The concept of Santa Claus do exist.

Z:

It seems to me to be way down the list of things worthy of our consideration; far below even: who cares what you think?

Who cares what your philistine friends think?

You like repetition almost as much as Lenin, it seems.

Once more, care to e-mail Alex Callinicos and say the same to him, for he is going too.

Serpent:

You mean, we can speak about this fictional character, sure.

But Lenin wants to argue from its mere presence, as an image, to his real existence.

Or, at least, that is what his inference, quoted above, implies.

And that further implies his argument is defective.

Rosa Lichtenstein,

This thread is carrying out an act much worse than picking quotations out of a hat and trying to validate a claim on their basis. Picking a quotation from a hat that you can use for an argument one way or the other that Lenin did or did not believe in Santa Claus [or rather, the use Santa Claus as a means of refuting the argument- which appears to have more relevance in this thread.

This is a weak argument and lacking more coherence than the argument that "The USSR would have been more socialist if Trotsky was in power following Lenin's death". Neither history or science can prove it, which makes it sound like nonsense to any comrade with even the least bit of intelligence.

That aside, this thread hardly provides on any basis a conclusion that "Lenin's arguments where nonsense" -- as you try to prove.

Take any quotation out of context and use to fuel an argument that had nothing to do with it - on a topic that had nothing to do with the quotation - and what you end up with then is that of a strawman argument.

Certainly, it will get much attention from the anarchists- and by all means they will thank you for your contribution - but you have failed to supply the intelligent comrades here with any valid basis for your claims.

R: Obviously not you. But then they're just worker comrades of a party you purport to support, not dignitaries of an ivory tower.

Sure, give me his e-mail address. But I doubt he's going there to denounce Marxism in front of its enemies like you are.

CN:

You are right; it is impossible to establish anything in such a thread. That is why I wrote a 50,000 word essay on this topic.

This thread was made deliberately provocative to direct the few comrades here who are sufficiently open to new ideas to that essay. I think we can scrub you from that list.

Others can rest safe in their dogmatic slumbers.

But, Lenin has no other argument allowing him to move from his own subjective images, to objective reality.

You are welcome to try to find one, if you think otherwise. I have been looking for one for longer than many here have been alive, and to no avail.

Translated, this means: not one single Leninist here can defend Lenin (and I say that as a Leninist, too).

And you lot are not alone; I have yet to meet fellow Leninist who can.

But, they, like you, are experts in trying to deflect attention from that fact.

Witness Citizen Z, Zurdito and Hiero's inane comments.

Z:

Philistines by any other name, and defended by, who else but: the uber-Philistine himself.

I wish I had it; but if you give me your real name, I'll pass your ignorant remarks on, and the control commision will then sort you out.

Moreover, all those present will be Marxists; the conference is called 'Renewal of the Left', and has been organised by Marxists.

And all I will be denouncing is the poisonous influence of the mystical ideas that still have the likes of you in their grip

Miaow.

EDIT: I find it weird that you would judge someone to be a philistine because they don't want to read what you consider to be an "execrable book" of bad philosophy.

Eh?

Yeah, be sure to tell everyone there what a bunch of idiots you think they are .

The following is the complete paragraph to which the sentence in the OP belongs:

Luís Henrique

Z:

Ah, your best point to date.

Your word mate:

And, according to your latest outburst, that means you are "wierd".

As I said, "wierd".

I will in fact be telling them that mystics like you invent stuff to put in my mouth, since you cannot respond to my critique.

I suspect they too will think you a wierd Philistine.

Thanks for that LH, but in what way does that defend Lenin; especially when he went on to say:

Did I say it did?

Luís Henrique

Thanks Luis, the quote is mor einteresting in the full context. I still think it makes perfect sense on its own, too, but its much more worthy of consideration in its real context.

Good point, why would a member of a leninist party read a book by Lenin? Ridiculous suggestion. Workers love Lenin because he was a great leader, and that's what workers like, leaders, right? Obviously they wouldn't read his book and question it, they're workers. Not like them intellectuals in their ivory tower who read. Now let's get pissed.

hmmm I wonder why the left does so badly in Britain.

By the way our editions of M&E seem to be different; I can't find that in page 279. In which chapter and section is it?

Luís Henrique

LH:

You didn't say anything, so I was seeking clarification.

Don't tell me that you too have moved into an enigmatic phase...

If you click on the link in my original post, it will take you to the right section of MEC.

Z:

Still avoiding the issues I see.

It's not doing too well anywhere else, either.

If truth is tested in practice, and this sort of guff lies at the heart of Leninist theory, then practice, and not just Rosa, has refuted it.

Then if Luis won't answer, perhaps you will: how does that defend Lenin against my accusations?

LH, here is the link in full:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...m#v14pp72h-232

It's almost exactly half way down that page.

Use "The image inevitably" to search for it.

Fine. And here is the complete paragraph to which the sentence you quote belongs:
Luís Henrique

No, but you weren't convinced when myself or Wat Tyler proved the point to you, so you keep clinging to a lost battle. I just posted that because I am grateful that Luis posted up the full quote because I went on to read more, and found the passage interesting.

Not necesarily true, Venezuela and Bolivia are in revolutioanry situations, and France, Italy and Greece have come pretty close in recent years too. But this is probably not the palce for that conversation. The point is that Britain is particularly bad.

I didn't say it did, it simply places the quote in a context where it actually has a purpose, which makes it more valuable.

Of course that is the difference between formal and dialectical logic. Formal logicians take the "component parts" of a dialogue out of the time and space which gives them meaning, which is pretty idealist at its core as you seem to expect to find "inherent value" to a sentence. This ties in pretty well with the whole rationalist tradition which sees the universe like clockwork, which can be broken down to self-contained component parts, all working of their own accord (in rational self-interest I presume).

I suppose you think saying that makes me a mystic, however, it's you who expects to find the meaning of a sentence in and of itself rather than as part of a whole, which suggests fetishization of the component part.

I am not telling you that I moved into an enigmatic phase... and I would not tell even if I did.

******************
It seems of interest that the Lenin text you are criticising does not derive its "dialectics" from Hegel, but from Kautsky... in fact, Lenin's later turn to Hegel was a direct response to Kautsky's support of war.

In other words, M&E is vulgar materialism; which can be seen as he calls Feuerbach's materialism "consistent"...

Luís Henrique