Lenin on morality

[peaccenicked]

Lenin teaching to the youth leagues
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...1920/oct/02.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/oct/02.htm)

[lenin]

er...ok...i don't see what that has to do with me?

[peaccenicked]

You quote lenin
'when it comes to creating communism, there are no morales'
That absolutely contradicts Lenin's view of morality.
This is the only place I remember lenin writing on the subject. What is your source?

[lenin]

i have researched the quote and i have read conflicting views about it. some say lenin said it, some say stalin said it.
lenin definatly said something like 'politician have no morals' so maybe someone has taken that the wrong way. to be fair, it does seem more of a stalinist type quote!
anyway, its not like lenin was the most moral person! he did reject the vote of the NA and seize power! he did kill a damn lot of people! obviously not in the same league as uncle joe, but lenin was no saint!

[peaccenicked]

Lenin writes"Communist morality is that which serves this struggle and unites the working people against all exploitation, against all petty private property; for petty property puts into the hands of one person that which has been created by the labour of the whole of society. In our country the land is common property"
Lenin was no saint, at least he was fighting in the midst of a revolution and did not kill off the bolsheviks, unlike stalin who murdered their families as well.

[El Che]

Yea and well all know that if lenin said something then it must be true, dont we? The word of Lenin. What a crock of sh##.

[lenin]

what the fuck are you talking about el che? lenin founded the fucking movement of communism, i think he may have an idea about it don't you! marx was a philosipher, it was lenin who put the world revolution into practice! show some fucking respect!

[peaccenicked]

Lenin is not god but if someone is misquoting him. history demands the justice of setting the record straight.

[El Che]

First of all, your "communist movement" is not my "communist movement". Secondly I reject Lenin`s input on the subject of Socialism. And thridly I wasn`t desrespecting Lenin I was desrespecting your subservient cult of personality stand point that stops you from thinking for your self.

[peaccenicked]

First of all the communist movement is broad.
If you want to take Leninists out of the equation.
All you have is marxists who are not trotskyists.
There are so many of them all in different groups
Smaller groups than the trots.
Reject Lenins input.
I dont think you could quote me anything Lenin says about socialism.
How can you not be disrespecting Lenin, if you reject his input.
And I like Lenin am opposed to the cult of the personality.

[El Che]

How can I not disrespecting Lenin by rejecting his input?

Am I obligated to accept Lenin`s input? What possible interest could I have in Vanguardism and Democratic Centralism? What relevance do they have today?

I have onced asked this question to which I recieved no reply: "what does one bring on board when one assumes one`s self as Leninist"

I`ll ask you again peace, in what way does Lenin help us to achive a better future, in what way did his contributions advance Socialism per-se. I`m not asking this because I wish to be spoon feed, but rather I have read Lenin, and must say I find nothing of interest, nothing deep, nothing of great value. If you will not tell me now were Lenin`s value lies, then I must conclude you defend him only to be stuburn.

[peaccenicked]

Lenin, is so diverse in his achievements in philosophy and political economy that he cannot be ignored by even post-modernists.
You are considered an academic light weight without the ouvre of Lenin at least behind you with all of the subtlities grasped.
When derridda wants to say something new. I know where he goes and it is the same for many of them.
40 volumes, some of which are ground breaking.
The development of capitalism in russia.
Imperialism the highest phase of capitalism
What is to be Done?
The State and Revolution
Tolstoy as a mirror of the Russian Revolution.
Lenin's notes on Hegels Logic.
Empiro criticism and imperiomonism Ch 2
His work is littered with gems of illumination, that prepared Lukacs, Gramsci, Satre, and many of the Frankfurt school.
Lenin is also the most blackened name in human history.
He was the single most responsible person for the end of WorldWar1, how many millions of lives where saved.
The man was the greatest thinker since Marx.
The clearest and most consistent interpretator of Marx.
Democratic centralism and vanguardism are mere storms in a tea cup.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:51 am on June 10, 2002)

[El Che]

Well, I will not say that you are wrong, but if I were asked to make a bet, I would bet you are so.

Let me bring a particular work into question, from Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism:

"We must now try to sum up, to draw together the threads of what has been said above on the subject of imperialism. Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed themselves in all spheres. Economically, the main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly."

Is it me or this stuff a load`o bollocks?

Firstly Imperialism is not exclusive to Capitalism, you can have the former without the latter, and indeed you did. Lenin especificaly states that Imperialism is a "very high stage" of Capitalism, and yet you can have political and economic Imperialism without Capitalism altogether. I feel the most he could say is that Capitalism is economic Imperialism that dispences political Imperialism, and even then we all know that a political/military threat is always present if the economicaly dominated nation wishes to create too many obstacles to the dominante nation. Secondly I fail to see how Imperialism only comes into play at a "high stage" of Capitalism. If you`ve studied the concept of world-economy as described by Sismondi, you can easly understand that Imperialism is present from day 1 of Capitalism, they are one and the same. They only thing you can, register is a change in scale. Aslo Lenin see monoply (i.e of economic agents) as pre-condiction to Imperialism as "high stage" of Capitalism (i.e the Imperialism of his time) this is confusing, both theoreticaly and practicaly. We have the same Imperialism today, though perhaps less brutal (they dont need brutality anyway, they have propaganda!), and you do not Monopolies.

[vox]

"You are considered an academic light weight without the ouvre of Lenin at least behind you with all of the subtlities grasped."

Umm, maybe by other Leninists, but not by anyone else. Academic fashions are always interesting to me, but c'mon, p, this is just wrong.

Marx? Yes. Lenin? No.

vox: the anti-derrida

[Ernest Everhard]

bravo vox, you know i missed you, now that you're back I think I might contribute more again.

[peaccenicked]

El che, do not confuse imperialism with colonialism.
although some aspects of imperialism contain embryonic features of imperialism.
To quote a review
''Marx had asserted that the capitalist mode of production, though dominant, retained numerous vestiges of pre-capitalist economic forms; Lenin extended this concept, stating that imperialism could not exist without a broad base of pre-monopoly and even pre-capitalist economic forms: the monopolies were destined to function alongside small-scale manufacture and individual forms of capitalist production.''
This is a starting point for understanding multi nationals.

On a broader note.
The influence of Lenin on modern philosophy cannot be over estimated, Lenin's conclusions are so basic to an understanding of the modern era, that many of them are mere assumptions for marxist and marxist influenced philosophers.
No matter, how far these philosphers become removed from Marx.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:53 am on June 10, 2002)

[Capitalist Fighter]

In reference to imperialism please read by posts in the "Tales of Class Mobility" thread.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...ic=252&start=10 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=252&start=10)