What kind of Marxist what's James Connolly?

[Zoroaster]

I've recently been looking into James Connolly, a famous Irish Marxist who fought against the British in the Easter Uprising. However, I haven't found anything about what kind of Marxist he was. I know he supported unions, that he was a left-wing nationalist, and Lenin admired him. If anyone knows what form of Marxism he followed, I would greatly appreciate it.

[Sea]

The texts here should contain a wealth of information about his ideological orientation, right from the horse's mouth:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/

Look for short introductory pieces and tracts. Such works invariably reveal a great deal about the author's politics. Based on your signature, he seems to think that national interests and democracy would exist under socialism. So far, the best word I can think of to describe his politics is "lacking".

[QueerVanguard]

The catholic, conservative, moralist, nationalist shitty kind. One of the earliest examples of a Proudhonist reactionary masquerading around as a Marxist.

[Geiseric]

He read and understood Marx's theory of capital, better than most people on this forum actually. He understood the role of finance capital in imperialism, and the importance of internationalism in the workers struggle. He was actually Scottish by the way.

[Ainu Itak]

The catholic, conservative, moralist, nationalist shitty kind. One of the earliest examples of a Proudhonist reactionary masquerading around as a Marxist.

God your posts are downright cancerous.

[The Jay]

He read and understood Marx's theory of capital, better than most people on this forum actually. He understood the role of finance capital in imperialism, and the importance of internationalism in the workers struggle. He was actually Scottish by the way.

Wasn't he born to Irish immigrants to Scotland? I know that he was born there but I believe that he grew up in an irish neighborhood. I might be wrong.

[QueerVanguard]

He read and understood Marx's theory of capital, better than most people on this forum actually. He understood the role of finance capital in imperialism, and the importance of internationalism in the workers struggle. He was actually Scottish by the way.

:laugh::laugh: You're kidding, right? He knew fuck all about Internationalism, as you can see from Willie Morris' quote in his sig Connolly was projecting the idea of nations *into* Socialism. Your either an Internationalist or a Nationalist, you can't have it both ways, and the guy was an out and out ethnic nationalist who got booted out of the Socialist Labor Party because of his reactionary position on female emancipation and the family. OK cool he knew a little bit about Capital and opposed WWI and opposed imperialism, doesn't excuse his pandering to catholic scum or his Nationalist dipshitery.

[renalenin]

I have a copy of the Australian edition of Axe to the Root, first published circa 1912 and reprinted here to mark his life and death at the hands of the British in 1916. It is fairly typical of the better Marxists of that time. If you go to the website of the Irish Communist Party you will find a site dedicated to him - he is sometimes regarded as the Irish Lenin. It is worth remembering that few English speaking Marxists had read Lenin and they tended to be fooled by the revisionism of Kautsky.

Hope you enjoy your exploration of the ideas of this important Marxist. :hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[QueerVanguard]

he is sometimes regarded as the Irish Lenin

Yea by sacks of shit who never read Lenin. Lenin was about as far from being a Nationalist and opportunist and syndicalist shitstain that you could get. The only thing they had in common was their opposition to WWI and conservative views on the family

[Geiseric]

Yea by sacks of shit who never read Lenin. Lenin was about as far from being a Nationalist and opportunist and syndicalist shitstain that you could get. The only thing they had in common was their opposition to WWI and conservative views on the family
Can I get a source for Lenin and Connolly's supposed reactionary views on women? This is news to me seeing as Lenin married another socialist. I don't think Krupskaya would of been in the same boat lol.

[ComradeOm]

Connolly doesn't fit squarely into any one category of Marxism. Between Ireland and the US he was on the periphery of the early 20th C debates of the Second International. His willingness to break with the latter, plus his rejection of De Leon, to lead an insurrection would mark him out as a proto-Leninist.

In truth though, outside of the national question (and the small matter of actually doing things) Connolly's Marxism was never massively sophisticated and doesn't really fit into the schema of Second International slurs that still define Marxist sects today.


Yea by sacks of shit who never read Lenin. Lenin was about as far from being a Nationalist...Connolly's position on national self-determination was perfectly in line with Lenin's

[The Idler]

He was quite close with some impossibilists from about 1895 to 1910 before his nationalism came to the fore. While active as a socialist in Great Britain, Connolly was the founding editor of The Socialist newspaper and was among the founders of the Socialist Labour Party which split from the Social Democratic Federation in 1903. While in America he was a member of the Socialist Labor Party of America (1906).

[Zoroaster]

Connolly had a very feminist look on women's treatment in capitalism. He is famous for saying, "women are the slaves of the slaves." This later became the inspiration for John Lennon's single, "Women are the Nigger of the World".

[QueerVanguard]

Connolly's position on national self-determination was perfectly in line with Lenin's

Bullshit it was. Lenin supported national self-determination for oppressed countries because it was his view that only by granting small nations formal independence would the movement towards the destruction of nations altogether occur in Communism. Connolly was a fucking Nationalist, he plainly said "under a Socialist system every nation will be the supreme arbiter of its own destinies" meaning he believed in the continued existence of nations forever. contrast that with Marxism that holds that nations will be eliminated with Socialism and our common humanity will unite the world. Then look at this little gem from lil' Jamie Cockolley: "These agencies, whether Irish Language movements, Literary Societies or Commemoration Committees, are undoubtedly doing a work of lasting benefit to this country in helping to save from extinction the precious racial and national history, language and characteristics of our people" How much more of a reactionary ethnic Nationalist shitball can someone be before you acknowledge it? I challenge you to find anything even remotely close to that level of shit written by Lenin.

[Geiseric]

Bullshit it was. Lenin supported national self-determination for oppressed countries because it was his view that only by granting small nations formal independence would the movement towards the destruction of nations altogether occur in Communism. Connolly was a fucking Nationalist, he plainly said "under a Socialist system every nation will be the supreme arbiter of its own destinies" meaning he believed in the continued existence of nations forever. contrast that with Marxism that holds that nations will be eliminated with Socialism and our common humanity will unite the world. Then look at this little gem from lil' Jamie Cockolley: "These agencies, whether Irish Language movements, Literary Societies or Commemoration Committees, are undoubtedly doing a work of lasting benefit to this country in helping to save from extinction the precious racial and national history, language and characteristics of our people" How much more of a reactionary ethnic Nationalist shitball can someone be before you acknowledge it? I challenge you to find anything even remotely close to that level of shit written by Lenin.
You need to relax mister. First off Ireland was a COLONY of England. The potato famine was a byproduct of horrific imperialist economic practices. As of today Catholics are still an oppressed nationality in Ulster. Lenin supported fucking self determinism for Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and the rest of the former Russian empire. Not a petit theory of "getting rid of the idea of nationalities and imposing that on people," which is what you basically suggested. Try applying your laughable ideas with Afro or Chicano Americans see where that gets you.

[QueerVanguard]

You need to relax mister. First off Ireland was a COLONY of England. The potato famine was a byproduct of horrific imperialist economic practices. As of today Catholics are still an oppressed nationality in Ulster. Lenin supported fucking self determinism for Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and the rest of the former Russian empire. Not a petit theory of "getting rid of the idea of nationalities and imposing that on people," which is what you basically suggested. Try applying your laughable ideas with Afro or Chicano Americans see where that gets you.

Yeah no shit it was colony, what's your point? Lenin supported self-determination for oppressed nations, I literally just fucking said that. But Lenin wasn't a *nationalist* like Connolly was, meaning he didn't believe nations were these non-historical entities that would live on indefinitely into Communism. Like actual Marxists Lenin understood they would perish during Socialism and formal self-determination, for him, was a step in that direction. By associating Lenin's self-determination policy with Connolly's reactionary ethnic Nationalism you're flipping the fucking script. Afro and Chicano Americans aren't a nation and supporting a nation for them would set back the class struggle -FYI I'm a POC so don't lay all this shit about "imposing" shit on my own community. Lenin was wrong about self-determination anyway, Rosa had it right all along.

[Geiseric]

Yeah no shit it was colony, what's your point? Lenin supported self-determination for oppressed nations, I literally just fucking said that. But Lenin wasn't a *nationalist* like Connolly was, meaning he didn't believe nations were these non-historical entities that would live on indefinitely into Communism. Like actual Marxists Lenin understood they would perish during Socialism and formal self-determination, for him, was a step in that direction. By associating Lenin's self-determination policy with Connolly's reactionary ethnic Nationalism you're flipping the fucking script. Afro and Chicano Americans aren't a nation and supporting a nation for them would set back the class struggle -FYI I'm a POC so don't lay all this shit about "imposing" shit on my own community. Lenin was wrong about self-determination anyway, Rosa had it right all along.

These kinds of responses are why i have stopped replying and posting on this site lately. You showed me nothing of substance.

[ComradeOm]

Yeah no shit it was colony, what's your point? Lenin supported self-determination for oppressed nations, I literally just fucking said that. But Lenin wasn't a *nationalist* like Connolly was, meaning he didn't believe nations were these non-historical entities that would live on indefinitely into Communism. Like actual Marxists Lenin understood they would perish during Socialism and formal self-determination, for him, was a step in that directionSo do you want to explain to us the entire purpose of Soviet national policy (ie razmezhevanie and korenizatsiya) in Lenin's time? Because to the untutored eye it looks like the "actual Marxists" in the early 1920s went about setting up a host of national subdivisions and encouraging the vitality of "racial and national history, language and characteristics" of the national minorities. At what point did Lenin expect all this to disappear and the 'subject peoples' to once again coalesce into a single monoculture?


Then look at this little gem from lil' Jamie Cockolley: "These agencies, whether Irish Language movements, Literary Societies or Commemoration Committees, are undoubtedly doing a work of lasting benefit to this country in helping to save from extinction the precious racial and national history, language and characteristics of our people" How much more of a reactionary ethnic Nationalist shitball can someone be before you acknowledge it?What, anarchic wording aside, exactly is wrong with that sentence? Do you think that anti-imperialism is a purely political platform? That political determination should be sought for the nation while its cultural and linguistic heritage are jettisoned? How could Connolly have possibly fought for Irish independence while simultaneously encouraging the adoption of English literature, language and culture in Ireland, ie key stands of the English imperialist policy. I don't think you understand what a nation is at all.

[Dr Doom]

As of today Catholics are still an oppressed nationality in Ulster.

no we aren't.

On topic : Connollys faith in a socialist revolution had been completely destroyed by the defeat of the 1913 lockout and the complete lack of socialist opposition to the First World War.

In the months prior to the 1916 Easter Rising, Connolly drifted towards romantic nationalism and talk of nationalist blood sacrifice. he's pretty much responsible for the contamination of socialism with the poison of nationalism in ireland.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So do you want to explain to us the entire purpose of Soviet national policy (ie razmezhevanie and korenizatsiya) in Lenin's time? Because to the untutored eye it looks like the "actual Marxists" in the early 1920s went about setting up a host of national subdivisions and encouraging the vitality of "racial and national history, language and characteristics" of the national minorities. At what point did Lenin expect all this to disappear and the 'subject peoples' to once again coalesce into a single monoculture?

The national divisions already existed, and since they did not correspond to the administrative units - particularly in Central Asia - this resulted in quite a chaotic situation. Razmezhevanye simply recognised the situation on the ground; it did not create new nations (the Soviet Union never tried to do so, with the exception of the ill-fated Birobizhdan experiment).

Korenizatsiya proceeded along similar lines - it was already a fact that most workers in the territories it applied to spoke the national language, but this was not reflected in the makeup of the administrative apparatus due to the Civil War and the reliance on cadres sent from Petrograd and Moscow. This in turn caused problems when dealing with the local population. Of course, there were excesses, which led to the policy being scrapped. But, again, the Soviet policy was simply to recognise facts on the ground, not to invent new nations out of whole cloth.


What, anarchic wording aside, exactly is wrong with that sentence? Do you think that anti-imperialism is a purely political platform? That political determination should be sought for the nation while its cultural and linguistic heritage are jettisoned? How could Connolly have possibly fought for Irish independence while simultaneously encouraging the adoption of English literature, language and culture in Ireland, ie key stands of the English imperialist policy. I don't think you understand what a nation is at all.

Except the Irish language was practically extinct when Connolly wrote that. It was used by a minuscule minority of actual Irish people. The Irish nation was still separated from the English due to geographical and, more importantly, economic factors.

What Connolly advocates is similar to, say, Belorussian being promoted in Belarus at the expense of Russian, something the Soviet Union pointedly did not do (most of the local population speaking Russian).

[ComradeOm]

The national divisions already existed, and since they did not correspond to the administrative units - particularly in Central Asia - this resulted in quite a chaotic situation. Razmezhevanye simply recognised the situation on the ground; it did not create new nations (the Soviet Union never tried to do so, with the exception of the ill-fated Birobizhdan experiment).

Korenizatsiya proceeded along similar lines - it was already a fact that most workers in the territories it applied to spoke the national language, but this was not reflected in the makeup of the administrative apparatus due to the Civil War and the reliance on cadres sent from Petrograd and Moscow. This in turn caused problems when dealing with the local population. Of course, there were excesses, which led to the policy being scrapped. But, again, the Soviet policy was simply to recognise facts on the ground, not to invent new nations out of whole cloth.Which is a very quaint view of the process of 'making nations'.

The Soviets did not merely reshuffle a few administrative borders to fit with existing and clearly defined lines. They enhanced some distinctions (eg, Uzbek/Tajik languages), dismissed some ethnic groups (eg, the Sarts) and created entirely new polities (eg, Turkmenistan). Even where clear distinctions did exist (ie, almost nowhere), the very act of codification and recognition implies a degree of creation. For most peasant peoples in the new USSR it was the first time that they had ever been given a nationality or had to think of themselves in such terms*. New alphabets were provided, old laws codified for the first time and new ones written, dialects standardised, new local elites emerged and customs promoted nationally. Or not, with some falling victim to the constant struggle between 'modernity' and indigenous customs (eg byt crimes or the later hujum).

In short, it was classic nation-building: creating national identities where before there had only been a diffuse and fluid peasant culture. And not just in the East; for example, the idea of a distinct Ukrainian nationality is really a creation (in the popular sense) of the early Soviet Union.

*Which was not unique to the national minorities. Great Russian peasants in WWI often had difficulty comprehending the very concepts of 'German' and 'Russian'. Which was the same in much of Europe prior to the creation of modern nation-states: as late as the early 20th C peasants in today's FYR Macedonia didn't understand the question of whether they were Greek or Bulgarian, merely replying that they were Christian.


...it was already a fact that most workers in the territories it applied to spoke the national language...Just to hold this up as an example of the complexities that you're avoiding, this was not the case at all. In 1917 most 'workers' in these areas, and almost all supporters of Soviet Power, would have spoken Russian. The important Tashkent Soviet, for example, was almost entirely a European affair, reflecting the divided status of the city and the region's economy.


Except the Irish language was practically extinct when Connolly wrote that. It was used by a minuscule minority of actual Irish people. The Irish nation was still separated from the English due to geographical and, more importantly, economic factors."Practically extinct"? Connolly was writing at a time when almost 20% of the (26 counties') population (http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/census1926results/volume8/C%201926%20VOL%208%20T1,2.pdf) spoke it and when its time as a majority language in over half the country (ie, Munster and Connacht) was still in living memory. More to the point, the immediate context was that of the Gaelic Revival, which had aspirations to emulate the earlier Czech Revival and restore a previously marginalised national tongue to mass use. As the Czech reference indicates, this was not a hopeless cause.

But good job on simply dismissing any sort of cultural heritage in favour of mere geography and economy. Sure, aren't the Irish nothing but mini-Englanders with their own island and a fondness for potatoes? :rolleyes:


What Connolly advocates is similar to, say, Belorussian being promoted in Belarus at the expense of Russian, something the Soviet Union pointedly did not do (most of the local population speaking Russian).Um, except that it did. Belarus was included in the korenizatsiya campaigns of the 1920s. Belarusian was made an official language and there was progress in expanded its reach, albeit from a low base. The intention was that in the long-term it would supplant Russian in the SSR; hence by the late 1920s the Belarusian Education Commissariat was publishing material exclusively in Belarusian. Progress was being made.

That this ultimately failed was the product of a particularly harsh Russification campaign that had effectively annihilated the Belarusian-speaking political leadership by the mid-1930s. That is, it failed but not due to a lack of effort in the first place.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Connolly was a republican socialist. It's safe to say that he was more or less syndicalistic, he certainly was greatly influenced by Daniel DeLeon.

Now for the supposed nationalism. This may annoy people like QueerVanguard who have clearly not read much of Connolly, but this nationalism ascribed to him is rather silly, to say the least.

If anything, Connolly's views on national liberation were rather nuanced from Lenin's. Lenin, of course, supported the self-determination of nations. But Connolly pointed out that self-determination without it being part of a struggle for socialism was mere folly if it did not include the building of a socialist republic. His nationalism merely meant ending the rule of the English that Ireland was subjugated to for so long. He saw no merit in the nationalism that, as he said, was just "morbid idealising of the past". He was quite clear "If you remove the English army to-morrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs." His position can, more or less, be summarised as: Imperialism is a global system. Because of this, genuine national liberation must be tied to socialist revolution.

He was not willing to conciliate with a national bourgeoisie for independence "as a Socialist" he continues "I am prepared to do all one man can do to achieve for our motherland her rightful heritage – independence; but if you ask me to abate one jot or tittle of the claims of social justice, in order to conciliate the privileged classes, then I must decline."

A breath of fresh air compared to some of the forms of anti-imperialism the self-described left has propagated in the past, I must say. I will not go into criticism of national liberation, of which there are many, but surely this is completely in line with Lenin when he talked about recognising the right of self-determination. It is very easy to yell buzzwords like "catholic", "conservative", "moralist", "nationalist" or "Proudhonist reactionary", but this does not contribute to the discussion at all and is merely, that, yelling buzzwords.

[Devrim]

Can I get a source for Lenin and Connolly's supposed reactionary views on women? This is news to me seeing as Lenin married another socialist. I don't think Krupskaya would of been in the same boat lol.

Lenin had some shocking views on women and sex. This analogy is a good example:


You must be aware of the famous theory that in communist society the satisfaction of sexual desire, of love, will be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water. The glass of water theory has made our young people mad, quite mad…I think this glass of water theory is completely un-Marxist, and moreover, anti-social. In sexual life there is not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order…Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is the most important of all. Drinking water is of course an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new life, arises.

It upset him greatly:


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.

His solution was typical of the period:


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.

Lenin himself took a cold shower everyday.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

Lenin had some shocking views on women and sex. This analogy is a good example:



It upset him greatly:



His solution was typical of the period:



Lenin himself took a cold shower everyday.

Devrim

You're so full of shit, how could you seriously misinterpret those quotes as being of a chauvinist nature? Show the part that is in between those three period marks where it continues for a few more sentences in the second quote.

[Ocean Seal]

:laugh::laugh: You're kidding, right? He knew fuck all about Internationalism, as you can see from Willie Morris' quote in his sig Connolly was projecting the idea of nations *into* Socialism.
Do you just recycle this post for everyone who disagrees with you?




Your either an Internationalist or a Nationalist, you can't have it both ways, and the guy was an out and out ethnic nationalist
Or you can be a firm internationalist from an oppressed community and recognize that part of your oppression is laid within the confines of imperialism. Which isn't something that you probably care about. You'd have to be silly to accuse the man to be an ethnic nationalist, but I take it you are the type to throw accusations at whoever fits the bill for disagreeing with you.



who got booted out of the Socialist Labor Party because of his reactionary position on female emancipation and the family. OK cool he knew a little bit about Capital and opposed WWI and opposed imperialism, doesn't excuse his pandering to catholic scum or his Nationalist dipshitery.
I don't know about this first part, but Connolly was quite the analyst on capital. One of its most effective students. He wasn't a Catholic, and rarely did he engage in nationalist "dipshitery". But I guess he isn't cool to your edgy anarchist friends, so we should dismiss the work he did.

[Devrim]

You're so full of shit,

You're as polite as ever.


how could you seriously misinterpret those quotes as being of a chauvinist nature?

Do you think that this shows a healthy attitude to sexuality:


But will the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips?

Comparing having sex with a woman who has had sex with someone else to lying down in a gutter, and suggesting that she is dirty seems pretty reactionary to me.

I don't think it is at all surprising. He has the typical reactionary sexual attitudes of his time and class.


Show the part that is in between those three period marks where it continues for a few more sentences in the second quote.

Look it up yourself.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

You're as polite as ever.



Do you think that this shows a healthy attitude to sexuality:



Comparing having sex with a woman who has had sex with someone else to lying down in a gutter, and suggesting that she is dirty seems pretty reactionary to me.

I don't think it is at all surprising. He has the typical reactionary sexual attitudes of his time and class.



Look it up yourself.

Devrim
You posted the fucking thing in the first place. Show the entire quote or you're no better than the Stalinists.

[ComradeOm]

Lenin had some shocking views on women and sexI wouldn't call any of that "shocking". Lenin didn't agree with then current Bolshevik thinking on 'free love' and disagreed that it was the correct Marxist line. Shock horror. Nor did he coin the infamous 'glass of water' analogy, which had been popularised by the younger 'free love' advocates. But when Lenin points out that just because something is natural (eg thirst) doesn't mean that its not affected by social conditions using their own analogy, suddenly he's a "reactionary"? Baffling*.

So I really don't know what about the above is supposed to be shocking us about Lenin's attitudes towards women. Particularly when the quotes that you've carefully cut out come from an interview on women's rights (http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1925/lenin/zetkin2.htm) with Zetkin, herself someone who knew a thing or two about the subject.

*Not least because when Lenin does name names and point someone out as an example not to be followed, he picks a male acquaintance.


He has the typical reactionary sexual attitudes of his time and class.Only if you believe that anyone who disagrees with 'free love' is a "reactionary". In which case I'm reminded of the old saying: "They are making the Kingdom of God somewhat limited, if no one is in the right way but themselves."

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

You posted the fucking thing in the first place. Show the entire quote or you're no better than the Stalinists.

lol

[ComradeOm]

lolI think he's dead-right in this case. Labelling someone's attitudes "reactionary" because they happen to deviate from your own line, and supporting this via snippets of out-of-context quotes, is pretty Stalinoid behaviour. At best Devrim was being disingenuous above by presenting an article in which Lenin reiterates his support for women's rights as evidence of Lenin's supposed sexism and "shocking" views on women.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I think he's dead-right in this case. Labelling someone's attitudes "reactionary" because they happen to deviate from your own line, and supporting this via snippets of out-of-context quotes, is pretty Stalinoid behaviour. At best Devrim was being disingenuous above by presenting an article in which Lenin reiterates his support for women's rights as evidence of Lenin's supposed sexism and "shocking" views on women.

you kids use stalinism for everything, it loses its meaning

[ComradeOm]

To return to James Connolly for a moment (I know, I know) re-reading the thread did bring home the absurdity of one particular charge: that he was not an internationalist. This is the same Connolly who was one of the few leading European socialists to entirely reject participation in a world war? The same Connolly whose reaction to said war was a despairing call of "What [has become] of all our resolutions; all our protests of fraternisation; all our threats of general strikes; all our carefully-built machinery of internationalism; all our hopes for the future? Were they all as sound and fury, signifying nothing?"

What a national chauvinist!

(That entire article (https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1914/08/contrev.htm) is actually worth reading for an insist into Connolly's conception of patriotism and the despair with which he greeted the War.)


you kids use stalinism for everything, it loses its meaningI'd like to think that everyone here can tell the difference between the murderous purging of hundreds of thousands and an approach to dialogue that is "no better than" Stalinism.

[Rafiq]

Comparing having sex with a woman who has had sex with someone else to lying down in a gutter, and suggesting that she is dirty seems pretty reactionary to me.

I don't think it is at all surprising. He has the typical reactionary sexual attitudes of his time and class.


Devrim

While I agree that is a casually sexist remark to say, I don't think the entire point Lenin was trying to make was reactionary - in that comparing having sex to drinking a glass of water is wholly ridiculous in that it fails to take into account sexual relations as an integral component of any social order, that it isn't that simple on a social, cultural and even psychological level. I think that such an analogy, under the guise of being liberationist or whatever, is actually quite sexually prude in the sense that it desperately seeks to trivialize sex, revoke it of all of it's dirty passions. It's essentially a dull kind of take on sexuality, really, who could ever get off if this is how we approached sex? Though it's important to remember that Lenin was in concurrence with Bebel with regard to sexuality, something he deemed genuinely proletarian.

I do agree though, that sexual relations as they exist, in the form of monogamy are patriarchal in nature, and I do think a kind of 'free sex' will be the inevitable result of a proletarian dictatorship. Lenin's view was consistent with the general Bolshevik view - sex is a distraction, not something we can politicize and fight the enemy with. This is why in the beginning the state did not approach sex - but also did not seek to regulate the personal lives of citizens. I think that the Bolshevik take on sexuality became very conservative with great ease and haste following the defeat of the revolution, however, and this is not something we should celebrate. If anyone is interested in Lenin on sexuality, maybe this could be useful http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm

Anyway, what do you mean 'his class'? If you think that Lenin was divorced ideologically from the proletariat, nothing is farther from the truth. There was never this organic sexual liberation among the proletariat, this was something practiced solely and primarily by intellectuals. Workers, conversely, tended to be much more conservative and old fashioned. So if this is going to be an argument about class, I'm afraid it's one you will not win.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I really don't have the time to reply to ComradeOm's post right now, and I will probably not be able to do so until tomorrow or later. But for not, the notion that calling Lenin out on his less savoury comments is tantamount to Stalinism, here presumably meaning the bureaucratic distortion of Party and state history, is several kinds of stupid.

Lenin's comment clearly opposes promiscuity in women (the "glass with a rim greasy from many lips"), among other things. That alone is enough to condemn it. His preoccupation with the social conditions in which sex occurs doesn't simply extend to questions of power, which any communist needs to pay attention to, but "high or low culture". He states that "it takes two people to make love, and a third person, a new life, is likely to come into being" (it should be noted that his attitude to abortion was hardly better). Let's be honest here. This is an attitude still deeply infected with bourgeois ideology and male chauvinism (as was e.g. Kollontai's).

To pass this over because the person to be condemned is Lenin would be contrary to Marxism, contrary to Leninism, and would amount to a worship of persons that the actual Lenin could never stand.

[Dr Doom]

To return to James Connolly for a moment (I know, I know) re-reading the thread did bring home the absurdity of one particular charge: that he was not an internationalist. This is the same Connolly who was one of the few leading European socialists to entirely reject participation in a world war? The same Connolly whose reaction to said war was a despairing call of "What [has become] of all our resolutions; all our protests of fraternisation; all our threats of general strikes; all our carefully-built machinery of internationalism; all our hopes for the future? Were they all as sound and fury, signifying nothing?"

What a national chauvinist!.

do you not think there is a difference between the Connolly of 1914 and the Connolly of 1916.

Connolly turned his back on socialism when he put his name to the proclamation.

[Rafiq]

Also Devrim, wouldn't you think you're being a bit dismissive about the same Lenin who said this, in the same interview?


“With us, too, a large part of the youth is keen on ‘revising bourgeois conceptions and morality’ concerning sexual questions. And, I must add, a large part of our best, our most promising young people. What you said before is true. In the conditions created by the war and the revolution the old ideological values disappeared or lost their binding force. The new values are crystallising slowly, in struggle. In relations between man and man, between man and woman, feelings and thoughts are becoming revolutionised. New boundaries are being set up between the rights of the individual and the rights of the whole, in the duties of individuals. The matter is still in a complete chaotic ferment. The direction, the forces of development in the various contradictory tendencies are not yet clearly defined. It is a slow and often a very painful process of decay and growth. And particularly in the sphere of sexual relationships, of marriage and the family. The decay, the corruption, the filth of bourgeois marriage, with its difficult divorce, its freedom for the man, its enslavement for the woman, the repulsive hypocrisy of sexual morality and relations fill the most active minded and best people with deep disgust.

“The constraint of bourgeois marriage and the family laws of bourgeois states accentuate these evils and conflicts. It is the force of ‘holy property’. It sanctifies venality, degradation, filth. And the conventional hypocrisy of honest bourgeois society does the rest. People are beginning to protest against the prevailing rottenness and falseness, and the feelings of an individual change rapidly. The desire and urge to enjoyment easily attain unbridled force at a time when powerful empires are tottering, old forms of rule breaking down, when a whole social world is beginning to disappear. Sex and marriage forms, in their bourgeois sense, are unsatisfactory. A revolution in sex and marriage is approaching, corresponding to the proletarian revolution. It is easily comprehensible that the very involved complex of problems brought into existence should occupy the mind of the youth, as well as of women. They suffer particularly under present-day sexual grievances. They are rebelling with all the impetuosity of their years. We can understand that. Nothing could be more false than to preach monkish asceticism and the sanctity of dirty bourgeois morality to the youth. It is particularly serious if sex becomes the main mental concern during those years when it is physically most obvious. What fatal effects that has!

[ComradeOm]

Lenin's comment clearly opposes promiscuity in women (the "glass with a rim greasy from many lips"), among other things. That alone is enough to condemn itLenin opposed promiscuity in everyone. Not because he was a puritan or was wedded to some sexist notions of virtue/maidenhood but because he felt it distracted from the work of revolution. Which can be criticised as Chernyshevsky-esque asceticism (although Lenin specifically denied that*) but to construe it as "reactionary" and "shocking views on women" is just absurd.

And, for the record, all versions of this conversation that I have seen are gender neutral. The version I linked to on MIA, for example, reads as "But will the normal person in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips?" (Emphasis mine.) This is entirely in keeping with the rest of the article which, I stress again, does not single out women for criticism on sexual matters.

So we've got selective quoting, differing transcripts (perhaps Devrim can link to his source?) and automatic condemnation following deviation from an accepted line (in this case, 'free love'). "Several kinds of stupid"? How many times have we seen the same from Tankies on this site?

*Mind you, he was never the best judge on 'work life balance'. One of my favourite stories about him recalls an author going for a Sunday walk with him in the Swiss mountains. As described: "Out of breath after a steep climb, they reach the summit and sat down on a rock. The young woman thought that Vladimir Ilyich's intent gaze was taking in every smallest detail of the beautiful alpine landscape. She felt moved and excited, thinking of the poetry that was flooding his soul. All of a sudden he sighed and said, 'Those Mensheviks - they're really fouling things up for us!'"


do you not think there is a difference between the Connolly of 1914 and the Connolly of 1916. No. 1916 was perfectly in synch with his long-standing view on the national question. And whatever about the tactical wisdom of the Rising, it didn't happen in a vacuum. There was good reason to assume that the fight against the British was the same as the struggle for a Workers' Republic. Indeed, despite the complete capitulation of Labour post-Connolly, that's exactly how it was seen throughout much of the country.

1916 only becomes a betrayal if one assumes that Connolly was fighting for what eventually became the Free State. Which would be silly. But it would be equally so to argue that he should have shunned the IRB despite their common ground on the most immediate of issues. It feels right in this thread to quote Lenin on Ireland: "Whoever expects a 'pure' social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is."

[Geiseric]

I think he's dead-right in this case. Labelling someone's attitudes "reactionary" because they happen to deviate from your own line, and supporting this via snippets of out-of-context quotes, is pretty Stalinoid behaviour. At best Devrim was being disingenuous above by presenting an article in which Lenin reiterates his support for women's rights as evidence of Lenin's supposed sexism and "shocking" views on women.

The worst part is that he sites like that in nearly every argument.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The catholic, conservative, moralist, nationalist shitty kind. One of the earliest examples of a Proudhonist reactionary masquerading around as a Marxist.
It's funny. When you joined the board only a few weeks ago, you claimed to have only read a "lil Marx and Lenin" years ago, and all you've done since is parade around like the Queen of Marxism while shouting "Proudhonist!" at anyone you disagree with. Your act is getting tiresome, dear.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Wasn't he born to Irish immigrants to Scotland? I know that he was born there but I believe that he grew up in an irish neighborhood. I might be wrong.
Yes, he was born and raised in an Irish slum in Edinburgh. His parents were both from Ireland.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Connolly was a republican socialist with Marxist and syndicalist influences (probably more the latter). He wasn't a middle class intellectual theorist, he was first and foremost a worker with revolutionary instincts bred from his experiences.

Were his beliefs about some things conservative? Yes, but the same could be said for Marx or Lenin (which QueerVanguardTroll forgets when she tosses around "Proudhonist" charges).

One of his contributions was the idea that the class struggle and the national liberation struggle were one and the same, which has influenced generations of republican socialists.

[Devrim]

While I agree that is a casually sexist remark to say,...

I'd stop there if I were you before you start excusing it. I think it is quite interesting how much people will excuse some awful things that their heroes have said. Lenin had very conservative views about sex. Marx displayed some of the ingrained racist attitudes of his time. This doesn't invalidate everything else that either of them said or did, but we should acknowledge that both of them had some social attitudes that reflected bourgeois ideology of their times. It would be surprising if it were otherwise. They were both, after all, human beings who lived within their societies. I believe that Marx said something about dominant ideology.


I don't think the entire point Lenin was trying to make was reactionary - in that comparing having sex to drinking a glass of water is wholly ridiculous in that it fails to take into account sexual relations as an integral component of any social order, that it isn't that simple on a social, cultural and even psychological level. I think that such an analogy, under the guise of being liberationist or whatever, is actually quite sexually prude in the sense that it desperately seeks to trivialize sex, revoke it of all of it's dirty passions. It's essentially a dull kind of take on sexuality, really, who could ever get off if this is how we approached sex?

Lenin's point was basically that young people should stop going on about sex as their were more important things to do. He is quite clear about this:


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.

I think today we take it for granted that a revolutionary situation would bring about an explosion in discussion about all sort of issues, and one of them would be sexuality. If somebody on the left today presumed to talk like that the vast majority of the left would laugh at them and condemn them as an old reactionary, which on this question was essentially what Lenin was.


So I really don't know what about the above is supposed to be shocking us about Lenin's attitudes towards women. Particularly when the quotes that you've carefully cut out come from an interview on women's rights (http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1925/lenin/zetkin2.htm) with Zetkin, herself someone who knew a thing or two about the subject.

I don't think that they are 'carefully cut'. What would you have had me do, present the whole thing in a quote box on here? The interview does talk about a lot of other things. I think though that the quotes I used don't distort Lenin's views on this particular subject at all.


I think he's dead-right in this case. Labelling someone's attitudes "reactionary" because they happen to deviate from your own line, and supporting this via snippets of out-of-context quotes, is pretty Stalinoid behaviour. At best Devrim was being disingenuous above by presenting an article in which Lenin reiterates his support for women's rights as evidence of Lenin's supposed sexism and "shocking" views on women.

As I said above, I don't think that the quotes I used were out of context. Nor did I say Lenin was a sexist. I said he had "shocking views on women and sex", and that he "had reactionary sexual attitudes". I think that both of those things are true. I am also sure that he firmly believed in equality for women, as he saw it.


And, for the record, all versions of this conversation that I have seen are gender neutral. The version I linked to on MIA, for example, reads as "But will the normal person in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips?" (Emphasis mine.) This is entirely in keeping with the rest of the article which, I stress again, does not single out women for criticism on sexual matters.

So we've got selective quoting, differing transcripts (perhaps Devrim can link to his source?) and automatic condemnation following deviation from an accepted line (in this case, 'free love'). "Several kinds of stupid"? How many times have we seen the same from Tankies on this site?

To be honest I am not sure what source I used. I remembered the words from the quote, put it in Google, and brought it up. I have just checked though, and it is definitely quoted as I did it, it Maurice Brinton's 'The Irrational in Politics', which you can find on Libcom.

It is difficult to say which is correct. I would imagine that Brinton did his own translation. He was criticising Lenin, and I wouldn't put it beyond him to have mistranslated something to make a political point. On the other hand the version on MIA could equally have been translated incorrectly. There is a tendency these days to put things in a gender neutral way when doing translations. It is an American translation which possibly makes this even more likely. I presume that you would have to check the original if you wanted to be sure. If by chance I did quote it incorrectly, it was certainly accidental.

Either way, I don't think that it really changes anything about Lenin's attitude towards sex.


Anyway, what do you mean 'his class'? If you think that Lenin was divorced ideologically from the proletariat, nothing is farther from the truth. There was never this organic sexual liberation among the proletariat, this was something practiced solely and primarily by intellectuals. Workers, conversely, tended to be much more conservative and old fashioned. So if this is going to be an argument about class, I'm afraid it's one you will not win.

Yes, I do think his class played a role in determining his social attitudes. You can of course choose to believe that it had nothing to do with it whatsoever. As to who was discussing it Lenin explained:


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.
...
And let me add that this involves a considerable section of our best boys and girls, of our truly promising youth.

Here is is referring to the youth of the German and Russian parties, the "best...truly promising youth" in fact. Are we to believe that they were not at all workers, but all intellectuals. I think that the revolution oppened up a great discussion about everything, especially within the working class.

Alexandra Kollontai explains it thus:


The story today is very different. The “sexual crisis” does not spare even the peasantry. Like an infectious disease it “knows neither mansions to the rank nor status”. It spreads from the palaces and crowded quarters of the working class. looks in on the peaceful dwelling places of the petty bourgeoisie, and makes its way into the heart of the countryside. It claims victims in the villas of the European bourgeoisie. in the fusty basement of the worker’s family, and in the smoky hut of the peasant. There is “no defence, no bolt” against sexual conflict. To imagine that only the members of the well-off sections of society are floundering and are in the throes of these problems would he to make a grave mistake. The waves of the sexual crisis are sweeping over the threshold of workers’ homes, and creating situations of conflict that are as acute and heartfelt as the psychological sufferings of the “refined bourgeois world”. The sexual crisis no longer interests only the “propertied”. The problems of sex concern the largest section of society they – concern the working class in its daily life. It is therefore, hard to understand why this vital and urgent subject is treated with such indifference. This indifference is unforgivable. One of the tasks that con. front the working class in its attack on the “beleaguered fortress of the future” is undoubtedly the task of establishing more healthy and more joyful relationships between the sexes.

Nor am I sure that workers were 'more conservative' in Russia. In many countries they weren't, and sexual morality had far less influence on the working class than other classes. Of course there is a logic behind this, as at its root, this sort of morality was proprietary, and the workers, unlike the bourgeoisie had no property to pass on.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

There's been a few comments in this thread remarking at how we shouldn't be afraid to criticise Lenin. I agree. But this is not a licence for knee-jerk iconoclasm. I've aired many disagreements with Lenin's policies over the years but I don't criticise him when there's no grounds to. I don't believe there are in this case.


I don't think that they are 'carefully cut'. What would you have had me do, present the whole thing in a quote box on here? The interview does talk about a lot of other things. I think though that the quotes I used don't distort Lenin's views on this particular subject at all.You claimed that Lenin had "shocking views on women and sex" while presenting an article in which he quite clearly calls for complete equality between men and women (and detailing at length the importance of women's rights). When you went looking for Lenin's views on women why did you not pick almost any other passage from that article?

Well, you've answered that below. You picked up the quotes from an article that purported to show Lenin as a "puritan bigot". Hmmm.


As I said above, I don't think that the quotes I used were out of context. Nor did I say Lenin was a sexist. I said he had "shocking views on women and sex", and that he "had reactionary sexual attitudes". I think that both of those things are true. I am also sure that he firmly believed in equality for women, as he saw it.Explain the contradiction then. Did Lenin believe in full equality of men and women or did he have a quintessentially Victorian outlook that cast women in a passive role? Because the insinuation being made here is that Lenin perceived women who had numerous sexual relationships to be 'unclean'.

As for the idea that Lenin's ideas were "reactionary", that is hyperbolic nonsense. It starts from the position that 'free love' theories are inherently correct/progressive and that any deviation or failure to agree with these is reactionary. Which is pure intellectual wankery. (No pun intended.) A rejection of 'free love', and particularly the assumption that it is the one true Marxist position (OTMP), does not a reactionary make.

Lenin's asceticism is more open to criticism (and this extended far beyond sex) but this was also common amongst the younger Bolsheviks (particularly abstinence from alcohol) and no more 'reactionary' than, say, the straight edge eejits of the last decade. More to the point, this stance says absolutely nothing about women; it is not gender specific.

So, again, I really don't see what is shocking here.


If by chance I did quote it incorrectly, it was certainly accidental.I've no doubt. But I'm equally certain that what struck most readers of the quote here was the insertion of gender roles into the statement; turning a disagreement with serial polygamy into a Victorian sneer on sullied female virtue. Without that element the line becomes entirely harmless: a rejection of the 'glass of water' theory on its own terms.

[Devrim]

You claimed that Lenin had "shocking views on women and sex" while presenting an article in which he quite clearly calls for complete equality between men and women (and detailing at length the importance of women's rights). When you went looking for Lenin's views on women why did you not pick almost any other passage from that article?

Yes, it his views on "women and sex", not "women, and sex". I don't think that Lenin was against women's rights. I think he had shocking views about "women and sex", which are quite of his time, and class.

Or do you think it is OK to suggest that women (and whether the quote is gendered or not, we know that we are talking about women here. Nobody has ever suggested this about men) are sullied by having had more than one sexual partner?


Explain the contradiction then. Did Lenin believe in full equality of men and women or did he have a quintessentially Victorian outlook that cast women in a passive role? Because the insinuation being made here is that Lenin perceived women who had numerous sexual relationships to be 'unclean'.

Yes, I think that is exactly what he held. I don't see this as an unsolvable contradiction though. I know many people today, who think, on a political level, that there shouldn't be discrimination against homosexuals, but think personally that it is disgusting, a mental illness, or a bourgeois deviation, or even all three. Why should not Lenin have supported the notion of female equality, and yet still hold to some of the dominant ideas of his age?

Just as a very minor example, there is a piece in the text, which talks about a man 'helping' his wife. Now in my parents generation socialists talked like this. Today, it would be seen as a pretty sexist comment.


As for the idea that Lenin's ideas were "reactionary", that is hyperbolic nonsense. It starts from the position that 'free love' theories are inherently correct/progressive and that any deviation or failure to agree with these is reactionary. Which is pure intellectual wankery. (No pun intended.) A rejection of 'free love', and particularly the assumption that it is the one true Marxist position (OTMP), does not a reactionary make.

I don't think so. Nor am I putting forward a 'free love' position, or saying there is a 'one true Marxist position'. I just happen to think that Lenin's position that women, and it is women, are sullied by having had other sexual partners is reactionary. I also think that Lenin's opposition to discussions of sexual questions is in no way progressive.


I've no doubt. But I'm equally certain that what struck most readers of the quote here was the insertion of gender roles into the statement; turning a disagreement with serial polygamy into a Victorian sneer on sullied female virtue. Without that element the line becomes entirely harmless: a rejection of the 'glass of water' theory on its own terms.

Well until somebody finds the original German, it could well be the deliberate omission of gender roles to make it seem 'more modern'. You don't know at all that gender was inserted. It may well have been take out.

Of course the statement is about women though. You know it as well as I do.

Devrim

[robbo203]

I think it is important to distinguish between the vanguard as a sociological phenomenon i.e. the most militant, class conscious and revolutionary-minded section of the working class - and vanguardism as a political theory.

No one in their right mind would deny the existence of a vanguard. Revolutionary socialists comprise a tiny minority of the working class which almost by defintion makes them a vanguard. That is a sociological fact whether we like or not. Vanguardism is something different, however. People misunderstand when they think that to criticise vanguardism is to criticise -for want of a better expression - the idea of "leading by example", of being militant in the interests of fellow workers etc. I dont have any problem with that but that is not the problem. The problem is quite simply is that vanguardism means more than just that. In fact the essence of vanguardism consists in the idea that the vanguard , or the enlightened minoroity or whatever you want to call it, should first capture political power before the majority of workers had become socialist and from that position of power should seek to run in society in the interests of workers and, at the same time, to educate the majority into becoming socialists.

This is the Leninist position and is one of the main things that distinguish Leninists from Marxists who insist that the emanicipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. It cannot be done for you by an enlightened elite. You simply cannot have a socialist society without a majority wanting and understanding it

If you cannot have socialism without a socialist majority then it follows that by default you are left with capitalism. And capitalism can only be operated in one way - in the interests of capital and against the interests of the exploited majority. That is why the Bolsheviks ended up operating a system of state run capitalism which Lenin candidly acknowleged would be a "step forward" for Russia. The Bolshevik revolution was thus a capitalist revolution that inaugurated precisely such a system of society.

The inevitable outcome was a fundamental disconnect between the whole Leninist project and the interests of the workers themselves which widened over time. Doubtless many of the old Bolsheviks were knowledgeable in their understanding of socialism and sincere in their desire to see it come into being. But they were a tiny tiny fraction of the population in that respect . Even Lenin admitted this on several occasions.

The Bolsheviks swept to power not on the basis of mass socialist consciousness - the great majority of workers were clearly not revolutionary socialist, let alone the great majority of the population who were not even workers at all but peasants - and so by default had to administer capitalism in the interests of capital (how else?). The rest, as they say, is history. The whole soviet expereince served, probably more than any other single factor I can think of or to besmich the good name of socialism, drag it through the mud and set back the cause of revolutionary socialism by decades

And a good deal of the blame for this must be laid at the feet of that utterly misguided policy of "vanguardism"

[ComradeOm]

...and whether the quote is gendered or not, we know that we are talking about women here. Nobody has ever suggested this about men...Which is a massive leap that is completely contrary to the piece itself. There is absolutely nothing in those words (or indeed the original 'glass of water' theory) to suggest that Lenin was singling out women. Indeed the one actual disapproving example that he does give of this behaviour is of a male comrade.

Your logic is entirely circular. Lenin was a reactionary Victorian and therefore his statement refers to women; this implicit reference to women confirms that Lenin was a reactionary old goat. It's nonsense.

If you're going to assert this then at least have the decency to dig out the original German, rather than simply making assumptions based on Brinton. You know what, never mind. I've done it below. Spoiler alert: you're wrong.


Yes, I think that is exactly what he held. I don't see this as an unsolvable contradiction though. I know many people today, who think, on a political level, that there shouldn't be discrimination against homosexuals, but think personally that it is disgusting, a mental illness, or a bourgeois deviation, or even all three. Why should not Lenin have supported the notion of female equality, and yet still hold to some of the dominant ideas of his age?An impossible question to answer. How to prove that someone secretly harboured thoughts contrary to their repeatedly stated position and actions?

Was Lenin secretly an antisemite? He certainly railed against that crime but then it would have been typical for 'his class and time' to distrust Jews. And Kollontai, did she, despite all her actions and words, secretly yearn for a wealthy husband and a quiet life as a housewife? How would you like me to prove this doublethink?


Well until somebody finds the original German, it could well be the deliberate omission of gender roles to make it seem 'more modern'. You don't know at all that gender was inserted. It may well have been take out.Who do you think mistranslated it? Some anonymous translators working for International Publishers or Brinton, setting out to make Lenin out to be a "puritan bigot". Actually, enough nonsense. Let's go a-digging.

Here's (http://www.marxists.org/deutsch/archiv/zetkin/1925/erinnerungen/lenin.html) the original German piece. The relevant paragraph is below with the key passage highlighted:


Die berühmte Glaswassertheorie halte ich für vollständig unmarxistisch und obendrein für unsozial. Im sexuellen Leben wirkt sich nicht bloß das Naturgegebene aus, auch das Kulturgewordene, mag es nun hoch oder niedrig sein. Engels hat in seinem „Ursprung der Familie“ darauf hingewiesen, wie bedeutsam es ist, dass sich der allgemeine Geschlechtstrieb zur individuellen Geschlechtsliebe entwickelt und verfeinert hat. Die Beziehungen der Geschlechter zueinander sind doch nicht einfach ein Ausdruck des Wechselspiels zwischen der Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft und einem physischen Bedürfnis, das durch die physiologische Betrachtung gedanklich isoliert wird. Rationalismus, nicht Marxismus wäre es, die Umwandlung dieser Beziehungen für sich und losgelöst aus ihrem Zusammenhange mit der gesamten Ideologie unmittelbar auf die wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen der Gesellschaft zurückführen zu wollen. Nun gewiss! Durst will befriedigt sein. Aber wird sich der normale Mensch unter normalen Bedingungen in den Straßenkot legen und aus einer Pfütze trinken? Oder auch nur aus einem Glas, dessen Rand fettig von vielen Lippen ist? Wichtiger als alles ist aber die soziale Seite. Das Wassertrinken ist wirklich individuell. Zur Liebe gehören zwei, und ein drittes, ein neues Leben entsteht. In diesem Tatbestand liegt ein Gesellschaftsinteresse, eine Pflicht gegen die Gemeinschaft.And here we can clearly see that Zetkin records Lenin as using 'Mensch', which translates as 'person' or 'human'. This is as opposed to the gender-loaded term 'Mann'. So, whether deliberately or not, Brinton mistranslated and the MIA version is correct. There we go, mystery solved.


Of course the statement is about women though. You know it as well as I do.You were saying?

[Devrim]

And here we can clearly see that Zetkin records Lenin as using 'Mensch', which translates as 'person' or 'human'. This is as opposed to the gender-loaded term 'Mann'. So, whether deliberately or not, Brinton mistranslated and the MIA version is correct. There we go, mystery solved.

If you look at German dictionaries, and I have just looked at three or four, you will see that they also offer the alternative 'man'. I am not a German speaker, so I am not sure how this word is used. It does have a masculine article though I am not sure what this means. If it does have both meanings then, both translations would be correct. Brinton has translated it that way because he wanted to criticise Lenin, and International Publishers have translated it that way because it casts Lenin in a more favourable light.


You were saying?

I was saying it is obviously about women. People don't talk like that about men.


There is absolutely nothing in those words (or indeed the original 'glass of water' theory) to suggest that Lenin was singling out women. Indeed the one actual disapproving example that he does give of this behaviour is of a male comrade.

Except that the word is unclear (maybe a German speaker can confirm it), and people don't talk that way about men. Indeed as you point out the example that he gives is about a male, going round "l[ying] down in the gutter and drink[ing]...out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips" as it were. This doesn't back up your argument.

Devrim

[M-L-C-F]

What kind of Marxist was he? A damn good one, that's what.

[ComradeOm]

If you look at German dictionaries, and I have just looked at three or four, you will see that they also offer the alternative 'man'. I am not a German speaker, so I am not sure how this word is usedAs a secondary usage, much as one might say that 'man has walked on the moon'. 'Mann' in contrast means 'man' with male connotations, ie as opposed to 'woman'. In German if you want to say 'the man drank from the glass' then you will use 'der Mann'. Simple as. Try putting 'der Mensch trank aus dem Glas' into Google Translate and see what you get.

This is not a case of different shades of right. Brinton's translation is inaccurate. You're only upholding it because it agrees with your stance.


I was saying it is obviously about women. People don't talk like that about men.No, old Victorians with reactionary and sexist views on sex don't talk like that about men. Again, you're working backwards from a position and fitting the evidence (and translations) around that. Which is very sloppy thinking. It only fits with the tenor of the piece if you mistranslate sections and misconstrue the rest.


Indeed as you point out the example that he gives is about a male, going round "l[ying] down in the gutter and drink[ing]...out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips" as it were. This doesn't back up your argumentThe full passage deals with why young people should dial back on the promiscuity, with a male comrade presented as a criticism. You've chosen to interpret that as evidence of Lenin's supposed sexist attitudes towards women. This is absurd. You're really clutching at straws now.

[Devrim]

I asked a native German speaker user on here about it, who said:


It could somehow have both meanings. But I'd highly suppose that in this context, it rather refers to men.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

I asked a native German speaker user on here about it, who said:



Devrim

Great. You managed to hijack this thread with your nonsense. I'm surprised if anybody other than you and comrade om are even paying attention.

[ComradeOm]

I asked a native German speaker user on here about it, who said:The "context" being Lenin as a reactionary. Yeah, that'll fly.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No, old Victorians with reactionary and sexist views on sex don't talk like that about men. Again, you're working backwards from a position and fitting the evidence (and translations) around that. Which is very sloppy thinking. It only fits with the tenor of the piece if you mistranslate sections and misconstrue the rest.

All of this ignores that:

(1) old Victorians with reactionary and sexist views on sex were the norm in Lenin's time and place (seriously, even people like Kollontai, who has become some sort of feminist icon for... reasons... held views that a bourgeois conservative would think twice before spouting today);

(2) his other pronouncements about sex are similarly conservative. Particularly his obsession with the reproductive function of sex.

[ComradeOm]

(1) old Victorians with reactionary and sexist views on sex were the norm in Lenin's time and placeWhich is little more than thinly disguised determinism: we can assume that Lenin held "reactionary" attitudes because he lived in a time in which such attitudes were not uncommon? It's always dubious when applying such broad generalisations to a single individual and just silly when that individual has made a career out of breaking with the past. Or do we also think that Lenin was a secret Kadet and Great Russian nationalist, as his background also apparently demands?

If we continue to use the same logic then Kollontai (a mere two years younger than Lenin) would have aspired to nothing more than being a housewife. Ditto for the rest of the Bolshevik leadership - can they also be assumed to have shared backwards sexual views because of their Victorian upbringings? In which case it becomes absolutely amazing that these Bolsheviks, including Lenin, came to head what was unquestionably the most liberal regime in the world at the time.

So no, I completely reject the automatic assumption that Lenin, who was a firm advocate of women's rights, can be said to have held "reactionary" views on women and sexsimply because of his time.

(Besides, this isn't some muzhik we're talking about. Lenin had spent the previous decade hanging around the shabbier ends of London, Paris and Geneva. He was no babe.)


(2) his other pronouncements about sex are similarly conservative. Particularly his obsession with the reproductive function of sex."Obsession"? Really? What Lenin was doing in the above article was rejecting the idea that sex was a purely natural or trivial activity (ie, like the glass of water) but had real social ramifications. The most obvious of which being, in a society in which birth control was essentially unknown, pregnancy and childbirth. Pointing that out was hardly "reactionary" and comes nowhere near to some sort of insistence that sex involve procreation.

And as a historical aside, he was proven correct. One of the major justifications for the Stalinist sexual counter-revolution was the call to strengthen the family structure from thousands of single Soviet mothers who had been essentially abandoned. In hindsight, the combination of liberal laws, a culture of promiscuity and much older social norms conspired to (re)produce different forms of hardship for women.


-----

What Lenin can be criticised for, and I've been open about this above, is a certain asceticism that viewed sex and relationships as little more than distractions from the revolutionary work of the day. But this is a gender-neutral distaste; that of an obsessive political anorak rather than some outmoded view of women and their role in the bedroom. This sort of 'revolutionary asceticism' has been common in various revolutionary milieus.

And even then Lenin never went so far as to suggest that there was no room for relationships in life; he was never a puritan in his attitudes to sex. Such moderation might seem a bit odd today (although its nowhere near dead) but hardly deserves the label of "reactionary" in 2014, never mind 1914.

[Devrim]

It could somehow have both meanings. But I'd highly suppose that in this context, it rather refers to men. The "context" being Lenin as a reactionary. Yeah, that'll fly.

But you have spent most of the thread arguing that Brinton mistranslated it:


As a secondary usage, much as one might say that 'man has walked on the moon'. 'Mann' in contrast means 'man' with male connotations, ie as opposed to 'woman'. In German if you want to say 'the man drank from the glass' then you will use 'der Mann'. Simple as. Try putting 'der Mensch trank aus dem Glas' into Google Translate and see what you get.

This is not a case of different shades of right. Brinton's translation is inaccurate. You're only upholding it because it agrees with your stance.

Now a German speaker says that both are possible translations are possible, your argument seems to be that you could only make that conclusion if you were somehow biased.

For your information, I didn't ask somebody that I am political close to, nor do I know their views on Lenin. I just asked someone who I knew was a native German speaker.

Could I ask if you are a German speaker, and if so how proficient you are? Because you have been vehemently insisting that this is a mistranslation based on a certain amount of malice, but now it seems that both are possible.

Devrim

[Zoroaster]

To renalenin:

Thanks for the info. I'm not a Leninist myself, but I've got a lot of respect for the guy, mainly due to my Irish heritage.

[pastradamus]

If you were not yet furnished with the works of Connolly send me a PM. He was AMAZING! A truly great man. A humanitarian. A fighter. A rebel. " The powerful are only powerful because we are on our knees". He makes me proud to be an Irish Man and a Marxist. :)