A century after Lenin’s death, the USSR’s founder seems to be an afterthought in modern Russia


BY JIM HEINTZ
 January 20, 2024

Not long after the 1924 death of the founder of the Soviet Union, a popular poet soothed and thrilled the grieving country with these words: “Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live.”

A century later, the once-omnipresent image of Vladimir Lenin is largely an afterthought in modern Russia, despite those famous lines by revolutionary writer Vladimir Mayakovsky.

The Red Square mausoleum where his embalmed corpse lies in an open sarcophagus is no longer a near-mandatory pilgrimage but a site of macabre kitsch, open only 15 hours a week. It draws far fewer visitors than the Moscow Zoo.

The goateed face with its intense glare that once seemed unavoidable still stares out from statues, but many of those have been the targets of pranksters and vandals. The one at St. Petersburg’s Finland Station commemorating his return from exile was hit by a bomb that left a huge hole in his posterior. Many streets and localities that bore his name have been rechristened.

Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, poses for a photographer in this 1922 photo in Gorky, outside Moscow. He died on Jan. 21, 1924. (AP Photo)

The ideology that Lenin championed and spread over a vast territory is something of a sideshow in modern Russia. The Communist Party, although the largest opposition grouping in parliament, holds only 16% of the seats, overwhelmed by President Vladimir Putin’s political power-base, United Russia.

Lenin “turned out to be completely superfluous and unnecessary in modern Russia,” historian Konstantin Morozov of the Russian Academy of Sciences told the AP.

Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov talks as if Lenin still was in charge: “100 years since the day when his big and kind heart stopped, the second century of Lenin’s immortality begins,” he said.


Russian Communists carry a portrait of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, and red flags after visiting his mausoleum marking the 152nd anniversary of his birth in Red Square in Moscow, Russia, on Friday, April 22, 2022

. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko, File)

Putin himself appears inclined to keep Lenin at arm’s length, even aiming some darts at him.

In a speech three days before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Putin dismissed its sovereign status as an illegitimate holdover from Lenin’s era, when it was a separate republic within the Soviet Union.

“As a result of Bolshevik policy, Soviet Ukraine arose, which even today can with good reason be called ‘Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s Ukraine.’ He is the author and the architect,” Putin said.

In a speech a year earlier, Putin said that allowing Ukraine and other republics the nominal right to secede had planted “the most dangerous time bomb.”


Russian Communists and supporters walk with their flags and a portrait of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, to visit his mausoleum in Red Square in Moscow, Russia, to mark the 149th anniversary of his birth, on Monday, April 22, 2019. 

(AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko, File)

Whatever objections to those policies, Putin also is clearly aware of the emotional hold that Lenin retains for many Russians, and he does not support initiatives that arise periodically to remove the body from the mausoleum.

“I believe it should be left as it is, at least for as long as there are those, and there are quite a few people, who link their lives, their fates as well as certain achievements ... of the Soviet era with that,” he said in 2019.

Such links may persist for decades. A 2022 opinion survey by state-run polling agency VTsIOM found that 29% of Russians believed Lenin’s influence would fade so much that in 50 years he would be remembered only by historians. But that response was only 10 percentage points lower than one to the same question a decade earlier, suggesting Lenin remains important.

Lenin’s hold on Russia’s heart is still strong enough that three years ago, the Union of Russian Architects succumbed to a public outcry and canceled a competition soliciting suggestions for how the Red Square mausoleum could be repurposed. That competition did not even specifically call for the removal of Lenin’s body.
ADVERTISEMENT


The embalmed corpse of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, lies behind glass in his mausoleum on Red Square outside the Kremlin wall in Moscow, Russia, in this photo taken on Nov. 30, 1994. (AP Photo, File)

Lenin died on Jan. 21, 1924, at age 53, severely weakened by three strokes. His widow, Nadezhda Krupskaya, wanted him to be buried in a conventional grave.

Lenin’s close associates had feared his death for months. Artist Yuri Annenkov, summoned to do his portrait at the dacha where he was convalescing, said he had “the helpless, twisted, infantile smile of a man who had fallen into childhood.”

Amid those concerns, Josef Stalin told a Politburo meeting of a proposal by “some comrades” to preserve Lenin’s body for centuries, according to a history by Russian news agency Tass. The idea offended Leon Trotsky, Lenin’s closest lieutenant, who likened it to the holy relics displayed by the Russian Orthodox Church — a staunch opponent of the Bolsheviks— that had “nothing in common with the science of Marxism.”

But Stalin, once a divinity school student, understood the value of the secular analogue to a saint.


The first mausoleum of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, who died on Jan. 21, 1924, is seen in Red Square next to the Kremlin Wall in Moscow, Russia, on Feb. 25, 1924. 

(AP Photo, File)

The weather may have tipped the scales. Temperatures were reportedly as low as minus 30 C (minus 22 F) when Lenin’s body was displayed during a wake in Moscow, stalling decomposition and inspiring authorities to hastily build a small wooden mausoleum in Red Square and make further efforts to preserve the body.

A later version, a more modernist take on ancient stepped pyramids clad in somber deep red stone, opened in 1930. By that time, Trotsky had been forced into exile and Stalin was in full control, bolstered by a determination to portray himself as absolutely loyal to Lenin’s ideals.

In the end, the cult of “Lenin After Lenin” may have worked against the Soviet Union rather than strengthening it by enforcing a rigid mindset, in the view of some historians.

“In many ways the tragedy of the USSR lay in the fact that all subsequent generations of leaders tried to rely on certain ‘testaments of Lenin,’” Vladimir Rudakov, editor of the journal Istorik, wrote in this month’s issue.

The Mayakovsky poem that proclaimed Lenin’s immortality was “a parting word, or a spell, or a curse,” Rudakov said.

People walk by a statue of Vladimir Lenin, painted in the colors of Ukraine’s national flag, in Velyka Novosilka, Ukraine, on Thursday, Feb. 19, 2015. (AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda, File)

About 450,000 people file past Lenin’s corpse per year, according to Tass, about a third of the number of Moscow Zoo visitors and a sharp contrast from the Soviet era when seemingly endless lines shuffled across Red Square.

The honor guards whose goose-stepping rotations fascinated visitors were removed from outside the mausoleum three decades ago. At the annual military parade through Red Square, the structure is blocked from view by a tribune where dignitaries watch the festivities.

Lenin is still there — just harder to see.

Bertrand Russell on his meeting with Vladimir Lenin in 1920

Vladimir Lenin's Legacy: An In-Depth Look at His Impact on Communism and Socialist Movements


BioQuote
Mar 8, 2023

Vladimir Lenin was a Russian revolutionary and political leader who played a key role in the establishment of the Soviet Union. He was born on April 22, 1870, in the town of Simbirsk, in central Russia. His parents were well-educated members of the middle class, and his father was an inspector of schools. Lenin was an intelligent and ambitious student, and he developed an interest in revolutionary politics at an early age. He was particularly influenced by the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and he began to read their works while still in high school. In 1887, Lenin's older brother, Alexander, was executed for plotting to assassinate Tsar Alexander III. This event had a profound impact on Lenin, and he became more determined than ever to fight for political change in Russia. In 1893, Lenin moved to St. Petersburg (then known as Petrograd), where he became involved in radical political groups. He quickly rose through the ranks of the Marxist movement, and he soon became a leading figure in the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP). In 1903, the RSDLP split into two factions, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, and Lenin became the leader of the Bolsheviks. Over the next several years, Lenin worked tirelessly to promote his vision of a socialist revolution in Russia. He wrote numerous articles and pamphlets, and he organized underground cells of Bolshevik supporters throughout the country. In 1917, his efforts paid off, and the Bolsheviks seized power in the October Revolution. As the leader of the Soviet government, Lenin implemented a series of radical policies aimed at transforming Russia into a socialist society. He nationalized industry, redistributed land, and established a system of worker control over the means of production. However, these policies were not without their challenges, and the country soon faced economic hardship and political turmoil. Lenin suffered a series of strokes in the last years of his life, and his health deteriorated rapidly. He died on January 21, 1924, at the age of 53. His body was embalmed and placed on public display in Moscow's Red Square, where it remains to this day. Despite his controversial legacy, Lenin remains an iconic figure in Russian and world history. His ideas and leadership continue to inspire revolutionary movements around the world, and his legacy continues to shape the course of political discourse and action. 

Thank you for watching, we have worked hard to get this video published and we hope it deserves your attention. © The material is copyrighted audio and video, any use without our permission will be prosecuted under copyright law. We are the owner of the licenses to use all of the material in this video, including its thumbnails. Send us an e-mail for community post shoutout/collaboration/promotions — ketan.vibhav@gmail.com

 

The Lenin Quintet—a series of works published to mark the centenary of his death.

The Lenin Quintet includes new editions of Lenin's work, including The State and Revolution, Not By Politics Alone, and Imperialism and the National Question, with contributions from Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Tariq Ali, and Antonio Negri. See all the books here.

The Lenin Quintet

Ruth Wilson Gilmore asks how might the politics explained or implied in Lenin’s writings inform our analytical and practical grasp of what is to be done now, in her Introduction to Imperialism and the National Question.

Antonio Negri argues that The State and Revolution by Lenin is the best introduction to Marxism as it places bodies within the daily revolutionary struggle.

In this excerpt from Lenin’s Childhood, Isaac Deutscher creates a scene from the Twentieth CPSU Congress, 1956, where an imagined Lenin reflects on what Leninism has become.

In Not By Politics Alone, Tamara Deutscher describes a Lenin whose whole being was geared to one purpose, the purpose of the revolution.

STATE AND REVOLUTION    THE FOUNDERS OF THE BOLSHEVIK PARTY BOGDANOV, GORKY, LENIN LENIN AND MARX Lenin's last photo he had four strokes

 

US-China Policy Is Not Going According to Plan

by Ted Snider Posted onJanuary 26, 2024

On January 13, the Taiwanese returned the Democratic Progressive Party and its new leader, Lai Ching-te, to power. Lai’s winning campaign had a platform of promoting a separate identity for Taiwan and rejecting China’s territorial claims.

However, the election may not reflect the simple mandate the West projects onto Taiwan, of turning away from China and running into the arms of America.

In her new book, Russia, China and the West in the Post-Cold War Era, Suzanne Loftus cites 2021 polling that shows that only 38% of Taiwanese want independence from China. 50% support the status quo of no unification and no independence and a further 5% prefer unification with China. Recent surveys have found as high as 91.4% support for the status quo, even while 78.4% believe that Taiwan and China are not the same country.

But the relationships are even more complicated than that. Many people in Taiwan support stronger relations with the United States but don’t trust them. A 2023 survey of public perception of the U.S. in Taiwan reveals that only 33.9% of the population think the U.S. is a trustworthy country. That number was 45% just two years ago.

Much has been made of China’s observing the American response in Ukraine as a prototype for how the U.S. would react to a conflict in Taiwan. But Taiwan is watching too, and for the same reason. The New York Times reports that the U.S. decision not to send troops to Ukraine has challenged the people of Taiwan’s trust in the United States. Studies of online discussions in Taiwan, the Times reports, show increasing concern that the U.S. would not come to Taiwan’s aid. Many fear the U.S. will abandon them when it counts. The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan also did not help. And the memory of the American reversal of 1979, when the U.S. was seen as abandoning Taiwan in favor of relations with China, is still painful and strong.

There have been other hints recently that U.S. competition with China is not going according to plan and that China is moving in its own direction.

Part of that direction is toward Russia. The United States has failed to produce even a little daylight between China and Russia over the latter’s invasion of Ukraine. Speaking in a January 18 press conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia-China relations are at their best ever. The “relations are more firm, reliable and more advanced,” he said, “than a military union in its previous Cold War-era understanding.” Lavrov said that the relationship should be a model to the world, as “In all cases, interests of Russia and China reach a common denominator after negotiations, and this is an example for resolution of any issues by any other participants of global communication.”

China has moved closer to Russia, but it has not accommodated the United States or Ukraine. On January 16, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. On the schedule was a meeting attended by 83 countries to discuss Ukraine’s peace plan. China declined to attend.

Ukraine’s presidential chief of staff Andriy Yermak said that it is crucial that China be present at the table for future meetings on Ukraine’s peace formula, and Kiev was anxious to meet with Chinese officials while in Davos. Yermak had hinted that Zelensky would have the opportunity to talk to Chinese Premier Li Qiang while in Davos.

There was opportunity. But there was no meeting. Politico reports that “China’s decision not to meet with Ukrainians appeared intentional and not the result of a scheduling problem.” U.S. officials say that China explicitly rejected Ukraine’s request.

China has also surprised American plans by calming the waters of the South China Sea. The U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy of 2022 says that America’s greatest strength in the region is its “network of security alliances and partnerships” and that it “will work with allies and partners to deepen our interoperability and develop and deploy advanced warfighting capabilities as we support them in defending their citizens and their sovereign interests.” The deterrence is aimed at China. A key country identified in the strategy is the Philippines.

In February 2023, the United States announced the completion of a deal with the Philippines that expands U.S. access to Philippine military bases. The U.S. will gain access to four more bases in addition to the five which they already have access. “With the deal,” the BBC reports, “Washington has stitched the gap in the arc of U.S. alliances stretching from South Korea and Japan in the north to Australia in the south,” encircling China.

But on January 18, China and the Philippines came to an agreement of their own. The two countries agreed to tamp down tensions. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs reportedly said that “the two sides agreed to continue to improve communication and use friendly negotiations to manage their differences at sea.” The Philippines’ Department of Foreign Affairs said, “The two sides had frank and productive discussions to de-escalate the situation in the South China Sea and both sides agreed to calmly deal with incidents, if any, through diplomacy.”

At the close of 2023, U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in San Francisco to attempt to deescalate the rising tension between the two countries. Chinese officials asked Biden to make a clear, public statement after he met Xi, affirming that the United States does not support Taiwanese independence and does support China’s goal of a peaceful unification with Taiwan. “The White House,” NBC reports,  “rejected the Chinese request.”

Meanwhile, in Taiwan, Lai – who lost his party’s majority government with the support of 40% of voters compared to over 50% in the last election – promised to maintain the status quo with China, adding that “Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country, and there is no need to declare independence.”

From Taiwan to Ukraine to the South China Sea, the American relationship with China is more complicated than the Western media often projects, and its plans do not always unfold as written without challenging influences.

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.

 

Americans Are Paying a Massive Price To Maintain the Empire

by Matthew Hoh Posted onJanuary 25, 2024

Two press reports stood out to me this morning: the release of the names of two US Navy SEALs who drowned two weeks ago in the Arabian Sea and the Air Force’s production authorization for the B21 Raider bomber. Both stories symbolize an imperial inertia that defines American national security policies, an inertia that is damaging our democracy and jeopardizing futures.

The SEALs died taking part in a blockade mission against Yemen, a mission that dates back nearly a decade and is part of a two-decade-long history of US military action against Yemen (the US first launched a drone strike in Yemen in 2002). US policy towards Yemen is part of the larger, failed and counterproductive Global War on Terror, which itself is part of a larger, failed and counterproductive US Middle East policy. US Middle East policy, in its current form, goes back to the 1970s and is part of a larger, failed and counterproductive US militarized foreign policy. Can anyone go to the families of those two SEALs killed carrying out those policies and explain what their deaths were for without resorting to grotesque and false tropes of freedom and security, the same aspirational and patriotic fairy tales that have been used to justify 250-plus military operations by the US since 1991?

The other story relates to the authorization of production of the B21 Raider, which is set to replace the B1 and B2 bombers but not the 70-year-old B52s. That the youngest B52 was produced in 1962 and won’t be replaced, but the bombers built in modern times must be replaced, tells you a great deal about the strategy of the American weapons industry. This fleecing of the American taxpayers by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is nothing new. Both political parties have hollowed out the American economy to the benefit of weapons makers. If any citizen has the gall to ask their members of Congress why our living standards are so far below those of the world’s other wealthy nations, the answers come back as some variation of “we can’t afford those things.”

What’s new about the B21 is that the cost for years was classified, even to members of Congress. Budget figures, as well as contract details, production schedules and test results, are still being kept hidden. Reports say Northrup Grumman will produce 100 of the planes, and, with an estimated total program cost of more than $200 billion, keeping quiet about the price tag of $2 billion airplanes is a politically savvy move if not a democratic one.

Alongside the story of the B21 was a reference to the nation’s new intercontinental ballistic missile, the LGM-35 Sentinel, exploding in cost and years behind schedule. Both the Raider and the Sentinel are part of the $2 trillion modernization of American nuclear weapons begun during the Obama Administration. Cynically it is understandable why both the Pentagon and the weapons makers want to keep the B21 program hidden. MIC officials often speak of the lessons learned from the gross cost overruns, lengthy delays and failed testing of weapons systems like the F35, the Littoral Combat Ship and the Future Combat System, among many, many others, and those lessons seem to be: don’t let anyone know what’s going on. The roster of weapons that don’t work and have cost us trillions is seemingly infinite and, in a sanely functioning and non-corrupt democracy, Pentagon budgets would be decreasing, generals would be fired and defense industry share prices would be labeled as SELL. It would be far easier to write about the weapons the US taxpayers have funded that have performed as advertised and stayed within budget, but that would probably only amount to a tweet or two.

The only thing more likely than more American families continuing to lose loved ones to failed and counterproductive overseas wars will be a lack of any effective congressional resistance to US Middle East policy, most urgently Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. Likewise, the only thing more likely than the B21 being another poorly performing MIC cash cow will be the lack of meaningful political opposition to the overall MIC gravy train. The inertia of both a militarized foreign policy that, through its actions, creates a circular reality that justifies continued military action and a military-industrial complex that now says the American people don’t have the right to know how much our weapons cost demonstrate a dangerous reality of American democracy and a terrible path ahead.

Reprinted with permission from Matt’s Thoughts on War and Peace.

Matthew Hoh is the Associate Director of the Eisenhower Media Network. Matt is a former Marine Corps captain, Afghanistan State Department officer, a disabled Iraq War veteran and is a Senior Fellow Emeritus with the Center for International Policy. He writes at Substack.