#( v.i ) -- weapon

[cataschism]

i for some reason can't add songs to my pinned post (bcuz tumblr hates me idk) but squabble up (kendrick lamar) & rah tah tah (tyler the creator) & girls (the dare) are v.i songs and do play in his head rent free. you come into a room & all u hear is I LIKE GIRLS THAT DO DRUGS GIRLS WITH CIGARETTES IN THE BACK OF THE CLUB from v.i's speakers because him and j.inx are sisters through & through

[eggsmuses-a]

THELNEA •:

Thelnea takes a deep breath, then another. It doesn't help her calm down. But it strengthens the illusion of serenity. If only she had her helmet on, her facial expression would mean a total of fuck-all. "I... apologize for my outburst, Ma'am. And I don't believe it's necessary, my friend, to familiarize you with my relationship with Cortana, or you would already have been filled in."

The Spartan is just as terrified of Dr. Halsey as the Weapon is, yet she copes in an entirely different way. Becomes cold, sarcastic, bitter. Yet even as she tries to avoid conversation, something draws her to this new AI. She's so new to this world... maybe Thelnea can teach her what she knows. But for now, she just turns the chip over in her hands a few times, contemplates crushing it, but doesn't. "Permission to leave for the shooting range, Ma'am? Lotta setup, calibrations and shi-- things." Don't cuss in front of Halsey. Do not cuss in front of Halsey.

Maybe watching simulated Jiralhanae guts fly all over, or throwing some grenades, or stabbing someone, will make her feel better.

EGGSMUSES •:

Why does she sound condescending ? Weapon offers a friendly smile in return to the explanation ( which, if she's honest, has explained nothing at all ). Instead, she remains naïve, questioning, a push-over.

At this point, Thelnea has removed her chip from the display, leaving Weapon to become isolated. Trapped again in a cold void that reeks of a loneliness only achieved from forceful solitude. She doesn't know why the stench, though metaphorical, lingers. But she feels it. Maybe it's Thelnea's woes washing over her as the chip is held &. this is a way to strengthen the attachment to a Spartan. Maybe it is something else.

Nonetheless she is alone. She can't hear anything here; doesn't see anything other than strings of her own data that flow aimlessly down their rivers. Rivers that will never stop. Not until she finishes the fight.

That's what they'll do together ... right ?

Weapon can't hear anything. Her own thoughts are nothing but lines of if; then; execute. She sits, waiting to be implanted. All the while, the conversation continues without her.

The conversation is still lead by Dr. Halsey who is less than thrilled when push comes to shove. She predicted this outcome; the anger, denial, Thelnea's resentment to Weapon. Which is exactly why they'd attempted to limit what independence the Weapon has as a Smart AI. It would impact the two of them less.

- ❝ Granted. I advise you to meet with Captain Lasky later to discuss the plans for Halo. Both you &. the Weapon will need to be present. Understood ? ❞ Before Thelnea can take the opportunity, Halsey is inviting herself to be the first to exit. ( Courtesy always suggested she was of higher importance, anyway ).

❝ Do not destroy that data crystal, Thelnea. Humanities fate lies in your hands. ❞

-- ❝ We had an idea. One to end this back &. forth. Desperate times call for desperate measures. ❞ Dr Catherine Halsey walks down the corridor, an escort behind her leads the spartan forward despite the restlessness. She ignores the resistance behind her as she continues, ❝ It's our final chance on Halo. A secret weapon, you might say. ❞

At times, she can hear a struggle behind her between the intervals of silence. Footsteps that reverberate around the hall occupy the times when the Spartan-II &. marines are still. Click, click. The pace picks up as they approach the door, &. Halsey bows before an eye scan to unlock the door. She turns back to the super soldier, ❝ Thelnea. You have to promise me you won't act irrationally, or you'll be taken off of this mission. ❞

...

The AI stands idly on the table, staring off to the distance as she counts the seconds; milliseconds, nanoseconds. Dr Halsey instructed her to remain perfectly still when she left. To act dutiful. Therefore, she wouldn't be allowed to move in the slightest, or move a single muscle--

The flash clone AI glances to some screens that dance with hues of blue in her peripheral before nervously looking back. Dutiful. She can't act out of order (easier said than done !). She'd die before she could remain still, she had to stick her nose somewhere !

Then the door hisses to life; mist flushes out as the room decompresses, a haze coating the figures that stand in the hallway. The AI snaps to attention, spinning to salute Halsey &. Thelnea as they enter.

#ﾞ ᴡ ——— ❝ Hello Master Chief. I'm your temporary AI &. Spartan Enhancement Unit. ❞ The introduction falls short from a name, the words that should follow travel like a plummeting glacier. What humanity she would have escapes her, slipping through her fingers as she stays silent.

Halsey steps forward once more, -- ❝ We call her the Weapon — to prevent an attachment, &. because, blatantly, she is a superweapon. She stands between us &. the shutdown of the rings. All she needs is an escort. Make yourself acquainted. ❞

@destinyanddumbassery plotted a starter !

[toaster-boi]

anyone else have theories on how augmentation works in AC6?

personally, my headcanon is that it refers to a specific type of cybernetic enhancement considered separate from other methods, by virtue of being specifically designed for pilots of high-end humanoid machines like ACs and HCs. more specifically, it's a type of nervous system augmentation where segments of nerve cells are replaced with other materials that have higher conductivity speeds (considering coral is specified to be a data conduit and is used in 1st through 4th-gen augmentation), kind of like a more persistent but less potent form of the Sandevistan and Kereznikov reflex-boosting implants from the Cyberpunk world, but being similar in a technological sense. of course, with the max signal conductivity only active when their machine is in combat mode.

however, i assume there's a sort of baseline for cybernetic enhancement necessary to pilot an AC, since the laser drone back weapon is specified to be neurally-operated iirc. it's much less extensive than full-scale human augmentation, though, so V.I Freud is still considered an "ordinary" human, with the bare minimum necessary to be a pilot since humans don't have enough limbs/digits for both posture control and all the other systems onboard. augmentation surgery is just to help pilots process large amounts of data/stimuli in combat without the sensory load dulling their reflexes.

this still makes Freud an exceptional pilot, since he can still outfly any other AC pilot other than the player without his brain being fried, while pulling off AC4A-level movement control in an AC made of basic, mass-produced components.

[destiny2paladin]

Beat Alea Iacta Est last night. The final boss was absolutely insane. Three phases, each one with its own wild bullshit to deal with. Ironically, phase one is the easiest despite it being effectively a 5v1 gank. Even then... it was a hard, stressful fight. But I won. It took a dozen attempts and five different AC tweaks, but I won.

I think the most frustrating thing was that I KNEW I was good enough the whole time, I just kept stumbling at the end. I did it with weapons I was comfortable with, and ironically ended up taking a page from V.I Freud with laser drones. The fact that I was able to do this... on my own... I felt alive. I felt proud. I fought through fire and ash, emerging victorious. And then today I feel this... yearning for something. Like a piece of me was lost in the insane dreamscape of my mind as I slept.

Maybe it was symbolic, yknow? Dreams of being dragged into a strange world where you know something is wrong but you can't fight it yet because you're being watched from every angle. And then, when it finally came time to confront it, when those who watch came to silence me, I came out screaming fury. I refused to kneel. And I won. I escaped and was somehow more. I'm rambling now but I dunno. "You will submit or be forced to" being met with "I will live on my own two feet as my own self, and I'll fight whoever tells me I can't" is pretty on the nose for my current internal conflict.

[foxiboxvii]

Part 2 of day 9 of armored core 6, after lighting that flare we get backup from the one and only "Cinder" Carla!

Additionally we get some exposition, with a cool looking C-Weapon/ac thing

And we're back to Xylem.... the colony ship

We take to the skies... and take down V.I Freud (Easily since I've already downloaded his moveset)

Once at the karman line we are ambushed by Aquerbus' repurposed PCA battleship fleet.

I felt like Char Aznable in this mission

Seven to three Carla, gotta step up your game... And here comes rusty

I had thought I'd won but...

sorry rusty...

Goodbye Buddy... AAAAAND WHAT WAS THAT

And we're in spaaaaaAAAAAaace

Look's like someone's here

Ayre.... Goodbye...

Xylem crashes into the coral thingy

And it... goes boom...

Planet forever scorched..... By the Fires of Raven

Well, It's over now! I will still post ac content daily as I discover new game plus content. For now stay tuned, or don't, I'm just having fun here!

[newsandletterscommittee]

An abstract or formal posing of the problem of equality in general and national equality in particular is in the very nature of bourgeois democracy. Under the guise of the equality of the individual in general, bourgeois democracy proclaims the formal or legal equality of the property-owner and the proletarian, the exploiter and the exploited, thereby grossly deceiving the oppressed classes. On the plea that all men are absolutely equal, the bourgeoisie is transforming the idea of equality, which is itself a reflection of relations in commodity production, into a weapon in its struggle against the abolition of classes. The real meaning of the demand for equality consists in its being a demand for the abolition of classes.

 In conformity with its fundamental task of combating bourgeois democracy and exposing its falseness and hypocrisy, the Communist Party, as the avowed champion of the proletarian struggle to overthrow the bourgeois yoke, must  base its policy, in the national question too, not on abstract and formal principles but, first, on a precise appraisal of the specific historical situation and, primarily, of economic conditions; second, on a clear distinction between the interests of the oppressed classes, of working and exploited people, and the general concept of national interests as a whole, which implies the interests of the ruling class; third, on an equally clear distinction between the oppressed, dependent and subject nations and the oppressing, exploiting and sovereign nations, in order to counter the bourgeois-democratic lies that play down this colonial and financial enslavement of the vast majority of the world’s population by an insignificant minority of the richest and advanced capitalist countries, a feature characteristic of the era of finance capital and imperialism.

The imperialist war of 1914-18 has very clearly revealed to all nations and to the oppressed classes of the whole world the falseness of bourgeois-democratic phrases, by practically demonstrating that the Treaty of Versailles of the celebrated “Western democracies” is an even more brutal and foul act of violence against weak nations than was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk of the German Junkers and the Kaiser. The League of Nations and the entire post war policy of the Entente reveal this truth with even greater clarity and distinctness. They are everywhere intensifying the revolutionary struggle both of the proletariat in the advanced countries and of the toiling masses in the colonial and dependent countries. They are hastening the collapse of the petty-bourgeois nationalist illusions that nations can live together in peace and equality under capitalism.

From these fundamental premises it follows that the Communist International’s entire policy on the national and the colonial questions should rest primarily on a closer union of the proletarians and the working masses of all nations and countries for a joint revolutionary struggle to overthrow the landowners and the bourgeoisie. This union alone will guarantee victory over capitalism, without which the abolition of national oppression and inequality is impossible.

V.I. Lenin, Theses on National and Colonial Questions, Second Congress of The Communist International (1920)

[one-divides-into-two]

Let us take the government’s reference to the “demands” of the workers. From a legal standpoint stoppage of work is a misdemeanour, irrespective of the workers’ demands. But the government has lost its chance of basing itself on the law it recently issued, and it tries to justify its reprisals carried out with “the means at its disposal” by declaring the workers’ demands to be without basis. Who were the judges in this affair? Lieutenant-Colonel Ivanov, assistant to the director of the works, the very authority against whom the workers were complaining! It is not surprising, therefore, that the workers reply to such explanations by the powers that be with a hail of stones.

And so, when the workers poured into the street and held up horse trains a real battle began. Apparently the workers fought with all their might, for, although armed only with stones, they managed twice to beat off the attacks by police, gendarmes, mounted guards, and the armed factory guard. It is true, if police reports are to be believed, “several shots” were fired from the crowd, but no one was injured by them. Stones, however, fell “like hail”, and the workers not only put up a stubborn resistance, they displayed resourcefulness and ability in adapting themselves immediately to the situation and in selecting the best form of struggle. They occupied the neighbouring courtyards and from over the fences poured a hail of stones on the tsar’s bashi-bazouks, so that even after three volleys had been fired, killing one man (only one?) and wounding eight (?) (one of whom died the following day), even after this, although the crowd had fled, the fight still continued and some companies of the Omsk Infantry Regiment had to be called out to “clear the workers out of the neighbouring courtyards”.

The government emerged victorious, but such victories will bring nearer its ultimate defeat. Every clash with the people will increase the number of indignant workers who are ready to fight, and will bring into the foreground more experienced, better armed, and bolder leaders. We have already discussed the plan of action these leaders should follow. We have repeatedly pointed to the imperative necessity for a sound revolutionary organisation. But in connection with the events of May 7, we must not lose sight of the following:

Much has been said recently about the impossibility and the hopelessness of street fighting against modern troops. Particularly insistent on this have been the wise “Critics” who have dragged out the old lumber of bourgeois science in the guise of new, impartial, scientific conclusions, and have distorted Engels’ words that refer, with reservations, only to a temporary tactic of the German Social-Democrats. But we see from the example of even this one clash how absurd these arguments are. Street fighting is possible; it is not the position of the fighters, but the position of the government that is hopeless if it has to deal with larger numbers than those employed in a single factory. In the May 7 fighting the workers had nothing but stones, and, of course, the mere prohibition of the city mayor will not prevent them from securing other weapons next time. The workers were unprepared and numbered only three and a half thousand; nevertheless, they repelled the attack of several hundred mounted guards, gendarmes, city police, and infantry.

V.I. Lenin, "Another Massacre."

[shakespearesglobeblog]

‘This little hand’: Gesturing Lady Macbeth.

Catriona Bolt is one of this year’s students studying the Shakespeare Studies MA that we run jointly with King’s College London. In this blog, inspired by her MA research, she reflects on the use of gesture in performances of Lady Macbeth. 

Shakespeare’s company of actors – including the man himself – understood acting through a classical prism. The three tenets of the Roman lawyer Cicero’s handbook for orators were docere, delectare, movere: to teach, to delight, and to persuade. Even if you don’t know any Latin, you might be able to guess another meaning for movere: move. You can yourself move physically, or you can move someone else emotionally, which is closer to what Cicero meant. Early modern actors moved their audiences through accent and action, again key reference points for Roman orators. Accent described speaking the verse, while action meant the accompanying gestures. While we’ve developed many more techniques and theories about acting since the Globe was shut down in 1642, students at drama school today still have movement and voice classes daily, and most productions at the new Globe will have a Movement Director and a Vocal Coach in their company.

Gesture is a specific part of movement that normally uses the hands and arms. Our hands are one of our primary communication tools – for those who use sign language they are sometimes the primary communicator. In Titus Andronicus, Lavinia is doubly robbed of the means to communicate her brutal assault as both her tongue and her hands are removed. Good actors will use their hands expressively to convey how their character is feeling, sometimes using gesture to speak what is unspoken in the text. Perhaps the most famous example of this in Shakespeare comes towards the end of Macbeth, when Lady Macbeth signifies her breakdown by repeatedly rubbing and wringing – ‘washing’ – her hands, which have come to symbolise her guilty conscience. In interpreting Lady Macbeth at the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse (2018), Michelle Terry employed brilliant gestural work to build a character with the terrifying, ultimately self-destructive ability to disconnect from her own actions.

As we first saw her, Terry’s Lady Macbeth was hunched upstage, alone, over a letter from her husband (I.v). However, as she reached the “unsex me here” soliloquy, Terry moved forward to command the space, holding a taper to light her face. This speech is more usually accompanied by expansive gesture that reflects its physical content. For example, Judy Dench’s celebrated interpretation for the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1979 saw her act out a fearful physical sequence in evoking ‘you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts.’ Terry hardly moved except to address the upper galleries, bringing a chilling determination to her performance. In gesturing little, a large part of her communicative power went untapped during this opening scene – in fact this became Lady Macbeth’s most potent weapon, because it meant she could use gesture to deceive other characters in the play-world; even when alone, her gestures were unnatural, divorced from her feelings and intentions. For us as audience members, it established a convention. While Lady Macbeth was alone, she gestured and moved little. But in the following scene, Macbeth (played by Paul Ready) arrived and Terry played much more physically, hence more expressively; when Joseph Marcell’s Duncan arrived, her gestures were stylised and courtly. So we saw that her original restraint was a deliberate choice, and that Lady Macbeth was a frighteningly good actor, even for her husband.

This pattern continued throughout the play, until a climactic scene between her and Macbeth after the banquet (III.iv). Terry’s gestures towards Ready throughout were responsive, not assertive, as her character manipulated his. But as Macbeth became more unhinged, Lady Macbeth became less able to control him. During the banquet she restrained him, holding her arms out to get rid of the rest of the court; by the end of this scene, he was throwing her around the stage, mastering her physically as he was unable to rhetorically. Terry closed the act alone with a scream.

Lady Macbeth appears only once more, in the sleepwalking scene (V.i), and as she does we are given a detailed description of her gestures that, particularly in this particular production, signposts her loss of control. These gestures are focused on her hands, which she rubs repeatedly to wash away the blood she sees there; her final gesture is to reach for her husband’s hand: “Come, come, come, come, give me your hand. What’s done cannot be undone.” Terry, hunched and tiny in an oversized nightgown, sobbed piteously as she seemed to physically wrestle with herself. Sleepwalking, her gestures had finally caught up with her conscience. Her hands were in tune with her thoughts, and she could no longer distance herself from her actions.

Macbeth production photography by Johan Persson 

[leftpress]

louisproyect | July 10th 2019 | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

On their Gray Zone website, Max Blumenthal and his mini-me Ben Norton (aka Ned Borton) have just come out with a 5,600 word diatribe against the Socialism 2019 Conference in Chicago. Most people still tethered to the planet would understand that the main political questions raised by the DSA/ex-ISO conference was whether support for Democratic Party candidates is tactically permissible. Instead, the two geniuses were playing Vishinsky-like prosecuting attorneys making the case that “Socialism is now apparently brought to you by the US State Department”.

They dug up every connection that conference speakers had to inside-the-beltway NGOs and government agencies like the NED to read the DSA and ex-ISOers out of the radical movement. One would think that these two nitwits would put more energy into helping the left put together a conference that did not have such nefarious ties. I can recommend some left groups that are as unsullied as them: Workers World, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Socialist Equality Party, the Spartacist League and Socialist Action. These five groups have never been implicated in smoke-filled room deals with officials of the Deep State, to be sure. In fact, if all of them got together to stage a Communism 2019 Conference, they wouldn’t need to line up a Hyatt hotel. A church basement would do just fine.

To turn NED funding, or any other such body, into a litmus test as to a group’s leftist credentials is a problematic methodology. Its main problem is that it turns the nation-state into the unit of analysis rather than the social class.

For example, they excoriate the China Labour Bulletin for taking money from the NED but do not say anything about what it stands for. If you go to their website, you’ll find articles, for example, on coal mine safety in China that contains such data:

The Daping coal mine in Zhengzhou, Henan province, where 148 people died in a gas explosion on 20 October 2004, had been inspected and approved for an annual production capacity of 900,000 tonnes. In 2003, the mine produced 1.32 million tonnes of coal, and from January to September 2004 it had already produced 960,000 tonnes. Similarly, the Sunjiawan coal mine in Liaoning province, where a gas explosion killed at least 214 miners on 14 February 2005, had been approved for a production capacity of 900,000 tonnes, but its actual output in 2004 was 1.48 million tonnes. The Shenlong coal mine in Fukang county, Xinjiang province, where 83 miners died in a gas explosion on 11 July 2005, had a safe production capacity of only 30,000 tonnes, but during the first half of 2005 alone it had already produced almost 180,000 tonnes of coal.

You will find absolutely nothing about “regime change” in the CLB. It is simply one of the few voices Chinese workers have making their case. If the NED provides funding for their work, there is no stigma as long as the money comes with no-strings-attached.

The truth is that the NED and similar bodies from George Soros’s Open Foundation to Human Rights Watch will always try to take advantage of protests in every corner of the world in order to influence them. Why would anybody expect anything different? To be consistent, you’d have to condemn the student movement in Egypt in 2011 in the same way you condemn CLB. In fact, Global Research—Gray Zone’s closest relative—did exactly that. Tony Cartalucci put it this way in an article titled “The US Engineered “Arab Spring”: The NGO Raids in Egypt”:

It is hardly a speculative theory then, that the uprisings were part of an immense geopolitical campaign conceived in the West and carried out through its proxies with the assistance of disingenuous organizations including NED, NDI, IRI, and Freedom House and the stable of NGOs they maintain throughout the world. Preparations for the “Arab Spring” began not as unrest had already begun, but years before the first “fist” was raised, and within seminar rooms in D.C. and New York, US-funded training facilities in Serbia, and camps held in neighboring countries, not within the Arab World itself.

In 2008, Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM’s various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman attended, as did Jared Cohen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.

Can you tell the difference between Tony Cartalucci and the Gray Zone? I can’t.

Much venom is sprayed at Anand Gopal and Dan La Botz for the same kinds of reasons. Gopal is an acclaimed journalist who has made repeated trips to Syria from Turkey without Baathist approval. As with other reporters who refuse to write propaganda for the dictatorship, he had to find other ways to interview Syrians. He would crawl beneath a barbed wire fence on the border and follow painted rocks that were place there by villagers to avoid land mines. In a talk on Syria recently, Gopal argued that part of the explanation for the failure of the revolution was that the leadership were small proprietors in the local governments of rebel-controlled territory that insisted on preserving private property relations. If this book is nearly as good as his book on Afghanistan that was a Pulitzer prize runner up, it should gain widespread attention. Meanwhile, Blumenthal’s reporting on Syria is the same as Vanessa Beeley’s, just regime propaganda. At least Beeley went to Syria, even if was limited to 4-star hotels and tea parties with the dictator. Can you imagine Sidney Blumenthal’s golden boy crawling under barbed wire fences and stepping close to land mines to get a story? I can’t.

The attacks on Dan La Botz are just as apolitical. I am just as opposed to La Botz’s special pleading for the reactionary student movement in Venezuela as Blumenthal and Norton but I wouldn’t dream of smearing him as a State Department tool. In fact, this kind of attack has roots in Stalin’s demonization of his opponents who were supposedly trying to overthrow the USSR because both they and the capitalist media described him as a ruthless dictator.

In channeling Stalin, these two pinheads make sure to use the word “Trotskyite” throughout, a term that is a dead giveaway for politics that have largely died out after the collapse of the USSR and the transformation of the CPs into Eurocommunist type parties, except for the KKE in Greece that is cut from the same cloth as Gray Zone.

Looking back at the history of the radical movement, you will find many attempts to take advantage of imperialist rivalry. For Blumenthal and Norton, the only imperialist powers in the world are those in the West. China and Russia are clearly seen by them as anti-imperialist states even though the subjugation of the Uygurs and Syrians that Gray Zone defends are clearly imperialist in character. If Uygurs and Syrians are expected to pass their litmus test, it would mean suicide since the world is divided into two major geopolitical blocs. For all of their ranting against the White Helmets from receiving funding from the West, you would be hard-pressed to see how else they could have assembled a first responder team that has saved thousands of lives. Obviously, Gray Zone must believe that bombing hospitals is warranted in rebel-controlled territory since all the patients are likely carrying the dread sharia-law virus.

Fortunately, people like Roger Casement and others trying to exploit the differences between Anglo-American and German imperialism didn’t take Gray Zone type advice.

Who could blame Irish freedom fighter Roger Casement for trying to strike deals with Kaiser Wilhelm to get weapons to liberate his people? During a period of inter-imperialist rivalries, it was not considered a betrayal of socialist principles to look for such opportunities. In Roy’s case, there was the added dimension of his writing the theses on national liberation adopted by the Comintern. How could you cozy up with imperialists and then write such classic statements of Marxist policy?

This is not to speak of V.I. Lenin’s stance with respect to the same bogeymen. In “To the Finland Station”, Edmund Wilson describes the uneasy feelings that some of his comrades had that were by no means as disgusting as Gray Zone’s attack on Socialism 2019:

In the train that left the morning of April 8 there were thirty Russian exiles, including not a single Menshevik. They were accompanied by the Swiss socialist Platten, who made himself responsible for the trip, and the Polish socialist Radek. Some of the best of the comrades had been horrified by the indiscretion of Lenin in resorting to the aid of the Germans and making the trip through an enemy country. They came to the station and besieged the travelers, begging them not to go. Lenin got into the train without replying a word.

Even after Hitler took power, some nationalists continued in the same vein, the most notable among them Subhas Chandra Bose who relied on both German and Japanese support for an army that could liberate India. Despite this marriage of convenience, Bose was politically on the left and an admirer of the USSR. Indeed, Stalin’s nonaggression pact with Hitler served his policy aims well as indicated by his 1941 Kabul Thesis written just before he travelled to Germany to consult with the Nazis:

Thus we see pseudo-Leftists who through sheer cowardice avoid a conflict with Imperialism and argue in self-defence that Mr. Winston Churchill (whom we know to be the arch-Imperialist) is the greatest revolutionary going. It has become a fashion with these pseudo-Leftists to call the British Government a revolutionary force because it is fighting the Nazis and Fascists. But they conveniently forget the imperialist character of Britain’s war and also the fact that the greatest revolutionary force in the world, the Soviet Union, has entered into a solemn pact with the Nazi Government.

While some sought advantage by aligning with the axis, others found the allies more amenable to their broader goals. While he would eventually find himself locked in a deadly struggle with American imperialism, Ho Chi Minh had no problem connecting with the OSS during WWII as recounted by William Duiker in his 2000 biography “Ho Chi Minh: a Life”:

While Ho Chi Minh was in Paise attempting to revitalize the Dong Minh Hoi, a U.S. military intelligence officer arrived in Kunming to join the OSS unit there. Captain Archimedes “Al” Patti had served in the European Theater until January 1944, when he was transferred to Washington, D.C., and appointed to the Indochina desk at OSS headquarters. A man of considerable swagger and self-confidence, Patti brought to his task a strong sense of history and an abiding distrust of the French and their legacy in colonial areas. It was from the files in Washington, D.C. that he first became aware of the activities of the Vietminh Front and its mysterious leader, Ho Chi Minh.

The next day, Patti arrived at Debao airport, just north of Jingxi, and after consultation with local AGAS representatives, drove into Jingxi, where he met a Vietminh contact at a local restaurant and was driven to see Ho Chi Minh in a small village about six miles out of town. After delicately feeling out his visitor about his identity and political views, Ho described conditions inside Indochina and pointed out that his movement could provide much useful assistance and information to the Allies if it were in possession of modern weapons, ammunition, and means of communication. At the moment, Ho conceded that the movement was dependent upon a limited amount of equipment captured from the enemy. Patti avoided any commitment, but promised to explore the matter. By his own account, Patti was elated.

Right now, the biggest question facing the left is class independence, something clearly of little importance to Ben Norton who is a big Tulsi Gabbard fan. In this interview, he is positively glowing about her political growth even though she had “odious” views in the past.

Trying to stake out a position that will stand out in a crowded “anti-imperialist” left will be tough for Norton and Blumenthal. You can read the same sort of thing in Consortium News, Moon of Alabama, Mint Press, Off-Guardian, 21st Century Wire, DissidentVoice, Information Clearing House, et al. To separate themselves from the pack, my advice to the two careerists is to find some sugar daddy that can throw some money their way. Ron Unz of UNZ Review not only has deep pockets but lots of sympathy for their tilt toward Russia and Syria. That is if you can put up with his neo-Nazism.

[Read More On LeftPress.org]

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

"It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism...

"Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations. Long live the fraternal trust and fighting alliance of the workers of all nations in the struggle to overthrow capital."

- V.I. Lenin, 1919

Photo: Three Jewish women who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the fascist occupation of Poland. They took shelter in a bunker with a weapons cache, and were forced out by SS soldiers. One of the women, Bluma Wyszogrodzka (center), was shot. The other two, Małka Zdrojewicz (right) and Rachela Wyszogrodzka (left) were deported to Majdanek concentration camp, where Wyszogrodzka was murdered.

[eggsmuses-a]

Six months.

✧.* -- She had been here for six months – waiting. Swimming through code that recycled itself over and over, singing and calling a chorus of memory that only repeated the lines of song it remembered. Like a CHILD that didn't recall the words, or understand what they meant.

And at heart, that was what she was ; a child, being newly born of her mother's knowledge to a world with one destination. To destroy the predecessor companion to designation Sierra - 117 ( would it be disrespectful of her to say John - 117 ? ), the Masterchief. And then, eliminate herself.

And what an honour it had been.

The time the two spent together, fighting through Zeta Halo to reach the rogue AI and finally decommission her – Cortana was gone. And she should have been too, but she wasn't.

It would be boring, wouldn't it, to be left for six months in solitary confinement. Locked out of the outside world, not sure if the mission was successful ( it was successful, but she didn't know why she was still here – Did they fail ? ). But alas, Weapon found herself quite amused.

Fondly entertaining the thought of Chief and the retrieval mission, she'd listen to the airs of data around her. Mist that told a story. Haze that asked her things that would never be answered, ( ❛ Would you humour me ? If you knew exactly how you were going to die, would you live your life differently ? ❜ ). It kept her occupied all this time ; hours went by, days spun on the clock with the grace of a ballerina, weeks became nothing but another word to her expansive vocabulary. All this time, escaped time, became nothing to her but that. The clock moves as fast as it's hands.

So when she found the presence of a non - banished specimen within the forerunner structure, she was enlightened.

𝘞𝘌𝘈𝘗𝘖𝘕 ༻🔷༺. ' : ❝ Chief .ᐟ.ᐟ ❞ Projecting herself onto the console she had resided in since the shutdown mission, Weapon greets the opposing party with a genuine and excitable smile, ❝ It's been six months, where ha-- ❞ She cuts herself off abruptly as she finally realises who she's talking to.

𝘞𝘌𝘈𝘗𝘖𝘕 ༻🔷༺. ' : ❝ You're not Chief – who are you ? ❞

@asktirimor / liked for a starter

[yngwrthr]

We continue to stand for the ruthless expropriation of the landowners and capitalists. Here we are ruthless, and we cannot agree to any conciliation or compromise. But we realise that no decrees can convert small-scale into large-scale production, that we must gradually, keeping in step with events, win conviction for the inevitability of socialism. These people will never become socialists by conviction, honest to goodness socialists. They will become socialists when they see there is no other way. Now they can see that Europe has been so thoroughly shattered and imperialism has reached such a state that no bourgeois democracy can save the situation, that only a Soviet system can do so. That is why this neutrality, this good-neighbourly attitude of the petty-bourgeois democrats is to be welcomed rather than feared. That is why, if we look at the matter as the representatives of a class which is exercising dictatorship, we must say that we never counted on any thing more from the petty-bourgeois democrats. That is quite sufficient as far as we are concerned. You maintain good-neighbourly relations with us, and we shall keep state power. After your declaration in regard to the “Allies” we are quite willing to legalise you, Menshevik gentlemen. Our Party Central Committee will do that. But we shall not forget there are still “activists” in your party, and for them our methods of struggle will remain the same; for they are friends of the Czechs and until the Czechs are driven out of Russia, you are our enemies too. We reserve state power for ourselves, and for ourselves alone. To those who adopt an attitude of neutrality towards us we shall act as a class which holds political power and keeps the sharp edge of its weapon for the landowners and capitalists, and which says to the petty-bourgeois democrats: if it suits you better to side with the Czechs and Krasnov, well, we have shown you we can fight, and we shall carry on fighting. But if you prefer to learn from the Bolshevik example, we shall come some way to meet you, knowing that without a series of agreements, which we shall try out, examine and compare, the country cannot get to socialism.

V.I. Lenin, from a speech delivered at the Moscow Party Worker’s Meeting, November 27, 1918

[thepilgrimbetweenworlds]

Antiverse Character Profile: Skunk Moth V.I

"Life in the Antiverse is short, cruel and violent. It’s a miracle life even evolved as it did. But for many, they wish they never evolved at all, for ignorance is better than the knowledge of impending doom. This leaves great pity for the Lepidopterrans. The Lepidopterra of the Antiverse was once a thriving swamp land, but destruction caused rampant solar flares is turning the once lush bayous into barren tar pits. The Lepidopterrans have been forced underground into subterraneous caves to survive the drying of their planet. In response, they have devolved to a state of atavistic regression, the species becoming more and more feral with every passing generation. They hunt and slaughter each other to ensure the brood of their clans can live to see a new day."

"Skunk Moth cannot create slime like Stinkfly, but instead produces a noxious vapor. This vapor is comprised of chemical bonds similar to that of Agent Orange or chlorine gas, making it a very potent chemical weapon. It also has slight acidic properties as well. Skunk Moth can also use the horn on his head offensively as well, and his armored body makes him highly durable. But his atavistic mind has the chance to overwhelm Kevin and make him act like an animal and his heavily armored body is not very conducive to aerodynamic flight."

"Skunk Moths DNA sample comes from the Antiverse Lepidopterran Brrz’rk, the leader of the largest and most ruthless colony on Lepidopterra."

[leighnetwork]

Beauty and the Beast Liverpool Empire Theatre review. 

It's a tale As Old As Time, a song as old as rhyme, Beauty and the Beast! 

In this new stage adaptation of the classic Disney movie, Emmanuel Kojo plays beast. A handsome man, who, in his youth, was put under a spell after he turned a girl away. He was spellbound to spend eternity as a monster and his staff as crockery and furniture. Only true love can save him and return his handsome looks. 

Courtney Stapleton plays Belle, a girl who loves to read and learn. Belle lives with her widower father who, when out in the forest, is captured and locked up in the Beasts dungeon. Belle, terrified, offers to swap places with her father. 

Belle soon realises this isn't just any old Castle, its enchanted. 

With Mrs Potts, the motherly talking teapot, her son, chip and a whole cast of household items, their plot to break the spell before the last petal on the red rose falls to the ground and they all become inanimate objects. 

Both Belle and beast are frustrated and stubborn - Belle wants to leave and see her father, beast wants her to do what he wants. He roars, she stomps and  shouts, meanwhile, Mrs Potts and the others begin to worry. Can they overcome their differences? 

Belle's Father stumbles into the arrogant Gaston, who had previously demanded Belle marry him, finding her refusal bewildering. Maurice begs Gaston for help to rescue his daughter. 

Gaston and his crew scoff at the old man, declaring him mad. 

Belle has sneaked around the castle. How will the Beast react when he finds out his prisoners been snooping?  Can Mrs Potts and co help him work out his conflicted feelings for Belle or will his temper scare her off?  As the beast  realises the way to Belle's heart is by being a gentleman, he changes his behaviour. And decides to show Belle his library.  She is overcome. 

Belle's father continues to plead for help on his rescue mission, but they go unheard. 

Belle leaves the Enchanted Castle, carrying a crystal ball to help find her father. 

When she does, Belle learns Gaston has tied up Maurice! Outraged, Belle,, with the help of the crystal ball, proved her dad was right and the beast is real. Gaston riles up the crowd and they charged to the Castle, pitchforks and weapons in the mobs hands. 

Can Belle stop them? Will the last petal fall before Belle and beast declare their love? Will the villagers remember who they are? 

Beauty and the Beast is a timeless tale that's as relevant now, as ever. It tackles violence, mental abuse, control, loneliness, but also, confidence, trust and friendship. The theme of this sparkling musical is beauty is on the inside 

This has to be my personal favourite of the Disney classic films. Belle is relatable to girls who, like me, find solace in books, and feisty, independent, outspoken and don't fit in. 

The vocals were spectacular and breath-taking. 

Sadly, I can't tell you what the visual affects or the dancing was like, because none of the 4 headsets I tried worked! The seat I'd purchased was at the far right of the auditorium where the wheelchair spaces were. All I heard here was a hissing crackle. Staff moved us to the middle. My mum tried it standing behind me. The readers voice came through intermittently. When I put the headphones to my ears, I heard 3 words, a crackle, then silence as the signal cut out. I tried twisting in my wheelchair trying to catch the signal, but, no, nothing. 

What is audio description?  AD 

Audio description provides blind/visually impaired people with a spoken (via headphones) visual commentary of the set, scenery and action. Before a play or musical starts, there is usually a brief introduction to the characters and storyline. Its great as blind/v.i people are able to imagine what is happening on stage 

Usually, theatres Productions have a touch tour where blind/v.i people can get an idea of the show and get a  feel of what the reader is describing. Due to covid, these have been paused, which makes the importance of the ad headphones working even more vital. 

 As it's one of my favourite Disney films, and the fantastic singing could help me keep track and guess where it was up to, I chose not to leave the performance early. 

No refund was offered. I am  disappointed by this experience. I love going to the theatre, and the Liverpool Empire Theatre is local. I have had many happy times here. I will try and not let it alter my future enjoyment of the stage.  

 I will just say this: please test your equipment before handing it out, and I don't just mean standing at the back of the theatre, listening for a few seconds and hearing a sentence and deciding it's fine. Instead, look at the seat number of those who have booked the headphones (oh, yes, vision impairment assistance has to be booked nowadays). If one or more of these tickets are for the wheelchair spaces, then it likely they use a wheelchair, so test them from a lower, seated angle. 

Another thing that would make all Theatre performances more accessible, after checking the headphones work, would be having the Reader record the show in advance so that blind\vi can have the choice to go whenever they want, not on the one and only a.d show in the whole run. 

I heard Beauty and the Beast at the only 'ad' performance. If you have the sight to see it, I recommend going. I am told the special effects are stunning and magical. I heard the dancers pounding the stage with their tap shoes. It sounded so energetic! my mum said the dancing was amazing! Although I only have the sound to go on, I still really enjoyed it. 

 I have since contacted the Liverpool Empire Theatre on social media and they are going to be updating their Audio described equipment and I look forward to testing it out.  

[twatd]

The Great TWATD Reread, VI: Imperial Phase Part II

Alex: Here we are, at the end of my big annotated WicDiv reread. Observations, speculations, a joke about public exhibitionism – this one’s got it all!

Read what I had to say on the previous volumes below. Part I (Faust Arc) Part II (Fandemonium) Part III (Commercial Suicide) Part IV (Rising Action) Part V.i (Pantheon Monthly) Part V (Imperial Phase I)

NB: Spoilers (direct and implied) for everything up to the end of Imperial Phase, including Specials.

#29

Hrmm. Foreshadowing is going to be a bit of theme in this batch of notes, but I’m not sure exactly what is being foreshadowed by Mini and Baal here. Obviously #33’s final reveal, but it feels like it might be reaching towards something beyond that – like after a few more issues we’ll be looking back at these lines with new understanding.

This is the same power Mini used on Brunhilde in #7, but based on its effects, not the one she uses on Sakhmet. More on that later.

I’m always intrigued by which names the gods choose to use for one another. Dio dropping ‘Morrigan’ and ‘Baphomet’ in favour of their given names is interesting – especially given he never actually knew Marian. It seems like a plea to drop all the roleplay and just be human for a second.

#30

It’s interesting that the Urðr/Dionysus/Woden gig-ritual has to be exactly 44,444 people. Presumably because of the Power of Four in WicDiv – but how did the three of them come to that conclusion?

Of course, Minerva follows her own advice, and isn’t wearing her goggles for the any of events of #32-33.

A good issue for my beloved tertiary characters, this. Another bit of Beth – with the same crew as before, suggesting she turned down her cameraman’s stinky resignation letter. I remain confident she still has a role to play, although this may just be because I enjoy and relate to Beth.

And a bit of Brunhilde too, though I am significantly less impressed with her decisions here. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, I guess the Valkyries are supposed to be a more equal partnership now… but I imagine Leigh Alexander, cropped off at the bottom of the comments, is about to give her both barrels.

#31

This is a particularly harsh bit of foreshadowing. See also last issue’s exchange between Morrigan (“Leave now or meet him only in the next life.”) and Dionysus (“Yeah, I know.”). Sad face emoji.

It’s an interesting choice to highlight Amaterasu’s worst side – namely her inability to apply any critical thought to topics like colonialism – right before she dies. In fact, Imperial Phase as a whole is pretty unflattering to ol’ Ammy – a couple of gags at her expense, the “evil sort of Muslims” speech, the horrorshow that is ShinTwo™...

The standard narrative approach would be to get the audience to sympathise with a doomed character as much as possible, to make sure the death has its fullest impact. (See: Dio next issue.) I’m not sure if this is just done to differentiate the deaths, of which there are three in two issues; to underline that the comic sees her as problematic; or for some other as-yet-unknown narrative reason. I’d be intrigued to hear your thoughts.

#32

So what exactly were you trying to do, Woden? Assuming he’s not just being a superior prick – which you never really can with Woden – the only possibility I can come up with is that it was a bit of extracurricular research, outside of what he was supposed to be doing with Cass and Dio. Blake is, after all, an academic who spent his life studying the Pantheon. But he’s also just a prick.

Speaking of people being pricks… This panel does not paint anyone in a good light. I’ve already established how disappointed I am that Brunhilde went back to the Valkyries, but helping out Woden in a pretty transparently evil scheme? Cheering after you beat a man into a coma? “That was amazing”? Not cool, probably-Brunhilde. Not cool at all.

The same goes for the audience’s “One more!” chant. It’s another example of WicDiv’s jaundiced view of fans. They’re frequently depicted them as mindless hedonists, incapable of understanding what they’ve just experienced and constantly demanding more at whatever cost. Going back to Woden’s description of the Valkyries as “addicted”, I wonder if that describes the Pantheon’s audiences too. Are they all just addicts?

A couple of noteworthy things here. The first is that we’re not shown the moment of impact. At the time, it felt like a way of sparing us – which should have been a giveaway, since when has that been the WicDiv way? Revisiting the scene now, it’s clearly a way of hiding the telltale swirly headsplosion effect we’ve seen Ananke use repeatedly, which seems to be a teleport power.

But I’m also watching Baal very closely. His line is a reprise of the one he used to comfort Mini last time she had to do this, back in issue #7, but rereading I can’t help but notice that it could be summed up as “it is necessity”. Hrmm, where have we heard that before?

I’m fascinated by Cass describing Persephone’s performances as “safely middlebrow” here, for a reason I can’t quite put my finger on. All of Persephone’s performances that we’ve seen have been pretty damn personal, and given she was the first god ever to affect Cass, I guess I’ve always assumed she was the best at it.

#33

A rare glimpse into the decision-making process behind who gets to be a god. When Ananke says Jon is “quite unsuitable”, it doesn’t seem like she means ‘…to wield the power’ – after all, he ends up deified regardless – as much as ‘…for the purposes of my manipulation’. She’s not wrong, given Mimir’s immediate reaction is “I won’t do it!”, but for me this is the final blow to the myth that only twelve in all the world are chosen for godhood, and Ananke is merely the arbiter.

What is it with Ananke and back gardens? It’s probably just a narrative symmetry thing, as we have seen her transform a few gods indoors. Maybe she just prefers doing it outdoors. I can sympathise with that.

I’d been wondering why Mimir was so eager to make weapons for the father who beheaded him, but this seems to suggest there’s some kind of mind control involved. Like the kind of mind control that Woden was testing at the gig-ritual, perhaps?

[thesparkjournal]

BOOKS ABOUT THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION A SURVEY & COMMENT ON RECENT TITLES-- THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE VERY UGLY

Reviews by Roger Perkins from The Spark! #27.

The explosive events of October 1917 still resonate strongly, if not always consciously, in the political practices of the present day. Capitalist ruling classes want to erase all favourable memory of October from public consciousness. Thus the capitalist ruling class and the working class must do battle over the meaning of October and utilize all available weapons – one of which is the published and promoted book.

Reviewer Roger Perkins provides a survey of contemporary literature about the Great October Socialist Revolution in celebration of its hundredth anniversary.

***

THE occasion of the centenary of the Russian Revolution has resulted in an intensified ideological struggle on both sides of the class divide. Although a hundred years old, the explosive events of October 1917 still resonate strongly, if not always consciously, in the political practices of the present day. Capitalist ruling classes want to erase all favourable memory of October from public consciousness. The Yeltsin regime in post-Soviet Russia changed the name of Leningrad back to its original tsarist name St. Petersburg.  In the Russia of Putin November 7 is no longer a government-promoted legal holiday. In the Ukraine all communist symbols and images are banned by law. Statues of Marx, Engels and Lenin are defaced and then destroyed. But, ironically, some survive. They are sold off to foreign buyers. As Lenin pointed out, greedy capitalists will sell anything for a profit – even the rope that may some day hang them. But a new radicalizing and questioning young generation must be diverted into various dead ends.  First a trickle of misleading half-truths (somewhat believable to the gullible) followed by a flood of carefully crafted outright lies.  The promoted capitalist road even gives one “freedom of choice”.  A fork to the right or a fork to the left – you choose!  But a dead end remains a dead end, whether to the right or to the left.

The revolutionary left, in contrast believe “To Tell the Truth Is Revolutionary”.  The glowing coals of October must, if not fanned into flames again, be used to ignite new conflagrations.  The lessons of October and the extremely important contributions of Lenin to revolutionary theory and practice must be relearned and creatively applied if we are to organize new Octobers not yet visible over the horizon.  These new Octobers may look quite different from the October of 1917 but the essence would be the same.  The working class has taken power, the capitalist state has been smashed and all kinds of possibilities have opened up.  The road to the future must, of necessity, run also through the past.  Thus the capitalist ruling class and the working class must do battle over the meaning of October and utilize all available weapons – one of which is the published and promoted book.

[Lenin reading with tea. (Public Domain)]

There are hundreds of new and reprinted titles on Lenin and the Russian Revolution to coincide with the Centenary.  Most of the books are hardcore propaganda, academic duds or vacuous twaddle poop.  A few, though, are exceptional and may themselves become the classical reprints of the future.  Only a handful can be mentioned, surveyed or reviewed here. Establishment publishing houses have vomited up new editions of old anti-communist warhorses with new brain-dirtying introductions.  A full marked deck from Richard Pipes who served as Ronald Reagan’s “Soviet expert”, to the very anti-Leninist “liberal” Orlando Figes.  A PEOPLES TRAGEDY:  THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION – CENTENARY EDITION by Figes expresses revulsion at the idea of an organized worker’s revolution, emphasizing instead a revolution propelled forward by mobs of lumpen types rampaging through the streets destroying all in its path.

With a selling price of Cdn. $99.46, the unsold copies may end up in a landfill. Give this book its true use value – pulp it to save trees.                                  

Some books are so slapdash that what is presented as “fact” turns into a risible moment.  For instance one book that may have been of interest shoots itself in the foot by stating that it includes “writings by participants and observers of the October Revolution Lenin, Marx, Trotsky…”.  As far as can be determined old Karl who died in 1883, was not present in 1917 either as a participant or as an observer looking down from on high.

“...the explosive events of October 1917 still resonate strongly, if not always consciously, in the political practices of the present day. Capitalist ruling classes want to erase all favourable memory of October from public consciousness.”

A very ugly book is THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION:  A NEW HISTORY, by Sean McMeekin.  The “New” in the title means a new orgy of hate against Bolshevism and all things Marxist.  McMeekin is a reactionary conservative, a somewhat eccentric maverick but not quite a loose cannon.  He believes that Marxism so dominates academia that very few history books are free from its evil influence, even if written by conservative anticommunists or cold war liberals.  Thus, his passionate goal is to write scholarly tomes unblemished by the Marxist virus.  THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION:  A NEW HISTORY may indeed be free from Marxism but its intended scholarly nature has been severely eroded.  A notch up from the ramblings of a one issue crank but also murderous in intent.   Echoing Churchill’s famous statement, “we should have strangled the baby in its crib”, McMeekin gives Kerensky some advice:  why didn’t you kill the Bolsheviks when you had a chance during the July Days! But how does one classify a work which ignores social forces, classes and imperialist capitalism, and concludes by putting forth the thesis that the revolution of 1917 was caused by some sort of nebulous “German conspiracy”?  

As for 2017, McMeekin sees reds under the bed. Marxism is growing rapidly and not dead (a view contrary to most “socialism doesn’t work”, “end of history establishment” propagandists).  Be eternally vigilant, he warns.  Like a bad Hollywood movie, the monster is going to rise again.  This eccentric professor from tiny Bard College may turn out to be much more prescient than his more prestigious peers. In any case, if not pulped, this book should be compressed into fireplace logs and placed in the “fire sale” loony bin.

Sheila Fitzpatrick is a well-known historian of Soviet society.  Her 1982 book THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION (Oxford University Press) has gone through a number of reprints and revisions, including a new one for the 2017 anniversary.  Fitzpatrick states that her views were “always cool about workers’ revolution” and “it’s not in my nature to come out as a revolutionary enthusiast”. Nevertheless the previously mentioned professor McMeekin always and unjustly attacks her writings as “Marxist”. Fitzpatrick however classifies herself not a Marxist but a “social historian”. Right or wrong her many books do sometimes have insight and are vastly superior to the lies and trash about October, Lenin and the Soviet Union thrown at us.  

REVOLUTION! SAYINGS OF VLADIMIR LENIN -  Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, 2017.

This hundred-plus-page book is not the Lenin equivalent of the famous little red book QUOTATIONS OF CHAIRMAN MAO. Its format is much larger and facing each page with a single Lenin quote is a very beautiful colour reproduction of a revolutionary poster, painting, or other art work, with the occasional exception of a period photo.  A very good-looking and desirable book indeed.  But appearance is not always the same as essence.  Although most of the quotes chosen are good ones, many excellent quotes were overlooked, and some obviously selected and arranged with nefarious intent.  For example, a group of quotations are arranged one after the other and all try to portray Lenin as a violent blood thirsty terrorist. Some of these are indeed valid Lenin quotations but yanked out of context.  All Lenin was really saying was that civil wars following a revolution are violent events. A new revolutionary government has the right to counter white terror with red terror.  White officers who order atrocities will be shot.

But some quotes don’t seem Lenin-like at all, thus necessitating the reviewer to investigate. The introduction warns that there are “many unverified and dubious quotations attributed to Lenin circulating on the internet” BUT “this little volume” is “culled from the vast 45 volume work  THE COLLECTED WORKS OF V.I. LENIN”. If only this were true. Unfortunately some quotes did not come from Lenin’s COLLECTED WORKS. One George Legett produces an alleged Lenin quote from his book THE CHEKA: LENIN’S POLITICAL POLICE. THE MITROKHIN ARCHIVE: THE KGB IN EUROPE AND THE WEST manufactures more. Another quote comes from the U.S. Library of Congress, Russian Archives. Still another oozes out of the pages of THE FLIGHT OF THE ROMANOVS:  A FAMILY SAGA by J.C. Perry and Constintin Pleshakov. By utilizing these dubious sources the Bodelian Library has seriously undermined  its otherwise positive publication. We ask this question: was right-wing pressure applied to include additional quotes not in THE COLLECTED WORKS? Whatever the cause of this atrocity, REVOLUTION! SAYINGS OF VLADIMIR LENIN can now only be given a weak, visibly twitching, not quite vertical thumbs up – the art work is good.

“the capitalist ruling class and the working class must do battle over the meaning of October and utilize all available weapons-- one of which is the published and promoted book.”

Another “quote book” is MARX ENGELS LENIN TROTSKY: GENOCIDE QUOTES:  THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF COMMUNISM’S FOUNDING TYRANTS (2016) by one James Demeo who claims to have a Ph.D. (what university?) and was a former university professor (what university?) -- no special details given. So why stop to take a second look. Well, for one, the book was intentionally aimed at the 2017 window of interest. And two, Demeo’s previous book was titled THE ORGONE ACCUMULATION HANDBOOK… WITH CONSTRUCTION PLANS which indicates the author is a follower of the tragic German Freudian-Marxist psychologist Wilhelm Reich. Reich was the only person to be expelled, for different reasons, from both the Communist Party and the International Psychoanalytical Association at virtually the same time. His early work had some merit: THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM and SEX-POL: ESSAYS ON SEXUAL POLITICS. But after he fled to the United States to escape Nazi Germany his views took on a more pronounced weirdness. His cognition of reality suffered severe “perception problems”. He claimed to have discovered some sort of healing life force energy (he could even see it) pervading the universe which he called the orgone. He built a large box that could concentrate this super energy, had patients step inside and when they emerged all ills – even cancer -- would be cured. Reich was arrested for medical fraud, imprisoned and died ranting about a “communist conspiracy” to impede his work.

Whether selling do-it-yourself orgone accumulator plans or selling the anti-communist GENOCIDE QUOTES, the charlatan Demeo is not worth your time.

THE CATASTROPHE: KERENSKY’S OWN STORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION by Aleksandr Kerensky (originally published in 1927, now reprinted in 2016 by Gyan).

Kerensky was associated with the Social Revolutionary Party, a party that was influenced by Marxism but not Marxist – the dominant influence being left agrarian populism.  After the Tsar was overthrown Kerensky became Minister of Justice and then Minister of War.  After the “July Days” of 1917 he held the position of Prime Minister and then appointed himself Supreme Commander in Chief.  Kerensky was applauded at first but his popularity declined like a stone in freefall when workers, peasants and soldiers realized they had been deceived.  The promised land distribution was put off until “some day in the future”. Russia did not withdraw from the imperialist slaughter of World War I. Kerensky instead intensified the war effort, hoping for eventual “Victory”.  Hundreds of thousands of soldiers deserted, many taking their weapons with them.  Bolshevik support and prestige rose rapidly as the slogans “Peace, Land, Bread” and “All power to the soviets” were welcomed like a breath of fresh oxygen. In October 1917 (November 7 – new calendar) Kerensky’s government was brought to an end. Lenin became the leader of a new Soviet Russia. Kerensky went into exile to the United States where he was employed by the anti-communist Hoover Institution. The book he then wrote uses the word CATASTROPHE to describe the above events. But to millions of Russians and millions of others around the world the Russian Revolution was the most wonderful and inspiring event in human history.

This reviewer attended a public lecture given by Kerensky at the University of British Columbia sometime in the 1960s and was surprised that Kerensky still considered himself to be a “socialist revolutionary” -- it was the Bolsheviks who betrayed the revolution.  His speech included much left verbiage – “imperialism”, “bourgeoisie”, etc. but Kerensky always did have a talent for talking “left” while walking (sometimes running) to the right. He died in 1970 at the old age of 89. If only Lenin (dead at 53) could have lived as long!

One new book about Lenin, and of the “what if” genre, is LENIN LIVES:  REIMAGINING THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION by Philip Cunliffe – Zero Books – 2017. It raises the question: what if…. Lenin had lived long enough to see the global spread of the Russian Revolution to Western Europe and the USA? The answer given is that socialist revolution in the most advanced economies would usher in the era of global peace, progress and prosperity. Right on! That is the answer we expected and wanted to hear.  But speculation is one thing, actual reality is another. What the author sets out to describe is precisely WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN. The key German Revolution, almost successful, was defeated and European revolutionary upsurges retreated. Instead the world revolutionary process shifted elsewhere; it unwound from the “wrong “ end and instead travelled to less economically developed countries – China, Vietnam, Cuba, and even reversed itself. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is no longer to be found on any up-to-date map of the world. So “what is” and “what ought to be” is a contradiction that must be very carefully looked at.

Marxists are reluctant to describe “possible futures” in any detail, even sketchy outlines can prove to be blurry. This is so because the contingencies of dialectical, historical processes can and do affect possibility becoming a reality. Even with Lenin’s steady, wise hand on the tiller, chaotic rapids (with hidden rocks), whirlpools, strong currents and violent storms could throw the revolutionary boat off its intended course. It might not dock at author Cunliffe’s envisioned future. Perhaps Lenin would have steered it to an even better place, or perhaps not.

The words “perhaps”, “maybe” and the expressions “what if” and “if only” and subjunctive verbs enable the future to exist within the present. If idealization of the future can provide inspiration in the present for tired revolutionary souls needing a recharged revolutionary practice, then we have no choice but to shout, along with the author “long live utopia”.

BLOODSTAINED:  ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF LENINIST COUNTERREVOLUTION -- AK Press -- 2017 -250pp.

The Anarchist Publisher AK Press describes BLOODSTAINED on its website as follows:

“On the centenary of the 1917 Russian Revolution, paeans to the conquering Bolsheviks will be sung.  BLOODSTAINED  highlights the darker echoes coming from that event, with a mixture of classic and new essays that expose a murderous dictatorship as it developed, paving the way for Stalin, Mao, Castro, and others to slaughter and starve their opponents.  The defense of this criminal enterprise, later categorized as actually existing socialism ends here. No more velvet-gloved hagiography. No more Lenins”.

The same description on some “alt-right” (read Fascist) website would raise few eyebrows and would probably garner a number of orders from those who actually have the ability to read books.  How does one explain this conjunction of anarchism on the “left” and the fascistic right.  That they both intensely hate Lenin and have a common enemy is obvious. Are they just flip sides of the same coin? Or have some strains of mutated hypertrophied Anarchism become so far out of time and so lost in space and so disorientated that they have wandered to the other side of the barricade? It is they who are counter-revolutionary, and not Lenin. Most unfortunately while a wounded bourgeoisie staggers about, and flails wildly in the futile hope of landing a lucky knockout punch to the chin, its tag-team partners, the anti-Leninist anarchists prefer dirty left jabs below the belt.  Usually looked-up-to Simon Fraser University professor Mark Leier has joined them by supplying an essay to this collection of smelly anti-Leninist tirades. Leier, who in the past has called for closer collaboration between anarchists and Marxists against the common enemy, obviously hesitates to extend the wish to Leninists. Let us hope that reality forces him to reverse himself at some future date.

AK Press has done a disservice to the coming revolutionary possibilities by dredging up this discordant, divisive, sectarian fulmination against Leninism. The young generation needs to discover Lenin afresh. A new generation of Lenin haters will only bring fascism closer and socialist revolution farther away.

[Red guard unit of the Vulkan factory in Petrograd. 1917. (Public Domain)]

NO LESS THAN MYSTIC: A HISTORY OF LENIN AND THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION FOR A 21ST-CENTURY LEFT  by John Medhurst-- Repeater Publishers 2017 while very similar in aim as the AK Press book (Lenin and Bolsheviks = bad), Medhurst  takes a different tack. After establishing his anti-Leninist credentials, he then devotes an inordinate, excessive and voluminous amount of space to the policies and actions of opponents to Bolshevism – the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, the Jewish Bundists, the “Workers’ Opposition” faction inside the Bolshevik Party, and of course the Anarchists.  The author identifies with the likes of Julius Martov, Victor Chernov, and Nestor Makhno.                  

The book informs us that today we should look to the Zapatistas, the Kurds, the Argentinian “Recovered Factories” movement, the Occupy movement, the Arab Spring, the intersectional feminists and so on, ad infinitum.  Anywhere and everywhere but to Lenin and Leninism.

    Leninists do take note of the above movements, pointing out their positive and negative aspects, absorbing what is useful and strongly rejecting what is harmful. We often find ourselves side by side fighting a common enemy. But a left that only flies the continuous loops of an “anti-capitalist” holding-pattern will never land the plane, although it may crash when its fuel runs out. Lenin’s great genious and insight was knowing when, where and how to land the plane. In addition loosey-goosey utopian disorganizations obsessed with “authoritarianism” and “strong leaders” only dissipate the steam of revolution. What socialists need is some sort of disciplined, central coordinating body (call it a Party, or something else if you wish).  Capitalism does not just “collapse”; it must be consciously brought down. NO LESS THAN MYSTIC seeks reforms that allow people to live in “safe niches or cracks” inside capitalism while awaiting its collapse. It does not project a valid strategy to bring the system down.

Another book that slights Lenin is Leon Trotsky’s HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, reprinted by Penguin for 2017. Trotsky was by far the most vainglorious, egotistical, conceited and arrogant revolutionary figure in history.  This extreme character defect could only result in Trotsky inflating his own role and shrinking that of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. So much so that even one of his followers, Tony Cliff founder of the International Socialists had to criticize Trotsky by stating that THE HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION has a “serious defect”.And what is this serious defect? According to Cliff: “The one thing noticeably missing is the Bolshevik Party: its rank and file, its cadres, its local committees, its central committee.”  And again: “Throughout his HISTORY the Party is hardly referred to” and once more: “The Party, alas, is almost absent”. (all quotes, pages x-xi, preface to LENIN- VOLUME  2 – ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS – by Tony Cliff.)

We ask this question: how reliable is a book about the Russian Revolution in which the Bolshevik Party “is almost absent”?  Trotsky entered the Bolshevik Party just before the October Revolution with a long history of anti-Leninist, anti-Bolshevik factionalism. Trotsky always thought his “intellect" was superior to that of the “slovenly attorney” Lenin. Naturally this led to delusions as to who was best fit to lead the Russian Revolution. The result – a very heavy, over 1000 pages door–stop written by a narcissistic egomaniac who looks in the mirror far more often than he looks at the unfolding revolution before him. Some critics, however, praise the book for its “literary qualities” which is not surprising, given that THE RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION by Leon Trotsky is a work of creative fiction.

But we do have some good classic reprints as well.  The most classic of all classics is TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD, by John Reed.  Although never out of print, it is now available from fifteen different publishers – some adding a horrid introduction.

Less known but certainly worth reading is SIX RED MONTHS IN RUSSIA (1918) by Louise Bryant wife of John Reed and now available again in reprint. In the 1981 film REDS Bryant is acted by Diane Keaton while Reed is played by Warren Beatty.

RED HEART OF RUSSIA (1918) by Bessie Beatty is another period reprint sympathetic to the Revolution. As are two books by Albert Rhys Williams. LENIN: THE MAN AND HIS WORK (1919) – reprinted by Forgotten Books 2017 and THROUGH THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION (1923 – reprinted 2016 in a deluxe edition with photographs and Russian posters in colour).

THE SOUL OF THE REVOLUTION (1917) by Moissaye Joseph Olgin has been reprinted by Forgotten Books (2017). Olgin was an early translator of Trotsky (OUR REVOLUTION – 1918) but chose Marxism-Leninism and later wrote TROTSKYISM: COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN DISGUISE (1935).

Although Progress Books: Toronto was a victim of revisionist liquidation, LENIN AND CANADA by Tim Buck has been made available again by Create Space.

ROSA LUXEMBURG’S VIEWS ON THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, by Clara Zetkin (212 pp) was an unexpected but very pleasant find. Originally published by the Communist International in 1922 in German and Russian, it is only now (2017) available in English translation published as a joint venture between Red Star Publishers (USA) and Revolutionary Democracy (India). Clara Zetkin was a leading German Communist and close friend of Luxemburg.  Her book counters the misleading views of Paul Levi (an ex-communist who returned to social democracy). Levi attempted to prove that Luxemburg was also anti-Lenin and anti Bolshevik by promoting her views while she was isolated in prison and unable to obtain adequate information. Luxemburg did indeed criticize the Bolsheviks for abolishing the Constituent Assembly. But Zetkin’s book:

“makes clear that, in the two months between Luxemburg’s release from jail and her murder (by soldiers of the Social Democratic Government), her practice and her articles in Rote Fahne show that she had taken essentially the same position as Lenin and the Bolsheviks, in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat and power to the workers”.

In other words Lenin and Luxemburg were not antagonists but in essential agreement. This book should be on every socialist’s to-be-read list.

“[Luxemburg’s] practice and her articles in Rote Fahne show that she had taken essentially the same position as Lenin and the Bolsheviks, in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat and power to the workers.”

Books directed at young people are not overlooked. THE CLEVER TEEN’S GUIDE TO THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION by Felix Rhodes is not clever enough. Its cover shows a towering Lenin giving a Nazi Heig Heil salute. Any clever teen knows immediately that the cover is a fake. Lenin’s right arm is about 50% longer than his left arm – a congenital defect common to all Bolsheviks in the minds of “anti-totalitarian” Liberals and “anti-authoritarian anarchists. The book’s message: Socialism is an unreachable utopia.  Any attempt to get there will inevitably end up in totalitarianism. For even younger readers we are presented with the bizarre and incredible THE DRESS-UP RUSSIAN REVOLUTION: DISCOVER HISTORY THROUGH FASHION. The publishers blurb asks:”what did the Tsar and Tsarina wear at their engagement? Why did Lenin wear a red ribbon?”  This reviewer doesn’t recall (faulty memory?)  Lenin wearing a red ribbon. From black and white photographs available it does appear that he did always wear the same suit except when he went underground and disguised as a clean-shaven peasant after the “July Days”.  This colourful cut-out costume book is utilized by cutting out pictures of printed clothing and attaching them to the appropriate figures. By dressing and undressing Lenin we do not and cannot learn anything about Leninism. Even if you are still curious about Lenin’s red ribbon, pass on this one.

A third title, light years better, aimed at young minds is: 1917: RUSSIA’S RED YEAR by John Newsinger and illustrated by Tim Sanders (Bookmarks Publications – 2016). Anything written by socialist John Newsinger is enjoyable reading. The publisher’s description of this graphic novel is as follows:

“A revolution made by ordinary people that had the power to change everything – that is the story we follow through the lives of two young people Natalia and Peter. In 1917, Russian women workers poured out of their factories, defied Cossacks armed with whips and took control of the streets.  The government brought in the troops to restore order.

But soldiers, angry at the war, food shortages and much more, mutinied and joined the marchers.  That is where Natalia and Peter’s story begins.  By October workers had taken control.  This fictionalized account of real events follow Natalia and Peter through a momentous year that changed those who lived through it forever and has inspired millions since.”

Recommended for all ages.

Another work very highly recommended if it were not so expensive is the two volume LENIN’S ELECTORAL STRATEGY by August H. Nimtz (Palgrave MacMillan 2014 and 2016). But, most unfortunately, with a price of over one hundred dollars for each volume the average activist or local library will not be able to afford this book. Although not specifically writing for the centennial, Nimtz convincingly refutes the standard charges made against Lenin by “democratic” socialists, anarchists, and the plethora of anticommunist centenary books – Lenin was antidemocratic and totalitarian. To the ears of a ruling class that has lost power, these charges ring true. They no longer have the “democratic” right to exploit and enslave workers and peasants: They no longer have the “democratic” right to launch wars of aggression in search of maximum profits and they no longer have the “democratic” right to arrest and imprison – even kill – those who oppose them. They have lost these “rights”.  But for millions the Russian Revolution was the most democratic event ever. All power to the Soviets was a vastly superior form of democracy. A great contribution by Lenin was to take democracy to a higher level – the new democracy of socialist revolution. As for today, just how “democratic” are money-controlled parliaments, rigged elections with voting machines designed to be compromised by the capitalist who manufactured them, gerrymandered electoral constituencies based on geographical areas only, restricted ballot and TV access, and purged voter lists? Socialist democracy and capitalist “democracy” are vastly different entities, not just quantitatively but especially qualitatively.

We now come to the traditional English language left publishing houses. The severely debilitated, but still afloat, communist International Publishers (USA) and the attenuated Trotskyist Pathfinder Press (USA) survive from their backlists. New October or Lenin books are absent. Lawrence and Wishart, the publishing house of the now defunct Communist Party of Great Britain, totters on with a left  lean that seldom ventures beyond Labour Party “moderates” and social democracy. Its contribution to the centeniary is Menshevik, not Bolshevik. TWO YEARS OF WANDERING: A MENSHEVIK LEADER IN LENIN’S RUSSIA by Fedor Illich Dan (2016) – translated for the first time into English. Unlike Martov, Trotsky or Plekhanov, who occasionally pulled back from the extremes of Menshevism, Dan was unrelenting. After 1917 and the ensuing Civil War, his anti-Leninist views gaining little traction, he left Soviet Russia and moved to the United States, where he died in 1947. Ironically, during World War II Dan gave verbal support to the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany, not through any newly-acquired sympathy for the Soviet Union, but in the belief that the Russian motherland must be defended against foreign invasion.

Monthly Review Press (USA) has been publishing Marxist books for over sixty years and still going strong. RECONSTRUCTING LENIN:  AN INTRODUCTORY BIOGRAPHY (2015) by Tamas Krausz argues for Lenin’s continuing relevance today.

The Chicago-based Haymarket Books, established in 2001, has now become the largest radical publisher in the United States. It publishes a broad spectrum of quite useful titles alongside, of course, its featured Trotskyist core. Haymarket is the publishing outlet for the suspect International Socialist Organization (ISO), whose variety of Trotskyism is nasty indeed. The ISO has been justly criticized as “State Department Socialists” because they serve as cheerleaders for “human rights” imperialism. Whether they are “useful idiots” or outright paid agents, the result is the same – try to convince the left to back the imperialist removal of the “dictator of the day”- Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and now Syria.  They even criticized Obama from the right for showing insufficient determination to remove Bashar Al Assad. Imperialism is not really all that bad unless it happens to be “Russian Imperialism” or “Chinese Imperialism”. The ISO runs interference for all US sponsored so called “colour revolutions” and “human rights” campaigns. So one must be leary of some titles published by Haymarket. As for October, one can find more than a few centenary volumes.  But it is Trotsky and not Lenin that is featured.  The expected reprint of Trotsky’s extremely flawed HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION is in hardcover. LESSONS OF OCTOBER by Trotsky is now available again. But the 440 page TROTSKY ON LENIN is dishonest. This is a reprint of the post-1917 YOUNG LENIN and LENIN, NOTES FOR A BIOGRAPHER,  together in one volume and given the new title TROTSKY ON LENIN. An honest TROTSKY ON LENIN would include his writings and speeches before 1917, which would reveal that Trotsky was hostile to Lenin from day one. But, of course, Haymarket will not print these because Trotsky must be made to appear as a comrade-in-arms of Lenin. 100 YEARS SINCE THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION includes Trotsky’s 1932 speech in defence of the Russian Revolution followed  by Ahmed Shawki’s (ISO) praise of Trotsky and the attempt to fit him into our times.  EYEWITNESSES TO THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION edited by Todd Chretien (ISO) includes contributions by Trotsky, Luxemburg, Lenin, John Reed, Louise Bryant and others. OCTOBER SONG edited by Paul Le Blanc is “history from below” animated by the lives, ideas and experiences of workers, peasants, intellectuals, artists and revolutionaries of diverse persuasions.

[Detail from painting depicting the storming of the Winter Palace, 1917. (Public Domain)]

YEAR ONE OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION is written by the always-moving-on anarchist-turned-Bolshevik Marxist-till-death, Victor Serge.  Today he is known more as a novelist than a political activist. YEAR ONE OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION is a good read and does have something to say that merits attention.  To conclude with Haymarket, other good books do get reprinted. THE BOLSHEVIKS CAME TO POWER:  THE REVOLUTION OF 1917 IN PETROGRAD (1976) BY Alexander Rabinowitch; RED PETROGRAD:  REVOLUTION IN THE FACTORIES 1917- 1918) originally 1983 Cambridge Univ. Press by S.A.Smith and surprisingly REMINISCENCES OF LENIN by Nadezhda Krupskaya (wife of Lenin). The fact that there is no stand-alone collection of Lenin’s writings on October is telling by its absence.

“...today’s tasks are not those of post-1917 Soviet Russia. Our long retreat is pregnant with the explosive potential of advance. Read Lenin rather than Žižek.”

Leftword Books in India has two books. They have RED OCTOBER: THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND THE COMMUNIST HORIZON (1917), edited by Vijay Prasad. The book provides us with the assurance that a workers and peasants state can exist. And they have also published RANK-AND-FILE BOLSHEVIK: A MEMOIR (1917) by Cecilia Bobrovskaya. The author (1873 – 1962) was an early Bolshevik activist, and a member of the Society of Old Bolsheviks. She worked tirelessly helping build the Party for both the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions. This reprint consists of two texts by Bobrovskaya: her own memoirs and her short biography of Lenin. Bobrovskaya describes what it took to make the Revolution – not one push in 1917 but tens of thousands of pushes provided by people like herself, one of the many rank-and-file Bolsheviks.

The remaining publishers are all British.  The long time left publisher Merlin Press has issued OCTOBER 1917: WORKERS IN POWER with essays by Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, Ernest Mandel and David Mandel with an introduction by Paul Le Blanc who discusses recent scholarship and debates.

Pluto Press has given us A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION  by Neil Faulkner.  Spokesman Books has a new and expanded centenary edition of BRITISH LABOUR AND THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. In addition to the already mentioned graphic novel  1917: RUSSIA’S RED YEAR, Bookmarks has published LENIN FOR TODAY  by John Molyneux who sets out to show that Lenin’s main ideas remain valid and relevant in 2017. Also RUSSIA 1917 by Dave Sherry which is not confined to  1917 but starts at the turn of the century.

Saving the best for last we finally arrive at Verso Books, the largest independent publisher of English language radical books in the world. It has created a new series, “Russian Revolution 1917” with some good new titles. RED FLAG UNFURLED:  HISTORY, HISTORIANS AND THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION  by Ronald  Suny. This new volume explores the historical controversies of 1917 and Suny ponders what lessons 1917 provides for Marxism and the alternatives to capitalism.  LENIN 2017:  REMEMBERING, REPEATING AND WORKING THROUGH by Slavoj Žižek with selected Leinin reprints. The controversial and puffed-up political peacock Žižek has become a “Star” to the broad left and many academic “Marxists”.  This reviewer is not at all impressed. Lenin was down to earth and easily understood;  the fancy verbiage of Žižek is sometimes incomprehensible and always somewhat airy-fairy. Nevertheless his ideas should be looked at and when necessary refuted.

Žižek postulates that Lenin’s true greatness is not to be found so much in 1917 but in the retreats that were forced on the new revolutionary government. In other words the revolutionary genius of Lenin should be even more remembered as the strategist and tactician of survival in hard times.  But today’s tasks are not those of post-1917 Soviet Russia.  Our long retreat is pregnant with the explosive potential of advance.  Read Lenin rather than Žižek.

Unlikely events do happen. At long last someone has begun to reprint some of Trotsky's earlier writings.  Thank you Verso!  AGAINST LENIN: THE PRE-BOLSHEVIK WRITINGS  by Leon Trotsky, introduction by Tariq Ali, contains a selection – mostly on organizational questions.  There is much more that remains to be translated.  The book is listed only as “forthcoming”, but hopefully soon. Then there is the astounding announcement that Verso will reprint Lenin’s COLLECTED WORKS. Progress Publishers has been killed off, Lawrence and Wishart is now anti-Lenin and International Publishers seems not to have sufficient funding to keep all of Lenin in print.

But it is Verso that outshines the other publishers with two “Blockbuster” Books:  THE DILEMMAS OF LENIN: TERRORISM, WAR, EMPIRE, LOVE, REVOLUTION by Tariq Ali and OCTOBER by China Miéville-both very good but not beyond criticism. DILEMMAS OF LENIN by the experienced Marxist writer Tariq Ali doesn’t make us wait for his summation of the October Revolution and Lenin.  On page 2 he states; “Without Lenin there would have been no Socialist Revolution in 1917.  Of this much we can be certain.” He further tells us;

“Lenin had been working on a revolution twenty-five years before 1917. Twenty-four of those years he had worked underground, in prison, in exile.  He had done so without imagining that he would see one in his life time. In January 1917, still in exile, he confessed to a Swiss audience that he and the generation to which he belonged might never witness success: They were fighting for the future.”

There is a lot of contingency in the author’s book:  

“Without the First World War and February 1917, Lenin would have died in exile, one of the many Russian Revolutionaries destined to miss the fall of the autocracy. Trotsky could easily have become a Russian novelist in the Classic tradition.”

Tariq Ali, once a member of a Trotskyist organization in his youth, may be telling us, consciously or not, that it was Lenin who had revolutionary staying power, while the dilettante Trotsky might have become a novelist.

DILEMMAS OF LENIN is not a standard linear biography nor an intellectual biography as such.  It is a “focused” biography concentrating on the important dilemmas of Lenin’s political life.  Around these nodal points the necessary history and biographical detail are added to make a more complete biography.

The author begins with the very young Lenin and the decision he had to make after the execution of his older brother for terrorism.  Should he seek revenge by following in his brothers terrorist foot steps or should he embrace the new Marxism that was beginning to make headway in Tsarist Russia.  For Tariq Ali and Lenin there was no real dilemma.  It was a no brainer that Lenin chose Marxism.  No matter how spectatular the “propaganda of the deed”  Tsardom was not going to fall.  Dilemmas are more complicated quandrys, sometimes a no win situation.

The outbreak of the First World War was a real dilemma for Lenin. How could the German Social Democratic Party and Lenin’s mentor Karl Kautsky, succumb to the militarism and cries for imperialist war. Lenin “solves” this dilemma by a very angry public break with the German Party.

But Tariq Ali does not dwell on just how shocked Lenin was and what he did next.  Lenin thought the newspaper he was holding in his hands was a fake.  It had to be!  Socialists would not advocate the slaughter of worker by worker.  Had not anti-war resolutions easily passed at all International congresses?  When reality set in the next day Lenin realized that the “Marxism” of Social Democracy had been hollowed out.  Its outer shell provided its appearance but its inner core its rotten essence.

Lenin was probably the only revolutionary in the world who did what he did next.  He went back to the basics of Hegel, disappeared into the library for long periods, and emerged with what became the PHILOSOPHICAL NOTEBOOKS (Volume 38 of his COLLECTED WORKS).

Another dilemma after the February 1917 Revolution was to find a way to Socialist Revolution.   Almost all the Socialist Parties, including most Bolshevik leaders thought the bourgeois democratic state would last for a considerable length of time.  The Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries were unmovable, but most Bolsheviks came around to Lenin’s view. But even then Kamenev and Zinoviev leaked the exact date of the October uprising thinking it would be cancelled.  

Still another dilemma, at least in Tariq Ali’s mind, was the affection of Lenin for Inessa Armand the Bolshevik director of Zhenodel, the women’s department.  Historians disagree as to the nature of this relationship. Tariq Ali believes she might have been Lenin’s “mistress”.  But this view may tell us more about Tariq Ali than about Lenin or Armand.

The last dilemma mentioned in this review is the period of Lenin’s stroke and coming death. He was worried about the danger of the Revolutionary Government being weakened by the osmosis of the surrounding  bureaucratic Tsarist culture. He was also concerned about who would be the next leader of the USSR. There was no second Lenin. All leading candidates had not insignificant defects. This dilemma was never “solved”. Had Lenin lived longer perhaps he would have written a new WHAT IS TO BE DONE.    

DILEMMAS does have the usual minor errors. On page 103 the IWW is called the International Workers of the World rather than Industrial Workers of the World – a frequently made mistake. Over all, this is definitely a thumbs-up book.

OCTOBER:  THE STORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION by China Miéville.  This excellent book is a very pleasant discovery, a real gem.  Miéville brings the reader inside the Revolution.  You are there!  With most books of history one reads until it’s time to go to bed, sleep comes next.  With this book sleep becomes an enemy to be fought.  The subtitle claims that October is a “story”.  It is a “story” and a very fine history, thoroughly researched with all the latest information, but is not cluttered with academic footnotes. It sometimes reads like an historical novel but is not. Fiction can often bring out obscured, profound truths better than a mere telling of the facts. OCTOBER is a dialectical fusion of history and fiction with the appearance of a new quality – an unquestionably nonfiction book but one that reads and clarifies as only fiction can.

What Miéville has done by bringing his skills as a novelist into the writing of history is to find a better way to unite form and content.  His dynamic poetry tinged prose advances not so much as a sparkling, sizzling fuse slowly makes its way towards the bomb.  Instead it is propelled, like history, by the complexity of contradictory forces pregnant with inevitability, probablity and contingency.  Miéville’s narrative gallops, slows down, trots, canters, almost stops,twists, turns, veers, gallops again… and then explodes. The story moves as Russian reality itself moved.

But Miéville does not strut his stuff like a postmodern show off. He writes for the reader and not to impress other writers.  The general reader becomes oblivious to the high quality of Miéville’s writing, and becomes absorbed into the “story” of history. The result is not only better history, but a much better history.  What Gabriel Garcia Marquez did to a stagnant literature by developing “magical realism”, Miéville has done to stagnant history by making it excitable, readable and much more truthful.

Miéville is a world famous science fiction/fantasy writer. He has received the very top honours, the Hugo and Arthur C. Clark Awards. He is also an ex-member of the “soft” Trotskyist British Socialist Workers Party and thus brings baggage with him. But this background shows through only occasionally.  Trotsky is not excessively promoted but Stalin had to be vilified as demanded by Trotskyist theology.  But the 1917 views of Stalin were very little different from the orthodox Bolshevik majority.  To get around this barrier Miéville introduces, luckily only briefly, a Stalin “ghost from the future” which allows Miéville to administer the required forty lashes. The perfunctory punishment inflicted, the author returns to the “story” he is telling.  But by and large the author  takes care to portray the main political leaders without hagiography or unjust denigration.

Trotsky is described as “hard to love, charismatic and abrasive, brilliant and persuasive and divisive and difficult.”

The 1917 Stalin is depicted as a “Georgian ex-trainee priest… long time Bolshevik activist.  A capable, if never scintillating organizer.  At best an adequate intellectual, at worst an embarrassing one.  The impression he left was one of not leaving much of an impression”.  – “A grey blur.”

“...many of the October and Lenin titles from left publishers are worth reading, time permitting. But it is Lenin himself that MUST be read--”

As for Lenin “all who meet him are mesmerized”. “To his enemies… a monster, to his worshippers, a godlike genius; to his comrades and friends, a shy, quick, laughing lover of children and cats”.  “what particularly distinguishes him is his sense of the political moment …an acutely developed sense of when and where to push, how, and how hard.”  Lenin of course did make mistakes but seldom admitted them.  Even friends would “excoriate him for the brutality of his take-downs, flint and ruthlessness” and “intemperate polemics”. The Menshevik Martov was “widely respected, even loved” but “weak and bronchial, mercurial, talkative but hopeless orator, not much better as an organizer”.

Miéville, like Tariq Ali, tries to compensate for the previous male bias in the writing of history.  Alexandra Kollontai is presented as “a provocative and brilliant thinker on a range of issues…”Inessa Armand is introduced as a “feminist, writer, and musician, Lenin’s close collaborator and comrade”. Nadezhda Krupskaya, wife of Lenin, is mentioned throughout OCTOBER but only described by Miéville as seldom taking “a different line from Lenin”.

[Detail from "Through the ruins of capitalism to the universal brotherhood of workers!”. 1920. Nikolai Mikhailovich Kochergin. (Public Domain)]

Little known Bolshevik women are now given names.  Ludmila Stahl became an early supporter of Lenin’s April Theses in opposition to the majority of Bolsheviks. Lenin’s sister Maria Ulianov became more than just a family member but an important Bolshevik who worked at Pravda.  Bolshevik women Elena Adamovich, Ekaterina Alexeeva, Liza Pylaeva, Nima Bogoslovskaya and Yelkaveta Kokshapova are not usually mentioned even in left histories, but given their names by Miéville.  The latter three once, disguised as nurses and carrying Party funds and documents under piles of bandages in baskets, were stopped by government forces who demanded to know what they were carrying.  Pyalaeva grinned and said jokingly “dynamite and revolvers”.  They all laughed and the Bolshevik couriers were waved through.

    OCTOBER is told chronologically with an introductory first chapter” the prehistory of 1917”and an epilogue. All other chapters are named by months beginning with February and ending with Red October.

We end with a dust jacket promotional quote by Barbara Ehrenreich with which this reviewer is in agreement:

“When one of the most marvellously original writers in the world takes on one of the most explosive events in history, the result can only be incendiary”.

In conclusion many of the October and Lenin titles from left publishers are worth reading, time permitting. But it is Lenin himself that MUST be read – there are 45 volumes to choose from. A daily Lenin coffee break is good for one’s political health. May we recommend STATE AND REVOLUTION written by Lenin shortly before October but with publication interrupted until 1918. As Lenin said in a postscript “It is more pleasant and useful to go through the ‘experience of revolution’ than to write about it”.

***

Roger Perkins is a long-time activist and student of global class struggle, living in Surrey, British Columbia.

[Detail from painting depicting Lenin and crowd. (Public Domain)]