Being in possession of an impressive array of facts but without the wisdom to understand them is the unfortunate fate of scholars in ivory towers. Thus poor James White; his fate is to write of Marxism without the least understanding of it.
By characterising commonplace philosophic discourse as "esoteric terminology" the author admits his own lack of understanding and the proof of which is shown by his charge that Lenin practically approved of his brother's assassination attempt on the Tsar by saying of that action, '.. he had to do what he did; he could have done no other.' 'Necessity', Mr White, necessity is what Hegel tells of.
The honourable professor at Glasgow does not stop there however. He denies to Lenin the possibility that he may have formed ideas of his own, or that if he had, that these ideas could ever be in accord with those of Marx. Lenin instead, like any schoolboy (perhaps like Mr White himself) 'takes sides'. Lenin, according to Professor White, is simply wilful when he 'refuses aid to starving peasants' because of his own selfish wish (!) to create (!) a working class to help him (!) make a revolution. Enough! Read the book and weep for a pitiful example of misunderstanding raised to the heights of a sterile assembly of facts.
Mr White reminds one of that medieval scholar whose merit as a historian may be gauged by his method: "I have made a heap of all that I have found".