Reading some Russian books some get the idea that Socialism was born in that country, but reading some English books some get the opposite idea of Socialism being the banner for the opposition to social reform, and thus the banner for the opposition to the minimization of destitution. Certainly mothers tell their sons to look at great men. But with a father we might look at the deviousness of those men. That is, if we didn't have to be devious to our own goals in order to eat. But some of us have had it easier than others, and I've had leisure to read and think.
Englishmen do at least have a saying for what happens when things get translated; an interpretation, though possibly anathema to those who read history along with a calendar and a map, and not doing anything in terms of reducing confusion if not brought to the experts in history for comment before publishing, is nonetheless better to be made public, in my opinion. The lofty goal of empowering the Russian peasants brought the meaner kinds of nobility into clear view, for they must have been the ones quite happy with the status quo; they must have been the ones opposing the idea that every man aught to be free (except by the whim of a noble).
Thus a target.
But the good nobles, whether assisting in getting rid of the bad nobles or not, then found themselves in the awkward position of being the few amongst the many, which many no-one had thought about separating into good and bad beforehand. Populations don't know what are good for them. Whether any peasant, or group of peasants, thought of making a kind of staircase down which the good nobility could walk so as to be on their level, the few amongst the many is not a pleasant situation. Even if the wealth is immaterial to you, distributing it fairly is a miserable task which you have to do alone. Perhaps some nobility made their own staircase and made it safely down, but this would have left them with a store of knowledge which other peasants likely didn't have, and possibly didn't want to accidentally acquire.
Every teacher knows the facts have to be rammed into heads not too long and not too soon before an exam. Every matriculant knows that after school they must take a break in order to empty their heads of the facts they accidentally acquired.
The most ancient books tell us that the result must have been expected when the number of nobles in Russia was to reach nought. But some yet debate whether the election of a leader and a dick wagging contest are coincidences that science may declare natural or if those who goad people into competitive behaviour are above nature. Russia, however, had a good store of people who repulsed vile nature. An exemplary man who has the will of the people is unlikely to have time to think of what the future will think of him.
That is my interpretation. It undermines what was said about underground ministries and poor Russian children, and it suggests that non-conformity was unnecessary. But opinions may have weight, and knowing not to believe everything we read, we know not to believe everything we're told by figures of authority. It is wholly unnecessary to mention the necessity of a creed that ignores such arbitrary things as the assignment of necessity to the doing of arbitrary things.
Let me not rush in where angels fear to tread. The makers of viruses--some of them--are husbands trying to keep their marriages together. The makers of remedies have it easy, we know. Sometimes it may simply be a matter of showing a person a colour.
No homeopathic antivirus crew could detect a master virus that makes use of the baneful binaries that G'nunix supporters know are only there to give them hassle, for their contents is a deep secret, more closely guarded than the nuclear codes.
But to draw conclusions here we'll then be asked about viruses that kill people; and homeopathic remedies for those were laughed out the holy water used in the making of them.