You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.97 AVERAGE
3.97 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
At this point this is more of a window into a slice of history, specifically inside the Social-Democratic Party, than it is a theoretical work that speaks to the current conditions. Still, I would recommend it to people interested in discussions around the topic of illegal work, something that(foolishly) doesn't receive much consideration inside the centers of global capitalism.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
It took me sometime to finish this book, not due to it being particularly hard, but due to limited time.
I must say i did not enjoyed such a book in a long time. Both as a political piece and as history book this is something worth checking out, well written, easy to get and whit practical advices. The flip side is that you really have understand history in hopes of getting the references and the events.
I must say i did not enjoyed such a book in a long time. Both as a political piece and as history book this is something worth checking out, well written, easy to get and whit practical advices. The flip side is that you really have understand history in hopes of getting the references and the events.
I do agree with many of the arguments Lenin raised here, mainly that a purely trade union struggle can and will be co-opted by bourgeois ideology, as well as being the preferred form of protest by such ideologues. The argument that spontaneity on its own will never lead to successful revolution is also something that I see the logic in.
It’s also true that the struggle shouldn’t be limited in solely economic terms but also in all areas of struggle, from racism to sexism, etc.
However, I am wary of the concept of “professional revolutionaries.” On some level, I do see the necessity, and he did refute the accusation that he meant workers can never become such, but he also employed a kind of “no true Scotsman” fallacy when he said no true revolutionary would do harm.
There is also something to be said of his criticism of “broad democracy.” It’s kind of difficult to wrap my head around, but I do see the sense in asserting that it’s impossible if we are to have a secret organization of professional revolutionaries (or the “vanguard,” if I’m using the term correctly). But the question must be asked, as I implied: how are we to trust these people to have the best in mind for those in the struggle? How can we trust this tiny elite to always make the best decisions, if we are just told that they have the best sense of comradeship, so we shouldn’t worry?
At the same time, this is a polemic, so much of its criticism is of course in response to his own critics. But I think while demands for a national newspaper are now obsolete and shouldn’t really be considered in modern times, there is still much to think about, especially the concept of the vanguard, part of which I agree with and another I am wary of. It’s also truly interesting in historical terms, though at times unintelligible because again, it’s specifically in response to his contemporaries.
It’s also true that the struggle shouldn’t be limited in solely economic terms but also in all areas of struggle, from racism to sexism, etc.
However, I am wary of the concept of “professional revolutionaries.” On some level, I do see the necessity, and he did refute the accusation that he meant workers can never become such, but he also employed a kind of “no true Scotsman” fallacy when he said no true revolutionary would do harm.
There is also something to be said of his criticism of “broad democracy.” It’s kind of difficult to wrap my head around, but I do see the sense in asserting that it’s impossible if we are to have a secret organization of professional revolutionaries (or the “vanguard,” if I’m using the term correctly). But the question must be asked, as I implied: how are we to trust these people to have the best in mind for those in the struggle? How can we trust this tiny elite to always make the best decisions, if we are just told that they have the best sense of comradeship, so we shouldn’t worry?
At the same time, this is a polemic, so much of its criticism is of course in response to his own critics. But I think while demands for a national newspaper are now obsolete and shouldn’t really be considered in modern times, there is still much to think about, especially the concept of the vanguard, part of which I agree with and another I am wary of. It’s also truly interesting in historical terms, though at times unintelligible because again, it’s specifically in response to his contemporaries.
Me parece increíble como Lenin utiliza y exprime todos los recursos a su alcance, y nosotros lloramos que la derecha nos pasa por arriba en redes sociales tomando al publico juvenil como presa facil, nos dormimos.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
lenin is so goated. yes organize that revolution!! king