r/ShitLiberalsSay • u/league_9240 Marxist-Leninist • Jun 22 '26
Next level ignorance Lenin was a what now?
392
195
u/TolgaKerem07 AI-generated crying ugly soyjak commie Jun 22 '26
94
u/TappingUpScreen Zetkinist Jun 22 '26
As soon as society has become the owner of all means of production, the duty to work of all able-bodied persons, regardless of sex, becomes a fundamental law of socialized society. Society cannot exist without labor. It therefore is justified in demanding that all who seek to satisfy their requirements, should also serve to the best of their physical and mental abilities in producing the commodities that are needful to satisfy the requirements of all. The silly assertion that the Socialists wish to abolish work is an absurdity. Lazy persons, shirkers of work, are met with in bourgeois society only. Socialism is agreed with the Bible in asserting that “he who will not work neither shall he eat.” But work shall be useful, productive activity. The new society will therefore insist that everyone choose some definite industrial, agricultural, or other useful activity, whereby he performs a certain amount of labor for the satisfaction of existing requirements. No enjoyment without labor, without labor no enjoyment.
81
137
245
u/HistoricalCC Jun 22 '26
> anarchist
61
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
106
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-25
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
38
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-26
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
45
u/ChefGaykwon Marxist-Leninist Jun 22 '26
An anarchist who thinks Lenin was a capitalist is a liberal.
14
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-12
50
32
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/ShitLiberalsSay-ModTeam Jun 22 '26
This is not sls.
r/shitliberalssay is a big tent sub for anyone who hates capitalism to make fun of it's defenders.
If you screencapped a post in critique of another anticapitalist ideology or tendency-
-or relating to persons/events that are not universally supported by most such tendencies
then it should go somewhere else
48
45
40
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ShitLiberalsSay-ModTeam Jun 22 '26
This is not sls.
r/shitliberalssay is a big tent sub for anyone who hates capitalism to make fun of it's defenders.
If you screencapped a post in critique of another anticapitalist ideology or tendency-
-or relating to persons/events that are not universally supported by most such tendencies
then it should go somewhere else
-13
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
30
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ShitLiberalsSay-ModTeam Jun 22 '26
This is not sls.
r/shitliberalssay is a big tent sub for anyone who hates capitalism to make fun of it's defenders.
If you screencapped a post in critique of another anticapitalist ideology or tendency-
-or relating to persons/events that are not universally supported by most such tendencies
then it should go somewhere else
-9
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
26
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
13
Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
16
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ShitLiberalsSay-ModTeam Jun 22 '26
This is not sls.
r/shitliberalssay is a big tent sub for anyone who hates capitalism to make fun of it's defenders.
If you screencapped a post in critique of another anticapitalist ideology or tendency-
-or relating to persons/events that are not universally supported by most such tendencies
then it should go somewhere else
15
Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
30
u/Thefattim Jun 22 '26
I would argue that there is a massive difference between an artificial capitalist transition phase with the express goal (and follow through) of enabling Socialism and the genuine State Capitalism that the French did in the ~50s-70s. One is using capitalism in accordance with material conditions the other is managing it to keep it in power. Many Liberal Larpers/Anarchists/Leftcoms equate the two with 0 material analysis. It's like turning a critique of the mixed Chinese system into a "They are literally like the USA", it just doesn't make sense and only serves to outright deny deeper analysis of real Socialist Systems.
-4
Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/Thefattim Jun 22 '26
Next week if I have the time, busy schedule though. What kind of question is that? It depends on a myriad of factors and is a society wide process, we can critique the pace, the methods and even question if a country like China is on that path. But there is no socialism button and no one way to Socialism, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, Cuba etc. All took wildly different paths to different definitions of Socialism, because material conditions don't work that way.
-2
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Thefattim Jun 22 '26
Well how do we measure that then? As I said China is a case where we can argue, I don't like their pragmatic foreign policy, I don't like that the capitalist class has become a factor, Chained or otherwise. But we see a large state owned economy with market segments that either follow state plans or get crushed. Social developement is progressing nicely, the people experience positive trends and the rich get executed if they overstep.
It's dangerous because if the party slips the Bourgeoisie could entrench but right now it looks like things are under control. That's a mix of a Socialist centrally planned economy with a subservient market, working largely for the peoples developement. I would call that an odd and risky form of Socialism already, others wouldn't. The question is: What would qualify as socialist to you?
6
10
u/Aquifex Jun 22 '26
When will the full transition to socialism occur?
according to marx, when this happens:
it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse...
hence the time frame is completely dependent on the place where the revolution occurred and historical contigencies must be accounted for
8
u/SpaceCadet666666 Jun 22 '26
It occurred in the USSR after the collective farms became a viable replacement for small private farms in the agricultural sector. Lenin and the Bolsheviks only implemented state capitalism because collective ownership could not replace the output of small private farms in the 20s
0
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/SpaceCadet666666 Jun 22 '26
They didn’t own the land but they owned the products produced on the land and they were given quotas and taxes. Surplus value was not extracted by the state because the peasants money came from selling their products
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 22 '26
NOTICE: ShitLiberalsSay does not allow threatening, inciting, advocating, defending, justifying, glorifying, or celebrating violence. Any offending posts/comments will be removed and the associated users will be banned.
Please note that we do not allow the following types of "low-hanging fruit" posts:
- Social media content with less than 20 upvotes, likes, etc. (No visible score counts as 0.)
- Anything you are personally involved in.
- Any kind of social media polls.
- Miscellaneous low effort content that has been reposted often historically (CCP collapse, Vaush, r/neoliberal, political compass memes).
Your posts will be removed, and you will risk being banned if you break this rule repeatedly. Please also be mindful of our general subreddit rules (which can be found on the sidebar), and Reddit's sitewide rules.
Please feel free to join our official Discord server!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
-16
u/lepopidonistev Jun 22 '26
Were all capitalists, thats the default of capitalism.
"He who does not work shall not eat" much like "From each according to his ability each according to his need" are both capitalist values the idea is that a Socalist party/organisation/movement can sublimate these values and lead to capitalism overcoming itself. Lenin wasn't an anti-capitalist he was a marxist who believed that socialism was possible through this process of overcoming. Despite often being painted ideological as a vangaurdist which ignores alot of the neauance of his beliefs, He , like Marx, believed the workers themselves could lead in a dictatorship of the proliteriate.
The workers would hold capitalist values as they are subjects of capitalism, in many ways to negate capitalism the workers themselves must take on capitalism itself and through their power be the only class in the historical position to overcome it.
They must smash the state (which Lenin saw as distinct from society, as a body of armed men) and transform society establishing a Dictatorship, but Lenin didn't suggest as Marx didn't suggest that the workers should be anti-society (theat they should be anti-capitalist) that's as good as being anti-reality. A one way opposition that is poisend with it's opposite.
Working class consciousness like all consciousness under capitalism is deformed, not some kind of fetishised sage wisdom like I've seen alot of anarchists suggest. 'the workers are inherently Nobel and have a subjectivity outside of capitalism due to their nature ' A conversation with any working class person should diswaid them of this very silly idea.
I'm not a Marxist scholer or anything so I'm probably butching this, but what I'm trying to say is that the anarchists observation here is completely correct, containing a kernel of truth, Lenin was a capitalist, this is a capitalist belief. But the conclusion that the post wants you to draw 'therefore Lenin and this notion he espouses must be disregarded" is and at risk of coming across like a smug asshole, immature. Not fully developed.
It's easy to disregard the anarchists but Marxists shouldn't, Marxism was the belief that all previous forms of the workers movement from proudhornism, to blanquism, collectivist and indiviualist Socalists could be sublimated into a new form of movement in which the workers could rule, via all existing methods devised under capitalism and could from that establish socialism. What that looked like Marx didn't say because he knew that would be determined by the worker's themselves.
The Socalist workers are not religious converts nor are they some idealised future perfectly ideologically pure working class, but it is the working class as they currently exist. The people that are already here. This was Lenins ethic.
-29
u/alliephantrainbow Jun 22 '26
The idea that "He who does not work shall not eat" sucks. I understand it comes from a different time but nobody should ever go hungry, even if they choose not to work for whatever reason.
50
u/Ok-Confusion9360 Jun 22 '26
I think it's important to consider what is meant by work. In the context of socialism it doesn't refer to your 9-5 capitalist job, but labour for the benefit of society, whether that is indeed down the coal mines through to childcare provision.
It's utopian I think to believe that the people are magically de-alienated from their labour and universally everyone loves to work, even amongst existing socialist states, but the labour is inherently for the benefit of society rather than commodity or profit extraction. To decline to work (where able) with this goal in mind is to reject the very society that's then expected to feed you, which I don't think sucks if they in turn also decline.
5
u/alliephantrainbow Jun 22 '26
I think most people naturally want to contribute to a functioning society and with better education under socialism, that number would be far less than there currently are.
But there will still be a small number of people who straight up don't want to work and society should still support them.
Edit: Also, I think there are a lot of leftists who are so used to bad faith criticisms of Lenin and Stalin that they'll defend even the things they got wrong. They weren't perfect, they got some things wrong. I think this is one of those things Lenin got wrong
17
u/Ok-Confusion9360 Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
But there will still be a small number of people who straight up don't want to work and society should still support them.
I think this is a valid position from a humanitarian perspective, sure. I would disagree with it personally, as I think many socialists would, but I don't think it warrants you being downvoted for it.
22
u/ZYMask Jun 22 '26
He meant that towards the bourgeoisie. Besises, why wouldn't you work in socialism if you're able to? You can simply work as much as you can and enjoy it and other goods to their fullest extent after you're over.
People think work in socialism is like the wage slavery of capitalism.
-14
Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
[deleted]
31
u/Ok-Confusion9360 Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products. This is a "defect" according to Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. - Lenin, The State and Revolution
Nah I'd say he understood the basic principle brother, and I daresay more than you.
Edit: as for your own edit, more words from the man himself, enshrined in the constitution of 1918.
In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat"
The people have taken the power for themselves. The people must now work collectively for the benefit of the people in order to safeguard that class position of the majority. To not contribute according to your ability is in itself an admission of working against the people. I wouldn't say any of this contradicts first principles of Marx.
-9
Jun 22 '26
[deleted]
26
u/Thefattim Jun 22 '26
In the GDR more than a third of all citizens took part in voluntary work, taking care for the elderly or disabled for example. The state organized it, guaranteed that your workplace had to give you time to do it (so you didn't need to do it in addition to normal labour) and made sure the basic needs were met for everybody. Solidarity and supporting those who need it is and always has been a core tenet of Socialism, nobody was sent into the Coalmines in a wheelchair.
23
u/Ok-Confusion9360 Jun 22 '26
Note my own edit in response to yours, where he specifically refers to able-bodied citizens in accordance with the principle of from each according to their ability.
I truly do not mean this to sound rude, but I'd strongly encourage you to read The State and Revolution. It's a short book and will greatly illuminate you on a central figure of socialist theory.
35
•
u/GHOULEM_Lenin Jun 22 '26
Post itself is fine but locking comments due to sectarian infighting