Lenin: Bourgeois And Proletarian Democracy

Bourgeois And Proletarian Democracy

Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor. It is this truth, which forms a most essential part of Marx’s teaching, that Kautsky the “Marxist” has failed to understand. On this—the fundamental issue—Kautsky offers “delights” for the bourgeoisie instead of a scientific criticism of those conditions which make every bourgeois democracy a democracy for the rich.

Related:

Lenin Collected Works: Volume 28 (PDF)

Vladimir Lenin: Speech at First All-Russia Congress of Working Women

(Comrade Lenin is greeted by the delegates with stormy applause.) Comrades, in a certain sense this Congress of the women’s section of the workers’ army has a special significance, because one of the hardest things in every country has been to stir the women into action. There can be no socialist revolution unless very many working women take a big part in it.

Speech at First All-Russia Congress of Working Women

Correcting some misinformation on Iran (response to a YouTube video)

From the “Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung” (full text)

One of my YouTube subscriptions just put out a video roasting MAGA Communists for supporting Iran. While I’ve criticized MAGA Communism in the past, I had to respectfully disagree with their take on Iran. The following are just a few links to disprove the Western lies about Iran. I threw in some commentary as well. FYI, they may have deleted it by now, thanks to some of the comments. Although, I appreciate them admitting that they may have a flawed view of Iran, I’m still leaving this post up for the corrections.

Read More »

Lenin: “The Right to Divorce”

4. The Right to Divorce

This question of divorce is a striking illustration of the fact that one cannot be a democrat and a socialist without immediately demanding full freedom of divorce, for the absence of such freedom is an additional burden on the oppressed sex, woman – although it is not at all difficult to understand that the recognition of the right of women to leave their husbands is not an invitation to all wives to do so!…

Read More »

What did Lenin have to say about socialism and war?

Source

What did Lenin have to say about socialism and war?

“Socialists have always condemned war between nations as barbarous and brutal. But our attitude towards war is fundamentally different from that of the bourgeois pacifists (supporters and advocates of peace) and of the anarchists. We differ from the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and the class struggle within the country; we understand that war cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and socialism is created; and we also differ in that we fully regard civil wars, ie, wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary.”

Related:

Socialism and War (PDF)

Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (PDF)

April Theses (PDF)

Mao Zedong on Writing

Oppose Stereotyped Party Writing

The first indictment against stereotyped Party writing is that it fills endless pages with empty verbiage. Some of our comrades love to write long articles with no substance, very much like the “foot-bindings of a slattern, long as well as smelly”. Why must they write such long and empty articles? There can be only one explanation; they are determined the masses shall not read them. Because the articles are long and empty, the masses shake their heads at the very sight of them. How can they be expected to read them? Such writings are good for nothing except to bluff the naive, among whom they spread bad influences and foster bad habits. … If articles are too long, who will read them? Some comrades at the front, too, like to write long reports. They take pains over writing them and send them here for us to read. But who has the hardihood to read them? If long and empty articles are no good, are short and empty ones any better? They are no good either. We should forbid all empty talk. But the first and foremost task is to throw the long, smelly foot-bindings of the slattern into the dustbin. Some may ask, “Isn’t Capital very long? What are we to do about that?” The answer is simple, just go on reading it. There is a proverb, “Sing different songs on different mountains”; another runs, “Fit the appetite to the dishes and the dress to the figure”. Whatever we do must be done according to actual circumstances, and it is the same with writing articles and making speeches. What we oppose is long-winded and empty stereotyped writing, but we do not mean that everything must necessarily be short in order to be good. True, we need short articles in war time, but above all we need articles that have substance. Articles devoid of substance are the least justifiable and the most objectionable. The same applies to speechmaking; we must put an end to all empty, long-winded speeches.

Read More »

Don’t Blame Karl Marx for ‘Cultural Marxism’

Don’t Blame Karl Marx for ‘Cultural Marxism’

You might think that a history of cultural Marxism would start with Marx, but the poorly coiffed Prussian has almost nothing to do with this tale of insidious infiltration. Instead, the theory took off in the late 1990s due to speeches, essays, and books by William Lind, then with the Free Congress Foundation, and Patrick Buchanan, the firebrand conservative columnist, TV talking head, and sometime presidential candidate. (The idea, though not the name, was hatched earlier, in a 1992 monograph called “The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness.” It was written by a disciple of the noted conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche.)

Related:

The CIA & the Frankfurt School’s Anti-Communism

Free Congress Foundation:

Read More »