|In one of the defining texts of Marxist-Leninist theory, “Concerning Questions of Leninism” the Russian Joseph introduces rhetoric that would later be taken up by the American Donald: you proceed with your arguments as a dialogue with yourself, in public.
You are both the question and the answer, you move along by answering your own questions, you are the dialectic movement revealed. Like the King, who is sure of Divine Providence, you are two persons and the spirit that moves everything, which actually makes you three persons in one.
Who am I talking about?
Yes, indeed, Joseph Stalin and Donald Rumsfeld.
Are these the right surnames or am I (in reality) referring to Joseph of Nazareth and the US President Elect?
To make a long story short, the answer is: No.
In an aptly titled chapter in “Concerning Questions of Leninism“, which is the all capitalized “THE MAIN THING IN LENINISM”, Stalin writes: “Is this thesis correct? I think it is correct. This thesis follows entirely from the definition of Leninism. Indeed, if Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution, and the basic content of the proletarian revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat, then it is clear that the main thing in Leninism is the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the elaboration of this question, the substantiation and concretisation of this question.” To make a long story short: the main thing is dictatorship.
Should I repeat this once more?
No, because the main thing is dictatorship. The editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica have this to say about our main thing: “Dictatorship, [is a] form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. The term dictatorship comes from the Latin title dictator, which in the Roman Republic designated a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises.” So, accordingly, we can find a dictator whenever we find a state in crisis.
Is this historically correct?
Yes, because we can always find a time when a difficult or important decision must be made, thus fulfilling the very definition of a crisis. The question is not what decision is made but who makes the decision. It appears that a decision is not to be judged on its own terms, but by the source of the verdict:
Who makes the decision?
Indeed, this points to our submission to power, to follow a leader: Who, not what. Very similar to your chances of making it in Hollywood, it all depends on who you know, not what you know. Trust me, I know what I’m talking about. The main thing is the will to power, brought about by class struggle, which is Capital coming to terms with its own contradictions.
The main thing is not to know thyself, as in the Delphian maxim of antiquity, but to be known to others or to brand the others, so they are yours.
The main thing is not the interpretation of Descartes’s “cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) but to change it to “me, me, et ego” (Me, myself and I).
This cult of the personality is at the core of Marxism-Leninism. The “proletarian revolution removes all exploiting groups from power and places in power the leader of all the toilers and exploited,...”, writes Stalin, as the Lenin-appointed General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Replace all others with yourself and accept grandiloquent titles like "Brilliant Genius of Humanity," "Great Architect of Communism," and "Gardener of Human Happiness".
But is all this going too far?
It is “foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman”, writes another General Secretary, Khrushchev, but only long after the death of Stalin. Is it foreign to the spirit, or, is perhaps the very spirit of Marxism-Leninism to transform man into superman???
Now you know, why I always was, am, and will be a Marxist-Leninist.
|Title:||ROTHKAMM, ROTHKAMM & ROTHKAMM|
|Sound Artist:||Frank Rothkamm|
|Visual Artist:||Holger Rothkamm|
|File Under:||Progressive Rock in Opposition|