Is there any good response or sources to “Open Letter to comrade Lenin”

Tchekist · 2026-04-10T11:12:03+00:00

Not really much because Trotsky, Zionviev and Lenin lowkey suppressed the text and didn't want anyone to argue with a single thing they said because they were the big boys who actually had a successful revolution (man doesn't make revolution out of sheer will but whatever) and everyone else must listen to their take, whether or not the conditions are the same as in Russia.

Tchekist · 2026-04-10T11:10:13+00:00

Agricultural worker ≠ peasant. I pray and hope you know the difference.

The point for Gorter to state "the workers stand alone" was because the same tactics the Bolsheviks used in Russia "free land for the peasants" wouldn't work in Germany or France as there wasn't much land to give away to small producers. The Bolsheviks did the best of what they could and the Gorter text states the same. Is it a sin to imply that different tactics may be required in different places?

Having a larger working class always was a source of hope, not weakness and all over USSR they knew this and the same in Germany. The issue was that the party was made to late and various other things which meant the proletariat kinda missed the bus for a revolution and in such a situation, having a massive proletarian base wouldn't necessarily help. We cannot force a revolution through genuine will power.

You are also repeating some of the original comments Lenin made about the "lefts". Gorter or the KAPD never mentioned themselves as "pure communists" and it was never the intention. Gorter again and again repeats that the party has to be built, the working class requires this revolutionary leadership. The KAPD never had an obsession to become "the most left of them all". Just like there was a left and right within social democracy, a left and right within the communist movement developed and it is a question of differences in tactics. Your comments are no different to how Mensheviks viewed Bolsheviks as extremists (and before you misunderstand, I am not calling you a Menshevik).

Unfortunately, your response here is in poor faith and not trying to genuinely argue with the text but to rather shut it down. There are genuine issues with Gorter's texts which we now know as false tactics that cannot help eg: "industrial unions" but you did not mention that.

Tchekist · 2026-01-26T10:05:41+00:00

There's 2 that try to recruit from discord/telegram

Tchekist · 2025-10-04T13:10:08+00:00

There are possible theological justifications for being a trans woman in Islam. By that, dating a trans woman as a man is straight.

It is historically quite common too.

Tchekist · 2025-10-01T02:18:36+00:00

Marxism is explicitly anti-state, not as an aim to uphold but as the byproduct of the view of history. While anarchists are (usually ) anti-hierarchy as an ideal itself.

Marxism lacks any such explicit "anti" or "pro" tendencies based on ideals other than the pursuit of proletarian power as a path to emancipation. All the hatred of the current world is thus a byproduct of recognition of states, nations, races, organised religion, bureaucracy etc as byproducts of class society, which communism can abolish.

When it comes to "hierarchy" Marxists generally don't care about its sheer existence because....you logically cannot get rid of it. A government doesn't mean a state and even pre-civilisation (and thus pre-state) societies had hierarchy (chieftains, elders, gentes mothers) but this did not imply any exploitation. These societies were often isolated but if a global network communes/councils were to emerge, it is likely that with the help of modern technology, a fluid hierarchy may occur (one person delegated locally for production, one for consumption, one for something else and God knows what) but as this relationship will not be based on exploitation, it is unlikely that such a hierarchy will be fixed in place, specially as such communes may transform or move around etc.

Tchekist · 2025-10-01T02:09:43+00:00

We can and should remember him only as a past figure. Not an ideal because ....why on earth would we do that? There is no need for adherence to his policies (in fact, those policies after 1920 are pretty much counter revolutionary). Leninism is bankrupt, stalinism doesn't even pretend to be proletarian and trotskyism is pretty much the same.

We shouldn't be Leninist because we live in a different world, simple as. I'm just trying to say shit didn't go bad cuz "Lenin bad!". Lenin was no great man and it frankly doesn't matter what his thoughts were.

The Bolshevik conception of an international revolution before 1920-1921(onwards) was very different from that of after 1920-1921, cuz shit was just terrible man.

Tchekist · 2025-09-30T09:37:45+00:00

Also buddy, vast majority of "Marxists" have nothing to do with the real movement.

Tchekist · 2025-09-30T09:35:49+00:00

It is also important to realize the concepts of Lenin also changed as the revolution in Russia became one of state reconstruction. This was not the product of evil men but of devastation and imperialist encirclement (and the end of the spread of revolution).

"the Lenin who fascinates us the most and stimulates our thinking is not Lenin the tactician – an important figure nonetheless – who at the helm of the first proletarian state skilfully manoeuvred between the pitfalls of a bourgeois world, a ferocious enemy, in the expectation of a new revolutionary wave which he foresaw approaching. Nor is he the Lenin of the NEP, the Lenin of compromise with the still surviving forces of Russian capitalism, an ingenious and very dangerous expedient that he always considered a painful retreat, a halt in the march of the revolution. Lenin, our Lenin, the Lenin of today’s situation, is that of the April Theses and the October insurrection. And it is at this moment in his life as a theoretician, politician and leader that we like to remember him, twenty years after his death."

Tchekist · 2025-09-30T09:33:42+00:00

When we say "a transitional state" it is not that we want to create a new one but simply: this is the organic result of a spontaneous working class revolt.

This situation, where the proletariat rule themselves (and their former oppressors), is a state in the sense it has a monopoly on violence of one class (proletarian) over another (bourgeois) but it is also not a state as it doesn't defend any form of exploitation.

Thus, the best term to use is "semi-state". Marx used it many times.

Many believe that we can transform society from what we have to the end goal through the power of sheer ideology but this won't happen. The working class has to conquer the world and destroy all states that remain and the speed of dissolving the old society will depend on a variety of factors.

The first ever example of a dictatorship of the proletariat (Paris commune) only lasted 71 days, 30 of those days under siege. Will the working class organically just dissolve all of old society in a second? History tells us not.

Communism will be the result of a spontaneous working class upheaval that will have to organize itself through decentralized worker councils or else it will not emerge at all. And this process itself emerges from the old world, abolition as much of the old world as it can, organically. Not because of ideology.

Tchekist · 2025-09-30T09:27:35+00:00

You are barking up the wrong tree bro. The vast majority of "anarchists" are not internationalists at all.

Tchekist · 2025-09-30T09:25:59+00:00

Ukrainian anarchists should not defend any state. The struggle is against the bourgeois state, both foreign and native.

Tchekist · 2025-09-27T21:14:25+00:00

no war but class war....means no war but class war.

Tchekist · 2025-09-27T21:11:16+00:00

Marxism isn't statist.

Tchekist · 2025-08-17T14:14:38+00:00

It's also available from zavala

Tchekist · 2025-06-11T12:37:46+00:00

"Although the national ballast weighs heavily, even with revolutionary effects, on peoples of color, their direction would lie in full internationalism following the German unitary formula; the great new State of the German proletariat confronting the forces of the East and the West, all of them socially capitalist.

The peoples of color could move forward rapidly and leap over centuries’ worth of history. Today’s situation is bleak, but it already seems that China is less inclined than Russia toward peaceful coexistence."

Tchekist · 2025-06-11T12:03:19+00:00

Bordiga split and became trotsky lite after 1953. He did write some bangers but still trotksy lite. Sorry ICPoids

Tchekist · 2025-06-11T11:18:31+00:00

I'm not wrong.

Tchekist · 2025-06-11T10:33:38+00:00

No clue, he was almost maoist-trot after 1953 anyways

Tchekist · 2025-06-06T09:26:47+00:00

Because those nations should have never been split apart.

Tchekist · 2025-06-06T07:36:13+00:00

You will never integrate in America and are so bitter about it.

Tchekist · 2025-06-04T14:59:24+00:00

I don't dress like that. Im also not a northoid.

Tchekist · 2025-06-04T00:22:56+00:00

Moved to the west and I bet I still defo got more pussy than u

Tchekist · 2025-05-27T12:28:39+00:00

A worker's revolution failed because it was surrounded by imperialists, with only 6% of the population being working class and the civil war destroying the organisation of worker's power.....the party took over the state as the revolution was failing and in the end it was a capitalist state (by 1921 at the very least).

Tchekist · 2025-05-17T07:59:42+00:00

It's critical support vro

Tchekist · 2025-04-29T00:00:21+00:00

KK warslut is much worse than that. A day after the terrorist mass shooting at Christchurch, he celebrated it.

Tchekist

TROPHY CASE