Marxist-Leninism, what is it?

[Idealism]

Is it anti-statist? or Stalinist? does it believe in centralized democracy? i just have no idea.

[ZeroNowhere]

A term made up by Stalin.
Well, 'Marxism-Leninism', to be specific.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Anti-Revisionism Marxism-Leninism to be more precise.

[Tower of Bebel]

An ideology developed within the Bolshevik party after years of overly theoreticizing the Russian experience of 1917-1927.

[robbo203]

Is it anti-statist? or Stalinist? does it believe in centralized democracy? i just have no idea.

Its an oxymoron. Lenimism is the ideology of state capitalism and the vanguard elite. Marxism stands for communism and the self emancipation of the working class

[autotrophic]

Leninism is ultimately anti-statist, but not through revolution. Lenin said repeatedly in The State and Revolution that after the workers gained control of the State, that the functions of the State would become obsolete, and eventually 'wither away'.

Leninism as I understand it, takes all of Marx's theories for granted such as Historical Materialism, Dialectical Materialism, Class Contradictions and Struggle, etc, and then provides a strategy for achieving communism. According to him, the proletariat would seize control of the state and means of production, through a vanguard party, and then 'socialism' would be implemented. He considered socialism to be an early form of communism, whereas many leftists consider socialism and communism to be synonymous.

And I do believe Leninists do advocate some kind of democratic centralism within the state, with the state becoming less and less of a 'state' over time.

Being an anarchist, I don't agree with most of this though

[NecroCommie]

autotrophic already gave a brief introduction, but I would like to be more precise in my post.

Many different schools of Marxism-Leninism exist. Here I would like to illuminate my own views, representing the "original" Marxism-Leninism as it was conceived by Lenin himself.

The biggest difference to other schools of Marxism is the means of revolution, not the ends of revolution. Marxist-Leninists believe that a succesful revolution requires vast organisation of workers, which ideally leads to a "roof-organisation" of workers struggle called the "vanguard party" This party is made from full-time professional revolutionaries who the "spearhead" the revolution. This "spearheading" takes the form of informing and ispiring the masses, and organizing the workers who have joined the party, and ultimately enforcing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

There are many views on what exactly is the dictatorship of the proletariat. I personally see it as red guards not letting anyone have hold over others labour, or the products of others labour. In practice this would mean a ban on privately owned factories and farms, and an enforced economic direct democracy in factories and communes. These factories and communes would decide local issues in meetings and gatherings of direct democracy. These communes and factories would then organize into soviets in order to govern some larger scale issues (like infrastructure, industrialization and defence) Soviets would be governed by elected representatives, and ultmately the soviets would ally into world wide republic of socialist soviets.

The dictatorship of the proletariat would also include at first the persecution of fascists and other right-wing extremists who could threaten revolution. But in several years their threath is so small that the red guards can concentrate on defending the direct democracy (the ban of private property)

Other thing in which Marxist-Leninists differ to marxists, is the idea of socialism in one country. Communist theory holds that communism is only possible as a product of world revolution. I too hold this idea, but I think that the first stage: socialism, is possible in one country alone. Revolution in one country might also inspire revolutions elsewhere (as it did in 1917). Also these lone socialist countries are perfect "bridgeheads" for future revolutions, and good safehavens for persecuted revolutionaries.


As to the final transition to communism, this theory is yet to be proven, but I think it is plausible indeed. Lenin saw that the abolition of private enterprise needed to be infused to the culture itself in order for communism to thrive. So like no-one would dare to promote slavery anymore, the socialist society would make the private possession of labour a taboo. This way the local communities would independently punish capitalists thus making the state enforced socialism pointless. After this the state would eventually dissolve due to its pointlesness.

Leninism also promotes democratic centralism. This means that within the vanguard party all decisions would have to be made democratically, but when confronting non-communists the party member is expected to defend and promote the party lines regardless the personal views of the individual. This practice is derived from the theory of class struggle, and the fact that the capitalist class will seek every possible weakness in the workers front in order to dissolve it. As it is put in a finnish communist song: "There will be no love without justice, there will be no justice without a struggle, and there will be no struggle without a unified front" So to put it simply: The working class is expected to identify who is the enemy and who is the friend, and to always stand behind his comrades when confronted by class enemies.

This is also the reason why one might witness me defending viewpoints I might not personally agree with.

[Q]

Marxism-Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#marxism-leninism) is the (apologist) theoretical framework of Stalinism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism).

It has little to do with the genuine ideas advocated by Marx or Lenin though. "Marxism-Leninism" for example also includes the "socialism in one country" idea, while Lenin actually agreed with Trotsky's analysis that the only way to let the socialist revolution succeed is by having it internationally. Socialism in one country was actually fiercely attacked by Lenin, when the Mensheviks were sporting it.

Also the stalinist concept of the vanguard, the state, democratic-centralism are all very distorted by bureaucratic totalitarianism. Stalinism was a fine example of a Bonapartistic (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm#bonapartism) state, ie: a state without a clear class foundation and which is instead run by a bureaucracy in a totalitarian way. I recommend this article (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/02/ws-therm-bon.htm) for further reading.

Because "marxism-leninism" is in essense an apologism for the degeneration of the workers state that was the USSR, it is not able to give clear answers today in the class struggle and in which way to move ahead.

[NecroCommie]

While it is true that the socialism in one country idea cannot last in the long term, one has to start somewhere does one not? Lenins idea behind the russian revolution was to inspire revolutions throughout the entire world. While the plan did not work as it was supposed to, the idea that the world revolution would spontaneously start simultaneously everywhere is naive. Therefor one must be ready to uphold some sort of primitive socialism for several years or even decades or centuries for the revolution to spread. After all capitalists and their sympathisers will offer fearsome resistance throughout the way.

Marxism-Leninism is so far the only form of communist ideology that has improved the standard of life of huge masses of workers. And it continues to be the only communist movement which has the power to challenge capitalists in several states.

And at least here in the nordic countries the communist movement withered only due to lack of democratic centralism.