Is Leninism separate from mainstream communism?

[Oktyabr]

After reviewing some of his policies, i.e. killing off opposition; establishing a dictatorship of the communist party; placing the control of the means of production in the hands of the government; monitoring the people with a secret police; how can the darker aspects of Lenin's ideas be considered a branch of Marxism? They contradict main stream Marxism, and such has even been admitted by ardent Marxist like Rosa Luxemburg. In a chart, there would be two branches of communist thought: Marxism, and Leninism. To me, they are separate and distinct of one another, and any attempt to conjoin the two leads to paradox and hypocrisy.

Any one's thoughts? I know I am bound to get bashed by Lenin's supporters.

[LeninBalls]

establishing a dictatorship of the communist party; placing the control of the means of production in the hands of the government; monitoring the people with a secret police;

If you seriously think this is what us Leninists, incl Trots because they are Leninists you know, hope to achieve and is imbued in our ideology then kindly shoo.

[Brother No. 1]

establishing a dictatorship of the communist party

Did he? He set up a Socialist goverment with Soviets and helped the working class. Also woudlnt you use "claim" this agaisnt us Marxist-Leninists when a Stalin discussion came?:laugh:




killing off opposition

Killing or ralling them behind him? The Mensheviks wanted a Revoltuion due to Evolution in Russia, a political Evolution, while he and the Bolsheviks wanted Violent Revolution and Marx did say REVOULTION was needed to place the Dictatorship of the Proletarian. Besides at this time The Russian empire was at its knees and all political parties were fighting to gain control.





monitoring the people with a secret police

the KGB was to protect the citizens and drive out any remaining Capitalists and Czarists that survived during the Revolution,Civil War, and allied Invasion.





how can the darker aspects of Lenin's ideas be considered a branch of Marxism?

If you read on Lenin and Leninism you would know that Leninism supports a Vangaurd party to lead the Revolution. Lenin was a Marxist and combined Marx's ideas with his own and created Leninism. Besides nothing is just in black and white comrade.




I know I am bound to get bashed by Lenin's supporters.

I'm not bashing you I am only telling you my view and what Leninism has in common with Marxism. Besides Marxist-Leninists are all around here. Trots are MLs ARs are MLs basicly anyone who is a AR,Trot, or anyone inbetween, who isnt Anti-Lenin or Anarchist of course, is a Marxist-Leninist.



such has even been admitted by ardent Marxist like Rosa Luxemburg.

Everone has a oppion comrade and this was hers. All us Communists have an oppion of each other.

[RHIZOMES]

I'd hate to hear what your definition of "mainstream communism" is if it doesn't include Leninism. Probably some vaguely populist liberal Eurocommunist shit.

[Oktyabr]

I'd hate to hear what your definition of "mainstream communism" is if it doesn't include Leninism. Probably some vaguely populist liberal Eurocommunist shit.

Well you can see how well Leninism has worked. It simply hasn't. Every country to try leninism failed.

Yet when real Marxism, think Spain 1936, is attempted, the people unite, and equality is accepted as a necessity of life. However, Leninists managed to crush that before Marxist Spain ever got to blossom into the flower of Europe it could have become. Thank you very much.

[Pawn Power]

'Mainstream' communists today are mostly exclusively Lennenists or Troskyists, so no.

It is really a shame too since there is such a rich history of communism which goes beyond their theorizing.

[gorillafuck]

Leninism is "mainstream communism"

[Oktyabr]

Since when has Lenin become more important than Marx, Engels, Connolly, or Luxemburg? Are you going to tell me that these men and woman, who comitted the most revolutionary acts against the capitalist system ever do not mean a thing in the face of a man whose life is amok with irony?

Also,
When you claim that Lenin was the first man to overthrow capitalism, you spit in the faces of all the proletarians who fought their hearts out for the cause. They fought not for Lenin, but the promise of a better life. And considering that many thousands of Russians starved due to a flawed and mis-managed system, I am suprised that one would advocate it. The reason people hate communism today is because of Lenin's corruption of Marxist theory. They look at a vision which is at once appalling to Marxists, Anarchists, and Capitalists alike.

[Brother No. 1]

And considering that many thousands of Russians starved due to a flawed and mis-managed system, I am suprised that one would advocate it.

They starved for after 1917 the Allies feared the threat this new Socialist republic would bring to their goverments. They were also angry that Russia made a peace treaty with the Germans so they did a invasion of Russian and supported the white army, aka The Czarist supporters, and death was inveditdable. What was Lenin to do? He had to fight off both the Allies and the Czarists and plus the Red Army at that time wasnt a modern force to handle that.



Since when has Lenin become more important than Marx, Engels, Connolly, or Luxemburg?

Did anyone sau this? No they did not for Lenin, himself, didnt want to have statues, monuments, or to even by idolized. He was a good politicon,leader, and Communist. Anarchist wont agree with me for many of their reasons but this is my oppion and they have their oppions on Lenin.




The reason people hate communism today is because of Lenin's corruption of Marxist theory.

sure... and Its not because of the loads of propoganda and the Cold War that doesnt make them hate us.:rolleyes:




q[upte]When you claim that Lenin was the first man to overthrow capitalism, you spit in the faces of all the proletarians who fought their hearts out for the cause.[/quote]

Lets correct this. Lenin was the first man to overthrow Capitalism/Czarism in Russia and create a Socialist Republic. He wasnt the first to fight of course and all others who fought before him just wanted the Czarist system out.





Are you going to tell me that these men and woman, who comitted the most revolutionary acts against the capitalist system ever do not mean a thing in the face of a man whose life is amok with irony?

No one has said that. All Revolutionaries,wether remembered or not, are important equaly. Revolution is hard and life is lost and that has to happen in Revolution for its a Violent Revolution. Or do you think the Menshivk way of Revolution is better?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Since when has Lenin become more important than Marx, Engels, Connolly, or Luxemburg?Blame the media, not us. He produced something that is not equal to the men you quoted. If he did not, it would probably be then to Luxemburg or Council Communism.


Are you going to tell me that these men and woman, who comitted the most revolutionary acts against the capitalist system ever do not mean a thing in the face of a man whose life is amok with irony? committed? It about the proletarians, not a leader or book-creator. Most revolutionary acts is actually a opinion and will be views as such how you see it and not a fact.



When you claim that Lenin was the first man to overthrow capitalism, you spit in the faces of all the proletarians who fought their hearts out for the cause. They fought not for Lenin, but the promise of a better life.So Lenin fought for himself, you think? I am expecting either understandable or evil answer from you when you cannot comprenend about the historical aspect about him.


And considering that many thousands of Russians starved due to a flawed and mis-managed system, I am suprised that one would advocate it. Right! We expect perfect system from you and teh anarkyst!! The Spanish Revolution clearly shows that you still need a lot of work, even the anarchists is very disorganized in Russian Revolution, otherwise we would see great system. Sadly, it does not.


The reason people hate communism today is because of Lenin's corruption of Marxist theory. People hated communism!? That is news! Actually, it is mostly because they been taught communism is evil and Lenin is a total dictatorship drilled into their mind. Even if Russian Revolution failed, people will still be taught communism is evil and Lenin was a dictator for short period of time doing unspeakable thing that there wouldn't a credible thing against him. It is not surprisingly that you just rant just like liberals to me.

You can start looking up Marxist Library and we will talk, this is something I wish you will do. So we all can have credible debate.

[Charles Xavier]

Mainstream communism is Leninism.

[More Fire for the People]

Who's a mainstream communist? Obama?

[gorillafuck]

Since when has Lenin become more important than Marx, Engels, Connolly, or Luxemburg?
Lenin was more influential than Connolly and Luxembourg.


Are you going to tell me that these men and woman, who comitted the most revolutionary acts against the capitalist system ever
"I'm more revolutionary than you!"


do not mean a thing in the face of a man whose life is amok with irony?
No, I never said that. You seem to have just pulled that statement out of a hat.


I am an anarchist, btw.

[Oktyabr]

You guys are totally missing the point of this thread.

I'm meaning to say that Lenin's mode of thought cannot be considered Marxism. And so the term Marxist-Leninist is not viable. I meant to say that Lenin believed in things and committed acts were opposed to the fundamentals of marxism.

And when I said "mainstream", I meant traditional. Like mainstream sports, which would be football, soccer, etc. Because Lenin' style of thought opposed Marx's, his form of communism was not traditional. Somehow, this morphed into an argument over who was right and who was wrong. I meant only to have an educated discussion, and that is impossible when people are accusing you of saying things they did not understand.

[Brother No. 1]

And so the term Marxist-Leninist is not viable.

So the Trots,ARs, and just plain MLs dont exist now? Since they all follow under the Marxist-Leninist ideal. And in your OPPION that the term Marxist-Leninist cant be used since you think Leninism=/=Marxism theeory.

[Oktyabr]

So the Trots,ARs, and just plain MLs dont exist now? Since they all follow under the Marxist-Leninist ideal. And in your OPPION that the term Marxist-Leninist cant be used since you think Leninism=/=Marxism theeory.

Im not a trot, Im not a stalinist, Im not a Marxist or an anarchist, but a Humanist, and I am trying to have an educated discussion

[Brother No. 1]

Im not a trot, Im not a stalinist, Im not a Marxist or an anarchist, but a Humanist, and I am trying to have an educated discussion

Yes I know, on note I'm not Stalinist thats a insult for it that claims I worship Stalin which I dont, but you seem to be implying that Marxism-Leninism isnt viable sinc in your belief that Marxism theory =/= Leninism Theory. But does this also mean that Maoism is not traditional? That Troskyism isnt traditional, since Troskyism=Marxism-Leninism, and that Anti-Revisionism isnt traditional to Marxism since it is also a Marxist-Leninist branch.

[Oktyabr]

Yes I know, on note I'm not Stalinist thats a insult for it that claims I worship Stalin which I dont, but you seem to be implying that Marxism-Leninism isnt viable sinc in your belief that Marxism theory =/= Leninism Theory. But does this also mean that Maoism is not traditional? That Troskyism isnt traditional, since Troskyism=Marxism-Leninism, and that Anti-Revisionism isnt traditional to Marxism since it is also a Marxist-Leninist branch.

My point is that Marxism cannot be combined with Leninism. The two have some similarities, but the differences are considerable.

[RHIZOMES]

Well you can see how well Leninism has worked. It simply hasn't. Every country to try leninism failed.

Leninist states "failing" =/= Leninism not being part of mainstream communism.



Yet when real Marxism, think Spain 1936, is attempted, the people unite, and equality is accepted as a necessity of life. However, Leninists managed to crush that before Marxist Spain ever got to blossom into the flower of Europe it could have become. Thank you very much.

ahahahahahaha:lol::lol::lol:

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

After reviewing some of his policies, i.e. killing off opposition; establishing a dictatorship of the communist party; placing the control of the means of production in the hands of the government; monitoring the people with a secret police; how can the darker aspects of Lenin's ideas be considered a branch of Marxism? They contradict main stream Marxism, and such has even been admitted by ardent Marxist like Rosa Luxemburg. In a chart, there would be two branches of communist thought: Marxism, and Leninism. To me, they are separate and distinct of one another, and any attempt to conjoin the two leads to paradox and hypocrisy.

Any one's thoughts? I know I am bound to get bashed by Lenin's supporters.

You bring up Luxemburg as a "main stream Marxist", so perhaps it might be easiest to just post what she had to say:


Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.


Doubtless the Bolsheviks would have proceeded in this very way were it not that they suffered under the frightful compulsion of the world war, the German occupation and all the abnormal difficulties connected therewith, things which were inevitably bound to distort any socialist policy, however imbued it might be with the best intentions and the finest principles.


A crude proof of this is provided by the use of terror to so wide an extent by the Soviet government, especially in the most recent period just before the collapse of German imperialism, and just after the attempt on the life of the German ambassador. The commonplace to the effect that revolutions are not pink teas is in itself pretty inadequate.


Everything that happens in Russia is comprehensible and represents an inevitable chain of causes and effects, the starting point and end term of which are: the failure of the German proletariat and the occupation of Russia by German imperialism. It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international proletariat as a model of socialist tactics. When they get in there own light in this way, and hide their genuine, unquestionable historical service under the bushel of false steps forced on them by necessity, they render a poor service to international socialism for the sake of which they have fought and suffered; for they want to place in its storehouse as new discoveries all the distortions prescribed in Russia by necessity and compulsion – in the last analysis only by-products of the bankruptcy of international socialism in the present world war.


Let the German Government Socialists cry that the rule of the Bolsheviks in Russia is a distorted expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If it was or is such, that is only because it is a product of the behavior of the German proletariat, in itself a distorted expression of the socialist class struggle. All of us are subject to the laws of history, and it is only internationally that the socialist order of society can be realized. The Bolsheviks have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of historical possibilities. They are not supposed to perform miracles. For a model and faultless proletarian revolution in an isolated land, exhausted by world war, strangled by imperialism, betrayed by the international proletariat, would be a miracle.


What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescencies in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: “I have dared!”


This is the essential and enduring in Bolshevik policy. In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to “Bolshevism.”

[Revulero]

The only reason Leninism is considered "mainstream" is because their the ones who have had power and influence on the world. They are also smart in dealing with the opposition.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Marxism contains Leninism implicitly. Thats why I'm not a Marxist, but I take Marx's ideas with a pinch of salt and Lenin's with a barrel of salt.

What do you understand Leninism to be and how is it implied in Marx's writings?

[ComradeOm]

I'm all for answering stupid questions, that's how we all begin, but I find it hard to consider the OP anything more than trolling. Instead of asking a question Oktyabr has placed a number of very flammable charges, the only purpose of which is to stir up a shitstorm

Nothing good or productive can come of this discussion. If the OP has a genuine question then he should be able to rephrase it in a manner that is not hopelessly sectarian or hostile. There's a valid discussion to be had here - the underlying reasons for the unquestioned popularity of 'Leninist' thought or even, if you're feeling brave, the mass nature of historical Marxist-Leninist parties - but that's not going to happen in this thread

[Q]

I'm all for answering stupid questions, that's how we all begin, but I find it hard to consider the OP anything more than trolling. Instead of asking a question Oktyabr has placed a number of very flammable charges, the only purpose of which is to stir up a shitstorm

Nothing good or productive can come of this discussion. If the OP has a genuine question then he should be able to rephrase it in a manner that is not hopelessly sectarian or hostile. There's a valid discussion to be had here - the underlying reasons for the unquestioned popularity of 'Leninist' thought or even, if you're feeling brave, the mass nature of historical Marxist-Leninist parties - but that's not going to happen in this thread

I agree, the OP has no willingness to learn anything, a key feature of this subforum, but just wants to make his point - be it based on ignorance on the subject. Perhaps it ought to be moved to somewhere else.

[el_chavista]

If they dare to send a thread about Maoism 3rd Worldism to OI, let alone this socialdemocrat anti-Leninist thread.

[LeninBalls]

Every country to try leninism failed.

I'm surprised why no one has refuted this.

[Q]

I'm surprised why no one has refuted this.

Because it is a waste of time.

[NecroCommie]

I'm surprised why no one has refuted this.
I'm tired of answering these: "Socialist word X has failed" strawmen. "Leninist states have failed" is exactly as viable argument as "communism has failed".

What is failing? Failing for whom? Is it really because of ideology or material conditions? Is it yet too early to make such a statement at all?

[Oktyabr]

Im not a trot, Im not a stalinist, Im not a Marxist or an anarchist, but a Humanist, and I am trying to have an educated discussion

And obviously I chose the wrong site for that. Look back over your arguments and consider why I am saying things I don't mean to say, or I didn't intend to.

[Q]

You are however not at all trying to have an "educated discussion", but just put your ignorant opinion out here as a given fact. Yes, you indeed chose the wrong site to troll around.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Those refuting the original posters claims have done nothing to prove him wrong. Could you please explain why he is wrong about Lenin's ideas and what Leninism is if he IS wrong.

[Glenn Beck]

Oh look, somebody saw that Noam Chomsky youtube lecture about "mainstream marxism" and decided to start yet another in an endless series of threads dismissing the legacy of Bolshevism as a cynical caricature with a series of factually deficient accusations presented in an inflammatory manner and then whining when they reap the results of creating an unequal and tilted field of debate.

What a fascinating and novel turn of events.

[bellyscratch]

After reviewing some of his policies, i.e. killing off opposition; establishing a dictatorship of the communist party; placing the control of the means of production in the hands of the government; monitoring the people with a secret police; how can the darker aspects of Lenin's ideas be considered a branch of Marxism? They contradict main stream Marxism, and such has even been admitted by ardent Marxist like Rosa Luxemburg. In a chart, there would be two branches of communist thought: Marxism, and Leninism. To me, they are separate and distinct of one another, and any attempt to conjoin the two leads to paradox and hypocrisy.

Any one's thoughts? I know I am bound to get bashed by Lenin's supporters.

I don't agree with everything that Lenin did, but a lot of the 'bad' things he did were, from my understanding, 1) exaggerated by the western pro-capitalist regions, and 2) done in desperation to save the revolution.

By mainstream Marxism, do you mean orthodox Marxism? If so then you could have a point. But essentially mainstream Marxism (the most popular form of Marxism in the western developed regions) is basically Leninism, or the 2 associated ideological stances (who both see themselves as being a continuing strand of Leninism) of Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) and Trotskyism.

Just a bit of advice to the OP. Try not to be too defensive about your views and people's criticisms of them. We're all here to learn and are wrong about things sometimes.

[ComradeOm]

Those refuting the original posters claims have done nothing to prove him wrong. Could you please explain why he is wrong about Lenin's ideas and what Leninism is if he IS wrong.There's no point in engaging with trolls. Their purpose is not to learn/discuss but to confront and argue. In this particular case the OP presented what can only be called a grotesque distortion of 'Leninism' before proceeding to make a completely arbitrary differentiation with 'Marxism'. There wasn't even a question involved!

When the absurdity of his charges was pointed out by a number of posters (who have more patience than myself) Oktyabr then went into stonewall mode and insisted point blank that everyone else had "missed the point". There has been no attempt to engage with the posters who did respond. He is not here to learn or to discuss but simply to push his opinion. That is a troll

Frankly I'm disappointed that I had to be the first person to step up and call this for the bullshit it is

[Oktyabr]

By mainstream Marxism, do you mean orthodox Marxism? If so then you could have a point. But essentially mainstream Marxism (the most popular form of Marxism in the western developed regions) is basically Leninism, or the 2 associated ideological stances (who both see themselves as being a continuing strand of Leninism) of Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) and Trotskyism.

Yes, thats exactly what I meant. Perhaps the term "mainstream" was not the proper word. Orthodox would have worked so much better.

[RHIZOMES]

Yes, thats exactly what I meant. Perhaps the term "mainstream" was not the proper word. Orthodox would have worked so much better.

Well at least now your statement makes sense, but it is still equally retarded. Leninism different from Marxism?? No shit! That's why it's called Marxism-Leninism, because it's a development of Marxist ideas. Development =/= wrong. In fact it's a very dogmatic and simplistic view to take. I guess soon you'll be criticizing Marxism for not being like Orthodox Hegelianism. :laugh:

[Black Sheep]

What the fuck does 'mainstream communism' mean?
It can either mean the communist tactics that are objectively the best way to mvoe towards communism, OR the ones that have prevailed as the 'orthodox' means to do so.

And since the former has not been proven, it seems to me that glorious mother russia has set an example for of all us naive young communists.

Hell, in my country 'left communist' is kind of a swear word amongst anti-revisionists.

It's like a religious thing,and non leninists are heretics.A fucking shame.

[Oktyabr]

I agree, the OP has no willingness to learn anything, a key feature of this subforum, but just wants to make his point - be it based on ignorance on the subject. Perhaps it ought to be moved to somewhere else.

I asked a question out of ignorance, hoping that one of you could provide me with a rational answer that did not include attacking my views, but rather gave me reasonable information to prove that I was wrong. I assume that not all of you were masters at political philosophy when you first came here.