/lit/ - Literature

Depends on what he was writing about
Read something from him about farming economics in southern Russia or some shit and it was boring as fuck, dropped it
Read I think State and Revolution and that was pretty interesting so

>>17610021
>>17610283
he's alright, just don't degenerate into a stalinist, always go left if you're gonna be a socialist.

>>17610021
You know that Stalin raped Lenin in the ass?

>>17610357
Before or after he was in a wheelchair?

>>17610373
Before
Whats you think, how his received neurosyphilis?

>>17610354
but stalin was a leftist, he purged the party of counterrevolutionaries

>>17610021
His writing is a collection of arrogant polemics.
The cynical language is typical for dishonest ideologues who speak not from the heart but from the program.

You will find roughly the same "depth" in his work as you would find on the feed of some twenty-year old twitter communist.
Which isn't much of a surprise. A lot of Lenins work was written at a state of philosophical immaturity and his way into the field of political extremism, forbade any deeper reflection at later stages of his life.

In short, a spoiled brat - best read only to better estimate equally spoiled brats that came after him.

Dolboeb

>>17610593
red fascism

>>17610021
Useful only as historical documents to demonstrate the discrepancies between his professed beliefs and the coup he actually carried out. Lenin and Trotsky were sociopathic monsters, but if there is anything to say in their defense it is that they were the only men on the left with balls. They could never have done what they did if Russia (tsarist or revolutionary) had been led by more intelligent men, it was such a preventable tragedy.

>>17612302
> Everything I don’t like is fascism the more I don’t like it the more fascist it is.

You people are so fucking dumb I swear to go you people most have brain damage.

>>17610021
There was an anon from a few years back, an academic of some sort. He was assigned a task to read it all. He said he regretted it.

>>17612417
An authoritarian capitalist is fascist enough for me.
I just heard someone call China Stalinism 2.0
All apt, and not socialism, not communism

>>17610021
He's fucking hilarious, every now and again I read his critique of left-wing communism just to laugh at him btfoing dumb, stupid leftoids.
>t. gigarightoid
>>17612302
That's social democracy retard.
>>17610729
You have never read Lenin. Whatever may be said about him, he was exceedingly intelligent and a brilliant political strategist. Comparing him to current "communists" is an insult beyond comprehension.

Basically all Marxian writers except Marx, Engels and maybe Postone are not worth reading.

>>17612782
>An authoritarian capitalist is fascist enough for me.
Honey you're smarter than that.

>>17612836
State centralized capitalism? “Corporatism”?
What hair would you like to split? I don’t like their hierarchies. Quite unjustifiable.

>>17612861
State capitalism is transitionary to socialism.
Hierarchy is a social construct.

>>17613670
So glad you’re here to tell us these things

>>17613679
Glad to help!

>>17610021
Very dated
>>17612830
Based Posteonebro

>>17613670
>Hierarchy is a social construct.
So it shouldn't be abolished? Lol

>>17613670
>Hierarchy is a social construct
Very good, now would you please face the wall and close your eyes.

>>17613715
Postone*

>>17613718
You can't "abolish" social constructs and therefore you cannot abolish heiarchy
It only exists as a concept through the mind. Abolishing hierarchy in reality is just abolishing a certain mode of thought and in reality is just a kind of ressentiment.
Sometimes we think we are above someone, other times below, other times the same. Society fills in the gaps of what it believes to be true.
For me I am the most powerful person in the world, I can do anything. Nobody exists who is above me in any way no matter how much money they have or what credentials they hold.
>>17613724
Do you shake your fist at nature because lions have claws and you do not?

>>17613718
No, it can be abolished by ignoring it

>>17613670
Hierarchy is an inevitable fact of human life. Some people are ugly, some people are beautiful. Some people are smart, some people are dumb.

>>17613751
>Do you shake your fist at nature because lions have claws and you do not?
No, because I have access to guns and spears. Lions do not. The second someone caves your skull in with a hammer you will realize that hierarchy is an objectively real thing, and to dismiss it is folly.

>>17613753
Socialism and egoism are contradictory

When do you think a revolution would happen in a major first world country?

>>17613770
Shows what you know

>>17613784
As it slides into second place

>>17613767
>Some people are ugly, some people are beautiful. Some people are smart, some people are dumb.
That depends entirely where you are looking from, it's entirely relative unless the magnitude of difference is overblown. People are smarter and others more beautiful in different ways.
>>17613769
>No, because I have access to guns and spears. Lions do not.
I was alluding to others having things which you yourself do not have and you being angry over it.
>The second someone caves your skull in with a hammer you will realize that hierarchy is an objectively real thing, and to dismiss it is folly.
This is not hierarchy, should some random insane person assault and kill you in the street with a hammer is he "above you" in any meaningful way?

>>17613793
The individual ego may not be contradictory to socialism but it can certainly be against it.
What we having going on now is the egoism of the wealthy.

>>17613804
Egotism. They’re as spooked as the Pope

>>17613800
>it's entirely relative
No it's not. Do you think the average Phd is as smart as the average cashier?
>People are smarter and others more beautiful in different ways.
Says who? It would seem quite a miracle that all faculties are distributed in such a way as to be completely balanced.
Do you think people are equally tall too? Equally broad shouldered? Do you think people are equally prone to diseases? Equal personalities?

>>17613793
Do you have any predictions what a revolution would be like in the US?

>>17613850
>No it's not. Do you think the average Phd is as smart as the average cashier?
Given the current standards of education such a fact would not surprise me in the least.
>Says who?
Says I and many other intelligent people. Something something judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree ring a bell?
The intelligence possessed by a macro scientist and the intelligence possessed by a micro scientist are both great but either cannot do eachothers work whilist both being "smart".
My rejection of hierarchy as some tangible quality that always has an "above or below" is not an affirmation of everything being equal. Rather that what you think is higher up or "more valuable" is purely subjective. 100 million votes or 100 thousand rifles? Up to you.

>>17610021
he’s fucking hilarious and shits on everybody. 10/10 author.

>>17613892
>Given the current standards of education such a fact would not surprise me in the least.
It's amazing how much one has to deny factual reality in order to fit their ideology. So to you the hypothesis "astrophysicists are just as smart as cashiers" is more probable than "astrophysicists tend to be quite smarter than cashiers" ? Like, seriously, not just to win a debate on the internet. You literally believe that?
>rathat what you think is higher up or "more valuable" is purely subjective
So we now have moved from the bailey to the motte. "I don't actually believe in equality in properties I just think there's no objective way to tell which one is preferrable!".

Except it's not that good of a motte. Do you think being dumb is equally as valuable as being intelligent? Given the choice of your children being dumb or intelligent would you choose dumb? How about healthy vs prone to diseases? What about looking like say Brad Pitt vs looking like pic related.

I mean the votes vs rifles may sound really shmart when you talk with your marxist friends but it's just simply not analogous.

>>17613921
>It's amazing how much one has to deny factual reality in order to fit their ideology. So to you the hypothesis "astrophysicists are just as smart as cashiers" is more probable than "astrophysicists tend to be quite smarter than cashiers" ? Like, seriously, not just to win a debate on the internet. You literally believe that?
Like I said, smart at doing what? The kind of genius that makes someone an astrophysicist is not the same kind of genius that makes someone a military general.
>"I don't actually believe in equality in properties I just think there's no objective way to tell which one is preferrable!".
It depends entirely on the task, perhaps in certain tasks one may be "objectively better" but you made no mention of this and that's why I said it depends on the situation and the observer, see: subjective.
>Except it's not that good of a motte. Do you think being dumb is equally as valuable as being intelligent?
As I have previously said you can be smart in some things but be dumb in others.
>How about healthy vs prone to diseases?
If everyone has a disease and they don't recognize it as such, is it a disease? Certain diseases were seen at such at one point, but not in another.
>I mean the votes vs rifles may sound really shmart when you talk with your marxist friends but it's just simply not analogous.
I am not a Marxist and it certainly is comparable because again, it depends on the situation

>>17613800
>should some random insane person assault and kill you in the street with a hammer is he "above you" in any meaningful way?
Yes, as he has established total physical control over you. That is an aspect of hierarchy.

>>17613971
>Yes, as he has established total physical control over you.
So he is above me in this particular situation but is he always above me? Should there be a fight through different means but I come out the victor in that fight does that still mean he is above me?
If not, we go back to my point of hierarchy being subjective...

>>17613958
>Like I said, smart at doing what?
Set aside that there is a general component to intelligent which just refutes everything you said. Let's pretened it doesn't exist: do you actually think every single aspect of intelligence is balanced among the population in such a way that there is no combination of person A and B where A is better at everything than B or better at more things than B and equal at all others? Like, seriously? What explains this perfect balance you speak of? Because it seems to me you need nothing short of a God but I'll welcome whatever mechanism you explain.
>If everyone has a disease and they don't recognize it as such, is it a disease?
How is this sophistry relevant? You have person A and person B. Person A suffers from a disease and nothing else. Person B doesn't suffer from anything. All else is equal. Do you prefer to be person A or person B? Would you rather be predisposed to ankylosing spondylitis or not, all else equal?
The vacuity of relativism is truly amazing.

>>17614005
>Set aside that there is a general component to intelligent
There is not one "general intelligence".
>do you actually think every single aspect of intelligence is balanced among the population in such a way that there is no combination of person A and B where A is better at everything than B
Unlikely, "everything" is a strong word. You really like speaking in absolutes, don't you?
>Like, seriously? What explains this perfect balance you speak of?
Where did I speak of perfect balance, I simply said there are different qualities that are valuable in certain situations and not in others.
>Because it seems to me you need nothing short of a God
Speaking.
>How is this sophistry relevant?
The sophist is you, a disease is a deviation from the common state. Cancer is a disease but cancer itself is its own procreation and propagation of its own life. Gambling is considered a disease, obesity too, but in a society of obese gamblers is either a disease? Again, it's subjective to the observer. For it to be a disease, you'd have to classify it as such, as a deviation from the norm. Wait till we get to a point when we consider "racism" to be a disease and you'll see exactly what I mean

>>17610593
Stalin was a right-wing communist

>>17614092
Just like Hitler

>>17612815
> You have never read Lenin. Whatever may be said about him, he was exceedingly intelligent and a brilliant political strategist. Comparing him to current "communists" is an insult beyond comprehension.
the twitter communist makes himself known

>>17613958
> Like I said, smart at doing what? The kind of genius that makes someone an astrophysicist is not the same kind of genius that makes someone a military general.
How do you know?
Also, how did the cashier in question suddenly turn into a military general?

>>17610021
Lenin's work is just him seething over the latest newspaper article he read.

>>17614169
>How do you know?
Because the necessary attributes of astrophysics and that of a military general are different.
>Also, how did the cashier in question suddenly turn into a military general?
Why the need to compare a cashier? It's a bullshit wage labor job and the person in question occupying the role doesn't enjoy it in the slightest and only has it as a temporary gig.

>>17614142
If you read the booklet I mentioned, you will see him utterly btfo a whole bunch of retards, so he obviously is not one - in other words, he is intelligent. Similarly, he also got his way and took political control of Russia - so we can conclude that he is a brilliant political strategist. Nothing I am saying is controversial. I dislike communism, but this does not mean I can not be objective about it.

>>17610021
Based
Simple as

>>17614183
> Because the necessary attributes of astrophysics and that of a military general are different.
How on earth would you know?
> Why the need to compare a cashier?
Because it elucidates the point that was attempted to be made by the anon replying to you.
Just, to help us appreciate the pig headedness of your position: You are here, telling me that the necessary attributes of astrophysicists and generals differ in self evident ways whilst at the same time you attempt to rebuke the statement that astrophysicists tend to be smarter than cashiers.
Take a hike retard.
> It's a bullshit wage labor job and the person in question occupying the role doesn't enjoy it in the slightest and only has it as a temporary gig.
This is almost completely irrelevant to the point being made. The only meaningful point to take from your statement would be that a temporary worker is not to be judged compared to anything else since, again, his position was temporary. Someone who worked as a cashier from 16-18 could very well turn out to be an astrophysicist themselves a few years down the line. So lets eliminate that from the equation and compare astrophysicists with cashiers that have had the job for 8+ years and don't see themselves changing careers in the future. Can you see the point being made now? Or are you going to go searching for more irrelevant tangents to run away from self evident facts?

>>17610021
Utter moron.

>>17614297
>How on earth would you know?
How do you know that the skills necessary to be an economist or a poet different?
>Just, to help us appreciate the pig headedness of your position: You are here, telling me that the necessary attributes of astrophysicists and generals differ in self evident ways whilst at the same time you attempt to rebuke the statement that astrophysicists tend to be smarter than cashiers.
The cashier can have certain qualities and excel in them whereas the astro physicist may not, this is irrespective to the career. Being an astrophysicist is a livlihood whereas cashiering is not. Someone being a cashier and only being a cashier and only concerning themself with the act of being a cashier is a kind of person that only exists in fantasy. Apples to oranges.

>Or are you going to go searching for more irrelevant tangents to run away from self evident facts?
You are doing this, not I. I was never arguing "everyone has the same intelligence" rather I was only saying that what you call hierarchy is subjective and is purely dependent on the role that is desired to be filled.

>>17614365
> How do you know that the skills necessary to be an economist or a poet different?
An irrelevant question since it's not the same question I was asking you. Which pertained to there being a difference in genius that was required to attain the skills to become either an astrophysicist or a general. You said the attributes were different, but you didn't answer the question. Which pertained to, in simple terms, attribute acquisition ability.
> The cashier can have certain qualities and excel in them whereas the astro physicist may not, this is irrespective to the career.
Which is not relevant to the point of who is in general smarter. You seem to be conceding the point being made. If you can accept that there exist certain qualities that people differ on. The statement that astrophysicists tend to be quite smarter than cashiers is perfectly plausible using the framework you just applied. Especially since we can go so far as to say that cashiers and astrophysicists are just proxies for people, which you freely admit differ in smartness. So therefor its perfectly plausible and valid to contend that: Higher smartness = higher astrophysics ability acquisition
>Being an astrophysicist is a livlihood whereas cashiering is not. Someone being a cashier and only being a cashier and only concerning themself with the act of being a cashier is a kind of person that only exists in fantasy. Apples to oranges.
Semantics. The comparison doesn't need to live up to that standard of similarity in regards to the two activities to make the point. Also, what you wrote is retarded.
> I was never arguing "everyone has the same intelligence" rather I was only saying that what you call hierarchy is subjective and is purely dependent on the role that is desired to be filled.
'Subjective' preferences and desire don't fall from the sky at random. Pretending to be above it all philosophy man is a facade that is stripped away every time you decide to use the ladder instead of a window when deciding how to leave a 13th floor apartment. You can call it, in the abstract, subjective, since you could theorize that if you wanted to kill yourself you would choose the window. But in either case the decision of how you want to get down isn't subjective at all. One leads to immediate death and the other does not. So when you say that hierarchy is subjective you are only pretending so long as you are not indifferent to outcomes. Which you are not.

>>17614351
You have not even read him. If you had, you would realise, whether you agree with him or not, that he was far from a moron. You on the other hand, are nothing and never will be.

>>17614092
im sorry but you do not know what "right wing" means

>>17614723
The USSR was a colossal failure that guaranteed the dominance of world capitalism. Lenin, for all intents and purposes, was an utter failure.

>>17613679
im like 99% sure marx himself acknowledged state capitalism and totalitarian hierarchies as an essential step in achieving communism, never mind the fact that it is a factual byproduct of the revolution because the means of production dont just magically rearrange themselves, and every single leftist revolution has proved this point

christ you are so completely and utterly ignorant, every time I think you cant make yourself look more stupid you go and prove me wrong. I don think you have ever said a single correct thing in your life

>>17614733
Everything from your obvious lack of insight and understanding into the event of the USSR, it's collapse, and subsequent current state of affairs to your general pattern of speech gives me the impression that you're a 30+ year old mart sharter. Stay in your lane, burger.

>>17614717
I concede, to some of this.
This was an error in my communication, when I say hierarchy I mean to say hierarchy as a mode of social organization, i.e someone of a certain class is above another. I do not mean to say there are not different levels of competency or an individual may be worse or better rounded than an other, but rather that which is above and that which is higher or lower in a social organization is subject to the viewer.
You or the other anon brought up the point of intelligence between cashiers and astrophysicists, but this is not what I mean when I speak of hierarchy, rather I speak of status.

>>17614729
Right wing = more hierarchy
Left wing = less hierarchy
There is no authoritarian left/ libertarian right.

>>17610357
>>17610373
>>17610437
Funniest shit I've read and you both made my day. Thank you

>>17615062
I disagree. I see it as:

Right-wing = natural hierarchy
Left-wing = enforced equality

>>17614755
Fascists just need to start killing you communists again

>>17614092
Oh sweatie, Lenin was called "right-wing" by leftoids even before he came up power, same with Marx by anarchists, pick your infantile disorder

>>17615652
Based anti-leftcom poster.

>>17615254
Right-wing: apolitical
Left-wing: political

"One hears so much in the pulpits, about the insecurity, the fragility, the instability of temporal things, but everyone thinks, however moved, that he will nevertheless keep what belongs to him; that this insecurity does indeed appear in the form of the hussars sword in the clear, and that all this ceases to be a joke, then these same edified and moved people who had predicted everything begin to curse the conquerors.

However, wars take place when they are necessary, then the crops grow again and the chatter falls silent in the face of the seriousness of history."

- G. W. F. Hegel, Principles of Philosophy of Right

>>17614275
>If you read the booklet I mentioned, you will see him utterly btfo a whole bunch of retards, so he obviously is not one - in other words, he is intelligent. Similarly, he also got his way and took political control of Russia - so we can conclude that he is a brilliant political strategist.
None of this follows. You're a retard yourself.

>>17614755
based

>>17615818
Argue it.

>>17615842
It's a tragedy of the current world that irredeemably stupid animals like yourself even gain literacy.

>>17613715
Heinrich is cringe bro

>>17615877
>be me
>make a claim
>some retard disputes it even though it's obvious
>prove my claim with evidence
>some retard tells me my evidence doesn't prove my claim, then he himself makes the claim that I am retarded
>ask him to make an argument
>ad hominem
Heh, nothing personnel, kid.

>>17610021
I don't read jews.

>>17613889
No, only possible scenarios.

>>17614744
I’m well aware of Marx’s idea. This is why I’m not a Marxist.

>>17615698
>quoting hegal in 2021
>inb4 name spelt wrong, he doesn't deserve that

>>17612815
>Comparing him to current "communists" is an insult beyond comprehension.

lol
hurt commie detected

>>17615888
why is this? i was going to read his bio on marx. nice trips

>>17615935
>confusing lenin with trotksy
honestly based

>>17617537
cope
>>17617595
Lenin was maternally Jewish or in other words, legally Jewish.

>>17617592
he's not cringe

>>17613715
please don't edit my book recs, thank you

Immeasurably based and redpilled for his time. Had no such inclination that Lenin was prolifically well-read and up to date with the philosophy of the time. Gave me a newfound appreciation and sympathy for both the Russians and Commies.

yeah, i'm thinking he's based

>>17615346
come at me then, fatass