Marxism 101

[ZrianKobani]

In layman terms, what is Marxism without Leninism, etc. and how did Marx see a revolution taking place?

[SacRedMan]

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

Take a look :thumbup1:

[thesadmafioso]

In case you don't feel like shifting through a mess of reference material and just need a quick answer, Lenin basically took the basic tenants of Marxism and attempted to apply them to Soviet society under the context of socialism. This is compared to Marx who believed that a nation must reach a certain extent of capitalist development before being fully prepared for a communist revolution. In short, Lenin understood this and tried to modernize Russia through a mix of market principles as well as those of a more leftist nature, while Marx would of likely seen such action as being premature and prone to failure.

By no means should this be taken as a full answer to this incredibly complex question though, if you want a more in depth analysis there are surely more fitting examples in the reference topic.

[Thirsty Crow]

In case you don't feel like shifting through a mess of reference material and just need a quick answer, Lenin basically took the basic tenants of Marxism and attempted to apply them to Soviet society under the context of socialism. This is compared to Marx who believed that a nation must reach a certain extent of capitalist development before being fully prepared for a communist revolution. In short, Lenin understood this and tried to modernize Russia through a mix of market principles as well as those of a more leftist nature, while Marx would of likely seen such action as being premature and prone to failure.

I don't think that such a juxtaposition of Marx and Lenin is really productive, especially since Marx was to acknowledge the Russian obschina as a potential social basis for the construction of socialism in an economically backwards society such as the Russian one at the end of 19th century. But, the Bolsheviks recognized, as well as Marx, that the precondition for such a social transformation would be successful proletarian revolution in the most advanced capitalist nations of their time. This is of greatest importance.

[thesadmafioso]

I don't think that such a juxtaposition of Marx and Lenin is really productive, especially since Marx was to acknowledge the Russian obschina as a potential social basis for the construction of socialism in an economically backwards society such as the Russian one at the end of 19th century. But, the Bolsheviks recognized, as well as Marx, that the precondition for such a social transformation would be successful proletarian revolution in the most advanced capitalist nations of their time. This is of greatest importance.

Hence the caveat that my answer was only intended to provide a basic overview of the differences between the two.

I have no doubt that Marx would of supported the Bolshevik revolution, premature or not, but it still would of clashed with the more traditional basis of his historical materialism. The instance of the Paris commune comes to mind as the closest example to be seen in Marx's time.

[ZrianKobani]

So how would y'all say Lenin's decision to move forward without reaching capitalism effected the Russian Revolution?

[thesadmafioso]

Well, with the New Economic policy Lenin's government essentially practiced a policy of controlled and planned market liberalization. It basically made the market entirely subservient to the Soviet government. So given the historical context, it was a smart policy decision.

[Hit The North]

So how would y'all say Lenin's decision to move forward without reaching capitalism effected the Russian Revolution?

Imperial Russia was economically backward compared to the European and American powers, but it was not a pre-capitalist society. Lenin's theory of imperialism and Trotsky's theory of combined but uneven development demonstrated the international character of capitalism and Russia's place within it.

The greatest detrimental effect on the Russian revolution was the inability of the Central and Western European proletariat to generalise the revolution. It was the failure of the international revolution that allowed the Western bourgeoisie to bankroll the civil war and further degrade Russia's social and economic development by devastating its economic base.

In terms of core principles held by Marx and Engels, such as the international character of capital and the requisite need for the revolution to be internationally founded by "a proletariat that has no country"; or that the emancipation of the workers should be the act of the workers themselves; or that socialism could only be built on expanding the social means of material production; there is not a cigarette paper between them and Lenin.

[Kadir Ateş]

In layman terms, what is Marxism without Leninism, etc. and how did Marx see a revolution taking place?


Marxism with Leninism is Marx's ideas and observations committed to paper. Marx never gave proscriptions to how the revolution would go down, he just located the immanent tendencies and contradictions of capital as a dynamic process and social relation. As the antagonisms grew, it could lay the grounds for a social revolution, but only the possibility for one, i.e., it isn't predestined or follows a law of history.

As for Lenin, he wrote about "what is to be done" in terms of securing the grounds for a revolution and sketching out a transition programme, taking it a step further than Marx in this sense.

[Blake's Baby]

For non-Leninist Marxism, I recommend checking out the SPGB (Socialist Party of Great Britain) - they were founded in 1904 after a split from the British Socialist Party, by people close to Eleanor Marx, Edward Aveling and William Morris (all of whom were dead by then).

They were called 'impossiblists' (along with the British party called the Socialist Labour Party, which moved towards the De Leonist Socialist Labor Party or may even have been inspired by it, not too sure on that) because they rejected reformism; they also left the Second International because they believed it was completely reformist.

The SPGB has continued to practice 'Marxian Socialism' as they call it since then. They're also part of the 'World Socialist Movement' with several companion parties, including parties in USA, Canada, India and a few other places.

[S.Artesian]

Question sounds a bit trollish to me.

The question should be "What is Marxism?" And the answer: The critique of capitalism based on its inherent conflict between the organization of labor and the need to accumulate value, and the analysis of the potential for the overthrow of that capitalism.

"Leninism" whatever version or versions there are don't change anything about the content, method, and the application of Marxism.

How did Marx see a revolution taking place? The emancipation of the working class is the task of the workers themselves. He definitely recognized the need for the class to organize itself, and organize itself as a party. He definitely did not propose any substitution of party for class.

One more thing, I think we'd all, including Marx, be much better off if we could drop this wishful thinking, or romance, about Marx's comments on the Russian commune as being some alternative to capitalist development. It certainly didn't work out that way; it could not have worked out that way.

Much more fruitful, precise, and concrete is the theory of uneven and combined development.

IMO, Marx should have spent a lot less time learning Russian and studying the peasant commune, and much more time analyzing the "long deflation" that began in 1873 and detailing the changes going on in capitalism during that period. Might have proven very helpful to Marxists in both developed and less developed areas of capitalism, seeing as the long deflation is accompanied by this movement into less developed areas.

Who knows, might even have changed the course of the Mexican Revolution, from one securing the bourgeoisie and capital against agrarian revolution to a Mexican and 1910 version of 1917.