“People-saving” Lenin: the communists have decided on a leader and election strategy

The author of the appeal is the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov. In any case, it is his name that appears under the text – and there are no other names. The party leader did not want to share the laurels of the first ideologist with any of his comrades. By the way, the author himself, without false modesty, calls his brainchild a “historical document.”

“Russia is extremely lucky,” the Communist Party and Gennady Andreevich personally tell the people. It was lucky that “in the most difficult period of collapse, devastation, and all-encompassing crisis for it,” the country was led by Lenin, who, like no one else, understood “the essence of turning points and the way out of the tragic situation,” who “felt for the “nerve of history” and led the movement forward “.

But there is even more joyful news: the luck did not end there. The appeal ends with the following optimistic lines: “We, without a shadow of a doubt, clearly and proudly repeat after Vladimir Mayakovsky:

Lenin lived

Lenin is alive

Lenin will live!

So, dear compatriots, forward under the Victorious Lenin Banner – into the Future! To a Strong, Fair, Socialist Russia!”

Following the publication of the appeal to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, an “all-Russian study of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation on the topic “V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin in the modern ideological struggle.” The event opened with a lecture by Zyuganov, who spoke in detail about the deeds of both leaders. But mostly about the “brilliant exploits” of Ilyich.

The speech as a whole repeats the theses of the address. However, there are interesting additions. Among the great Leninist feats, of which Gennady Andreevich counted as many as five, he included “saving the people.” To put it mildly, this is not an indisputable statement.

In fact, even the communists still did not dare to claim that the people in Russia benefited as a result of Lenin’s rule. The minimum estimate of the country’s demographic losses during the Civil War is 8 million people. And, say, the famous Soviet statistician Stanislav Strumilin estimated direct and indirect losses at 21 million.

But Gennady Andreevich and I will not argue. Firstly, it is useless to argue: there are no comrades according to taste, color and political idols. Secondly, it is not entirely clear what Zyuganov means by “saving the people.” Lenin undoubtedly saved the people from the “oppression of capitalism.” Shackled, however, in heavier shackles.

It is impossible not to notice, however, that the “leader of the world proletariat” fits into the modern political context only so-so. It fits very poorly, frankly speaking. No, we can partly agree with the fact that “Lenin is alive.” He may not be “more alive than all the living,” but no less alive than most of the current leaders of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, who strongly resemble android robots with a broken voice device: they repeat the same thing like a mantra.

It is as difficult to imagine them at the head of the country as it is to imagine a mummy lying on Red Square. Yes, they themselves are not really eager to find themselves on the other side of the Kremlin wall. This is clearly indicated by the following statement by Zyuganov, made during party training: “The President, following his conclusion that “capitalism has reached a dead end,” will inevitably have to decide on a new course. Our party and its left-patriotic allies this course, this policies and budgets were proposed and demonstrated.”

Considering that there is nothing until the elections, the president, according to Zyuganov’s logic, will have to make a “decision on a new course” after the election campaign. Well, that is, the president will still be the same; the communists do not foresee a change in power. Apparently, they see themselves as commissars under a strong-willed commander who generally follows the right path, but sometimes stumbles and is not quite ideologically mature. In the role, in short, of Furmanov under Chapaev.

But there’s a problem here too: if Chapaev and Furmanov had no fundamental ideological disagreements, then Putin and the communists, led by the immortal Lenin, have them, one might say, at every step. Wherever you go. Let’s say, according to Zyuganov, Lenin “did everything to revive the Russian state in a new form” and “managed to recreate Russian statehood.”

This idea was continued by the Deputy Chairman of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Dmitry Afonin: “Some of these, you know, originals who oppose us, are trying to accuse the Bolsheviks of planting a bomb under Russian statehood and generally being against statehood. This is quite funny… The Bolsheviks are like “They once advocated that it is impossible to build socialism without a state. They advocated for a strong, proletarian state.”

For reference: among these “originals” is the current president of Russia. His assessment of the results of Lenin’s state-building is well known: “They laid an atomic bomb under the building called Russia, and then it exploded… Lenin advocated that the state, the Soviet Union, be formed on the basis of complete equality with the right to secede from the Soviet Union. And This is what it is – a time bomb under the building of our statehood.”

Lenin would be completely out of trend today with his views on traditional values. Including his attitude towards religion. “Every godly woman is corpse deposition,” believed the uncompromising Ilyich. “Every religious idea, every idea about every godly woman, every flirtation even with a godly woman is the most unspeakable abomination… the most vile “infection”.”

Eh, Vladimir Ilyich did not know, writing these lines (letter to Maxim Gorky, 1913), what the creators of the new, communist cult would do with his own corpse. If I had known, I would probably have been more careful in my expressions.

And Lenin’s view on the topic, so to speak, of war and peace would be completely out of place today. Why is it not appropriate? Perhaps the “leader of the world proletariat” would thunder with such views – if you dare to express them publicly – to fanfare.

Here is what he wrote, for example, about the First World War: “The Great Russians cannot “defend the fatherland” except by desiring defeat in every war for tsarism… The slogan should be the transformation of a national war into a civil war… The least evil would be the defeat of the tsarist monarchy and its troops… Tsarism is a hundred times worse than Kaiserism.”

It seemed that life, which is always richer than ideas (especially ideas from more than a hundred years ago), should have forced those who continued Lenin’s work to renounce at least part of his ideological heritage. But no, everything, absolutely everything, remains in force. “Marxist-Leninist theory is universal,” declares Comrade Zyuganov. “It is as relevant today as it was at the beginning of the 20th century.”

Lenin himself, by the way, was much more flexible: he changed theories that no longer corresponded to practice like gloves. Lenin himself, if he had found himself in our era, in our situation – a living Lenin, truly alive, and not in the form of a mummy – would, perhaps, be able to adapt to it. But Ilyich was clearly unlucky with his heirs. The heirs seem to be completely hopeless.

Yes, they didn’t forget anything. They still reverence him sacredly, they still love him, reaching in their adoration to the point that Lenin himself, with his characteristic directness, would call corpse deposition. But, alas, they learned nothing, nothing.