Lenin still dead – after 100 years
- This topic has 32 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So, tomorrow is the centenary of Lenin’s death: and this weekend’s Morning Star has a huge pull out section on why Lenin was dead important. I think it’s one of the biggest pull out supplements I’ve seen them print, I think they’ve used every existing photo of the man.
The Standard missed a trick not reposting this front page article from the March 1924 Socialist Standard in this month’s Standard . . . . or maybe they’re just saving it for the March 2024 issue?
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-passing-of-lenin-1924.html
That’s a good article, and surprisingly well informed for the time: no annexations no indemnities was the standard Social Democrat agreed position at the time (though they added no separate peace): interestingly, one of the articles in the Star makes a virtue of Lenin’s accommodation with the peasantry into a virtue. I’ll plug the hell out of that article.
Ah, and they’re giving the supplement away Here
Interesting to see that one of the articles in the supplement is by Lindsay German. That wouldn’t have happened back in the day.
Yes, we missed that as well as the coming into office of the first Labour government (which didn’t last for long but was enough to convince the ruling class that Labour was fit to govern the British Empire on their behalf).
Anyway, here’s the special issue we brought out on the centenary of Lenin’s birth in April 1870:
They have not done their homework yet. They should attend the Socialist Party University to take classes on Socialism/Communism and to abandon Leninism. They need an ‘ideological’ exorcism
Without Leninism and without the Soviet Union socialism would have been in a much better stand in our time
Look at this misinformation. The Soviet Union is the best example that Leninism has never done any positive for mankind
“Barltrop made the telling point that if it were not for the Bolshevik revolution, today Marx would be as well known as Lassalle or Duhring or Proudhon to name but three. He would be by and large unknown.”
I think this has got to be true. However, the association has been a curse rather than a blessing.
chelmsford wrote: “Barltrop made the telling point that if it were not for the Bolshevik revolution, today Marx would be as well known as Lassalle or Duhring or Proudhon to name but three. He would be by and large unknown.”
On the contrary, I think that Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution have ensured that Marx has remained ‘by and large unknown’.
Lenin was the successor to Engels’ mistaken views, and Kautsky’s and Plekhanov’s mangling of Marx’s democratic social productionism.
Lenin almost exclusively quoted Engels, rather than Marx.
The ‘Marx’ we supposedly ‘know’ today is far removed from Marx’s democratic views.
Barltrop made the telling point that if it were not for the Bolshevik revolution, today Marx would be as well known as Lassalle or Duhring or Proudhon to name but three. He would be by and large unknown.
—————————————————————
It would be better to say that Lenin became a famous politician due to the Russian coup, otherwise he would have passed to history like any other opportunists politician, and Marxian theory would not have been distorted, and we would have known the real concept of socialism and Marxian theory. I would not call it Marxism because it was a wrong conception created by Engels and some of closer collaborators and Bakunin
==============================================================================Lenin almost exclusively quoted Engels, rather than Marx.
————————————————————————–
Lenin also quoted Marx but he distorted it in the same way that he did with Engels, and the State and Revolution is the best example where he dishonestly quoted Marx
The ‘Marx’ we supposedly ‘know’ today is far removed from Marx’s democratic views.
——————————————————————————-
Correct . What the world knew and has known is a distortion made by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and their followers, and now they are talking about Lenin socialist legacy after 100 years. They do not need eyeglasses, they need binoculars, or microscope to be able to see the reality
Almamater wrote: “What the world knew and has known is a distortion made by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and their followers…”
Certainly, Lenin(ism) is a ‘distortion’, at the very least, but the ‘distorting’ began well before Lenin’s contribution.
Until serious and fundamental questions are asked about the differences between Marx and Engels (and then Kautsky and Plekhanov), the ‘real’ Marx will remain ‘by and large unknown’.
It’s a task that has only relatively recently even been started, and Marx has been dead nearly 142 years.
Perhaps it’s already too late.
The Marxists Humanist have spent years attacking Engels and Kaustky and they have never published the real conceptions of Marx and they continue supporting Lenin and the bolsheviks coup
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.