Tags: Revolutionary | War

Myths Surrounding Russian Revolution and U.S. Revolutionary War

By    |   Thursday, 29 May 2008 02:21 PM

According to Karl Marx, mankind consists of “working people” and “capitalists,” who become rich by robbing the “working people” of part of their earnings and thus make them poor. As a result of a “world revolution,” mankind would become a single global society without capitalists and even without money, since everyone would creatively work without pay according to his or her ability and take free of charge whatever he or she needs.

Marx died in 1883. Not long after, in Russia around 1917, Lenin’s mantra was, “Rob the robbers!” In a country of more developed social relations, his call to action would not be successful, for too many people had some property, and if they robbed someone with impunity, they also would be robbed in the same fashion. But in Russia, a poet described how a Russian peasant woman viewed the robbery of the lady of the manor:

My Nina is as good as she at feeling the musical tone!

Drag their grand piano into our hut,

Along with their clock and gramophone!

Alas, Lenin had more important supporters. According to his book, which regarded “imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism,” the world war that was just over had been created by capitalism, which had developed into imperialism. Hence the deserters were heroes — fighting the imperialist war. But according to the pre-Lenin Russian government, the deserters were criminals. Obviously, they supported Lenin.

The “revolutionary Marxist” Lenin became the worst Absolutist tyrant in recorded history, including the Russian Middle Ages. His worst enemies were revolutionaries, such as those Marxists who were not the strictest followers of his orders/laws. No wonder there was a Socialist-Revolutionary attempt on his life. Lenin survived, but his health deteriorated, and finally he was hospitalized.

Since the staunchest Leninists also feared Lenin, a certain almost unknown “Marxist-Leninist” named Stalin convinced them to stop — on the pretext of care for Lenin’s health — Lenin’s communication between the hospital in which he was in and the outside world. The “Marxist-Leninist” Stalin succeeded Lenin and killed off all the “Marxist-Leninist” claimants to Lenin’s throne. Now he became the worst despot in recorded history. The autocracy in Russia lasted till 1991, but money was never abolished.

No less ruthless autocracy was created under Marxist camouflage in China. In Germany, the mother country of Marx, the growth of the Nazi autocracy was stimulated by the growth of the Marxist autocracy in Russia.

In the United States, culture never reduced to autocratic propaganda, as it did in Soviet Russia and China. But freedom in the U.S. does not preclude the freedom to spin the most absurd tales about history, including those surrounding the American Revolution, for no such tales are legally liable.

First of all, the play with the words “revolution” or “revolutionary war” is used in American sources, such as a 240-page book published in 2000 by Lt. Col. Michael Lee Lanning, who calls the American War of Independence the “Revolutionary War.” What is “revolutionary” about the United States as compared with Britain? Canada has had no “revolutionary” war with Britain. Is Canada less “revolutionary” than the United States?

Why should Americans have wanted a “revolutionary” war with Britain? The Declaration of Independence of the United States accused the king of England: “He has called together [American] legislative bodies in places [in America] unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole [!] purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.”

Well, in every country there were soldiers supposed to do or die, and the chiefs watching the war. For the chiefs the measures taken by the king of England seemed monstrous and called for war (to watch it from afar as comfortably as they could imagine). But for the ordinary population, the charge that the American legislative bodies are “uncomfortable” (no leather chairs?) was laughable — and bitterly laughable, too, considering the fact it was the ordinary population that was to do or die for the legislators’ comfortable seating.

It was said that George Washington was appointed the commander in chief because he was ruthless enough to make the soldiers do or die in that war for comfortable legislative bodies.

To encourage enlistments, Congress authorized a financial bounty for each soldier and land allotments of 100 to 500 acres, depending on the soldier’s rank. But even with such incentives, fewer than one-half of the sought numbers could be recruited for the Revolutionary War.

If such was the attitude of white Americans, what about African-American slaves, whom Lanning glorifies as “defenders of liberty”? Lanning’s book is entitled “Defense of Liberty: African Americans in the Revolutionary War.”

The trouble for Lanning is that there was no slavery in Great Britain. James Somerset, an African-American slave, was brought by his Boston owner to London, but a London court decided, on June 22, 1772, that an American slave became free on the soil of Great Britain.

Inversely, American slavery existed in America until the Civil War (1861-1865), that is, it ended 84 years after the end of the “Revolutionary War.” A slave who was 6 years old at the end of it was 90 at the end of the Civil War.

Measures were taken by white Americans during the “Revolutionary War” to prevent any contact between the English troops and African Americans.

Had the British announced that all American slaves on American territory were as free as in Great Britain, the outcome of the “Revolutionary War” could be different. In particular, no one would have known the name of Washington or that of Jefferson (incidentally, both of them had slaves). But the irony is that some of those Americans who fought on the British side also had slaves, and the British were afraid to antagonize them. So they lost the war, and the slaves had to wait for 84 years to become free.

The American Civil War flared up because the Southern states (with their plantations and hence slave labor) demanded independence from the Northern states.

If the United States of America gained independence from Britain, why could not the Southern states gain independence from the Northern states of America? Instead of “USA,” there would have been “NSA” and “SSA.” Well, the name the “South” chose was “Confederate States of America.” The South or Confederate States lost the Civil War and all Americans became free.

You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.

© 2018 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
According to Karl Marx, mankind consists of “working people” and “capitalists,” who become rich by robbing the “working people” of part of their earnings and thus make them poor. As a result of a “world revolution,” mankind would become a single global society without...
Thursday, 29 May 2008 02:21 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved