Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

   Lunacharsky Articles and speeches on international politics

 Vladimir Ilyich Lenin [1919]

First published "The Great Revolution (October Revolution)" Part One. Ptb. Z. I. Grzhebina. 1919 pp. 58–72

The only unique one. Ekaterinburg. Uralbook. 1924, pp. 23–28

Electronic publication based on the collection "Lenin. A Man - a Thinker - a Revolutionary: (Memoirs and Judgments of Contemporaries)" / Compiled by: S. E. Grechikho, O. A. Zimarin, A. K. Sorokin. - M .: Politizdat, 1990. - 574 p.

For the first time I heard about Lenin after the publication of the book "Tulina" (meaning the article "The economic content of populism and criticism of it in the book of Mr. Struve (Reflection of Marxism in bourgeois literature)", published under the pseudonym "K. Tulin" in 1895. ) from Axelrod. I haven't read the book yet, but Axelrod told me: "Now we can say that in Russia there is a real social democratic movement and real social democratic thinkers are coming to the fore." “How,” I asked, “and Struve, and Tugan-Baranovsky?” Axelrod smiled somewhat mysteriously (the fact is that he used to speak very highly of Struve) and said to me: “Yes, but Struve and Tugan-Baranovsky are all pages of Russian university science, facts from the history of the evolution of the Russian scientific intelligentsia, and Tulin is this is already the fruit of the Russian working-class movement, this is already a page from the history of the Russian revolution.

Needless to say, Thulin's book was read abroad, where I was at that time (in Zurich), with the greatest avidity and subjected to all sorts of comments.

Lenin (in Geneva, ed.) decided to read a long essay on the fate of the Russian revolution and the Russian peasantry (In May-June 1903, ed.).

It was at this lecture that I heard him as a speaker for the first time. Here Lenin was transformed. A huge impression on me and on my wife was made by the concentrated energy with which he spoke, these eyes fixed on the crowd of listeners, becoming almost gloomy and piercing like a drill, this monotonous, but full of power movement of the orator, now forward, then back, this smoothly flowing and through and through infected speech.

I realized that this man must make a strong and indelible impression as a tribune. And I already knew how strong Lenin was as a publicist - with his rough, unusually clear style, his ability to present any idea, even complex, amazingly simple, and to vary it so that it is minted, finally, even in the most raw and little accustomed to political thinking mind.

It was only later, much later, that I learned that not a tribune, not a publicist, and not even a thinker were the strongest points in Lenin, but even then it was clear to me that the dominant feature of his character, that which made up half of his appearance, there was a will, an extremely determined, extremely intense will, able to concentrate on the immediate task, but never going beyond the circle drawn by a strong mind, which established any particular task as a link in a huge world political chain.

It seems that the next day after the lecture, I don’t remember on what occasion, we got to the sculptor Aronson, with whom I was on fairly good terms at that time. Aronson, seeing Lenin's head, was delighted and began to ask Lenin for permission to mold, at least, at least a model from him.

He pointed out to me the remarkable resemblance of Lenin to Socrates. It must be said, however, that even more than Socrates, Lenin resembles Verlaine.

At that time, the engraving portrait of Verlaine had just come out, and at the same time the famous bust of Verlaine, which was later bought for the Geneva Museum, was exhibited.

However, it was noted that Verlaine was unusually similar to Socrates. The main similarity was in the magnificent shape of the head.

The structure of the skull of Vladimir Ilyich is really amazing. You need to take a closer look at it in order to appreciate this physical power, the contour of the colossal dome of the forehead, and notice, I would say again, the physical radiation of light from its surface, instead of the first impression of a simple large bald head.

The sculptor, of course, noted this immediately.

Next to this, closer to Verlaine than to Socrates, deeply sunken, small and terribly attentive eyes. But the eyes of the great poet are gloomy, somehow extinct (judging by the portrait of Karier), while Lenin’s eyes are mocking, full of irony, sparkling with intelligence and some kind of perky fun. It's only when he speaks that they become really dark and mesmerizing. Lenin's eyes are very small, but they are so expressive, so spiritualized, that later on I often admired their unconscious play.

Socrates, judging by the busts, had rather bulging eyes.

In the lower part there is again a significant similarity, especially when Lenin wears a more or less large beard. Socrates, Verlaine and Lenin had the same beard, somewhat neglected and disorderly. And in all three, the lower part of the face is somewhat shapeless, made roughly, as if somehow somehow.

A large nose and thick lips give Lenin a somewhat Tatar look, which, of course, is easily explained in Russia. But completely, or almost completely, Socrates has the same nose and the same lips, which was especially striking in Greece, where such a type was given only to fantastic satyrs. Likewise with Verlaine. One of Verlaine's close friends called him a Kalmyk. On the face of the great thinker, judging by the busts, lies, first of all, the seal of deep thought. I think, however, that if there is some truth in the transmission of Xenophon and Plato, then Socrates must have been cheerful and ironic, and the resemblance in the lively play of physiognomy was, perhaps, with Lenin more than the bust gives. Similarly, both famous depictions of Verlaine are dominated by that dreary mood, that decadent minor, which, of course, dominated his poetry, but everyone knows that Verlaine, especially at the beginning of his intoxication, was cheerful and ironic, and I think again that the resemblance here was greater than it appears.

What can this strange parallel of the great Greek philosopher, the great French poet and the great Russian revolutionary teach?

Of course, nothing. She only notes how one and the same appearance can belong, it is true, perhaps approximately equal to geniuses, but with a completely different direction of spirit, and secondly, it gave me the opportunity to describe Lenin's appearance in a more or less visual way.

When I got to know Lenin better, I appreciated another side of him that is not immediately evident: this is the amazing power of life in him. She boils and plays in it. On the day I am writing these lines, Lenin must already be 50 years old, but even now he is still a very young man, quite a youth in his vitality. How contagious he is, how sweet, how childishly he laughs, and how easy it is to make him laugh, what a penchant for laughter - that expression of man's victory over difficulties. In the most terrible moments that we had to endure together, Lenin was invariably even-tempered and also inclined to merry laughter.

His anger is also unusually sweet. Despite the fact that dozens of people, and perhaps hundreds, could die from his thunderstorm recently, he always dominates his indignation and it has an almost jocular form. This thunder, "as if frolicking and playing, rumbles in the blue sky." Many times I noted this external seething, these angry words, these arrows of poisonous irony, and next to it was the same chuckle in the eyes and the ability in one minute to end this whole scene of anger, which seemed to be played out by Lenin, because it was necessary. Inside, he remains not only calm, but also cheerful.

In private life, too, Lenin loves most of all just such unpretentious, direct, simple fun, determined by the seething of forces. His favorites are children and kittens. He can sometimes play with them for hours.

In his work, Lenin brings the same beneficial charm of life. I will never say that Lenin was industrious, I never somehow had to see him deep in a book or bent over a desk. He writes terribly quickly, in a large, sweeping hand; without a single blot, he sketches out his articles, which do not cost him any effort. He can do this at any time, usually in the morning, getting out of bed, but also late in the evening, returning after a tiring day, and at any time. He has been reading lately, with the possible exception of a short interval abroad, during the reaction, more in fragments than assiduously, but from every book, from every page he will bring out something new, he will dig up this or that idea necessary for him. , which then serves as his weapon.

It is especially ignited not from kindred ideas, but from opposite ones. An ardent polemicist is always alive in him.

But if Lenin is somehow ridiculous to call industrious, then he is able to work to a great extent. I am close to admitting that he is downright indefatigable; if I cannot say this, it is because I know that lately the superhuman efforts that he has to make, nevertheless, towards the end of each week, break his strength somewhat and force him to rest.

But after all, Lenin knows how to relax. He takes this rest like a kind of bath, during which he does not want to think about anything and gives himself entirely to idleness and, if possible, to his favorite fun and laughter. Therefore, from the shortest rest, Lenin comes out refreshed and ready for a new struggle.

This key of sparkling and somehow naive vitality constitutes, next to the firm breadth of mind and intense will, of which I spoke above, the charm of Lenin. This charm is colossal: people who fall close into his orbit not only give themselves to him as a political leader, but somehow fall in love with him in a peculiar way. This applies to people of the most diverse calibers and spiritual structures - from such a subtly vibrating huge talent as Gorky, to some clubfoot peasant who appeared from the depths of the Penza province, from first-class political minds, like Zinoviev, to some soldier and sailor , yesterday still former Black Hundreds, ready at any time to lay down their violent heads for "the leader of the world revolution - Ilyich."

This familiar name "Ilyich" has taken root so widely that it is repeated even by people who have never seen Lenin.

When Lenin lay wounded, as we feared, mortally, no one expressed our feelings towards him better than Trotsky. In the terrible storms of world events, Trotsky, another leader of the Russian revolution, not at all inclined to sentimentality, said:

“When you think that Lenin can die, it seems that all our lives are useless, and you no longer want to live.”

I will return to the line of my recollections of Lenin before the great revolution.

In Geneva, we worked together with Lenin on the editorial board of Vperyod, then Proletary. Lenin was a very good editorial comrade. He wrote a lot and easily, as I have already said, and was very conscientious about the work of his colleagues: he often corrected them, giving instructions, and was very pleased with any talented and convincing article.

Our relationship was the best. Lenin very soon appreciated me as a speaker: he extremely dislikes making any kind of compliments, but once or twice he spoke with great approval of my power of speech and, relying on this approval, demanded that I speak as often as possible. Some of the most responsible performances he considered with me in advance.

During the first part of our life in Geneva, until January 1905, we devoted ourselves chiefly to the inner party struggle.

Here I was struck by Lenin's deep indifference to all sorts of polemical skirmishes; he did not attach much importance to the struggle for foreign audiences, which for the most part were on the side of the Mensheviks. He did not appear at various solemn discussions and did not particularly advise me on this. He preferred me to give big, solid essays.

No bitterness was felt in his attitude towards his opponents, but nevertheless he was a cruel political opponent, took advantage of their every mistake, fanned all sorts of hints of opportunism, which, however, had a grain of truth, because later the Mensheviks themselves inflated all their then sparks into a fairly opportunistic flame. He did not indulge in intrigues, but in the political struggle he used every weapon except dirty ones. It must be said that the Mensheviks behaved in a similar way. Our relations were quite spoiled, and few of the political opponents managed at the same time to maintain any human personal relations. Especially poisoned the relationship of the Mensheviks to us Dan. Lenin always did not like Dana very much, but he loved and loves Martov, but he considered and still considers him politically somewhat weak-willed and losing its general contours behind subtle political thought.

With the onset of revolutionary events, things changed dramatically. Firstly, we began to gain, as it were, a moral advantage over the Mensheviks. By this time the Mensheviks had definitely turned towards the slogan: push the bourgeoisie forward and strive for a constitution or, at the very least, a democratic republic. Our revolutionary technical point of view, as the Mensheviks asserted, attracted even a significant part of the emigre public, especially young people.

We felt the living soil under our feet. Lenin at that time was magnificent. With the greatest enthusiasm, he unfolded the prospects for a further merciless revolutionary struggle and passionately strove for Russia.