"Freud’s theory has now become a fad. I mistrust sex theories expounded in articles, treatises, pamphlets, etc...

"Freud’s theory has now become a fad. I mistrust sex theories expounded in articles, treatises, pamphlets, etc. in short, the theories dealt with in that specific literature which sprouts so luxuriantly on the dung heap of bourgeois society. I mistrust those who are always absorbed in the sex problems, the way an Indian saint is absorbed In the contemplation of his navel.

It seems to me that this superabundance of sex theories, which for the most part are mere hypotheses, and often quite arbitrary ones, stems from a personal need. It springs from the desire to justify one’s own abnormal or excessive sex life before bourgeois morality and to plead for tolerance towards oneself. This veiled respect for bourgeois morality is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that bears on sex. No matter how rebellious and revolutionary it may be made to appear, it is in the final analysis thoroughly bourgeois. Intellectuals and others like them are particularly keen on this. There is no room for it in the Party, among the class-conscious, fighting proletariat.”
marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1925/lenin/zetkin2.htm
B A S E D

Attached: 59df585385600a35d265b7fb.jpg (850x478, 167.96K)

Other urls found in this thread:

revleft.space/vb/threads/195805-SL-cultism-exposed!!
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I don't see how, thats a horrible interpretation of Freud, whom most find, in graduated measure, against the concept of ordered or symbolic sex in general. It definitely isn't orienteering or psychosemantic rehabilitation, like Zetkin contends here

Attached: Sigmund-freud-glasses.jpg (300x320, 39.88K)

Stupid

...

t. brainlet

“Don’t twitter like a bunch of chatterboxes, but speak out loudly and clearly like fighters should."
- Lenin
Twitter leftists BTFO

Attached: 300px-Twitter_bird_logo_2012.svg.png (300x244, 4.4K)

To be fair to Lenin bourg culture DID pick up on Freud's theory and bastardized and normalized it. If his only contact with "Freud" was thru this fad his position is understandable. The irony here is that Lenin after the revolution faced similar struggles with the bureaucracy (basically: normalization of socialism) as did Lacan with the institutions that claimed to be Freudian.


HURR

You haven't even read the full context of the quote, brainlets.

Hi, Skvortsov-Stepanov or whatever the fuck your name is.

Lenin on sex politics:
"I was also told that sex problems are a favorite subject in your youth organizations too, and that there are hardly enough lecturers on this subject. This nonsense is especially dangerous and damaging to the youth movement. It can easily lead to sexual excesses, to overstimulation of sex life and to wasted health and strength of young people. You must fight that too. There is no lack of contact between the youth movement and the women’s movement. Our Communist women everywhere should cooperate methodically with young people. This will be a continuation of motherhood, will elevate it and extend it from the individual to the social sphere. Women’s incipient social life and activities must be promoted, so that they can outgrow the narrowness of their Philistine, individualistic psychology centered on home and family. But this is incidental.

“In our country, too, considerable numbers of young people are busy ‘revising bourgeois conceptions and morals’ in the sex question. And let me add that this involves a considerable section of our best boys and girls, of our truly promising youth. It is as you have just said. In the atmosphere created by the aftermath of war and by the revolution which has begun, old ideological values, finding themselves in a society whose economic foundations are undergoing a radical change, perish, and lose their restraining force. New values crystallize slowly, in the struggle. With regard to relations between people, and between man and woman, feelings and thoughts are also becoming revolutionized. New boundaries are being drawn between the rights of the individual and those of the community, and hence also the duties of the individual. Things are still in complete, chaotic ferment. The direction and potentiality of the various contradictory tendencies can still not be seen clearly enough. It is a slow and often very painful process of passing away and coming into being. All this applies also to the field of sexual relations, marriage, and the family. The decay, putrescence, and filth of bourgeois marriage with its difficult dissolution, its license for the husband and bondage for the wife, and its disgustingly false sex morality and relations fill the best and most spiritually active of people with the utmost loathing.

“The coercion of bourgeois marriage and bourgeois legislation on the family enhance the evil and aggravate the conflicts. It is the coercion of ‘sacrosanct’ property. It sanctifies venality, baseness, and dirt. The conventional hypocrisy of ‘respectable’ bourgeois society takes care of the rest. People revolt against the prevailing abominations and perversions. And at a time when mighty nations are being destroyed, when the former power relations are being disrupted, when a whole social world is beginning to decline, the sensations of the individual undergo a rapid change. A stimulating thirst for different forms of enjoyment easily acquires an irresistible force. Sexual and marriage reforms in the bourgeois sense will not do. In the sphere of sexual relations and marriage, a revolution is approaching in keeping with the proletarian revolution. Of course, women and young people are taking a deep interest in the complex tangle of problems which have arisen as a result of this. Both the former and the latter suffer greatly from the present messy state of sex relations. Young people rebel against them with the vehemence of their years. This is only natural. Nothing could be falser than to preach monastic self-denial and the sanctity of the filthy bourgeois morals to young people. However, it is hardly a good thing that sex, already strongly felt in the physical sense, should at such a time assume so much prominence in the psychology of young people. The consequences are nothing short of fatal. Ask Comrade Lilina about it. She ought to have had many experiences in her extensive work at educational institutions of various kinds and you know that she is a Communist through and through, and has no prejudices.

Attached: lenin.jpg (250x141, 12.61K)

“Youth’s altered attitude to questions of sex is of course ‘fundamental’, and based on theory. Many people call it ‘revolutionary’ and ‘communist’. They sincerely believe that this is so. I am an old man, and I do not like it. I may be a morose ascetic, but quite often this so-called ‘new sex life’ of young people and frequently of the adults too seems to me purely bourgeois and simply an extension of the good old bourgeois brothel. All this has nothing in common with free love as we Communists understand it. No doubt you have heard about the famous theory that in communist society satisfying sexual desire and the craving for love is as simple and trivial as ‘drinking a glass of water’. A section of our youth has gone mad, absolutely mad, over this ‘glass-of-water theory’. It has been fatal to many a young boy and girl. Its devotees assert that it is a Marxist theory. I want no part of the kind of Marxism which infers all phenomena and all changes in the ideological superstructure of society directly and blandly from its economic basis, for things are not as simple as all that. A certain Frederick Engels has established this a long time ago with regard to historical materialism.

“I consider the famous ‘glass-of-water’ theory as completely un-Marxist and, moreover, as anti-social. It is not only what nature has given but also what has become culture, whether of a high or low level, that comes into play in sexual life. Engels pointed out in his Origin of the Family how significant it was that the common sexual relations had developed into individual sex love and thus became purer. The relations between the sexes are not simply the expression of a mutual influence between economics and a physical want deliberately singled out for physiological examination. It would be rationalism and not Marxism to attempt to refer the change in these relations directly to the economic basis of society in isolation from its connection with the ideology as a whole. To be sure, thirst has to be quenched. But would a normal person normally lie down in the gutter and drink from a puddle? Or even from a glass whose edge has been greased by many lips? But the social aspect is more important than anything else. The drinking of water is really an individual matter. But it takes two people to make love, and a third person, a new life, is likely to come into being. This deed has a social complexion and constitutes a duty to the community.

“As a Communist I have no liking at all for the ‘glass-of water’ theory, despite its attractive label: ‘emancipation of love.’ Besides, emancipation of love is neither a novel nor a communistic idea. You will recall that it was advanced in fine literature around the middle of the past century as ‘emancipation of the heart’. In bourgeois practice it materialized into emancipation of the flesh. It was preached with greater talent than now, though I cannot judge how it was practiced. Not that I want my criticism to breed asceticism. That is farthest from my thoughts. Communism should not bring asceticism, but joy and strength, stemming, among other things, from a consummate love life. Whereas today, in my opinion, the obtaining plethora of sex life yields neither joy nor strength. On the contrary, it impairs them. This is bad, very bad, indeed, in the epoch of revolution.

“Young people are particularly in need of joy and strength. Healthy sports, such as gymnastics, swimming, hiking, physical exercises of every description and a wide range of intellectual interests is what they need, as well as learning, study and research, and as far as possible collectively. This will be far more useful to young people than endless lectures and discussions on sex problems and the so-called living by one’s nature. Mens sana in corpore sana. Be neither monk nor Don Juan, but not anything in between either, like a German Philistine. You know the young comrade X. He is a splendid lad, and highly gifted. For all that, I am afraid that he will never amount to anything. He has one love affair after another. This is not good for the political struggle and for the revolution. I will not vouch for the reliability or the endurance of women whose love affair is intertwined with politics, or for the men who run after every petticoat and let themselves in with every young female. No, no, that does not go well with revolution.”

Lenin sprang to his feet, slapped the table with his hand and paced up and down the room.

“The revolution calls for concentration and rallying of every nerve by the masses and by the individual. It does not tolerate orgiastic conditions so common among d’Annunzio’s decadent heroes and heroines. Promiscuity in sexual matters is bourgeois. It is a sign of degeneration. The proletariat is a rising class. It does not need an intoxicant to stupefy or stimulate it, neither the intoxicant of sexual laxity or of alcohol. It should and will not forget the vileness, the filth and the barbarity of capitalism. It derives its strongest inspiration to fight from its class position, from the communist ideal. What it needs is clarity, clarity, and more clarity. Therefore, I repeat, there must be no weakening, no waste and no dissipation of energy Self-control and self-discipline are not slavery; not in matters of love either. But excuse me, Clara, I have strayed far from the point which we set out to discuss. Why have you not called me to order? Worry has set me talking. I take the future of our youth very close to heart. It is part and parcel of the revolution. Whenever harmful elements appear, which creep from bourgeois society to the world of the revolution and spread like the roots of prolific weeds, it is better to take action against them quickly. The questions we have dealt with are also part of the women’s problems.”

what?

The funny part about the context (thanks for providing in an addendum rather than giving readers the benefit of such from the beginning) is that it does little to change the contention about Freud that and I made. In fact, the former has even enumerated the congruent experiences of psychoanalysis in the post-Freud that do little short of completely depriving a critique of reactionary collaboration of any meaningful historical basis.
No one will endeavor to deprive you of your pathological or probably ideological ;DDDDD distaste for Freud/Lacan/Zizek/whoever (since your responses have made it clear this isn't just an isolated site of critique - you seem to take issue with the whole of the body of thought) but at least devote some substantive thought to it; just as well, if you mean to post cited text, at least let it provide or develop the discussion in some manner. brainlet

INCEL GANG

sex-positive lifestylists BTFO

Attached: ass.png (141x211, 56.79K)

Lenin had a lover, who's him to speak about "healthy sexuality" or whatever

One of cluster of decent Jews.

Well he's not wrong

this is nothing he said, you are completely missing the point here
matters of sexuality and sexual liberation are bourgeois in itself, only the overthrow of the bourgeois system can sexually liberate the people subsequently
theories about sexuality are half baked attempts at trying to emancipate expressions of sexuality under bourgerois potent creating again obscure developents that continue to express bourgeois norms
meanwhile it adds nothing to the struggle of the working class and its economic and political demands, on the contrary it deprives it of resources and distracts the people with pointless ideological exercises

Lenin described himself as a gloomy ascetic, reading Marx and newspaper cuttings to each other was probably the height of sexual excitement between him and Krupskaya/Armand

Somewhat unrelated, but Lenin's English letters to Armand are adorable

Attached: 1511970500337.jpg (480x332, 15.02K)

Uphold Marxist-lenin-incelism thought. INCEL GANG.

Incels are absorbed in sex more than anyone else though

Yeah but incels like to weaponize sex in their own way. I call everyone who talks about sex a petty booj brat - it's a way to criticize those having fun without seeming like a right winger.

You might badly need to read post 12 of this: revleft.space/vb/threads/195805-SL-cultism-exposed!!

...

psychological as in relating to the psyche not as in your autistic "scientific" field

tinder in a nutshell

Fuck off degenerate, Lenin has spoken.

You mean Volcel GANG