How many M-Ls here are Hoxhaists, Maoists, etc?

[Susurrus]

Wondering about the distribution of M-L tendencies here.


EDIT: Could a mod or admin change it so you can see the results without voting please? Also, please add "Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Titoist" as an option.

[Искра]

You didn't put Titoists here ;)

[Susurrus]

You didn't put Titoists here ;)

I don't believe I've ever seen one on the forum, they are an extinct species here. But if there are any, vote other and post your ideology.

[Commissar Rykov]

I don't believe I've ever seen one on the forum, they are an extinct species here. But if there are any, vote other and post your ideology.
That is because they are restricted as Market Socialists IIRC.

[Bronco]

The Titoism group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=453) has 22 members so looks like there are some around and they're not restricted

[tir1944]

Titoism ain't MLism.
Also voted "Stalinist-Hoxhaist".

[Искра]

For example Punisa, Yugo45 and Valter are Titoists (imho). I saw few of them on this forum, so I believe that they deserve their own place in poll. After all, we all know that most of ML’s are Hoxhaists since that is latest trend on that part of a left. And Titoism is Marxism-Leninism, since Marxism-Leninism means following certain ideological pattern/line, which Titoists do follow but they have certain distinctions from Stalinists and Maoists, which is why you have tag Titoist to make a distinction.

[tir1944]

Again,Titoism ain't Marxism Leninism.
It's an "ideology" born out of the '48 split with all other ML parties.

[Искра]

Again,Titoism ain't Marxism Leninism.
It's an "ideology" born out of the '48 split with all other ML parties.
Feel free to provide some decent argumentation for a change. Also, according to your logic Maoism is not Marxism-Leninism.

Since, I’m a good person I’ll try to help you. Please write me a definition (please not from Wikipedia) of what Marxism Leninism is, what makes some Communist Party Marxist Leninist and I’ll write you how Titoism is ML.

Also, we all know that split between Yugoslavia and Comintern/Soviet Union was because Yugoslavia resisted Soviet imperialism. If you don’t agree that I would like to ask you to prove me different with historical sources, documents etc. I do have a lot of that in my favour and I can easily give you names of authors and books which you, as a user from ex-Yugoslavia, can easily find in your local library.


So, in other words I dare you to post like an intelligent Marxist-Leninist.

[tir1944]

Also, according to your logic Maoism is not Marxism-Leninism.
Yes,according to Hoxha,IIRC,this is indeed the case.
However that's a rather controversial issue.
But pretty muche every MList will tell you that Titoism ISN'T Marxism Leninism.
Titoism rejects a socialist planned economy,the vanguard party and tons of other "components" of MLism.


Please write me a definition (please not from Wikipedia) of what Marxism Leninism is, what makes some Communist Party Marxist Leninist and I’ll write you how Titoism is ML.

I'm afraid i'm not capable of doing this.
Maybe some other ML comrades can help...


Also, we all know that split between Yugoslavia and Comintern/Soviet Union was because Yugoslavia resisted Soviet imperialism.
Whose definition of "imperialism" are you using?

[Smyg]

Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist-Maoist-Trotskyist-Luxembourgist-Bakuninist-Kropotkinist-Titoist-Guevarist-Castroist-Chavist-Peronist-Bolivarianist. With slight liberal leanings, and conservative morals. Obviously.

It's amusing how we cling on to individuals.

[Искра]

So, Tir1944 you exactly don’t know why Titoism is not Marxism-Leninism, but because Hoxha said it isn’t you are saying that it isn’t? Also, you are not capable of defining me what exactly is Marxism-Leninism, an ideology you support? Why are you supporting something you can not define?

Also, for your notice – Titoism supports vanguard party, Titoism supports planned economy, Titoism supports Popular Front, Titoism supports “socialism in one country”, Titoism supports national liberation etc. Also, Tito’s first text you have on marxist.org is against Trotskyism and Tito was a NKVD’s agent (also, half of Central Committee of Yugoslav Communist Party was in NKVD).

World of politics is full of small men with big ambitions.

[tir1944]

So, Tir1944 you exactly don’t know why Titoism is not Marxism-Leninism, but because Hoxha said it isn’t you are saying that it isn’t?I do know.



Also, you are not capable of defining me what exactly is Marxism-Leninism, an ideology you support? Why are you supporting something you can not define? I have an understanding of the subject,however i'm afraid i won't be able come up with a proper,encyclopedial definition of the term.At least not in English...



Also, for your notice – Titoism supports vanguard party, Titoism supports planned economy, Titoism supports Popular Front, Titoism supports “socialism in one country”, Titoism supports national liberation etc. Wasn't it you who talked about the logic of the renaming the Party into "Savez Komunista"?
Also how come Tito abandoned a soc. pl. economy?
Also many other ideologies support nat. lib,pop. front etc,so this isn't really relevant.


Also, Tito’s first text you have on marxist.org is against Trotskyism and Tito was a NKVD’s agent (also, half of Central Committee of Yugoslav Communist Party was in NKVD). I've read that text.Nothing of importance.He speaks about Trots shitting(!) on church altars.:laugh:
There's really nothign of intellectual or any other value in that text.

[Susurrus]

I have an understanding of the subject,however i'm afraid i won't be able come up with a proper,encyclopedial definition of the term.At least not in English...


Someone needs to read their Stalin more...

"Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular"

[La Peur Rouge]

Isn't Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist redundant? I thought Stalin made up the term.

[Искра]

You missed my entire point. I’m not asking of your to provide me deep analytical answer, but I’m asking of you to provide us with an answer which is deeper and bigger than one sentence in “Tito was revisionist” style. If you are claiming that Titoism is not Marxism-Leninism then provide some argumentation for your claim. For example you can always write few “components” of Marxism-Leninism and write which of these “components” Titoism doesn’t have. You can write that on Croatian I’ll translate on English.

I said that Tito renamed communist party into Union of communists, but that doesn’t mean that he’s against vanguard party. Also, I pointed out few “components” which are unique to Lenin’s and Stalin’s teachings and which other leftists do not support. But Tito did.

Regarding that text: its insignificance just proves that he was a Marxist Leninist. :D

[Susurrus]

Isn't Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist redundant? I thought Stalin made up the term.

Yeah, but the term to show the "intellectual succession" requires stalin be mentioned. Plus if I just put "marxist-leninist" as an option, a flamewar between tendencies would erupt in a second(as it kindof already has).

[Искра]

There's no tendency war as I'm not a Titoist :D I'm just inteligent :)

[tir1944]

Someone needs to read their Stalin more...That definition i am familiar with,however it's not enough.;)

Anyway,Kontra,here's a whole page on why Titoism can't be considered MLism.

http://anonym.to/?http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/marxism-leninism-vs-revisionism/titoism/

[Искра]

I asked for your replay not links. I know why Stalinists consider Titoism revisionist, but still Titoism is Marxism-Leninism.

[Gustav HK]

How is support for imperialism in Korean War (and a lot of other cases) marxist-leninist?

How was Yugoslav market economy marxist-leninist (NEP was very different from Yugoslavian market "socialism")?

[Искра]

The same way that Soviet imperialism in Finland, Baltic, Poland etc is Marxist-Leninist and in the same way that state-capitalist production is Marxist-Leninist.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Marxism-Leninism

[Obs]

Which one do I pick if I don't like Stalin?

[tfb]

You don't pick one if you don't like Stalin because "Marxism-Leninism" is a term that Stalin made up for himself.

[Commissar Rykov]

You don't pick one if you don't like Stalin because "Marxism-Leninism" is a term that Stalin made up for himself.
Which one do I pick then if I am confused by all these dead people alignments and wish to wear pants on my head?

[Obs]

You don't pick one if you don't like Stalin because "Marxism-Leninism" is a term that Stalin made up for himself.

How does one adequately describe someone who is a Marxist and a Leninist, but not a Trotskyist, then?

[tfb]

Which one do I pick then if I am confused by all these dead people alignments and wish to wear pants on my head?

You should then call yourself a "sans-culottes".


@Obs:

I think that's just called "Leninism".

[Obs]

@Obs:

I think that's just called "Leninism".

Not catchy enough.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

How does one adequately describe someone who is a Marxist and a Leninist, but not a Trotskyist, then?

Confused?

Seriously, I think the Iranian Hekmatists like Lenin but dislike Stalin and Trotsky.I don't know of other tendencies share this view.Perhaps Titoists, to an extent.

[Die Neue Zeit]

None of the above, but why is there no option for "Soviet Marxist-Leninists" (a.k.a. "tankies")? :confused:

[Obs]

Confused?

Seriously, I think the Iranian Hekmatists like Lenin but dislike Stalin and Trotsky.

Guess I'll check those guys out. Thanks.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Guevarist

he turned cuba around

[Susurrus]

How does one adequately describe someone who is a Marxist and a Leninist, but not a Trotskyist, then?

This one is for Stalinists only, it's only called "Marxist-Leninist" because they lie that better. Though I think those people tend to just call themselves "Leninists" or sometimes "Orthodox Leninists"

[Lenina Rosenweg]

He turned Cuba around but then became increasingly frustrated at Soviet and Cuban bureaucratism. He apparently developed an interest in both Maoism and Trotskyism. He eventually renounced his Cuban citizenship, fought in Congo and then died in Bolivia.

[promethean]

How does one adequately describe someone who is a Marxist and a Leninist, but not a Trotskyist, then?
Bordigists, who are Marxists and left communists, have been described as being "more Leninist than Lenin".

[Obs]

Bordigists, who are Marxists and left communists, have been described as being "more Leninist than Lenin".

A term which, in turn, has been described as "meaningless and stupid".

By me.

Just now.

[Crux]

Reason why, out of these options, Titoism is superior:
To Joseph Stalin: Stop sending people to kill me! We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle... If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send a very fast working one to Moscow and I certainly won't have to send another.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Classic! :D

[Susurrus]

Oh, those homicidal dictators sure did have a jolly old time of it.:lol:


Though seriously, they totally make me think of what would happen if a revleft member actually had political power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Though seriously, they totally make me think of what would happen if a revleft member actually had political power.

Just because most of us are above mass purges, bloodlettings, hit-man stunts, etc. doesn't mean posters like me aren't above "networking" within worker-class institutions and other worker-class organizations to achieve mass political retirements of obstructionists (and then defame their political legacy later on to add salt to the wounds). :)

[Obs]

Just because most of us are above mass purges, bloodlettings, hit-man stunts, etc. doesn't mean posters like me aren't above "networking" within institutions and other organizations to achieve mass political retirements of obstructionists (and then defame their political legacy later on to add salt to the wounds). :)

It's scary because no-one can tell whether you're joking or not.

[∞]

I voted anyway! Muahahahahahahahaha!

[∞]

Just because most of us are above mass purges, bloodlettings, hit-man stunts, etc. doesn't mean posters like me aren't above "networking" within worker-class institutions and other worker-class organizations to achieve mass political retirements of obstructionists (and then defame their political legacy later on to add salt to the wounds). :)

wut.

[Crux]

Just because most of us are above mass purges, bloodlettings, hit-man stunts, etc. doesn't mean posters like me aren't above "networking" within worker-class institutions and other worker-class organizations to achieve mass political retirements of obstructionists (and then defame their political legacy later on to add salt to the wounds). :)
Yes, yes soon those who've ridiculed you will find their reputations tarnished, herr Ceasar Kautsky.

[Gustav HK]

There is actually an organization "Communist Voice", which was hoxhaist before, but now they say they are marxists-leninists, who are against both Stalin and Trotsky.
They talk about "stalinist-trotskyist revisionism".

[∞]

There is actually an organization "Communist Voice", which was hoxhaist before, but now they say they are marxists-leninists, who are against both Stalin and Trotsky.
They talk about "stalinist-trotskyist revisionism".

They've been called left Communists although they don't consider themselves that either. They are state capitalist theorists as well.

[Искра]

I just love this obsession about revisionism.

[Art Vandelay]

Though seriously, they totally make me think of what would happen if a revleft member actually had political power.

I am fairly certain that a few of us would be up against the wall...not joking:trotski::blackA: .

[Yazman]

Wondering about the distribution of M-L tendencies here.


EDIT: Could a mod or admin change it so you can see the results without voting please? Also, please add "Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Titoist" as an option.

Regular users can't see the results without voting, so I've added an abstain option for those who want to see the results but aren't any of the above (or don't wish to vote).

I've also added the requested "Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Titoist" option.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Marxist-Leninist-Bukharinist-Titoist-Andropovist-Honeckerism Lin Piao thought

[Gustav HK]

How can one be both stalinist and titoist?

Might as well ad a "stalinist-trotskyist" option.

[Obs]

There is actually an organization "Communist Voice", which was hoxhaist before, but now they say they are marxists-leninists, who are against both Stalin and Trotsky.
They talk about "stalinist-trotskyist revisionism".

my brain is full of fuck

[Crux]

How can one be both stalinist and titoist?

Might as well ad a "stalinist-trotskyist" option.
Bah, everyone knows Hoxha was a filthy revisionist and ultraleftist.

[tir1944]

Bah, everyone knows Hoxha was a filthy revisionist and ultraleftist.
Spare us the trolling.

[Искра]

Spare us the trolling.
Yeah, that's your job ;)

[tir1944]

Ok,if you don't want me to accuse you of slander you should provide me with evidence of this alleged "trolling" of mine.
Where did i troll?
FYI you've been slandering me for quite some time,never providing any kind of evidence whatsoever.

[Crux]

Spare us the trolling.
Do you deny that he collaborated with Tito? :laugh:
Besides the fate of the largest Hoxhaist party PCdB is quite telling, that is being an acessorie in PT's alliance along with a number of openly bourgeoisie parties. The Ecuadorian hoxhaists with aliginging themselfes with someone they deemed a "progressive nationalist", break with him, then support him again when there was an attemtped military coup against Correas decidedly more leftwing government. And let's not go into the venezuelan Bandera Roja.

[tir1944]

Do you deny that he collaborated with Tito?
Yes,and so did every communist leader in the early post-WW2 times.:rolleyes:

[Yazman]

Bah, everyone knows Hoxha was a filthy revisionist and ultraleftist.

Cut it out. If you're going to make a post in Learning then make a worthwhile one. This goes for everybody.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, yes soon those who've ridiculed you will find their reputations tarnished, herr Ceasar Kautsky.

I was referring to the mindset of many of the activists/praktiki on this board. The structures of their organizations, yours included, facilitate this kind of behaviour.

[Obs]

I was referring to the mindset of many of the activists/praktiki on this board. The structures of their organizations, yours included, facilitate this kind of behaviour.

Unlike you, who never do anything.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I was referring to the mindset of many of the activists/praktiki on this board. The structures of their organizations, yours included, facilitate this kind of behaviour.
what kind of behavior? Whats wrong with practical work?

[Commissar Rykov]

what kind of behavior? Whats wrong with practical work?
It attempts to interact with the Working Class instead of making a Frankenstein version of Marxism.:lol:

[China studen]

Marxism - Leninism - Maoism and Kimilsung - Kimjongilism（Juche idea）!

[Rusty Shackleford]

Arise from slumber, ye recently deceased!

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It's called Marxist Leninist Maoism, please don't add "Stalinism" where it doesn't belong.

[Brutus]

Stalinism-titoism! Hahahaha.
Heard of the 1948 split?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

It's called Marxist Leninist Maoism, please don't add "Stalinism" where it doesn't belong.

Stalinism-Maoism would indeed be a better term.
Don't involve Marx or Lenin where they don't belong.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why are some communists still supporting dictators??? :(

[Captain Ahab]

Why are some communists still supporting dictators??? :(
Because they implemented a sort of social autocracy.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Stalinism-Maoism would indeed be a better term.
Don't involve Marx or Lenin where they don't belong.

Sectarianism, great. Because obviously it's either Orthdox Marxism or STAAALLINISM1!!!1!! It's not like its possible to take a theoretical framework developed 150 years ago and to try to make it relevant to the modern world.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Sectarianism, great.

Why is sectarianism bad when it's against dictators?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Why is sectarianism bad when it's against dictators?

Neither Stalin's USSR or Mao's China were dictatorships in the liberal sense of the word. And because you're just oversimplifying these events into moralistic paragims of liberal democracy vs totalitarianism. This is just some "great man" stuff that is typical of bourgeois historians, not Marxist analysis.

Since MLM and ML are the largest tendencies in the world, it's moronic to reply with these one-liners. We aren't "real" communists you say? What gives the party of two men and their dogs the right to make that distinction without actual analysis when millions have fought and died for our vision? Debate is always a good thing, sectarian dismissals like this are an insult to the revolutionaries who are fighting the good fight in India, Turkey, Nepal, Peru, the Philippines, Colombia, Paraguay, and other countries.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I'm not saying you shouldn't disagree with us, you have every right to do so, but please stop acting so childish about it

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Sectarianism, great. Because obviously it's either Orthdox Marxism or STAAALLINISM1!!!1!! It's not like its possible to take a theoretical framework developed 150 years ago and to try to make it relevant to the modern world. Obviously MLM is a bourgeois ideology and Orthodox Marxism is a proletarian ideology despite, you know, the lack of proletarians and the fact that only academics support it. It's not like Marxist-Leninism and Marxist Leninist Maoism has actual proletarians backing it..... (Because obviously the proletarians that are in PAME and KKE are fake proletarians and only exist in our imaginations, while the glorious Orthdox Marxist parties of Europe are at the forefront of the revolutionary struggle)

Nobody cares about your holy war against sectarianism, mostly because it is a joke. You just say everyone who disagrees with your maoism is sectarian, which in itself is sectarian. Also, it wasn't so much sectarian as saying maoism has very little to do with Marx or Lenin, which you would know if you had read more than a few pages of either of those.
The rest of your posts are just straw-men so I win't bother to respond.

[Karabin]

You don't pick one if you don't like Stalin because "Marxism-Leninism" is a term that Stalin made up for himself.

Why does it matter if Stalin came up with the term? If the ideals of Marxism-Leninism appeal to you, then you should be able to subscribe to that denomination without the stigma of Stalinism. Stalin also came up with the term "Titoism" as a derogatory term for Tito and the Yugoslav government, and it is a term that Tito dismissed (Coincidentally, Tito claimed in the same interview that he was a Marxist-Leninist). However, people now label themselves as Titoists without the original Stalinist stigma.

I am a Titoist, and a Marxist-Leninist. I dismiss Stalinism entirely. Also, its quite silly that Titoism and Stalinism are the smlame option in the poll.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Neither Stalin's USSR or Mao's China were dictatorships in the liberal sense of the word.

They pretty much were, except under the flag of socialism. (There's no "liberal" sense of the word, btw)


And because you're just oversimplifying these events into moralistic paragims of liberal democracy vs totalitarianism.

How am I?


This is just some "great man" stuff that is typical of bourgeois historians, not Marxist analysis.

I don't like how Stalin/Mao sympathizers always dismiss history because it's "bourgeoisie." It's like fascists dismissing the holocaust as "Jewish" history.


We aren't "real" communists you say?

I believe most genuinely are. However, the people that Maoists think were "real" communists were not, and that makes the rest of us look like sympathizers to dictators and believers of pseudo-history.


Debate is always a good thing, sectarian dismissals like this are an insult to the revolutionaries who are fighting the good fight in India, Turkey, Nepal, Peru, the Philippines, Colombia, Paraguay, and other countries.

I'm not dismissing the ideas that Maoists have, just their belief that Mao and Stalin were not dictators.

[Comrade Samuel]

Nobody cares about your holy war against sectarianism, mostly because it is a joke. You just say everyone who disagrees with your maoism is sectarian, which in itself is sectarian. Also, it wasn't so much sectarian as saying maoism has very little to do with Marx or Lenin, which you would know if you had read more than a few pages of either of those.
The rest of your posts are just straw-men so I win't bother to respond.

Well I for one agree with his distaste for unnecessary antagonism within the left and with prefering the usage of the term "Marxist-Leninism".

Also, holy shit weren't you a Marxist-Leninist like, just last week? I gotta stop taking vacations from this place.

Why did the Juche kid have to resurect this spam pit of a thread? It should probably be closed.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Why does it matter if Stalin came up with the term? If the ideals of Marxism-Leninism appeal to you, then you should be able to subscribe to that denomination without the stigma of Stalinism. Stalin also came up with the term "Titoism" as a derogatory term for Tito and the Yugoslav government, and it is a term that Tito dismissed (Coincidentally, Tito claimed in the same interview that he was a Marxist-Leninist). However, people now label themselves as Titoists without the original Stalinist stigma.

I am a Titoist, and a Marxist-Leninist. I dismiss Stalinism entirely. Also, its quite silly that Titoism and Stalinism are the smlame option in the poll.

generally, this is how names for tendencies arise.

marx wasnt a marxist and lenin wasnt a leninist.

usually it comes from a generational change or out of arguing and name calling.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Nobody cares about your holy war against sectarianism, mostly because it is a joke. You just say everyone who disagrees with your maoism is sectarian, which in itself is sectarian. Also, it wasn't so much sectarian as saying maoism has very little to do with Marx or Lenin, which you would know if you had read more than a few pages of either of those.
The rest of your posts are just straw-men so I win't bother to respond.

As I've said before, I don't mind you disagreeing with my tendency, it's just most of the time these disagreements are based on what you perceive Maoism to be and not what it actually is. So no, you don't have a right to disagree with it when you make statements that equate it to Stalinism because honestly I have refuted the whole Maoism=Asian Stalinism more times then I can count so the fact that some stubborn people still say that stuff shows that obviously they don't have any desire to engage my tendency and would rather create a strawman and attack that. And sure I will admit that the rest of that post was in bad taste and when I am done running an errand I'll edit it out. But it was in response to you and other users who insist that MLM/ML is a bourgeois ideology without anything to back your statements up when modern Orthdox Marxism is a construct by academics who are bourgeois themselves and thus if we were going to go with a class reductionist view (which by the way, I do not support) then it is literally and demonstrably absurd for your to call my tendency bourgeois. All I am saying is that you ought to engage MLM on it's own terms, instead of just spewing out one-liners. Because if you are going to reject the largest communist movement of the 21st century just because you don't like Mao even though you have never engaged MLM then that just shows a Left Opportunist trend in your thought process.

Again, feel free to disagree, tell me why you disagree and support it with evidence. But please stop with the one liners and the demonstrably absurd rhetoric.

[Lokomotive293]

Soviet Revisionist ;) In all seriousness, though, what happened to just being Marxist-Leninist?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Well I for one agree with his distaste for unnecessary antagonism within the left and with prefering the usage of the term "Marxist-Leninism".

Also, holy shit weren't you a Marxist-Leninist like, just last week? I gotta stop taking vacations from this place.

You can check my blog where I "anounce" that I'm not an ML anymore, which I posted almost a month ago and I had been moving away from Marxism-Leninism for a longer time.

As for the unnecessary antagonisms that's merely calling a duck a duck.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Soviet Revisionist ;) In all seriousness, though, what happened to just being Marxist-Leninist?

I notice you seem to be a Brezhnevist. Not to be sectarian, but I am genuinly curious to why you support the USSR under Brezhnav. I know as an anti-revisionist this is a semi loaded question, but I do hope you can respond and that we can have a respectful dialogue about the issue. Because if Brezhnav's USSR was socialist then I'd like to know it.

[Fourth Internationalist]

generally, this is how names for tendencies arise.

marx wasnt a marxist and lenin wasnt a leninist.

usually it comes from a generational change or out of arguing and name calling.

Wasn't that also the case with Luxemburg and Luxemburgism?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

How debates between MLM and the rest of revleft seem to go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sglyFwTjfDU

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Wasn't that also the case with Luxemburg and Luxemburgism?

Yes, and any tendency that is based on someone's name really.

You could say that there were Marxists in Marx' time in France.
Marx wasn't very fond of these French Marxists and that's why he commented on them saying "[If they are marxists,]All I know is that I am not a Marxist."

[Art Vandelay]

I mean the irony here is remarkable, but I honestly think you don't even see. You go on a long rant about how Maoism needs to be dealt with on its own terms and how you need to understand it before you criticize it (a fair sentiment, one which I think most tendencies would agree with), then follow it up with this gem:


But it was in response to you and other users who insist that MLM/ML is a bourgeois ideology without anything to back your statements up when modern Orthdox Marxism is a construct by academics who are bourgeois themselves and thus if we were going to go with a class reductionist view (which by the way, I do not support) then it is literally and demonstrably absurd for your to call my tendency bourgeois.

First off you simply attempt to flippantly discredit a tendency ('orthodox' Marxism) by claiming that those who've 'constructed' it are bourgeois themselves. I must have missed the chapter in my book about the history of the 2nd International where its theoreticians invested their capital into means and production and labor power. So while this claim is obviously false, lets take it to its logical extreme shall we? As Marxists we know that one's relationship to the means of production is what defines one's social class (as well as those who depend on them for sustenance). Engels was a member of the bourgeoisie (albeit an extremely progressive one) and Marx depended on him to help support himself and his family (making him practically bourgeois himself; although I'm quite aware he made some money through other ventures as well and wasn't a complete charity case). According to your argument, I guess we should break with Marx and Engels; but oh wait you already have, you're a Maoist. I would expect a better post from you in all honesty.

[Lokomotive293]

I notice you seem to be a Brezhnevist. Not to be sectarian, but I am genuinly curious to why you support the USSR under Brezhnav. I know as an anti-revisionist this is a semi loaded question, but I do hope you can respond and that we can have a respectful dialogue about the issue. Because if Brezhnav's USSR was socialist then I'd like to know it.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, meaning that I base my views on the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin. I don't worship Brezhnev, I just don't agree with the theories of state-capitalism and social-imperialism as they are put forward by most "Anti-Revisionists".
The Soviet Union was the first nation to build socialism, and among its achievements were, next to the raising of the living standard of its people, and the defeat of fascism, which I assume you would agree with, the support of anti-Imperialist struggle all over the world. The Soviet Union, along with the other socialist countries, helped lots of nations to free themselves from Imperialist domination, and they managed to force Imperialism to a kind of ceasefire, which gave the peoples of the world time to breathe. Of course, that was only temporary (couldn't have been any other way...)...
I don't see, how the economic relations were significantly different under Brezhnev than under Stalin, and I also don't see, how the Soviet Union was Imperialist, when in most of Eastern Europe, living standards were higher than in the USSR itself.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I mean the irony here is remarkable, but I honestly think you don't even see. You go on a long rant about how Maoism needs to be dealt with on its own terms and how you need to understand it before you criticize it (a fair sentiment, one which I think most tendencies would agree with), then follow it up with this gem:



First off you simply attempt to flippantly discredit a tendency ('orthodox' Marxism) by claiming that those who've 'constructed' it are bourgeois themselves. I must have missed the chapter in my book about the history of the 2nd International where its theoreticians invested their capital into means and production and labor power. So while this claim is obviously false, lets take it to its logical extreme shall we? As Marxists we know that one's relationship to the means of production is what defines one's social class (as well as those who depend on them for sustenance). Engels was a member of the bourgeoisie (albeit an extremely progressive one) and Marx depended on him to help support himself and his family (making him practically bourgeois himself; although I'm quite aware he made some money through other ventures as well and wasn't a complete charity case). According to your argument, I guess we should break with Marx and Engels; but oh wait you already have, you're a Maoist. I would expect a better post from you in all honesty.


All of these points are correct. Pardon me comrade, I'll remove the post.

Edit: The offending post is removed, however there is a post that is somewhat similar.


As I've said before, I don't mind you disagreeing with my tendency, it's just most of the time these disagreements are based on what you perceive Maoism to be and not what it actually is. So no, you don't have a right to disagree with it when you make statements that equate it to Stalinism because honestly I have refuted the whole Maoism=Asian Stalinism more times then I can count so the fact that some stubborn people still say that stuff shows that obviously they don't have any desire to engage my tendency and would rather create a strawman and attack that. And sure I will admit that the rest of that post was in bad taste and when I am done running an errand I'll edit it out. But it was in response to you and other users who insist that MLM/ML is a bourgeois ideology without anything to back your statements up when modern Orthdox Marxism is a construct by academics who are bourgeois themselves and thus if we were going to go with a class reductionist view (which by the way, I do not support) then it is literally and demonstrably absurd for your to call my tendency bourgeois. All I am saying is that you ought to engage MLM on it's own terms, instead of just spewing out one-liners. Because if you are going to reject the largest communist movement of the 21st century just because you don't like Mao even though you have never engaged MLM then that just shows a Left Opportunist trend in your thought process.

Again, feel free to disagree, tell me why you disagree and support it with evidence. But please stop with the one liners and the demonstrably absurd rhetoric.

I do not explicitally mention Orthodox Marxism as a bourgeois tendency here and I try to make note of the fact that to charctherize it as such would be false. However I feel that the tone of this post tends to imply that view, so if you see it as sectarian and identify the sectarianism within it I'll remove it.

Criticism is always appreciated as it helps to improve my ability to engage with other view points. So thank you for pointing out my sectarianism.

[Art Vandelay]

and I also don't see, how the Soviet Union was Imperialist, when in most of Eastern Europe, living standards were higher than in the USSR itself.

Imperialism isn`t defined by the actions of an individual state, but is rather a specific stage in the development of capitalism.

[Lokomotive293]

Imperialism isn`t defined by the actions of an individual state, but is rather a specific stage in the development of capitalism.

Then explain to me how the Soviet monopolies exported capital to Eastern Europe...
I was trying to tell you that, though the Soviet Union had huge political influence on e.g. the GDR, there was no economic exploitation, so nothing about Imperialism being defined by the actions of an individual state.

[Art Vandelay]

You`re missing the point entirely. Every country in the world is an imperialist country; due to the fact that they are living in the historical epoch of imperialism.

[Brutus]

Imperialism is global. Name me a county that has not tried to intervene with the affairs of another for its own benefit?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Imperialism is global. Name me a county that has not tried to intervene with the affairs of another for its own benefit?

Imperialism is not merely intervening in other countries' affairs.

[Captain Ahab]

Didn't the USSR turn its satellites states into neocolonies where resources were extracted from each country in a clearly one sided relationship? Or what about the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Hungary? Wasn't that imperialist?

[Lokomotive293]

Didn't the USSR turn its satellites states into neocolonies where resources were extracted from each country in a clearly one sided relationship? Or what about the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Hungary? Wasn't that imperialist?

Then how do you explain the fact that the living standards in almost all Eastern European countries were higher than in the USSR? No clearly one sided relationship to be seen.
No, invading countries is not Imperialism, Imperialism is a specific stage in the development of capitalism. And, anyway, the interventions in Czechoslovakia and Hungary were justified, as the existence of the whole socialist camp was threatened. It wasn't fun, but then, that's class struggle.

[Lokomotive293]

You`re missing the point entirely. Every country in the world is an imperialist country; due to the fact that they are living in the historical epoch of imperialism.

Lenin would disagree. It's a fact that some countries have reached the stage of Imperialism, while others haven't. That is due to the uneven development of capitalism. And, of course, then there are some countries that are socialist.

[Brutus]

Imperialism is not merely intervening in other countries' affairs.
It is also exploiting another country.

[Brutus]

Lenin would disagree. It's a fact that some countries have reached the stage of Imperialism, while others haven't. That is due to the uneven development of capitalism. And, of course, then there are some countries that are socialist.
Capitalism and socialism can't exist at the same time. Socialism is a stateless, classless society etc. which is a world system.

[Captain Ahab]

Then how do you explain the fact that the living standards in almost all Eastern European countries were higher than in the USSR?
I know Romania and Poland were horrible shitholes but I don't know about the standards in Hungary, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia. I'm not sure if I should take your word for it that living standards were better.

No clearly one sided relationship to be seen.
(cough)GDR(cough)

No, invading countries is not Imperialism, Imperialism is a specific stage in the development of capitalism.
My mistake, my mistake.


And, anyway, the interventions in Czechoslovakia and Hungary were justified, as the existence of the whole socialist camp was threatened. It wasn't fun, but then, that's class struggle
No it wasn't. The Eastern Bloc was never socialist and if you have to use military force to keep your satellites in line then that doesn't reflect too kindly on you. Also, how is crushing uprisings class struggle?

[Tim Cornelis]

Random Girl, how do you explain this, if not imperialism:

"The Soviet Union was invited to join the Marshall Plan program but refused to participate. Instead the Soviet Union installed its own kind of a “reverse Marshall plan” and appropriated for itself approximately a value of the same amount as the original Marshall Plan in the form of physical reparations from those countries that came under Soviet rule after Churchill and Roosevelt had handed over to Stalin all of Eastern Europe. "

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/antony-mueller/does-europe-need-a-new-marshall-plan

In another discussion I had other sources, but couldn't find it.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Capitalism and socialism can't exist at the same time. Socialism is a stateless, classless society etc. which is a world system.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, communism and socialism are two different things.


Socialism refers to an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.

Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

[Brutus]

I'm retro. I still say upper and lower stage of communism. They were used interchangeably if I have my facts right.

[Lokomotive293]

I know Romania and Poland were horrible shitholes but I don't know about the standards in Hungary, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia. I'm not sure if I should take your word for it that living standards were better.

I have to admit I couldn't find a source, just Noam Chomsky (!) saying its widely accepted that living standards in all Eastern European countries except for Albania and Romania were higher than in the USSR. Maybe you should just believe him, he's not exactly known as a supporter of the socialist camp...
And, Albania and Romania were sort of extra, anyway, with Hoxha and Ceausescu.
The socialist camp, especially in Eastern Europe, was a way for the SU to put as much distance between itself and the capitalist world. There was never any economic exploitation, or capital export, which you would have to prove if you want to claim the SU was Imperialist. Even if you want to argue that war reperations are economic exploitation, as Tim Cornelis is trying to [while using an anti-communist article from a website subtitled "Applying common sense to the markets" as a source], that's still no capital export.

http://books.google.de/books?id=CDt4iDHtJo4C&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=%22higher+standard+of+living+than+the+ussr%22&source=bl&ots=kKayxcJNYu&sig=D8JoHv3SojPFNSK_R7gjPgekBeY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vIYhUabJJ4TBtQbQwYCABw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22higher%20standard%20of%20living%20than%20the% 20ussr%22&f=false


(cough)GDR(cough)

Not sure what you're trying to tell me.


No it wasn't. The Eastern Bloc was never socialist

Or so you're saying.


and if you have to use military force to keep your satellites in line then that doesn't reflect too kindly on you.

It's not about being kind, it's about surviving. Of course, intervention wasn't a great solution, but, given the circumstances, unfortunately, there was no other way.


Also, how is crushing uprisings class struggle?

Defending the dictatorship of the proletariat against counter-revolution is, imho, class struggle.

[ind_com]

Lenin would disagree. It's a fact that some countries have reached the stage of Imperialism, while others haven't. That is due to the uneven development of capitalism. And, of course, then there are some countries that are socialist.

Correct, the imperialist world is divided into imperialist group of countries and their colonies. This is why all Leninists, including Trots, support national liberation. However, at present there is no country that is socialist.


You can check my blog where I "anounce" that I'm not an ML anymore, which I posted almost a month ago and I had been moving away from Marxism-Leninism for a longer time.

I feel so proud when I see that Maoists are the only ones who persist in the defence of Stalin.

[Captain Ahab]

I have to admit I couldn't find a source, just Noam Chomsky (!) saying its widely accepted that living standards in all Eastern European countries except for Albania and Romania were higher than in the USSR. Maybe you should just believe him, he's not exactly known as a supporter of the socialist camp...
And, Albania and Romania were sort of extra, anyway, with Hoxha and Ceausescu.
.
Chomsky has been wrong before and has made absurd claims before. Don't forget Poland.

The socialist camp, especially in Eastern Europe, was a way for the SU to put as much distance between itself and the capitalist world. There was never any economic exploitation, or capital export, which you would have to prove if you want to claim the SU was Imperialist.
The COMECON? Tim's source? Why is it you bothered to google for things supporting your view but not things that don't?

Even if you want to argue that war reperations are economic exploitation, as Tim Cornelis is trying to [while using an anti-communist article from a website subtitled "Applying common sense to the markets" as a source], that's still no capital export.
Apparently a source hostile to your views that concurs with whatever conclusion you wish to arrive at is good to use but one that is hostile to your views that doesn't is bad. Gotcha. Also, define Capital Export.

http://books.google.de/books?id=CDt4iDHtJo4C&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=%22higher+standard+of+living+than+the+ussr%22&source=bl&ots=kKayxcJNYu&sig=D8JoHv3SojPFNSK_R7gjPgekBeY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vIYhUabJJ4TBtQbQwYCABw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22higher%20standard%20of%20living%20than%20the% 20ussr%22&f=false

I can't read this book and I don't own it.


Not sure what you're trying to tell me.
It was a more blatant example of Soviet exploitation of a satellite state.



Or so you're saying.

Why bother with revolution if all the wonderful "socialist" achievements of the Eastern Bloc can be replicated with social democracy. Heck, Romania even proved that these safety nets also get slashed when economic times are tough.


It's not about being kind, it's about surviving. Of course, intervention wasn't a great solution, but, given the circumstances, unfortunately, there was no other way.
How was the USSR's survival dependent on its satellite states? It still collapsed and for reasons not related to



Defending the dictatorship of the proletariat against counter-revolution is, imho, class struggle
Only there was no DotP in the Eastern Bloc as it was just party dictatorships loyal to Moscow.

[Lokomotive293]

Chomsky has been wrong before and has made absurd claims before. Don't forget Poland.

Well, Chomsky has no reason to make a claim in favor of the USSR. What about Poland?


The COMECON? Tim's source? Why is it you bothered to google for things supporting your view but not things that don't? Apparently a source hostile to your views that concurs with whatever conclusion you wish to arrive at is good to use but one that is hostile to your views that doesn't is bad. Gotcha.

Have you even read the article Tim used as a source? It argues that the West German economy did so well at the end of the 1950s because of free market policies. The part he quoted was about war reparations, which, even if everything Tim's source says is right, has nothing to do with Imperialism.


Also, define Capital Export.

The expansion of national capital outside its respective national borders.

Also, this is Lenin's definition of Imperialism:


(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.


I can't read this book and I don't own it.

Sorry if the link doesn't work. I was talking about this quote specifically:


One result is that Eastern Europe had a higher standard of living than the USSR, in part the result of a huge Soviet subsidy to its satellites, amounting to $80 billion in the decade of the 1970s, according to US government sources.


It was a more blatant example of Soviet exploitation of a satellite state.

The GDR was the most developed of all socialist countries, with the highest standard of living of all.


Why bother with revolution if all the wonderful "socialist" achievements of the Eastern Bloc can be replicated with social democracy. Heck, Romania even proved that these safety nets also get slashed when economic times are tough.

Because they can't. Not even the best "social democracy" gets close to the achievements of socialism (e.g. the elimination of unemployment). Plus, its no accident that along with the counter-revolution in the socialist camp came the rollback of the "welfare state" in the West.
And, of course, even in the best "social democracy", there's still exploitation, and those countries are usually Imperialist, which enables them to "buy off" a section of the working class at home with a part of the stolen surplus value.


How was the USSR's survival dependent on its satellite states? It still collapsed and for reasons not related to

Before the USSR collapsed, the counter-revolution won in the surrounding socialist countries, which kind of undermines your claim. There was a reasonable fear that the loss of Czechoslovakia would cause some kind of "domino effect".

[Questionable]

Hey Random_Girl, I am also a Marxist-Leninists so my questions will be a little bit (I actually mean "very") different from everyone else's here, but what do you think about this article that claims the means of production was taken out of the workers' hands in the Kruschev-Brezhnev era?

http://anasintaxi-en.blogspot.com/2011/09/working-class-in-khrushchev-brezhnev.html

It's pretty long and split up into two parts so I'll understand if you don't have the time to answer it right now, but I'd still be curious.

[Bostana]

Ismail is a big fan of Hoxha, but I don't think he actually considers himself a Hoxhaist

[Questionable]

Ismail is a big fan of Hoxha, but I don't think he actually considers himself a Hoxhaist

That's because nobody who admires Hoxha considers themselves a "Hoxhaist."

Hoxha-supporters simply say that Hoxha represented genuine Marxism-Leninism versus revisions like Maoism or Soviet Revision. not trying to start a sectarian, but that's what they believe.

"Hoxhaism" is, I'm pretty sure, a term invented to slander them, like "Trotskyite" or "Stalinist."

[Lokomotive293]

That's because nobody who admires Hoxha considers themselves a "Hoxhaist."

Hoxha-supporters simply say that Hoxha represented genuine Marxism-Leninism versus revisions like Maoism or Soviet Revision. not trying to start a sectarian, but that's what they believe.

"Hoxhaism" is, I'm pretty sure, a term invented to slander them, like "Trotskyite" or "Stalinist."

I know groups that actually call themselves "Stalinist-Hoxhaist" or something similar.

[TheIrrationalist]

Hey Random_Girl, I am also a Marxist-Leninists so my questions will be a little bit (I actually mean "very") different from everyone else's here, but what do you think about this article that claims the means of production was taken out of the workers' hands in the Kruschev-Brezhnev era?

And when did the workers have control over the means of production in the USSR?

[TheEmancipator]

Can someobdy explain to me a little more about Titioism and what are the main criticisms of it? If this is the wrong thread then I'm sorry!

[Questionable]

Can someobdy explain to me a little more about Titioism and what are the main criticisms of it? If this is the wrong thread then I'm sorry!

http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/marxism-leninism-versus-revisionism/titoism/

[TheEmancipator]

OK interesting but a potentially non-biased source? Wikipedia seems to paint him as a benevolent dictator, which I don't buy that much either.

[Questionable]

OK interesting but a potentially non-biased source? Wikipedia seems to paint him as a benevolent dictator, which I don't buy that much either.

I'm not sure I get that. Espresso Stalinist, particularly that page, is more like a collection of information from various sources. He even uses the Black Book of Communism in one part so I don't think he's being biased in the sense that he's untrustworthy. In fact I don't even think his own words appear in that entire page, it's just a massive collection of information regarding Yugoslavia.

I mean obviously he's expressing the views of Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists but if you don't understand all the sides of the argument you won't come any closer to an understanding.

[Captain Ahab]

Well, Chomsky has no reason to make a claim in favor of the USSR. What about Poland?
.
Mister Chomsky will often speak in favor of the USSR and other planned economy states to demonstrate that the West is not as superior to them as often thought.
Poland was also another shithole in the Eastern Bloc along with Romania.


Have you even read the article Tim used as a source? It argues that the West German economy did so well at the end of the 1950s because of free market policies.
That is an opinion expressed. What you cannot disregard is the fact that the USSR pursued a reversed Marshal Plan. Have you even seen some of the accusations Chomsky has leveled against Lenin? You can find them in the trashcan thread started by TAT.


The part he quoted was about war reparations, which, even if everything Tim's source says is right, has nothing to do with Imperialism.
Yes it does as like the US in Latin America or the Middle East the USSR exploited its satellite states to gain resources from them.


The expansion of national capital outside its respective national borders.

Also, this is Lenin's definition of Imperialism:
Good I was worried that you would have used a vague definition to exclude the USSR.




Sorry if the link doesn't work. I was talking about this quote specifically:

I still find it hard to believe that the USSR had worse living standards considering the fact that they were able pump that much money into their satellites.




Because they can't. Not even the best "social democracy" gets close to the achievements of socialism (e.g. the elimination of unemployment). Plus, its no accident that along with the counter-revolution in the socialist camp came the rollback of the "welfare state" in the West.
The Welfare state in the West was threatened by Neoliberalism which rose in reaction to the Soviet Union. Now it is threatened by bad economy. Can you name any other achievement besides eliminating unemployment?


And, of course, even in the best "social democracy", there's still exploitation, and those countries are usually Imperialist, which enables them to "buy off" a section of the working class at home with a part of the stolen surplus value.
I never like this since it downplays the struggles of the unions and the workers in improving their living conditions into simple bribery.



Before the USSR collapsed, the counter-revolution won in the surrounding socialist countries, which kind of undermines your claim. There was a reasonable fear that the loss of Czechoslovakia would cause some kind of "domino effect"
The collapse of the Eastern Bloc only reduced Soviet influence in Europe. There were fare more important factors that caused its collapse.

[Ismail]

The idea that the Soviet revisionists didn't export capital is in error.

For example, in-re Comecon: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albeconint.htm

and on the USSR and the "third world," from http://www.bannedthought.net/USSR/RCP-Docs/SUSoSI/SUSoSI-Lotta-Main.pdf

... capital export does not have to assume any one specific form - like a multinational corporation setting up a fully owned branch plant in a 'third world' country. Chase Manhattan exports capital through loans; other corporations do it through management contracts. For mainly political reasons, the Soviets go in for industrial cooperation agreements with 'third world' countries. They may not involve direct ownership but are compensated through a share of production arranged through trade and aid agreement. It is through this commodity trade, financed through loans, that capital is really being exported to these countries and surplus value generated in and extracted from them.

A detailed analysis of Soviet social-imperialism in the "third world" countries is contained here: http://www.bannedthought.net/USSR/RCP-Docs/SovietUnion-Debate1983.pdf (the chapter "Soviet Economic Relations with India and Other Third World Countries")

[Lokomotive293]

That is an opinion expressed. What you cannot disregard is the fact that the USSR pursued a reversed Marshal Plan.

How so? Do you know that the UK and France demanded war reparations from West Germany as well after WWII? They just stopped when they realized they needed a strong West Germany to hold back socialism. And, the Marshall plan is overrated, anyway, there were other factors that caused the "economic wonder" in the West (one of them the Korean war).
Also, the USSR gave lots of aid to Eastern Europe as well.


Have you even seen some of the accusations Chomsky has leveled against Lenin? You can find them in the trashcan thread started by TAT.

Yes, that's why I believe him when he talks good about the USSR. Whatever.


Yes it does as like the US in Latin America or the Middle East the USSR exploited its satellite states to gain resources from them.

Why is it, then, that it was mainly the other way around, that the USSR provided countries like the GDR with resources, most important oil, at reduced prices?


I still find it hard to believe that the USSR had worse living standards considering the fact that they were able pump that much money into their satellites.

Fact is that they did.


The Welfare state in the West was threatened by Neoliberalism which rose in reaction to the Soviet Union. Now it is threatened by bad economy. Can you name any other achievement besides eliminating unemployment?

Neoliberalism really only started to become relevant when the Soviet Union was already on decline, and the real cuts all happened after the counter-revolution. When socialism still posed a real threat to Imperialism, the "welfare state" was developed as a reaction to that.
You mean achievements of socialism?
- A life in peace for a huge part of the world population
- The elimination of unemployment
- An income people could live off
- Free health care
- Free, and high quality, education for everyone
- Free childcare
- Equal rights for women
- The consequent fight against fascism and neofascism
- Democracy in schools and the workplace
- Socialist democracy in general
- Access to sports and culture for everyone
- Affordable housing for everyone
- Affordable/free access to public transport
- The end of religious influence in government and schools
...
Precondition for all this was the end of capitalist exploitation


I never like this since it downplays the struggles of the unions and the workers in improving their living conditions into simple bribery.

If you oversimplify it, yes, and I'm probably guilty of doing that in my last post, but the two are not mutually exclusive.


The collapse of the Eastern Bloc only reduced Soviet influence in Europe. There were fare more important factors that caused its collapse.

Sure, there were many causes, many of them home-made, others not, but you can't deny that there was a relationship.

[Captain Ahab]

How so? Do you know that the UK and France demanded war reparations from West Germany as well after WWII? They just stopped when they realized they needed a strong West Germany to hold back socialism. And, the Marshall plan is overrated, anyway, there were other factors that caused the "economic wonder" in the West (one of them the Korean war).
.
Yeah, so? I'm no fan of the West either and US imperialism so saying, "They did it too!" won't help your case.

Also, the USSR gave lots of aid to Eastern Europe as well.

The US gives lots of aid to the government in Afghanistan and they did so too to the government of Iraq.


Yes, that's why I believe him when he talks good about the USSR. Whatever.

Either way even if Czechoslovakia, Hungary, et al had better living conditions this does not change the fact that the USSR was imperialist.


Why is it, then, that it was mainly the other way around, that the USSR provided countries like the GDR with resources, most important oil, at reduced prices?

The US provides aid to countries it plans to exploit and the GDR gave back more to the USSR than the USSR gave back to it.



Neoliberalism really only started to become relevant when the Soviet Union was already on decline, and the real cuts all happened after the counter-revolution.
IIRC, the West didn't realize the USSR was a paper tiger at the time and reactionaries had an easy time feeding on the fear it posed.

When socialism still posed a real threat to Imperialism, the "welfare state" was developed as a reaction to that.
The Welfare state originated as a way of weakening the socialist movement before neoliberalism did. However it was not enough for the right and neoliberalism was birthed.

You mean achievements of socialism?
- A life in peace for a huge part of the world population
This is can be accomplished in social democracy.

- The elimination of unemployment
I'll give you this one.

- An income people could live off
Social democracy can provide this.

- Free health care
Social democracy can provide this.

- Free, and high quality, education for everyone

Social democracy can provide this.

- Free childcare
- Equal rights for women
- The consequent fight against fascism and neofascism
- Democracy in schools and the workplace
- Socialist democracy in general
- Access to sports and culture for everyone
- Affordable housing for everyone
- Affordable/free access to public transport
- The end of religious influence in government and schools
see above



Sure, there were many causes, many of them home-made, others not, but you can't deny that there was a relationship
But it was not significant enough to be the driving force of the collapse. You're presenting the Soviet state as so reliant on its neocolonies that without them it died. That's not a favourable thing to say about it.

[Lokomotive293]

Either way even if Czechoslovakia, Hungary, et al had better living conditions this does not change the fact that the USSR was imperialist.

It's an indicator. But, to get to the core of the issue: Where was monopoly capital in the USSR?


The Welfare state originated as a way of weakening the socialist movement before neoliberalism did. However it was not enough for the right and neoliberalism was birthed.

Well, when the socialist movement was strong, they needed the "welfare state" to appease workers, and now that they can afford to, they are cutting wherever they can. I don't think "it was not enough for the right" is a scientific analysis.


This is can be accomplished in social democracy.

You have a hell of a lot of trust in "social democracy", up to a point where I'd like to ask you "Why bother with revolution if everything we need can be achieved with social democracy/reformism?".
There's no way lasting peace, the emancipation of women, a consequent fight against fascism and neofascism, or actual democracy can ever be achieved under Imperialism, and all the other reforms workers can and have fought for will be rolled back by capital in a second as soon as we look the other way.


But it was not significant enough to be the driving force of the collapse. You're presenting the Soviet state as so reliant on its neocolonies that without them it died. That's not a favourable thing to say about it.

I'm just saying that the socialist countries in Eastern Europe where, by all means, a belt of protection for the USSR. And of course what affects one, affects the others. It's like when you're fighting a war, and the enemy manages to break through your lines at one point of the front. Of course you're going to send reinforcement.

[Captain Ahab]

It's an indicator. But, to get to the core of the issue: Where was monopoly capital in the USSR?
.
In the state owned enterprises of the Soviet Union.


Well, when the socialist movement was strong, they needed the "welfare state" to appease workers, and now that they can afford to, they are cutting wherever they can. I don't think "it was not enough for the right" is a scientific analysis.

I know, I know but I was posting the first thing to come to mind for the rise of neoliberalism.

You have a hell of a lot of trust in "social democracy", up to a point where I'd like to ask you "Why bother with revolution if everything we need can be achieved with social democracy/reformism?".
I'm criticizing you for having a conception of socialism that amounts to social democracy.

There's no way lasting peace, the emancipation of women, a consequent fight against fascism and neofascism, or actual democracy can ever be achieved under Imperialism, and all the other reforms workers can and have fought for will be rolled back by capital in a second as soon as we look the other way.
Well duh.

[ind_com]

You have a hell of a lot of trust in "social democracy", up to a point where I'd like to ask you "Why bother with revolution if everything we need can be achieved with social democracy/reformism?".
There's no way lasting peace, the emancipation of women, a consequent fight against fascism and neofascism, or actual democracy can ever be achieved under Imperialism, and all the other reforms workers can and have fought for will be rolled back by capital in a second as soon as we look the other way.


Social democracy can actually accomplish a lot of these things in the imperialist countries. But, social democratic welfare system is possible due to the super-exploitation of the colonies, and this brings up a big difference between the Stalin-era social welfare system of the USSR and the welfare system in west Europe or the USA. The latter had colonies which they exploited to maintain their welfare systems, while the USSR did not have any colonies and relied on the strength of the socialist economy alone to provide social welfare for its citizens. This is why, for some time, imperialist countries can actually have better social welfare systems than socialist countries.

[Lokomotive293]

In the state owned enterprises of the Soviet Union.

How so? They were under public control.


I'm criticizing you for having a conception of socialism that amounts to social democracy.

See, this is my normal way to argue for socialism: I describe what the situation is, then I say what we need instead, and then I explain why that is not possible under capitalism.
Maybe I still have to get used to debating other kinds of leftists, but I don't see what any of this has to do with "having a conception of socialism that amounts to social democracy".


Well duh.

Well, you claimed the opposite.

[China studen]

Why are some communists still supporting dictators??? :(

Because you are brainwashed form dictatorial imperialists.

[UncleLenin]

Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Ho Chi Minhist

[Brutus]

Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Ho Chi Minhist

That's quite a mouthful to say.

[Nevsky]

"Hoxhaist" is not a real tendency but I clicked on that option because I believe in Hoxha's anti revisionism (up to a certain point).

[Ismail]

"Hoxhaist" is not a real tendency but I clicked on that option because I believe in Hoxha's anti revisionism (up to a certain point).What would that "point" be?

[Nevsky]

What would that "point" be?
Well, my ideas are not 100% those of Hoxha all the time through. I'm sure you don't agree with moral puritanism of socialist Albania, do you?

[Brutus]

What would that "point" be?

Comrade Nevsky has stated before (I'm not sure if he still holds that view) that Hoxha's foreign policy was idealistic.

[Omsk]

What a childish display of ignorance. These nice little definitions mean very little. Someone can be a "Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist/Hoxhaist/Maoist /(pre Cultural Revolution) " and a fierce "antirevisionist".... online - but in the actual world, he is just a liberal who is afraid to act in line with his ideas and is revolutionary only in phraseology.

I follow scientific socialism - Marxism-Leninism, and that is the only answer which is actually logical.

Also, "Hoxhaism" does not exist, Enver never intended to create a new "ideological line" - he just followed the example of the Soviet m-l's, who were correct in their approach to political questions and the question of socialism.

Also, people should learn, that someone is not, and does not become a "Marxist-Leninist" just by registering on an online forum with a fancy nickname like "Comrade_Stalin" or something like that, or by having a picture of Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili as a forum avatar. You become one trough struggle.

[boiler]

Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist :hammersickle::)

[Geiseric]

What a childish display of ignorance. These nice little definitions mean very little. Someone can be a "Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist/Hoxhaist/Maoist /(pre Cultural Revolution) " and a fierce "antirevisionist".... online - but in the actual world, he is just a liberal who is afraid to act in line with his ideas and is revolutionary only in phraseology.

I follow scientific socialism - Marxism-Leninism, and that is the only answer which is actually logical.

Also, "Hoxhaism" does not exist, Enver never intended to create a new "ideological line" - he just followed the example of the Soviet m-l's, who were correct in their approach to political questions and the question of socialism.

Also, people should learn, that someone is not, and does not become a "Marxist-Leninist" just by registering on an online forum with a fancy nickname like "Comrade_Stalin" or something like that, or by having a picture of Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili as a forum avatar. You become one trough struggle.

So do you still believe in stagism? Or that the molotov ribbentrop pact was a good thing?

[Nevsky]

@Omsk Do you negate that there is an ideological difference between m-ls who adopt Mao Zedong thought and others who affirm Enver Hoxha's line? People are not only their actions. And what makes you better than us anyway? You go around shooting cops?

[UncleLenin]

That's quite a mouthful to say.

I know.

[Omsk]

Do you negate that there is an ideological difference between m-ls who adopt Mao Zedong thought and others who affirm Enver Hoxha's line? People are not only their actions. And what makes you better than us anyway? You go around shooting cops? Of course not, but i think that there are too many small groups which are basically invisible and are not even organized in the Leninist sense of the word, yet they criticize everything, from various positions, but do nothing in practice. And currently, the international workers movement is so dissorganized and ruined, that we all have to start over, in the organizational way, because there are hardly a couple of real revolutionary parties in the world. On the other hand, strict ideological policy for the party members is needed, and the main ideology should be Marxism-Leninism, not Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

On the other hand, would i fight MLM's at the present situation? Of course not.


People are not only their actions.But parties are, for an example, me and, let's say, 15 of my friends can create the most ideologically pure ML organization in the world, we can follow the lines of our classics in every aspect, but what worth would that be if we don't have any revolutionary practice? Nothing. We have to combine revolutionary theory, and revolutionary practice.


And what makes you better than us anyway?Did i say i am better than you? Why are you speaking in such an uncomradely manner? I have many great ML comrades here, why would i think i am better? I am not. It's just that i think forum activity has very little worth, and there are people (ML') who think it's a good substitute for activity, and that is not true. Leave sectarian, dogmatic, endless debates for the hordes of "ultra-leftists" here. We can see such an example a couple of posts above this one, although the Trotskyite read my message, he ignored it's content and asked me pointless, dumb, sectarian questions, mostly about history. Don't be like him.

In fact, it would be best for all ML's here, like comrade Ismail said, to help each others learn and progress, and not be active in silly debates like "DID STALIN KILL 143261163576124123414 PEOPLE?!?!? PS: DEATH TO STATES LONG LIVE FREEDOM - A - "

I hope we cleared this little misunderstanding.

I wish all the best to all of you comrades.

[Nevsky]

@Omsk Your latest post helped me to better understand the previous one. I apologize for snarky, "trotskyite" remark of mine, no intention to be uncomradely to any fellow marxist-leninists there. Still, a poll of this type doesn't feel too uninteresting to me since we are on an internet forum anyway and I guess most of us do actively take part in marxist struggles outside, regardless of tendency nitpicking. Just helps to see what type of m-l thought is more dominant right now.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Hmm according to the poll results 109 of us don't have a dog in this Stalinist dog fight.

What type of "-ist" am I? Groucho Marxist, of course.

[G4b3n]

Of course not, but i think that there are too many small groups which are basically invisible and are not even organized in the Leninist sense of the word, yet they criticize everything, from various positions, but do nothing in practice. And currently, the international workers movement is so dissorganized and ruined, that we all have to start over, in the organizational way, because there are hardly a couple of real revolutionary parties in the world. On the other hand, strict ideological policy for the party members is needed, and the main ideology should be Marxism-Leninism, not Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

On the other hand, would i fight MLM's at the present situation? Of course not.

But parties are, for an example, me and, let's say, 15 of my friends can create the most ideologically pure ML organization in the world, we can follow the lines of our classics in every aspect, but what worth would that be if we don't have any revolutionary practice? Nothing. We have to combine revolutionary theory, and revolutionary practice.

Did i say i am better than you? Why are you speaking in such an uncomradely manner? I have many great ML comrades here, why would i think i am better? I am not. It's just that i think forum activity has very little worth, and there are people (ML') who think it's a good substitute for activity, and that is not true. Leave sectarian, dogmatic, endless debates for the hordes of "ultra-leftists" here. We can see such an example a couple of posts above this one, although the Trotskyite read my message, he ignored it's content and asked me pointless, dumb, sectarian questions, mostly about history. Don't be like him.

In fact, it would be best for all ML's here, like comrade Ismail said, to help each others learn and progress, and not be active in silly debates like "DID STALIN KILL 143261163576124123414 PEOPLE?!?!? PS: DEATH TO STATES LONG LIVE FREEDOM - A - "

I hope we cleared this little misunderstanding.

I wish all the best to all of you comrades.

Why must you get into a rant about sectarianism and then smear anarchists at the end, as if we are a group of Utopian children, something that his been implied over and over again, especially from the more "Stalinist" section of the MLs.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Why must you get into a rant about sectarianism and then smear anarchists at the end, as if we are a group of Utopian children, something that his been implied over and over again, especially from the more "Stalinist" section of the MLs.

Indeed, this view is inconsistent with Marxism-Leninism, which holds that Anarchism represents an ideological strain within the working class movement and must be struggled against on a principled basis. To quote Stalin:


"We are not the kind of people who, when the word "anarchism" is mentioned, turn away contemptuously and say with a supercilious wave of the hand: "Why waste time on that, it's not worth talking about!" We think that such cheap "criticism" is undignified and useless. Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves with the thought that the Anarchists "have no masses behind them and, therefore, are not so dangerous." It is not who has a larger or smaller "mass" following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the "doctrine" of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself.

~Stalin, from Marxism or Anarchism

[Omsk]

Why must you get into a rant about sectarianism and then smear anarchists at the end, as if we are a group of Utopian children, something that his been implied over and over again, especially from the more "Stalinist" section of the MLs.

I am criticizing the sectarianism which comes from ML's, i just mentioned anarchism because most of the anarchists here, on this forum are like that, in fact, most of the anarchists which i know are like that - they are dogmatic and sectarian.

The quote which the user above me posted is of course, correct. However, i was just joking, unless he thinks that we should "struggle against anarchism on a principled basis" - on an internet forum, which is basically useless, and not a struggle. (And we can't gain anything from that struggle)