Recently CPI (M) General Secretary Prakash Karat called President George Bush a fool andsaid that he had a poor understanding of history. Mr. Karat was attending a function commemorating the 90th anniversary of the 1917 October Revolution was angry that President Bush had compared Lenin to Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler. But guess who has a poor understanding of history?
Following an assassination attempt on Lenin, Stalin wanted a policy of "open and systematic mass terror" to be enforced and Lenin agreed. Red Terror was announced as a policy on September 1, 1918.
"To dispose of our enemies, we will have to create our own socialist terror. For this we will have to train 90 million of the 100 million of Russians and have them all on our side. We have nothing to say to the other 10 million; we will have to get rid of them."
Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror.[Purpose of the Soviet Red Terror]
According to some historians between 1917 and 1922 about 280,000 people were killed through summary executions and supression of rebellions. The repression was against peasants, industrial workers and any one who did not agree with the revolutionaries. Still such brutality is not called holocaust by historians because that credit goes to Hitler alone.
The Sunday edition of New York Times had two stories related to that era and the first one is about the last Russian czar Nicholas II, and his family whom Lenin ordered to be killed in July 1918. Eleven people (czar,the czar's wife, five children, doctor and three servants), were killed, but the remains of only nine were found. A bunch of amateur detectives have now found some bones and pieces of jars that held the acid used to disfigure the bodies and DNA tests will decide if they belong to Aleksei, 13 and his sister.
The second story is about the time of Stalin. In his book The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia
Each story had its own disheartening logic. Stalin’s campaign to intimidate the population had no moral limits. Figes tells of Pavlik Morozov, a teenager said to have been killed by older family members because he had denounced his father for selling false papers to kulaks living in nearby “special settlements.” (The kulaks were a category of so-called richer peasants who were regarded as the principal obstacle to collectivization.) The father was sentenced to a labor camp and later shot. After the boy’s death, the Soviet press created “a propaganda cult” around his case. Maxim Gorky called for a monument to be erected because the boy had “understood that a relative by blood may also be an enemy of the spirit, and that such a person is not to be spared.”[Stalin’s Children]
Similar to how Jihadis around the world worship Osama bin Laden people like Prakash Karat worship mass murderers like Lenin and Stalin and they get offended when the truth about them is told. Mr. Karat may hate George Bush, but at least the latter has his history right.
Comments (11)
JK:
Of course Prakash Karat is going to call President Bush a fool because, as you so clearly illustrated, President Bush is right.
Like radical Islam and Nazism, communism is a totalitarian ideology that relies on violence and terror to maintain power.
It seems Prakash Karat, who received his training at JNU, official university for communism, is reduced to childish name calling.
Quite telling, I think.
Posted by niraj | November 26, 2007 9:44 AM
Posted on November 26, 2007 09:44
"communism is a totalitarian ideology that relies on violence and terror to maintain power." I completely disagree. Without understanding any subject it is foolish to make such public remarks. If you want to understand communism, read the "communist manifesto" and then decide what you want to call communism. President Bush whom both of you apparently seem to worship, probably doesn't know the difference between Lenin and Osama Bin Laden. Lenin was the first to apply marxian philosophy and marxian principles into administration and society. The modifications that he made in marxism for administering the state are known as Leninism. Please atleast atleast get your facts correct if not history correct.
Posted by Aseem Naphade | December 9, 2007 3:22 AM
Posted on December 9, 2007 03:22
Aseem, my mistake. I should have written, "Lenin told the peasants that I am the first to apply marxian philosophy and marxian principles into administration and society, and the first step is to kill all of you"
Posted by JK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://varnam.org/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 9, 2007 10:08 PM
Posted on December 9, 2007 22:08
Please! Argue on fair logical grounds without making absurd statements! Explain your view point
Posted by Aseem Naphade | December 13, 2007 5:05 AM
Posted on December 13, 2007 05:05
Followers of communist parivaar (Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Naxalism, Pol Potism) resort to violence to sustain it. What is there to argue in it? The article is not about the difference between the Leninism and Communism, but an observation of the fact that it does not matter to the people who are dead.
Posted by JK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://varnam.org/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 13, 2007 11:56 AM
Posted on December 13, 2007 11:56
And what you have to say Mr Karat about daily killings in Nandigram. Bush has to compare Osama with Bengal CM Budhha Deb.
Posted by Sanjay | December 17, 2007 3:38 AM
Posted on December 17, 2007 03:38
See the use of force in any political ideology is a very relative concept. To verify just organize a public gathering of 50 people without police permission and see how the police will treat you. Your contention that communism uses force to sustain itself is incorrect. Communism as a system has failed i agree, and it is not a desirable form of government either. The essence of communism (like a class less society, dictatorship of the proletariat) are in my view slightly Utopian although many communists would disagree with this. The point that Im trying to make is that although many concepts and issues about communism are redundant it still cannot be completely discarded. The left parties and their issues with several economic policies of the UPA government are fairly logical. Take for example the Indo US nuclear deal, the left parties have said that through this deal we are forging a strategic alliance with the US and therefore we loose our sovereignty to design our foreign policy, so tomorrow if the US says "Bomb Iran" we have to support their decision even if we dont agree with them. The left parties are constantly bringing up the common minimum pro gramme to make sure that the government sticks to its word about the various sectors like agriculture, employment etc. So the crux of the matter is that one cannot simply label communism as you have and call it evil, yes it has some serious flaws and it has made mistakes but still one cannot completely discard it.
Posted by Aseem Naphade | December 22, 2007 9:29 PM
Posted on December 22, 2007 21:29
Why have you not published my comment??
Posted by Aseem Naphade | December 24, 2007 2:13 AM
Posted on December 24, 2007 02:13
Aseem, Indian Communists for me are simply anti-national and they are a bunch of traitors. So it does not matter to me what their ideology is or what they think.
http://offstumped.nationalinterest.in/2007/06/26/cia-reveals-high-treason-by-indian-communists-will-mssrs-basu-karat-and-yechury-respond/
All you need is look at North Korea and South Korea and see the value of communism. I would prefer to live in South Korea any day and so for me Communism is not even a utopian idea, but something very dangerous which can only send people into poverty.
Posted by JK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://varnam.org/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 24, 2007 7:53 PM
Posted on December 24, 2007 19:53
Why aren't you publishing my comment??
Posted by Aseem Naphade | January 8, 2008 7:01 AM
Posted on January 8, 2008 07:01
With due respect, I am not sure what people like Aseem Naphade are driving at. The 123 agreement has a Hyde Act rider that says that if President of US does not think that India is in synch with US policy objectives, India would have to return the material supplied. Nowhere does it say that we have to "bomb Iran". Probably, he has read the Chinese version of agreement. Moreover,
1. Our defence reactors stay the way they are - no IAEA oversight.
2. Deal opens up huge business opportunities for US high technology firms in India. In all pobability, commercial interest would prevent any future US president taking ad hoc decision with respect to Hyde act.
3. India scientists would have access to cutting edge instrument and technology for further research.
I don't understand the aversion to "strategic alliance with US", maybe for communists it translates to "getting ahead of China". Communists are comfortable with us changing our Tibet policy to please China but heavens fall if we support US in opposing regimes like North Korea.
Posted by Vineet | May 5, 2008 9:43 PM
Posted on May 5, 2008 21:43