Was Mr. Lenin part-deceived himself, or what was his exact vision when writing his book against the human nature titled "Materialism vs Empiriocriticism" may be not quite apparent.

Anything alive would be attacked in that text. It had immediate political expediency attached to it, being particularly aimed against some rival political activities.

In the course of doing that, every philosopher of some note who was not some sort of dead or dumb 'materialist' would be savagely attacked by the author.

The main purpose of that text was to get rid of some other revolutionaries or factions, whose ideas of Socialism were not total enough for Mr. Lenin. (Keep in mind that he was fundamentally interested in Revolution rather than in philosophising).

In the meanwhile — (ever since it had been published) a notion of "great philosophy" had accrued on this text — on blind faith often accepted among the followers.

By numerous appearances, anything that had been then (circa 1908-09) attacked by Lenin would be in the course of the 20th century sabotaged.

Anyone who can read will probably find traces of evidence, here or there, of some such action. Unless one had been deceived by the multitudinous propaganda, spread round the globe to cover up what was really being done — in which case it can be suggested that more people do get undeceived.

This text might be not the most untrue one I have seen. It was an all-out attack, with some consistency in it, against anything that would not suit Mr. Lenin's political purposes at the moment.

No less consistent would be the acts of sabotage stemming from this 'philosophy'. There has been organization to it.

While it could be claimed that the Reds were seldom able to do much, if anything right, it should not be overlooked that the wrongdoing usually, probably invariably, had been organized (often in the most careful manner).

Among the informed people there have seldom been any doubts as to the purposes of the Revolution after 1917 : "enlarge" (the chaos, that is — when you take a close look on it).

There should have never been any doubts that any means would suit the Reds — please confer the reports by eyewitnesses (and not by some "pundits" who had never been there and had never seen any of it).

There had never been any doubts that the Communists were striving to achieve and maintain high levels of organization in their actions (criminal as they usually were, under the laws of the countries targeted).

Rigid adherence to the party doctrines versus more liberal attitude was the issue which had split the Socialists in the early 1900's, Lenin's being the more closely totalitarian position.

Hence, there has been consistency to this all, the scholar. Tightly organized criminal groups (and various "front" groups with many a dupe in their ranks) were operating in most of the major countries in the world, throughout most of the 20th century. Some of them small and insignificant ; some of them not so small and not so insignificant (confer the USA 1930-50's).

Any of those grups were agreed one some premises, one of those, usually accepted on blind faith being that Lenin's was "great" philosophy (which was originally an attack on some rival trends, in the main).

Any means would do for the Cause (however deluded). There is no point in arguing over 'ideology', it is only the "intellectual" crimes that need to be discovered, and their effects to be eliminated.

WPT, Apr 08.