banner-comment

Comment

On "History Cannot Be Erased By Pulling Statues Down" by Raman Swamy

Farooque Chowdhury


I assume you have noticed the following statement in the article "History Cannot Be Erased By Pulling Statues Down" by Raman Swamy:

"Lenin was not a diehard Communist" (Raman Swamy, History cannot ... down)

I don't know what is being meant by "diehard", and if the "diehard" is taken away then, Lenin was a communist, a "soft-hearted"? What does that mean in the context the article has highlighted: the Oct. Rev., or the entire socialist project?

The article then tells:

"It was his successor, Stalin, who was the evil dictator, not Lenin."

Is history, political system moved by an individual? Then, why not put blame on a certain capitalist, not the related system? Does Frontier owns the assessment? Many arguments and info are there to nullify the Stalin-statement.

Mar 09, 2018


Farooque Chowdhury farooque_chowdhury@yahoo.com

Your Comment if any