Was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Neckname known “Lenin”...

Omar Sindi | Exclusive to iKurd.net

This article is not intended to teach people a history lesson; however, history is history. Still, it is very important to be cognizant of past history, especially the views and behaviors of those individuals who shaped world affairs or changed the political spectrum of the early 20th-century empires. This narrative is not intended to defend the repressive role of the corrupt, decaying Romanov dynasty in Russia.

However, the unfortunate ongoing rampant corruption, absolutism, and the steady decline of the Czar’s role, along with the “disastrous wars with Japan in 1905 and Germany’s declaration of war on August 14, 1914,” were everything the Czar could have wished for. These circumstances pressured Nicholas II to give more room to political parties, with both the Bolshevik and Menshevik parties vying for such opportunities.

Despite all the upheaval, Lenin was well known for his anti-Czar regime activities. He was in political exile along with his wife in Western Europe. He claimed to be a follower of Karl Marx, strongly defending Marxist theory for peace, justice, and equality for all genders. Of course, Marx’s manifesto did not recognize any religion; according to his theory, faith was just like “opium” for people’s relaxation from the injustices bestowed upon them by landlords and the cruel governmental apparatus.

Here are critical points to be examined further: Was Lenin a hypocrite?

While Lenin was living in France, it was alleged that he had a mistress, Inessa Armand, who was a revolutionary comrade. His wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, was not happy with this love triangle. Perhaps Lenin did not believe in traditional marriage. Both were atheists, but still, his wife was reluctant and unhappy with the third-party involvement. If Lenin was struggling for justice, at the same time, he was being unjust to his spouse.
“Lenin was in Switzerland at the time of the February 1917 revolution.” With help from the German authorities for safe passage by train through Germany, the whole deal remains a mystery between Lenin and the German authorities. “When Lenin’s train pulled into Petrograd’s Finland Station, he was greeted by the Petrograd Soviet Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, headed by its chairman, a Menshevik named Nikolai Chkheidze.”

At this point, the Mensheviks were riding high. They had a majority in the Soviet and a leading role in the Provisional Government. Despite their ambivalent feelings about their old political enemy, they felt obligated to honor a great name in the revolutionary movement.

Chkheidze was conciliatory. “The principal task now is to defend our revolution,” he told Lenin, “and we hope you will pursue this goal with us.” Lenin avoided a direct answer. In June 1917, delegates from various cities’ Soviets met in Petrograd for the first All-Russian Congress of Soviets.

When one speaker urged that the Congress support the Provisional Government because there was no single party strong enough to assume power, Lenin interrupted: “There is.” Amid derisive laughter—the Bolsheviks had only 105 out of 822 delegates.

“All social movements have an ideology or sets of beliefs that justify the social arrangement that the movement desires. The ideology of every movement provides a diagnosis of what is wrong, an explanation of how the problem came about, and a plan to correct the situation.”

Perhaps many of Lenin’s scheming for power will never be fully disclosed, but obviously, on the surface, he was avowedly struggling for justice, peace, and equality for all, and he followed Karl Marx’s theory of a classless society. However, slowly and surely, the socialist camps, including the Soviet Union, took a different direction and became the most classist society, where Party cadres and their family members enjoyed special privileges, shopping in exclusive stores, and driving on designated roads, etc.

The likelihood is that most Third World dictators came to power by “copying and pasting” Lenin’s behavior. These dictators also, slowly and surely, became ruthless toward their people. For example, the despotic Mohamed Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, during the 1990s election, proclaimed that over 80% of the Egyptian people voted in his favor. No one dared to question Mr. Mubarak’s claim.

Another example: Libyan dictator Muammar el-Gaddafi did not allow any official swimming pools, considering them a waste of water. No one in his circle would have dared to tell the dictator that pool water can be filtered and recycled. History is cruel but fair; it will neither forget nor forgive any misdeed or accomplishment by individuals who shaped the political spectrum in world affairs.

However, the idea that Lenin was so enthusiastic about was one of the phenomena of the mid-18th century, which became an upheaval in the early 19th century. It clearly failed to reach any tangible positive outcome for humankind.

References:

• Prelude to War; by Robert T. Elson- Time Life Book
• Sociology book-Second Edition by Ian Robertson

Omar Sindi, a senior writer, analyst and columnist for iKurd.net, Washington, United States.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.