My opinion

[Comrade1]

I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist but can someone tell me if that's what I am.

My views: Post Revelution

After the revelution I would like to put property and the means of production into the hands of the people, commonly owned. I would abolish the currency and replace it with labour vouchers and could earn a certian amount of vouchers for their work in hours. People could use these vouchers to buy goods that are wants. Everyone from the doctor to the garbage man would earn the same amount of vouchers for the hour. And ofcourse peoples needs would be provided to them freely, healthcare, education, a house, clothing, ect. Although people would not be provided with food, they would buy food with the vouchers. Another thing would be the people itself would run the goverment and economy in the intrests of all and to better society. Thats it.

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

That would be the (if not close to) goal that all Marxist tendencies aim for. The difference in tendencies is the way that we get to that goal.

There was a pretty good thread in here a while back that had the definition of a few different tendencies, ill see if i can fish it out tomorrow. But if I were you I would read a few more books on the subject and spend some more time in learning before you adhere to any tendencies. There's no rush, we all know that the revolution is still far off.

[Comrade1]

Thank you comrade, Im a pround marxist, if you can find that thread it would be wonderful.

[Ovi]

After the revelution I would like to put property and the means of production into the hands of the people, commonly owned..
If by that you mean directly controlled by the people and not controlled by the people through a state (whatever that means), then you're a bit far from leninism and closer to the libertarian socialist tradition, such as libertarian marxism, council communism and anarchism.

[Comrade1]

I would like to see property owned by the people, same with the means of production, owned by the people and run for the people. Im pretty sure thats marxism

[Widerstand]

Marxism isn't opposed to Libertarian Marxism (or Anarchism) though.

[CleverTitle]

I would like to see property owned by the people, same with the means of production, owned by the people and run for the people. Im pretty sure thats marxism
I'd follow the advice above. Keep reading and studying. Don't be so eager to apply a label to yourself. Give it time.

[Ovi]

I would like to see property owned by the people, same with the means of production, owned by the people and run for the people. Im pretty sure thats marxism
Well, that isn't leninism (or marxism-leninism). Not all marxists are leninists though. Most marxists-leninsts don't have a problem with the means of production being owned and run by a state with little to no direct worker control.
Edit: Inb4 stalinites claim that Stalin was working class and the USSR was under workers' control.

[L.A.P.]

Edit: Inb4 stalinites claim that Stalin was working class and the USSR was under workers' control.

Here we are. Believe it or not, Marxist-Leninists aren't necessarily Statists.:ohmy: Although I question some of them.

[Comrade1]

Understood, well I just believe that the working class should run and plan things for the benefit of everyone, hense "by the people and for the people" I believe a state is nessesary in the "transitional" phase called socialism. Although the goverment in the socialist phase would be run by the people. Not by the elect few. So everyone could have a say in how it is run.

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

I think your best bet would be to read some of Lenin and Trotsky's works and draw your own conclusions from there.

EDIT: Yeah, I cant seem to find that thread I was referring to. The best I can do for now is to refer you to http://www.marxists.org

[Comrade1]

So would you guys say im a Marxist or not.

[StalinFanboy]

So would you guys say im a Marxist or not.
Who cares?

Just do yo thang

[Spawn of Stalin]

To be perfectly honest, judging on what you have written you could be pretty much any kind of socialist. What are your views on the roles of the state and the revolutionary party? Socialism in one country? Provide a little more insight and you may get better answers but as has already been said you don't need to be in any hurry to label yourself as anything. You will eventually learn what you believe in and where you fit in just as I and everyone else did, but really, don't rush it, it took me a very very long time to come to Marxism-Leninism.

[Comrade1]

Well the role of the state, it would be overthrown and then would come the "dictatorship of the prolitariat" the mass of the people would govern the state until it becomes unnessessary and eventually disapears. Here is communism =D

[Sosa]

Here you go comrade, maybe this can help you

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-left-dictionary-t22628/index.html

[Jalapeno Enema]

I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist but can someone tell me if that's what I am.You is Comrade1, and you've got your whole life to find out who you are.

Don't put too much into labels; hang around for a while, learn as much as you can about whatever interests you, and maybe someday you'll say "hey! I know what I am!"

And if not, whatever. Don't sweat it.

And do not let somebody else tell you who you are.

[Thirsty Crow]

Marxism isn't opposed to Libertarian Marxism (or Anarchism) though.
How could it be opposed when it is not a political tendency but a mode of analysis of social, economic and political phenomena?

[Widerstand]

How could it be opposed when it is not a political tendency but a mode of analysis of social, economic and political phenomena?

Marxism is a political tendency, what the fuck are you on about? Marx talked about revolution and about a future society. :confused:

[Thirsty Crow]

Marxism is a political tendency, what the fuck are you on about? Marx talked about revolution and about a future society. :confused:If it is a political tendency, then you will be able to demonstrate the specific political differences between this Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, Left Communism, Trotskyism and so on.

[Widerstand]

If it is a political tendency, then you will be able to demonstrate the specific political differences between this Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, Left Communism, Trotskyism and so on.

Orthodox Marxism is pretty much the same as Anarcho-Communism. This is demonstrably different from Leninism, Left Communism and Trotskyism. Although it should be noted that all three are additions and changes to Marxism, not fundamentally different ideologies.

The political goals of either three (a communist society) are Marxist goals however. Neither Lenin nor Trotsky nor whoever Left Communist invented this political goal to exist.

[Thirsty Crow]

Orthodox Marxism is pretty much the same as Anarcho-Communism. This is demonstrably different from Leninism, Left Communism and Trotskyism. Although it should be noted that all three are additions and changes to Marxism, not fundamentally different ideologies.

The political goals of either three (a communist society) are Marxist goals however. Neither Lenin nor Trotsky nor whoever Left Communist invented this political goal to exist.The goal is not the issue, but rather strategy and tactics. These factors are what produces a political tendency within the field of revolutionary socialism, that is - Marxism (and it should be noted that these factors change, of course, given the concrete historical situation).

But the problem lies in the fact that one can employ certain modes of analysis which is demonstrably Marxist, and yet not hold the revolutionary position when it comes to the issue of social transformation.
Another problem is the fact that the label does not project a concrete information with regard to a person's position on certain strategic and tactical problems. It is nebulous and overlapping with the first problem (the fact of mode of analysis).
This leads me to doubt the meaningfulness of the claim that Marxism is a political tendency (in the same vein as, e.g., Left Communism is; it is, as a matter of fact, a political ideology, but even here we would encounter some problems on the way).

[Widerstand]

The goal is not the issue, but rather strategy and tactics. These factors are what produces a political tendency within the field of revolutionary socialism, that is - Marxism (and it should be noted that these factors change, of course, given the concrete historical situation).

But the problem lies in the fact that one can employ certain modes of analysis which is demonstrably Marxist, and yet not hold the revolutionary position when it comes to the issue of social transformation.
Another problem is the fact that the label does not project a concrete information with regard to a person's position on certain strategic and tactical problems. It is nebulous and overlapping with the first problem (the fact of mode of analysis).
This leads me to doubt the meaningfulness of the claim that Marxism is a political tendency (in the same vein as, e.g., Left Communism is; it is, as a matter of fact, a political ideology, but even here we would encounter some problems on the way).

Sounds like a lot of bullshit semantic nitpicking to me. You can't view Marxism as something that is either this or that. Marx provided an analysis of capitalism that can be used by people who are not revolutionary, yes. But the same can be said about Lenin's analysis of imperialism. Is then, Leninism, too, not a political tendency?

Also I'm quite confused about your differentiation between political tendency and political ideology. It seems rather arbitrary and irrelevant.

[Zanthorus]

Orthodox Marxism is pretty much the same as Anarcho-Communism.

I know what you're trying to say, however I would not use the label Orthodox Marxism. Orthodox Marxism generally refers to the beliefs bandied about by the immediate post-Marx Marxists of the Second International: Kautsky, Bebel, Plekhanov and so on. This political tendency was notorious for it's statism and productivism. Since Marx wrote a hell of a lot over the course of his life and any interpretation is going to be controversial, it's generally easier to refer to Orthodox Marxism as SI Marxism.

Also, I don't see why Marxism has to be either a mode of social and economic analysis or a political tendency. It is both. One can use Marxist analytical tools and be completely seperated from politics, or have Marxist politics but no social or historical analysis.

The real problem of course is that there is no single mode of social and economic analysis or set of political positions which Marxism 'is'. There are many different schools of thought calling themselves 'Marxist', and it is very difficult to delineate who 'really' is/isn't a Marxist except through lengthy discussion and textual analysis. The 'Orthodox Marxists' of the SI believed that Marx's 'mateiralist conception of history' gave them an all-encompassing set of analytical tools which could be used to analyse history scientifically, and that it was an all-encompassing world outlook which contained practically everthing there was to be known about social and political issues. Derek Sayer believes, on the contrary, that the nature of Marx's concepts excludes their use in any kind of general 'theory of history' as championed by Orthodox Marxism, and Cyril Smith believes that Marx's fundamental project was only ever a fraction completed during his lifetime, it is an ongoing work of critique which continues until the arrival of Communism. I believe that Smith and Sayer are closer to Marx than OM, nevertheless the latter took it's cue from certain selections of Marx's writings, and cannot merely be considered as 'not Marxist'. And now this is bordering on rambling, but to reiterate the main point: there is no unified and homogenous body of thought which we can point to and say "that's Marxism".

[Magón]

So would you guys say im a Marxist or not.

There's a lot more to it than saying "I'm a Marxist" or "I'm a Anarchist", etc. It's not something you can just ask a bunch of people on a forum. You have to make your own decisions about what you are. So I suggest maybe reading more about Marxist thought, Lenin, etc. to see if you really agree with Marxist theory and Lenin. You can't just ask us and give us a little bite of what you think, it's a whole network of your own thinking that makes you choose Marxist-Leninism, or whatever.

[Comrade1]

Ok guys, thanks, but from your experiance what would you say i am?

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

Ok guys, thanks, but from your experiance what would you say i am?

Holy Fuck! Have you not fucking read the posts that we were nice enough to type out for you. Why do you even want to know so bad? its not like its even important. It's just your view on on the strategy workers should use.


To be perfectly honest, judging on what you have written you could be pretty much any kind of socialist. What are your views on the roles of the state and the revolutionary party? Socialism in one country? Provide a little more insight and you may get better answers but as has already been said you don't need to be in any hurry to label yourself as anything. You will eventually learn what you believe in and where you fit in just as I and everyone else did, but really, don't rush it, it took me a very very long time to come to Marxism-Leninism.
Here you go comrade, maybe this can help you

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolution...628/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-left-dictionary-t22628/index.html)
I'd follow the advice above. Keep reading and studying. Don't be so eager to apply a label to yourself. Give it time.

Here's some good advice. After you read some books on theory make up your own mind instead of letting a stranger on the internet decide for you.

[Comrade1]

alright, alright calm down

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

I'm sorry I lost my patience but there are only so many times you can ask the same question before someone snaps.

Anyway you a have your answers, would you like me to recommend you some books or would you prefer to ask yourself everybody in the literature forum?

[Comrade1]

yes please, and if you wouldent mind, can you find something to explain marxism simply

[Spawn of Stalin]

lol Didn't you just say you were a proud Marxist?

Start here: http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm
Read all of the linked writings and that should leave you with a very basic idea.

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

yes please, and if you wouldent mind, can you find something to explain marxism simply

Well, The Communist Manifesto is a must, even if only for the first chapter. if you are planning on buying it i recommend the Penguin Classics version.

The Principles of Communism gives straight to the point definitions and explanations of Marxism.

And the ABC of Anarchism is pretty good for a laugh (sorry anarchists I couldn't help myself:lol:.) you can find it here http://www.lucyparsonsproject.org/anarchism/berkman_abc_of_anarchism.html

Next I would read some books on the Russian Revolution, they usually come a dime a dozen at most book stores. I already have at least 20 I stole from my high school.

After your all buffed up on the Russian revolution I would move on to Lenin and Trotsky.

And finally I would read the Revolution betrayed by Leon Trotsky to get rid of any propaganda you might have picked up reading all those books on the Russian revolution. (optional, but suggested)

Who knows , one day you might get bored enough to read Das Kapital.

[Magón]

Ok guys, thanks, but from your experiance what would you say i am?

It doesn't work like that. You do the research yourself, make your own mind up on Marxism, Anarchism, Trotskyism, etc. and then you come back and tell us what you think you are, and that's what we'll take you as. (Just like all of us have done our research.) There's no way we can tell you what you are.

[Comrade1]

OK just wondering if you could go on another thread I posted under learning called marxism, so you guys can explain to me what marxism really is

[Die Neue Zeit]

This political tendency was notorious for it's statism and productivism.


I believe that Smith and Sayer are closer to Marx than OM, nevertheless the latter took it's cue from certain selections of Marx's writings, and cannot merely be considered as 'not Marxist'.

They may be closer to Marx on philosophical and "humanist" stuff than OM, but on political struggle I take relatively the neoliberal abbreviation of "TINA" when it comes to OM: there is no (realistic) alternative to a sort of "Modern Orthodoxy" when dealing with class-struggle-as-political.