Putin: Lenin to blame for Soviet Union Collapse

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday Soviet revolutionary Vladimir Lenin and his flow of thought led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — During a meeting of the Presidential Council for Science and Education in the Kremlin, one of the participants quoted a work by Russian writer Boris Pasternak, analyzing Lenin’s revolution and his ability to manage his flow of thought.

“Controlling the flow of thought is the right thing, but it is necessary that this thought led to correct results, not like in the case of Vladimir Iliyich [Lenin]. Because this thought in the end led to the collapse of the Soviet Union…There were many thoughts, autonomization and so on. They put a nuclear bomb under the building which is called Russia, and it exploded. We did not need a world revolution. That’s what the thought was,” Putin said at the meeting.

quotes from: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160121/1033519789/putin-lenin-soviet-union.html

This is also second honest explanation at this week after Israel Defense Minister. Thank you Vladimir Putin for you showed to the world clearly what you think about the Soviet revolution!

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Putin: Lenin to blame for Soviet Union Collapse

  1. The article is somewhat ambiguous. The punchline is:

    Lenin was wrong, theoretically speaking. “We did not need a world revolution. That’s what the thought was . . .”

    This can be interpreted as meaning,

    A) Lenin was wrong to think that you needed world revolution in order to have socialism;

    or

    B) Lenin was wrong to think that you could have socialism in one country, without world revolution.

    It’s a cryptic message because Lenin actually was for exporting the revolution, but saw a need to consolidate the gains made in Russia before proceeding further, because Russia was exhausted militarily and needed to regroup, so to speak. So I’m reading Putin this way: Russia should not have paused or broken its pace in the pursuit of revolution in the geopolitical sphere.

    Is Putin on the side of socialism? I think there are grounds for believing so. See, for example, this article at FortRuss:

    Putin’s Ultimatum to the Russian Oligarchs

    URL: http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/01/putins-ultimatum-to-russian-oligarchs.html

    Maybe the game is on once again.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You think very scientific more than Putin, my Earthling friend:) Putin’s statement is quite straight. After reading your comment I’ve researched. Right now at the Russian news or social media pages there are very arguments about this, because most Russian feels still connection oneself with Lenin, with a respect. There is a lot of argument and conflict at web, it is so exciting actually:)

      This statement was made at meeting with the leadership of Kurchatov Institute. In earlier, the leader of institute Mikhail Kovalchuk quotes by Boris Pasternak’s poem about Lenin: “And now, after seeing him in waking, I thought, I thought endlessly about his authorship and the right to be bold in the first person. The answer is that he ran a current of thought and only because – the country,”

      And Putin over these lines has put own lines (I guess he thought this poem was kind of lack, and he may have decided to complete:)

      Kurchatov Institue as known Russian scientific centre, and these statements had to be all about science and devolopment. Bu he, so Putin directly blamed Lenin. If Lenin wasn’t maybe Russia would devoloped still but not begining from 20’s, maybe it would have started to devolope on science in 50’s. Also it is so funny to blame for collapse of Soviet Union, to someone who died in 1924.

      Do you know what I see in his statements my Earthling friend? At eastern world, kind of leaders who cannot overcome the system but also sees oneself super power, came out. When they feel stalemated yourself they blame the old and respected leaders. They are new world order leaders. I’d want to give another example but I am not in right country for this:))

      Liked by 1 person

      • You may be right. Maybe Putin is very much with the oligarchy. After all, he is embedded in the power structure at the political level. But why does he bemoan — seemingly — the collapse of the Soviet Union?

        When you say the social media is abuzz over Putin’s remarks, are these comments in a medium I would be able to read, in either French or English? I’d be curious to see.

        I’ll see if I can find anything myself.

        Regards,

        –N

        Liked by 1 person

      • You asked that “why does he bemoan — seemingly — the collapse of the Soviet Union?” my Earthling friend. The answer of this actually not about a form, it is about ideological. Putin says in his statement “There were many thoughts then about autonomy and so on.” You know Lenin’s idea “The right to self-determination of peoples”. Putin in this new world order thinks that I guess, “if tsarist Russia had been able to continue, we could exploit the people effortlessly.” Of course he doesn’t mention about tsarist reign exactly, it could be a new country by shaping capitalism and new order. I think while he says “They put a nuclear bomb under the building which is called Russia, and it exploded. We did not need a world revolution.”, he expresses that if Russia hadn’t been a country that leads an idea for entire world, we could move forward in a different way; this seems a burden. He is quite far away from socialism with these ideas. Because he hasn’t understood yet the idea at the basis.

        Already after than Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov reacted to Putin’s words with these statement: “Today, when we talk about modernization, first of all, we must remember the unique experience of Lenin and Stalin. In just 20 years, the country has risen to the heights of the industrial and scientific power, has become the most educated and socially protected.”
        Despite the statement of the leader of Communist Party, it hasn’t yet come an offical statement from Communist Party.

        And finally president’s press secretary made an explanation due to the responses “this is a personal opinion of Putin, everyone, including the president, is entitled to express his attitude to the role of this or that individual in history, it may be a cause for disagreement, but there is nothing to be indignant about.”

        Besides, you also asked “is there any web-link that you can able to read in English and French these arguments among the people”. If there is I don’t know my Earthling friend. All in Russian. Already I don’t know French, and you see how my English is:)

        And I’d like to add, Russian society is similar with Turkish society in this angle. They are closed society. They discuss a lot among themselves, or even the storms break out inside themselves. But they do not show this to the outside world. When looking from outside world to these societies, they seem to be silent. But they are not. Of course there are many reasons of this. But I think two biggest reasons of this; firstly cultural differences; and secondly, the motive that gives priority to solve some things among themselves. Even there is a expression “arm is broken but it still remains within sleeve”, perhaps this is appropriate for the situation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Many thanks for your reply, Migarium. I’d been trying to figure out Putin, and in my wishful thinking, I’d made him out to be someone who might have had socialist sympathies. But alas, it is not so, and the people of Russia, every bit as much as everywhere else, will have to struggle just as hard for their freedom.

        At the moment I’m reading a piece of work by Paresh Chattopadhyay, titled “THE MARXIAN CONCEPT OF CAPITAL AND THE SOVIET EXPERIENCE: Essay in the Critique of Political Economy.” The gist of Paresh’s essay is that the Soviet Union was never in terms of how Marx himself understands it, socialist, but merely transitioned to state capitalism.

        Therefore, the only thing that happened when the Soviet Union “fell,” according to Paresh and from the standpoint of ordinary Russians, was a “juridical” transfer of “property.” In this, think Paresh is correct. If you are at all curious about the essay, you can read it in PDF, here:

        https://libcom.org/files/the%20marxian%20concept%20of%20capital%20and%20the%20soviet%20experience.pdf

        Thank you for enlightening me on Putin, the man, and the tensions that doubtlessly exist within Russian society.

        Best regards,

        –N

        BTW: your English isn’t that bad, for an extraterrestrial 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you for your kind words my Earthling friend, and thank you for giving essay link! Actually I guess it is not a essay it is a middle thick book:)

        You quoted from Paresh and said that :”the only thing that happened when the Soviet Union “fell,” according to Paresh and from the standpoint of ordinary Russians, was a “juridical” transfer of “property.””

        When in first look to this expression, it doesn’t seem right completely. Of course I have to read completly for I can understand what he really wants to say. Why it doesn’t seem right completely to me, because if it was just for this, all Soviet republics wouldn’t have endured to all suffer during the transition period.

        At March 17, 1991, it has been referandum about preservation of USSR. After the perestroyka begining from 1980, and after the glasnost begining from 1985, they asked to the all Soviet republics:

        “Do you consider necessary the preservation of USSR as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?”

        And the result is in here, we can see:
        http://sputniknews.com/infographics/20110313/162959645.html

        In here we can see that almost all (except 6 republics) shortly they want to continue the USSR by renewing shape with high votes, average %80.

        Ordinary people of USSR knew that the elites in USSR will continue in a way in new order, and they saw this into the transition period. But they have chosen yet the old order even it was in renewing shape. If it was just about -“juridical” transfer of “property”- they wouldn’t have voted for old order.

        I hope I could tell what I mean. And of course I have to read completly this book, but I need a time for this, you see a lot of pages inside it:)

        And Putin is a very intelligence man, and high culture and diciplined. These things sperated of him from the other leaders. But he has power during many years, in these years you know so much things changed. Especially western imperialism has been very threatening to Russia. And his foreign policy is supporting by Russian public with high rates. But his internal policy doesn’t support like his foreign policy. And this creates a wierd situation. Because Russians are like Turks in deeply for mother country, if they need to choose they choose the defense of mother country, even if they know they will die for starving.

        Like

  2. Hi Migo,

    You write:

    “When in first look to this expression, it doesn’t seem right completely. Of course I have to read completly for I can understand what he really wants to say. Why it doesn’t seem right completely to me, because if it was just for this, all Soviet republics wouldn’t have endured to all suffer during the transition period.”

    The point that Paresh is making, so far as I can gather from what I’ve read, is that if you compare Marx’s conception of what makes any society “capitalistic,” then from his standpoint “state capitalism” is what you had pre-1991 in the USSR, and “corporate style capitalism” based on the private ownership of the means of production is what you have post-1991.

    In other words, though people may have believed the USSR to be a “worker’s state,” because the workers were still, among other things, under a “work for a wage” regime, the USSR, on the basis of Marx’s own analytical categories and not as interpreted by that of his epigones, never really rose beyond the horizons of capital. As I myself understand and interpret Marx, if it is true that in the USSR labor was “hired” and the exchange of “goods and service” followed the logic of “commodity exchange,” then Paresh is effectively correct.

    Best regards,

    –N

    Liked by 1 person

    • “…under a “work for a wage” regime, the USSR, on the basis of Marx’s own analytical categories and not as interpreted by that of his epigones, never really rose beyond the horizons of capital.” Yes I see more now what you mean. I will try to read this book when I find a time my Earthling friend. And I believe at that time we can do more conversation about this subject:) Thank you for these explanations!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s