Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and Maoism

[PoliticalNightmare]

What are the main differences between. Also how, as variants of Marxism do they differ from actual Marxism? I would also like to know more about the political beliefs of other prominent leaders such as Che Guevara and, well, any others that you think of.

Cheers, thanks a lot.

[ContrarianLemming]

Trotskyism and Maoism are both forms of Leninism, while Stalinism is sort of a non ideology, there isn't anything to it, "Stalinism" or a stalinist simply means a regular Leninist or Maoist who is pro Stalin, there arn't really any theories.

Leninism itself is characterised by it's use of a vangaurd party, which is sort of the most class concious section of the workers organizing to lead the rest towards a transitioanl period of "socialism", in which all power goes to the state to be used as a tool to bring about statelessness. That itty bitty seemingly contradictory method is my problem with it.
non Leninist marxists (like left communists or libertarian marxists) are opposed to the taking of power by the vangaurd party, they might believe in using a vangaurd party, but only really as an organizational tool, not much different to an anarchist vangaurd group, they're always oppossed to there vangaurd taking power of the bourgeois state.
In practice, non Leninist Marxist revolution is thought to look fairly similar to an anarcho-syndicalist one.

Maoism is, to put it very superficially, a form of thord world Leninism for nations with more peasants then industrial workers - and Marxism has always focused on the industrial workers, Maoism fixes this and also proposes various new theories like "revisionism" (Maoists are usually pro Stalin), constant revolution (I think thats the wrong name for it) and "cultural revolution"

Trotskyism isn't something I fully understand myself, but - superficially - it's mostly been typified by it's anti Stalin position.

[Zanthorus]

To be frank, Lenin didn't make any really original contributions to Marxist theory. For the most part he applied the old theory to new situations. 'Vanguard' tactics are certainly nothing to do with the anarchist boogeyman of the Leninist elite capturing state power, in WITBD they are merely counterposed to the tactics of the economists, who lag behind the spontaenous movement. As opposed to this lagging, Lenin advocates party work to raise the general educational and cultural level of the workers, which is fairly orthodox second international Marxism.

The only really original thing I can think of by Lenin at the moment is his plan for revolution in backwards countries - the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. On this subject, Lars T. Lih had a fairly good piece (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004118) in last week's Weekly Worker which covers the subject (The piece is taken from a video which can be found here (http://vimeo.com/14806897)).

Lenin is famous primarily for the fact that he was a leading member in a party which led one of the first working-class revolutions in history, as well as for the fact that samesaid party took a revolutionary class line against the First Imperialist World War ("Turn the Imperialist War into a Civil War!").

[ContrarianLemming]

'Vanguard' tactics are certainly nothing to do with the anarchist boogeyman of the Leninist elite capturing state powerAll anarcho-syndicalists are vanguardists.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Leninism- Based on the idea that a Vanguard Party should lead the proletariat through the initial revolution and the Socialist stage, which will eventually whither away along with the state as we know it.

''Stalinism''- Doesn't really exist. Usually '' Stalinists'' just call themselves Marxist-Leninists. Trotskyists are considered Leninists also however. But ''Stalinism'' and Trotskyism(when talking about revolutionary theory) mainly differ on the competing concepts of Socialism In One Country and Permanent Revolution. ''Stalinists''(the Marxist-Leninists who agree with Stalin in this aspect and hold him as a true revolutionary) believe in Socialism In One Country. Of course, Trotsky and Stalin(and therefore, Trotskyists and Stalinists) disagreed on many other subjects such as worker's control and how to deal with peasants to name a couple.

Trotskyism- A form of Marxism-Leninism which incorporates Trotsky's theories of Permanent Revolution and supposedly more worker's control than there was under Stalin. Trotsky was originally a Menshevik, but turned Bolshevik later on. Criticized by Lenin and exiled by Stalin. Trotskyists also call themselves Leninist-Bolshevists rather than Marxist-Leninists to differ from those they label ''Stalinists''.

Maoism- A form of Marxism which puts a lot of focus on the peasants along with the workers as a revolutionary class. It isconsidered to the best route for revoutionary movements in any Third World countries. Mao and Maoists are considered to be revisionist by Hoxhaists. Another aspect of Maoism is Cultural Revolution. Which is claimed to be a way to create a ''proletarian culture'' along with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

I apologize that these decriptions are pretty simplistic. I have much to learn myself and might have left something out that another comrade might want to add.

I don't actually believe that any of these theories are contradictory to the basics of Marxism. They are just different theories on the different ways to incorporate Marxist theory to different cultures and situations. That's not to say I believe all these theories are correct. I am a Marxist-Leninist-''Stalinist'' who leans closer to Hoxha than Mao(although I admit that I need to study further into both).

However, I am forever open-minded about differing ideas.

EDIT: Whoops. I forgot to mention New Democracy and People's War uder Maoism. I might get back on later to elaborate if I can get a hold of a computer. I'm on a phone at the moment.

[chegitz guevara]

The previous post is completely worthless.

[Ke Pauk]

Leninism is the advocation of a vanguard party in order to push forward the Revolution. It also follows several doctrines put out by Vladimir Lenin which is the reason its obviously called Leninism.
Stalinism is the continuation of Leninism in which Stalin had defended the works of Lenin and had continued Lenin's work.
Trotskyism is an ideology that follows the work of Trotsky whom conspired against the USSR and attempted to launch a counter revolution against Stalin and would have likely turned over the USSR to Germany if he had the chance. At any rate, Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary that no longer had faith in the Soviet System.
Maoism is another continuation of Leninism and 'Stalinism' its a strongly Anti-Revisionist philosophy that takes its roots from Vladimir Lenin's works and from Stalin's works in many places.

[Dick Van Guard]

Trotskyism is an ideology that follows the work of Trotsky whom conspired against the USSR and attempted to launch a counter revolution against Stalin and would have likely turned over the USSR to Germany if he had the chance. At any rate, Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary that no longer had faith in the Soviet System.


That view is completely divorced from reality. You are of course entitled to disagree with Trotsky, I do myself on certain points, but to claim he would have "turned over the USSR to Germany" (I'm not entirely sure I even understand what you mean by that) is ridiculous and suggests to me you aren't serious about discussion and debate. How will lying about Trotsky and his politics advance the interests of the working class? Is the aim of Marxism not to be scientific and therefore honest?

[S.Artesian]

Leninism is the advocation of a vanguard party in order to push forward the Revolution. It also follows several doctrines put out by Vladimir Lenin which is the reason its obviously called Leninism.
Stalinism is the continuation of Leninism in which Stalin had defended the works of Lenin and had continued Lenin's work.
Trotskyism is an ideology that follows the work of Trotsky whom conspired against the USSR and attempted to launch a counter revolution against Stalin and would have likely turned over the USSR to Germany if he had the chance. At any rate, Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary that no longer had faith in the Soviet System.
Maoism is another continuation of Leninism and 'Stalinism' its a strongly Anti-Revisionist philosophy that takes its roots from Vladimir Lenin's works and from Stalin's works in many places.

Worse that worthless...

[Palingenisis]

Worse that worthless...

No reality. Their is plenty of evidence of Trotsky working for American state services against communists aswell as him being bank rolled by wealthy capitalists such as the Rothchilds.

Trotskyism and much of the rest of the so-called "Ultra-Left" (actually Communists are left of the "ultra-left" nine times out of ten which at best puts its most of its effort into essentially reformist economic struggles of labour aristocrats) is more often than not an intellectual game for first world acedemics when it isnt a cover for virulent anti-communism of trade union bureaucrats. Its objective function to troll and denigrate the revolutionary struggles of the actual wretched of the earth. Many commited revolutionaries have seen it as a form of social-fascism. Certainly Trotskyite movements would morph into such if they had a significant presence in a country when actual armed struggle is launched.

[Dick Van Guard]

Their is plenty of evidence of Trotsky working for American state services against communists aswell as him being bank rolled by wealthy capitalists such as the Rothchilds.No there is not.

The rest of your post doesn't merit serious consideration or a response it's so ridiculous.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Trotskyism and much of the rest of the so-called "Ultra-Left" (actually Communists are left of the "ultra-left" nine times out of ten which at best puts its most of its effort into essentially reformist economic struggles of labour aristocrats)

Didn't Lenin write "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" to criticize ultra-leftists because they refused to work with reformists and parliamentary bodies?

[Palingenisis]

No there is not.

The rest of your post doesn't merit serious consideration or a response it's so ridiculous.

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/trotsky.htm

You might also check into his doings at the Hotel Bristol.

http://www.amazon.com/Jew-Linz-Wittgenstein-Hitler-Secret/dp/0712679359

The above book details Trotsky's friendship with the Rothchilds.

Id take a proper look at Trotsky and Trotskyism....And the sinister web spun by both.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Hell, I remember Trotsky ordered most of his works to be burn by fire to avoid negative press.

[Palingenisis]

Hell, I remember Trotsky ordered most of his works to be burn by fire to avoid negative press.

Really?

I have even heard it suggested that Trotsky was an agent of the class enemy all along.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Yeah, although I lost the source of the claim, he ordered two of his buddy to burn his works, but I don't know how much of it got burned.

[28350]

Really?

I have even heard it suggested that Trotsky was an agent of the class enemy all along.

I heard Trotsky was actually in partnership with US and British banking interests.

[S.Artesian]

No reality. Their is plenty of evidence of Trotsky working for American state services against communists aswell as him being bank rolled by wealthy capitalists such as the Rothchilds.

Trotskyism and much of the rest of the so-called "Ultra-Left" (actually Communists are left of the "ultra-left" nine times out of ten which at best puts its most of its effort into essentially reformist economic struggles of labour aristocrats) is more often than not an intellectual game for first world acedemics when it isnt a cover for virulent anti-communism of trade union bureaucrats. Its objective function to troll and denigrate the revolutionary struggles of the actual wretched of the earth. Many commited revolutionaries have seen it as a form of social-fascism. Certainly Trotskyite movements would morph into such if they had a significant presence in a country when actual armed struggle is launched.

Like what evidence? Like the evidence of the non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR, where the USSR made certain "strategic sacrifices" to Germany?

Like the evidence of the collaboration of the big C Communists and their allies in the suppression of workers' struggles in Spain, Chile, Bolivia? Like the evidence of the big C Communists in the US acting against workers' strikes in the US during WW2?

Like evidence of the assistance the big C Communists provided to the "Allies" in restoring various colonial regimes in Asia near the end of WW2?

Or is it like the evidence Grover-Furr conjures out of the very lack evidence regarding Trotsky's supposed service to the Wehrmacht... and all that other bullshit that would make one think Vyshinsky is an absolute paragon of legal restraint, and scrupulous attention to detail?

But here we go again... as soon as somebody asks anything about the different "isms" we get this bullshit propaganda about "Trotskyists" and "ultra-lefts."

[Zanthorus]

I heard Trotsky was actually in partnership with US and British banking interests.

Yeah, that damn Trotsky managed to get in with the bankers thanks to his Jewish heritage. Never can trust them Jews.

[Palingenisis]

Do you realise how childish this makes you sound? This whole rationale drips with irony when you describe Trotskyism as similar to a "form of social-fascism". What about when Stalin at the head of Comintern ordered the CCP to subordinate itself to the KMT and Chiang Kai-shek resulting in the massacre of hundreds, if not thousands, of workers on strike? Or what about the 1926 British general strike where workers were sold out after a mere nine days by the TUC, with the Stalinized, Comintern-led CPGB at its tail?

The CWI supports for British Jobs for British Workers and takes Loyalist serial killers proud of their history of randomly murdering people because of their percieved religion on lecture tours....So calling it social-fascist isnt much of a stretch now is it? And oh yeah it was part of the Labour Party while the Labour Party was waging all sorts of Imperialist nasty wars.

Maybe when working and oppressed people decide to accept you lot as the geniuses you believe yourselves to be and you actually have to make hard descisions instead of just sitting back and trolling the International Communist Movement which has poured out more blood and sweat for the liberation of humanity than you can imagine you can get back to us with your petty criticism. Its clear that all you lot are trying to do is mislead the immature and sentimental from the geniune struggle.

[Lyev]

This thread is quite remarkable. Here we have apologists for Stalin digging up obscure half-truths about Trotsky's "collaboration with British banks" (although this one may be a joke) and other such nonsense, in an attempt to smear Trotsky's reputation as some sort of usurper of the revolution. And you think Trotsky undermined the international proletarian movement? This is quite frankly ridiculous considering how many Stalinist Communist Parties, as a mere extension of Soviet foreign policy, took up reformist lines and joined in coalitions with their national bourgeoisie, all under the watchful eye of "uncle Joe".

[Palingenisis]

Yeah, that damn Trotsky managed to get in with the bankers thanks to his Jewish heritage. Never can trust them Jews.

Where did mention jewish banking interests?

Why are you trying to imply he was being anti-jewish?

[Palingenisis]

This thread is quite remarkable. Here we have apologists for Stalin digging up obscure half-truths about Trotsky's "collaboration with British banks" (although this one may be a joke) and other such nonsense, in an attempt to smear Trotsky's reputation as some sort of usurper of the revolution. And you think Trotsky undermined the international proletarian movement? This is quite frankly ridiculous considering how many Stalinist Communist Parties, as a mere extension of Soviet foreign policy, took up reformist lines and joined in coalitions with their national bourgeoisie, all under the watchful eye of "uncle Joe".

I have read the stuff that Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party put out during his election campaign. No mention of Communism or Revolution at all. You lot were a member of an openly social-Imperialist party and you dare lecture us on the policy of the popular front which was born out of desperation and being reformist? The bare faced hypocracy is sickening.

Stalin was of the greatest men who ever lived, if not the greatest...The fact that you claim to be a Communist and cannot see that raises serious questions about either your seriousness or your sanity.

[Lyev]

The CWI supports for British Jobs for British Workers and takes Loyalist serial killers proud of their history of randomly murdering people because of their percieved religion on lecture tours....So calling it social-fascist isnt much of a stretch now is it? And oh yeah it was part of the Labour Party while the Labour Party was waging all sorts of Imperialist nasty wars.

Maybe when working and oppressed people decide to accept you lot as the geniuses you believe yourselves to be and you actually have to make hard descisions instead of just sitting back and trolling the International Communist Movement which has poured out more blood and sweat for the liberation of humanity than you can imagine you can get back to us with your petty criticism. Its clear that all you lot are trying to do is mislead the immature and sentimental from the geniune struggle.Sorry, I deleted that post, I didn't think it sufficiently addressed any of the issues here. I can at least understand the last qualm you listed ("Imperialist nasty wars"), but that does seem rather of a silly example. Firstly, we were not "part of" Labour. The CWI was active within Labour; why this necessarily means that Militant had to agree with absolutely everything the Labour Party did and said is quite frankly beyond me. In fact, perhaps being in the party in such an entryist fashion would give Militant a better position to critique some of Labour's positions. Your other two examples ("British jobs" and "Loyalist serial killers") are beyond me though. Can you elaborate on them please?

[Queercommie Girl]

The CWI-SPEW participated in a strike action in England in early 2009 which had the reactionary slogan "British jobs for British workers". The semi-nationalist slogan was created by native British workers who at least indirectly excluded non-British immigrant workers like those from Italy.

The CWI participated in the strikes in an entryist manner but did not agree with the slogan of "British jobs for British workers". They tried to convince the British workers there that nationalism is not the way forward, but there must be solidarity between native and immigrant workers against the capitalist bosses they had in common. It is debatable how much effects this approach had, but the CWI argued that strategically speaking it is still better to join such a strike action that is somewhat reactionary than to simply stand on the sidelines like the SWP did.

[Palingenisis]

Sorry, I deleted that post, I didn't think it sufficiently addressed any of the issues here. I can at least understand the last qualm you listed ("Imperialist nasty wars"), but that does seem rather of a silly example. Firstly, we were not "part of" Labour. The CWI was active within Labour; why this necessarily means that Militant had to agree with absolutely everything the Labour Party did and said is quite frankly beyond me. In fact, perhaps being in the party in such an entryist fashion would give Militant a better position to critique some of Labour's positions. Your other two examples ("British jobs" and "Loyalist serial killers") are beyond me though. Can you elaborate on them please?

You were members of the Labour Party. You presented yourselves as basically reformist...So your criticisms really come as cheeky at best.

You brought a member of Progressive Unionist Party who had served time in jail for murder and had been responsible for a good few more (with a reputation for particularly enjoying his nutting jobs) on a lecture tour of England. Your people in Belfast have very close links the Progressive Unionist Party which has now lost its one representive in Stormount because it was either leave the party or lose certain perks due to the casual murder of a protestant by a UVF member. The UVF is very involved in the drugs trade. Such is the scum you hang around with while lying about Republicans at every available opportunity (this of course ties in perfectly with your membership of the British Labour Party).

You supported a racist wildcat strike demanding British Jobs for British workers a year or so ago...Again perfectly tying in with your general behaviour.

[Queercommie Girl]

You supported a racist wildcat strike demanding British Jobs for British workers a year or so ago...Again perfectly tying in with your general behaviour.

Even if the CWI is wrong to support this strike, it's certainly not sufficient to write-off Trotskyism as a whole. Other Trotskyist groups like the SWP also opposed the CWI's participation in this strike.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Oh dear, my thread is degenerating into a Trotskyist/Stalinist flaming session.

[Zanthorus]

Where did mention jewish banking interests?

Why are you trying to imply he was being anti-jewish?

I assumed the post was joking, so I thought I would develop the joke considering the fact that this thread is quickly becoming a ridiculous attempt by all the Stalinists to imply that Trotsky was allied with Western Imperialism. And for the record, I have seen anti-semitic cartoons attacking Trotsky on the basis of his Jewishness. I believe that his background was played up in the 70's by Stalin-worshipping "National Bolsheviks".

[S.Artesian]

Stalin was of the greatest men who ever lived, if not the greatest...The fact that you claim to be a Communist and cannot see that raises serious questions about either your seriousness or your sanity.


Greatest man who ever lived? You know what? Big fucking deal. Really. Look at the fucking legacy-- the Soviet Union-- gone after having suffered the greatest loss of life ever in a single conflict. That was a conflict made possible by the utter stupidity of the "greatest men who ever lived, if not the greatest" causing the destruction of the opportunities for extending proletarian revolution.

What little remains, and it is very little, of any material aspect of "socialism" remains as an anomaly, as dying light not a beacon. You don't get the credit in this world-- the homage as the "greatest men"-- without taking responsibility for the actual conditions of social reproduction, without being classified as the "worst men."

[ZeroNowhere]

I heard Trotsky was actually in partnership with US and British banking interests.
I heard he was a paedophile.


Stalin was of the greatest men who ever lived, if not the greatest...The fact that you claim to be a Communist and cannot see that raises serious questions about either your seriousness or your sanity.I know that you're nostalgic for the purges, but unfortunately good things never last, and they are long past. Funny how time flies.

Anyhow, perhaps this thread would be best if we simply allowed members of the various tendencies to state their main distinguishing features without mentioning those of others?

[Crux]

Don't feed the troll.

[Lyev]

Oh golly, I didn't wanna get embroiled in another debate about the CWI, and Trotsky in general, just before I was going to go to bed. I would like to make clear that of course my views are not a mirrors-image of those held by the CWI and vice versa. So you can stop with the "you did this... you did that" and "your people" or whatever.

The goal of entryism does not lie in spending all the time and effort working within another organisation just to tow the exact line of that organisation. The basic aim is gain influence and spread leftist views. I mean, why on earth would Militant have been kicked out of the Labour Party if we were "reformist" and shared their exact same politics, as you are implying? As for this PUP thing, at the moment it seems a bit tenuous until you can back it up.

And as the "British jobs for British workers" contention, I would hardly call it racist. But then again, I wasn't even politically active, let alone "Marxist" back in early 2009. And furthermore, the party is democratic enough that I am allowed to disagree with the nationalistic stance implied by "British jobs for British workers" whilst still staying in the organisation. I'm sure there are plenty of members who do disagree with how the strike was dealt with. Then again, maybe someone who was around at the time can detail the exact nature of what actually happened.

EDIT: on the "British Jobs..." contention I think Iseul handled it pretty well.

Oh and finally, as regards the lack of a mention of "communism or revolution", I can kind of sympathize with what you're saying. Apparently SPEW is named "socialist" and not "communist" to distance the party away from Stalinism and the former Soviet Union. This is an understandable reason, but at the same time, in calling the party "socialist", it is conducive sometimes to being confused for reformist or Labourists.

[Ke Pauk]

That view is completely divorced from reality. You are of course entitled to disagree with Trotsky, I do myself on certain points, but to claim he would have "turned over the USSR to Germany" (I'm not entirely sure I even understand what you mean by that) is ridiculous and suggests to me you aren't serious about discussion and debate. How will lying about Trotsky and his politics advance the interests of the working class? Is the aim of Marxism not to be scientific and therefore honest?

By turning the USSR over to Germany, I believe that if he were in Stalin's position he would have surrendered when most of the territories of the USSR were taken under the force of Hitler's armies. Instead of fighting to the very end in order to make sure that the USSR would have been protected and taken back by the Red Army. Its quite an honest statement to believe that this would have happened, due to the fact that unlike Stalin, Trotsky was a Revisionist that simply wanted to bring about the collapse of the USSR as a Worker's State and lacked what was required to defend the USSR as a Worker's State. Which Stalin unlike Trotsky was capable of doing after Lenin's death.

[S.Artesian]

By turning the USSR over to Germany, I believe that if he were in Stalin's position he would have surrendered when most of the territories of the USSR were taken under the force of Hitler's armies. Instead of fighting to the very end in order to make sure that the USSR would have been protected and taken back by the Red Army. Its quite an honest statement to believe that this would have happened, due to the fact that unlike Stalin, Trotsky was a Revisionist that simply wanted to bring about the collapse of the USSR as a Worker's State and lacked what was required to defend the USSR as a Worker's State. Which Stalin unlike Trotsky was capable of doing after Lenin's death.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You can believe what you want based on your assumption, but your assumption that Trotsky wanted to bring about the collapse of the USSR is nonsense.

Whatever Trotsky's flaws, not recognizing the threat fascism presented to the revolution, not being willing to mobilize every resource, not being able to lead the Red Army organizationally, logistically and operationally, not being able to defend the workers state, are not among those flaws.


You might want to come to grips with the fact that among the very officers Stalin had executed were those who were most aware of the threat fascism in Germany posed to the Russian revolution. You might want to come to grips with what the decimation of the officers corps for "Trotskyism" actually did to the Red Army prior to the German invasion, and how those officers who had been accused of "Trotskyism" and somehow remained alive were brought back to Red Army to train and equip a responsible, competent, officers corps.

[ContrarianLemming]

The previous post is completely worthless.

this is the atitude I can't stand to see in learning, show some respect because he contributed a lot more then you you hostile prick.

[ContrarianLemming]

Oh dear, my thread is degenerating into a Trotskyist/Stalinist flaming session.

it's great isn't it?

let them kill eachother, the anarchists will the the only ones left.

[S.Artesian]

this is the atitude I can't stand to see in learning, show some respect because he contributed a lot more then you you hostile prick.

I can't stand to see half-truths, ignorance, and distorted ideologies dressed up as "information" for learning.

So when that half-truth, ignorance, and distortion is put out there as "information," pointing out that it is ignorance and distortion, that it is worthless, is the first step in exposing what exactly is worthless about it.

CG simply took that first step first. If you want to argue that the "information" wasn't worthless, please do so.

[S.Artesian]

it's great isn't it?

let them kill eachother, the anarchists will the the only ones left.


Didn't exactly work at that way in Spain, did it? Or anywhere else for that matter.

Schadenfreude is not a revolutionary strategy.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I can't stand to see half-truths, ignorance, and distorted ideologies dressed up as "information" for learning.

So when that half-truth, ignorance, and distortion is put out there as "information," pointing out that it is ignorance and distortion, that it is worthless, is the first step in exposing what exactly is worthless about it.

CG simply took that first step first. If you want to argue that the "information" wasn't worthless, please do so.

Considering he specifically stated that the information he provided might be wrong and that the reason why he was posting it was to get some further clarification upon his ideas, I think it was damn right rude for him to get treated in that manner, particularly on Learning.

Is this how we recruit comrades?


it's great isn't it?

let them kill eachother, the anarchists will the the only ones left.

Indeed.

Perhaps then, I can get some relevant discussion going as well.

[S.Artesian]

Leninism- Based on the idea that a Vanguard Party should lead the proletariat through the initial revolution and the Socialist stage, which will eventually whither away along with the state as we know it.

''Stalinism''- Doesn't really exist. Usually '' Stalinists'' just call themselves Marxist-Leninists. Trotskyists are considered Leninists also however. But ''Stalinism'' and Trotskyism(when talking about revolutionary theory) mainly differ on the competing concepts of Socialism In One Country and Permanent Revolution. ''Stalinists''(the Marxist-Leninists who agree with Stalin in this aspect and hold him as a true revolutionary) believe in Socialism In One Country. Of course, Trotsky and Stalin(and therefore, Trotskyists and Stalinists) disagreed on many other subjects such as worker's control and how to deal with peasants to name a couple.

Trotskyism- A form of Marxism-Leninism which incorporates Trotsky's theories of Permanent Revolution and supposedly more worker's control than there was under Stalin. Trotsky was originally a Menshevik, but turned Bolshevik later on. Criticized by Lenin and exiled by Stalin. Trotskyists also call themselves Leninist-Bolshevists rather than Marxist-Leninists to differ from those they label ''Stalinists''.

Maoism- A form of Marxism which puts a lot of focus on the peasants along with the workers as a revolutionary class. It isconsidered to the best route for revoutionary movements in any Third World countries. Mao and Maoists are considered to be revisionist by Hoxhaists. Another aspect of Maoism is Cultural Revolution. Which is claimed to be a way to create a ''proletarian culture'' along with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

I apologize that these decriptions are pretty simplistic. I have much to learn myself and might have left something out that another comrade might want to add.

I don't actually believe that any of these theories are contradictory to the basics of Marxism. They are just different theories on the different ways to incorporate Marxist theory to different cultures and situations. That's not to say I believe all these theories are correct. I am a Marxist-Leninist-''Stalinist'' who leans closer to Hoxha than Mao(although I admit that I need to study further into both).

However, I am forever open-minded about differing ideas.

EDIT: Whoops. I forgot to mention New Democracy and People's War uder Maoism. I might get back on later to elaborate if I can get a hold of a computer. I'm on a phone at the moment.


That's the post that Chegitz responded to. Where does the poster say he's wrong, and he's requesting additional information? He says he doesn't think any of the "theories" are contradictory to the basics of Marxism. He says they are just different ways to incorporate Marxist theory into different cultures, which in itself means there is no class basis for the differences in these theories.

He says he has a lot to learn, certainly. But he presents his "summations" without a shred of historical analysis; a bit of analysis of the actual events of class struggle behind any of the "isms."

And if the comrade wants to find out more about the historical developments behind these theories, then I'm sure Chegitz would be among those willing to engage him in that discussion.

But in dealing with various "isms" that represent real manifestations of class struggle, leaving out the history itself of the class struggle makes the information at best worthless, and more accurately, distorted.

[PoliticalNightmare]

That's the post that Chegitz responded to. Where does the poster say he's wrong, and he's requesting additional information? He says he doesn't think any of the "theories" are contradictory to the basics of Marxism. He says they are just different ways to incorporate Marxist theory into different cultures, which in itself means there is no class basis for the differences in these theories.

He said that 'I have much to learn myself and might have left something out that another comrade might want to add'.

This would suggest that he intends his post to be taken with a pinch of salt.


He says he has a lot to learn, certainly. But he presents his "summations" without a shred of historical analysis; a bit of analysis of the actual events of class struggle behind any of the "isms."

So instead of engaging in warfare with other members why don't you contribute more to the actual discussion at hand which is; what are the differences between Leninism, Maoism and Stalinism. If Chegitz knew so much, he should have corrected him in a polite and constructive manner.


And if the comrade wants to find out more about the historical developments behind these theories, then I'm sure Chegitz would be among those willing to engage him in that discussion.

Well he didn't.


But in dealing with various "isms" that represent real manifestations of class struggle, leaving out the history itself of the class struggle makes the information at best worthless, and more accurately, distorted.

Great so give us a bit of background.

[S.Artesian]

First, I responded to someone's distortions of the historical record. If somebody is posting something, especially in the learning category, then posting material that needs to taken with "a pinch of salt" is really doing a disservice to those sincerely interested in learning.

The history of the development of these "isms" is so burdened with ideological bullshit, that I generally try to keep out of them.... until the distortion of the historical record starts. I'm not a Trotskyist, so I have no skin in that particular game, but the historical record of what Trotsky did accomplish, and what he stood for, and what he did not do [like work for the Wehrmacht] requires a bit of intervention now and then.

The fact of the matter is that in asking what the differences are among the various isms, the invitation is an invitation for ideological intervention, rather than historical analysis-- as evidenced by this thread.

So you want to know what is "Leninism"? Beats the shit out of me. I know what people who call themselves Leninists think is Leninism, and I know how the claims to be Leninist arose, but Leninism itself? I don't think there is any such thing.

Stalinism? An ideology both product and producer of the retreat of revolution across the face of Europe and Asia; originating in the decimation of the Russian economy during the civil war, based on the substitution of the growing party and state bureaucracy for working class organization of the economy, which substitution reflected the low productivity of agriculture and industry, the fragile relations between city and countryside. Stalinism doesn't really exist as a theory, but a history of oscillations, at one time believing that Western capitalism will be only too happy to invest in Russia at the very close of the civil war; then believing that no such investment would occur, and accommodating the growth of a wealthier section of the peasantry in order to export agricultural products to obtain sustain weak industrial growth; then oscillating to execute the rapid, and brutal, expropriation of the peasantry, which simultaneously reduced consumption levels of the proletariat in order to finance industrialization.

Internationally, all these oscillations are reflected in the RCP's dominance of the 3rd International where either subordination of the independence of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie [in China, and then later in popular fronts] or through ultra-left attacks on social democratic organizations [i.e. the "third period] effectively destroyed the opportunities for successful revolution.

We could go on and on about Trotskyism... Maoism, Guevarism...etc. etc. but, once again, it will all become ideological combat, and is really a drag.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Trotskyism isn't something I fully understand myself, but - superficially - it's mostly been typified by it's anti Stalin position.

this one you hit very well , nothing else but anti-stalin whine

[Dick Van Guard]

You might want to come to grips with the fact that among the very officers Stalin had executed were those who were most aware of the threat fascism in Germany posed to the Russian revolution. You might want to come to grips with what the decimation of the officers corps for "Trotskyism" actually did to the Red Army prior to the German invasion, and how those officers who had been accused of "Trotskyism" and somehow remained alive were brought back to Red Army to train and equip a responsible, competent, officers corps....and the not so insignificant fact of the USSR's temporary alliance with Nazi Germany and then Western imperialism under Stalin.

[Crux]

this one you hit very well , nothing else but anti-stalin whine
In much the same way Marx was typified by his anti-Lasalle positon, that old sectarian.