The Bolsheviks of Yesterday and Today: Impostors, the Worst of Primary Anti-Communists…
Table of Contents
1. Preliminary
Fanny Iefimovna Kaplan, born Feiga Khaymovna Roitblat on February 10, 1890 in the Volhynia Governorate (today in Ukraine), is an essential but controversial figure in the history of the Russian Revolution. Coming from a modest Jewish family, a revolutionary activist from adolescence, she is best known for her assassination attempt on Vladimir Lenin in 1918, an act that continues to be the subject of debate among historians. PLATEFORMEJAUNE salutes her memory, and claims to be part of the workers' opposition to Bolshevism and the struggle of Fanny Kaplan, the woman who dared to challenge Lenin, the corrupt icon that contemporary leftist sects (Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.) who like to always present him as a figure of the communist movement. As we have shown in our previous publications, Lenin was only an admirer of the state capitalism of Germany, which he saw as a model for Russia to follow. His project of "socialism" finally resulted in the NEP, a state capitalist regime that crushed the workers and peasants under the yoke of capitalist exploitation. It paved the way for Stalinism, and genocidal regimes that sullied communist hope for thousands of years. Today, those who proclaim themselves communists by waving this icon are not communists, but impostors, the worst of primary anti-communists.
LINK TO OUR PREVIOUS PUBLICATIONS
As a preamble, we recall that according to the work of historian Nicolas Werth (see presentation of this historian at the end of the article) , between 1918 and 1924, the Bolshevik repression under Lenin caused approximately 1,700,000 victims, including peasants and workers who had dared to revolt against the regime (Werth, 1997, Baynac 1975). This is a catastrophic assessment that reflects the real nature of Bolshevism: a political movement that has its roots in the Russian petty bourgeoisie that used revolutionary rhetoric to establish an authoritarian and oppressive regime.
As historian Orlando Figes so aptly puts it, "Bolshevik terror was justified as a necessity to protect the revolution from class enemies, but in reality it was used to eliminate all political opposition and to establish an authoritarian regime" (Figes, 1996). As Jean-Jacques Baynac also points out , "Lenin established a regime of terror that operated permanently, with arrests, executions and deportations" (Baynac, 1975, p. 123).
Lenin, in the name of saving the revolution, had made a lame deal with Imperial Germany. This laudatory statement by Lenin speaks volumes about his true class nature: "... I refer to the bourgeoisie: what school shall we go to, if not its own? How did it govern itself? It governed itself as a class, when it had power; but did it not appoint leaders? We have not yet reached their level. It knew how to rule as a class and to govern through anyone, individually, for its own exclusive benefit." Lenin, "Speech at the Session of the Communist Fraction of the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions," March 15, 1920, Collected Works, Vol. 36, p. 536.
So, yes, Fanny Kaplan committed a desperate act, but her sacrifice for the socialist revolution will not be in vain! And that is why her act is important, because it reminds us that the Russian revolution was betrayed by the Bolsheviks, Lenin and his bloodthirsty accomplice Trotsky, a second-rate failed Stalin...
References:
Figes, O. (1996). A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924. Jonathan Cape.
Baynac, J. (1975). The Terror under Lenin. Robert Laffont.
Finally, we conclude that Fanny Kaplan is an important figure in the history of the Russian Revolution, and her act of courage and conviction must be recognized and honored. We hope that this article has helped to enlighten readers on the events of this tumultuous period in Russian history.
2. Family origins and youth of Fanny KAPLAN
Born in 1890 in the Kovel region, Fanny Kaplan grew up in a large and poor family. Her father, Haim Roitblat , was a teacher, but struggled to support his eight children in a hostile environment, where quotas restricted access to education and professional opportunities. Despite these obstacles, Fanny demonstrated an exceptional intellect and a thirst for knowledge that set her apart. She learned to read and write in Yiddish, and became interested in revolutionary ideas at a young age.
"The residency laws created a climate of marginalization and exploitation within Jewish communities, condemning them to humiliating living conditions" (Fedorenko, 2001).
Because of this precariousness, Fanny grew up in a climate of economic and social tension, where the injustices suffered by her family and her community were a daily reality. These early experiences of struggle and resistance conditioned her critical thinking and her desire for equality. From a young age, she experienced the systematic oppression that weighed on Jews, depriving them of fundamental rights and exposing them to anti-Semitic violence. The suffering she observed around her forged in her a keen political conscience, making her understand the broader dimensions of these social injustices. As sociologist Paula E. Hyman states,
"Jews' experiences of discrimination in Russia catalyzed a quest for social justice within the community" (Hyman, 1995).
Fanny’s intellectual brilliance began to show itself as early as adolescence. She demonstrated an exceptional determination to learn to read and write, a privilege rarely afforded to girls of her background. While her peers were often forced to leave school to help their families financially, she clung to her studies, fascinated by the transformative potential of education. At the same time, her limited access to books and conventional learning resources did not dampen her thirst for knowledge. She turned to the revolutionary writings of Marxist and anarchist thinkers, discovering powerful ideals of emancipation, solidarity, and social justice. This context is illustrated by historian Anastasia Chesnokova, noting that
“Self-education was essential for many Jewish women, offering them a path to personal and collective emancipation” (Chesnokova, 2018).
Her intellectual curiosity led her to participate in revolutionary discussions and meetings that allowed her to refine her political commitment. Within these groups, she met comrades who shared her aspirations for change and equality. The influence of these interactions was decisive for her personal and political development. These exchanges exposed her to stories of other struggles and to ongoing social movements, rolling her into a dynamic of contestation in the face of institutionalized oppression. While navigating between the traditional expectations of Jewish society and her own aspirations, Fanny developed a vision of the world that advocated the fight against all forms of injustice.
2.1 Historical context: the systemic oppression of Jews in the Russian Empire
Fanny Kaplan 's youth took place in a context of structural discrimination and targeted violence against the Jewish community of the Russian Empire. At the end of the 18th century, the region of Volhynia, where she was born, was incorporated into the Empire after the dismemberment of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth . To restrict the mobility of the Jewish population, the Tsarist authorities established the famous "Zone of Settlement" in 1791, a region where Jews were legally forced to live. This segregation was accompanied by strict prohibitions: settling in large cities such as Kiev or Sevastopol was forbidden, and only centers such as Odessa or Chisinau were accessible. Pogroms, orchestrated or tolerated violence against Jewish communities, were frequent and devastating. These attacks, often deadly, reinforced the instability of their daily lives. According to historian Catherine Fedorenko ,
"The residency laws and pogroms instituted a structural marginalization of the Jews, depriving them of any hope of emancipation" (Fedorenko, 2001).
2.2. A youth marked by poverty and repression
The late 19th century saw an intensification of pogroms, particularly in the southern "Settlement Zone" between 1881 and 1884. This violence exacerbated the poverty and despair of Jewish communities, leading thousands to flee to America. For those who remained, like the Kaplan family, education and resistance became a means of survival in the face of oppression.
Thus, Fanny Kaplan's journey, between education, political awareness and revolutionary commitment, illustrates how personal and historical contexts can shape individuals determined to challenge the established order. Her youth was marked by a deep desire for change that would later fuel her activism and her rejection of the discriminatory norms imposed on her community. It was this determination that would allow her, as she grew up, to become a key figure in revolutionary movements, loudly claiming her right to emancipation and social justice.
References:
Chesnokova, Anastasia. “The Role of Self-Education in the Lives of Jewish Women in Russia.” Jewish History 32, no. 2 (2018): 123-142.
Fedorenko, Catherine. “Women and ‘Russian’ Terrorism in the Late Imperial Period: Fanny Kaplan Revisited.” Journal of Women's History 13, no. 2 (2001): 106-127.
Hyman, Paula E. Gender and Assimilation in Modern Jewish History: The Roles and Tasks of Women .
3. An early revolutionary commitment: convictions forged by injustice
Fanny Kaplan 's adolescence coincided with a period of great political and social unrest in the Russian Empire. At that time, the brutal suppression of workers' strikes and peasant uprisings, combined with recurring anti-Semitic violence in the Settlement Zone , reinforced the sense of urgency among the revolutionary movements. The latter, in reaction to the intransigence of the tsarist regime, had fragmented into several tendencies, among them the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (SR) .
Founded in 1901, the SR combined populism and socialism, advocating an agrarian revolution as a solution to the oppression of peasants and workers. Unlike Marxists who favoured an organised workers' struggle, the SR placed the peasants at the heart of their revolutionary vision. They combined peaceful propaganda with violent action, carried out by their Combat Organisation , an underground group specialising in political assassinations and targeted executions of figures of the tsarist regime.
3.1 A commitment at 16: the beginning of a radical trajectory
At just 16 years old, Fanny Kaplan , fascinated by the discourses of equality and social justice, joined the Socialist Revolutionary Party. She had been particularly inspired by the stories of the 1905 revolution, in which the SRs had played a key role in supporting workers' strikes and peasant uprisings. In this context, Kaplan became actively involved in the struggle against the regime, finding in the ideas of the SRs a response to the oppression she had experienced on a daily basis.
Kaplan began by participating in propaganda activities: distributing leaflets, writing messages denouncing the abuses of the tsarist regime, and organizing secret meetings. However, her commitment was not limited to words. Influenced by revolutionary figures such as Maria Spiridonovna , she quickly became close to the Combat Organization of the SRs, ready to carry out more daring actions.
3.2 The kyiv assassination attempt in 1906: a turning point in his life
In 1906, as social tensions reached a peak, Kaplan was involved in an assassination attempt on an imperial official in Kiev. The target, a high-ranking local official known for his brutality towards workers and peasants, was seen by the revolutionaries as a symbol of the tsarist regime's oppression. The carefully planned operation involved a small group of SR activists. Kaplan, although inexperienced, volunteered to play an active role, convinced of the urgency of direct action. She was tasked with carrying a weapon—a revolver concealed under her clothing—to the scene of the assassination. However, the operation went awry: the target escaped the attack, and Kaplan was captured by the imperial police after a brief chase through the streets of Kiev.
3.2. An exemplary conviction and a speedy trial
Fanny Kaplan 's arrest caused a stir because it revealed the growing involvement of young women in revolutionary movements, a phenomenon that shocked the authorities and fueled anti-revolutionary propaganda. During her interrogation, Kaplan refused to provide information about her comrades, enduring physical and psychological abuse. According to contemporary accounts, she declared: "I am not a criminal, I am a revolutionary. You can kill me, but you will not kill my ideas."
Tried quickly in a summary trial, she was initially sentenced to death. However, because of her young age – she was only 16 – her sentence was commuted to hard labor for life. The court hoped to make an example of her to dissuade other young women from engaging in revolutionary activities.
3.3. The repercussions of the attack: a revolutionary symbol
Kaplan's participation in this assassination attempt marked a turning point in her life, but also in the perception of the SRs by the Tsarist authorities. It revealed their ability to recruit members from the most marginalized sections of society and mobilize them for violent action. For Kaplan, the failure of the assassination attempt did not dampen her resolve, but strengthened her conviction that armed struggle was necessary to break the yoke of Tsarist autocracy. In prison, she became an iconic figure among the imprisoned revolutionaries. Despite her young age, her participation in such a daring act was hailed by her comrades as an example of courage and total commitment. According to contemporary sources, the SRs continued to support her discreetly, sending her letters and parcels to remind her that she was not forgotten.
4. Liberation and disillusionment
Fanny Kaplan was released after the February Revolution of 1917, when the Provisional Government declared a general amnesty for political prisoners. When she returned to civilian life, she found a country in turmoil. The fall of the tsarist autocracy had ushered in a period of political chaos, with several factions—Bolsheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, monarchists, and others—struggling for control.
Kaplan, deeply committed to the ideals of revolutionary socialism, greeted the rise of the Bolsheviks with skepticism. Although she initially admired their determination, she quickly disapproved of their authoritarian policies and their suppression of political diversity. The signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918), which ceded territory to the Central Powers, was seen by Kaplan as a betrayal of revolutionary ideals.
5. The assassination attempt on Lenin
On August 30, 1918, Vladimir Lenin was giving a speech at the Michelson factory in Moscow. As he was leaving, Kaplan was waiting for him armed with a revolver. She fired three times, hitting Lenin in the neck and shoulder. Although seriously wounded, Lenin survived.
Arrested on the spot, Kaplan did not seek to deny her act. She declared:
"My name is Fanny Kaplan. I shot Lenin today. I did it voluntarily. I consider him a traitor to the Revolution."
These simple but determined words reflect his ideological opposition to the Bolsheviks and his conviction that their regime undermined the ideals of social emancipation.
6. Accusations of collaboration with the Whites
The Bolsheviks claimed that Kaplan was acting under the orders of the "Whites," the counter-revolutionary forces opposed to the Soviet regime. This accusation allowed them to justify a massive campaign of repression known as the Red Terror. However, the work of historians such as Alexander Rabinowitch contradicts this official version.
In reality, Fanya Kaplan was a sympathizer of the Left Socialist Revolutionary Party, which had participated in the February Revolution of 1917 and supported the creation of the Constituent Assembly, elected in January 1918.
Kaplan, who had been elected as a deputy to the Constituent Assembly, was firmly committed to the idea of direct rule and freedom, and was therefore in opposition to the authoritarian methods of the Bolsheviks.
7. Kaplan explains his action
The often truncated quote from Fanny Kaplan is:
"I left the Constituent Assembly, which rose up against the Congress of Soviets or, depending on the version, the Right SR Government in Samara which wanted to be its heir, and the resumption of the war against the Germans, with the Allies."
References:
"Fanya Kaplan: The Revolutionary Socialist Who Tried to Kill Lenin" by Anna Geifman (Routledge, 2013)
"The Russian Revolution: A Very Short Introduction" by SA Smith (Éditions Odile Jacob, 2017)
"Russia in the 20th Century" by Robert Service (Éditions du Seuil, 1998)
8. Analysis of the quote
It is important to understand that Fanny Kaplan does not claim the Constituent Assembly as a bourgeois parliamentary body, but rather as a symbol of direct rule and the Russian Revolution. The Constituent Assembly was an elected body in January 1918, but was dissolved by the Bolsheviks in October 1917. However, the Bolsheviks saw the Constituent Assembly as a threat to their power and dissolved it. Kaplan opposed the Bolsheviks who had established a one-party dictatorship. She defended the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, which were the basic organs of the Russian Revolution and represented the interests of workers and peasants.
As John Reed noted,
"The Soviets of Workers' Deputies were the basic organs of the Russian Revolution, and the Bolsheviks had seized power in their name" (Reed, 1966, p. 145).
However, the Bolsheviks quickly established a one-party dictatorship, which led to the repression of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies.
Academic historical references
Alexander Rabinowitch, "The Bolsheviks in Power: The First Year of Soviet Rule in Petrograd" (Indiana University Press, 2007)
John Reed, "Ten Days That Shook the World" (Penguin Books, 1966)
Victor Serge, “Year One of the Russian Revolution” (Writers and Readers Publishing, 1992)
Paul Avrich, "The Russian Anarchists" (Princeton University Press, 1967)
Orlando Figes, "A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924" (Penguin Books, 1996)
In short, Fanny Kaplan's quote has often been misinterpreted. She was not advocating bourgeois democracy or a capitalist economy, but rather direct management of the socialist economy of the Russian Revolution. Kaplan opposed the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks and advocated the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, which represented the interests of workers and peasants.
The Bolsheviks claimed that Kaplan was acting under the orders of the "Whites," the counter-revolutionary forces opposed to the Soviet regime. This accusation allowed them to justify a massive campaign of repression known as the Red Terror . However, the work of historians such as Alexander Rabinowitch contradicts this official version.
In his book The Bolsheviks in Power: The First Year of Soviet Rule in Petrograd (2007), Rabinowitch writes:
"There is no credible evidence that Kaplan had any contact with whites or received any instructions from them" (p. 246).
Rabinowitch, a recognized expert on Soviet history, draws on Soviet archives and contemporary testimony to demonstrate that Kaplan's act was likely motivated by personal ideological reasons rather than an organized conspiracy.
9. Conditions of its execution by the Cheka
Kaplan was immediately arrested and detained in extremely harsh conditions. Transported to the Lubyanka, the notorious Cheka headquarters in Moscow, she underwent intensive interrogation. Although some historians suspect that she may have been tortured, there is no conclusive evidence to support this. However, her conditions of detention were particularly harsh, worsening her already poor health.
On September 3, 1918, the decision to execute Kaplan was made in complete secrecy. No public trial was held, and she was shot in the head in the courtyard of a Moscow prison by a Cheka agent. Her body was then cremated so as to leave no trace, preventing her from becoming a symbol for opposition to the regime.
10. Political exploitation of the attack
The assassination attempt on Lenin marked a turning point for the young Soviet regime. According to Rabinowitch:
"The assassination of Lenin was used as a pretext to launch a campaign of terror against political opponents, not as a response to a real threat" (Rabinowitch, 2007, p. 251).
The assassination allowed the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power by instituting a brutal repression known as the Red Terror . This campaign, led by the Cheka under the supervision of Felix Dzerzhinsky, aimed to eliminate any political opposition perceived as a threat to the regime. Socialist Revolutionaries, monarchists, bourgeois forces, and even some dissidents within the workers' movement were targeted.
According to historian Sheila Fitzpatrick ( The Russian Revolution , 1982),
"The Red Terror marked a break between the idealized vision of revolution as the emancipation of the people and the brutal reality of the emerging authoritarian state" (p. 103).
The summary execution of Fanny Kaplan and her political exploitation illustrated this transition.
The assassination attempt also gave the Bolsheviks a justification for strengthening the police and military apparatus. Lenin himself, though weakened by his injuries, called for an intensification of coercive measures to "protect the revolution from internal enemies." The event was a catalyst for the establishment of a surveillance and repressive state that would define the following decades of Soviet rule.
11. Kaplan, martyr or political criminal?
Interpretations of Kaplan's act vary considerably depending on perspective. The Bolsheviks portrayed her as a terrorist manipulated by counter-revolutionary forces, an image intended to legitimize their repressive actions. However, historical research, notably that of Rabinowitch and Fitzpatrick, highlights a more complex figure.
For historian Orlando Figes ( A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 , 1996), Kaplan symbolizes a revolution betrayed:
"His desperate act reflects the growing disenchantment with a regime that, in the name of liberation, had established a new form of tyranny" (p. 513).
For his part, historian Isaac Deutscher in The Prophet Armed: Trotsky , 1879-1921 (1954) underlines the psychological impact of the assassination attempt on Lenin and his close associates. According to Deutscher,
"The constant fear of political assassination strengthened in Lenin the conviction that only an implacable dictatorship could save the revolution."
12. Kaplan and historical memory
Fanny Kaplan's memory remains deeply divided. In official Soviet narratives, she was erased or reduced to the role of a "bourgeois traitor." Conversely, some dissident circles and opponents of the Bolshevik regime have attempted to rehabilitate her as a martyr of revolutionary socialism.
Modern scholars such as Catherine Merridale ( Lenin on the Train , 2017) have explored how the Soviet state manipulated narratives around figures like Kaplan to assert its narrative control:
"By destroying Kaplan's body and controlling information about her motivations, the Bolsheviks made her an omnipresent absentee, a spectral figure used to justify their own violence" (p. 289).
13. Conclusion: the struggle for communism requires an implacable struggle against contemporary Bolshevik impostors
Fanny Kaplan remains an emblematic figure and symbol of the socialist revolution betrayed by the Bolsheviks, who replaced the class struggle with a regime of state capitalism. By usurping power in the name of the working class, they imposed an oppressive bureaucracy that crushed revolutionary aspirations and paved the way for Stalinism. Her act embodies a clear and determined opposition to this betrayal, recalling that the emancipation of the working class can only be achieved through its self-organization and its struggle against all forms of exploitation, including those perpetrated under the cover of "socialism". It is up to us to expose these impostors of the degenerate Bolshevik groups, who hide behind revolutionary phraseology while continuing to sully communism with their betrayals.
Additional references:
Fitzpatrick, S. (1982). The Russian Revolution . Oxford University Press.
Figes, O. (1996). A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 . Jonathan Cape.
Deutscher, I. (1954). The Prophet Armed: Trotsky, 1879-1921 . Oxford University Press.
Merridale, C. (2017). Lenin on the Train . Penguin Books.
Nicolas Werth, historian of Stalinist regimes
Nicolas Werth is a contemporary French historian specializing in the study of Stalinist regimes and the Soviet Union. He is notably known for having written the part of The Black Book of Communism devoted to Soviet Russia and the USSR. However, Werth distanced himself from the preface by Stéphane Courtois, who claimed that communism was inherently criminogenic. He thus denounced a biased and simplistic approach to the history of Stalinism . Werth also criticized the toll of victims of Stalinism established in the preface, which according to him underestimates the number of victims (between 65 and 93 million, according to his estimates ). He also denounced a "drift towards exclusively police history", which reduces the history of Stalinism to its repressive aspects alone. For Werth, it is essential to treat the history of Stalinism with nuance and precision, without a priori or prejudice. He states that "the Black Book is not a definitive sum, much less a Bible. A stage in an essential reflection, it will have fulfilled its goal if it stimulates new research, without taboos, but also without prejudices". In short, Nicolas Werth is a historian who seeks to understand and explain the mechanisms of Stalinism and Stalinist regimes, rather than simply denouncing or condemning. His work contributes to a better understanding of this complex period of history.
Comments