Oct 3, 2022I guess it's about prospects of achieving state power. There's a thing as biting off more than you can chew.
But then again some times shyt does start as adventurism. Realistically the Moncada barracks attack was adventurism if you a***yze it at the time. Maybe sometimes you really do just gotta go crayz and blow up a federal building
- Oct 3, 2022
Womanpuncher69ok but in general then what would a movement from being adventurous from one not
Good question to which i don't think there's a straight forward answer to really
- Oct 3, 2022·2 repliesWomanpuncher69
ok but in general then what would a movement from being adventurous from one not
i guess having an actual concrete mass base
Oct 3, 2022Womanpuncher69i guess having an actual concrete mass base
thats what i was going to suggest as well.
where the violence of revolution does not directly empower the reactionaries.
Oct 3, 2022·2 repliesWomanpuncher69i guess having an actual concrete mass base
Yeah
The Soviet dual power structure was not adventurist
Right?
- Oct 3, 2022·1 replyamericana
Yeah
The Soviet dual power structure was not adventurist
Right?
nah it was adventurist cause if u read the life’s of Lenin and Stalin they went on whimsical adventures all over Russia
- Oct 3, 2022americana
Yeah
The Soviet dual power structure was not adventurist
Right?
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/09.htm
<3 never read this before - Oct 3, 2022·2 repliesWomanpuncher69
nah it was adventurist cause if u read the life’s of Lenin and Stalin they went on whimsical adventures all over Russia
Well yeah but they weren’t the entirety or the foundation of those workers councils
At least I don’t remember them being such
- Oct 3, 2022·1 replydeadacc
so you are always going to be on the position of the most revolutionary org regardless of whether you can tell it will fail or not, also knowing that the process of attempting revolution is destabilizing?
granted i agree with you and think that that is the truth that history has shown. just trying to like butt heads a bit and see what i can gather.
capitalism in itself is destabilizing, revolution is only born out of this destabilization, you’re gonna get destabilization no matter what the only question is the right gonna take advantage of it or the left.
- Oct 3, 2022·1 replyWomanpuncher69
capitalism in itself is destabilizing, revolution is only born out of this destabilization, you’re gonna get destabilization no matter what the only question is the right gonna take advantage of it or the left.
yes so i guess the important question is adventurism, and determining the mass base of a movement
- Oct 3, 2022·1 replydeadacc
yes so i guess the important question is adventurism, and determining the mass base of a movement
yeah that’s why the Indian maoist aren’t adventurous they done land reform for millions of people, while when i go blow up parliament building on November 26 2022 at 4 pm it will be adventurous
- Oct 3, 2022·2 repliesamericana
Well yeah but they weren’t the entirety or the foundation of those workers councils
At least I don’t remember them being such
"What is the class composition of this other government? It consists of the proletariat and the peasants (in soldiers’ uniforms). What is the political nature of this government? It is a revolutionary dictatorship, i.e., a power directly based on revolutionary seizure, on the direct initiative of the people from below, and not on a law enacted by a centralised state power. It is an entirely different kind of power from the one that generally exists in the parliamentary bourgeois-democratic republics of the usual type still prevailing in the advanced countries of Europe and America. This circumstance often over looked, often not given enough thought, yet it is the crux of the matter. This power is of the same type as the Paris Commune of 1871. The fundamental characteristics of this type are:
(1) the source of power is not a law previously discussed and enacted by parliament, but the direct initiative of the people from below, in their local areas—direct “seizure”, to use a current expression;
(2) the replacement of the police and the army, which are institutions divorced from the people and set against the people, by the direct arming of the whole people; order in the state under such a power is maintained by the armed workers and peasants themselves, by the armed people themselves;
(3) officialdom, the bureaucracy, are either similarly replaced by the direct rule of the people themselves or at least placed under special control; they not only become elected officials, but are also subject to recall at the people’s first demand; they are reduced to the position of simple agents; from a privileged group holding “jobs” remunerated on a high, bourgeois scale, they become workers of a special “arm of the service”, whose remuneration does not exceedthe ordinary pay of a competent worker."i will never understand anarchist comrades that abject lenin
- Oct 3, 2022deadacc
"What is the class composition of this other government? It consists of the proletariat and the peasants (in soldiers’ uniforms). What is the political nature of this government? It is a revolutionary dictatorship, i.e., a power directly based on revolutionary seizure, on the direct initiative of the people from below, and not on a law enacted by a centralised state power. It is an entirely different kind of power from the one that generally exists in the parliamentary bourgeois-democratic republics of the usual type still prevailing in the advanced countries of Europe and America. This circumstance often over looked, often not given enough thought, yet it is the crux of the matter. This power is of the same type as the Paris Commune of 1871. The fundamental characteristics of this type are:
(1) the source of power is not a law previously discussed and enacted by parliament, but the direct initiative of the people from below, in their local areas—direct “seizure”, to use a current expression;
(2) the replacement of the police and the army, which are institutions divorced from the people and set against the people, by the direct arming of the whole people; order in the state under such a power is maintained by the armed workers and peasants themselves, by the armed people themselves;
(3) officialdom, the bureaucracy, are either similarly replaced by the direct rule of the people themselves or at least placed under special control; they not only become elected officials, but are also subject to recall at the people’s first demand; they are reduced to the position of simple agents; from a privileged group holding “jobs” remunerated on a high, bourgeois scale, they become workers of a special “arm of the service”, whose remuneration does not exceedthe ordinary pay of a competent worker."i will never understand anarchist comrades that abject lenin
They do not understand the parts that create a sum
- Oct 3, 2022deadacc
"What is the class composition of this other government? It consists of the proletariat and the peasants (in soldiers’ uniforms). What is the political nature of this government? It is a revolutionary dictatorship, i.e., a power directly based on revolutionary seizure, on the direct initiative of the people from below, and not on a law enacted by a centralised state power. It is an entirely different kind of power from the one that generally exists in the parliamentary bourgeois-democratic republics of the usual type still prevailing in the advanced countries of Europe and America. This circumstance often over looked, often not given enough thought, yet it is the crux of the matter. This power is of the same type as the Paris Commune of 1871. The fundamental characteristics of this type are:
(1) the source of power is not a law previously discussed and enacted by parliament, but the direct initiative of the people from below, in their local areas—direct “seizure”, to use a current expression;
(2) the replacement of the police and the army, which are institutions divorced from the people and set against the people, by the direct arming of the whole people; order in the state under such a power is maintained by the armed workers and peasants themselves, by the armed people themselves;
(3) officialdom, the bureaucracy, are either similarly replaced by the direct rule of the people themselves or at least placed under special control; they not only become elected officials, but are also subject to recall at the people’s first demand; they are reduced to the position of simple agents; from a privileged group holding “jobs” remunerated on a high, bourgeois scale, they become workers of a special “arm of the service”, whose remuneration does not exceedthe ordinary pay of a competent worker."i will never understand anarchist comrades that abject lenin
God I love reading lenin
- Oct 3, 2022·1 replyWomanpuncher69
yeah that’s why the Indian maoist aren’t adventurous they done land reform for millions of people, while when i go blow up parliament building on November 26 2022 at 4 pm it will be adventurous
"The history of Russian Social-Democracy teems with tiny groups, which sprang up for an hour, for several months, with no roots whatever among the masses (and politics without the masses are adventurist politics), and with no serious and stable principles. In a petty-bourgeois country, which is passing through a historical period of bourgeois reconstruction, it is inevitable that a motley assortment of intellectuals should join the workers, and that these intellectuals should attempt to form all kinds of groups, adventurist in character in the sense referred to above. "
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/09.htm
- Oct 3, 2022americana
Well yeah but they weren’t the entirety or the foundation of those workers councils
At least I don’t remember them being such
i wasn’t being serious
, the dual power situation is clearly not adventurous cause it had the people clearly picking the soviets over the provisional regime. - Oct 3, 2022deadacc
"The history of Russian Social-Democracy teems with tiny groups, which sprang up for an hour, for several months, with no roots whatever among the masses (and politics without the masses are adventurist politics), and with no serious and stable principles. In a petty-bourgeois country, which is passing through a historical period of bourgeois reconstruction, it is inevitable that a motley assortment of intellectuals should join the workers, and that these intellectuals should attempt to form all kinds of groups, adventurist in character in the sense referred to above. "
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/09.htm"Besides these two important trends, there were a host of small and rootless groups (Svoboda, Borba,1 the group that published the Berlin leaflets, and so forth). These have long been forgotten. Though there were no few honest and conscientious Social-Democrats in these groups, they proved adventurist in the sense that they had no stable or serious principles, programme, tactics, organisation, and no roots among the masses.
It is thus, and only thus—by studying the history of the movement, by pondering over the ideological significance of definite theories, and by putting phrases to the test of facts—that serious people should appraise present-day trends and groups.
Only simpletons put faith in words. "
damn i can really look up anything and add lenin to it and get a banger
- Oct 3, 2022
Now take the other groups which pose as “trends”. We shall enumerate them: 1) the Vperyod group plus Alexinsky; 2) ditto plus Bogdanov; 3) ditto plus Voinov; 4) the Plekhanovites; 5) the “pro-Party Bolsheviks” (actually conciliators: Mark Sommer and his crowd); 6) the Trotskyists (i. e., Trotsky even minus Semkovsky); 7) the “Caucasians” (i. e., An minus the Caucasus).
anti white lenin with the casual racism smh
- Oct 3, 2022·1 reply
been forever since i read Lenin i need to get back on it
- Oct 3, 2022Womanpuncher69
been forever since i read Lenin i need to get back on it
- Oct 3, 2022·edited·2 repliesamericana
We’re here for class struggle. We’re supporting pink capitalism (LOL) and Maoist movements in the third world in the moment because they fight against imperialism, even if our split in that regard comes to divide us
Once a nation is freed from the vice of imperialism, internal class struggle is now the primary contradiction and that must now be solved. Pink capitalism is not the answer
Once a nation is freed from the vice of imperialism, internal class struggle is now the primary contradiction and that must now be solved. Pink capitalism is not the answer
on this part ill say internal class struggle is always primary imperalism is only able to take advantage cause of the class structure in the nation. once imperalism is over thrown in a nation through revolution clas struggle doesn’t become the primary now since it was that from the start, it intensifies
- Oct 3, 2022Womanpuncher69· edited
Once a nation is freed from the vice of imperialism, internal class struggle is now the primary contradiction and that must now be solved. Pink capitalism is not the answer
on this part ill say internal class struggle is always primary imperalism is only able to take advantage cause of the class structure in the nation. once imperalism is over thrown in a nation through revolution clas struggle doesn’t become the primary now since it was that from the start, it intensifies
good point
- Oct 3, 2022·2 replies
"That redounds to our credit all the more because, as people free of theory, we stand firmly for general unity and vehemently condemn all theoretical disputes over principles. “A serious revolutionary organisation,” Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii (No. 2, p. 127) assures us in all seriousness, “would give up trying to settle disputed questions of social theory, which always lead to disunity, although this of course should not hinder theoreticians from seeking their solution”—or, more outspokenly: let the writers do the writing and the readers do the reading4 and in the meantime, while they are busying themselves, we will rejoice at the blank left behind.
There is no need, of course, to engage in a serious a***ysis of this theory of deviation from socialism (in the event of disputes proper). In our opinion, the crisis of socialism makes it incumbent upon any in the least serious socialists to devote redoubled attention to theory—to adopt more resolutely a strictly definite stand, to draw a sharper line of demarcation between themselves and wavering and unreliable elements. In the opinion of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, if such things as confusion and splits are possible “even among Germans,” then it is God’s will that we, Russians, should pride ourselves on our ignorance of whither we are drifting."
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/sep/01.htm"read theory"
"no" - Oct 3, 2022deadacc
"That redounds to our credit all the more because, as people free of theory, we stand firmly for general unity and vehemently condemn all theoretical disputes over principles. “A serious revolutionary organisation,” Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii (No. 2, p. 127) assures us in all seriousness, “would give up trying to settle disputed questions of social theory, which always lead to disunity, although this of course should not hinder theoreticians from seeking their solution”—or, more outspokenly: let the writers do the writing and the readers do the reading4 and in the meantime, while they are busying themselves, we will rejoice at the blank left behind.
There is no need, of course, to engage in a serious a***ysis of this theory of deviation from socialism (in the event of disputes proper). In our opinion, the crisis of socialism makes it incumbent upon any in the least serious socialists to devote redoubled attention to theory—to adopt more resolutely a strictly definite stand, to draw a sharper line of demarcation between themselves and wavering and unreliable elements. In the opinion of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, if such things as confusion and splits are possible “even among Germans,” then it is God’s will that we, Russians, should pride ourselves on our ignorance of whither we are drifting."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/sep/01.htm"read theory"
"no"vaush won
- Oct 3, 2022·3 repliesdeadacc
"That redounds to our credit all the more because, as people free of theory, we stand firmly for general unity and vehemently condemn all theoretical disputes over principles. “A serious revolutionary organisation,” Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii (No. 2, p. 127) assures us in all seriousness, “would give up trying to settle disputed questions of social theory, which always lead to disunity, although this of course should not hinder theoreticians from seeking their solution”—or, more outspokenly: let the writers do the writing and the readers do the reading4 and in the meantime, while they are busying themselves, we will rejoice at the blank left behind.
There is no need, of course, to engage in a serious a***ysis of this theory of deviation from socialism (in the event of disputes proper). In our opinion, the crisis of socialism makes it incumbent upon any in the least serious socialists to devote redoubled attention to theory—to adopt more resolutely a strictly definite stand, to draw a sharper line of demarcation between themselves and wavering and unreliable elements. In the opinion of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, if such things as confusion and splits are possible “even among Germans,” then it is God’s will that we, Russians, should pride ourselves on our ignorance of whither we are drifting."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/sep/01.htm"read theory"
"no"