Leninism and Marxist-Leninism

[Prinskaj]

I am quite confused as to what the differences between these to sets of political beliefs are, i know that there must be at least some difference, as i have seen quite a bit of infighting in other threads on this very site.
It would be very nice to hear from actual Leninist or Marxist-Leninist.

[Ocean Seal]

I am quite confused as to what the differences between these to sets of political beliefs are, i know that there must be at least some difference, as i have seen quite a bit of infighting in other threads on this very site.
It would be very nice to hear from actual Leninist or Marxist-Leninist.
Leninist is the umbrella term referring to anyone who follows Lenin's theories.

ie: Trotskyists and Marxist Leninists.

Marxist-Leninists (in the contemporary sense) are those who follow Lenin and Stalin.

[Caj]

Marxist-Leninists are also called Stalinists because they recognize Stalin's policies as a continuation of Leninist policies, unlike Trotskyists who view Stalinism as a betrayal of the October Revolution of 1917. Leninism includes all followers of Lenin including Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists), Maoists, etc.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Leninism is a broad term which encapsulates Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism(generally considered as Stalinism by it's opponents), Bordiga also called himself a Leninist though most place him in the Left-Communist bracket. Of course Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism are opposed to each other due to historical issues and the rejection of Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution. I consider myself an orthodox Leninist in so far as I reject Trotskyist theory but also consider 20th century Marxism-Leninism to have failed and yet still believe that the Leninist method of organization remains correct.

[Prinskaj]

Well, that has confirmed what i already knew about the to factions of the russian revolution. What i wanted to know was, what the differences between the two ideologies are, such as there revolutionary methods, organizational structures and such..
(I am sorry for not making myself very clear in the original post)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well, that has confirmed what i already knew about the to factions of the russian revolution. What i wanted to know was, what the differences between the two ideologies are, such as there revolutionary methods, organizational structures and such..
(I am sorry for not making myself very clear in the original post)

To put it bluntly Leninists uphold Lenin, primarily, while some hold little to no love for Stalin,Mao,Hoxha,etc I suppose you could say that Leninists only uphold Lenin's theory and do not focus on Mao's,Stalin,Trotsky's,or the rest... while Marxist-Leninists uphold Mao,Lenin,Stalin,etc.

Hope that was coherent...

[Caj]

Well, that has confirmed what i already knew about the to factions of the russian revolution. What i wanted to know was, what the differences between the two ideologies are, such as there revolutionary methods, organizational structures and such..
(I am sorry for not making myself very clear in the original post)

The main difference that I can think of is the "socialism in one country" of the M-Ls versus the "permanent revolution" of the Trotskyists. However, both of these differing positions are Leninist.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There is not really any major difference in organizational structure as all deviant branches propagate the Vanguard party.

[Q]

"Leninism" only came to be used in a positive sense (so, besides your usual polemics) after Lenin died. As far as I'm aware the first usage of the term in that sense was in Stalin's Foundations of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm). Stalin used this term to claim that his rival Trotsky was no longer a genuine Leninist (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm), to which Trotsky responded to be a "Bolshevik-Leninist", after which "Marxist-Leninist" came to be common coin on Stalin's side.

Lenin placed himself in the Orthodox Marxist tradition, which was systematically developed as a method by Karl Kautsky. After breaking with Kautsky in 1914, he saw himself and the Bolsheviks, together with a few other sections in the Second International, to be continuing this strategic line of building a mass party to organise the whole working class and win it for the socialist project. Out of this momentum, which was especially given a boost by the 1917 revolution, the Comintern came to be.

[Geiseric]

Marxist Leninism used to equate anybody who was in a CP, James P. Cannon, founder of the SWP at one point called himself "marxist leninist". However after the worldwide purges of the international workers opposition, ML meant anybody who was left in the party, as a result of that lingering leadership acting in the will of the USSR's foreign policy. It has much more to do with the question as to whether or not Socialism should exist outside of the USSR rather than any personality conflicts. Stalinists think that socialism should only exist in the USSR, which would be secured from intervention by selling out revolutionaries in other countries. Trotskyists and any actual leninists are like all communists should be, internationalist. Perminant revolution is true, to deny it being true is to call the Russian Revolution a fluke or an illegitimate revolution. But it's not like one of those bourgeois debates about "centralisation vs. state power." or a personality conflictit's about menshevism vs. internationalism.

[Omsk]

Stalinists think that socialism should only exist in the USSR, which would be secured from intervention by selling out revolutionaries in other countries.


I hope you are talking about the 20th century..

Marxist-Leninists (Trotskyist terms: "Stalinists") didnt have that view.And i dont know where you got this theory.

[Ocean Seal]

Stalinists think that socialism should only exist in the USSR, which would be secured from intervention by selling out revolutionaries in other countries.
Source please. Socialism in one country means nothing like that. In fact many Brezhnevites argue that socialism existed in China, Cuba, Vietnam, and so on.

[Geiseric]

I got this theory from examining the history of the late 1920s. I mean Stalinist at this point, at least examining the parties remaning from the comintern era, is basically the same as back then. The parties these days always support liberal govs over workers. Like in greece and the CP of A. And I dont care what brezhnevites say, socialism didn't exist in any of those countries nor the U.S.S.R. If anything, the state of the U.S.S.R. depended its survival on the failure of the world revolutions.

[Homo Songun]

Marxist Leninism used to equate anybody who was in a CP, James P. Cannon, founder of the SWP at one point called himself "marxist leninist". However after the worldwide purges of the international workers opposition, ML meant anybody who was left in the party, as a result of that lingering leadership acting in the will of the USSR's foreign policy. It has much more to do with the question as to whether or not Socialism should exist outside of the USSR rather than any personality conflicts. Stalinists think that socialism should only exist in the USSR, which would be secured from intervention by selling out revolutionaries in other countries. Trotskyists and any actual leninists are like all communists should be, internationalist. Perminant revolution is true, to deny it being true is to call the Russian Revolution a fluke or an illegitimate revolution. But it's not like one of those bourgeois debates about "centralisation vs. state power." or a personality conflictit's about menshevism vs. internationalism.

Syd, even by the partisan point of view of Trotskyism, your grasp of the facts are faulty. For example, the Workers Opposition was smashed in 1920-21, in no small part due to Trotsky's initiative, well before the term "Marxism-Leninism" became common currency. (Of course, you meant "International Left Opposition", but that proves my point regardless)

My own partisan view is that Trotsky may have been formally a Bolshevik from 1917-1927, but for most of his political life he was not a Leninist. He and his epigones never really grasped Lenin's positions on organization, which is really the defining feature of his thought.

[Ismail]

I am quite confused as to what the differences between these to sets of political beliefs are, i know that there must be at least some difference, as i have seen quite a bit of infighting in other threads on this very site.
It would be very nice to hear from actual Leninist or Marxist-Leninist.It's quite simple:

"Leninism" refers to the doctrines of Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Bolsheviks and head of the Soviet state until his death in 1924. These mainly include his analysis of imperialism, his advocacy of democratic centralism in organizational affairs, and his proposal for the formation of vanguard parties to organize the proletariat in seizing state power. It's generally used to distinguish between pre- and post-Lenin Marxist trends.

The 1970's Great Soviet Encyclopedia spoke of (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Marxism-Leninism) Marxism-Leninism in the following manner:

[Marxism-Leninism is] the scientific system of philosophical, economic, and sociopolitical views that constitutes the world outlook of the working class; the science of the cognition and revolutionary transformation of the world, the science of the laws of development of society, nature, and human thought, the science of the laws of the revolutionary working-class struggle for the overthrow of capitalism, and the science of laws of the constructive activity of the working people in building socialist and communist society.

The founders of Marxism-Leninism were K. Marx and F. Engels, and an outstanding contribution to its development was made by V. I. Lenin.Thus Marxism-Leninism is considered by its followers to be a natural continuation of Marxist analysis and research, from Marx to Engels to Lenin.

Practically every Communist Party which attained state power in the 20th Century considered itself Marxist-Leninist in some form. This includes the Communist Party of China, which considers its ideology from the 1960's onwards as "Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought," as well as the Party of Labour of Albania. Although major differences between the Marxist-Leninist parties began in the 1950's, they all generally agreed on the early history of the Soviet Union and oppose Trotskyism. Disagreements also exist on the role of Stalin.

The parties in Cuba, China, Vietnam and Laos (and until 1992 the DPRK) all consider themselves Marxist-Leninist in some form.

Trotskyism is considered by its followers to be a variant of Leninism, and it calls Marxist-Leninists "Stalinists." Trotskyists also adhere to a greater or lesser extent to Lenin's view of the vanguard party and to his analysis of imperialism, among other things.

[A Marxist Historian]

I am quite confused as to what the differences between these to sets of political beliefs are, i know that there must be at least some difference, as i have seen quite a bit of infighting in other threads on this very site.
It would be very nice to hear from actual Leninist or Marxist-Leninist.

The term Leninism was coined by Gregory Zinoviev, who during Lenin's lifetime was usually Lenin's #2 (with certain embarrassing exceptions). He wrote a book by that title shortly after Lenin died.

Lenin while alive would have regarded it as just as unacceptable as Marx saw "Marxism" and Trotsky saw "Trotskyism." Stalin however had no such compunctions.

I think Stalin may have coined "Marxism-Leninism" to distinguish himself from his former ally Zinoviev, who he ended up shooting.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

"Leninism" only came to be used in a positive sense (so, besides your usual polemics) after Lenin died. As far as I'm aware the first usage of the term in that sense was in Stalin's Foundations of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm). Stalin used this term to claim that his rival Trotsky was no longer a genuine Leninist (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm), to which Trotsky responded to be a "Bolshevik-Leninist", after which "Marxist-Leninist" came to be common coin on Stalin's side.

Lenin placed himself in the Orthodox Marxist tradition, which was systematically developed as a method by Karl Kautsky. After breaking with Kautsky in 1914, he saw himself and the Bolsheviks, together with a few other sections in the Second International, to be continuing this strategic line of building a mass party to organise the whole working class and win it for the socialist project. Out of this momentum, which was especially given a boost by the 1917 revolution, the Comintern came to be.

Actually no. Lenin wanted not a party of the *whole* working class, the Second International tradition, but of the conscious vanguard of the working class, leaving out the labor aristocrats, the chauvinists, the racists, i.e. those workers under the influence of bourgeois ideology. That's what "What Is To Be Done" is really all about.

This is what distinguished Lenin theoretically from Kautsky, though neither Lenin nor Kautsky were fully aware of this till World War I made everything clear. Till then, Lenin actually thought of himself as more or less of a Kautskyite, and Kautsky's articles on the Russian Revolution of 1905 are actually theoretically closer to the Bolshevik positions on things than the Menshevik.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Lenin while alive would have regarded it as just as unacceptable as Marx saw "Marxism" and Trotsky saw "Trotskyism." Stalin however had no such compunctions.Although the word "Stalinist" was used in the 1930's-early 50's USSR as a sort of "yay Stalin" word, it had no real ideological content behind it nor was it intended to do so. Stalin didn't see himself as a guy who made great strides in Marxist theory nor was he seen by anyone (admirers and detractors alike) of making such strides. As far as he was concerned he was basically just following what he believed Lenin would have done. The word also tended to follow "Leninist," so a random speechmaker would be like "OUR GLORIOUS LENINIST-STALINIST ROAD IS THE ROAD OF THE GREAT CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIALISM RNNNNGHH" or what have you.

Speaking of ideologies and names, "Kimilsungism" was frequently used in the DPRK in the 70's and 80's to refer either to Juche or a broader ideology with Juche as its center. And that wasn't a "yay Kim Il Sung" word, DPRK propaganda went all out about how "Kimilsungism" was some great ideological step forward for mankind.

[Ocean Seal]

I got this theory from examining the history of the late 1920s. I mean Stalinist at this point, at least examining the parties remaning from the comintern era, is basically the same as back then. The parties these days always support liberal govs over workers. Like in greece and the CP of A. And I dont care what brezhnevites say, socialism didn't exist in any of those countries nor the U.S.S.R. If anything, the state of the U.S.S.R. depended its survival on the failure of the world revolutions.
This is an entire list of non-sequiter. I think that "Stalinists" strongly supported a proletarian uprising in the German Red front against capitalism. and were the only nation who lent support to the Spanish revolution. They didn't think that world revolution was possible at that point in time, they were prepared to defend what they had. Lenin also supported bourgeois democrats in Turkey against imperialism which of course got the Turkish communists massacred.

[Rooster]

Of course Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism are opposed to each other due to historical issues and the rejection of Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution.


The main difference that I can think of is the "socialism in one country" of the M-Ls versus the "permanent revolution" of the Trotskyists. However, both of these differing positions are Leninist.

Which just shows that Stalinists have never read any of Trotsky's writings. It's impossible to accept that you can have socialism in one country, especially in Russia of that time, without accepting the theory of permanent revolution to be correct. The main difference between marxist-leninists and anyone else does not belong in the realm of ideology, even if Stalinists all cry about Trotskyists denying the correctness of marxism-leninism or thinking that Trotskyists think that marxism-leninism was the what was wrong with the soviet union.

[Ismail]

Which just shows that Stalinists have never read any of Trotsky's writings.Because apparently one RevLeft user speaks for all "Stalinists."

Just to be pedantic, Stalin actually did consider himself an adherent of permanent revolution, just not the Trotskyist variant. :D

As he noted in Concerning Questions of Leninism (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/CQL26.html) (1926):

This does not mean, of course, that Leninism has been or is opposed to the idea of permanent revolution, without quotation marks, which was proclaimed by Marx in the forties of the last century. On the contrary, Lenin was the only Marxist who correctly understood and developed the idea of permanent revolution. What distinguishes Lenin from the "permanentists" [Trotskyists] on this question is that the "permanentists" distorted Marx's idea of permanent revolution and transformed it into lifeless, bookish wisdom, whereas Lenin took it in its pure form and made it one of the foundations of his own theory of revolution. It should be borne in mind that the idea of the growing over of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution, propounded by Lenin as long ago as 1905, is one of the forms of the embodiment of Marx's theory of permanent revolution. Here is what Lenin wrote about this as far back as 1905:

"From the democratic revolution we shall at once, and just in accordance with the measure of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organized proletariat, begin to pass to the socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop halfway. . . .
"Without succumbing to adventurism or going against our scientific conscience, without striving for cheap popularity, we can and do say only one thing: we shall put every effort into assisting the entire peasantry to carry out the democratic revolution in order thereby to make it easier for us, the party of the proletariat, to pass on, as quickly as possible, to the new and higher task -- the socialist revolution." (See Vol. VIII, pp. 186-87)And here is what Lenin wrote on this subject 16 years later, after the conquest of power by the proletariat:

"The Kautskys, Hilferdings, Martovs, Chernovs, Hillquits, Longuets MacDonalds, Turatis, and other heroes of 'Two-and-a-Half' Marxism were incapable of understanding . . . the relation between the bourgeois-democratic and the proletarian-socialist revolutions. The first grows over into the second.* The second, in passing, solves the questions of the first. The second consolidates the work of the first. Struggle, and struggle alone, decides how far the second succeeds in outgrowing the first." (See Vol. XXVII, p. 26.)

[A Marxist Historian]

Because apparently one RevLeft user speaks for all "Stalinists."

Just to be pedantic, Stalin actually did consider himself an adherent of permanent revolution, just not the Trotskyist variant. :D

As he noted in Concerning Questions of Leninism (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/CQL26.html) (1926):

A not unuseful posting that should be read by our less sophisticated Stalinists here, with or without quote marks.

As for what Stalin actually has to say in this quote, the ultradogmatic Leninology in Stalin's exegesis, which reminds one of Protestant fundamentalist Bible quoting or Jesuit theology, speaks for itself and hardly requires much comment.

Stalin is obviously desperately trying to create an appearance of disagreement between Lenin and Trotsky, without much luck. Yes, they had disagreements over the future course of the Revolution in 1905, but in 1917, these were resolved by the actual revolution itself.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Although the word "Stalinist" was used in the 1930's-early 50's USSR as a sort of "yay Stalin" word, it had no real ideological content behind it nor was it intended to do so. Stalin didn't see himself as a guy who made great strides in Marxist theory nor was he seen by anyone (admirers and detractors alike) of making such strides. As far as he was concerned he was basically just following what he believed Lenin would have done. The word also tended to follow "Leninist," so a random speechmaker would be like "OUR GLORIOUS LENINIST-STALINIST ROAD IS THE ROAD OF THE GREAT CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIALISM RNNNNGHH" or what have you.

Speaking of ideologies and names, "Kimilsungism" was frequently used in the DPRK in the 70's and 80's to refer either to Juche or a broader ideology with Juche as its center. And that wasn't a "yay Kim Il Sung" word, DPRK propaganda went all out about how "Kimilsungism" was some great ideological step forward for mankind.

Yes, Molotov in his diaries at one point comments, now that Stalin was safely in his grave, that he Molotov was a better Marxist theoretician than Stalin. In fact, he even said that, theoretically speaking, Stalin's "socialism in one country" concept was just a little bit unsound.

I think it was Kaganovich, the great flatterer, who started using the term "Stalinism," which Stalin jovially tolerated while being careful not to personally give it his imprimatur. Modest and humble revolutionary that he was -- or liked to appear to be.

-M.H.-

[Omsk]

I think it was Kaganovich, the great flatterer, who started using the term "Stalinism," which Stalin jovially tolerated while being careful not to personally give it his imprimatur. Modest and humble revolutionary that he was -- or liked to appear to be.




Believe it or not,you are right,Kaganovich was the one who first said it:
However,he [Stalin] most certainly didnt like the term.

... but Stalinism--to use a word which Joseph Stalin deprecates and rejects.
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 186

According to Khrushchev, Kaganovich urged Stalin to replace 'Leninism' with 'Stalinism', only to be rebuffed by the Boss, who in fact never sanctioned the use of this term, so honorific in a highly ideological culture.
McNeal, Robert, Stalin: Man and Ruler. New York: New York University Press, 1988, p. 153

He also had no great love for flattering.


...Stalin is quick to detect false praise from the genuine article. No one indulged in more extravagant flattery than Zinoviev and Kamenev. Each time they were caught out in treachery, they burst into paeans of praise in order (as Zinoviev put it) "to crawl back into the party on our bellies." They were even foolish enough to imagine that, because Stalin forgave them time after time, they were successfully hoodwinking him. It needed the Treason Trials of 1936 to 1938 to show them the real truth.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 92

[Rooster]

Because apparently one RevLeft user speaks for all "Stalinists."

Just one? Haha.




Just to be pedantic, Stalin actually did consider himself an adherent of permanent revolution, just not the Trotskyist variant. :D

As he noted in Concerning Questions of Leninism (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/CQL26.html) (1926):

And the only thing that tells us is that Stalin again tried to say that Trotsky was a revisionist and that his and his selection of Lenin quotes, constitute the correct thinking. And again, it completely ignores history and what actually happened. Is the USSR still around? Nope. Pesky revisionists.

[daft punk]

Trotskyism is Leninism. Marxist-Leninism is an oxymoron because it means Stalinism and Stalin rejected Marxism and Leninism.

It started in 1924 after Lenin died. Stalin came up with a theory of 'socialism in one country'. This is the opposite of what he said a few months earlier. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky all said socialism would need several advanced countries at least. And Russia was not advanced.

There was a battle for party leadership. Lenin had left his message saying Stalin should be removed from his position, but the message got suppressed. Trotsky was ill around this time which didnt help.

The revolution was isolated in a backward country, so socialism was impossible. But still they should have kept trying. Trotsky did, but Stalin wanted to abandon the idea.

They had a temporary retreat, a partial privatisation, in 1921 during the famine, to get agriculture going. Lenin wanted to get the poor peasants in cooperatives as a step towards socialism.

Trotsky warned that this must not go too far. By around 1924 he wanted to end it, but Stalin did the opposite, kept it going, and the rich peasants got richer but the poor ones did not.

The Bolsheviks had inherited tens of thousands of bureaucrats from the Tsar's regime. Lenin and Trotsky had warned they they represented a danger.

The bureaucrats took over the party from within, and through their influence and knowledge.

Lenin warned of bureaucracy and red tape, saying it would ruin the economy.

Stalin leaned on the wealthy and the bureaucrats and attacked Trotsky. trotsky wanted to tax the wealth to fund industrialisation, and to end the NEP (partial privatisation).

Stalin kicked him out of the country.

Soon after, Trotsky's predictions came true, uprising by the rich peasants. Stalin was forced to end the NEP and collectivise, as Trotsky had advocated for years. But Stalin did it very brutally, and did it too late and too fast.

Trotsky wanted world revolution. He was the first person to believe socialist revolution could start in a backward country like Russia, so long as it was helped by some advanced one. Unfortunately the German and Hungarian revolutions were crushed so Russia was isolated. The revolution degenerated and Stalin personified the degeneration.

After 1928, Stalin was a phoney socialist, sabotaging world revolution.