Lessons that Lenin will (probably) never teach America
Published: 22 April, 2010, 19:14
Edited: 15 May, 2010, 05:49
On the 140th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Lenin and with much of the world still grappling with the worst economic crisis since the Depression perhaps it is an opportune time to ponder some of his theories.
Capitalism's bulwack will never learn anything from Lenin's great theses. The fate of imperialism is the same as its predessessor systems of exploitation- doomed !
Whatever the imperfections of socialism, it is not all bad. And yes, lenin seems to have some very good and valid points.
There you have it. Another communist at RT strikes again with an anti-american pro-communist article. Has anyone ever considered that NEITHER communism or capitalism are good? Come on, challenge your intelligence and let creativity have a chance. There is much more to the world than fanatical reds (who never succeeded at anything, even their basic ideas) and the cult of the dollar.
Yes, Lenin was an agent of Germany in WWI and got to take Russia out of the War. But while Russia was under the Tsar a "nation of nations" including Ukraine, Finland, Kazakhstan etc, etc....Communists divided it in a dozen of Republics calling "Russia" just to one of them. The last Census under the Tsar Nicholas II shows a country of 125 million people, almost the same as Russia´s 141 million people now. By then, the population of Brazil was just 20 million people and now it is 200 million. By then the population of America was 70 million people and now it is 300 million. By then the population of China was 400 million people and now it is 1,300 million. So the equivalent for Russia today would be (if it has increased its population as the U.S.) about 500 million people....Of course, if we include all the nations which formed part of the Russian Empire by then, the result rises to over 300 million people. Communists created artificial divisions and boundaries inside Russia fostering strong Nationalists movements in several regions of the Russian Empire and even short term Independence of some of them. While the Russian Empire was on permanent territorial expansion from Moscow to Alaska, from Helsinki to Samarkanda, from Almaty to Magadan...the USSR promoted Nationalism inside every region and the final result was the 1991 break up of Russia (USSR). From Ukraine to the Far East, the Boshevic Revolution of Lenin caused the Independence of a great part of the Russian territory with separatism on the rise. And the final result was 1991 with the Russian population exausted, falling. Now, at least, it is stabilising and growing again at the same time as the Russian economy...but Russia, with just 141 million people, even if a key international player has 10 times less population than China.
"..and never was able to evolve to raise the living standards of its peoples to equality with the living standards in the West." Most people (me included) who lived in the DDR would say otherwise; for all its imperfections, it was only as bad as any other "Great Western" state. If you deride socialism originating from the october revolution, you might as well deride countries that have had invading forces of most major western armies too. If you think that 22,000 troops from over 8 countries won't be such a strain on most countries, to the point where they are on the brink of economic collapse, think again. It's remarkable how the Russian workers and peasants pulled themselves out of that and that literacy and overall educational rates improved MASSIVELY, healthcare was made free and universal and creativity flourished. To simply spit on these accomplishments as "a flash in the pan" or something is beyond ridiculous.
April 23, 2010, 12:55, Sovet wrote > Most people (me included) who lived in the DDR would say otherwise; for all its imperfections, it was only as bad as any other "Great Western" state. Really? even with the devastating reparations and mass exodus? I say it was worse off than the Western powers Some of the best times Russia had under Lenin were with the NEP, and that was practically capitalism.
What an interesting and comprehensive article! Lenin although I’m ignorant of all his idea seems to had many, the problem seemed to occur obviously in the practical forward application, for example there was much criticism of the 'capitalist system' but unfortunately seems to be less application of a better system. I do not think this article was pro communism , or Marxism , it simply explains that the negative aspects of the opposing system (then 'capitalism') have come true , and well, barely a whisper after the other flawed system collapsed. of course this is because both of the systems were and are flawed. I have said it many times, capitalism was more successful because it was more closely aligned to 'humanism' which is clearly just competition, and the reason it was so successful in the USA was because of good law and policy that kept that competition going. Both systems were doomed and started their death just after WW1, that is not to say that the game wasn't played along for as long as it could be. what destroyed 'Communism' was that it was the greatest monopoly on earth (in terms of restriction), that and Russian / Slavic honesty.
2. What will destroy 'Capitalism' is information, and other aspects as it is now the bigger monopoly on Earth. it is important to understand that both systems were eaten by the market system which is the 'human' system. 'Communism' was eaten by the various 'black' markets , which people called 'corruption' at the time, and has left the legacy that exists with its many but manageable problems. 'Capitalism' will go the same way but will be eaten by 'white' markets, driven by information but unfortunately this path might not be as rosy as the Russian situation, also the recovery time will be very interesting as the obvious destination for such a ‘less honest’ system is into a sort of ‘Stalinism’ single unit control Orwellian style future. This will occur as the monopolies in power try to fight the information ‘hooks’ that break their system down, but while all the time try to appear to be not fighting the information. Which will become farcical and a great comedy for us all in the future.
Enrique with regard to the population why do you see this as a negative?
Marx's great study was the study of capitalism. And only someone who got their ideas of Marx from an advertising agency could believe his ideas incompatible with the history of 20th century Capitalism. Just for the record all of the most serious challenges to Capitalism are its own productions. Hence the idea of contradictory social processes and relations. And whatever is happening in the rest of the World in Europe many people are revisiting Marx or visiting for the first time. And it should be noted that communism wasn't formulated by Marx it arrived on the political scene at the end of the French revolution. Marx was one of the three greatest European thinkers of the 19th century. With Darwin and Freud he changed humans view of them selves and their history for ever.
Coincidence or not, theory or not, genius or not, Lenin has right ! Anyhow Lenin predicted 100 years ago what happens today ! But the intrinsiec problem remains. Nothing has change in the human history ! The few own the majority of the wealth and the most (95%) are in all kind of wars to get a slice of bred ! That means the human population ( here by included the rich, too!) are menthaly very ill ! Marylin Franch said : 3000 years ago the humanity get mad and psychotic in the highest level ! She too as Lenin rveals to be true ! Capitalism is the worst that humanity could happens ! Communisme was just one episode of the men lunacy ! Is the worst and the lasting disease of all !
Here is the crux of this article's flaw in my view. It fails to counter the prevalent view that the present plight of the US middle class is a direct consequence of globalization crippling the US secondary sector by removing the bulk of the US's well-paying unskilled jobs and exporting them to overseas sweat shops. Even skilled jobs are being lost to overseas nations, principally to BRIC nations. These nations are thereby hosting vast growths in their middle classes that more than make up for the West's losses. China for instance could never retain anything close to it's present middle class on the basis of domestic demand, it's stupendous growth and rise in living standards is being driven by the export market. Globalization has a natural equalizing effect. Capital will be moved to where the same work can be done for less money are rising up, and this means that whenever possible it will be moved from rich countries to poor countries. If globalization were to run out of places to go, then wages would go back to going up in the US, and they would continue to go up in the formerly developing world.










RT: "... the brainy Bolshevik whose Marxist-inspired theories posed a serious challenge to capitalism for seven long decades." Not true. Marxist theories were incompatible with the advent of social and economic modernization that occurred throughout the 20th Century and was never a "serious challenge to capitalism. Communism was an archaic political system at the time it was formulated by Marx, and never was able to evolve to raise the living standards of its peoples to equality with the living standards in the West. The surprising aspect of the communist USSR is that it lasted as long as it did. Lenin climbed on a dead horse (Marxism). Lenin is not a hero for future generations of Russians.