Is this book worth reading?

[Anonymous No.18642635]

Was thinking of buying it but wasn't sure if it's just a bunch of nothing

[Anonymous No.18642640]

Best of Lenin

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18642790]

For the believer that statists could someday deliver communism or for research into the cultish nature of this so-called materialism

[Anonymous No.18642912]

>>18642635
yes, but read Marx first

[Anonymous No.18642944]

can i read this without having read Marx?

[Anonymous No.18642968]

>>18642944
Yea, but you'll probably have to google some esoteric marxist terms here and there.

[Anonymous No.18643410]

>>18642635
yes, lenin was a brutal pragmatist. it's a bit jarring since socialism is generally tarred as naively utopian. plus he actually succeeded

[Anonymous No.18643434]

>>18643410
he succeeded because he was funded by german intelligence in exchange for pulling russia out of the war. also, he was so pragmatic that he brought the free market back by way of the "nepmen" when communism inevitably began to fail.

[Anonymous No.18643454]

>the dictatorship of the proletariat will just happen
It's useful if you want to understand the limits of marxism as an ideology of state capture. Once you have the state, why turn it over to "the workers" though? And Lenin never did, since he had skin in the game as the leader of the revolution.

[Anonymous No.18643485]

>read something by Lenin
>it's just 100 pages of autismal rage against some forgotten German social democrat who said we should say our pleases and thank yous

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18643491]

>>18643434
Hehehehehe

[Anonymous No.18643508]

>>18643491
hahahahah ehehehehehh ahhahahah ohgo hohohoho ahehehhehehe AHASHAHAHAHAH AHHH AHHHAHAHHAHAHAH WAHAHHAHAHAHHA WHAHAHWHWHHW

[Anonymous No.18643514]

>buying
>not stealing
>anti-capitalist literature
haha

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18643545]

>>18643514
>Lenin
>anti-capitalist literature

[Anonymous No.18643669]

>>18642790
>statists
Why don't you just fuck off to some subreddit or something? Nobody likes you and would be in better company with your fellow delusional retards.

[Anonymous No.18643771]

>>18642944
>It's useful if you want to understand the limits of marxism as an ideology of state capture.
it's not an ideology and it doesn't preach "state capture". Marx:
>But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.

>Once you have the state, why turn it over to "the workers" though?
the bourgeois state is destroyed and a proletarian state is built by the working class itself, not by anyone else

[Anonymous No.18643811]

>>18643771
>the bourgeois state is destroyed and a proletarian state is built by the working class itself, not by anyone else
That's not what Lenin ultimately did though. Like I said it's interesting to see his thought process and that he actually went out and did a revolution effectively expelling the ruling class, which unlike most marxist theorists gives some extra weight to his writings, but from what I remember it wasn't all that clear in State and Revolution how the proletarian state comes about after the revolutuonaries take control. From a non-ideological pov the communists very much captured the skeleton of the Russian empire and went so far as to reconquer its scattered parts for instance, which would have been unnecessary if they were not in practice capturing that state.

[Anonymous No.18643821]

>>18643545
>Lenin
>capitalist

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18643868]

>>18643821
He would deny being a liberal, but has written about turning to capitalism. This is the stages Marxists believe in, and why China, plainly, is capitalist.
You don’t know what you’re talking about

[Anonymous No.18643877]

>>18643868
Wtf??? Lenin betrayed the revolution??? I hate the bolsheviks now

[Anonymous No.18644053]

>>18643811
>That's not what Lenin ultimately did though.
yes, the Russian proletariat was unable to do that alone and help from the West didn't materialize. he was open about all that.
>he actually went out and did a revolution
that's such a retarded phrasing. one man can't "go out and do a revolution".
>it wasn't all that clear in State and Revolution how the proletarian state comes about after the revolutuonaries take control
those are technicalities dependent on conditions in particular time and place. The State and Revolution was a universal work of restoration of Marxism
>and went so far as to reconquer its scattered parts for instance
conquering power means conquering the state, even if all you aim to do with it is to smash it and replace it

>>18643868
China is capitalist because the communist revolution was killed in the 1920s, not because of what some supposed Marxists believe

[Anonymous No.18644072]

>>18644053
>one man can't "go out and do a revolution".
You know what I mean. There are generations of (western) marxists who just jacked off to the idea of being virtuously annihilated by the working class.

[Anonymous No.18644075]

>>18643868
>>18643545
Butterfly, you'll never be as pretty as her. Even in your prime, you were less than her right shoulder, and now, everyday, you age more and more ugly.

[Anonymous No.18644085]

>>18644072
I don't know what you mean because most people who write like this are lobotomized believers in the great man theory who mean it literally.

[Anonymous No.18644115]

>>18644085
There are vast swathes of political theory which consist of impotent power fantasies and then there are people who seize power when an opening is made and happen to be theorists. The former are almost entirely onanistic in character while the latter, having done something, at least have a footing in reality.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18644149]

>>18644053
You know I’m a libertarian-socialist, right? China is doing capitalism for the sake of their goals of communism. I doubt them as I doubt Leninism. We can only hope they will ally with genuine socialists someday.

[Anonymous No.18644172]

>>18643485
but thats like half of all political literature

[Anonymous No.18644179]

Only if you want insight into the thought processes of Lenin. I wouldn't ask a hardcore believer in anything to write me an objective analysis of that thing except to gauge where they are mentally.

[Anonymous No.18644255]

>>18644149
>You know I’m a libertarian-socialist, right?
I figured you were retarded based on that comment, but no, not the exact kind
>China is doing capitalism for the sake of their goals of communism.
not only retarded but also extremely naive
>I doubt them
pick one
>We can only hope they will ally with genuine socialists someday.
why would a bourgeois party ally with genuine socialists? and more importantly, why would genuine socialists ally with a bourgeois party? there's no feudal party to ally against and no bourgeois revolution left to be made. genuine socialists advocate for the liquidation of the Chinese party and its state and for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in its place.

[Anonymous No.18645205]

>>18642635
No, nothing Lenin wrote was of value. Socialism is just an elaborate scheme to set up a government based off slavery via rationing. You need to read Bastiat, Smith or Lao Tzu. Stay away from commie shit - its literal non-sense. We have enough case studies from history to show socialism is just stealing for the lower classes.

[Anonymous No.18645221]

>>18644255
China gave up on communism, retard. They literally decollectivized the Peoples' Communes and collectivized agriculture. Capitalism, the profit incentive, is simply way better than making people productive enough to make enough wealth to keep everyone happy. "Socialism" is for faggots who resent of the fact they lack the will power to gain proprietorship.

[Anonymous No.18645380]

>>18645221
>China gave up on communism
China was never communist. the closest it got was 1927.
>They literally decollectivized the Peoples' Communes and collectivized agriculture.
co-operative enterprises are not communism. they exist all around the world as parts of the capitalist economy
encouraging centralization in agriculture is one of the basic tasks of the bourgeois rule in undeveloped capitalist states. otherwise machinery and labour saving can't be properly applied there, there's not enough surplus produced to power the rapidly growing industry, and there's no adequate supply of cheap labour for that industry migrating from the countryside
the difference between Mao and Deng wasn't that between communism and capitalism, but between two strategies of developing capitalist agriculture with the least amount of bad side effects
>Capitalism, the profit incentive, is simply way better than making people productive enough to make enough wealth to keep everyone happy.
it's an equally good way of producing poverty on the opposite pole. go read the news about all the happy people going out on the streets and protesting bourgeois states because under their rule they're unable to meet their material needs
>"Socialism" is for faggots who resent of the fact they lack the will power to gain proprietorship.
no, socialism is the real movement of the proletariat that can't end in any other way than by completely "gaining proprietorship" and maybe also by exercising the will to put a few capitalist faggots against the wall

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18645460]

>>18644255
>not only retarded but also extremely naive
Seems to be working out for them.
>pick one
You’re confused.
>why would a bourgeois party ally with genuine socialists?
Because they claim to be communists and it would suit their needs to see DC lose power to its citizens, but I am just wishing here.