What do you think?
Rate this book
Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution
Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution was written by Lenin in Geneva, in June-July 1905. The book was published in late July 1905, by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. It was twice republished in Russia in the same year, once by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., and the second time by the Moscow Committee of the Party, this time in 10,000 copies.
The book was illegally distributed throughout the country—particularly in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan, Tiflis and Baku. On February 19, 1907 it was banned by the St. Petersburg Press Department, and on December 22 of the same year the St. Petersburg Court issued an injunction for its destruction.
The book was illegally distributed throughout the country—particularly in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan, Tiflis and Baku. On February 19, 1907 it was banned by the St. Petersburg Press Department, and on December 22 of the same year the St. Petersburg Court issued an injunction for its destruction.
140 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1905
16 people are currently reading
621 people want to read
About the author
Vladimir Lenin
2,746 books1,855 followersVladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Vladimir Lenin, was a Russian revolutionary, leader of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks), statesman and political theorist. After the October Revolution he served as the first and founding head of government of Soviet Russia from 1917 until his death in 1924 and of the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1924.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
December 26, 2025
“Only the most ignorant people can ignore the bourgeois nature of the democratic revolution which is now taking place; only the most naïve optimists can forget how little as yet the masses of the workers are informed about the aims of Socialism and about the methods of achieving it.
And we are all convinced that the emancipation of the workers can be effected only by the workers themselves; a socialist revolution is out of the question unless the masses become class conscious and organized, trained and educated in open class struggle against the entire bourgeoisie.
In answer to the anarchist objections that we are putting off the socialist revolution, we say: we are not putting it off, but we are taking the first step towards it in the only possible way, along the only correct road, namely, the road of a democratic republic.”
— V.I Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (1905), Chapter 2: What Does the Resolution of the RSDLP Teach Us
And we are all convinced that the emancipation of the workers can be effected only by the workers themselves; a socialist revolution is out of the question unless the masses become class conscious and organized, trained and educated in open class struggle against the entire bourgeoisie.
In answer to the anarchist objections that we are putting off the socialist revolution, we say: we are not putting it off, but we are taking the first step towards it in the only possible way, along the only correct road, namely, the road of a democratic republic.”
— V.I Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (1905), Chapter 2: What Does the Resolution of the RSDLP Teach Us
September 8, 2023
Lenini analüüs 1905. aasta revolutsiooniliste sündmuste osas ning mis peamine - võrdlus menševike ("uusiskralaste") lepitava ning kodanlikku valitsust või isegi tsaariloodud Zemski Sobori toetava poliitika ja bolševike järeleandmatut poliitikat, mille peamisteks nõudmisteks olid universaalne hääletamisõiguse kehtestamine, vabade asutava kogu valimiste väljakuulutamist ning demokraatliku vabariigi kehtestamist. Lenin kaitseb ka ülestõusu ettevalmistamise vajadust menševike eest, kes enamuses olid rahul juba saavutatud eduga revolutsioonis ning ei soovinud "kodanluse tagasi põrkamist".
Nagu teisedki Lenini valitud teosed annab see samal ajal aimu Vene revolutsioonilise liikumise ajaloost ning erinevatest leeridest, kuid avab ka leninistliku teooriat erinevatel teemadel. Selles osas on Leninit huvitav lugeda, sest erinevalt paljudest teistest revolutsionääridest oli tema marksismi käsitlus muutumatu.
"Proletariaadil pole kaotada midagi peale ahelate, aga demokratismi abil võidab ta kogu maailma."
Nagu teisedki Lenini valitud teosed annab see samal ajal aimu Vene revolutsioonilise liikumise ajaloost ning erinevatest leeridest, kuid avab ka leninistliku teooriat erinevatel teemadel. Selles osas on Leninit huvitav lugeda, sest erinevalt paljudest teistest revolutsionääridest oli tema marksismi käsitlus muutumatu.
"Proletariaadil pole kaotada midagi peale ahelate, aga demokratismi abil võidab ta kogu maailma."
August 16, 2025
An excellent demonstration of interventionist Marxism. Lenin clarifies the tasks of the workers in the democratic revolution of 1905 - argues that despite its bourgeois limitations, they must play the leading role in agitating for the formation of a provisional government based on universal suffrage, direction elections, secret ballots. Lenin sees workers as having a great stake in the bourgeoise revolution, to win it on the most democratic basis possible. This is in sharp contrast to the Mensheviks who relegate workers role *a priori*, who fear independent militant action by workers will cause the bourgeoisie to “recoil”, and who fudge the necessary demands that could offer decisive leadership to the struggle. This is also where Lenin begins to think about the relationship between workers and the peasantry as the basis for a future democratic alliance.
July 6, 2015
The best of Lenin's work that I've read so far. Still in his usual favorite form of polemic, however since this polemic is against the Mensheviks, it becomes a real analysis of tactics as opposed to simply criticism of a the Mensheviks.
September 15, 2024
This is written just as the 1905 revolution is happening. That revolution gave rise to a number of questions in the socialist movement in Russia: should the socialists be preparing for the insurection or should they focus on bread and butter and propaganda? What is an appropriate measure of the decisive victory of the revolution? Is it the formation and defence, as a result of the insurrection, (by the armed people) of a revolutionary provisional government or does the calling of some kind of body (national assembly, constituent assembly, Duma, etc.) by the tsar in itself suffice? Should the socialists participate in the Provisional government or should they remain outside of it to be able to criticise it when it inevitably fails to satisfy the needs of the revolutionary people?
The text is an exposition of the views of the bolsheviks in contraposition to the mensheviks' on those questions.
Bolsheviks: an insurrection is necessary and should be prepared, that insurection will result in revolutionary Provisional government which will be able to call a constituant assembly in a free manner (that is without the tsarist state coming down on the voters and delegates), the socialists should participate in that government that would take the form of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the peasantry and the proletariat.
Mensheviks (and apparently Trotsky??): socialist shouldn't be preparing the insurection since this is a bourgeois revolution, if they do they might end up leading the provisional government, and since it's a bourgeois revolution they will end up adopting policies that are necessary for the bourgeois revolution but that go against the needs of the proletariat, which will discredit them in the eyes of the workers. And also if they participate in the government they might scare the bourgeois off which will limit the scope of the revolution since it will send the bourgeois over to the side of reaction and will isolate the working class against both the absolute monarchy and the bourgeoisy.
Read the text for a detailed explanation of how these views are wrong and represent nothing other than abject opportunism, in the context of a *bourgeois democratic revolution* (not a socialist one). Lenin's argument is that the Mensheviks were confusing the bourgeois revolution for the socialist one.
One thing was missing from Lenin's analysis, and I think he didn't get there until 1917. Accomplishing the tasks of the bourgeois revolution would put the bourgeois against the revolution (Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution). Lenin actually talks about every objective aspect that makes this a necessary outcome but he doesn't draw the conclusion that that would fundamentally alter the scope of the dictatorship of the peasantry and the proletariat which would have to *directly* overstep the bounds of the bourgeois regime.
To me it's not clear how long the dictatorship of the peasantry and the proletariat would last. Does that dictatorship preside over the capitalist development that he saw as prerequisite for a socialist revolution? If so, then the bourgeoisie would hold economic power in that society. How can a class hold economic power while another wields the political power, in a dictatorship on top of that? So that's obviously not what's being proposed. Then power must shift to a parliamentary democracy set up by the convened constituent assembly with universal suffrage and everything else. And I think both tendencies had that in mind as an end goal (of the bourgeois revolution). But why would the bourgeoisie ever be allowed to share in power when they were too impotent to win it for themselves in the first place? Why would the revolutionary proletariat and the peasantry yield power to the bourgeoisie after they've won the right to rule by overthrowing the autocracy despite (and not thanks to) the bourgeoisie? Maybe being so far from the European bourgeois revolutions historically is making this harder to understand and seem more abstract for me than it was for the Russian marxists in 1905. I'll have to read more on the slogan for the constituent assembly.
In any case, this is well worth reading to get a precise understanding of the various trends in the socialist movement at the onset of the 1905 revolution. And yeah it's a typical Lenin banger.
The text is an exposition of the views of the bolsheviks in contraposition to the mensheviks' on those questions.
Bolsheviks: an insurrection is necessary and should be prepared, that insurection will result in revolutionary Provisional government which will be able to call a constituant assembly in a free manner (that is without the tsarist state coming down on the voters and delegates), the socialists should participate in that government that would take the form of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the peasantry and the proletariat.
Mensheviks (and apparently Trotsky??): socialist shouldn't be preparing the insurection since this is a bourgeois revolution, if they do they might end up leading the provisional government, and since it's a bourgeois revolution they will end up adopting policies that are necessary for the bourgeois revolution but that go against the needs of the proletariat, which will discredit them in the eyes of the workers. And also if they participate in the government they might scare the bourgeois off which will limit the scope of the revolution since it will send the bourgeois over to the side of reaction and will isolate the working class against both the absolute monarchy and the bourgeoisy.
Read the text for a detailed explanation of how these views are wrong and represent nothing other than abject opportunism, in the context of a *bourgeois democratic revolution* (not a socialist one). Lenin's argument is that the Mensheviks were confusing the bourgeois revolution for the socialist one.
One thing was missing from Lenin's analysis, and I think he didn't get there until 1917. Accomplishing the tasks of the bourgeois revolution would put the bourgeois against the revolution (Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution). Lenin actually talks about every objective aspect that makes this a necessary outcome but he doesn't draw the conclusion that that would fundamentally alter the scope of the dictatorship of the peasantry and the proletariat which would have to *directly* overstep the bounds of the bourgeois regime.
To me it's not clear how long the dictatorship of the peasantry and the proletariat would last. Does that dictatorship preside over the capitalist development that he saw as prerequisite for a socialist revolution? If so, then the bourgeoisie would hold economic power in that society. How can a class hold economic power while another wields the political power, in a dictatorship on top of that? So that's obviously not what's being proposed. Then power must shift to a parliamentary democracy set up by the convened constituent assembly with universal suffrage and everything else. And I think both tendencies had that in mind as an end goal (of the bourgeois revolution). But why would the bourgeoisie ever be allowed to share in power when they were too impotent to win it for themselves in the first place? Why would the revolutionary proletariat and the peasantry yield power to the bourgeoisie after they've won the right to rule by overthrowing the autocracy despite (and not thanks to) the bourgeoisie? Maybe being so far from the European bourgeois revolutions historically is making this harder to understand and seem more abstract for me than it was for the Russian marxists in 1905. I'll have to read more on the slogan for the constituent assembly.
In any case, this is well worth reading to get a precise understanding of the various trends in the socialist movement at the onset of the 1905 revolution. And yeah it's a typical Lenin banger.
January 23, 2024
“Revolutions are the locomotives of history, said Marx. Revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed and the exploited. At no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come forward so actively as creators of a new social order as at a time of revolution. At such times the people are capable of performing miracles, if judged by the narrow, philistine scale of gradual progress. But the leaders of the revolutionary parties must also make their aims more comprehensive and bold at such a time, so that their slogans shall always be in advance of the revolutionary initiative of the masses, serve as a beacon, reveal to them our democratic and socialist ideal in all its magnitude and splendour and show them the shortest and most direct route to complete, absolute and decisive victory…But let ruthless struggle first decide the choice of the path.
We shall be traitors to and betrayers of the revolution if we do not use this festive energy of the masses and their revolutionary ardour to wage a ruthless and self-sacrificing struggle for the direct and decisive path. Let the bourgeois opportunists contemplate the future reaction with craven fear. The workers will not be frightened either by the thought that the reaction promises to be terrible or by the thought that the bourgeoisie proposes to recoil. The workers are not looking forward to striking bargains, are not asking for sops; they are striving to crush the reactionary forces without mercy, i.e., to set up the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.”
We shall be traitors to and betrayers of the revolution if we do not use this festive energy of the masses and their revolutionary ardour to wage a ruthless and self-sacrificing struggle for the direct and decisive path. Let the bourgeois opportunists contemplate the future reaction with craven fear. The workers will not be frightened either by the thought that the reaction promises to be terrible or by the thought that the bourgeoisie proposes to recoil. The workers are not looking forward to striking bargains, are not asking for sops; they are striving to crush the reactionary forces without mercy, i.e., to set up the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.”
August 8, 2018
Audiobook
A relatively short and insightful pamphlet from the 1905 Russian Revolution. Historically, this text is quite fascinating: the Bolsheviks have not fully fleshed out their identity yet, and still identity as "Social Democrats," a term which means something very different today than it did 113 years ago. While this is pretty far down a reasonable priority list of Lenin's writings, I still found it helpful. The writing is incredibly specific in who it targets, and thus it takes a while to understand the character of the organizations Lenin rails against with his characteristic vitriol and sharp tongue.
The thrust of the text revolves around a handful of core political questions: how should collaboration with the bourgeoisie be approached? What should be the attitude of the revolutionary movement towards participation in the provisional government established after the overthrow of the Tsar? What constitutes a decisive victory over Tsarism? What is the nature and purpose of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry?
These questions, answered thoroughly and passionately by Lenin, are not of enormous relevance today, as Feudalism and Monarchism are not really what we are struggling against. However, the text contains some excellent insights for any revolutionary party, especially in the final few chapters and the first and third post-script. Moreover, Lenin’s critiques of the bourgeois revolutionaries and the Mensheviks are useful in dealing with present-say “democratic socialist” parties and other factions of the progressive left.
In general, I found this text helpful, but would not consider it to be high priority reading unless you are, like me, desperate for free audiobooks, or else have way too much time on your hands for reading theory.
A relatively short and insightful pamphlet from the 1905 Russian Revolution. Historically, this text is quite fascinating: the Bolsheviks have not fully fleshed out their identity yet, and still identity as "Social Democrats," a term which means something very different today than it did 113 years ago. While this is pretty far down a reasonable priority list of Lenin's writings, I still found it helpful. The writing is incredibly specific in who it targets, and thus it takes a while to understand the character of the organizations Lenin rails against with his characteristic vitriol and sharp tongue.
The thrust of the text revolves around a handful of core political questions: how should collaboration with the bourgeoisie be approached? What should be the attitude of the revolutionary movement towards participation in the provisional government established after the overthrow of the Tsar? What constitutes a decisive victory over Tsarism? What is the nature and purpose of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry?
These questions, answered thoroughly and passionately by Lenin, are not of enormous relevance today, as Feudalism and Monarchism are not really what we are struggling against. However, the text contains some excellent insights for any revolutionary party, especially in the final few chapters and the first and third post-script. Moreover, Lenin’s critiques of the bourgeois revolutionaries and the Mensheviks are useful in dealing with present-say “democratic socialist” parties and other factions of the progressive left.
In general, I found this text helpful, but would not consider it to be high priority reading unless you are, like me, desperate for free audiobooks, or else have way too much time on your hands for reading theory.
April 21, 2017
A great historical reference for anyone interested in a first hand account of the political situation among social democrats leading up to the Russian revolution. Lenin's passion, wit, and commitment to the cause of Russian Socialism breathes life into history, making the book an enjoyable read.
Where it lacks, however, is in immediate applicability. The focus of Lenin's critiques is so narrow that the only real takeaways for the modern left, is that we should be wary of making Socialism so broad and palatable that it losses its inherently revolutionary spirit. It's something to keep in mind as we strive to find a balance between spreading our philosophy and maintaining the inherently working class revolutionary nature of Socialism.
Where it lacks, however, is in immediate applicability. The focus of Lenin's critiques is so narrow that the only real takeaways for the modern left, is that we should be wary of making Socialism so broad and palatable that it losses its inherently revolutionary spirit. It's something to keep in mind as we strive to find a balance between spreading our philosophy and maintaining the inherently working class revolutionary nature of Socialism.
May 30, 2014
A dry and rhetorical rant-essay. It is a hard read for those non ideologically faithful die hards, whereas for those believers in Bolshevism and harder Social Democracy then this is a book for you.
It does cover the 1905 revolt in parts which makes this for an interesting historical read. Like a lot of ideological philosophers Lenin is self assured in his principles and ideals. It is the bloody practice and application of his work that his words tend to take on a more sinister edge.
Typical of Lenin's writing. Certainly not for me. Though it is a short read.
30 %
It does cover the 1905 revolt in parts which makes this for an interesting historical read. Like a lot of ideological philosophers Lenin is self assured in his principles and ideals. It is the bloody practice and application of his work that his words tend to take on a more sinister edge.
Typical of Lenin's writing. Certainly not for me. Though it is a short read.
30 %
October 18, 2012
Lenin here presents his views on the Russian revolution of 1905 through comparisons between the Bolshevik political viewpoints and those of the smaller factions within the social-democratic party... He also considers the transition to socialism...
September 25, 2014
When Lenin finds out the Tsar is his father, and Marx comes to him in a vision to explain everything, and all the fuzzy little proletariat have a party after blowing up the Death Star palace, that's my favourite bit.
April 19, 2020
(Read in Jomtien, Thailand)
September 7, 2019
'The revolution in our country is one that involves the whole people, says the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. Therefore, you, as a separate class, must confine yourselves to your class struggle, must in the name of “common sense” devote your attention mainly to the trade unions, and their legalisation, must consider these trade unions as “the most important starting point in your political education and organisation,” must in a revolutionary situation draw up for the most part “serious” resolutions like the new Iskra resolution, must pay careful heed to resolutions that are “more favourably inclined towards the liberals,” must show preference for leaders who display a tendency to become “practical leaders of the real political movement of the working class,” must “preserve the realistic elements of the Marxian world outlook” (if you have unfortunately already become infected with the “strict formulae” of this “unscientific” catechism).
'The revolution in our country is one involving the whole people, Social-Democracy says to the proletariat. Therefore, you, as the most progressive and the only thoroughly revolutionary class, must strive not only to take the most active part, but also the leading, part in it. Therefore, you must not confine yourselves to narrowly conceived limits of the class struggle, meaning mainly the trade union movement, but, on the contrary, you must strive to widen the limits and the content of your class struggle to include not only all the aims of the present, democratic, Russian revolution of the whole of the people, but the aims of the subsequent socialist revolution as well. Therefore, while not ignoring the trade union movement, while not refusing to take advantage of even the slightest legal possibilities, you must, in a revolutionary period, put in the forefront the tasks of armed insurrection and the formation of a revolutionary army and a revolutionary government as being the only way to the complete victory of the people over tsarism, to the winning of a democratic republic and real political liberty.'
'The revolution in our country is one involving the whole people, Social-Democracy says to the proletariat. Therefore, you, as the most progressive and the only thoroughly revolutionary class, must strive not only to take the most active part, but also the leading, part in it. Therefore, you must not confine yourselves to narrowly conceived limits of the class struggle, meaning mainly the trade union movement, but, on the contrary, you must strive to widen the limits and the content of your class struggle to include not only all the aims of the present, democratic, Russian revolution of the whole of the people, but the aims of the subsequent socialist revolution as well. Therefore, while not ignoring the trade union movement, while not refusing to take advantage of even the slightest legal possibilities, you must, in a revolutionary period, put in the forefront the tasks of armed insurrection and the formation of a revolutionary army and a revolutionary government as being the only way to the complete victory of the people over tsarism, to the winning of a democratic republic and real political liberty.'
August 1, 2024
En este texto de 1905, Lenin (para variar) polemiza con los mencheviques, que tras el II congreso de POSDR, en lugar de acudir al III congreso, formaron una conferencia que elaboró unas resoluciones diferentes a las del congreso.
Lenin polemiza con la resolución menchevique, aprovechando para ahondar en el papel del los socialdemócratas en los gobiernos provisionales revolucionarios (deben participar en ellos o no?), el caracter burgués de la revolución, o el papel que el proletariado debe jugar en la misma para avanzar en su lucha.
Frente al argumento de que la lucha debe centrarse en cauces legales, parlamentarios, economicistas, etc. Lenin argumenta que, una vez metidos en la revolución, es fundamental desarrollar la actividad ilegal y la lucha armada en paralelo a las acciones legales, y que el partido debe formar parte de los gobiernos provisionales revolucionarios para garantizar que el proletariado no lucha "bajo pabellon ajeno". En definitiva, que debe emplear las dos tácticas de forma coordinada y paralela.
Muy recomendable a quien esté interesado en el periodo histórico de la revolución de 1905, y para quien quiera entender mejor la política de compromisos en oposición al izquierdismo y la de accion directa frente al derechismo, que sólo quiere actuar "de palabra".
Lenin polemiza con la resolución menchevique, aprovechando para ahondar en el papel del los socialdemócratas en los gobiernos provisionales revolucionarios (deben participar en ellos o no?), el caracter burgués de la revolución, o el papel que el proletariado debe jugar en la misma para avanzar en su lucha.
Frente al argumento de que la lucha debe centrarse en cauces legales, parlamentarios, economicistas, etc. Lenin argumenta que, una vez metidos en la revolución, es fundamental desarrollar la actividad ilegal y la lucha armada en paralelo a las acciones legales, y que el partido debe formar parte de los gobiernos provisionales revolucionarios para garantizar que el proletariado no lucha "bajo pabellon ajeno". En definitiva, que debe emplear las dos tácticas de forma coordinada y paralela.
Muy recomendable a quien esté interesado en el periodo histórico de la revolución de 1905, y para quien quiera entender mejor la política de compromisos en oposición al izquierdismo y la de accion directa frente al derechismo, que sólo quiere actuar "de palabra".
November 13, 2023
four stars for historical interest rather than entertainment value; this is v dry Lenin as opposed to entertainingly abusive Lenin, his barbs are quite bland here.
this was written post-1905 when the revolution was beginning to bear constitutional fruit in the form of the Duma but before it became clear how conditional these advances were. Lenin sets himself the task of discrediting socialists who have turned towards liquidating into the constitutional bourgeois movement (Mensheviks, legal Marxists etc.) as well as maximalists (SRs and anarchists calling for immediate declaration of the socialist republic) and justifying against both the Bolshevik stance which insists that the next revolution will be constitutional / democratic / bourgeois (he hadn't come around to Trotsky's permanent revolution yet) but that it is possible to carve out maximal gains for the proletariat and peasantry in moving it forward
Lenin had just lost control of the Iskra editorial board and refers to them throughout as 'the new-Iskraists', which I found amusing
this was written post-1905 when the revolution was beginning to bear constitutional fruit in the form of the Duma but before it became clear how conditional these advances were. Lenin sets himself the task of discrediting socialists who have turned towards liquidating into the constitutional bourgeois movement (Mensheviks, legal Marxists etc.) as well as maximalists (SRs and anarchists calling for immediate declaration of the socialist republic) and justifying against both the Bolshevik stance which insists that the next revolution will be constitutional / democratic / bourgeois (he hadn't come around to Trotsky's permanent revolution yet) but that it is possible to carve out maximal gains for the proletariat and peasantry in moving it forward
Lenin had just lost control of the Iskra editorial board and refers to them throughout as 'the new-Iskraists', which I found amusing
April 3, 2024
This was written prior to the Russian Bolshevik revolution and prior to social democratism splitting off as a separate ideology from socialism/communism, so at this point Lenin is discussing a reactionary, revisionist segment of his communist (“social democratic”) party. The ones that would end up sticking with the term “social democracy” and redefine its ideology into the liberal, bourgeois form we know in the present… just as Lenin warns them here.
It’s interesting to read Lenin so vehemently railing against policies he would himself support after he gained power, but his critiques of the SocDems still hold to this day.
It’s interesting to read Lenin so vehemently railing against policies he would himself support after he gained power, but his critiques of the SocDems still hold to this day.
April 17, 2024
An awful, incoherent slog, full of repetitions and random Russian words.
You just cannot go into this blind, you have to know a lot of things beforehand. And I mean a lot of communist nonsense. "You had to be there," or something to that effect. And even then it's a pain.
Everything is an "ism" and everybody is an "ist" to Lenin. I get the idea he must have been a boring man.
You just cannot go into this blind, you have to know a lot of things beforehand. And I mean a lot of communist nonsense. "You had to be there," or something to that effect. And even then it's a pain.
Everything is an "ism" and everybody is an "ist" to Lenin. I get the idea he must have been a boring man.
November 16, 2024
Dit is een boek van Lenin dat ik nu al weet dat ik nog eens moet lezen. Het gaat vooral over taktiek en niet over inhoud. Ik heb veel bijgeleerd over welke fouten er gevaarlijk zijn om te maken. Ik kom me direct enkele mensen voor de geest halen die die fouten zouden maken. Another banger from Lenin.
October 24, 2022
Excelente resumen que sucedia en el seno del debate del Partido socialdemócrata ruso entre mencheviques y bolchevique sobre las estrategias y tácticas que se verán reflejados en la futura revolución de 1905 y 1917.
June 13, 2021
The Chad Lenin vs the Virgin Martynov
September 5, 2021
Basically, don’t trust Social Democrats
March 22, 2022
Citando el propio libro:
Quizá la expresión más elocuente de esta disensión entre el ala oportunista intelectual y el ala revolucionaria proletaria fuese (...) "¿Tenemos derecho a vencer?"...
Quizá la expresión más elocuente de esta disensión entre el ala oportunista intelectual y el ala revolucionaria proletaria fuese (...) "¿Tenemos derecho a vencer?"...
Read
February 22, 2023he is so smart 🫶🏼
August 25, 2023
Today I learned that violence isn’t a means to an end in the Communist utopia.
It’s the END to be arrived at.
Violence for all the non-revolutionaries.
Consider me sobered.
It’s the END to be arrived at.
Violence for all the non-revolutionaries.
Consider me sobered.
July 18, 2025
I kept spacing out.
October 1, 2012
As Duas tácticas da social-democracia na revolução democrática é o guia estratégico de um pensador com a crença nos ideais do marxismo tradicional. O planeamento do capital primitivo através da ditadura do proletariado seria assim conforme este livro o caminho do sucesso para a superação do capitalismo, assim visão limitadora sociológica da luta de classes não permitiu nem a superação e nem a explicação do desenvolvimento do capitalismo que teria assim o seu espaço e tempo na história, ou seja era um sistema com um limite interno como qualquer outro paradigma existente. Lenine é a prova de que nem uma vanguarda, nem a classe operária serão a emancipação da humanidade como teria sido reflectido analiticamente na Questão Judaica o papel do estado poder é apenas uma parte parcial, portanto a consciência crítica mete-se a partir da revolução micro electrónica que tanto desvalorizou o dinheiro e as mercadorias, é necessária a reflexão critica do capitalismo através da sua auto-destruição.
Read
March 18, 2014que merda de livro.
A sífilis comeu o amendoim deste demente.
Perdi a conta das vezes que a palavra "burguesia/burguesa" aparece
A sífilis comeu o amendoim deste demente.
Perdi a conta das vezes que a palavra "burguesia/burguesa" aparece
April 7, 2016
Yarıya yakını polemik, demagoji hatta laf salatasından ibaret olsa da geri kalan yarısı kitabı bir bütün olarak okunmaya değer kılıyor.
November 24, 2020
Still relevant.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews