The Limits of Discourse As Demonstrated by Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky

8:06 PM | BY ZeroDivide EDIT


chomsky
(Photo via Axel Naud)
For decades, Noam Chomsky has been one of the most prominent critics of U.S. foreign policy, and the further left one travels along the political spectrum, the more one feels his influence. Although I agree with much of what Chomsky has said about the misuses of state power, I have long maintained that his political views, where the threat of global jihadism is concerned, produce dangerous delusions. In response, I have been much criticized by those who believe that I haven’t given the great man his due.
Last week, I did my best to engineer a public conversation with Chomsky about the ethics of war, terrorism, state surveillance, and related topics. As readers of the following email exchange will discover, I failed. I’ve decided to publish this private correspondence, with Chomsky’s permission, as a cautionary tale. Clearly, he and I have drawn different lessons from what was, unfortunately, an unpleasant and fruitless encounter. I will let readers draw lessons of their own.
–SH

*  *  *

April 26, 2015

From: Sam Harris 
To: Noam Chomsky

Noam —

I reached out to you indirectly through Lawrence Krauss and Johann Hari and was planning to leave it at that, but a reader has now sent me a copy of an email exchange in which you were quite dismissive of the prospect of having a “debate” with me. So I just wanted to clarify that, although I think we might disagree substantially about a few things, I am far more interested in exploring these disagreements, and clarifying any misunderstandings, than in having a conventional debate. 


If you’d rather not have a public conversation with me, that’s fine. I can only say that we have many, many readers in common who would like to see us attempt to find some common ground. The fact that you have called me “a religious fanatic” who “worships the religion of the state” makes me think that there are a few misconceptions I could clear up. And many readers insist that I am similarly off-the-mark where your views are concerned.
In any case, my offer stands, if you change your mind.


Best,

Sam

April 26, 2015

From: Noam Chomsky 
To: Sam Harris


Perhaps I have some misconceptions about you.  Most of what I’ve read of yours is material that has been sent to me about my alleged views, which is completely false.  I don’t see any point in a public debate about misreadings.  If there are things you’d like to explore privately, fine.  But with sources.

April 26, 2015

From: Sam Harris
To: Noam Chomsky
Noam —

Thanks for getting back.

Before engaging on this topic, I’d like to encourage you to approach this exchange as though we were planning to publish it. As edifying as it might be to have you correct my misreading of you in private—it would be far better if you did this publicly. It’s not a matter of having a “debate about misreadings”; it’s a matter of allowing our readers to see that conversation on difficult and polarizing topics can occasionally fulfill its ostensible purpose. If I have misread you, and you can show me where I’ve gone wrong, I would want my readers to see my views change in real time. It would be far less desirable for me to simply report that you and I clarified a few things privately, and that I have now changed my mind about X, Y, and Z.

Beyond correcting our misreadings, I think we could have a very interesting conversation about the ethical issues surrounding war, terrorism, the surveillance state, and so forth. I’d be happy to do this entirely by email, or we could speak on the phone and have the audio transcribed. In either case, you would be free to edit and refine your contributions prior to publication. My only request would be that you not go back and make such sweeping changes that I would have to totally revise my side of things. 

While you’re thinking about that, I’d like to draw your attention to the only thing I have ever written about your work. The following passages appear in my first book, The End of Faith(2004), which was written in response to the events of 9/11. Needless to say, the whole discussion betrays the urgency of that period as well as many of the failings of a first book. I hesitate to put it forward here, if for no other reason than that the tone is not one that I would have ever adopted in a direct exchange with you. Nevertheless, if I’ve misrepresented your views in writing, this is the only place it could have happened. If we’re going to clarify misreadings, this would seem like a good place to start.

Best,
Sam 

Is the Pope a communist?

6:30 AM | BY ZeroDivide EDIT

Is the Pope a communist?

  • 7 June 2015
  •  
  • From the sectionMagazine
Pope in crowd in Philippines
Pope Francis's critique of free-market economics has made him an icon for the Left and prompted claims that he is a communist. The leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics has called capitalism a source of inequality at best - and at worst a killer. Is the Pope, as his critics claim, a red radical?
On his way back from the Victory Day Parade in Moscow last month, the Cuban leader Raul Castro stopped off in Rome to thank Pope Francis for his role in Cuba's rapprochement with the United States. "If the Pope continues this way," Castro said afterwards, "I will go back to praying and go back to the church - I am not joking."
In September Francis will return the compliment with a stop-over in Cuba when he travels to the United States. And the American visit could turn out to be the most difficult overseas trip of his pontificate.
Raul Castro's endorsement is unlikely to recommend Francis to the American right, many of whom responded with visceral rage to President Obama's Cuban initiative.
Raul Castro and Pope Francis in the Vatican, May 2015
Raul Castro and Pope Francis in the Vatican, May 2015
"There is a lot of scepticism among (US) Catholics," says Stephen Moore, the chief economist at the conservative Washington think tank the Heritage Foundation, and himself a Catholic.
"I think this is a Pope who clearly has some Marxist leanings. It's unquestionable that he has a very vocal scepticism (about) capitalism and free enterprise and… I find that to be very troubling."
Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host (or "shock jock", as he is sometimes called) is blunter. He dismissed Pope Francis's apostolic exhortationEvangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospels) as "pure Marxism".
The US is far and away the Western world's most Christian nation. There are nearly 80 million baptised American Catholics, and it is the country's largest religious denomination. Many of its members look upon Saint John Paul II as a hero-pope because he was such a doughty Cold Warrior - and that adds the spice of a sense of betrayal to their reaction to Francis. Although his approval ratings are high, particularly among Catholic Democrats, he will be a polarising presence, and the question "Is the pope a communist?" will really matter.
Popes John Paul and Francis came from very different worlds, and that inevitably influenced their thinking on issues like the economy and social justice.
john paul II
Pope John Paul II's attitude to communism was shaped by his time living in totalitarian regimes
Most of John Paul's early life was lived under totalitarian regimes - first the Nazi occupation during World War Two, then the long Stalinist and Soviet domination of Poland during the Cold War. Everything he experienced as a priest and a bishop taught him that communism was the enemy.
By contrast, Francis - or Jorge Bergoglio as he then was - came of age under the regime of the nationalist Argentine leader, Juan Peron.
Austen Ivereigh, who has written a biography of Pope Francis, and himself studied theology in Argentina, says Peronism has dominated Argentine politics ever since but is difficult to define in conventional political terms.
"It is really neither left wing nor right wing," he says. "But it comes out of a kind of nationalist revival in Argentina in the 1930s and 1940s and was very closely identified with the working class, above all, and particularly the trade unions." Ivereigh believes the young Bergoglio was profoundly influenced by Peronist ideas.
Grey line 2 pixels

Juan Peron 1895-1976

Eva (Evita) Peron and Juan Peron, 1950
  • Elected president of Argentina three times - twice between 1946 and 1955 and also 1973-74
  • Gave rise to Peronism, a political movement which defines itself by three aims - social justice, economic independence, and political sovereignty
  • Peron's first wife Eva (pictured with him, above, in 1950) was the subject of the musical, Evita
Grey line 2 pixels
The two Popes also had a very different understanding of Liberation Theology, the controversial movement based on the conviction that the gospels enjoin the Church to put the poor first, which preoccupied and divided Latin America's Catholics for much of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. John Paul believed it had tempted some priests and bishops into quasi-Marxist and even violent ideology, and as Pope he cracked down on some Liberation Theologians. Jorge Bergolio rejected Marxism - although he cheerfully accepts that he has many Marxist friends - but accepted many of Liberation Theology's principles, espousing what Austen Ivereigh calls "a nationalist version" of the movement, or a so-called "Theology of the People".
Nonetheless, the economic writings of both John Paul and Francis also reflect the same intellectual tradition - one known as Catholic Social Teaching. It was originally articulated in an 1891 papal document called Rerum Novarum, in which Pope Leo XIII addressed what he called the "spirit of revolutionary change" then sweeping Europe.
Some of it is very clearly designed to be a rebuttal of the communist ideas that were part of that change, but it is also a critique of aspects of capitalism. So it is an unfamiliar mix that does not fit neatly into the left-right divide that dominated the politics of the following century.
Prof Maurice Glasman, a British economist who used to be a close confidant of Ed Miliband, studied Catholic social teaching for his PhD. He was attracted by the way it rejects the conventional ideologies of both left and right.
"It really opposes this idea that there is just the state or the market," he says. "It believes in activating society - what it calls solidarity - so that it can resist the domination by the rich of the poor, but through trade unions and vocational associations and what's called subsidiarity, which is the decentralisation of power." Glasman says it is opposed to communism because it "upholds private property" and is "anti-collectivist".
Glasman has a vivid memory of being attacked by an American economist after giving a paper at a recent Vatican conference on Catholic social teaching. "You know there's a word for what you're saying, Baron Lord Professor or whatever you are," the challenge began. "Yeah, it's called Communism. You're trying to interfere with the prerogatives of management, you're trying to interfere with capital, and you're trying to interfere with prices. And that's been tried - and that's the Soviet Union."
During the subsequent discussion Glasman was delighted to find himself supported by both the Pope and the Archbishop of Munich, the appropriately named Cardinal Marx.
Graffiti in Rome showing the Pope as a superhero
Francis' interpretation of Catholic social teaching certainly sounds more radical than that of his predecessors. In Argentina he insisted that his priests should see the world through the eyes of the poor, by living among them, and he brought that approach with him to Rome. Evangelii Gaudium - the document which got Rush Limbaugh so worked up - argues that inequality creates "a state of social sin that cries to Heaven". Pope Frances has also said that unemployment is "the result of a worldwide choice, of an economic system that led to this tragedy, an economic system that has at its centre a false God, a false God called money".
Philip Booth, a Catholic economist who works at the London free-market think tank the Institute for Economic Affairs, suggests Francis's views are close to those of the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee and the left-wing French economist Thomas Piketty, whose book on inequality became an international bestseller last year.
He describes Francis as a "corporatist" who believes in a big state, and argues the Pope's statements are "dangerous" because they could "lead us to bad policy".
The answer to the question posed in the title of this piece is "No". There is lots for those on the left to admire in Pope Francis, and lots for those on the right to be scandalised by, but he is not a communist.
He does, however, seem to enjoy provoking people. He will soon publish an encyclical expected to deal with climate change, and a priest who has been briefed on the contents told us "If some people think that he's a Marxist (now), wait and see what he says on the environment!"
Grey line 2 pixels

More from the Magazine

Pope Francis in front of red curtain
The election of Pope Francis has thrown a spotlight on his conduct as a priest under Argentina's military dictatorship in the late 70s and early 80s, and in particular at what point he found out about one of the country's most shameful episodes.

Prominent Russians: Vladimir Lenin

12:07 PM | BY ZeroDivide EDIT
He is the founder and the guiding spirit of the Soviet Republics - a communist philosopher, ardent disciple of Karl Marx, leader of the Bolshevik Party and the mastermind of the 1917 October Revolution. Some consider him a prophet, others a tyrant; there are those who call him a saint, many more – a devil. What is certain is that Lenin played an enormous role in the history of the 20th century. He reshaped Russia and had millions of people bent to his will. Lenin applied communist ideas to real life and his “experiment” forever changed the face of the world.

Early Life and Work

Throughout his life Lenin often used pseudonyms for work or for security reasons. His real name is Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. 
He was born in the town of Simbirsk in 1870 on 9 April (in 1918 a European-style calendar was adopted in the country, these days his birthday falls on 22 April). After Lenin’s death the city was renamed Ulyanovsk in tribute to its famous native. 
Lenin was the third of six children. Little Vladimir was baptized in the Russian Orthodox tradition. 
Lenin’s father, Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov, was a schoolmaster and made quite a career in education. He received numerous honors for his work and was awarded a special order that made him a nobleman, so technically his children, including Lenin, inherited the title. 
His mother, Maria Aleksandrovna, was a daughter of a Jewish doctor who was baptized an Orthodox Christian. 
In fact Lenin’s family was a mix of cultures and nationalities: Russians, Jews, Kalmyks, Swedes, Volgan Germans and possibly others.
Image from www.odinews.ruImage from www.odinews.ru
His father died in 1887. That year marked a turning point for young Lenin and in a lot of ways determined his path as future revolutionary. 
His older brother, Aleksandr Ulyanov, was involved with “Narodovoltsy” – a revolutionary terrorist society. In 1891 Aleksandr was arrested and later executed for taking part in an assassination plot against Tsar Alexander III. 
Lenin’s sister Anna, who was with Aleksandr at the time of his arrest, had to live in exile at the family estate not far from Kazan, a city in the central part of Russia, currently the capital of the Republic of Tatarstan.
Lenin finished school with honors and was accepted to Kazan University to study law, but was soon expelled for taking part in student protests. Around that time he became interested in the works of Karl Marx. He continued his studies at St. Petersburg University where he soon passed his bar. 
Lenin started his practice as a barrister in Samara, a port city on the Volga in the Central part of Russia. He even took part in several trials appearing for the defense. 
In 1893 he moved to St. Petersburg – then the capital of the Russian Empire. Lenin quickly became involved with Marxist societies and radical groups and even published several writings of his own. Most of them were declared illegal and passed from hand to hand. Thus he caught the eye of the Russian radicals as well as the Russian police. 
In 1895 he founded a group of his own called “The Union for the Liberation of the Working Class.” Soon he was arrested along with his collaborators. 
In Siberian exile he met his future wife Nadezhda Krupskaya, who would become his companion for the remaining 26 years of his life. 
His teachings attracted more and more adepts and were not popular with the Russian authorities. So Lenin, together with his wife, decided to leave the country. Away from Russia he created his own propaganda machine.
In 1900 Lenin launched his legendary newspaper “Iskra.” It was published in Munich with the motto “From Spark to Flame!” That spark, along with foreign funds, fed the flame of the Russian underground.

1905

Lenin returned to Russia when the country stood on the brink of revolution in 1905. Political rallies raged throughout the country that bore a shameful loss in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). The resentment among Russian peasants was overwhelming and in October 1905 the All-Russian strike began. Lenin didn’t miss his chance. He was anticipating a revolutionary blow and gave recommendations: “Some should kill their shadow-agent, blow up police stations; others will rob a bank…”
The Moscow uprising of 1905 was suppressed by the authorities, but it taught Lenin that the real force was with the proletariat – workers, soldiers and peasants would become the weapons of his revolution and the instruments of his dictatorship.
Meanwhile Russian Tsar Nicholay II gave in under enormous public pressure. The Russian parliament was born and although it didn’t last long, it signified the rise of the Liberal bourgeoisie, so much despised by Lenin. He immigrated to Switzerland.
For Russia it was an era of “underground” politics with numerous rivaling revolutionary trends that weren’t too scrupulous about the methods they chose; propaganda was used as often as dynamite.
Image from sovdepia.ruImage from sovdepia.ru
While abroad Lenin organized the release of a legal newspaper in St. Petersburg, called “Pravda” (“Truth”). He composed numerous articles under different pseudonyms for Bolshevik newspapers. Although Lenin stayed abroad he remained the guiding force for his collaborators and did everything he could to feed the revolutionary spirit, but not without the help of foreign sponsors, which later helped to accuse Lenin of spying.

1917 and the first steps of the new dictator

The February Revolution came as a shock to the Tsar but also to many revolutionaries, including Lenin. He hadn’t been to Russia for 17 years except for a period of a few weeks.
When he arrived at Petrograd train station the guards of honor were at the platform to greet him. Lenin was confused and said to his wife, “They will arrest me!” When he realized there was no danger he gave a passionate speech right at the station: “Hail to the Global Socialist Revolution!” he declared.
The overthrow of Tsarism was only the first step Lenin was preparing for the big battle for the Socialist state. He called for a new socialist revolution.
The program he offered met opposition even within the circle of his supporters. His old-time ally Georgy Plekhanov called his idea “crazy” and was sure it would spread anarchy throughout Russia. His grave prediction was not far from reality but Lenin’s plan was nonetheless met with an ovation by the people who made the revolution happen – the proletariat. His popularity was based on sheer populism but it worked perfectly for the angry crowds ready for action. They heard exactly what they wanted – “Power to people! Power to Soviets!”
Lenin had an amazing power over the crowds. 
Lenin’s contemporary, Nikolay Sukhanov, a socialist activist and a famous critic of the Bolshevik Revolution wrote: “Lenin is an orator of a great power who is capable of simplifying a complicated matter… the one who is pounding, pounding, and pounding people’s minds until they lose their will, until he enslaves them.”
After a failed coup in July that year Lenin had to flee to Finland along with his supporters. From there he sent letters to his colleagues. The radicalism of his views shocked some of his oldest supporters, as he demanded an armed rebellion.
He came back secretly in October and despite deep controversies within the party, he managed to achieve what he had planned: the fall of the Provisional Government. 
The Soviet (Council) of People’s Commissaries was created and Lenin was put at its head. He issued decree after decree: land to peasantry, workers’ control at the factories, and eviction of entrepreneurs from factories. Lenin was in euphoria, he himself described it as «Es Schwindelt» (German for “vertigo”).
Image from lenin-foto.narod.ruImage from lenin-foto.narod.ru
One of the first moves of Lenin’s government was to ban all opposition press. 
When asked about freedom of speech Lenin answered: “Freedom of speech?! We are not going to commit suicide.” 
But promises of bread and peace were easier to make than to execute. 
Despite severe opposition within the government Lenin signed an unfavorable peace treaty with Germany at the price of the loss of territory and payment of an indemnity. This peace treaty and the land reform widened the gap within the party. 
By this time Lenin was the leader of the new Soviet Russia but his reality was far from the ideal he had planned, which caused resentment within the revolutionary movement as well as among the people. 
The Civil War broke out. It split the country into numerous camps: the Whites, the Reds, the forces of Petliura (Ukrainian separatists), rioting peasants and soldiers, Cossacks – the bloodshed took the lives of millions of people.
In the summer of 1918, after a major offensive undertaken by the White forces, the whole family of the Russian Tsar was executed. It is still not known to what extent Lenin was part of such an order, but he definitely approved it.
On 30 August Lenin was shot twice by Fannie Kaplan. His response was the “Red Terror,” although the idea was not fresh. A month before that, on 26 June 1918, Lenin wrote to the Chairman of Petrograd’s Council Grigory Zinoviev: “...We’ve just heard that workers of Petrograd wanted to avenge the murder of Volodarsky (a Bolshevik activist) with mass terror and that you stopped them. I protest! It’s impossible! You should encourage the energy of terror against the enemies of revolution, particularly in Petrograd, it sets an example…”
The communist experiment
"You cannot make a revolution in white gloves"
Lenin didn’t have a clear plan for his economic model. 
The workers’ control over the factories led to an almost complete paralysis of production, massive stealing and was threatening hunger. 
Lenin declared the dictatorship of War Communism – the “war” part was needed to explain the severe implementing of the order.
The word “trade” was banned; “exchange” was used instead (i.e. a fur coat for several pounds of flour).
Soviet authorities introduced “prodrazvyorstka” – food apportionment, the state defined the volumes of products that peasants had to give to the state. By 1922 it included the whole specter of agricultural products.
Lenin ordered everyone to work and failure to do so was punished by execution. 
A new bureaucratic body was created – the Labor Committee.
Public work was also obligatory and overwhelming - everything from building bridges to chopping wood - everyone had to be involved, from workers to poets and scientists.
Inflation was skyrocketing. Workers were paid 26 rubles a day whereas a pound of bread cost nearly 170. Working hours were 14 to 16 hours a day.
Transport was free but it hardly worked, commodities were free but they didn’t function.
By 1920 production was by seven times less than in 1913 and the volumes of railway services fell to the levels of 1880.
But the most dramatic cost of the experiment was the loss of 10 million lives.

The Famine

In 1921 famine erupted in the Volga Region. It was caused by a number of reasons, including a severe drought that hit the country and the desperate condition of the country’s agriculture due to the First World War and Civil War and “prodrazvyorstka.” In many regions peasants staged riots, killing the representatives of the Bolshevik authority. Up to 40 million people were starving. There were reports of cannibalism. The number of orphans and child crime grew drastically. The Soviet government had to turn to foreigners for humanitarian aid. The League of Nations was not in a hurry to help; between the two evils, the famine and Bolshevism, they chose the former as a weapon against the latter. The Norwegian explorer Fridthof Nansen managed to organize humanitarian aid and funds, along with the American company APA.
The Famine largely stopped in 1922, in some regions in 1923. The total death toll was at least 5 million people.
Image from amnesia.pavelbers.comImage from amnesia.pavelbers.com
NEP
The Country’s economy was collapsing and Lenin undertook urgent measures. He turned to a New Economic Policy - NEP. The main goal was to introduce reforms based on the old system, not by breaking it. Soon enough it yielded results. The Soviet government got rid of “prodrazvyorstka” and labor duty. Free trade was legalized again as well as small businesses, which were allowed to hire people. The banking system was resurrected and partial privatization was permitted. War communism didn’t disappear, but was gradually yielding its position. Although the economy was showing signs of recovery, the majority of communist activists, and sometimes Lenin himself, treated the new policy as “inevitable evil.” Fearing the comeback of capitalism, they wanted to wrap up the program as soon as possible and did so after Lenin was no longer in power.

Lenin’s purge

Some Soviet scholars, particularly in the sixties (years of “Thaw”), liked to say that Stalin distorted Lenin’s ideas. Of course the scale of atrocities undertaken by Stalin is larger in comparison to Lenin’s, but Lenin set the trend. The fact is that it was Lenin who gave birth to concentration camps, declared a hunt against the Russian intelligentsia and clergy and laid the grounds for a totalitarian state.

Jews

Unlike Stalin Lenin did not persecute Jews. In 1919 he recorded a speech on Jews: “…Shame on accursed Tsarism, which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations."

Church

Lenin’s order to Dzerzhinsky, 1 May 1919: “...it is needed to get done with the priests and religion as soon as possible. Arrest the priests as the enemies of revolution and saboteurs, execute them without mercy everywhere you spot them. As many as you can! Churches should be shut down. The cathedrals have to be sealed and used as warehouses. "
Ironically, a man who unleashed a massacre of Orthodox priests was a Baptized Orthodox Christian. Throughout 1922 alone at least eight thousand priests, monks and nuns were executed according to Lenin’s orders.

Intelligentsia

It’s hard to explain his despise for the Russian intelligentsia, particularly taking into consideration the fact that Lenin was part of this circle. In 1922 he launched a campaign to deport prominent scientists and public figures.
The famous Russian poet Boris Pasternak wrote about Lenin: “He struck out hard… His words, which all men heard too well, were traced in the blood of great events. He was their voice, their proclamation… Alone, he ruled the tides of thought, and through that mastery – the State.”
The “tides of thought” that Lenin ruled were those of the country’s working class. And with the right words, they quickly recognized the intelligentsia as their enemies. Many of those who weren’t deported were later arrested or executed. In eight years (1917-1925) nearly two million people fled the country; the majority of them never came back.

Social reforms

Revolution accelerated women’s emancipation. Some of the reforms were inspired by Inessa Armand who was believed to be Lenin’s mistress. Lenin declared equality between men and women.
From the record of his meeting with Clara Zetkin in 1920: “Women's incipient social life and activities must be promoted, so that they can outgrow the narrowness of their philistine, individualistic psychology centered on home and family ... In the sphere of sexual relations and marriage, a revolution is approaching ... There can be no real mass movement without the women ... We cannot exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat without having millions of women on our side. Nor can we engage in communist construction without them. We must find a way to reach ... the mass of women, who feel themselves exploited, enslaved and crushed by the domination of the men...”
Emancipation though wasn’t welcome all over Russia. In Central Asia, where plural marriage was an old-time tradition, it was introduced by force.
It is important to note that it was also a practical and desperate measure, conditioned by a drastic fall in men’s population after the First World War, the Civil War, the Spanish flu pandemic and the Famine.
Soviet Russia under Lenin was the first country in the world that legalized homosexuality and abortion. Although Stalin changed it back to Tsarist standards.

Learn, learn and learn!

Image from dic.academic.ruImage from dic.academic.ru
Lenin launched a massive propaganda campaign for education. Nine years of secondary education were free and compulsory for everyone (the system is kept to this day). At the beginning of the 20th century the literacy level among men was 35,8%, women – 12,4%. By 1939 the literacy level in Soviet Russia reached 70%. The Soviet Union ranked among the countries with the highest literacy levels.

Lenin out of politics

When in emigration Lenin got used to a comfortable life but without hints of luxury. He was fond of swimming and walking, didn’t smoke, rarely drank except sometimes beer and wine. His affair with Inessa Armand was an exception of his proper family life.
He left all human qualities out of politics. According to Lenin loyalty, gratitude and respect for past achievements had no place in real politics. He was ruthless towards his ideological opponents. During debates he could be extremely rude even towards his relatives and allies.
As a politician he was extremely unscrupulous when it came to money. Lenin approved of armed robberies (Joseph Stalin took part in several of these). His “good” cause was worth its victims. A lot of his funds came from rather doubtful sources. So it’s not a surprise that at one point he was accused of spying for Germany.

Lenin – a spy?

In 1914 the Russian Empire entered war against Germany. Soon after the 1917 revolution there appeared documents that claimed Lenin was acting under the orders of the German government. One must keep in mind the person behind the allegations was his political rival Aleksandr Kerensky (the head of Provisional Government).
There are however reports of German agents within Lenin’s circle while he lived in Switzerland. 
When the February Revolution hit, Lenin, along with other revolutionaries, traveled back through Germany. His critics grabbed the opportunity to call him a German spy. Official Soviet history called it slander.
It’s a fact though that a lot of revolutionaries were paid from German pockets. When it came to funds, Lenin had shifty principles; he simply didn’t care where they came from. To call him a spy would be a mistake. It was a two-way street as both sides got what they wanted. Lenin used the money to get the power. Germans used the revolution to sign a truce with Russia on terms that were to their advantage.

Despite all the power and authority he’d accumulated Lenin never surrounded himself in luxury. 
One of his allies, Vladimir Bonch-Bruyevich, managed the party finances. He was aware that Lenin had a very modest budget and knew of his zest for reading. Books were expensive and Bonch-Bruyevich decided to use the funds of the state library. He soon received an angry note from Lenin saying: “For my library I pay myself. I ask you to pay and save the receipts.” The money came with the note.
When Bonch-Bruyevich informed Lenin about his increase in salary, Lenin rejected it indignantly. Bonch-Bruyevich tried to explain that the increase concerned everyone and was necessary to cover inflation, but Lenin refused to listen. He refused all privileges he was given.

His women

Image from lenin-foto.narod.ruImage from lenin-foto.narod.ru
Nadezhda Krupskaya was not only his wife and companion, but also his closest friend and his most loyal ally. If Lenin was the spirit of the revolution, she was its secretary. While in emigration Krupskaya organized the work of the underground, planning meetings, and coding and decoding messages to comrades. Lenin’s life-long passion was Inessa Armand, a native of France. They met in 1909 in Paris. Armand was 35 years old, Lenin was 40. They didn’t hide their close relations. In Paris Armand lived in the same apartment house with Lenin and Krupskaya. Soviet historians denied all hints of intimate relations between the two, despite the testimonies of some of the closest allies of Lenin. She also worked for the revolution and inspired the feminist movement. Armand died of cholera in 1920. Nadezhda Krupskaya took Armand’s children into care after her death.

Assassination attempts

Image from www.topic.ltImage from www.topic.lt
Lenin survived several, the most famous on 30 August. Fannie Kaplan shot him twice with poisoned bullets, but to his doctors’ surprise, Lenin quickly recovered. But this wasn’t the only case. While traveling from Petrograd to Moscow his train was intercepted by rioting soldiers. Again he was miraculously saved. Another time his car (a Rolls-Royce) was robbed on the road. Lenin was with his driver and a bodyguard. They were armed but didn’t use their guns because the robbers were dressed as road police. When they understood the trick it was too late. The robbers didn’t recognize Lenin. When they understood whom they had robbed, they tried to find Lenin and kill him. They were soon captured.

Lenin the Commander

With the beginning of the Civil War, Lenin personally took part in the creation of the regular Red Army. He was in control of mobilization (party members were also called to the front), arming and supplying. He managed to use the giant military stocks of Tsarist Russia and manipulate the controversies within the White movement to create a ten-fold advantage over the enemy and even bring the Tsarist military commanders on his side.
Lenin ruthlessly suppressed military and peasant riots whenever they occurred.

Lenin’s last years

Image from www.revkom.comImage from www.revkom.com
Lenin was a true workaholic, which ruined his health. At the beginning of the twenties doctors forbade him daily work. In May 1922 he had his first stroke. He lost his power of speech and his right arm and leg were paralyzed. In December came another stoke. The third followed in March 1923 and turned him into a living corpse.
Immediately after the first stroke, party activists started their fight for power. Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky were the main rivals.
While still capable of working, Lenin released several articles calling for a review of socialism and to give workers more control of the state apparatus, moreover he called on Stalin to be removed from his post. Stalin was against Lenin’s comeback and spread rumors of Lenin’s mental illness.
Lenin died on 21 January 1924 in the arms of his close ally Nikolay Bukharin.
There were rumors that Lenin had syphilis but they were never confirmed. The rumors are easy to explain though. When Lenin got sick, genetic syphilis was cited among possible causes and a special medical expedition was sent to his homeland to investigate the medical history of his family. However the final diagnose was cerebral sclerosis. Moreover the illness was genetic as his father died due to the same disease.
The funeral procession was several kilometers long. People were freezing in the extremely cold weather; for many his death was personal tragedy. Soviet authorities ordered his body embalmed. A mausoleum was built to keep his body on show for generations to come. According to some reports Lenin wished to be buried in St. Petersburg by his mother.
Winston Churchill, an ardent supporter of the British interventionist forces, which, along with the Whites made the last effort to suppress the Bolsheviks, later said: “He (Lenin) alone could have found the way back to the causeway... The Russian people were left floundering in the bog. Their worst misfortune was his birth... their next worst his death”

After-life

His image was all but canonized by Soviet propaganda. His face could be seen everywhere in the country – framed above classroom blackboards, in canvas dominating every office, or frozen in cement, marble or even bronze on the main square of every city. To this day there’s hardly a city in Russia that doesn’t have a street named after him. Lenin is also one of the beloved characters of the Russian jokes.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the citizens of Leningrad voted for a return to the city’s original name. The city that bore the name of the revolutionary is now called Saint Petersburg. A native of the city, Joseph Brodsky, the dissident poet forced to live in exile during the Soviet era, said at the time: “It’s better to be named after the saint than the devil.”
Image from www.aif.ruImage from www.aif.ru
To this day Lenin’s body is kept in a glass coffin in a mausoleum in the very heart of Russia – Moscow’s Red Square. These days the number of people who queue up to get a glimpse at the legendary communist leader is not so big. For many it’s no longer about ideology but simply curiosity, a popular Moscow sightseeing venue. As it has for decades, his tomb overlooks Russia’s famous mall, the GUM, although today it houses the luxury brands from Western designers – something that would make Lenin turn in his grave.
Debates are still fuming over the role he played in the country’s history.
In 2008 the Russian federal television channel “Rossiya” launched a major TV campaign to choose a historical figure to be considered the country’s symbol. The program was called “The Name – Russia.” Every candidate was supported by a prominent political or public figure. Lenin featured among the candidates. Gennady Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, spoke in his support. Lenin ranked sixth in the final list. Despite this fact, polls show that the younger generation of Russians finds it hard to define the role of Lenin in Russian history.
Lenin was by all means a great politician, if greatness is measured by the power of will and the scale of damage. He destroyed one powerful empire to create another based on extreme violence. In many ways he defined the development of world history during 20th century. The first dictator of the century, he was not the last and paved the way for Stalin, Hitler, Mao and many others. However, his victory in 1917 was at the same time his defeat, as his “great” cause was doomed. It took 70 years and millions of lives to put an end to Lenin’s era.