Marxism-Leninism's relation to Stalin?

[Mind_Zenith]

So, without trying to start a war, I was wondering whether there are M-Ls that don't agree with Stalin on certain issues. I probably have COMPLETELY the wrong impression about M-L, but it seems that M-Ls consider the Soviet Union under Stalin (and Lenin, of course) to be the proper implementation of communism. Does this also include things like the gulag system? And what about the authoritarian nature that's usually accused of Stalin's rule? Are there M-Ls that don't concern themselves with Stalin at all?

I myself (beyond what my tendency says on RevLeft!) am interested in Marxism-Leninism. I consider the articulation of Leninism by Stalin to be sound, but his actual implementation of Leninism is not something I agree with. At the same time, as you can tell, I'm certainly not well-read on M-L as much as most on this board, and hence is

[promethean]

So, without trying to start a war, I was wondering whether there are M-Ls that don't agree with Stalin on certain issues. I probably have COMPLETELY the wrong impression about M-L, but it seems that M-Ls consider the Soviet Union under Stalin (and Lenin, of course) to be the proper implementation of communism. Does this also include things like the gulag system? And what about the authoritarian nature that's usually accused of Stalin's rule? Are there M-Ls that don't concern themselves with Stalin at all?

I myself (beyond what my tendency says on RevLeft!) am interested in Marxism-Leninism. I consider the articulation of Leninism by Stalin to be sound, but his actual implementation of Leninism is not something I agree with. At the same time, as you can tell, I'm certainly not well-read on M-L as much as most on this board, and hence is
Most marxist-leninists argue that the gulags were filled with only fascists and petit-bourgeois deviationists. See this site (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/ezhovinterrogs.html) where Grover Furr believing that the confessions extracted by the NKVD were totally real and can be accepted without question, quotes:
Since I knew about Zhukovsky’s cowardice and stubbornness I did not consider it necessary to keep him up to date about conspiratorial matters. I only introduced him fully to these matters in the Spring of 1938. Then he was appointed my assistant and headed the whole accounting of the NKVD and the GULAG. We conspirators had special plans about the GULAG about which I have given detailed confessions, and I decided to bring Zhukovsky up to date. By this time the people who could have exposed Zhukovsky along the lines of his Trotskyist and espionage connections were already condemned and the danger of Zhukovsky’s arrest had passed. I told Zhukovsky about the existence of the conspiracy in the NKVD, that the conspiratorial organization is connected with governmental circles of Germany, Poland, and Japan. I don’t remember exactly now, but I think that I told him about our desire to get into contact with the English. Then I told him about the leading members of the conspiratorial organization and about our plans, specifically about our terrorist plans…



MLs believe that authoritarianism is a true hallmark of Marxism from the time when Karl Marx wrote: "It is only through authoritarianism and the killing of people one does not agree with that the true people's party shall achieve socialism in the name of the people". As some MLs like to believe, with every thousand people killed or sent to prison labour camps, the glorious motherland of the Russian people went closer and closer to socialism and it reached its zenith when Stalin led the glorious motherland in defeating the cowardly Germans, after cunningly tricking them by signing a pact with them. Finally, even if some MLs don't agree with the way things went on inside great motherland of socialist Russia, Stalin's beautifully crafted theoretical works are consolation enough to remain a real anti-revisionist ml at heart.:)

[Per Levy]

So, without trying to start a war

thats allready to late i guess...

[GatesofLenin]

Being new to this forum and reading Lenin alot lately, I got lots to learn myself and I wouldn't worry about starting a tendency war here. How else are we supposed to learn if we don't ask questions?

[Sentinel]

So, without trying to start a war, I was wondering whether there are M-Ls that don't agree with Stalin on certain issues.


After Stalin's death the leadership of the USSR condemned his personality cult and certain other aspects of his regime, while maintaining the system of bureacratic (as opposed to democratic) centralism which he and his henchmen had introduced. Those ML:s that still adhere to Stalin's infallibility refer to themselves as 'anti-revisionists' while calling those that uphold the USSR from Kruschev and onwards the 'revisionists'.

So there are indeed non-stalinist ML:s, but the rest of the left still usually puts them all in the category of Stalinism, due to in practice failing to fundamentally change the system in a more democratic direction. The bureacratic party elite remained in power.

Sometimes the 'Kruschev revisinionists' are also called 'tankies' by other leftists, as they often suppressed attempts of political revolutions against the bureacracies of the eastern bloc by 'sending in the tanks' (Hungary 1956 etc).

Additionally, there are people that identify as both Marxists and Leninists while condemning the Soviet regimes under and after Stalin, such as us Trotskyists. We don't use the term 'Marxist-Leninist' as that is connected to the Stalin and post-Stalin USSR though.

Instead we refer to ourselves as Trotskyists, Bolshevik-Leninists or Orthodox Marxists etc.

I hope this was helpful. :)

[Sinred]

So, without trying to start a war, I was wondering whether there are M-Ls that don't agree with Stalin on certain issues.
I probably have COMPLETELY the wrong impression about M-L, but it seems that M-Ls consider the Soviet Union under Stalin (and Lenin, of course) to be the proper implementation of communism. Does this also include things like the gulag system? And what about the authoritarian nature that's usually accused of Stalin's rule? Are there M-Ls that don't concern themselves with Stalin at all?


No. You dont have to be a fan of Stalin to be ML. I have a somewhat neutral relation to Stalin. Just like reality itself its not black and white and you have to see the stalin-era in the context of its time and situation.
I Acknowledge the good things he actually did but he also did things i simply cant agree on. I know ML who despise Stalin almost as much as Trotsky, as well as extreme defender of his rule.
But i have never under my 10 years as active ML met anyone (other than online) who believe we should build socialism after a 30s Soviet Model. Its completely different conditions then it was back in days in Russia, and that kind of rule is simply not possible or wanted.
Socialism develops from each countrys conditions and context.



I myself (beyond what my tendency says on RevLeft!) am interested in Marxism-Leninism. I consider the articulation of Leninism by Stalin to be sound, but his actual implementation of Leninism is not something I agree with. At the same time, as you can tell, I'm certainly not well-read on M-L as much as most on this board, and hence is

My advice is to not let it be a problem. No matter what some may say its not a package deal. So dont let anyone fool you to think that leninist dislike of stalin equals trotskysm. It doesnt.

But the important thing as a marxist-leninist overall is to remember that whatever you think of stalin is not that big of a deal (or at least it shouldnt). We fight against capitalism in the era of 2000 and for socialism under complete different conditions then russia back in the days.
To me, Stalin (even thou i have a somewhat positive image of him) is irrelevant.

Hope you found my reply useful.
Feel free to PM me if its anything you wanna know.

[Rooster]

Marxism-leninism sprang up after Lenin's death. The origins of it lay in Stalin's writings such as The Foundations of Leninism. It seeks to derive authority from previous figures and was the ideology of the USSR. As such, it meant different things at different times but that's where it origins were and it was used to justify the ruling class at the time (all authority comes through the vanguard of the proletariat and such).


I have a somewhat neutral relation to Stalin.


i have a somewhat positive image of him

Which is it? :confused:

[tir1944]

Stalin is still considered a "classic "of Marxism-Leninism by most ML parties...from what i know at least.

[Sinred]

Marxism-leninism sprang up after Lenin's death. The origins of it lay in Stalin's writings such as The Foundations of Leninism. It seeks to derive authority from previous figures and was the ideology of the USSR. As such, it meant different things at different times but that's where it origins were and it was used to justify the ruling class at the time (all authority comes through the vanguard of the proletariat and such).
Yeah... let me guess, because the great Trotsky was the real marxist?


Which is it? :confused:
I should have been more clear on that one. Im as marxist-leninist and as revleftist are neutral of him. In the light of mainstream politics thou i would be considered somewhat positive to him.

[m-l Power]

Stalin is the most logical follower of Lenin´s work. I´d like to do a question to all that people who think Stalin hadn´t been the best follower of the m-l line in the Soviet Union: What did Stalin do that Lenin did not?

Absolutly nothing, moreover, he did some things, developed some elements that Lenin couldn´t finish, for example the question relative to the collectivization, based on the NEP, a very important task clearly.

[Mind_Zenith]

Thanks all for your responses. It's made me re-think past negative ideas on ML. I'm thinking along the lines of pro-Khrushchev ML (although some people would definitely argue that such isn't ML at all). :thumbup1:

[Mr. Natural]

I hate Stalin and Stalinism with a revolutionary, red, Marxist-Leninist passion. I'm not a Trotskyist. I'm a Marxist, and I'm seeing more and more value and depth in Lenin.

promethean, What is the source for the quotation attributed to Marx: "It is only through authoritarianism and the killing of people one does not agree with that the true people's party shall achieve socialism in the name of the people."?

I know Marx advocated a sort of red terroristic violence a couple of times in response to counterrevolutionary violence, but the above quotation sounds more like some Stalinist re-stating what Marx would have more temperately and reasonably said concerning revolutionary realities.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I understand MLs regard Trotskyists as "liberals". Why is this? I mean this in a "spotterly" way, not to create a tendency war. How can a criticism or even strong dislike of Stalin not lead to Trotsky?

Just curious.

[Zanthorus]

promethean, What is the source for the quotation attributed to Marx: "It is only through authoritarianism and the killing of people one does not agree with that the true people's party shall achieve socialism in the name of the people."?

I think that was intended to be a joke which plays on the stereotype of Marxist-Leninists as people who get most of their information on Marx from official Soviet interpretations.

[Red Rabbit]

Speaking as a Marxist-Leninist, I feel that Stalin had remarkably profound theories and I regard him highly for it. However, I'm not without criticism for Stalin as well, as not everything he did was agreeable or what I would deem to be the appropriate actions at the time.

And before anyone brings it up (If they haven't already); Both Stalin and Trotsky have an equally moronic cult following. One's worshippers are not better or worst than the other's.

[Agent Equality]

Any thread with Stalin or Stalin's name in it will end up creating a tendency-war, regardless of what you are trying to achieve. You should read other threads first.

[Rooster]

Stalin had remarkably profound theories

Such as?

[GatesofLenin]

Any thread with Stalin or Stalin's name in it will end up creating a tendency-war, regardless of what you are trying to achieve. You should read other threads first.

Stating ones opinions is not starting a tendency war. Acting childish and swearing, that is war!

[Commissar Rykov]

Such as?
I am curious as well since most MLs don't hold Stalin as a theorist but a supporter of Lenin's theory.

[tir1944]

I am curious as well since most MLs don't hold Stalin as a theorist
Since when?
Stalin was a great theorist of MLism

[Red Rabbit]

Such as?

Well, I've always thought his theory of 'Socialism in One Country' to be quite interesting. It could also be quite advantageous in practice, as well. That is, if all attempts to create Socialism in other countries fails, strengthening it in your own country would be a wise choice.

However, I feel that Socialism in One Country should be only temporary, and that the theoretical Socialist country should again try to spread Socialism to other countries once it has strengthened itself.

[Commissar Rykov]

Since when?
Stalin was a great theorist of MLism
What theory did he bring forward?

[tir1944]

The theory on the national question for example.

[tir1944]

That is, if all attempts to create Socialism in other countries fails, strengthening it in your own country would be a wise choice.
Yes,and that's just common sense.


However, I feel that Socialism in One Country should be only temporary, and that the theoretical Socialist country should again try to spread Socialism to other countries once it has strengthened itself.
Indeed,that's why the "Red World" stretched from the Baltic to the Chinese sea after the WW2.

[promethean]

Well, I've always thought his theory of 'Socialism in One Country' to be quite interesting. It could also be quite advantageous in practice, as well. That is, if all attempts to create Socialism in other countries fails, strengthening it in your own country would be a wise choice.

However, I feel that Socialism in One Country should be only temporary, and that the theoretical Socialist country should again try to spread Socialism to other countries once it has strengthened itself.
How can socialism be created in one country? If you think a Stalinist party becoming the ruling party and bringing about state ownership of all industries is socialism, you are wrong. The CPSU, which claimed to have created "socialism in one country", did not take power in the Soviet Union by magic. The revolution in 1917 was brought about as part of a worldwide struggle of the working class. The bureaucratic clique around Stalin later took power of the Soviet state through a massive counter-revolution and rewrote the official history to erase all their wrong doings. Modern day Stalinists hopelessly cling to this official history. Stalin's official theory of "socialism in one country" became part of the ruling class dogma because of the counter-revolution carried out by the bureaucratic clique around Stalin. This dogma goes completely against the internationalist principles of the communist movement since the 19th century, which was captured by Engels when he wrote in the Principles of Communism:

Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.