Marxism-Leninism

[Bombay]

Is Marxism-Leninism really communism? I have the impression Marxism-Leninism=Bolshevism. Bolsheviks didn't even want to achieve true communism. Is true communism the ultimate goal of marxist-leninists or do they want the state to have control over production for ever:confused:

[4 Leaf Clover]

Is Marxism-Leninism really communism?
yes marxism-leninism is ideological road , that also works out the ideas of achieving classless society


I have the impression Marxism-Leninism=Bolshevism.
hmmm. Modern day marxist-leninists are followers of bolshevik revolution , but are not dogmatic to the same principles. We make theories out of facts , and analyse the current situation. Every country does not have the same predispositions for a socialist revolution


Bolsheviks didn't even want to achieve true communism.
thats not true. If you are to prove it , you would have to invent time machine , and a portable mind invasion machine , to go into bolshevik heads and figure what they wanted. Lenin and his followers certanly were building a movement for a worldwide revolution



Is true communism the ultimate goal of marxist-leninists or do they want the state to have control over production for ever:confused:
in the short perspective , the goal of marxist-leninists is to fight imperialism , and build a movement to destroy capitalism

in long perspective , our goal is building a classless communist society

as Communist_USA said our goal is to "destroy capitalism , strengthen socialism , and build communism"

[Thirsty Crow]

Marxism-Leninism is an ideology, whereas communism is a term used to designate an envisioned socioeconomic formation. Keep that in mind.
Also, you really have no ground for a statement like "the Bolsheviks didn't really want to achieve communism". You have to understand that world wide communism (just as capitalism today is global, world wide) was definately out of the question from the October Revolution since the USSR precisely because communism in one country is NOT possible. The USSR was faced with a hostile political order - i.e. capitalism. You really should put things into (historical) context,

But, that does not mean that I defend Stalin's regimes and the horrid mistakes that were done.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Is Marxism-Leninism really communism? I have the impression Marxism-Leninism=Bolshevism. Bolsheviks didn't even want to achieve true communism. Is true communism the ultimate goal of marxist-leninists or do they want the state to have control over production for ever:confused:

Soviet leaders who came from a Marxist-Leninist background actually abandoned the principles of Marxism-Leninism in favor of capitalist nationalism. (Stalin, Kruschev, etc. etc.) It would be inaccurate to say that they represent an application of Marxist-Leninist ideology to praxis (their actions were directly opposed to the building a communist movement.) Real communists have been pointing this out since the 1920's, however it is more convenient for bourgeois propagandists to popularize Marxism-Leninism and socialism as anti-working class dictatorships, if they are even brought up at all.

In Marxism-Leninism, the working class of one geographic area destroys the capitalist state and builds a democratic workers' state. The state is defined as a tool of class oppression. A democratic workers state (not a party bureaucracy) works to eradicate class oppression by abolishing private property and showing revolutionary solidarity to workers in capitalist economies. In the context of global capitalism, the state cannot immediately cease to exist because class interests are contested and must be enforced, one way or another. It is in the proletarians' interest to forcefully abolish capitalism, but that can only be done through democratic structures, a mechanism of class force (the state). Once the workers have used this tool to create equality, the state will cease to function as a tool of class oppression, i.e. it won't be there anymore.

[Adil3tr]

State capitalist theorists say the soviet union and the result of the Marxist Leninist ideology is just state capitalism and the name Marxist Leninism doesn't even make sense since both Marx and Lenin would have opposed it.

[#FF0000]

Is Marxism-Leninism really communism? I have the impression Marxism-Leninism=Bolshevism. Bolsheviks didn't even want to achieve true communism. Is true communism the ultimate goal of marxist-leninists or do they want the state to have control over production for ever:confused:

There were plenty of Bolsheviks who wouldn't be considered Marxist-Leninist. There were plenty of left-communists involved with them, for example.

Anyway, yes, Marxism-Leninism is a form of socialism. Whether or not it's correct is up to you.

[danyboy27]

in b4 an anarchist or a trot flame the shit out of this thread.

its painful to say, but yea i guess marxism-leninism is a form of communism, and probably one of the ideology mostly compatible with the way the world is currently ruled. If you like the way its done right now, you would probably love it.

[Bombay]

Thanks, now I think I understand it a little better.

About Lenin, I read somewhere that after he got power he changed his opinions. According to what I read, Lenin said radical Marxism is an infantile disease (can't remember the exact words). I'm not sure what he meant by "radical marxism" but could it mean communism? If so, maybe Lenin himself wasn't a leninist in the end:p And if he indeed changed his visions (when in power), what is Leninism? The early Lenin or Lenin after he changed?

This may sound stupid but I'm just a little confused.

[A.R.Amistad]

I have the impression Marxism-Leninism=Bolshevism. Bolsheviks didn't even want to achieve true communism. Is true communism the ultimate goal of marxist-leninists or do they want the state to have control over production for ever:confused:

Where did you get this from? Not to seem rude, but have you read the State and Revolution by Lenin, particularly the chapter on communism as the highest stage of the socialist revolution?

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s4

"Marxism-Leninism" is a term that was created by Stalin long after Lenin's death to justify Stalinist revisionism with a fancy, Bolshevik seeming name. Example: Bolshevik's supported international revolution as necessary for socialism's success. Marxist-Leninists support "Socialism in One Country" which none of the Bolsheviks, not even Stalin in his younger years, supported until the Stalinist Bureaucracy began securing power. Yes, Marxism-Leninism is a form of socialist ideology. But it is arguably a total revision of Bolshevism and Marxism.

But honestly, where did you get this "the Bolsheviks didn't support 'true communism'"??

[A.R.Amistad]

Thanks, now I think I understand it a little better.

About Lenin, I read somewhere that after he got power he changed his opinions. According to what I read, Lenin said radical Marxism is an infantile disease (can't remember the exact words). I'm not sure what he meant by "radical marxism" but could it mean communism? If so, maybe Lenin himself wasn't a leninist in the end:p And if he indeed changed his visions (when in power), what is Leninism? The early Lenin or Lenin after he changed?

This may sound stupid but I'm just a little confused.

The book is 'Left Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder. It is a criticism of ultraleft (or "ultraleft' to try to be impartial) tendencies within the socialist movement at the time. "Ultraleft" is a pejorative used to denounce people who dogmatically hold to certain aspects of left wing ideas, misinterpret left wing ideas to taking them to ridiculous extremes without any awareness of a given period in history or the real needs of the masses. I've never seen Lenin use, let alone denounce, the term "radical Marxism."

[A.R.Amistad]

Bombay

what is Leninism?

Quick and easy to read synopsis of the main contributions of Lenin to Marxist theory:
http://marxists.org/archive/mandel/1970/04/leninsher.html

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

"Marxism-Leninism" is a term that was created by Stalin long after Lenin's death to justify Stalinist revisionism with a fancy, Bolshevik seeming name. Example: Bolshevik's supported international revolution as necessary for socialism's success. Marxist-Leninists support "Socialism in One Country" which none of the Bolsheviks, not even Stalin in his younger years, supported until the Stalinist Bureaucracy began securing power. Yes, Marxism-Leninism is a form of socialist ideology. But it is arguably a total revision of Bolshevism and Marxism.

But honestly, where did you get this "the Bolsheviks didn't support 'true communism'"??

Do you have a source that says Stalin coined the term "Marxism-Leninism"? Even if that was true, it wasn't very original, and it was a hijacking of the terms, since Stalin's theories and actions have no correspondence to an accurate representation or application of Marxism or Leninism. For that reason, I think that if Marxism and Leninism, as such, are being defended then so should "Marxism-Leninism" even if that's what Stalin claimed to be. Stalin also called himself a socialist, doesn't mean we have to shy away from the word.

[A.R.Amistad]

Do you have a source that says Stalin coined the term "Marxism-Leninism"? Even if that was true, it wasn't very original, and it was a hijacking of the terms, since Stalin's theories and actions have no correspondence to an accurate representation or application of Marxism or Leninism. For that reason, I think that if Marxism and Leninism, as such, are being defended then so should "Marxism-Leninism" even if that's what Stalin claimed to be. Stalin also called himself a socialist, doesn't mean we have to shy away from the word.

From MIA:
Marxism-Leninism

A label of Lenin's approach to Marxism at the beginning of the 20th-century, in a capitalist Russia (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/places/r/u.htm#russia) emerging from feudalism. While Lenin considered himself only a Marxist, after his death his theory and practice was given the label of Marxism-Leninism, considered to be an overall evolution of Marxism in the "era of the proletarian revolution". Marxism-Leninism was the official political theory of the former Soviet state and was enforced throughout most of the former Eastern European socialist governments of the 20th-century.

Historical Development: The creation and development of Marxism-Leninism can be divided into two general categories: the creation and development by Stalin (1924-1953), and the revision by Khrushchev and continual revisions by the Soviet government to follow (1956-1991).
Stalin defined Leninism in his work The Foundations of Leninism : "Leninism is Marxism in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular." Stalin explained that Leninism first began in 1903, and was identical to Bolshevism.
Stalin explained that a foundation of Marxist-Leninist theory was that a socialist revolution could only be accomplished by the Communist Party of a particular nation, the vanguard of the working class (its organizer and leader). After the socialist revolution had been affected, this vanguard would act as the sole representative of the working class.

While in some ways a direct product of Lenin's philosophy for Russia, Marxism-Leninism also took on new approaches. For example, though Lenin believed that socialism could only exist on an international scale, Marxism-Leninism supported Stalin's theory of "Socialism in One Country". Stalin enforced Marxism-Leninism as an international platform by explaining that its principles and practices applied to the whole world.

In this way Marxism-Leninism became the only true theory and practice of Marxism in the 20th-century – 'without adhering to Marxism-Leninism a socialist revolution could not be achieved'. This assertion was partly based on one of the foundations of dialectical materialist (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectical-materialism) thinking: that practice is the criterion of truth. Stalin explained that Lenin had shown through his practice, a particular way to establish a socialist government in Russia; thus that practice substantiated Lenin's theory as true in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. That particular (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/a.htm#particular) however, was extracted from its historical context and converted into a universal (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/u/n.htm#universal). Hence the basis for why some considered the label Marxist-Leninist to be partially idealist (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#idealism), because it placed the conditions of practice particular to Russia at the beginning of the 20 century as true for all countries in the world.

Despite Stalin's creation and evolution of the Marxist Leninist philosophy, the term was later used by the Soviet government in support of "De-Stalinification". While Stalin had recognized the theory of the Communist vanguard as a creation of Lenin, the Soviet government headed by Khrushchev had explained that the Communist vanguard was in fact a part of the "Marxist" aspect of Marxism-Leninism (an aspect which hitherto had been little addressed). The Leninist aspect, Khrushchev explained, began in the "era of the proletarian revolution and socialist construction".
Khrushchev developed Marxism-Leninism to explain that a worldwide war between workers and capitalists was no longer necessary, but instead that the ideal of peaceful coexistence is inherent in the class struggle. The new Soviet government further explained that while Marxism-Leninism was created by the theory and practice of the dictatorship of the proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dictatorship-proletariat) (which Lenin had explained as a short and transitionary form of government) Marxism-Leninism evolved into the theory of a "state of the whole people" (This development was directly opposite of Marx, Engels, and Lenin's theory of the state – that the state always acts in the interests of a certain class, and when no classes existed, the state would cease to exist).

After Lenin's death, the creation, development and evolution of Marxism-Leninism was the focus of crippling sectarian (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/e.htm#sectarianism) battles throughout the world over what Lenin "had really meant". Stalin explained that the practice and understanding of Trotsky was completely opposite of Leninism (Trotskyism or Leninism? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm)) , while Trotsky criticized Stalin's Marxism-Leninism as a failure (Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm)). Mao criticized Khrushchev's Marxism-Leninism as bourgeois revisionism (On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm)), while Khrushchev and later the Chinese government itself declared Mao a renegade to Marxism-Leninism, etc, etc, etc.....


I've seen the term "Leninism" used before Stalin's use of it by people liike Luxemburg in her earlier, anti-Bolshevik years. I've also seen Lenin use the term in quotes ("Leninism") when responding to critics to emphasize that he was a Marxist and not a Blanquist. Before Stalin, "Leninism" as with any other "name-ism" used in the Marxist movement was a pejorative (Trotskyism, Kautskyism, Luxemburgism, Zinovievism, etc.) and every Marxist who was labeled with such a term usually had to defend themselves as just plain Marxists. Lenin always identified as just a Marxist, and the Bolsheviks just as Marxists and Bolsheviks. Stalin was the first to use the term "Leninism" in a non-pejorative way.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

From MIA:
Marxism-Leninism


I've seen the term "Leninism" used before Stalin's use of it by people liike Luxemburg in her earlier, anti-Bolshevik years. I've also seen Lenin use the term in quotes ("Leninism") when responding to critics to emphasize that he was a Marxist and not a Blanquist. Before Stalin, "Leninism" as with any other "name-ism" used in the Marxist movement was a pejorative (Trotskyism, Kautskyism, Luxemburgism, Zinovievism, etc.) and every Marxist who was labeled with such a term usually had to defend themselves as just plain Marxists. Lenin always identified as just a Marxist, and the Bolsheviks just as Marxists and Bolsheviks. Stalin was the first to use the term "Leninism" in a non-pejorative way.

Didn't Marx also say that he wasn't a Marxist? Leaders have to have a certain degree of modesty unless they want to look like narcissistic cult leaders. But "name-isms" for better or worse are what's used to describe the ideas behind their positions. Whenever people ask about Stalinism, and someone usually jumps in to say "no, you mean 'Marxism-Leninism,'" they are doing a disservice to creating an honest representation of the ideas of Marx and Lenin.

[A.R.Amistad]

Didn't Marx also say that he wasn't a Marxist? Leaders have to have a certain degree of modesty unless they want to look like narcissistic cult leaders. But "name-isms" for better or worse are what's used to describe the ideas behind their positions. Whenever people ask about Stalinism, and someone usually jumps in to say "no, you mean 'Marxism-Leninism,'" they are doing a disservice to creating an honest representation of the ideas of Marx and Lenin.

Thats why I personally don't like the name game. If life wen't my way, I would just wan't to be called a "communist" since thats how Marx and Engels described themselves, or perhaps a "Bolshevik Communist" to emphasize the Bolshevik theoretical and historical heritage. Sometimes I call myself a "Marxist-Bolshevik" just because I think "Bolshevik-Leninists" leaves Marx and Trotsky out and "Trotskyist" leaves Marx and Lenin out. Its all just names, and Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsly weren't the only ones who contributed great things to Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism. But alas, the world isn't my way, so when I say I'm a communist I have to go on and give a list of names to back it up. I'm a communist, a Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Bolshevik, Fourth Interntionalist. I don't like to identify as a "Marxist-Leninist" because the term is hackneyed. But your right, just because something is not popular (the word "communism," the hammer and sickle symbol, Leninism, revolutionary socialism, 'dictatorship of the proletariet) doesn't mean we shouldn't uphold what it really means and support it proudly. I just don't extend that to the "Marxist-Leninist" phrase.

[A.R.Amistad]

But back to the OP, I want to clear this point that is seriously bugging me and makes no sense to me:

Bombay

Bolsheviks didn't even want to achieve true communism.

??????:confused:?

[NecroCommie]

Marxism-Leninism is in no way different from other schools of communism in what it wants. The difference is in how we think it is best achieved.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Thanks, now I think I understand it a little better.

About Lenin, I read somewhere that after he got power he changed his opinions. According to what I read, Lenin said radical Marxism is an infantile disease (can't remember the exact words)
lenin said that ultra-left is infantile desease , and criticized bakuninists , that means he showed opposition to the new tendencies of ultra-left , as he called them , adventurist left



.

[Adil3tr]

lenin said that ultra-left is infantile desease , and criticized bakuninists , that means he showed opposition to the new tendencies of ultra-left , as he called them , adventurist left



.

Well they did oppose Brest Litovisk and wanted to wage revolutionary war against the entire capitalist world, and didn't they oppose right to self determination?

[NecroCommie]

Yes, but then again most anti-nationalists opposed the right to national self-determination as something that would only breed more nationalism.

Not saying that it is the right thing to do, but there is a glimmer of logic there.

[Thirsty Crow]

But back to the OP, I want to clear this point that is seriously bugging me and makes no sense to me:

Bombay


??????:confused:?
I think that OP actually bought that idea that the Bolsheviks were a power hungry clique (as "proved" by purges, disastruous collectivization, Stalin etc. etc.). As I've said, it caanot be proven, it's justr an overly emotional reaction.

[Bombay]

But back to the OP, I want to clear this point that is seriously bugging me and makes no sense to me:

Bombay


??????:confused:?

Sorry I couldn't answer earlier. I just feel this way and cannot prove it. The Bolsheviks had so much time to give the power to the workers and nothing happened. Of course I cannot predict what would have happened if they were given more time. I think that the power should be given to the workers immidiately (even if there's a some sort of state) or it will never happen. Maybe my statement was a little too self confident but I'm more libertarian myself so it's just a matter of opinions.

[Adil3tr]

Yes, but then again most anti-nationalists opposed the right to national self-determination as something that would only breed more nationalism.

Not saying that it is the right thing to do, but there is a glimmer of logic there.
You might have a point, but it may have seemed more important to him the Ukrainian workers join willingly with Russia and decide their own destiny.

[Uppercut]

Yes, Marxism-Leninism is a method to build communism through the use of a workers' state and soviet democracy. Immediately following revolution, elections to the soviets were somewhat restricted to only party members during and following the Russian Civil War. However, as things cooled down, more and more democracy and participation was allowed, as outlined by the 1936 soviet constitution: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html

And here is an excellent paper on how soviet democracy worked and how elections were carried out: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm

[A.R.Amistad]

Sorry I couldn't answer earlier. I just feel this way and cannot prove it. The Bolsheviks had so much time to give the power to the workers and nothing happened. Of course I cannot predict what would have happened if they were given more time. I think that the power should be given to the workers immidiately (even if there's a some sort of state) or it will never happen. Maybe my statement was a little too self confident but I'm more libertarian myself so it's just a matter of opinions.

5-10 years is adequate time to establish communism? It took capitalism almost the entire 18th century to dominate the feudal system, and even the dying feudal system took over another 100 years to completely wither away under bourgeois domination. The same pattern i think exists with other revolutions as well. It often takes centuries for a revolution to be completely successful

And lets look at the Bolshevik revolution:

I certainly hope you don't believe that socialism could be built in one country, and that the Bolsheviks could have created an isolated little worker's paradise separate from the rest of the capitalist world. This was, after all, one of Stalin's greatest blunders. The Bolshevik revolution was just a catalyst for world socialist revolution, which did occur (Germany, China, Hungary, even some general strikes in Britain, USA and France, etc. etc.) but all of these were defeated by the capitalist class, in one way or another. Not to mention that the RSFSR and its socialist allies in other emerging socialist republics were thrust into a bloody civil war that practically decimated their entire working class, and then had to contend with an almost completely peasant society, I would say the Bolshevik's chances of setting up a completely successful socialist society without the success of socialist revolutions elsewhere in the world was pretty much impossible. So, after the majority of the worker's were devastated by the civil war, and the soviets with them, there were hardly any worker's soviets to give power to (hence the necessity of the NEP). So, it really is unfair to believe that the Bolsheviks would ever have been able to establish a "true" communist society in 10 years without any socialist revolutions elsewhere in the industrialized world.

[A.R.Amistad]

Yes, but then again most anti-nationalists opposed the right to national self-determination as something that would only breed more nationalism.

Not saying that it is the right thing to do, but there is a glimmer of logic there.

Yes, but then you've also got Luxemburg's pseudo-support for British Imperialism against Indian self-determination on the basis of "anti-Nationalism." You are right in saying its not the right thing to do, but its a good point to raise about ultraleftism when it lends some support to imperialism.