It is with the utmost contempt—and the utmost levity—that the German “Left” Communists reply to this question in the negative.Their arguments? In the passage quoted above we read:
“. . . All reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle, which have become historically and politically obsolete, must be emphatically rejected. . . .”
This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness, and is patently wrong. “Reversion” to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it! How, then, can one speak of “reversion”? Is this not an empty phrase?
These German communists are talking a lot of shit for a party that hasn’t even created a DotP yet
I do want to point out here that what Lenin is saying is that it is silly to argue for not engaging with electoralist politics in a bourgeois state as a marxist.
The average hexbearian is probably closer to the left communist side than Lenin on this issue.
Yeah, he argued to use the visibility of liberal “democracy” to highlight its flaws and push socialist ideas onto the people, while recognising how useless it is for reforming our way into socialism. At least that’s how I understand it, he wasn’t saying it was completely useless and we should abandon it entirely, but use it as a source of free publicity basically, talk about it and how it won’t provide for the people, use it to agitate and educate.
Understand the system and the walls put in place to prevent socialists from gaining power within it, so we can use it to our advantage instead, like everything else, the bourgeois won’t play by their own rules, so we shouldn’t either, we should use every advantage that we can get, because we’ll need it in order to overthrow capital. What we need to is what gets us a successful revolution, not what feels good or allows us to have intact ideals.
I could be wrong though, sometimes I find Lenin so easy to understand (in the broad strokes at least) that I think I might be getting it wrong, because it seems so obvious that I can’t understand how there’s so much room for argument about what he “really meant”.
I think people tend to believe Theory is hard to read and not fun. Capital is hard to read and not fun. Everything else is fairly breezy and they tend to throw a few jokes in. If you can read an effort post, you can read theory.
Reading capital atm, can confirm that it is hard and not fun. The amount of times I have had to reread an entire page because I simply did not comprehend it at all is staggering. Very informative and necessary read though. I am only 160 pages in and I already feel like my grasp of marxist economics is significantly more concrete.
Dude wrote a whole book calling his contemporaries in Europe baby-brains. This bit is always darkly funny to me, knowing how correct Lenin was:
These German communists are talking a lot of shit for a party that hasn’t even created a DotP yet
I do want to point out here that what Lenin is saying is that it is silly to argue for not engaging with electoralist politics in a bourgeois state as a marxist.
The average hexbearian is probably closer to the left communist side than Lenin on this issue.
Yeah, he argued to use the visibility of liberal “democracy” to highlight its flaws and push socialist ideas onto the people, while recognising how useless it is for reforming our way into socialism. At least that’s how I understand it, he wasn’t saying it was completely useless and we should abandon it entirely, but use it as a source of free publicity basically, talk about it and how it won’t provide for the people, use it to agitate and educate.
Understand the system and the walls put in place to prevent socialists from gaining power within it, so we can use it to our advantage instead, like everything else, the bourgeois won’t play by their own rules, so we shouldn’t either, we should use every advantage that we can get, because we’ll need it in order to overthrow capital. What we need to is what gets us a successful revolution, not what feels good or allows us to have intact ideals.
I could be wrong though, sometimes I find Lenin so easy to understand (in the broad strokes at least) that I think I might be getting it wrong, because it seems so obvious that I can’t understand how there’s so much room for argument about what he “really meant”.
You’re spot on
In all fairness, he wasnt talking about contemporary America.
I think people tend to believe Theory is hard to read and not fun. Capital is hard to read and not fun. Everything else is fairly breezy and they tend to throw a few jokes in. If you can read an effort post, you can read theory.
Reading capital atm, can confirm that it is hard and not fun. The amount of times I have had to reread an entire page because I simply did not comprehend it at all is staggering. Very informative and necessary read though. I am only 160 pages in and I already feel like my grasp of marxist economics is significantly more concrete.
You csn feel your brain get bigger as you read and its rewarding for that.
You would know, GalaxyBrain.
What you would know seems like a crime against nature, Comrade Sharkfucker
Nuh uh
I dont condone the practice but I cant help but admire the bravery.