It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Vladimir Lenin correct?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
"As banking develops and becomes concentrated in a smaller number of establishments, the banks grow from modest middlemen into powerful monopolies having at their command almost the whole of the money capital of all the capitalists and small businessman and also the larger part of the means of production and sources of raw materials in any one country and in a number of countries."

and

"Monopolies, oligarchy, the striving for domination and not for freedom, the exploitation of an increasing number of small or weak nations by a handful of the richest or most powerful nations — all these have given birth to those distinctive characteristics of imperialism which compel us to define it as parasitic or decaying capitalism."

Vladimir Lenin, Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism

With the nature of the banks controlling capital, would one presume he was correct. We know that banks have bigger influences on wars and government than we are led to believe, so was Lenin right? Do banks and monopolies lead to the situation we are in today? Imperialist wars on weaker nations to gain capital and raw materials for just a few companies. Is this inevitable for capitalism? Hence why we are now in what one would possibly call "crony capitalism."




posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 

Well, with what we are seeing today, it doesn't seem like Lenin was wrong.

Does it?



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 

Communism was just another way of keeping people down and happy, just like all the rest. When you look at so-called other systems, there really isn't much difference to any of them in their effect, only in their statements imho. Would I believe Lenin? Probably not, the same as I wouldn't believe Hitler, Thatcher, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, royalty or popes. They are all lying parasites who are educated mainly in history, politics and public speaking.

"As a politician, Lenin was a persuasive orator, as a political scientist his extensive theoretic and philosophical developments of Marxism produced Marxism–Leninism, the pragmatic Russian application of Marxism."
Source is wiki.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 
You are correct about communism just being another system used by TPTB.

But in the quote from the OP.... Was Lenin wrong about big banks?



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


I understand where you are coming from but does this make his claims on big banks and monopolies less true?
I also believe that this particular work was written when he wasn't in Russia, and wasn't the head of the bolshevik state.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 

Possibly, but has Russia not done the same? I mean to say, it's not just the banks, in fact I would say it is equally the government that is to blame if not more so. The government's all gave power to the banks, as they do to other large corporations who make lots of taxable income. The government also always wins from their evil machinations so I don't think the question is as clear cut as that. Again, imho.

ETA Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, "of, for, or relating to citizens") is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.

Now, ask yourself, does politics still fit that wiki/dictionary definition? I would say not.

edit on 27/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA

edit on 27/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 

I do agree, banks are a large part of the problem and maybe he was seeing them there do the same thing. I haven't been much help really have I?


But my point again is that banks can only control that capital if a government lets it. The Bank of England is not owned by England, same with the Federal Reserve, central european bank and member states banks too. So the question I think is, who let that happen? The people? Or the "rulers"?

Again, probably not much help with the question. Sorry.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
He wasnt wrong, but at the same time, he was about alot of other stuff.

Personaly, I prefer the system that was in place at the start of this country (USA)... Everyone was their own contractor... Your worth was you, not your bank account. You could make your own money based off of your own worth.

For anyone interested... This is a very interesting topic in itself. It wasnt untill english banking systems that came here and started up this money rip from the people that everything started going to hell in a handbasket.

I read alot of info on this in my ecconomics class in highschool, but it's very fuzzy all these many, many years later. Anyone else care to shed a lil light on it?



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Never thought I would say this, but it seems hes was....Right.

At least what we are seeing right now, for the most part, that was almost dead on. It's pretty amazing actually how he could depict a crippling gov't that is baseing itself off of the bankers, which DO control the flow of money.

Great topic actually for a communist like Lenin.

-SAP-



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


You've helped by contributing


I do understand where you're coming from. Governments haven't helped the matter, however, in true bourgeois economies, the government is owned by the bourgeoisie and thus is run for its interests. Which is what we're seeing now.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join