In the country itself, processes were shaping themselves that one may sum up under the general name of reaction. These extended, in varying degree, to the working class as well, including even its party. The stratum that made up the apparatus7 of power developed its own independent aims and tried to subordinate the revolution to them. A division began to reveal itself between the leaders who expressed the historical line of the class and could see beyond the apparatus, and the apparatus itself — a huge, cumbrous, heterogeneous8 thing that easily sucked in the average communist. At first this division was more psychological than political in character. Yesterday was still too fresh in mind, the slogans of October had not had time to vanish from the memory, and the authority of the leaders of the first period was still strong. But under cover of the traditional forms, a different psychology9 was developing. The international prospects10 were growing dim. The everyday routine was completely absorbing the people. New methods, instead of serving the old aims, were creating new ones and, most of all, a new psychology. In the eyes of many, the temporary situation began to seem the ultimate goal. A new type was being evolved.
In the final analysis, revolutionaries are made of the same social stuff as other people. But they must have had certain very different personal qualities to enable the historical process to separate them from the rest into a distinct group. Association with one another, theoretical work, the struggle under a definite banner, collective discipline, the hardening under the fire of danger, these things gradually shape the revolutionary type. It would be perfectly11 legitimate12 to speak of the psychological type of the Bolshevik in contrast, for example, to that of the Menshevik. An eye sufficiently13 experienced could tell a Bolshevik from a Menshevik even by his outward appearance, with only a slight percentage of error.
This doesn’t mean, however, that a Bolshevik was always and in everything a Bolshevik. To absorb a certain philosophic14 out look into one’s flesh and blood, to make it dominate one’s consciousness, and to co-ordinate with it one’s sensory15 world is given not to every one but to only a few. In the working masses, a substitute is found in the class instinct, which in critical periods attains16 a high degree of sensitiveness. But there are many revolutionaries in the party and the state who come from the masses but have long since broken away from them, and who, because of their position, are placed in a separate and distinct class. Their class instinct has evaporated. On the other hand, they lack the theoretical stability and outlook to envisage17 the process in its entirety. Their psychology retains many unprotected surfaces, which, with the change of circumstances, expose them to the easy penetration18 of foreign and hostile ideological19 influences. In the days of the underground struggle, of the uprisings, and the civil war, people of this type were merely soldiers of the party. Their minds had only one string, and that sounded in harmony with the party tuning-fork. But when the tension relaxed and the nomads20 of the revolutions passed on to settled living, the traits of the man in the street, the sympathies and tastes of self-satisfied officials, revived in them.
Quite frequently I heard isolated21 remarks of Kalinin, Voroshilov, Stalin or Rykov with alarm. Where does this come from? — I asked myself — from what well does it gush22? When I came to a meeting and found groups engaged in conversation, often they would stop when they saw me. There was nothing directed against me in those conversations, nothing opposed to the principles of the party. But they showed an attitude of moral relaxation23, of self-content and triviality. People began to feel an urge to pour out these new moods upon each other — moods in which the element of philistine24 gossip came to have a very prominent place. Heretofore they had realized the impropriety of this sort of thing not only in Lenin’s or my presence but even with one another. On occasions when vulgarity showed itself — for example, on the part of Stalin — Lenin, without even lifting his head from his papers, would look around as if trying to find some one else who was repelled25 by the remark. In such cases, a swift glance, or an intonation26 in the voice was enough to reveal indisputably to both of us our solidarity27 in these psychological appraisals28.
If I took no part in the amusements that were becoming more and more common in the lives of the new governing stratum, it was not for moral reasons, but because I hated to inflict29 such boredom30 on myself. The visiting at each other’s homes, the assiduous attendance at the ballet, the drinking-parties at which people who were absent were pulled to pieces, had no attraction for me. The new ruling group felt that I did not fit in with this way of living, and they did not even try to win me over. It was for this very reason that many group conversations would stop the moment I appeared, and those engaged in them would cut them short with a certain shamefacedness and a slight bitterness toward me. This was, if you like, a definite indication that I had begun to lose power.
I am here limiting myself to the psychological aspect of the matter, and disregarding its social basis, that is, the changes in the anatomy31 of the revolutionary society. In the final reckoning, it is, of course, these latter changes that decide. But in actual life it is their psychological reflection that one encounters directly. The inner events were developing rather slowly, facilitating the molecular33 processes of the transformation34 of the upper stratum, and leaving no opening for contrasting the two irreconcilable35 positions before the masses. One must add that the new moods were for a long time, and still are, disguised by traditional formulas. This made it all the more difficult to determine how far the process of metabolism36 had gone. The Thermidor conspiracy37 at the end of the eighteenth century, prepared for by the preceding course of the revolution, broke out with a single blow and assumed the shape of a sanguinary finale. Our Thermidor was long drawn38 out. The guillotine found its substitute — at least for a while — in intrigue39. The falsifying of the past, systematized on the conveyer plan, became a weapon for the ideological re arming of the official party. Lenin’s illness and the expectation of his return to the leadership made the temporary situation indefinite, and it lasted, with an interval41, for over two years. If the revolution had been in the ascendancy42, the delay would have played into the hands of the opposition43. But the revolution on the international scale was suffering one defeat after another, and the delay accordingly played into the hands of the national reformism by automatically strengthening the Stalin bureaucracy against me and my political friends.
The out-and-out philistine, ignorant, and simply stupid baiting of the theory of permanent revolution grew from just these psychological sources. Gossiping over a bottle of wine or re turning from the ballet, one smug official would say to another:
“He can think of nothing but permanent revolution.” The accusations45 of unsociability, of individualism, of aristocratism, were closely connected with this particular mood. The sentiment of “Not all and always for the revolution, but something for oneself as well,” was translated as “Down with permanent revolution.” The revolt against the exacting47 theoretical demands of Marxism and the exacting political demands of the revolution gradually assumed, in the eyes of these people, the form of a struggle against “Trotskyism.” Under this banner, the liberation of the philistine in the Bolshevik was proceeding48. It was because of this that I lost power, and it was this that determined49 the form which this loss took.
I have said before that Lenin, from his deathbed, was preparing a blow at Stalin and his allies, Dzerzhinsky and Ordzhonikidze. Lenin valued Dzerzhinsky highly. The estrangement50 began when Dzerzhinsky realized that Lenin did not think him capable of directing economic work. It was this that threw Dzerzhinsky into Stalin’s arms, and then Lenin decided51 to strike at him as one of Stalin’s supports. As for Ordzhonikidze, Lenin wanted to expel him from the party for his ways of a governor-general. Lenin’s note promising52 the Georgian Bolsheviks his full support against Stalin, Dzherzhinsky, and Ordzhonikidze was addressed to Mdivani. The fates of the four reveal most vividiy the sweeping53 change in the party engineered by the Stalin faction54. After Lenin’s death, Dzerzhinsky was put at the head of the Supreme55 Economic Council, that is, in charge of all state industries. Ordzhonikidze, who had been slated46 for expulsion, has been made the head of the Central Control Commission. Stalin not only has remained the general secretary, contrary to Lenin’s wish, but has been given unheard-of powers by the apparatus. Finally, Budu Mdivani, whom Lenin supported against Stalin, is now in the Tobolsk prison. A similar “regrouping” has been effected in the entire directing personnel of the party and in all the parties of the International, without exception. The epoch56 of the epigones is separated from that of Lenin not only by a gulf57 of ideas, but also by a sweeping overturn in the organization of the party.
Stalin has been the chief instrument in carrying out this overturn. He is gifted with practicality, a strong will, and persistence58 in carrying out his aims. His political horizon is restricted, his theoretical equipment primitive59. His work of compilation60, The Foundations of Leninism, in which he made an attempt to pay tribute to the theoretical traditions of the party, is full of sophomoric61 errors. His ignorance of foreign languages compels him to follow the political life of other countries at second-hand62. His mind is stubbornly empirical, and devoid63 of creative imagination. To the leading group of the party (in the wide. circles he was not known at all) he always seemed a man destined64 to play second and third fiddle65. And the fact that to-day he is playing first is not so much a summing-up of the man as it is of this transitional period of political backsliding in the country. Helvetius said it long ago: “Every period has its great men, and if these are lacking, it invents them.” Stalinism is above all else the automatic work of the impersonal66 apparatus on the decline of the revolution.
Lenin died on January 21, 1924. Death was for him merely a deliverance from physical and moral suffering. He must have felt it intolerably humiliating to be so utterly67 helpless, and especially to lose his power of speech while he was still fully3 conscious. He grew unable to endure the patronizing tone of the doctors, their banal68 jokes and their false encouragements. While he was still able to speak, he casually69 put test questions to the doctors, caught them unawares in contradictions, insisted on additional explanations, and dipped into the medical books himself. In this case as in everything else, he was striving most of all for clarity. The only medical man he could endure was Fyodor Alexandrovich Guetier. A good physician and a good man, unsullied by the traits of a courtier, Guetier was attached to Lenin and Krupskaya by a genuine affection. During the period when Lenin would not allow any other doctor to come near him, Guetier continued to visit him. Guetier was also a close friend and house-physician to my family during all the years of the revolution. Thanks to him, we always had most trustworthy and intelligent reports on the condition of Vladimir Ilyich, to supplement and correct the impersonal official bulletins.
More than once, I asked Guetier whether Lenin’s intellect would retain its power in case of recovery. Guetier answered me in this strain: the tendency to fatigue70 would increase, there would not be the former clarity in work, but a virtuoso71 would remain a virtuoso. In the interval between the first and second strokes, this prediction was confirmed to the letter. Toward the end of the meetings of the Politbureau, Lenin gave one the impression of being a hopelessly tired man. All the muscles of his face sagged72, the gleam went out of his eyes, and even his formidable forehead seemed to shrink, while his shoulders drooped73 heavily. The expression of his face and of his entire figure might have been summed up in a word: tired. At such ghastly moments, Lenin seemed to me a doomed74 man. But with a good night’s sleep he would recover his power of thought. The articles written in the interval between his two strokes hold their own with his best work. The fluid of the source was the same, but the flow was growing less. Even after the second stroke, Guetier did not take away all hope. But his reports continued to grow more pessimistic. The illness dragged on. Without malice75 or mercy, the blind forces of nature were sinking the great sick man into a state of impotence from which there was no way out. Lenin could not and should not have lived on as an invalid76. But still we did not abandon hope for his recovery.
In the meantime, my own indisposition lingered on. “At the insistence77 of the doctors,” writes N.I. Sedova, “L.D. was moved to the country. There Guetier visited the sick man, for whom he had a tender regard. Politics did not interest him, but he suffered deeply for us without knowing how to express his sympathy. The persecution78 of L.D. caught him unprepared. He did not understand it, and was waiting and worrying. At Archangelskoye, he spoke79 to me excitedly about the necessity of taking L.D. to Sukhum. In the end, we decided to take the step. The journey, which was long in itself — via Baku, Tiflis, and Batum — was made still longer by the snowdrifts that covered the tracks. But the travelling had a soothing80 effect. The farther we went from Moscow, the more we broke away from the depression that we had found there of late. But in spite of it all, I still had the feeling that I was accompanying a very sick man. The uncertainty81 tried one ’s patience: what sort of life would there be at Sukhum? Would we have enemies or friends about us there?”
January 21 found us at the station in TiFlis, on our way to Sukhum. I was sitting with my wife in the working half of my car, with the high temperature that was the usual thing at that time. There was a knock on the door, and my faithful assistant, Syermuks, who was accompanying me to Sukhum, entered. From his manner as he walked in, from his livid-gray face as he handed me a sheet of paper, looking past me with glassy eyes, I sensed a catastrophe. It was the decoded82 telegram from Stalin telling me that Lenin had died. I passed it to my wife; she had already guessed it.
The Tiflis authorities soon received a similar telegram. The news of Lenin’s death was spreading in ever-widening rings. I got the Kremlin on the direct wire. In answer to my inquiry83, I was told: “The funeral will be on Saturday, you can’t get back in time, and so we advise you to continue your treatment.” Accordingly, I had no choice. As a matter of fact, the funeral did not take place until Sunday, and I could easily have reached Moscow by then. Incredible as it may appear, I was even deceived about the date of the funeral. The conspirators84 surmised85 correctly that I would never think of verifying it, and later on they could always find an explanation. I must recall the fact that the news of Lenin’s first illness was not communicated to me until the third day. This was a system. The object was to “gain time.”
The Tiflis comrades came to demand that I write on Lenin’s death at once. But I knew only one urgent desire-and that was to be alone. I could not stretch my hand to lift my pen. The brief text of the Moscow telegram was still resounding86 in my head. Those who gathered at the train waited for a response. They were right. The train was held up for half an hour, and I wrote the farewell lines: “Lenin has gone. Lenin is no more.” The few handwritten pages were transmitted to the direct wire.
“We arrived quite broken down,” writes my wife. “It was the first time we had seen Sukhum. The mimosa were in full bloom — they are plentiful87 there. Magnificent palms. Camellias. It was January; in Moscow the cold was bitter. The Abhazians greeted us on our arrival in a friendly manner. In the dining-room of the rest-house, there were two portraits on the wall, one — draped in black — of Vladimir Ilyich, the other of L.D. We felt like taking the latter one down, but thought it would look too demonstrative.”
At Sukhum I spent long days lying on the balcony facing the sea. Although it was January, the sun was warm and bright. Between the balcony and the glittering sea there were huge palms. With the constant sensation of running a temperature were mingled88 thoughts of Lenin’s death. In my mind I went through all the stages of my life: my meetings with Lenin, our disagreements, polemics89, our renewed friendliness90, our fellowship of work. Individual episodes emerged with the vividness of a dream. Gradually all of it began to assume increasingly sharp outlines. With amazing clarity I saw those “disciples” who were true to their master in the little things, and not in the big. As I breathed the sea air in, I assimilated with my whole being the assurance of my historical rightness in opposition to the epigones.
January 27, 1924. Over the palms and the sea reigned92 silence, sparking under the blue canopy93. Suddenly it was pierced by salvos of artillery94. The cannonading was going on somewhere below, on the seashore. It was Sukhum’s salute95 to the leader who at that hour was being buried in Moscow. I thought of him and of the woman who had been his life-companion for so many years, receiving through him her impressions of the world. Now she was burying him, and must inevitably96 feel lonely among the grieving millions around her — grieving, but not as she was grieving. I thought of Nadyezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya. I wanted to speak a word of greeting, of sympathy, of endearment97 to her from where I was. But I could not bring myself to do it. Words seemed much too light in the face of what had happened. I was afraid that they would only sound conventional. And so I was shaken with gratitude98 when I received a letter a few days later from Nadyezhda Konstantinovna. This is how it read:
“ Dear LEV DAVYDOVICH,
I write to tell you that about a month before his death, as he was looking through your book, Vladimir Ilyich stopped at the place where you sum up Marx and Lenin, and asked me to read it over again to him; he listened very attentively99, and then looked it over again himself. And here is another thing I want to tell you. The attitude of V.I. toward you at the time when you came to us in London from Siberia has not changed until his death. I wish you, Lev Davydovich, strength and health, and I embrace you warmly.
N. KRUPSKAYA.”
In the book which Vladimir Ilyich was looking over before his death, I compared Lenin with Marx. I knew only too well Lenin’s attitude toward Marx, an attitude made up of a disciple91’s grateful love and of the pathos100 of distance. The relationship between master and disciple became, in the course of history, the relationship of the theoretical precursor101 and the first realizer. In my article I did away with the traditional pathos of distance. Marx and Lenin, so closely linked historically and yet so different, were to me the two unsurpassable summits of man’s spiritual power. And I rejoiced at the thought that Lenin had read my lines about him attentively a short time before he died, and probably with emotion, since for him, as for me, the Marx scale was the most titanic102 for measuring human personality.
And with emotion I now read Krupskaya’s letter. She took two extreme points in my connection with Lenin — the October day in 1902 when, after escaping from Siberia, I had raised Lenin from his hard London bed early in the morning, and the end of December, 1923, when Lenin had twice read my appreciation103 of his lifework. Between these two points there had passed two decades — at first joint104 work, then bitter factional struggle, then joint work again on a higher historical foundation. In Hegel’s phrase: thesis, antithesis105, synthesis. And now Krupskaya bore witness that Lenin’s attitude toward me, despite the protracted106 period of antithesis, remained the “London” one; that is, one of warm support and friendly sympathy, but now on a higher historical plane. Even if there were nothing else, all the folios of the dissemblers could not outweigh107 in the judgment108 of history this little note written by Krupskaya a few days after Lenin’s death.
“Considerably delayed by the snow, the newspapers began to bring us the memorial speeches, obituaries109, and articles. Our friends were expecting L.D. to come to Moscow, and thought that he would cut short his trip in order to return, since no one imagined that Stalin’s telegram had cut off his return. I remember my son’s letter, received at Sukhum. He was terribly shocked by Lenin’s death, and though suffering from a cold, with a temperature of 104, he went in his not very warm coat to the Hall of Columns to pay his last respects, and waited, waited, and waited with impatience110 for our arrival. One could feel in his letter his bitter bewilderment and diffident reproach.” This again is quoted from my wife’s notes.
A delegation111 of the Central Committee composed of Tomsky, Frunze, Pyatakov, and Gusyev came to me at Sukhum to coordinate112 with me in making changes in the personnel of the war department. This was sheer farce113. The renewal114 of the personnel in the war department had for some time been going on at full speed behind my back, and now it was simply a matter of observing the proprieties115.
The first blow in the war department fell on Sklyansky. He was the first to bear Stalin’s revenge for the latter’s reverses before Tsaritsin, his failure on the southern front, and his adventure before Lvov. Intrigue reared high its serpentine116 head. To uproot117 Sklyansky — and me in the future — an ambitious but talentless intriguer118 named Unschlicht had been installed in the war department a few months before. Skiyansky was dismissed and Frunze, who was in command of the armies in the Ukraine, was appointed in his place. Frunze was a serious person. His authority in the party, due to his sentence of hard-labor119 in Siberia in the past, was higher than the more recent authority of Sklyansky. Furthermore, he had revealed an indisputable talent for military leadership during the war. But as a military administrator120, he was far inferior to Sklyansky. He was too apt to be carried away by abstract schemes; he was a poor judge of character; and he succumbed121 easily to the influence of experts, especially those of the second order.
But I must finish Sklyansky’s story. With that rudeness characteristic of Stalin, without even being consulted about it, he was transferred to economic work. Dzerzhinsky, who was glad to get rid of Unschiicht, his deputy at the GPU, and secure for industry such a first-class administrator as Sklyansky, put him in charge of the cloth trust. With a shrug122 of his shoulders, Sklyansky plunged123 into his new work. A few months later he decided to visit the United States, to look about, study, and buy machinery124. Before he left he called on me to say good-by and to ask my advice. We had worked hand in hand during the years of civil war. But our talk had usually been about troop units, military rules, speeding up the graduation of officers, supplies of copper125 and aluminum126 for military plants, uniforms and food, rather than about the party. We were both too busy for that. After Lenin was taken ill, when the plots of the epigones began to force their way into the war department, I refrained from discussing party matters, particularly with the military staff. The situation was very indefinite, the differences were then only be ginning to crop up, and the forming of factions127 in the army concealed128 many dangers. Later on I was ill myself. At that meeting with Sklyansky in the summer of 1925, when I was no longer in charge of the war department, we talked over almost everything.
“Tell me,” Sklyansky asked, “what is Stalin?”
Sklyansky knew Stalin well enough himself. He wanted my definition of Stalin and my explanation of his success. I thought for a minute.
“Stalin,” I said, “is the outstanding mediocrity in the party.” This definition then shaped itself for me for the first time in its full import, psychological as well as social. By the expression on Sklyansky’s face, I saw at once that I had helped my questioner to touch on something significant.
“You know,” he said, “it is amazing how, during this last period, the mean, the self-satisfied mediocrity is pushing itself into every sphere. And all of it finds in Stalin its leader. Where does it all come from?”
“This is the reaction after the great social and psychological strain of the first years of revolution. A victorious130 counter-revolution may develop its great men. But its first stage, the Thermidor, demands mediocrities who can’t see farther than their noses. Their strength lies in their political blindness, like the mill-horse that thinks that he is moving up when really he is only pushing down the belt-wheel. A horse that sees is incapable131 of doing the work.”
In that conversation I realized for the first time with absolute clarity the problem of the Thermidor — with, I might even say, a sort of physical conviction. I agreed with Sklyansky to return to the subject after he got back from America. Not many weeks later a cable informed us that Sklyansky had been drowned in some American lake while boating. Life is inexhaustible in its cruel inventions.
The urn40 with Sklyansky’s ashes was brought back to Moscow. Every one was sure that it would be immured132 in the Kremlin wall in the Red Square, which had become the Pantheon of the revolution. But the secretariat of the Central Committee decided to bury Sklyansky outside of the city. Sklyansky’s farewell visit to me had apparently133 been noted134 and taken into account. The hatred135 extended to the burial-urn. The belittling136 of Sklyansky was part of the general fight against the leadership that had insured victory in the civil war. I do not think that Sklyansky alive was interested in the matter of where he was to be buried. But the decision of the Central Committee took on a character of personal and political meanness. Throwing aside my sense of repulsion, I called Molotov. But the decision could not be altered. History has yet to pass its verdict on it.
In the autumn of 1924, my temperature again began to mount. By that time, another discussion had blazed up, brought about this time from above in accordance with some pre-arranged plan. In Leningrad, in Moscow, and in the provinces, hundreds and thousands of preliminary secret conferences had been held to prepare the so-called “discussion,” to prepare, that is, a systematic137 and well-organized baiting, now directed not at the opposition but at me personally. When the secret preparations were over, at a signal from the Pravda a campaign against Trotskyism burst forth138 simultaneously139 on all platforms, in all pages and columns, in every crack and corner. It was a majestic140 spectacle of its kind. The slander141 was like a volcanic142 eruption143. It was a great shock to the large mass of the party. I lay in bed with a temperature, and remained silent. Press and orators144 did nothing but expose Trotskyism, although no one knew exactly what it meant. Day after day they served up incidents from the past, polemical excerpts145 from Lenin’s articles of twenty years’ standing129, confusing, falsifying and mutilating them, and in general presenting them as if everything had happened just the day before. No one could understand anything of all this. If it had really been true, then Lenin must have been aware of it. But was there not the October revolution after all that? Was there not the civil war after the revolution? Had not Trotsky worked together with Lenin in creating the Communist International? Were not Trotsky’s portraits hanging everywhere next to those of Lenin? But slander poured forth in a cold lava146 stream. It pressed down automatically on the consciousness, and was even more devastating147 to the will.
The attitude toward Lenin as a revolutionary leader gave way to an attitude like that toward the head of an ecclesiastital hierarchy148. Against my protests, a mausoleum was built on the Red Square, a monument unbecoming and offensive to the revolutionary consciousness. The official books about Lenin evolved into similar mausoleums. His ideas were cut up into quotations149 for hypocritical sermons. His embalmed150 corpse151 was used as a weapon against the living Lenin — and against Trotsky. The masses were stunned152, puzzled, and overawed. Thanks to its sheer bulk, the campaign of ignorant lies took on political potency153. It overwhelmed, oppressed, and demoralized the masses. The party found itself condemned154 to silence. A regime was established that was nothing less than a dictatorship of the apparatus over the party. In other words, the party was ceasing to be a party.
In the morning, papers were brought to me in bed. I looked over the cable reports, and the titles and signatures of the articles. I knew those men well enough; I knew their inner thoughts, what they were capable of saying and what they had been ordered to say. In the majority of cases, they were men already exhausted155 by the revolution. Some were simply narrow-minded fanatics156 who had let themselves be deceived. Others were young “careerists” in a hurry to prove how invaluable157 they were. All of them contradicted each other and themselves. But the slander kept up incessantly158 in the newspapers: it howled and shrieked159, drowning its contradictions and superficiality in its own noise. It succeeded by sheer volume alone.
“The second attack of L.D.’s illness,” writes N.I. Sedova, “coincided with a monstrous160 campaign of persecution against him, which we felt as keenly as if we had been suffering from the most malignant161 disease. The pages of the Pravda seemed endless, and every line of the paper, even every word, a lie. L.D. kept silent. But what it cost him to maintain that silence! Friends called to see him during the day and often at night. I remember that some one once asked him if he had read that day’s paper. He replied that he no longer read the newspapers. And it is true that he only took them up in his hands, ran his eyes over them, and then threw them aside. It seemed as if it were enough for him merely to look at them to know all that they contained. He knew only too well the cooks who had made the dish, and the same dish every day, to boot. To read the papers at that time was exactly, he would say, like pushing a funnel162 brush into one’s own throat. It might have been possible to force himself to read them if L.D. had decided to reply. But he remained silent. His cold lingered on, thanks to his critical nervous condition. He looked pale and thin. In the family we avoided talking about the persecution, and yet we could talk of nothing else. I remember how I felt when I went to my work every day at the Commissariat of Education; it was like running a gauntlet. But never once did any one permit himself an unpleasant insinuation. Side by side with the inimical silence of the small ruling group, there was unquestionable sympathy from most of my colleagues. The life of the party seemed to be split in half: the inner, hidden life and the outward life for show only, and the two lives were in absolute contradiction to each other. Only a few brave souls ventured to reveal what was latent in the minds and hearts of most of those who concealed their sympathies under a ’monolithic’ vote.”
My letter to Chiedze against Lenin was published during this period. This episode, dating back to April, 1913, grew out of the fact that the official Bolshevik newspaper then published in St. Petersburg had appropriated the title of my Viennese publication, The Pravda — a Labor Paper. This led to one of those sharp conflicts so frequent in the lives of the foreign exiles. In a letter written to Chiedze, who at one time stood between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, I gave vent32 to my indignation at the Bolshevik centre and at Lenin. Two or three weeks later, I would undoubtedly163 have subjected my letter to a strict censor’s revision; a year or two later still it would have seemed a curiosity in my own eyes. But that letter was to have a peculiar164 destiny. It was intercepted165 on its way by the Police Department. It rested in the police archives until the October revolution, when it went to the Institute of History of the Communist party. Lenin was well aware of this letter; in his eyes, as in mine, it was simply “the snows of yesteryear” and nothing more. A good many letters of various kinds had been written during the years of foreign exile! In 1924, the epigones disinterred the letter from the archives and flung it at the party, three-quarters of which at that time consisted of new members. It was no accident that the time chosen for this was the months immediately following Lenin’s death. This condition was doubly essential. In the first place, Lenin could no longer rise to call these gentlemen by their right names, and in the second place, the masses of the people were torn with grief over the death of their leader. With no idea of the yesterdays of the party, the people read Trotsky’s hostile remarks about Lenin and were stunned. It is true that the remarks had been made twelve years before, but chronology was disregarded in the face of the naked quotations. The use that the epigones made of my letter to Chiedze is one of the greatest frauds in the world’s history. The forged documents of the French reactionaries166 in the Dreyfus case are as nothing compared to the political forgery167 perpetrated by Stalin and his associates.
Slander becomes a force only when it meets some historical demand. There must have been some shift, I reasoned, in social relations or in the political mood, if slander could find such an endless market. It is necessary to analyze168 the content of this slander. As I lay in bed, I had plenty of time to do so. From what does this accusation44 of Trotsky’s wishing “to rob the peasant” derive169 — that formula which the reactionary170 agrarians171, the Christian172 socialists173, and the Fascists174 always direct against socialists and against communists in particular? Whence this bitter baiting of the Marxist idea of permanent revolution, this national bragging175 which promises to build its own socialism? What sections of the people make demands for such reactionary vulgarity? And lastly, how and why this lowering of the theoretical level, this retrogression to political stupidity? Lying in bed, I went over my old articles, and my eyes fell on these lines written in 1909, at the peak of the reactionary regime under Stolypin:
“When the curve of historical development rises, public thinking becomes more penetrating176, braver and more ingenious. It grasps facts on the wing, and on the wing links them with the thread of generalization177 . . . But when the political curve indi cates a drop, public thinking succumbs178 to stupidity. The price less gift of political generalization vanishes somewhere without leaving even a trace. Stupidity grows in insolence179, and, baring its teeth, heaps insulting mockery on every attempt at a serious generalization. Feeling that it is in command of the field, it be gins to resort to its own means.”
One of its most important means is slander.
I say to myself that we are passing through a period of re action. A political shifting of the classes is going on, as well as a change in class-consciousness. After the great effort, there is the recoil180. How far will it go? Certainly not back to its starting-point. But no one can indicate the line in advance. The struggle of the inner forces will determine that. First, one must understand what is happening. The deep molecular processes of reaction are emerging to the surface. They have as their object the eradicating181, or at least the weakening, of the dependence182 of the public consciousness on the ideas, slogans and living figures of October. That is the meaning of what is now taking place. So let us not become too subjective183, or quarrel or feel put out with history for conducting its affairs in such involved and tangled184 ways. To understand what is happening is already to half insure the victory.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
naive
|
|
| adj.幼稚的，轻信的；天真的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
seizure
|
|
| n.没收；占有；抵押 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
catastrophe
|
|
| n.大灾难，大祸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
formulate
|
|
| v.用公式表示；规划；设计；系统地阐述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
stratum
|
|
| n.地层，社会阶层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
apparatus
|
|
| n.装置，器械；器具，设备 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
heterogeneous
|
|
| adj.庞杂的；异类的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
psychology
|
|
| n.心理，心理学，心理状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
prospects
|
|
| n.希望，前途(恒为复数) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
philosophic
|
|
| adj.哲学的，贤明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
sensory
|
|
| adj.知觉的，感觉的，知觉器官的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
attains
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的第三人称单数 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
envisage
|
|
| v.想象，设想，展望，正视 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
penetration
|
|
| n.穿透，穿人，渗透 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
ideological
|
|
| a.意识形态的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
nomads
|
|
| n.游牧部落的一员( nomad的名词复数 )；流浪者；游牧生活；流浪生活 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
isolated
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
gush
|
|
| v.喷，涌；滔滔不绝(说话)；n.喷，涌流；迸发 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
relaxation
|
|
| n.松弛，放松；休息；消遣；娱乐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
philistine
|
|
| n.庸俗的人；adj.市侩的，庸俗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
repelled
|
|
| v.击退( repel的过去式和过去分词 )；使厌恶；排斥；推开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
intonation
|
|
| n.语调，声调；发声 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
solidarity
|
|
| n.团结；休戚相关 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
appraisals
|
|
| 估计，估量，评价( appraisal的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
inflict
|
|
| vt.(on)把…强加给，使遭受，使承担 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
boredom
|
|
| n.厌烦，厌倦，乏味，无聊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
anatomy
|
|
| n.解剖学，解剖；功能，结构，组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
vent
|
|
| n.通风口，排放口；开衩；vt.表达，发泄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
molecular
|
|
| adj.分子的；克分子的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
transformation
|
|
| n.变化；改造；转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
irreconcilable
|
|
| adj.（指人）难和解的，势不两立的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
metabolism
|
|
| n.新陈代谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
conspiracy
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋，共谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
intrigue
|
|
| vt.激起兴趣，迷住；vi.耍阴谋；n.阴谋，密谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
urn
|
|
| n.（有座脚的）瓮；坟墓；骨灰瓮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
interval
|
|
| n.间隔，间距；幕间休息，中场休息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
ascendancy
|
|
| n.统治权，支配力量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
accusations
|
|
| n.指责( accusation的名词复数 )；指控；控告；（被告发、控告的）罪名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
slated
|
|
| 用石板瓦盖( slate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
exacting
|
|
| adj.苛求的，要求严格的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
estrangement
|
|
| n.疏远，失和，不和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
promising
|
|
| adj.有希望的，有前途的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
sweeping
|
|
| adj.范围广大的，一扫无遗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
faction
|
|
| n.宗派，小集团；派别；派系斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
epoch
|
|
| n.(新)时代；历元 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
gulf
|
|
| n.海湾；深渊，鸿沟；分歧，隔阂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
persistence
|
|
| n.坚持，持续，存留 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
compilation
|
|
| n.编译，编辑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
sophomoric
|
|
| adj.一知半解的；大学或四年制中学的二年级的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
second-hand
|
|
| adj.用过的，旧的，二手的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
devoid
|
|
| adj.全无的，缺乏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
destined
|
|
| adj.命中注定的；(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
fiddle
|
|
| n.小提琴；vi.拉提琴；不停拨弄，乱动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
impersonal
|
|
| adj.无个人感情的，与个人无关的，非人称的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
banal
|
|
| adj.陈腐的，平庸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
casually
|
|
| adv.漠不关心地，无动于衷地，不负责任地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
fatigue
|
|
| n.疲劳，劳累 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
virtuoso
|
|
| n.精于某种艺术或乐器的专家，行家里手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
sagged
|
|
| 下垂的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
drooped
|
|
| 弯曲或下垂，发蔫( droop的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
doomed
|
|
| 命定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
invalid
|
|
| n.病人，伤残人；adj.有病的，伤残的；无效的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
insistence
|
|
| n.坚持；强调；坚决主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
persecution
|
|
| n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
soothing
|
|
| adj.慰藉的；使人宽心的；镇静的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
uncertainty
|
|
| n.易变，靠不住，不确知，不确定的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
decoded
|
|
| v.译（码），解（码）( decode的过去式和过去分词 )；分析及译解电子信号 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
conspirators
|
|
| n.共谋者，阴谋家( conspirator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
surmised
|
|
| v.臆测，推断( surmise的过去式和过去分词 )；揣测；猜想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
resounding
|
|
| adj. 响亮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
plentiful
|
|
| adj.富裕的，丰富的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
mingled
|
|
| 混合，混入( mingle的过去式和过去分词 )； 混进，与…交往[联系] | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
polemics
|
|
| n.辩论术，辩论法；争论( polemic的名词复数 )；辩论；辩论术；辩论法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
friendliness
|
|
| n.友谊，亲切，亲密 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
disciple
|
|
| n.信徒，门徒，追随者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
reigned
|
|
| vi.当政，统治（reign的过去式形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
canopy
|
|
| n.天篷，遮篷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
artillery
|
|
| n.(军)火炮，大炮；炮兵(部队) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
salute
|
|
| vi.行礼，致意，问候，放礼炮；vt.向…致意，迎接，赞扬；n.招呼，敬礼，礼炮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
endearment
|
|
| n.表示亲爱的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
attentively
|
|
| adv.聚精会神地；周到地；谛；凝神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
pathos
|
|
| n.哀婉，悲怆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
precursor
|
|
| n.先驱者；前辈；前任；预兆；先兆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
titanic
|
|
| adj.巨人的，庞大的，强大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
appreciation
|
|
| n.评价；欣赏；感谢；领会，理解；价格上涨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
antithesis
|
|
| n.对立；相对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
protracted
|
|
| adj.拖延的；延长的v.拖延“protract”的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
outweigh
|
|
| vt.比...更重，...更重要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
obituaries
|
|
| 讣告，讣闻( obituary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
impatience
|
|
| n.不耐烦，急躁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
delegation
|
|
| n.代表团；派遣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
coordinate
|
|
| adj.同等的，协调的；n.同等者；vt.协作，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
farce
|
|
| n.闹剧，笑剧，滑稽戏；胡闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
renewal
|
|
| adj.(契约)延期，续订，更新，复活，重来 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
proprieties
|
|
| n.礼仪，礼节；礼貌( propriety的名词复数 )；规矩；正当；合适 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
serpentine
|
|
| adj.蜿蜒的，弯曲的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
uproot
|
|
| v.连根拔起，拔除；根除，灭绝；赶出家园，被迫移开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
intriguer
|
|
| 密谋者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
119
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
administrator
|
|
| n.经营管理者，行政官员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
succumbed
|
|
| 不再抵抗（诱惑、疾病、攻击等）( succumb的过去式和过去分词 )； 屈从； 被压垮； 死 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
shrug
|
|
| v.耸肩(表示怀疑、冷漠、不知等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
plunged
|
|
| v.颠簸( plunge的过去式和过去分词 )；暴跌；骤降；突降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
copper
|
|
| n.铜；铜币；铜器；adj.铜(制)的；(紫)铜色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
aluminum
|
|
| n.(aluminium)铝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
factions
|
|
| 组织中的小派别，派系( faction的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
victorious
|
|
| adj.胜利的，得胜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
immured
|
|
| v.禁闭，监禁( immure的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
belittling
|
|
| 使显得微小，轻视，贬低( belittle的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
systematic
|
|
| adj.有系统的，有计划的，有方法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
simultaneously
|
|
| adv.同时发生地，同时进行地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
majestic
|
|
| adj.雄伟的，壮丽的，庄严的，威严的，崇高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
slander
|
|
| n./v.诽谤，污蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
volcanic
|
|
| adj.火山的；象火山的；由火山引起的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
eruption
|
|
| n.火山爆发；（战争等）爆发；（疾病等）发作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
orators
|
|
| n.演说者，演讲家( orator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
excerpts
|
|
| n.摘录，摘要( excerpt的名词复数 )；节选（音乐，电影）片段 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
lava
|
|
| n.熔岩，火山岩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
devastating
|
|
| adj.毁灭性的，令人震惊的，强有力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
hierarchy
|
|
| n.等级制度；统治集团，领导层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
quotations
|
|
| n.引用( quotation的名词复数 )；[商业]行情（报告）；（货物或股票的）市价；时价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
embalmed
|
|
| adj.用防腐药物保存（尸体）的v.保存（尸体）不腐( embalm的过去式和过去分词 )；使不被遗忘；使充满香气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
corpse
|
|
| n.尸体，死尸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
stunned
|
|
| adj. 震惊的，惊讶的 动词stun的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
potency
|
|
| n. 效力，潜能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
exhausted
|
|
| adj.极其疲惫的，精疲力尽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
fanatics
|
|
| 狂热者，入迷者( fanatic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
invaluable
|
|
| adj.无价的，非常宝贵的，极为贵重的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
incessantly
|
|
| ad.不停地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
shrieked
|
|
| v.尖叫( shriek的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
monstrous
|
|
| adj.巨大的；恐怖的；可耻的，丢脸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
malignant
|
|
| adj.恶性的，致命的；恶意的，恶毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
funnel
|
|
| n.漏斗；烟囱；v.汇集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
intercepted
|
|
| 拦截( intercept的过去式和过去分词 )； 截住； 截击； 拦阻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
reactionaries
|
|
| n.反动分子，反动派( reactionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
forgery
|
|
| n.伪造的文件等，赝品，伪造（行为） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
analyze
|
|
| vt.分析，解析 (=analyse) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
derive
|
|
| v.取得；导出；引申；来自；源自；出自 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
reactionary
|
|
| n.反动者，反动主义者；adj.反动的，反动主义的，反对改革的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
agrarians
|
|
| n.平均地权论者( agrarian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
socialists
|
|
| 社会主义者( socialist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
fascists
|
|
| n.法西斯主义的支持者( fascist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
bragging
|
|
| v.自夸，吹嘘( brag的现在分词 )；大话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
penetrating
|
|
| adj.（声音）响亮的，尖锐的adj.（气味）刺激的adj.（思想）敏锐的，有洞察力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
generalization
|
|
| n.普遍性，一般性，概括 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
succumbs
|
|
| 不再抵抗（诱惑、疾病、攻击等）( succumb的第三人称单数 )； 屈从； 被压垮； 死 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
insolence
|
|
| n.傲慢；无礼；厚颜；傲慢的态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
recoil
|
|
| vi.退却，退缩，畏缩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
eradicating
|
|
| 摧毁，完全根除( eradicate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
dependence
|
|
| n.依靠，依赖；信任，信赖；隶属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
subjective
|
|
| a.主观(上)的，个人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
tangled
|
|
| adj. 纠缠的，紊乱的 动词tangle的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |