Why was he so good and based, comrades? Will there ever be anyone like him again?

Why was he so good and based, comrades? Will there ever be anyone like him again?

Attached: VI.jpg (880x1160, 506.33K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Just don't be a sailor or dare building socialism on your terms ;)

Slavoj Zizek

Old as fuck and only interested in critique of ideology.

infantile detected

Found the menshevik

Lenin was a genius who was also capable of pragmatic, decisive action.

It's a very rare combination of personality traits and it's what makes him such an impressive figure.

Deliberately sabotaging a workers' state when it's the middle of a war for its own existence because it doesn't conform to your idealistic notion of what socialism "should" be is every bit as counter-revolutionary as fighting to restore capitalism.

I've ended up justifying both sailor autism and Stalin fucking some shit as historical necessity.

Nah, you are just an underread cretin who's on the level of memes.

I wasn't the menshevik poster, but ok.
What I'm trying to say is that was perfect back then, now go get some and get some nuance.

He was nothing special, he was just born at the right time. You weren't born to witness WW1, strong working class movements and an incompetent czar. You weren't given a train by the German Empire to bring all your comrades to Russia and you didn't arrive in time to hijack a working class revolution.

Weren't the Mensheviks right ultimately though? The USSR proved that trying to skip from feudalism to socialism didn't work.

There have been lots of people like him. Stalin, Mao, Che Guevara, Sankara, etc….

Hey nobody criticize socdems ever again because they aren't capiatalists they are just building socialism in their own terms

Haha yeah man the mensheviks were right and totally wouldn't have turned into imperialists lmao

You realize if it wasn't for the bolsheviks it would have just turned into me constitutional monarchy with the Romanovs still effectively controlling everything right?

I honestly don't understand how people can deny this, anarchist elements of the movement were small and fractured and in any case even if they made up the majority their victory would have just turned Russia into a big version of the Paris Commune. The mensheviks and reactionaries were the only organized groups other than the bolsheviks and they almost certainly would have conceded almost immediately.

I will

Haha nice post, you really improved this board with this thread. Wow, this question is sure to inspire some good discussion. (fuck you, retard)

Which is why Lenin should have stayed the fuck away and left the actual working class movement do their thing.

Hmmm makes you think

So it would've lasted 6 months and then be crushed by the whites. That's brilliant guys.
the working class doing its thing is why the bolsheviks begun dominating the soviets


liberals leave



theorylets leave

(Poster was ice picked)

He's not wrong though

Attached: 50793961_1983635048359005_428356596171538432_n.jpg (640x640, 40.64K)

He was so gay he could be cornholed by 10 bajillion guys one after and that would be a step towards not being a colossal faggot in the nth dimension.

Attached: gay.jpg (1200x886, 162.49K)

Was that on your computer before you saw this thread or after?

You're new here.

watching gay porn to own the libtards

Yep. Definitely new here.

Deleted now, but believe me those guys are absolute professionals at giving head. Like getting your dick sucked by a dick-sucking machine

how would that have worked? you would've liked someone less able than Lenin to lead the vanguard? Or you are one of these utopians who unironically think a revolution can just be carried out by "the masses" acting as one homogeneous body without a consistent leadership whatsoever?

it's possible, but there is much in place to ensure capable people are glued to luxury and the artificial

Is pic related good or bad praxis?

Attached: TASS_456648_468.jpg (468x312, 57.61K)

the best part about Lenin was he didn't push bplshevism but rather just workers taking any kind of power. that is non sactarian and very respectable.

if you want to see what they did for themselves look at the german revolution failing. they were left to do something for themselves and failed.

Stalin was better honestly

Attached: it_starts_in_one_country_by_renjikuchiki1-d6koftq.jpg (1024x683, 190.22K)

As a revolutionary Lenin was impeccable. As the architect of a post-revolution society he made some blunders, however, that I think most anons overlook. The greatest of which was the 1921 ban on factions within the Communist party. Intra-party debate was already eroding by that point, but Lenin's obsession with party unity killed the ideals of democratic centralism for the remainder of the Soviet Union's history. What's more, the ban served as the pretext for Stalin's later arrest and execution of nearly every single old Bolshevik.

When you think about it "democratic" and what we know about it now, would have killed the ussr. Stalin probably knew it. He also probably knew the factions would try to get him, like happened in Germany, and felt he "had" to do it.

I don't know why intra-party debate between committed communists in the single legal political party over matters of policy would have killed the USSR. I could understand that justification being used for the ban of the left-SRs or the Mensheviks (who actively sought the overthrow of the Bolsheviks at various points) but we're talking about people who had been with the Bolsheviks for decades.

As for your point about Stalin, I think you vastly underestimate the breadth of his paranoia. The idea of opposing factions was his justification for the purge of the Old Bolsheviks, but there was no evidence that most of those killed were even tangentially related to opposition factions (hence why so many were rehabilitated in the years after Stalin's death) and many were politically insignificant or totally unrelated to politics at the time of their arrest. Besides, Stalin wasn’t some divinely ordained successor to the USSR. If a different faction had come to dominate the Congress and Central Committee legitimately through the intended mechanisms of democratic centralism and chose a different General Secretary, then I am sure that someone else in the CPSU could have done his job just as well.

the ban on factionalism was on account of people not respecting democratic centralism, where you have a debate at first and then a decision is made via democratic means , and then everybody has to accept that decision.
What happened however instead was that decisions were not respected and with that the democratic nature of the process was skewed towards a process of debate-grind-competition of who gets to have the last word because all the others are to frustrated to continue bickering.

Intra party debate continued after the factionalism ban, you just couldn't form cliques any-more.

You can complain about the dilution of democracy for higher order decision making in democratic centralism, but you cannot complain that you lack the ability to gang up on fellow comrades.

I am not convinced that members of the CPSU weren’t respecting democratic centralism (the trade union debate was contentious, but decisively ended at the 10th Congress), but I want you to consider how a formal ban on factions would put an end to debate-grind-competition. A ban on factions could not, for instance, by itself convince people with similar convictions against dissenting with the opinion of the communist party leadership on any given issue. It also could not by itself convince people of certain convictions from trying to reopen debates of already decided issues.

What it could do was provide a mechanism for ganging up on fellow comrades and suppress intra-party debate generally. There is a reason that within six years almost all former members of the Workers’ Opposition, Left Opposition, and Democratic Centralists had been expelled from the CPSU with Bukharin’s Right Opposition not far behind. By claiming that every opposing position in a given debate was engaged in ‘factionalism’ a single clique was able to monopolize power within the USSR. Moreover, that same claim of factionalism eventually provided a justification for the execution of almost every Old Bolshevik - committed communists and democratic centralists if there ever were any. Thus, I don't see in what way that the factionalism ban helped the ideals of democratic centralism, and there are a great number of ways in which it damaged it.

I'm generally opposed to the "cult of personality" take, while I understand that to some extent it was inevitable in the 3rd world conditions of the USSR. I'm pretty sure that Lenin would be opposed to this as well.

Still, it is without a doubt that Lenin was an extraordinary figure in politics. When 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸anglos🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 are asked about the greatest politician of the 20th century, they typically vote for Churchill – a man in favor of apartheid and colonial states…

When it comes to discussing 20th century politics you have to be severely retarded not to take Lenin as the most influential politician. On the one hand his theory on imperialism has been proven again and again to be accurate regarding capitalist states, on the other he showed his undying pragmatism when concerning internal matters.

Left-coms and anarcho-types criticize his NEP, or his (intentionally dumbed down formula of "soviet power+ electrification), but he and his contemporaries literally had no options than that.

To claim that Lenin was on par with Engels and Marx is no stretch. This person was the most pragmatic motherfucker on planet Earth, and even his "mistakes" were far less severe in effect than that of his contemporaries.

So, yes, Lenin should and must be listed among Marx and Engels, because he really fucking earned the title. He was the single politician who defined 20th century politics – against which the 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸US reaction🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 was only such: a reaction and nothing more.

I consider ancom comrades who don't agree with my above statements to be class traitors, btw.

Attached: leftpol.png (451x603, 236.96K)

But another take, since I've said that Lenin's main boon was his pragmatism: how pragmatic were Engels and Marx? Not very, to fucking honest. In their works, which certainly did portray a sort of development, moving away from the Feuerbachain influences, and so on, Marx was at best half-convincing against Bakunin, his arguments for the DotP weren't too convincing especially among "developing capitalist democracies," and Engels in his essay on "Authority" relied on too much of a "common sense" argument than would be required.

In no way do I condemn these two, especially because they were mere products of their century, yet still, Lenin had the "advantage" to look back at WW1, at the betrayal of socdems, and so on, which shaped his thought tremendously.

Another thing: while there's no denying that Marx & Engels were in the (mostly) pure theoretical phase of outlining communism, Lenin had the advantage of aforementioned experiences. I've never read a single text from Lenin that could not have been understood by (contemporary, illiterate) peasants or workers.

He serves as, whether you like it or not, a shining beacon for all of us. Clarity, singleness of purpose, discipline, and (modest) theoretical advancements.

Yes, Lenin is love, Lenin is life; but if you don't actually take the time to read his works, to read his acts, you are doomed as a 21st century communist.

I recommend book related to all comrades here.

This man was one-of-a-kind, a true hero, a man with a singularity of purpose.

Attached: d836b4fd85f031429eeee4c97c70f8a8-d.jpg (308x475, 32.52K)

Seems like you’ve never actually read any Lenin.

Pragmatism—a subjective-idealist trend of bourgeois (mainly American) philosophy in the imperialist era. It arose in the seven ties. of the last century in the U.S.A. as a reflection of specific features of the development of American capitalism, replacing the hitherto prevailing religious philosophy. The main propositions of pragmatism were formulated by Charles Peirce. As an independent philosophical tendency it took shape at the turn of the century in the works of William James and Ferdinand Schiller and was further developed in the instrumentalism of John Dewey.
The pragmatists consider that the central problem of philosophy is the attainment of true knowledge. However, they completely distort the very concept of truth; already Peirce looked on cognition as a purely psychological, subjective process of achieving religious belief. James substituted the concept of “usefulness”, of success or advantage, for the concept of truth, i.e., for the objectively true reflection of reality. From his point of view, all concepts, including religious ones, are true insofar as they are useful. Dewey went, even farther by declaring all scientific theories, all moral principles and social institutions, to be merely “instruments” for the attainment of the personal aims of the individual. As the criterion of the “truth” (usefulness) of knowledge, the pragmatists take experience, understood not as human social practice but as the constant stream of individual experiences, of the subjective phenomena of consciousness; they regard this experience as the solo reality, declaring the concepts of matter and mind “obsolete”. Like the Machists, the pragmatists claim to have created a “third line” in philosophy; they try to place themselves above materialism and idealism, while in fact advocating one of the varieties of idealism. In contrast to materialist monism, the pragmatists put forward the standpoint of “pluralism”, according to which there is no internal connection, no conformity to law, in the universe; it is like a mosaic which each person builds in his own way, out of his own individual experiences. Hence, starting out from the needs of the given moment, pragmatism considers it possible to give different, even contradictory, explanations of one and the same phenomenon. Consistency is declared to be unnecessary; if it is to a man’s advantage, he can be a determinist or an indeterminist, he can assert or deny the existence of God, and so on.
By basing themselves on the subjective-idealist tradition of English philosophy from Berkeley and Hume to John Stuart Mill, by exploiting particular aspects of the theories of Kant, Mach and Avenarius, Nietzsche and Henri Bergson, the American pragmatists created one of the most reactionary philosophical trends of modern times, a convenient form for theoretically defending the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie. It is for this reason that pragmatism spread so widely in the U.S.A., becoming almost the official American philosophy. There have been advocates of pragmatism at various times in Italy, Germany, France, Czechoslovakia and other countries.

You didn't read the post you responded to you, you just copy-pasted a wall of text after picking out a single ambiguous word (pragmatism).
Nobody's saying that Lenin was a philosophical pragmatist, you autistic fuck. Seriously.

The post is bullshit as are you ya fucking tankie. Lenin was never pragmatic and did everything based on a strict adherence to dialectical materialism. Stalinists tends to focus on the “pragmatism” of Lenin, which never existed, to justify the pragmatism of Stalin who betrayed the revolution based on the view he stole from Bukharin, of “socialism in one country”

this is a contradiction???

I'm devastated. Seriously.


Pragmatism has a specific definition outlined by Lenin in my earlier post. It can only analyze events from a short term perspective and provides the framework for capitulation for imperialism which is exactly what The USSR led by the bureaucracy in the form of Stalin ended up doing.

The examples you outlined were done due to the failure of the German revolutionary movements which was always what Marxists in Russia had pushed for. There was always an international perspective and you falsely suggesting that Lenin was a pragmatist highlights the weaknesses of the Russia’s economic conditions rather than Lenin’s most important strengths.


this has to be a joke