Does Lenin have anything useful to say

[Knotted]

State and Revolution and Imperialism are real classics. Left Wing Communism is excellent but often misinterpreted for self serving reasons. The various writing about organisation (eg. What is to be Done and Two Steps Forward) in my opinion should be understood in their historical contexts rather than as blueprints or as Leninist original sins (not that they're without fault in their historical context). The various writings on the national question are excellent and even Stalin's contribution on this is worth reading. His various philosophical writings are of less interest I think, but still not worthless.

There's a great clarity in Lenin's writings along with some occasional "stick bending" where he overstates cases for polemical/didactic reasons. He's also an extremely persuasive writer. So he should be read with caution, because he's open to interpretation on occasion and he tends to inspire cultish following especially given his historical importance. But at the same time he will enlighten various questions whether or not you agree with him.

Of course even if you hate Lenin and Bolshevism, he's undeniably an important historical figure and essential reading for historians of the 20th century.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Marx makes clear that proletarian revolution was to happen in either England or Germany, so why, during a war between these two countries that had already started to move into social revolution in places (and war always tending to end in revolution), did Lenin get on a train, sanctioned by the German state, and head to Russia to piggy back on a revolution in a country that was far removed from having the conditions Marx outlined, mainly due to its huge peasant population? Capital tells you everything you needed to know about what misery and suffering would await that country as Lenin accelerated it to some 'new historical position'. He effectively gazumped the European proletarian revolution, and inaugurated the epoch we now find ourselves in, that of the fomenting of a universal state capitalism.

You miss out Marx correspondence with Vera Zasulich where he conceded that the Mir (village) might be a viable locus of the transition. My sympathies lie with the Left SRs

 

[cloudyday]

The Leninist left will argue all day about what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the implications of that correspondence with Zasulich is never considered. It's too much for them to think it through, they would rather stick to playing mental tennis with an assortment of ambiguities.

 

[Pickman's model]

The Leninist left will argue all day about what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the implications of that correspondence is never considered. It's too much for them to think it through, they would rather stick to playing mental tennis with an assortment of ambiguities.

I like to think Lenin would have consigned tennis players of all stripes to some rural idyll where they could use their labour more profitably

 

[seventh bullet]

You miss out Marx correspondence with Vera Zasulich where he conceded that the Mir (village) might be a viable locus of the transition. My sympathies lie with the Left SRs

Engels also had a sneery, condescending correspondence with the obscure Russian Jacobin Petr Tkachev, in which that position was put down by him. His politics were peculiarly Russian, in the sense that there was always a borrowing from western traditions, in his case the French revolutionary one, but also a suspicious attitude, even revulsion at the source. His conspiratorial, top-down, quasi-military concept of revolution horrified his contempories, who were still of a populist bent, but he still believed there was time left to bypass a deepening capitalist development and regenerate and transform the communal living of peasant tradition, but not through the self-activity of the masses, for whom he had nothing but contempt.

US Soviet experts (to be less generous to some, actually career-minded academic grifters writing drivel with information fed to them by the intelligence services interested in creating serviceable anti-Communist propaganda, similar to the likes of Leonard Schapiro here) wrote on Lenin's studying of Tkachev's own writings while in exile with regard to how it fed into later Bolshevik organisation.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Engels also had a sneery, condescending correspondence with the obscure Russian Jacobin Petr Tkachev, in which that position was put down by him. His politics were peculiarly Russian, in the sense that there was always a borrowing from western traditions, in his case the French revolutionary one, but also a suspicious attitude, even revulsion at the source. His conspiratorial, top-down, quasi-military concept of revolution horrified his contempories, who were still of a populist bent, but he still believed there was time left to bypass a deepening capitalist development and regenerate and transform the communal living of peasant tradition, but not through the self-activity of the masses, for whom he had nothing but contempt.

US Soviet experts (to be less generous to some, actually career-minded academic grifters writing drivel with information fed to them by the intelligence services interested in creating serviceable anti-Communist propaganda, similar to the likes of Leonard Schapiro here) wrote on Lenin's studying of Tkachev's own writings while in exile with regard to how it fed into later Bolshevik organisation.

Engels was not Marx of course
Nor was Trotsky Lenin: his Our Political Tasks (1904) is exemplary...

 

[imposs1904]

I always liked Michael Rosen's take:
"A lot of lefties get off on thinking about Lenin sitting in the Crown and Sceptre in Islington with about 23 geezers in 1904. Then they say, See that? That could be us!"

 

[Pickman's model]

State and Revolution and Imperialism are real classics. Left Wing Communism is excellent but often misinterpreted for self serving reasons. The various writing about organisation (eg. What is to be Done and Two Steps Forward) in my opinion should be understood in their historical contexts rather than as blueprints or as Leninist original sins (not that they're without fault in their historical context). The various writings on the national question are excellent and even Stalin's contribution on this is worth reading. His various philosophical writings are of less interest I think, but still not worthless.

There's a great clarity in Lenin's writings along with some occasional "stick bending" where he overstates cases for polemical/didactic reasons. He's also an extremely persuasive writer. So he should be read with caution, because he's open to interpretation on occasion and he tends to inspire cultish following especially given his historical importance. But at the same time he will enlighten various questions whether or not you agree with him.

Of course even if you hate Lenin and Bolshevism, he's undeniably an important historical figure and essential reading for historians of the 20th century.

I've always thought an examination of his links with German military intelligence after the return to Russia would repay with interest the effort.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Somebody told me to read some Lenin .
Is their anything actually useful to learn from him?
Once your committing Torture and massacre your ideas are pretty worthless. Be like reading Churchill's views on how to run the middle East.
Posion gas might be effective but only a monster would go along with it.

The answer is no IMO. I consider reading Lenin a complete waste of time.

 

[glitch hiker]

Somebody told me to read some Lenin .
Is their anything actually useful to learn from him?
Once your committing Torture and massacre your ideas are pretty worthless. Be like reading Churchill's views on how to run the middle East.
Posion gas might be effective but only a monster would go along with it.

Isn't that a bit fallacious?

I guess it depends on what Lenin says. I tried reading State and Revolution, but tbh I found it hard to understand. Perhaps it's the vernacular of the time. Or perhaps I'm too dim for the revolution.

 

[glitch hiker]

The answer is no IMO. I consider reading Lenin a complete waste of time.

Why?

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Somebody told me to read some Lenin .
Is their anything actually useful to learn from him?
Once your committing Torture and massacre your ideas are pretty worthless. Be like reading Churchill's views on how to run the middle East.
Posion gas might be effective but only a monster would go along with it.

In my opinion you would be better off reading the following:

Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos, What is Anarchism?/the ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman, The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin, At the Cafe- conversations on anarchism by Errico Malatesta and Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman and My Disillusionment in Russia by Emma Goldman..

All of those authors are actually worth reading and have written other decent stuff.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Why?

Because from my experience he is. He chats a load of shit IMO.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Is their anything actually useful to learn from him?

Other than he was a counter-revolutionary, anti-communist, totalitarian mass murderer who paved the way for Stalin? No.

 

[glitch hiker]

In my opinion you would be better off reading the following:

Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos, What is Anarchism?/the ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman, The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin, At the Cafe- conversations on anarchism by Errico Malatesta and Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman and My Disillusionment in Russia by Emma Goldman..

All of those authors are actually worth reading and have written other decent stuff.

Problem with the breadbook is that he doesn't really explain how any of this is ever going to be achieved. I love the idea, it sounds great. But in a world with zero class consciousness and a stern rightward drift the question is how? This appears to me the big problem with anarchism. Love the idea, but how to achieve it?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

This appears to me the big problem with anarchism. Love the idea, but how to achieve it?

This appears to be the big problem with everything. How to achieve it. First, build your mass movement. Next, oh hang on, we haven't built the mass movement yet. That applies to the parliamentary road to socialism, revolutionary Marxism, anarchism, environmental movements etc

 

[Carl Steele]

This appears to be the big problem with everything. How to achieve it. First, build your mass movement. Next, oh hang on, we haven't built the mass movement yet. That applies to the parliamentary road to socialism, revolutionary Marxism, anarchism, environmental movements etc

Environmental movements are a bit different because the threat of extinction makes the rich and powerful more receptive. But even then it's an uphill battle.

As for socialism, anarchism etc., even if capitalism just collapsed, which is not exactly out of the question, it's far from certain we'd replace it with something less odious.

 

[likesfish]

Getting from A to a better B rather than some horrible dystopia is the trick.

 

[glitch hiker]

This appears to be the big problem with everything. How to achieve it. First, build your mass movement. Next, oh hang on, we haven't built the mass movement yet. That applies to the parliamentary road to socialism, revolutionary Marxism, anarchism, environmental movements etc

Of course, but I've yet to hear an anarchist give an answer to that. I'm not saying there aren't answers, I would hope there are. But for example watching Red and Black TV, which I believe someoned linked to upthread, it's just an embittered old anarchist calling everyone else shit and offering nothing. I find that sad

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Of course, but I've yet to hear an anarchist give an answer to that. I'm not saying there aren't answers, I would hope there are. But for example watching Red and Black TV, which I believe someoned linked to upthread, it's just an embittered old anarchist calling everyone else shit and offering nothing. I find that sad

Someone seems like they just like bitching about anarchists and even when you reply to them with good intentions and info they continue to bitch. Someone appears to be a waste of time bothering with.

 

[glitch hiker]

Someone just likes bitching about anarchists and even when you reply to them with good intentions and info they continue to bitch. Someone appears to be a waste of time bothering with.

Get a life eh

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Of course, but I've yet to hear an anarchist give an answer to that. I'm not saying there aren't answers, I would hope there are. But for example watching Red and Black TV, which I believe someoned linked to upthread, it's just an embittered old anarchist calling everyone else shit and offering nothing. I find that sad

If there were easy, or even difficult, reliable answers, then we'd all have heard them by now. And we haven't. That is indeed sad.

 

[Serge Forward]

Of course, but I've yet to hear an anarchist give an answer to that.

You don't sound like you're really interested, to be honest. There's a ton of answers to "that" from anarchists. You just need to look at some of the serious anarchist communist publications, websites and groups and not just expect to be get all your answers off youtube or from a few quick lines on an Internet forum.

 

[Knotted]

Kropotkin is worth reading. I find him very interesting. His politics were dreadful though.

 

[glitch hiker]

Kropotkin is worth reading. I find him very interesting. His politics were dreadful though.

I thought his politics were what makes him worth reading, no?

 

[hitmouse]

Kropotkin is worth reading. I find him very interesting. His politics were dreadful though.

Is that specifically cos of WWI, or more generally?

 

[Knotted]

I thought his politics were what makes him worth reading, no?

Oh yes. His scientific work seems interesting as well. He came to some really bad political conclusions such as supporting the allies in WW1, but he's still politically interesting. Haven't read that much of him though, I keep meaning to read more.

 

[glitch hiker]

Oh yes. His scientific work seems interesting as well. He came to some really bad political conclusions such as supporting the allies in WW1, but he's still politically interesting. Haven't read that much of him though, I keep meaning to read more.

Is that bad? I honestly don't know enough about ww1.

 

[Knotted]

Is that specifically cos of WWI, or more generally?

I haven't read him in decades to be honest, but at the time I thought there was a more general problem. Too 19th century/peasant commune based, but I suppose that's fair enough considering he was a 19th century Russian. Probably should revisit him at some point. But supporting WW1 was just terrible.

 

[Knotted]

Is that bad? I honestly don't know enough about ww1.

Haven't really got time to go into it now. Lenin* had WW1 right I think. Competing imperial powers engaged in a mutual slaughter. Nothing to divide between them.

*And others of course, but alarmingly few.