I’m very grateful for Anthony Teso’s response to my article, and I honestly think it’s a highly useful addendum to my historiographical sketch. Teso raises an important and valid perspective, and I’m very glad they did so.

The central argument in my essay was this: In scholarly analysis, Lenin should be held to the same standard as other historical figures. I still stand behind this argument. My principal aim was to demonstrate that historians overwhelmingly hold Lenin to different or higher expectations than they hold others, and that his sincerity is questioned where that of others is taken at face value. This represents a clear double standard in the existing scholarship, which deserves to be called to attention and criticized.

Teso, on the other hand, goes a step further and argues that the question of Lenin’s sincerity is bunk anyway. I fully agree with that argument as well, and I think it makes a fantastic addition to the essay. Teso’s is the more materialist argument, and they are correct to say so. My argument, on the other hand, is primarily comparative and methodological. As such, Teso’s critique provides us with a useful example of the limitations of such rigidly academic arguments.

Put more simply, my central question was this: “Why do historians look at Lenin one way, and at other historical figures another way?” I hold that this is a valid question that can yield important insights, which I sought to explore. However, Teso asks the more cutting question: “Why bother looking at history this way in the first place?”

I unfortunately couldn’t be bothered to explore Teso’s terrific question, happy as I was to be finally finished with the grueling endeavor of researching and writing this historiographical exercise. Consequently, I opened myself up for this critique, and I’m glad someone made it.

To that end, I humbly concede that Teso’s conclusion is most certainly an improvement upon my argument, even if it breaks from my original objective of critiquing the scholarly historical consensus around Lenin. Teso’s concluding sentence is worth quoting: “History will reveal far more insight if we cease making inquiries into individuals' intentions altogether.”

That’s absolutely true—even if it wasn’t the purpose of what I was arguing.

But perhaps it should have been. The sentiment is decidedly neglected in my article. Thus, I welcome Teso’s critique, and would even suggest that Cosmonaut link their response as an addendum to my article.

* * *

I have only two minor points of pushback, and they’re almost not worth mentioning. However, they still provide some interesting context that was missing from my essay, even if that context isn’t exactly relevant to the argument I was making.

The critique regarding Macnair and Draper is based on who I’m citing and not what I cited. Draper’s analysis of WITBD isn’t affected by whether or not he would agree with the content of my article, nor is Macnair’s cogent suggestion that Lenin misread the collapse of early 20th-century British hegemony. Still, the additional context is interesting and insightful, even if it’s largely irrelevant to the original question that I was exploring.

The second point of contention regards my omission of certain sources and my lack of treatment of certain historical events. This essay is already more than 11,000 words. My professor originally asked for 6,000. I shudder to think what it would be if I expanded the scope of this essay to cover all that Teso understandably criticizes me for neglecting.

My rebuttal is simple: In the name of Marx, have some mercy, comrade!

But I thank you—genuinely—for the thoughtful and insightful response.