Bolshevik élite even had a peasant background. It had a few adherents among the unskilled workers. But the skilled workers, and virtually all who were unionized – were attached – in so far as any had political affiliations – to the Mensheviks. That was not surprising. Lenin’s intransigence had driven all the ablest socialists into the Menshevik camp. That suited him: all the easier to drill the remainder to follow him without argument when the moment to strike came. As one of them put it, ‘Before Lenin arrived, all the comrades were wandering in the dark.’ The other Bolshevik with clear ideas of his own was Trotsky. In May he arrived in Petrograd from America. He quickly realized Lenin was the only decisive man of action amomg them, and became his principal lieutenant. Thereafter these two men could command perhaps 20,000 followers in a nation of over 160 million.» (Johnson, id., p.58-59).

« The war conscripted millions of peasants, while demanding from those who remained far more food to feed the swollen armies and the expanded war-factories. There were massive compulsory purchases. But food prices rose fast. Hence tension between town and countryside grew, with each blaming the other for their misery. The Bolsheviks were later able to exploit this hatred. As the war went on, the government’s efforts to gouge food out of the villages became more brutal. So agrarian rioting increased, with 557 outbreaks recorded up to December 1916. But food shortages increased too, and food prices rose fast. As a result there was an unprecedented rise in the number of factory strikes in 1916, despite the fact that many industrial areas were under martial law or ‘reinforced security’. The strikes came to a head at the end of February 1917, and would have been smashed, but for the fact that the peasants were angry and desperate also. Nearly all the soldiers were peasants, and when the Petrograd garrison was ordered to coerce the factory workers it mutinied. About a third, some 66,000, defied their officers. As they were armed, the regime collapsed. So the first stage of the Revolution was the work of peasants.» (Johnson, id., p.60-61).

« The destruction of the autocracy inevitably carried with it the rural hierarchy. Those peasants without plots began to seize and parcel up the big estates. That might not have mattered. The Provisional Government was bound to enact a land reform anyway, as soon as it got itself organized. But in the meantime it was committed to carrying on the war. The war was going badly. There was a change of ministry and Kerensky was made Prime Minister. He decided to continue the war, and to do this he had to get supplies out of the peasants. It was at this point that Lenin’s anti-war policy, by pure luck, proved itself inspired. He knew nothing about the peasants; had no idea what was going on in the countryside. But by opposing the war he was opposing a policy which was bound to fail anyway [who shall give the opposite], and aligning his group with the popular peasant forces, both in the villages and, more important, within the army. Now, with the countryside in revolt, there was no chance of Kerensky collecting what he needed to keep the war going. For the first time in modern Russian history, most of the harvest remained down on the farms. Kerensky got less than a sixth of it. The attempt to grab more merely drove the peasants into open revolt and the authority of the Provisional Government in the countryside began to collapse. At the same time, the failure to get the grain to the towns meant the rapid acceleration of food prices in September, no bread at all in many places, mutiny in the army and navy, and strikes in the factories. By the beginning of October, the revolt of the peasants had already kicked the guts out of Kerensky’s government. The moment had now arrived for Lenin to seize power with the ‘vanguard élite’ he had trained for precisely this purpose. Of more than one hundred petitions submitted by industrial workers to the central authorities in March 1917, scarecely any mentioned Socialism. Some 51 per cent demanded fewer hours, 18 per cent higher wages, 15 per cent better work conditions and 12 per cent rights for workers’ committees. There was no mass support for a ‘revolution of the proletariat’; virtually no support at all for anything remotely resembling what Lenin was proposing to do. This was the only occasion, from that day to this, when Russian factory workers had the chance to say what they really wanted; and what they wanted was to improve their lot, not to turn the world upside down. By ‘workers’ committees’ they meant Soviets. These had first appeared in 1905, quite spontaneously. Lenin was baffled by them: according to the Marxist texts they ought not to exist. However they reappeared in the ‘February Revolution’ and when he returned to Russia in April 1917 he decided they might provide an alternative vehicle to the parliamentary system he hated. He thought, and in this respect he was proved right, that some at least of the factory Soviets could be penetrated and so manipulated by his men. Hence his ‘April Theses’ advocated ‘Not a parliamentary republic [who shall give the opposite]... but a republic of Soviets of Workers’, Poor Peasants’, Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, growing from below upwards’. Ever a skilful opportunist, he began to see Soviets as a modern version of the 1870 Paris Commune: they could be managed by a determined group, such as his own, and so become the instrument for the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. When Trotsky, who had actually worked in a 1905 Soviet, arrived in May he was put in charge of an effort to capture the most important of the town Soviets, in Petrograd.» (Johnson, id., p.61-62).

« By early September the Bolsheviks had majorities on both the Petrograd and the Moscow Soviets, the two that really mattered, and on 14 September Lenin felt strong enough to issue the slogan ‘All power to the Soviets’. Trotsky immediately became president of the Petrograd Soviet, the focus of the coming uprising. Trotsky, indeed, was the active agent of the Revolution. But Lenin was the master-mind [a King], who took all the key decisions and provided the essentialwill to power’. The Bolshevik Revolution, let alone the creation of the Communist state, would have been quite impossible without him. At a meeting of the Central Committee [on 10 October] he won a 10-2 vote for an armed rising. A Political Bureau or ‘Politburo’ – the first we hear of it – was created to manage the rising. But the actual military preparations were made by a ‘military-revolutionary committee’, formed under Trotsky from the Petrograd Soviet. The rising was timed to make use of the second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which met on 25 October. The previous evening, Lenin formed an embryo government, and in the morning Trotsky’s men went into action and seized key points throughout the city. The members of the Provisional Government were taken prisoner or fled. There was very little bloodshed. That afternoon the Bolsheviks got the Congress of Soviets to approve the transfer of power. The following day, before dispersing, it adopted a decree making peace, another abolishing landed estates and a third approving the composition of the Council of People’s Commissars, or Sovnarkom for short, the first Workers’ and Peasants’ Government. But as Stalin was later careful to point out, it was the military revolutionary committee which seized power, and the Congress of Soviets ‘only received the power from the hands of the Petrograd Soviet. His object in making this distinction was to preserve the notion of a Marxist proletarian revolution. Certainly there was nothing legal about the way in which Lenin came to power. But it was not a revolutionary uprising either. It was an old-style coup, or as the Germans were soon to call it, a putsch. There was nothing Marxist about it.» (Johnson, id., p.63-64).

It shall be a King who shall give the opposite: The interpretation by Ionescu of this phrase as It shall be a Chief who is going to « knock over the Empire of the Tsars (donra l’opposite) » (Ionescu, 1976, p.438) is not correct as to the February Revolution because it was not effected by Lenin: « In January 1917 he doubted whether ‘I will live to see the decisive battles of the coming revolution’. So when the Tsar was sent packing six weeks later he was surprised.» (Johnson, id., p.58); « The strikes came to a head at the end of February 1917, and would have been smashed, but for the fact that the peasants were angry and desperate also. Nearly all the soldiers were peasants, and when the Petrograd garrison was ordered to coerce the factory workers it mutinied. About a third, some 66,000, defied their officers. As they were armed, the regime collapsed. So the first stage of the Revolution was the work of peasants.» (Johnson, id., p.61).

Hypolite: « Hippolytus, son of Theseus and of an Amazon Hippolyte. It is said in a myth that Phaedra, the spouse of Theseus, falling in love with Hippolytus and making up to him, he repulsed her. Phaedra in suiciding herself, her amour-propre injured, got her husband informed that it was he that tried to violate her... » (Ionescu, 1976, p.438);

« HIPPOLYTUS
    You will, I think, have heard
About Hippolytus and how he met
His death thanks to his father’s trustfulness
And the trickery of his wicked stepmother.
You’ll be amazed, and proof I’ll hardly give,
But I am he. Phaedra in days gone by
Tried to tempt me – in vain – to violate
My father’s bed, and made believe that I
Had wanted what she wanted, and in fear
Perhaps that I’d betray her or in rage
At her repulse, reversed the guilt and charged
Me; and my father, guiltless as I was,
Expelled me from the city and, as I left,
Called curses on my head. A fugutive,
I made for .... » (Ovid, 1986, p.366-367).

Those of a caste like Hypolite swimming bled
: « 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).

V. Ionescu’s interpretation of the innocent victims in question as ‘the Russian intelligentsia or the Russian noble’ (Ionescu, id.) is too narrow or off the point because the Bolshevik revolution was seeking to destroy the Russian bourgeoisie as a class and even Lenin’s group of revolutionary élite was principally from the intelligentsia.

Under such an ensign
: As the Bolshevik Communist Regime. Ionescu’s interpretation of the phrase as ‘the Russian banner with a sickle and a hammer’ (Ionescu, id.) is too much interpolating.

And shall flourish long under such an ensign
: The regime under the Boshevik, then the Russian and finally the Soviet Communist Party shall live long until the year of 1991, when the end of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR brought with it the end of the Soviets. The quatrain VI-74 (§924) exactly predicts the end of the Russian Soviet Regime after 73 years of lasting (or 73 years and 9 months, i.e. November 7, 1917: The November Revolution - August 24, 1991: The Dissolution of the Soviet Communist Party).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.
関連記事
スポンサーサイト
Profile

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 219 in the 20th [1901-2000] (§731-§949).

Latest journals
Category
Link