14. From autocracy to Marxism-Leninism

                The autocracy, as a way of running an industrial state, has unacceptable defects. In Russia, in 1905, the processes of transforming the autocracy into a democratic regime of a constitutional monarchy began. However, the First World War disrupted this branch of the development of cultural evolution in Russia.
                Russia's participation in the war led to problems in the army, a loss of combat effectiveness, due to the appearance of soldiers' committees in it, and the refusal of many units to carry out combat orders. This was facilitated by the treacherous activities of the Bolsheviks financed from Germany. As a result of war and devastation, all of Russia lost control and in 1917, after the abdication of the tsar, it was at the point of bifurcation (according to Prigogine). At such a point, a small impact on the system leads to serious consequences. The system begins a new evolutionary path of development, a new track begins to emerge that is not directly related to the previous one. The connection, however, is manifested in the fact that the mentality of people starting a new track turns out to be the same, slightly deformed by war and devastation.
                The coup (overthrow of the provisional government) carried out in October 1917 brought to power the terrorist organization of the Bolsheviks, whose ideology was Marxism-Leninism, which in its properties resembled a certain version of religion. In addition to force to retain power, the Bolsheviks widely used manipulative influence on the masses.    
                The coming to power of the Bolsheviks, with their methods of government, with the absence of any legitimacy, made a civil war inevitable. Russia was forced to immediately conclude a separate Brest-Litovsk peace with Germany with the loss of many of its territories, although the war was soon won by our allies.

              AUTOCRACY  IN  RUSSIA  AND  ITS  INBORN  SHORTCOMINGS.



                The position in which Russia found itself in 1917 was determined, on the one hand, by the successive change in its states throughout the historical period, on the other by the environmental conditions within Russia, as well as by the conditions created by other states at the moment in question.
                For 400 years of autocracy, the population of Russia has increased 26 times, and the system of government remained essentially the same. The autocracy in Russia, starting from Ivan III, by joining the state with fire, sword and diplomacy, first territories, with Slavic ethnic groups, and then other adjacent ones, created due to these expansions a huge territory inhabited by peoples of different faiths and mentally not close. Having freed themselves from the embrace of the Horde, our ancestors, pursuing an aggressive policy and annexing lands with unrelated ethnic groups, themselves became like it in some aspects of behavior.
                F. Engels in his work "The Foreign Policy of Russian Tsarism" comments on the imperial expansion: "There is no need to talk about the reunification of scattered kindred tribes bearing the Russian name, here we are dealing with an open forcible conquest of foreign territory, with simple robbery." and “when you read Russian newspapers, you might think that all of Russia is carried away by the tsarist policy of conquest; everywhere - sheer chauvinism and Pan-Slavism, calls for the liberation of Christians from the Turkish yoke, and the Slavs from the German-Magyar yoke. "
                The last 50 years of autocracy have been characterized by the fact that it has clearly ceased to meet the needs of the development of Russia as a state, if they are understood as meeting the increased demands of different strata of society in the process of the country's rapid economic development.
                In the second half of the 19th century, industrialization began in the country, 50 years behind England, Germany, and France. At this time in Europe, state power developed in the direction of parliamentarism. The Russian Empire remained the last stronghold of absolutism, where the emperor's power was not limited to any electoral structures.
                The colossal mental and property stratification of citizens into the elite and other people allowed the elite to think that it exists for some higher goals, and the people represent a certain passive mass of subhumans, intended to work in the interests of the elite, to realize its expansionist aspirations.
                After the abolition of serfdom in 1861, which was given to Alexander II with great difficulty, overcoming the resistance of numerous land owners who had significant influence in the ruling elite, the trajectory of development changed. The reform provided the peasants with a theoretical opportunity to obtain land. However, for implementation, it required further deepening, since without changing land and social laws it could not become a driver for the development of the country's agriculture and the state's social problems continued to worsen. The agricultural productivity of the country did not increase until the 1880s, despite the rapid progress in other countries (USA, Western Europe).
                During the reign of Alexander II, famine periodically began, which had not existed in Russia since the time of Catherine II, and which in some periods assumed the character of a real disaster (for example, the mass famine in the Volga region in 1873).
                Alexander II decided, being a dictator (autocrat), to become a liberal in economic policy. And an economic crisis arises in the country, which is associated with the refusal of Alexander II from industrial protectionism and adherence to the liberal doctrine.
                S. Witte, wrote that the doctrine of free trade was dominant at the turn of the 70s and 80s: “everyone stood for freedom of trade and believed that this law on free trade was as immutable as the law of the universe, while the system of customs protectionism was considered ruin for the state ". The policy of economic liberalism is beneficial for states with approximately equal economies, otherwise a strong economy leaves no chance for a weak one to develop.

                The transfer of the railway business under Alexander II into the hands of companies that were private "only in name, and not in reality" led to an "absolutely impossible" situation when the entire loss from the activities of these private companies (more than 40 million rubles per year) "Lay down on the state treasury, in other words, on the Russian people." The profit settled in the pockets of private traders.
                Compare with the current state of state-owned companies (Gazprom, Rosneft), where managers receive colossal profits, and companies, being at a loss, ask for help from the state, i.e. among the poor.

                Supporters of protectionism were persecuted, as happened, for example, with the outstanding scientist D.I.Mendeleev, who advocated protectionism and was accused of being almost bribed by industrialists, and then was not elected to the academy, deprived of the department, attacks in the press, etc.
                All this clearly showed that what was good for economically developed England (lower trade duties and liberalized economic policy) was disastrous for non-industrial Russia, whose GDP per capita was 5 times less.


                THE  FAILURE  OF  THE  AUTOCRACY.
               

                The Russian autocracy thought as follows: “Here is the peasant reform (emancipation of the peasants), here is the liberalization of economic policy, but we will rule autocraticly, and slowly continue the policy of annexing territories. Any democratic system would ask through its institutions - why are further expansions of the territory necessary if famine periodically occurs in the country, in its ancestral territories, taking away millions of human lives, as a result of which popular unrest arises.
                The autocracy, incapable of giving adequate answers to the challenges of the time, thinks like this - "so that the people do not riot, the country needs a small victorious war."
                Such a war happened in 1904 with Japan for territories on the Korean peninsula, but it ended not with the victory of Russia over the obviously weaker enemy (Japan), but with the loss of the entire Russian fleet, leased by Port Arthur, part of Sakhalin and the strengthening of the revolutionary situation in the country.
The Russian soldier (from the peasants) had no motivation to give his life on the other side of the world for an incomprehensible idea, under the leadership of officers who considered the soldiers for cattle and under the leadership of parquet generals who did not know how and did not want to fight. The embittered masses of soldiers returning from the war were practically not controlled by anyone; officers and generals were subjected to violence from their side. This war not only did not pacify the country, but led it to the 1905 revolution.
                The defeat did not teach the autocratic power anything, and after 10 years it again sent 5 million Russian people to the world war, which it also lost, judging by the results of the Brest Peace.
                The revolution could have been prevented, thereby preventing two subsequent revolutions and a civil war, if instead of Nicholas II, the legal representative of the autocracy (by right of inheritance), a politician on a scale equal to P. Stolypin would be at the head of the country.
                The mentality of the last Russian emperor, Nicholas II, manifested itself in this way upon accession to the throne in 1894: "Let everyone know that, devoting all my strength to the good of the people, I will protect the beginnings of autocracy as firmly and unswervingly as my late unforgettable Parent did.
                The last autocrat apparently considered wars for the people's good.
Nicholas II, being the heir to the throne, received a good education (he had a higher military and higher education in economics), knew 5 languages. But he was neither a great manager nor a great military leader. He was not what he seemed to be - the anointed of God. Mentally, he was a simple colonel. It must be understood that Caesar, Suvorov and Napoleon were great not only due to education, but their appearance is also due to genetic reasons.
               
                The inheritance of power is an unsuccessful mechanism for the transit of power in a modern state, when the most important mechanism of cultural evolution is controlled by a lottery and is left to the mercy of genetics.
                Let us assume that as a head of state we have a talented person who is responsible to his people, who, with the help of his elite, successfully solves the problems facing a rapidly developing state. Under autocracy, power is transferred by inheritance. But his successor will almost certainly be unable to govern the state as effectively. Genetics cannot provide the transfer of abilities from father to son.
                With sexual reproduction, heredity is determined by the process of meiosis (formation of germ cells). This process has a stochastic nature, there is a random exchange of sections of parental chromosomes (crossing over), and therefore, the variability of species in nature actually occurs. It is essential for the evolution of species. But the presence of this variability makes the transit of power through inheritance ineffective, since it does not allow talented people to become the elite of the state, since the inheritance of powers overrides the work of social lifts. Why social elevators if all powers of power are inherited? Cultural evolution requires the transfer of power through democratic procedures that can in principle ensure the transfer of power into capable hands. They can, in principle, if democratic institutions work successfully in the country. The transfer of power by inheritance always gives an unpredictable result.
                Under constitutional governance, the laws of the state allow automatic processes of self-regulation to work, while the decrees of the autocratic ruler implement the management of complex social processes in manual mode.

                To implement automatic control, as shown by cybernetics, feedback is needed from the objects of regulation to the regulators. The elite (people who can influence decision-making) act as a regulator in societies. For elite selection, there must be social lifts that allow talented people, regardless of their origin, to become part of the elite.
                In biological populations, cruel natural selection acts as a regulator. Leadership is not inherited neither in packs nor in prides. The leader is always selected in fights. With the development of technology, humanity has received some ecological release. But, nevertheless, the process of transferring power in human societies must also be based on selection using established cultural procedures.
                With the transfer of power by inheritance, it may well fall into an idiot, which will cause uncontrollable consequences. Nicholas II was not an idiot, he was quite a decent, well-mannered person, but a country in a difficult political situation needed a powerful political leader capable of creating a strong team to govern the country, and not just a decent person.
                And the country received such a leader, though not burdened by universal human moral principles, in 1917, which was a fatal event for the history of Russia. The choice of a leader turned out to be not limited by cultural milestones, because all the institutions of power and corresponding procedures were destroyed by that time. The country found itself at a bifurcation point. Many believed in the slogans of the Bolsheviks, swallowed the hook, from which it was already impossible to break.
                The failure of Nicholas II as a political leader, which, however, cannot be blamed on him, was manifested many times. It cannot be blamed, because it is not his fault that he did not have the talent of Napoleon. The failure of the tsar led to the death of him and his family and a dead end for Russia, which did not allow it to take place as a normal democratic state. It is not the Bolsheviks who are to blame for this, but the system of autocracy, which, possessing all the attributes of power, at a difficult moment released the power from its hands, makes the situation unmanageable. In this view, the Bolsheviks are "bad guys" who seized the lost power in their usual ways.
             January 9, 1905 - the day known as Bloody Sunday was a suitable day for starting a dialogue between workers and the authorities, if Nicholas II had not been sitting out in his country residence, and the troops would not have shot the people who turned to their tsar with petitions. After the execution, faith in the autocrat was largely lost. A little later, on October 17 of the same year, the revolutionary situation forced the tsar to issue a manifesto that gave citizens freedom of speech and assembly. The Manifesto established a Parliament consisting of the State Council and the State Duma.
                Almost the entire elite wanted the preservation of the traditional autocracy, the time of which, however, ended. Therefore, the country so joyfully entered the war of 1914, fulfilling allied obligations, not realizing that this was the end of the empire. 10 years ago, in 1904, after being defeated by Japan, Russia gets involved in a new war for the violated interests of another power. Her parquet generals were not ready for war, although 2 years before the start of the war, foreseeing its inevitability, toasts were raised to a meeting in Berlin after the war.

                Nicholas II's amazing ability to appoint completely unprepared, and sometimes worthless people, and even outright crooks to key positions, has been said many times by many researchers of his reign. But, blaming Nicholas II for all the sins, they could not understand that the lack of talent is not a person's fault, that this is due to the management system in which the role of the leader is inherited  and Russia is perceived by the leader as a private fiefdom.
                If the invasion of Russian troops into East Prussia in August 1914 were more prepared, then Germany would find itself in a very difficult situation and the entire world war could have ended, as its initiators had planned, in the fall of 1914. The German military leaders were surprised by the mediocrity of the preparation of the first operation by the Russian command, as a result of which 2 Russian armies were defeated in parts. The commander of the 2nd army, General Samsonov, was a brave and decent man, but he never commanded an army. He was a staff officer and at one time commanded a corps. And the army is a different level of thinking, after surrounding his army, he realized this and shot himself.
                The protracted war, millions of dead and maimed, led to the disintegration of the army, disobeying the orders of commanders, the formation of "soldiers' councils in units" that appointed commanders. The combat capability of the army was lost. In these conditions, Nicholas II appoints himself commander-in-chief, without any reason for this. The fallacy of this decision soon became apparent and Nicholas II abdicated the throne, leaving the country without ordinary power.
 In the army, there is a massive desertion of soldiers from the front. A provisional government is being formed in Petrograd, and at the same time the city is also controlled by the Petrograd Soviet, i.e. dual power is established.                Could the provisional government, with its newly established attributes of democratic governance, have retained power in Russia during a period of maximum chaos at the front and in the rear? It is clear that the situation did not contribute in any way to the establishment of a normal democratic form of government.
                The provisional government was able to cope with the Kornilov revolt, aimed at restoring the autocracy, already unpopular in Russia.
                The creation of an official dual power, (i.e. anarchy, political chaos) allowed the Bolsheviks to carry out a coup, form their own government of commissars, and lead the state along a new Bolshevik path. But a military coup evokes opposition from those who disagree with it, and since any coup excludes democratic procedures for coordination, opposition begins between the parties in the form of a civil war.
                By the time the Constituent Assembly was convened (in 1918), the Bolsheviks had already seized power and therefore dispersed the Constituent Assembly, in which they were in the minority, and persecuted its members who were trying to gather somewhere. The people's misunderstanding of the role of the constituent assembly was manifested in the fact that its dispersal did not provoke a noticeable reaction. The people were interested in more pressing problems
                Large societies, in contrast to small tribal associations (collectives of hunter-gatherers), require the creation of a complex management system. These systems in different isolated populations differing in cultural traditions were formed by evolution. Various control systems arose, were reformed and eliminated. The establishment of trade links between different civilizations led to the emergence of market mechanisms. Nobody invented these mechanisms, they arose in the processes of self-organization. Centuries passed, economic formations changed, and views on the market also changed.
                The outbreak of the revolution at the end of the 18th century in France awakened new hopes among the disaffected and reformers that, with the abolition of the old order of government, a new era of peace, freedom and general happiness should be established everywhere.
                The revolutionaries believed that misfortunes and vices are the result of bad institutions, with the abolition of which all misfortunes will end by themselves.
                In a pre-industrial society, population growth, as in animal populations, is limited by natural factors - hunger, wars, epidemics, i.e. the capacity of the ecological niche.
                In 1792, in his book «The Experience of the Population Law», T. Malthus came to the conclusion that the cause of poverty is too rapid population growth, outstripping the growth of productive forces. The change in the economic conditions in which the country is located does not depend on the government, because supply and demand cannot be equalized by decree or decree. Malthus meant a market economy in which the state does not interfere.


                THE  EMERGENCE  OF  MARHISM.

                In 1847, the philosophers Marx and Engels published the Communist Party's manifesto, which asserts that capitalists receive unjustifiably large profits, and wage workers (proletarians) cannot earn a decent life under this system. They see a way out of this situation in completely destroying the capitalist system by means of unlimited violence on the part of the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat).
                Note that the capitalist market economy system arose as a result of an evolutionary process, and philosophers decided to develop the process of its radical restructuring. They should be put into the garden so that they can increase the productivity of crops with the help of dialectics. But they cannot do that. Why should they be trusted to design the process of rebuilding a 1000 times more complex social system?
                This manifesto and its ideas formed the basis of the doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, in accordance with which structures for a new communist society were created in Russia. ML has become a dogma, a religion, a fetish for all the builders of a new reality. ML is not a science, but a kind of religion that can be interpreted in one way or another, which is done in different places with different success. Physics is a science because it does not admit any regional interpretation.
                The ideas of ML, despite their inadequacy, due to their simplicity, became widespread in the minds of the population and therefore became a real force that changed the evolutionary path of many states.
                I will quote from the Communist Party's manifesto (1847): “The first step in the workers' revolution is the transformation of the proletariat into the ruling class, the conquest of democracy. (but democracy and the ruling class are incompatible). The proletariat uses its political domination in order to wrest from the bourgeoisie step by step all capital, to centralize all the instruments of production in the hands of the state, that is, the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and to increase the amount of productive forces as quickly as possible. "
                If we translate this philosophical passage into the language of biology, then the leaves of the tree were instructed to assimilate nutrients from the soil (how will they get to it?), And the roots were asked to do photosynthesis (is it in the darkness of the earth?).
                K. Marx, in contrast to his predecessors economists A. Smith and D. Ricardo, believed that the transfer of the means of production into the hands of the proletariat would lead to economic growth.
                The great economist A. Smith explained that the free market system works on the basis of internal mechanisms, and not external political violence. Smith believed that a person is the basis of the whole society, and investigated human behavior with his motives and desire for personal benefit: “each individual person has in mind his own benefit, and not at all the benefits of society, and in this case, as in many others , with an invisible hand he is directed towards a goal that was not at all part of his intentions "and that," in pursuit of his own interests, he often more effectively serves the interests of society than when he deliberately seeks to do so. "
                Marx did not achieve great fame during his lifetime in his homeland - at his funeral in London, there were from 9 to 11 people. It was in Russia that he was turned into God.


                CLAIMS  TO  ML  FROM  THE  POINT  OF  VIEW  OF  SOCIOBIOLOGY.

                In Russia there were people who believed in the wisdom of Karl Marx and, having seized power, tried to introduce Marxism in Russia, and when they saw the first results, they were horrified, forgot about the declared goals of achieving prosperity for the working people, began to create labor armies out of them, securing the proletarians at state enterprises, peasants were made serfs on collective farms, millions of other citizens were slaves of the GULAG at the construction sites of communism. Everything is according to the proverb: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
                All people from the rank and file to ministers were kept in constant fear by the system. In that era, a person could not simply be dismissed due to inconsistency, he was sent for re-education in the GULAG or simply disappeared from the surface of the earth by the verdict of the troika, and sometimes without it.
1. ML was touted as a complete final solution for social societies. This dogmatism makes it similar to religious teachings,  for deviating from which in the Middle Ages people were punished by the Inquisition and in the USSR it was done by the Cheka, an organization that was later renamed, but whose essence remained unchanged.
2. ML does not correspond to evolutionary theory, whence it follows an unambiguous conclusion that it is unacceptable for living social societies. Living systems adapt to the environment, the ML of living people is adapted by compulsion to their dogmas.
                1921: The Bolsheviks founded the "Institute of Marxism-Leninism". Its first leader, the prominent Bolshevik Ryazanov. 1927: By a resolution of the Central Committee Commission in 1927, the Institute was categorically forbidden not only to develop Marxism, but also to deal with theory in general.
             In 1931, Ryazanov was removed from office. But what is this punishment? Therefore, they came to their senses, changed their minds and in 1938 he was shot. Stalin loved final decisions.
                Already in 1925, the "foundations of Marxism-Leninism" were added to the number of compulsory subjects - the unification of dialectics and the history of the Communist Party in one course.
With the passage of time, political propaganda only gained momentum. On November 14, 1938, in connection with the publication of the "Short Course on the History of the CPSU (b)", the central body of the Bolshevik Party decided to strengthen party propaganda among the population and organize special training courses for propaganda workers.
"The doctrine of Marx is omnipotent because it is true," - propagandists liked to refer to Lenin's article "Three sources and three components of Marxism."
                The "laws of dialectics", they are "laws of philosophy", were recognized as universal, capable of describing all forms of development of life and society. The denial of negation, the transition from quantity to quality and the struggle of opposites - these laws explained the correctness of the actions of the party and the replacement of capitalism by communism, which sooner or later will occur in all countries.
                In the "Short Course", Stalin, along with his entourage, were portrayed as true Marxists, faithful to the precepts of Ilyich. Published during the Great Terror and recommended for general study, the work justified the repressions that had taken place by that time against party members disliked by Stalin.
                Undivided political power has become a good reinforcement of ideological intolerance, which has been elevated to the official principle. The authorities gradually closed the opposition print media where ideological opponents could be published.
                In 1922, a large group of prominent representatives of Russian idealist philosophy was expelled from the country (N.A. Berdyaev, B.P. Vysheslavtsev, N.O. Lossky, F.A. Stepun, S.L. Frank, I. A. Ilyin and others). Representatives of "alien ideology" also emigrated individually (for example, in 1925, G.P. Fedotov).
                In the future, the matter was not limited to the victory over "ideologies hostile to the working class." Marxism-Leninism actually began to be viewed not only as "the only true", but also in its basic features a complete and inviolable teaching.



                LENIN  AS  HE  WAS.

                The Bolsheviks managed to present the leader as an infallible, kindest national benefactor who cares for the interests of the working people. In fact, Lenin was a dictator who was ill with the retention of power, judging by his behavior, and not the words that he uttered at the rallies.
                His slogan: "Let's turn the imperialist war into a civil war" was realized and brother went to brother, Russian people of different persuasions fought with each other. This is a crime against the nation that deserves the most severe punishment.
                This slogan, like other similar ones, was noticed in Germany. The collapse of the Entente was the most important goal of German diplomacy during the war. Russia seemed to be the weakest link, and in order to destroy the unity of the Entente countries, Germany through its agents supplies the Bolsheviks with money.
                Sumenson Evgenia was arrested in July 1917, during the investigation she confessed to receiving huge sums of money from J. Ganetsky-Furstenberg (Stockholm) and transferring them to major Bolshevik leaders. V. I. Ulyanov-Lenin and the Bolsheviks were ready to take money from anyone during the seizure of power and incitement of the world revolution. Sumenson's testimony is contained in the 18th volume of the Case of V.I.Lenin's treason (a total of 21 volumes are known).
                Numerous documents are now known that testify to the transfer of about 50 million marks to the Bolsheviks. The passage of the sealed carriage with the Bolsheviks in April 1917 through the territory of Germany also says something.
          Lenin despised everyone - some for being lower and, in his opinion, stupider than him, and others for being smarter and more educated.
About Gorky: "This, I will report to you, is also a bird ... Very much on his mind, loves money ... also a great buffoon and a Pharisee ..."
About Lunacharsky: "I'll tell you frankly, a completely filthy type, a carousel and a drunkard, and a lecher ... a moral gigolo, but, by the way, the devil only knows, maybe not only a moral one ..."
 About Litvinov: “A good speculator and gambler ... an intelligent and clever Jew peddler. It's a petty creature, well, to hell with him. "
                G. Solomon - Lenin's associate - wrote: “He was a great demagogue ... First of all, he was repulsed by rudeness, mixed with impenetrable complacency. He did not hesitate to be not only impudent and rude in a dispute, but also to allow himself harsh personal attacks on the enemy, often even reaching the level of swearing. Therefore, as far as I remember, Lenin had no close, bosom, intimate friends ...
                It was he, believing that he had mastered Marxism best of all, and elevated terror into the principle and practice of power. Mass shootings and torture, hostages, concentration camps, including children's deportations, extrajudicial repressions, military occupation of certain territories of Russia in order to suppress popular uprisings - all these atrocities began immediately after the October coup.

"Our morality is derived from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat and the liberation of all working people from the oppression of the capitalists," wrote Lenin.

                But liberation from the oppression of the capitalists led to a much greater oppression of the GULAG. The one who did not get there all the time felt the sword of Damocles of the Cheka above him. What is the lie of the cited statement of Lenin?
                If morality is derived from the interests of the class struggle, then this means that the mentality of the population, developed in the course of the evolutionary process, is rejected. New rules are being established to develop a new mentality and morality in accordance with the preferences of the dictator.

                Consider a biological species. Its instincts (the equivalent of morality in cultural evolution) are subordinate to the survival of the species and, therefore, are directed against the competing behavior of other species.
                In the human species, we see the manifestation of this rule in the old days, when the enemies of another tribe were not simply killed, but did it with unjustified cruelty.
                The development of the economy and the change in the mentality of a civilized person made cruelty unnecessary. This, in fact, is morality. Environmental liberation has led to a further change in mentality, expressed in the creation of human morality, which denies the very possibility of killing a person by the state. Thus, wars become outside the moral choice of humanity. Lenin, in his mentality, was at the stage of biological evolution.
                For Lenin, the murders of people are acts of a normal, from his point of view, politics. He, pursuing a policy of knackering, pulls people into the Middle Ages. Such a person should qualify as an international criminal and sit in the basement all his life, as in the time of Catherine, Saltychikha sat in the basement for the numerous murders of her servants.

                And here are some documents characterizing the leader of the world proletariat.

"11.VIII.1918.
To Penza
Comrades Kuraev, Bosch, Minkin and other Penza communists.
Comrades! The uprising of the five kulak volosts should lead to ruthless suppression. This is required by the interest of the entire revolution, for now everywhere is "the last decisive battle" with the kulaks. A sample must be given.
1) Hang (be sure to hang so that people can see) at least 100 notorious kulaks, rich men, Bloodsuckers.
2) Publish their names.
3) Take all the bread from them.
4) Appoint hostages - according to yesterday's telegram.
To make sure that people could see, tremble, know, shout for hundreds of miles around the people: they would strangle and strangle the bloodsuckers of their kulaks.
Wire receipt and execution.
Your Lenin.
P.S. Find harder people "
(VI Lenin. Unknown documents, 1999, p. 246).

August 22
From the telegram of V.I. Lenina A.K. Paikesu:
"... Temporarily I advise you to appoint your bosses and shoot the conspirators and the hesitant, without asking anyone and not allowing idiotic red tape ..."
(Lenin, PSS, vol. 50, p. 165).
December (until 23rd)

1919 year
February, 15
The Workers 'and Peasants' Defense Council (chaired by V.I.Lenin) adopted the following Resolution:
“The Council of Workers 'and Peasants' Defense at a meeting of February 15 of this year, having heard the question of liberating any kind of population from mobilization at a distance of 20 versts from the railway line, decided:
Instruct Sklyansky, Markov, Petrovsky and Dzerzhinsky to immediately arrest several members of the executive committees and commanders in those areas where snow clearing is not quite satisfactory. In the same localities, take hostages from the peasants so that if the snow is not cleared, they will be shot. An execution report with information on the number of those arrested should be appointed in a week.
Secretary "
(V.I. Lenin and VChK, 1975, pp. 152-153).

August 30
“Frunze. By cipher.
Specially discuss carefully how to seize oil in Guryev, it is imperative, act both by bribery and the threat of total extermination of the Cossacks if they burn oil in Guryev. Answer quickly and accurately.
Lenin "
(VI Lenin Unknown documents .., 1999, p. 297).

22 of October
IN AND. Lenin - L.D. Trotsky:
“... It is devilishly important for us to finish with Yudenich (to finish - finish off). If the offensive has begun, is it possible to mobilize another 20 thousand Petersburg workers plus 10 thousand bourgeoisie, put machine guns behind them, shoot several hundred [5] and achieve a real mass pressure on Yudenich ... "
(VI Lenin. Unknown documents .., 1999, p. 304).

28th of February
IN AND. Lenin - I.T. Smilge and G.K. Ordzhonikidze:
"... We need oil to the bone, think over a manifesto to the population that we will cut everyone if they burn or spoil oil and oil fields, and vice versa give life to everyone if Maikop and especially Grozny will be handed over safe ..."
(VI Lenin. Unknown documents .., 1999, p. 330).
 
June 16
IN AND. Lenin - to the Fuel Department of the Moscow Council of Working People's Deputies:
"... If heroic measures are not taken, I will personally carry out in the Defense Council and the Central Committee not only arrests of all responsible persons, but also executions ..."
(Lenin, PSS, vol. 51, p. 216).

                In our memory, episodes of the happy past are preserved, and from here an extrapolation is sometimes made to the entire past era, and it suddenly begins to seem to someone like a lost paradise. But we must understand that this feeling arises due to the selective properties of our memory. People who lived in the era of planting, the so-called socialism, even the most successful, can only deeply sympathize.