Marxism-Leninism vs. Socialism?

[Tim Cornelis]

Socialism is an ideology for human liberation, how is avowed advocacy of a totalitarian state, as Marxist-Leninists advocate, in accordance with this aim?

Even if we accept the Soviet Union was socialist under Stalin, how is it remotely a good system? "SU had Universal healthcare, good social security, etc", all these things can be provided by a socialist society without the totalitarian aspects, and better.

The basic principles of socialism seem to contradict the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism. I would like some input regarding this, especially from Marxist-Leninists.

(I am of course talking about Marxism-Leninism as a euphemism for Stalinism, Leninism as laid out in State and Revolution certainly is compatible with basic principles of socialism).

I had some respect for Marxism-Leninism when I found out all Marxists aspire to create a stateless communist society, but this respect has been diminishing since I witnessed apologetics for mass murder, the denunciation of everyone who does not strictly adhere to Marxist-Leninist dogma as "bourgeois", "reactionary", "utopian", "idealist", and even "fascist", and the advocacy of a system that has little to do with socialism.

[GatesofLenin]

Good question Goti123, I've been wondering the same thing. I'm still quite new at Marxist-Leninist ideas and currently reading selected works of Lenin. I myself agree with what Lenin wrote in his theses but am having a hard time approving of what Stalin did later on in the Soviet Union with the purges and so forth. Guess I'm stuck in "newbie mode" still and need to continue my education. Can't wait to see the responses here too.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The issue is that Stalin didn't strive for socialism. He strove for increased bureaucracy and solidifying his power. No attempt was given to institute democratic worker control of the means of production, profit was still extracted from the workers, the politburo saw advantages and a living standard much better than that of the average Soviet citizen.

The modern Stalinites refuse to recognize the facts, instead adhering to a mystical personality cult, and disregarding the tyranny of Stalin. They choose to call themselves Marxist-Leninists as a result of the facts. Calling themselves Stalinites, or Stalinists, would infer that Stalin was different than Lenin (which he was -- his views wreaked of revision of Leninism).

Furthermore, the modern ML's (Stalinites), are apologists for repression, totalitarianism, militarism -- when Stalin did it, and violently abusing fellow workers/anti-capitalists who are opposed to them -- See KKE.

They are enemies of the working class, and they are, for the most part, a bunch of fools who will abandon their views when they finally start reading anything other than Stalin. If I were politically active in the Soviet Union I would have been murdered by the state, as would the majority of this website.

Some reads:

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Capitalist Society - Raya Dunayevskaya (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm)

Stalinists Falsify Marxism Anew - Raya Dunayevskaya (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1948/stalinists-falsify.htm)

Stalin Versus Marx - Ted Grant (http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1946/02/aleksandrov.htm)

Stalinism – How to Understand It and How to Fight It - Ernest Germain (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1947/04/stalism.htm)

Stalinism: Its Origins & Future - Andy Blunden (http://www.marxists.org/subject/stalinism/origins-future/index.htm)

The Nature of Stalinist Russia - Tony Cliff (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1948/stalruss/index.htm)

[Rooster]

You should read some Hal Draper:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/index.htm

Particularly two souls of socialism and possibly the short essay on Neo-Stalinism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, really, that mostly depends on whether you see the Soviet Union as socialist, doesn't it?

[Tim Cornelis]

Well, really, that mostly depends on whether you see the Soviet Union as socialist, doesn't it?

Not really, like I said even if we accept the Soviet Union was socialist under Stalin, why should we accept that it was a good system?

Marxist-Leninists may reply "it had universal healthcare, good social security, free education, low unemployment/full employment".

However, all these things can be accomplished by other forms of non-market socialism without the need to suppress personal and social freedom, as well as workers control. In fact, social capitalism in Sweden has accomplished nearly the same. It has high wages, lowest income inequality in the world, free education, universal healthcare, only problem is the unemployment. But for the unemployed it has very good social security. On the other hand, Sweden has co-determination which is closer to workers control than Stalinism.

Why should we want to aspire to Marxism-Leninism if even social capitalism can accomplish the same, without the totalitarianism?

I would very much like some input from Marxist-Leninists on this.

Also, another question to Marxist-Leninists: why are you a socialist? What do you want socialism to accomplish?

[Tim Finnegan]

Marxism-Leninism is, to all intents and purposes, social democracy on the end of a bayonet. The fiery rhetoric that they like to toss around is just the looted grave-goods of the pre-'45 workers' movement, nothing to take even remotely seriously.

[Iron Felix]

The issue is that Stalin didn't strive for socialism. He strove for increased bureaucracy and solidifying his power. No attempt was given to institute democratic worker control of the means of production, profit was still extracted from the workers, the politburo saw advantages and a living standard much better than that of the average Soviet citizen.

The modern Stalinites refuse to recognize the facts, instead adhering to a mystical personality cult, and disregarding the tyranny of Stalin. They choose to call themselves Marxist-Leninists as a result of the facts. Calling themselves Stalinites, or Stalinists, would infer that Stalin was different than Lenin (which he was -- his views wreaked of revision of Leninism).

Furthermore, the modern ML's (Stalinites), are apologists for repression, totalitarianism, militarism -- when Stalin did it, and violently abusing fellow workers/anti-capitalists who are opposed to them -- See KKE.

They are enemies of the working class, and they are, for the most part, a bunch of fools who will abandon their views when they finally start reading anything other than Stalin. If I were politically active in the Soviet Union I would have been murdered by the state, as would the majority of this website.

Some reads:

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Capitalist Society - Raya Dunayevskaya (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm)

Stalinists Falsify Marxism Anew - Raya Dunayevskaya (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1948/stalinists-falsify.htm)

Stalin Versus Marx - Ted Grant (http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1946/02/aleksandrov.htm)

Stalinism – How to Understand It and How to Fight It - Ernest Germain (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1947/04/stalism.htm)

Stalinism: Its Origins & Future - Andy Blunden (http://www.marxists.org/subject/stalinism/origins-future/index.htm)

The Nature of Stalinist Russia - Tony Cliff (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1948/stalruss/index.htm)

Nah, Uncle Joe would have merely had you starve or die of typhus in a labour camp.

[Art Vandelay]

I am not an M-L so I cannot address the issues you brought up but can say a concur on pretty much everything expressed in this thread so far and am interested in hearing the response from a sane non tendency baiting stalinist, but I am still unsure if such a think exists. One thing I can say for sure is that I would have been lined against the wall in the the good ol' USSR under Stalin.

[Tim Cornelis]

I would very much like some input from Marxist-Leninists...

The fact that most of this forum might not have survived 'Stalin' alone should already indicate some flaw in Marxism-Leninism. Of course, it does not mean Marxist-Leninists agree with this, or that they necessarily defend it, but it seems to be a most likely effluence of totalitarian centralisation.

[thriller]

Not an M-L, but have some input. I think the problem here is that many socialist figures wrote, and acted. It is easy to 'canonize' Marx because he was not the leader of any particular group of workers and/or revolutionaries. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and so forth were. From my understanding of what these figures have put down in pen and what they did in reality sometimes contradict each other. I also think you are going to get differences in opinions between M-L's. I have seen many M-L's on this site criticize Stalin on certain issues, while some applaud him. As many people have said before me, putting old dead people before politics can lead to worshiping important figures, rather than the masses.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not an M-L, but have some input. I think the problem here is that many socialist figures wrote, and acted. It is easy to 'canonize' Marx because he was not the leader of any particular group of workers and/or revolutionaries. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and so forth were. From my understanding of what these figures have put down in pen and what they did in reality sometimes contradict each other. I also think you are going to get differences in opinions between M-L's. I have seen many M-L's on this site criticize Stalin on certain issues, while some applaud him. As many people have said before me, putting old dead people before politics can lead to worshiping important figures, rather than the masses.

True, Lenin's actions - for example - contradicted what he wrote in State and Revolution, but Marxism-Leninism avowedly advocates a totalitarian state. So ML's might not agree with Stalin's action to persecute homosexuals as outgrows of "fascism", they nonetheless agree with a totalitarian state. And precisely on this point is my confusion and how this is compatible with the basic principle of socialism: human liberation.

[tir1944]

"Totalitarian state" is bullshit bred in American Agitprop media-laboratories.
Srsly.
It all comes down to Bolsheviks being "totalitarian" monsters and not allowing the right wing / capitalists (and their stooges) to meddle in the affairs of a young socialist state.

[Tim Cornelis]

"Totalitarian state" is bullshit bred in American Agitprop media-laboratories.
Srsly.
It all comes down to Bolsheviks being "totalitarian" monsters and not allowing the right wing / capitalists (and their stooges) to meddle in the affairs of a young socialist state.

As was to be expected, everyone who does not agree to Marxist-Leninist dogma is apparently brainwashed and bourgeois, after all the Soviet Union was not totalitarian at all, it was made up by the American bourgeoisie! And of course, left-wingers who are not Marxist-Leninist are also included in the "right wing / capitalists (and their stooges)"?

The EZLN is under constant attack by right-wing death squats and the Mexican government, yet it has not resorted to totalitarianism.

And denying the Soviet Union was totalitarian is ridiculous, the state controlled all private and public affairs to whatever degree deemed appropriate by itself (i.e. no limit to its authority).

But could you answer the following questions:

1) Why are you a socialist? What do you want socialism to accomplish?
2) What did the Soviet Union under Stalin and Albania under Hoxha achieve?

[Iron Felix]

Yes, yes, the Soviet Union was democratic and socialist, US spent the entire 20th century spreading democracy and freedom to the world, the November criminals betrayed the Kaiser in 1918, Hitler was a pretty nice guy that never hurt anyone.

Look! That girl loves Stalin!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/138/328574440_d06e3e5012.jpg
She thanks him for her happy childhood!(It was pretty happy until her father was arrested by Stalin's friendly secret police and murdered, I saw an interview of the now old woman)
http://www.standrewsblantyre.com/images/stories/blog/hitler-and-child.jpg
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/images/children/Inge_Terboven_on_Hitler.jpg
The kids seem to like their German variant of Glorious Comrade Leader!

[tir1944]

As was to be expected, everyone who does not agree to Marxist-Leninist dogma is apparently brainwashed and bourgeois, after all the Soviet Union was not totalitarian at all, it was made up by the American bourgeoisie! Again,that word doesn't mean anything outside the Liberal / Randian "worldview".
Žižek talked about this,however i've never read the book but you can google for yourself.



The EZLN is under constant attack by right-wing death squats and the Mexican government, yet it has not resorted to totalitarianism.It's not a state.


And denying the Soviet Union was totalitarian is ridiculousNo.The term itself is.Though this fits perfectly the other part of my post (regarding Liberal ideology etc).This Teabagger's poster illustrates what i'm talking about.

I.F's liberal logic:Obama=Hitler=Stalin
http://thepeoplesnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/obama-child-school-speech.jpg

http://nowherewithme.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/change-hitler-obama-lenin.jpg

[thefinalmarch]

I don't think "totalitarian" is a particularly useful term at all when analysing states and societies. Arguably almost all conceivable states could be described as being totalitarian at some point in their history.

To me the term is on par with the "libertarian"-"authoritarian" false dichotomy - i.e. useless.

[Tim Finnegan]

http://nowherewithme.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/change-hitler-obama-lenin.jpg
I could never quite figure out if that last line was a criticism of Obama or an advertismenent for the Tea Party.

[thriller]

I could never quite figure out if that last line was a criticism of Obama or an advertismenent for the Tea Party.

I think it's an ad for the Tea Party. That pic is on a billboard outside of Dubuque, Iowa USA. I laughed so hard when I saw it. Democratic Socialist? Haha!

[Black Bidet]

Having an obsession over certain figures and identifying a whole theory/practice/state/nation/organization/social structure as the face of those individuals is equally ridiculously religious, anti-dialectic, shallow, lazy-minded and politicaly myopic as worshipping those figures.
Furthermore, referring to the first and longest (and successfull at some extent) try on the planet to establish a peoples states union, with a series of men as general secretaries of the communist party over the nearly 80 years of the unions existence, opposed to the existing old capitalist system, but focusing in a specific leading figure in order to extract the desirable impressions, feelings and hatred is totally unfair towards historical materialism for a start. It also reveals a lack of interest -to say the least- to the natural continuity of events, global social and financial conditions over the decades. In the worst form, it could even resemble the re-chewing (the way goats eat) of the same mind-food that the capitalist propaganda had spread for its own interests.

A M-L should at least examine as many parameters as possible, in order to comprehend how things happened over there.

For instance, I read somewhere in this thread that the "stalinist" state did not let enough workers' control over the production media. This statement fluctuates between "absurd" and "ignorant". History has proven that after Stalin's death (1956), the soviet system started letting the workers unions to handle the factories and collectives more "freely" and in a competitive way, thus introducing the term "gain" and "profit" in their annual reports. That proved to open the gates for black market , and the return to capitalism, eventually (along with other political parameters of course).
That could be an example to avoid in the future, in this case.

Things are not linear, yet connected. Forms and aisthaetics can change over time, but the essence should be clear.
Stalin was who he was, yet who were the leaders of the rest of the world at those times? 65 years passed.

Start from the beginning, look around you, observe your country, look where the money goes to, look at the trade unions in your country, in your city, at your neighbourhood. Even if you could form a "left" government, would that solve all your basic problems and all people can live happy ever after, hugging trees? Would the banks let such reforms? What about the stock market? The oil companies? Warfare companies? WHO PRINTS THE MONEY, and who redistributes it and how? Who would control the mass production media? How would the re-claiming of them be materialized? By an angry mob?
Socialism is an abstract term, but matter is not.
Marxism-Leninism is until now the only existing spherical and inclusive scientific concrete formation of theory and practice, especially now that we are aware of the plus's and minus's , of the mistakes to avoid and the successful practices to adjust to modern conditions.

Socialism is (should) not a be an ideal flower Jehova heaven, promised by the prophets. Socialism should (will) be the evolving outcome of the work of many people, day by day, by intellectuals and labour workers, fighting the their way to freedom, building societies that do not adopt individualism the capitalism has shown us, and yet spread the produced wealth to all. Marxism-Leninism is the tool.

[Black Bidet]

Having an obsession over certain figures and identifying a whole theory/practice/state/nation/organization/social structure as the face of those individuals is equally ridiculously religious, anti-dialectic, shallow, lazy-minded and politicaly myopic as worshipping those figures.
Furthermore, referring to the first and longest (and successfull at some extent) try on the planet to establish a peoples states union, with a series of men as general secretaries of the communist party over the nearly 80 years of the unions existence, opposed to the existing old capitalist system, but focusing in a specific leading figure in order to extract the desirable impressions, feelings and hatred is totally unfair towards historical materialism for a start. It also reveals a lack of interest -to say the least- to the natural continuity of events, global social and financial conditions over the decades. In the worst form, it could even resemble the re-chewing (the way goats eat) of the same mind-food that the capitalist propaganda had spread for its own interests.

A M-L should at least examine as many parameters as possible, in order to comprehend how things happened over there.

For instance, I read somewhere in this thread that the "stalinist" state did not let enough workers' control over the production media. This statement fluctuates between "absurd" and "ignorant". History has proven that after Stalin's death (1956), the soviet system started letting the workers unions to handle the factories and collectives more "freely" and in a competitive way, thus introducing the term "gain" and "profit" in their annual reports. That proved to open the gates for black market , and the return to capitalism, eventually (along with other political parameters of course).
That could be an example to avoid in the future, in this case.

Things are not linear, yet connected. Forms and aisthaetics can change over time, but the essence should be clear.
Stalin was who he was, yet who were the leaders of the rest of the world at those times? 65 years passed.

Start from the beginning, look around you, observe your country, look where the money goes to, look at the trade unions in your country, in your city, at your neighbourhood. Even if you could form a "left" government, would that solve all your basic problems and all people can live happy ever after, hugging trees? Would the banks let such reforms? What about the stock market? The oil companies? Warfare companies? WHO PRINTS THE MONEY, and who redistributes it and how? Who would control the mass production media? How would the re-claiming of them be materialized? By an angry mob?
Socialism is an abstract term, but matter is not.
Marxism-Leninism is until now the only existing spherical and inclusive scientific concrete formation of theory and practice, especially now that we are aware of the plus's and minus's , of the mistakes to avoid and the successful practices to adjust to modern conditions.

Socialism is (should) not a be an ideal flower Jehova heaven, promised by the prophets. Socialism should (will) be the evolving outcome of the work of many people, day by day, by intellectuals and labour workers, fighting the their way to freedom, building societies that do not adopt individualism the capitalism has shown us, and yet spread the produced wealth to all. Marxism-Leninism is the tool.