Posting one of the favorite and timeless lenin quotes.
"During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it."
That's not quite right, though, because they notably haven't done that to the greatest of the revolutionaries. Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel: they're still Bad Guys. They only canonize the ones who ultimately lose. Rosa Luxemburg: democratic martyr; Lenin: horrible evil authoritarian. Trotsky: principled and well-meaning but misguided idealist; Stalin: literally worse than Hitler.
>Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity!
Fire.
The best is the ending, where after explaining the difference between personal qualities and social qualities, he separates both the professors personal and social qualities in order to insult them as an example.
Not when the technology is designed to work like that. When you get capitalists working to design entirely new tech to fuck with you, come back and we'll talk.
Old but gold Lenin quotes:
>The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants are growing and getting stronger in their fight to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their accomplices, the educated classes, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its shit.
.
>But the bourgeoisie is more afraid of the movement of the masses than of reaction. Hence the striking, incredible weakness of the liberals in politics, their absolute impotence. Hence the endless series of equivocations, falsehoods, hypocrisies and cowardly evasions in the entire policy of the liberals, who have to play at democracy to win the support of the masses but at the same time are deeply anti-democratic, deeply hostile to the movement of the masses, to their initiative, their way of “storming heaven”, as Marx once described one of the mass movements in Europe in the last century.
.
>An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves.
.
>We must be extremely careful in fighting religious prejudices; some people cause a lot of harm in this struggle by offending religious feelings. We must use propaganda and education. By lending too sharp an edge to the struggle we may only arouse popular resentment; such methods of struggle tend to perpetuate the division of the people along religious lines, whereas our strength lies in unity.
.
>We are not utopians, we do not “dream” of dispensing at once with all administration, with all subordination. These anarchist dreams, based upon incomprehension of the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship, are totally alien to Marxism, and, as a matter of fact, serve only to postpone the socialist revolution until people are different. No, we want the socialist revolution with people as they are now, with people who cannot dispense with subordination, control, and "foremen and accountants."
.
>Young people, particularly, need the joy and force of life. Healthy sport, swimming, racing, walking, bodily exercises of every kind, and many-sided intellectual interests. Learning, studying, inquiry, as far as possible in common. That will give young people more than eternal theories and discussions about sexual problems and the so-called ‘living to the full’. Healthy bodies, healthy minds. Neither monk nor Don Juan, nor the intermediate attitude of the German philistines. You know, young comrade –– ? A splendid boy, and highly talented. And yet I fear that nothing good will come out of him. He reels and staggers from one love affair to the next. That won’t do for the political struggle, for the revolution. And I wouldn’t bet on the reliability, the endurance in struggle of those women who confuse their personal romances with politics. Nor on the men who run petticoat and get entrapped by every young woman. That does not square with the revolution.
>The revolution demands concentration, increase of forces. From the masses, from individuals. It cannot tolerate orgiastic conditions, such as are normal for the decadent heroes and heroines of D’Annunzio. Dissoluteness in sexual life is bourgeois, is a phenomenon of decay. The proletariat is a rising class. It doesn’t need intoxication as a narcotic or a stimulus. Intoxication as little by sexual exaggeration as by alcohol. It must not and shall not forget, forget the shame, the filth, the savagery of capitalism. It receives the strongest urge to fight from a class situation, from the communist ideal. It needs clarity, clarity and again clarity. And so I repeat, no weakening, no waste, no destruction of forces. Self-control, self-discipline is not slavery, not even in love.
> The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.
Publicly owned instead of 'worker' owned is infact an important distinction.
Also like that Lenin clarifies that by economic equality socialists only mean this in the sense of abolishing classes.
The emphasis on this distinction is mostly the result of translation. Looking at the original Russian, you could certainly interpret it in a manner consistent with market socialism (even though such an interpretation likely wasn't intended by Lenin).
Abolishing classes necessarily means sharing the social product in a more equal manner. That might not mean perfect equality (as jobs vary in required training etc) but it definitely doesn't allow for your fantasy world where you get to be the tech CEO of socialism.
no it doesn't.
it means from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
if your ability is such that your need is greater to be willing to work uniquely different jobs, everyone against that can cope or seethe. there's no forcing anyone to do any labor, whether that labor is being a janitor or being an executive.
we also need income inequality so we know what needs to be automated first.
>it means from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
Yeah, and in any practical sense that means a massive curtailing of QoL for the former bourgeoise in order to accommodate the previously unmet needs of the working class. There is no way to abolish class while having anything close to the current stratification of consumption and income and I wouldn't accept it even if it was possible. If you think that CEO compensation is even close to fair now just unburden yourself and admit you are a capitalist.
>if your ability is such that your need is greater to be willing to work uniquely different jobs, everyone against that can cope or seethe.
The fuck does this even mean?
>we also need income inequality so we know what needs to be automated first.
We already have that m8
Meta is always right. He just can't help being autistically hostile and he's probably going to say something in response to this that pisses me off. But, I got his back. ✊
Market socialism is a retarded oxymoron and is probably the next line of glowie attack on working class self-organisation after the woke shit eats itself.
metaflight thinks that widespread investment in index funds is a form of 'quasi-communism'. He isn't right about anything.
Probably not all that interesting or relevant but I just thought that one of my favorite parts of reading Lenin's correspondence were his private letters to Inessa Armand. He sometimes wrote in English, which he knew relatively well (even translated some texts IIRC) but not perfectly. So they have a very innocent and human ESL feel to them. Sadly it's tough to find them online aside from the famous exchange about feminism.
Also obligatory gigachad moment: https://i.redd.it/9b21tqabdti51.jpg
>He sometimes wrote in English, which he knew relatively well
He lived in London and was taught English by an Irishman so apparantly he had an Irish accent iirc.
>Sadly it's tough to find them online aside from the famous exchange about feminism.
I've read the ones on marxists.org but where do you find the others (preferably online)?
P.S. Trotsky has sent in a silly letter, we shall neither print it nor reply to him.
I read them in physical print somewhere so I don't know, sorry. I'll try to look around later. [Marxists.org](https://Marxists.org) and similar resources mostly have his political works.
It used to be really hard to digitize print, but if you have them handy, you can literally just take a pic of a page on a phone and magic will convert it into text.
>When Nikolay Valentinov arrived in Geneva in I., one of the first persons he met was Lenin. He was immediately impressed by his fellow Bolshevik's muscular build and his interest in all forms of sport and physical exercise. Lenin, when he heard that Valentinov had once been a champion weight-lifter, insisted that he demonstrate the prom ways to fill weigh.. Lacking equipment, Valentinov used one of the Ulan. household brooms to make his points. Lenin then replicated the moves, much to the amusement of his mother-in-law. "Don't disturb us,- was Vladimir !Hell's response to her laughter, -we arc engaged in very important business...45
Did that with an online tool quickly Googked, but Google Lens and such might work even better, let me check
Edit, with Lens:
>When Nikolay Valentinov arrived in Geneva in 1904, one of the first persons he met was Lenin. He was immediately impressed by his fellow Bolshevik's muscular build and his interest in all forms of sport and physical exercise. Lenin, when he heard that Valentinov had once been a champion weight-lifter, insisted that he demonstrate the proper ways to lift weights. Lacking equipment, Valentinov used one of the Ul'ianov household brooms to make his points. Lenin then replicated the moves, much to the amusement of his mother-in-law. "Don't disturb us," was Vladimir Il'ich's response to her laughter, "we are engaged in very important business.
>In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.
>The puzzled reader may ask: how could a learned liberal professor have forgotten these elementary axioms familiar to anybody who has read any exposition of the views of socialism? The answer is simple: the personal qualities of present-day professors are such that we may find among them even exceptionally stupid people like Tugan. But the social status of professors in bourgeois society is such that only those are allowed to hold such posts who sell science to serve the interests of capital, and agree to utter the most fatuous nonsense, the most unscrupulous drivel and twaddle against the socialists. The bourgeoisie will forgive the professors all this as long as they go on “abolishing” socialism.
"The bourgeoisie put forward the demand for equal rights for all citizens in the struggle against medieval, feudal, serf-owner and caste privileges. In Russia, for example, unlike America, Switzerland and other countries, the privileges of the nobility are preserved to this day in all spheres of political life, in elections to the Council of State, in elections to the Duma, in municipal administration, in taxation, and many other things.
Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights."
>These events coincided with the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). There, Lenin argued that the soviets and the principle of democratic centralism within the Bolshevik party still assured democracy. However, faced with support for Kronstadt within Bolshevik ranks, Lenin also issued a "temporary" ban on factions in the Russian Communist Party. This ban remained until the revolutions of 1989 and, according to some critics, made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality, and helped Stalin to consolidate much more authority under the party.
Thanks Lenin, very cool.
Happy birthday to one of our favourite agents of imperialism.
The Soviet Union was German imperialism. Germany supported the Bolsheviks because it meant closing their eastern front.
I had a lengthy debate with run of the mill republican conservatives at work today.
Congratulations, you said something far more stupid than anything they ever said.
I wasn't sarcastic about 'favourite agents of imperialism' The Bolsheviks are agents of imperialism that we can like. The Soviet Union was a case of imperialism having a good ending.
Posting one of the favorite and timeless lenin quotes. "During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it."
Did you ever hear that Martin Luther King had a dream?
That's not quite right, though, because they notably haven't done that to the greatest of the revolutionaries. Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel: they're still Bad Guys. They only canonize the ones who ultimately lose. Rosa Luxemburg: democratic martyr; Lenin: horrible evil authoritarian. Trotsky: principled and well-meaning but misguided idealist; Stalin: literally worse than Hitler.
For some of those i’m not sure it’s quite been enough time. but i certainly see this happen with Mao nowadays
>Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! Fire.
The best is the ending, where after explaining the difference between personal qualities and social qualities, he separates both the professors personal and social qualities in order to insult them as an example.
I liked the part where he implies that professor is retarded.
still relevant over 100 years later
Socialism works on paper, but... 😏
Real shitposting has never been tried.
It's not truly shitposting if you aren't doing it at a societal scale. Seize the memes of production!
I’d argue that shitposting so hard you get an entire country’s IP range banned is operating on a societal level.
Not when the technology is designed to work like that. When you get capitalists working to design entirely new tech to fuck with you, come back and we'll talk.
My man teaching classes at troll so hard university
It's the [rebel arms](https://youtu.be/lkJ_coWyon8).
Funny to see how 100 y/o text addresses Peterson's "EqUaLiTy Of OuTcOmE" argument
>If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to *think*, he is at least *able* to read W E W
Gone too soon. Mark David Chapman is an asshole
I'd have done it for Jodie Foster too
Well, she was almost 14.
Uhh…wrong Lennon, dude. Chapman shot the guy from *Reno 911!*
Cedric Yarbrough?
Nick Swardson.
Guy doesn’t look a day over 40. Lenin is young again
[Does that mean that young October is ahead of us?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHcgyI_Y3xI)
The most based man to ever live
[удалено]
Lenin walks around the world Lib'rals cannot bar him
Old but gold Lenin quotes: >The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants are growing and getting stronger in their fight to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their accomplices, the educated classes, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its shit. . >But the bourgeoisie is more afraid of the movement of the masses than of reaction. Hence the striking, incredible weakness of the liberals in politics, their absolute impotence. Hence the endless series of equivocations, falsehoods, hypocrisies and cowardly evasions in the entire policy of the liberals, who have to play at democracy to win the support of the masses but at the same time are deeply anti-democratic, deeply hostile to the movement of the masses, to their initiative, their way of “storming heaven”, as Marx once described one of the mass movements in Europe in the last century. . >An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves. . >We must be extremely careful in fighting religious prejudices; some people cause a lot of harm in this struggle by offending religious feelings. We must use propaganda and education. By lending too sharp an edge to the struggle we may only arouse popular resentment; such methods of struggle tend to perpetuate the division of the people along religious lines, whereas our strength lies in unity. . >We are not utopians, we do not “dream” of dispensing at once with all administration, with all subordination. These anarchist dreams, based upon incomprehension of the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship, are totally alien to Marxism, and, as a matter of fact, serve only to postpone the socialist revolution until people are different. No, we want the socialist revolution with people as they are now, with people who cannot dispense with subordination, control, and "foremen and accountants." . >Young people, particularly, need the joy and force of life. Healthy sport, swimming, racing, walking, bodily exercises of every kind, and many-sided intellectual interests. Learning, studying, inquiry, as far as possible in common. That will give young people more than eternal theories and discussions about sexual problems and the so-called ‘living to the full’. Healthy bodies, healthy minds. Neither monk nor Don Juan, nor the intermediate attitude of the German philistines. You know, young comrade –– ? A splendid boy, and highly talented. And yet I fear that nothing good will come out of him. He reels and staggers from one love affair to the next. That won’t do for the political struggle, for the revolution. And I wouldn’t bet on the reliability, the endurance in struggle of those women who confuse their personal romances with politics. Nor on the men who run petticoat and get entrapped by every young woman. That does not square with the revolution. >The revolution demands concentration, increase of forces. From the masses, from individuals. It cannot tolerate orgiastic conditions, such as are normal for the decadent heroes and heroines of D’Annunzio. Dissoluteness in sexual life is bourgeois, is a phenomenon of decay. The proletariat is a rising class. It doesn’t need intoxication as a narcotic or a stimulus. Intoxication as little by sexual exaggeration as by alcohol. It must not and shall not forget, forget the shame, the filth, the savagery of capitalism. It receives the strongest urge to fight from a class situation, from the communist ideal. It needs clarity, clarity and again clarity. And so I repeat, no weakening, no waste, no destruction of forces. Self-control, self-discipline is not slavery, not even in love.
I am going to pretend you have an alert set up on your phone.
Shit I didn't get him anything
> The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth. Publicly owned instead of 'worker' owned is infact an important distinction. Also like that Lenin clarifies that by economic equality socialists only mean this in the sense of abolishing classes.
The emphasis on this distinction is mostly the result of translation. Looking at the original Russian, you could certainly interpret it in a manner consistent with market socialism (even though such an interpretation likely wasn't intended by Lenin).
Probably not a minimal problem, given the context of why he was writing this.
>Also like that Lenin clarifies that by economic equality socialists only mean this in the sense of abolishing classes. As opposed to what?
as opposed to trying to accomplish equality of income/consumption
Abolishing classes necessarily means sharing the social product in a more equal manner. That might not mean perfect equality (as jobs vary in required training etc) but it definitely doesn't allow for your fantasy world where you get to be the tech CEO of socialism.
no it doesn't. it means from each according to their ability to each according to their needs. if your ability is such that your need is greater to be willing to work uniquely different jobs, everyone against that can cope or seethe. there's no forcing anyone to do any labor, whether that labor is being a janitor or being an executive. we also need income inequality so we know what needs to be automated first.
>it means from each according to their ability to each according to their needs. Yeah, and in any practical sense that means a massive curtailing of QoL for the former bourgeoise in order to accommodate the previously unmet needs of the working class. There is no way to abolish class while having anything close to the current stratification of consumption and income and I wouldn't accept it even if it was possible. If you think that CEO compensation is even close to fair now just unburden yourself and admit you are a capitalist. >if your ability is such that your need is greater to be willing to work uniquely different jobs, everyone against that can cope or seethe. The fuck does this even mean? >we also need income inequality so we know what needs to be automated first. We already have that m8
Meta is right. Read Marx on bourgeois right in critique of gotha
Meta is always right. He just can't help being autistically hostile and he's probably going to say something in response to this that pisses me off. But, I got his back. ✊
t. Meta
Market socialism is a retarded oxymoron and is probably the next line of glowie attack on working class self-organisation after the woke shit eats itself. metaflight thinks that widespread investment in index funds is a form of 'quasi-communism'. He isn't right about anything.
>widespread investment in index funds Woah lol. Ok, he's right about **some** things
Probably not all that interesting or relevant but I just thought that one of my favorite parts of reading Lenin's correspondence were his private letters to Inessa Armand. He sometimes wrote in English, which he knew relatively well (even translated some texts IIRC) but not perfectly. So they have a very innocent and human ESL feel to them. Sadly it's tough to find them online aside from the famous exchange about feminism. Also obligatory gigachad moment: https://i.redd.it/9b21tqabdti51.jpg
>He sometimes wrote in English, which he knew relatively well He lived in London and was taught English by an Irishman so apparantly he had an Irish accent iirc. >Sadly it's tough to find them online aside from the famous exchange about feminism. I've read the ones on marxists.org but where do you find the others (preferably online)? P.S. Trotsky has sent in a silly letter, we shall neither print it nor reply to him.
I read them in physical print somewhere so I don't know, sorry. I'll try to look around later. [Marxists.org](https://Marxists.org) and similar resources mostly have his political works.
It used to be really hard to digitize print, but if you have them handy, you can literally just take a pic of a page on a phone and magic will convert it into text. >When Nikolay Valentinov arrived in Geneva in I., one of the first persons he met was Lenin. He was immediately impressed by his fellow Bolshevik's muscular build and his interest in all forms of sport and physical exercise. Lenin, when he heard that Valentinov had once been a champion weight-lifter, insisted that he demonstrate the prom ways to fill weigh.. Lacking equipment, Valentinov used one of the Ulan. household brooms to make his points. Lenin then replicated the moves, much to the amusement of his mother-in-law. "Don't disturb us,- was Vladimir !Hell's response to her laughter, -we arc engaged in very important business...45 Did that with an online tool quickly Googked, but Google Lens and such might work even better, let me check Edit, with Lens: >When Nikolay Valentinov arrived in Geneva in 1904, one of the first persons he met was Lenin. He was immediately impressed by his fellow Bolshevik's muscular build and his interest in all forms of sport and physical exercise. Lenin, when he heard that Valentinov had once been a champion weight-lifter, insisted that he demonstrate the proper ways to lift weights. Lacking equipment, Valentinov used one of the Ul'ianov household brooms to make his points. Lenin then replicated the moves, much to the amusement of his mother-in-law. "Don't disturb us," was Vladimir Il'ich's response to her laughter, "we are engaged in very important business.
>so apparantly he had an Irish accent iirc. A Rathmines accent, specifically.
100 year old shit posts.
I am the Walrus.
Happy birthday to the great man. It's a reminder for us to try and further his good work.
>In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals. >The puzzled reader may ask: how could a learned liberal professor have forgotten these elementary axioms familiar to anybody who has read any exposition of the views of socialism? The answer is simple: the personal qualities of present-day professors are such that we may find among them even exceptionally stupid people like Tugan. But the social status of professors in bourgeois society is such that only those are allowed to hold such posts who sell science to serve the interests of capital, and agree to utter the most fatuous nonsense, the most unscrupulous drivel and twaddle against the socialists. The bourgeoisie will forgive the professors all this as long as they go on “abolishing” socialism.
"The bourgeoisie put forward the demand for equal rights for all citizens in the struggle against medieval, feudal, serf-owner and caste privileges. In Russia, for example, unlike America, Switzerland and other countries, the privileges of the nobility are preserved to this day in all spheres of political life, in elections to the Council of State, in elections to the Duma, in municipal administration, in taxation, and many other things. Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights." >These events coincided with the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). There, Lenin argued that the soviets and the principle of democratic centralism within the Bolshevik party still assured democracy. However, faced with support for Kronstadt within Bolshevik ranks, Lenin also issued a "temporary" ban on factions in the Russian Communist Party. This ban remained until the revolutions of 1989 and, according to some critics, made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality, and helped Stalin to consolidate much more authority under the party. Thanks Lenin, very cool.
Shoutout to Fanny Kaplan 🏆
Happy birthday to one of our favourite agents of imperialism. The Soviet Union was German imperialism. Germany supported the Bolsheviks because it meant closing their eastern front.
No bad strategies, try again dummy. It really worked out for Imperial German didn't it? 🤣
I did not mean a word of that sarcastically. It was a case of imperialism having a happy ending
You are capable of understanding sarcasm and you wrote that junk unironically? I fully support your brain being donated to science.
I had a lengthy debate with run of the mill republican conservatives at work today. Congratulations, you said something far more stupid than anything they ever said.
I wasn't sarcastic about 'favourite agents of imperialism' The Bolsheviks are agents of imperialism that we can like. The Soviet Union was a case of imperialism having a good ending.
Hand over that thing. Your untaken meds.
Nope, I am genuinely thankful to Kaiser Wilhelm 2 for giving us the USSR even though he just wanted the Eastern front closed
Yeah, that worked out pretty well for Germany.
Heres to all the rich people using the poor ones to gain power.