Where do the differences between Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, and Stalinism lay?

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Filler

[Dabrowski]

In short, Leninism is Marxism, and Trotskyism is Leninism. "Marxism-Leninism" is the name that the Stalinists gave to their betrayal of Marxist and Leninist internationalism in the name of "socialism in one country."

[daft punk]

In short, Leninism is Marxism, and Trotskyism is Leninism. "Marxism-Leninism" is the name that the Stalinists gave to their betrayal of Marxist and Leninist internationalism in the name of "socialism in one country."

I'll second that, er, emotion, to coin a phrase.

But I will add a bit. Stalinism, which is Marxism-Leninism, is anti-Marxism. The idea is to pretend to be Marxist while crushing any attempts at putting Marx's ideas into practice.

In a nutshell, the revolution was starting to degenerate in the mid 1920s due to it's isolation in a backward country. Stalin managed to get power, partly because he was happy not to oppose this degeneration, and he simply became the figurehead of the degenerative process, speeding it up.

He had to suddenly collectivise after 1928, but only because he had no choice.

[Lanky Wanker]

I think we're in for a long one here...

[Franz Fanonipants]

all false taxonomies born by hilarious tendency ridiculousness

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Marxist-leninism is marxism as written by marx

Stalinism is left wing authoritarianism which supports socialism in one country and has one leader who controlls everything.

[Caj]

Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism are synonymous. Leninism includes all tendencies claiming adherence to Lenin's theories and praxis. Leninism includes Trotskyism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, etc.

[daft punk]

As a simple example, Lenin had said to tax the rich heavily and not tax the poor. Trotsky also advocated this. But when Stalin took power he followed the advice of Bukharin, to let the rich get richer, so direct taxes were kept low relative to indirect ones, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. After he was forced to abandon this he sacked Buhkarin (and obviously later killed him along with the rest of the Bolsheviks).

[Caj]

As a simple example, Lenin had said to tax the rich heavily and not tax the poor. Trotsky also advocated this. But when Stalin took power he followed the advice of Bukharin, to let the rich get richer, so direct taxes were kept low relative to indirect ones, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. After he was forced to abandon this he sacked Buhkarin (and obviously later killed him along with the rest of the Bolsheviks).

Are you trying to spark a tendency war?


Marxist-leninism is marxism as written by marx

Stalinism is left wing authoritarianism which supports socialism in one country and has one leader who controlls everything.

Wrong. Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism are synonymous.

[Omsk]

Stalinism is just a term used by actual supporters of Stalin [Kaganovich] - however,the very term was disliked by Stalin.

That word holds no real weight.

If you (OP) have any questions related to Marxism-Leninism,i would be glad to answer them.

[Brosip Tito]

I'll make this brief, and I'll do my best.

Leninism: The strain of Marxism directly influenced by Lenin, and the early Bolsheviks prior to Lenin's death. In agreement with Lenin's party and state structure, and path to socialism. Remained internationalist, and strove toward socialism. Use of Democratic Centralism, belief in right to national self determination, etc. Usually Trotskyists identify as Leninists as well.

Marxism-Leninism: a term coined by Stalin to describe his version of Lenin's ideas. Revised Marxism. Nationalist, anti-democratic, militaristic, and promoters/acceptors of historical revisionism. Use of mass bureaucracy, and apologism for Stalin's atrocities and the like.

Stalinism: a term used by many to describe the variant of Marxism-Leninism distinct to Stalin. Used to differentiate from Stalin's ideas and Mao's ideas.

[Omsk]

No,Lenin in his famous debates around Marx noted out the great link between Marxism and Dialectical-Materialism,and the modern theories for a workers revolutionary struggle and the strategies linked to that same struggle.He also brought many new theories,in adition to the existing ones,like his works on imperialism,capitalism,and a socialist revolution in Russia,and how it would advance,eventually leading to socialism,and in the same time,spreading around the world.

That is Marxism-Leninism,and that is what i am speaking about.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2371751#post2371751)
"As a simple example, Lenin had said to tax the rich heavily and not tax the poor. Trotsky also advocated this. But when Stalin took power he followed the advice of Bukharin, to let the rich get richer, so direct taxes were kept low relative to indirect ones, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. After he was forced to abandon this he sacked Buhkarin (and obviously later killed him along with the rest of the Bolsheviks). "

Are you trying to spark a tendency war?


I just state the important facts. If the Stalinists wanna try and justify 'fire to the left' let them try. But it was the opposite of what Lenin had advocated.


No,Lenin in his famous debates around Marx noted out the great link between Marxism and Dialectical-Materialism,and the modern theories for a workers revolutionary struggle and the strategies linked to that same struggle.He also brought many new theories,in adition to the existing ones,like his works on imperialism,capitalism,and a socialist revolution in Russia,and how it would advance,eventually leading to socialism,and in the same time,spreading around the world.

That is Marxism-Leninism,and that is what i am speaking about.

No. Leninism is Leninism. Marxist-Leninism is anti-Leninism.

[Lanky Wanker]

I understand there's obviously a difference between Leninism and Marxist-Leninism, but I'm kinda confused; why are so-called "Stalinists" MARXIST-Lenninists?

[daft punk]

I think they just started calling themselves that. Obviously most genuinely believe they are, but they were all being conned by Stalin and his cronies.

[Ocean Seal]

I really wonder why the fuck members need to turn this thread into a fucking tendency war and on top of that advertise their little propaganda as if the user won't be exposed to that shit later on.

Stalinism is the term that non Marxist-Leninists apply to Marxism-Leninism.
Trotskyists call ML's Stalinists, and Brezhnevites call anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists Stalinists.
Marxism Leninists as a general rule of thumb follow the theories of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and believe that Stalin correctly applied those theories. In addition some follow the subsequent Soviet premiers or Mao.
Leninism is the umbrella term which includes Trotskyism and Marxist-Leninism.

Its ironic that the anarchist gave a better description of these terms than the so called Leninists. People this is a definitions thread, you have plenty of space to make sectarian posts so save it.

[Drosophila]

You may as well ask a dog.

Seriously, don't bother asking about stuff like this on RevLeft.

[Omsk]

Non-sectarian;

Leninism: Marxism-Leninism,Trotskyism,etc

After the death of Vladimir Lenin,"Leninism" split of to two main streams of political thought: Marxism-Leninism,and Trotskyism (In the USSR - Stalin and Trotsky)

Marxist-Leninists note that they are following the path of Lenin,and that their ideology is Leninism,while Trotskyism is not,and vice-versa.

Leninism is basically:A major political theory for the democratic organisation of a revolutionary vanguard party, [DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM] and the advance to a dictatorship of the proletariat, as a first step on the road to the establishment of socialism.

Stalinism has no real ideological,political background,as it is a simple phrase.

[thriller]

Marxist-leninism is marxism as written by marx

Stalinism is left wing authoritarianism which supports socialism in one country and has one leader who controlls everything.

You do realize that Stalin did not control everything right? If u really believe that I suggest reviewing the history of classes and class struggle.

As far as the OP goes: Leninism is the ideas of Lenin, based off of his conception of Marx and Engels. Marxism-Leninism is USUALLY referred to as the Ideas brought about by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and sometimes Stalin (but it depends on who you ask). Stalinism, from my understanding is complete faith that Stalin advanced, correctly, the ideas of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

[Lanky Wanker]

Now comes the question of why I've never heard the term 'Engelsism' or 'Marxist-Engelsism'... or 'Engelsist-Marxism'.

[Krano]

Yes we are all Stalinists who eat babies for breakfast and want to purge the entire human population.

[Ostrinski]

Now comes the question of why I've never heard the term 'Engelsism' or 'Marxist-Engelsism'... or 'Engelsist-Marxism'.Meh. Umbrella terms and names of ideologies aren't as important as the theory behind them.

[thriller]

Now comes the question of why I've never heard the term 'Engelsism' or 'Marxist-Engelsism'... or 'Engelsist-Marxism'.

...WTF? Why have I never thought of that before..?

[Ostrinski]

I'll have a crack:

Marxism: The theories and analyses of Marx and Engels

Leninism: 1) The praxis of Marxist theory in reflection of undesirable revolutionary conditions 2) Pertaining to the revolutionary writings of Vladimir Lenin
Subcurrents: Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism

Marxism-Leninism: 1) The application or perceived application of Leninist theory 2) The maintenance that The policies carried out during the Stalin years of the USSR were the correct application of Leninist theory.
Subcurrents: Anti-Revisionism, Maoism, various others

I laugh at how early this thread degenerated.

[Per Levy]

Now comes the question of why I've never heard the term 'Engelsism' or 'Marxist-Engelsism'... or 'Engelsist-Marxism'.

because engels was a marxist and marx and he shared almost identical views.


Yes we are all Stalinists who eat babies for breakfast and want to purge the entire human population.

well that was a useful post, around as useful as 2/3 of the post of this thread.

[Lanky Wanker]

because engels was a marxist and marx and he shared almost identical views.


I just thought Engels would get a bit more credit considering what he contributed.

[Ostrinski]

I just thought Engels would get a bit more credit considering what he contributed.Most Marxists give him his credit. I think you can give someone their due credit without having to aggrandize their name for no other reason than credit. Marxism is called Marxism because it makes sense to call it that, not because Marx deserves more credit than Engels or anything like that.

[thriller]

I laugh at how early this thread degenerated.

Kind of like how quickly the USSR degenerated? Ba-da-da-tisk! Sorry, I just love puns :)

@Per Levy, but the ironic thing is that Marx was not a Marxist, by Marxist definition.

[daft punk]

Marxism Leninists as a general rule of thumb follow the theories of Marx, Engels and Lenin,

No they fucking don't. Do you want to debate this? I would say Stalinism was the antithesis of Marx, Engels and Lenin. I can and have proved it many times.

Do you think Lenin would have murdered all the members of the original Bolshevik Central Committee?

Do you think Marx and Engels envisages a privileged elite ruling over the population?




and believe that Stalin correctly applied those theories.
Yes, they are very confused, like you appear to be. It was a huge propaganda exercise of lies and violence which began right after Lenin died.

[daft punk]

Non-sectarian;

Leninism: Marxism-Leninism,Trotskyism,etc

After the death of Vladimir Lenin,"Leninism" split of to two main streams of political thought: Marxism-Leninism,and Trotskyism (In the USSR - Stalin and Trotsky)

Marxist-Leninists note that they are following the path of Lenin,and that their ideology is Leninism,while Trotskyism is not,and vice-versa.

Leninism is basically:A major political theory for the democratic organisation of a revolutionary vanguard party, [DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM] and the advance to a dictatorship of the proletariat, as a first step on the road to the establishment of socialism.

Stalinism has no real ideological,political background,as it is a simple phrase.

No, Marxist-Leninist means abandoning the path of Marx and Lenin and killing anyone who wanted to get back on it.

The revolutionary party was transformed into an anti-revolutionary party, intent on sabotaging socialism both in Russia and abroad. The evidence is abundant, it even comes form the perpetrators who survived.

Stalin abandoned Lenin's policies immediately eg the tax issue as I mentioned above, internationalism and so on. All the communists were executed. At the same time Stalin crushed the revolution in Spain. After WW2 he tried to ensure Eastern Europe went capitalist but failed. All this I have shown you before. yet you still churn out lies from the 1930s.

[daft punk]

I just thought Engels would get a bit more credit considering what he contributed.

Marx was the main man, but actually they have a joint archive at MIA, the only one as far as I know. ie they are inseparable. In fact some 'Marx' was really written by Engels.

[Omsk]

No they fucking don't. Do you want to debate this? I would say Stalinism was the antithesis of Marx, Engels and Lenin. I can and have proved it many times.

Do you think Lenin would have murdered all the members of the original Bolshevik Central Committee?

Do you think Marx and Engels envisages a privileged elite ruling over the population?



You seem to have some kind of a blockade when it comes to disucussing Marxism-Leninism,just as you simply cant accept criticism aimed at Trotsky,you cant even discuss Marxism-Leninism normally.

And you seem to look into everything trough historical factors,and thus you forget what the ideology of Marxism-Leninism is,it is not something centered around Stalin,as you think it is,it is a correct thought line originating from Marx and Engels,and later expanded by Vladimir Lenin.

The user who opened the thread wanted some help with the definitions regarding Marxism-Leninism,Leninism,etc etc - not your own opinion on Marxism-Leninism which is completely cut apart from dialectical materialism and historical materialism,so,if you cant participate in duscussion without being hostile to everyone that has a different opionion,than i guess you should calm down a bit,and try to define these phrases without sectarianism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Now comes the question of why I've never heard the term 'Engelsism' or 'Marxist-Engelsism'... or 'Engelsist-Marxism'.

"Marxist-Engelism" is called "classical Marxism".

Classical Marxism is based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Orthodox Marxism is based on the Second International. (branched of into Luxemburgism, which on its turn inspired Left Communism).

Leninism is based on Lenin's advocacy of vanguardism to advance Marxist praxis.

Leninism branched of in Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. (Marxism-Leninism is usually equated with Stalinism and is based on the practice of the USSR under Stalin's rule, although post-Stalin rulers who openly broke with him still called themselves Marxist-Leninist).

Marxism-Leninism branched of into various interpretations or deviations (Maoism, Hoxhaism, etc.) as well.

[Ocean Seal]

I really wonder why the fuck members need to turn this thread into a fucking tendency war and on top of that advertise their little propaganda as if the user won't be exposed to that shit later on.

Stalinism is the term that non Marxist-Leninists apply to Marxism-Leninism.
Trotskyists call ML's Stalinists, and Brezhnevites call anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists Stalinists.
Marxism Leninists as a general rule of thumb follow the theories of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and believe that Stalin correctly applied those theories. In addition some follow the subsequent Soviet premiers or Mao.
Leninism is the umbrella term which includes Trotskyism and Marxist-Leninism.

Its ironic that the anarchist gave a better description of these terms than the so called Leninists. People this is a definitions thread, you have plenty of space to make sectarian posts so save it.


No they fucking don't. Do you want to debate this? I would say Stalinism was the antithesis of Marx, Engels and Lenin. I can and have proved it many times.

Daft Punk, I find it very hard to deal with your shit posts. What you have said, has already been said many, many times on this forum by people who have been far more articulate than you. Not only that, but this isn't the place for a tendency war. I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time responding to your post, because you are obviously incorrigible.


I can and have proved it many times.
No you haven't, and you are the most arrogant piece of shit on this forum. I think you are the unrestricted member I hate the most on this forum, and I've been here for a while.



Do you think Lenin would have murdered all the members of the original Bolshevik Central Committee?


That I don't know, but let the user who asked the question figure it out for himself. He didn't ask a question to start a tendency war. The user asked for definitions and those are the definitions.



Do you think Marx and Engels envisages a privileged elite ruling over the population?

Its interesting how you don't mention Lenin here as I'm sure that there are a large number of members here who think that Lenin did the same.



Yes, they are very confused, like you appear to be. It was a huge propaganda exercise of lies and violence which began right after Lenin died.
I'm not confused, I know very well what a user who asks for definitions would like as an answer. You are again, just an arrogant piece of shit.

[Georwell]

Hey,
I know I will probably be redirected to another source, but I have a question.

Can anybody explain 'Luxemburgism'? :)

Thanks!

[Rooster]

I'll give this a crack while I wait for my food to cook.

Leninism is more of a revolutionary and organisational theory that's open to interpretation. The man himself never considered what he was doing anything other than orthodox Marxism. I guess you could say that the theory of imperialism is characteristic of Lenin but other people have articulated something like it before he did. I don't think there is a coherent ideology that you can pull out of Lenin. He changed his mind back and forth a lot. You do get a sense of a more libertarian strain in Lenin before the Revolution compared to the man after, I guess.

Marxism-Leninism though, was originally called Leninism. It tried to make a coherent set of rules and stuff (that was constantly open to revision) to justify basically what the ruling elite did. It was the state ideology of the USSR, Papal like in the way that the guys at the top where the ones who decreed it. Anyway, it's basically just called Stalinism because the people who support marxism-leninism nearly always support Stalin and his actions. Of course, Khrushchev considered himself a marxist-leninist as well. Again, as to how much it belongs to Lenin is questionable (and even to Marx) considering that there wasn't really a coherent strain in Lenin's practice or theory and never mind the deviations both take from Marx.


I just thought Engels would get a bit more credit considering what he contributed.

Some of Engels' works are a great read and it's a shame that most people over look him. That might be as much the fault of Engels though, considering that the just called himself a socialist, or a scientific socialist for most of the time.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Thanks to all who gave me information, definitely a lot of great info on my question in this topic! :)

To all those trying to, or participating in a tendency war, please piss off

[daft punk]

You seem to have some kind of a blockade when it comes to disucussing Marxism-Leninism,just as you simply cant accept criticism aimed at Trotsky,you cant even discuss Marxism-Leninism normally.

And you seem to look into everything trough historical factors,and thus you forget what the ideology of Marxism-Leninism is,it is not something centered around Stalin,as you think it is,it is a correct thought line originating from Marx and Engels,and later expanded by Vladimir Lenin.

The user who opened the thread wanted some help with the definitions regarding Marxism-Leninism,Leninism,etc etc - not your own opinion on Marxism-Leninism which is completely cut apart from dialectical materialism and historical materialism,so,if you cant participate in duscussion without being hostile to everyone that has a different opionion,than i guess you should calm down a bit,and try to define these phrases without sectarianism.

words, waffle, zero substance.

[The Young Pioneer]

This thread has sealed it for me, I'm totally converting to Engelsism!!!! The baptism's tomorrow if anyone wants to attend.


lolbtw: http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-does-no-t67490/index.html

[Omsk]

Fine,now that you dont have an answer,ignore it all.Be my guest.

[daft punk]

Daft Punk, I find it very hard to deal with your shit posts. What you have said, has already been said many, many times on this forum by people who have been far more articulate than you. Not only that, but this isn't the place for a tendency war. I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time responding to your post, because you are obviously incorrigible.

No you haven't, and you are the most arrogant piece of shit on this forum. I think you are the unrestricted member I hate the most on this forum, and I've been here for a while.

Words, slurs, slander, lies. Debate me or keep quiet. Arrogant! Lol! If I was ranked in knowledge among CWI members I doubt I would be very high up, much less than half way even on my specialist subject - countering Stalinist lies.




Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2372441#post2372441)
"Do you think Lenin would have murdered all the members of the original Bolshevik Central Committee? "

That I don't know, but let the user who asked the question figure it out for himself. He didn't ask a question to start a tendency war. The user asked for definitions and those are the definitions.

Ah, so you think Lenin might have murdered all the original Bolsheviks. And why would he wanna do that?

Definitions? He asked what the differences are. If you want definitions why not just read a dictionary?

So, you dont think it's an important question, why did Stalin wipe out the original revolutionaries?

What do you think is important?

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/cc-1917.jpg
Note - Kollantai was on the left, she survived because she was in Norway.





Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2372441#post2372441)
"Do you think Marx and Engels envisages a privileged elite ruling over the population? "
Its interesting how you don't mention Lenin here as I'm sure that there are a large number of members here who think that Lenin did the same.

Well they would be completely wrong and a tiny bit of research would reveal that. Lenin and Trotsky lived in partitioned rooms on a workers wage. Stalin had loads of luxury villas with swimming pools.



I'm not confused, I know very well what a user who asks for definitions would like as an answer. You are again, just an arrogant piece of shit.

And you dont have a clue what you are talking about, so you resort to personal abuse instead of debate.

Stalin did not implement Lenin's policies. From 1924-8 Stalin did the exact opposite of what Lenin had advocated, allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. He also went back to stagism, which was the Bolshevik policy prior to 1917. He went over to Popular Fronts, very anti-Leninist, and ruined the Chinese revolution.

Tell me, what do you think of the policy of banning soviets in China at the time? How does it tie in with Lenin's slogan 'all power to the soviets'?

After kicking Trotsky out, Stalin was then in a situation Trotsky predicted, and was forced to adopt Trotsky's policies, only in a grotesque way. Millions died.

Then Stalin purged Russia of thousands of the best socialists.

Trepper (a hero who risked his life working underground in Nazi occupied territories to defend the USSR):

"Trepper had arrived in the USSR in his own words “carrying the dreams of a neophyte. I was a young and an ardent communist…” but as he witnessed the rise of Stalin’s cult of the personality, the fake trials of “conspirators,” how “many militants publicly supported Stalin’s positions although they did not approve of them. This terrible hypocrisy accelerated the inner demoralisation of the party,” Trepper began to question the old certainties. Lenin’s Testament, which had called for Stalin’s removal was being circulated amongst the students, but the completion of Stalin’s coup at the 17th Party Congress with the election of Kirov and Stalin, meant the pace of the incipient bureaucratism rapidly accelerated. The assassination of Kirov in 1934, probably the work of Stalin, was “Stalin’s Reichstag fire”, was the excuse for a general purge. The Old Bolsheviks were slaughtered on mass, Burkharin’s prophecy was fulfilled, forced to make tortured confessions, in mass show trials, before being dispatched with a bullet to the back of the head. No one felt safe.
No one was immune from the reach of the NKVD, Stalin’s secret police. Trepper describes how; “at night in our university…headlights would pierce the darkness… “They’re here! They’re here! When we heard that cry a wave of anxiety would run through the dormitories…stomachs knotted in insane terror, we would watch for the cars of the KNVD to stop… “They’re coming.” The noise got louder…shouts doors slamming. They went by without stopping. But what about tomorrow?”
Trepper was not alone in enduring the terror; “yet we went along sick at heart, but passive, caught up in machinery we had set in motion…all those who did not rise up against the Stalinist machine are responsible, collectively responsible. I am no exception to this verdict.”


http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1009


some of us care about the truth.

Fact - over half the delegates to the 1934 Communist Party Congress, and over half the Central Committee, were arrested.The Congress was nicknamed the "The Congress of the Victors". Only half apparently were victorious.

[Omsk]

On a second thought,why dont you answer my post where i called you out on ultra-sectarianism and elitism?You seem to worship Trotsky like a god.

[Rooster]

On a second thought,why dont you answer my post where i called you out on ultra-sectarianism and elitism?You seem to worship Trotsky like a god.

lol makes a change from those who worship Stalin in the same way.

[Omsk]

lol makes a change from those who worship Stalin in the same way.

Let's leave that aside now,and concentrate on the question: "How can he criticize users for 'worshiping Stalin' - if he is doing the same thing with Trotsky?

[Rooster]

Let's leave that aside now,and concentrate on the question: "How can he criticize users for 'worshiping Stalin' - if he is doing the same thing with Trotsky?

Is the short course biased?

[Blake's Baby]

Hey,
I know I will probably be redirected to another source, but I have a question.

Can anybody explain 'Luxemburgism'? :)

Thanks!

I called myself a Luxemburgist until very recently.

Luxemburg developed several aspects of Marxism, primarily:

1 - the notion that the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie was definitively over; this means that there are no longer any progressive factions of the bourgeoisie to support, and therefore nationalism was contrary to the interests of the working class. As a result, Luxemburgists reject any and all national liberation movements as merely seeking to re-arrange the imperialist furniture and reject 'the right of nations to self-determination';

2 - the idea of the permanent crisis capitalism seen as being caused by a lack of solvent markets for capitalism to expand into; this was seen as the economic underpinning of the change from the progressive epoch of capitalism (when the bourgeoisie was a revolutionary class against feudalism) and the reactionary epoch of capitalism (when the bourgeoise is a reactionary class against the proletariat). I think it's fair to say that this theory is strongly contested even by some who support a Luxemburgist position on national liberation;

3 - the notion of the mass strike, which is either (to anarchists) an attempt to hijack the notion of the general strike, or (to Left Communists and other Marxists) an attempt to explain the developments in class struggle and organisation in Russia in 1905.

She supported the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks, but also criticised certain aspects of the Revolution, including at first the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, though she later changed her mind about this.

She also, from the early days of the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, criticised what she saw as the excessive authoritarianism of Lenin's proposal for the constitution of the RSDLP.

These days Luxemburgists generally hold to the critique of the Bolsheviks as being too authoritarian.

I was a Luxemburgist because I agree with her about national liberation, and the crisis of capitalism. But both those critiques were subsequently taken on board by various Left Communist currents anyway.

[l'Enfermé]

Leninism was initially derogatory term used to attack Bolsheviks, and just before the October Revolution, a derogatory term used by some of those aligned with the Provisional Government to describe all opponents of the Provisional Government, Marxist and non-Marxist, Bolshevik and non-Bolshevik. Lenin called himself a Social-Democrat, a Socialist, a Marxist, a Bolshevik, etc, etc, but never a "Leninist", and neither did any of the other Bolshevik during his lifetime. The term in it's modern sense, describing Marxism as interpreted and adapted and modernized by Lenin, was coined by Zinoviev.

Marxism-Leninism, or Stalinism, was a term invented by Stalin to describe the ideology of the Soviet Union after it's degeneration. The term essentially lost it's meaning, as anti-Proletarian, peasant guerrillas(Like Mao in China, not did only not try to look for support in the Proletarian Urban centers of China, he actually rejected any support, like in 1945) began to call themselves "Marxist-Leninist". As these peasant movements, devoid of any Proletarian character, usurped the term, it lost it's meaning. When you have the likes of Stalin, Mao, Castro, the FARC, the right-wing/left-wing-nationalists/fascists KPRF in Russia, Kruschev, Guevara, Mengistu Mariam in Ethiopia, etc, etc, all calling themselves Marxist-Leninists, you know the whole thing is just bullshit.

Anyways, if you want to learn how much Marxism-Leninism has to do with Lenin and the Bolsheviks, just look at the causes of death for members of the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks in 1917, the Central Committee that led the October Revolution. Out of 26 members, 9 died prior to the Great Purges initiated by the Glorious Moustached Leader who invented Marxism-Leninism. Y. Sverdlov(d. 1919), M. Uritsky(d. 1918), V. Lenin(d. 1924), A. Joffe(d. 1927), V. Nogin(d. 1926), F. Dzerzhinsky(d. 1926), S.
Shaumyan(d. 1918), S. Artem(d. 1921), P. Dzhaparidze(d. 1918). 4 during the Civil War, Lenin in 1924, Nogin and Dzerzhinsky in 1926, Joffe killed himself in 1927. That leaves 17 members of the Central Committee that led the Party during the October Revolution. Out of those 17, 12 are executed or tortured to death by Stalin's goons, 1 is assassinated by Stalin's NKVD agent in Mexico. Only 4 survived the Great Purges, Stassova, Muranov who survived because of his great age and was basically senile by that point, and Kollantai, who was an Ambassador in Sweden from 1930 to 1945 and whom Stalin needed to influence the Swedes to remain neutral. The 4th person to survive was Stalin.

[daft punk]

Let's leave that aside now,and concentrate on the question: "How can he criticize users for 'worshiping Stalin' - if he is doing the same thing with Trotsky?
Are you talking about me? Does a physics teacher worship Einstein? The only personality cult we need to address here is the one around Stalin. There is none around Trotsky, zilch, nada.

[Ostrinski]

Are you talking about me? Does a physics teacher worship Einstein? The only personality cult we need to address here is the one around Stalin. There is none around Trotsky, zilch, nada.Actually, you worship Trotsky just as bad or worse than most ML's do Stalin here. It's not a single cult of personality that's the problem, it's the general phenomenon.

And no, I don't imagine physics professors worshiping Einstein, at least not to the effect that you do Trotsky.

[dodger]

Are you talking about me? Does a physics teacher worship Einstein? The only personality cult we need to address here is the one around Stalin. There is none around Trotsky, zilch, nada.

Now that is a porky pie, dear daft punk. Such a big porky pie toooo

Not the sort of lie that can anger or enrage, just reduce me to tears of laughter.

What cobblers, do you have to be so pompous ,daft punk?
There again I am not a physics teacher, so perhaps your point went right over my head. "Zilch, nada!" Think you may have over egged the pudding there.....:closedeyes:

[Grenzer]

Hate to say it, but personality cults do seem to be a pretty big phenomenon here.

The general order seems to go something like this(from most worshipped to least):

Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Trotsky, Hoxha, Mao, Che, Kim Jong Il, and lastly, Makhno.

They're getting really annoying to be frank; but shit, a lot of tendencies wouldn't even exist without these personality cults. Never did understand the fascination with Fidel Castro either, which seems to be a pan-leninist phenomenon.

[dodger]

Hate to say it, but personality cults do seem to be a pretty big phenomenon here.

The general order seems to go something like this(from most worshipped to least):

Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Trotsky, Hoxha, Mao, Che, Kim Jong Il, and lastly, Makhno.

They're getting really annoying to be frank; but shit, a lot of tendencies wouldn't even exist without these personality cults. Never did understand the fascination with Fidel Castro either, which seems to be a pan-leninist phenomenon.

Well I am not the fellow to call you out about the order you chose to put these fellows in Grenzer. Pretty much all the usual suspects included. Fair comment. Though you seem to have missed my name, obviously an oversight.

[Omsk]

I must admit,i was never a huge fan od Fidel Castro,nor Che,Mao.



Kim Jong Il


??

The only users who where supportive of Kim Jong Il,were some trolls/jucheists.And they got banned sooner or later.

[Grenzer]

I must admit,i was never a huge fan od Fidel Castro,nor Che,Mao.

Are you a fan of Enver Hoxha?

A lot of people hate on Hoxhaists a lot, but they have the most consistent interpretation of Marxism-Leninism as it existed in the USSR under Stalin from my observation; from which viewpoint Che, Fidel, and Mao would be considered progressive, but still revisionist.

The Fidel thing I don't understand quite so much. I've seen both certain Marxist-Leninist groups and Trotskyist groups that worship the guy. The Trots in my town are particularly fanatical about it. There seem to be a number of people that support Castro to the degree that they would call themselves Castroists.. I would attribute it to the idea of small, isolated Cuba standing strong against the imperialist United States. There is something appealing about that narrative.




??

The only users who where supportive of Kim Jong Il,were some trolls/jucheists.And they got banned sooner or later.

I'm pretty sure Rodrigo regards North Korea as a healthy socialist state and is a supporter of the Juche ideology. If you look in that North Korea thread, he goes on about it quite a bit. That the proletariat can't be the revolutionary class, just like Kim Jong Il said, and that the military is the new "revolutionary" class. I really don't see how this can be interpreted as any other than a position directly supporting Juche. I can understand wanting to defend North Korea from imperialism, but he takes it way, way beyond that. He worships him enough that he's got to count for a few dozen people at least, thus earning Kim Jong Il a spot on the list.

Durruti and Kautsky were also candidates for the list, but they are just too niche to be included. Well shit, I guess I forgot Dzherzhinsky: he'd definitely rate as being more popular than Makhno and Kim Jong Il.

[Omsk]

Are you a fan of Enver Hoxha?

He was one of the most consistent Marxist-Leninists,and i must say that he certainly brought Albania back to its legs,after it was in a horrible state because of the war,and because of the many years of the monarchy which was a catastrophe.I also admire his unrelentless stance about Soviet revisionism and reformism.Albania was generally a much better place back than than it is now,and you could say the period of time when Hoxha was 'in charge' is probably the best part of their history,while,the worst,is probably either the pre-war years when it was under Italian occupation,or the post-socialist years,when it became a neo-colony for foreign capital and when nationalism ravaged not only that country,but every country in the Balkans.



The Fidel thing I don't understand quite so much. I've seen both certain Marxist-Leninist groups and Trotskyist groups that worship the guy. The Trots in my town are particularly fanatical about it. There seem to be a number of people that support Castro to the degree that they would call themselves Castroists.. I would attribute it to the idea of small, isolated Cuba standing strong against the imperialist United States. There is something appealing about that narrative.




Many quasi-communists share the opinion that Cuba is a true socialist country,and they hold Castro pretty high,but again,these are the same people that think Libya,Syria,Vietnam,the DPRK and China are socialist too (were socialist in the example of Libya),and being led by vanguard parties organized in the Leninist way,and functioning in the Leninist way,which is,so to say,not true.The images of Cuba,and Che are quite 'revolutionary romantic' - and a lot of the people i know who are big fans of Che like to 'act' like ' revolutionaries ' and in this childish game,they ignore actual theory behind the man and the movement.Of course,it is much more popular to idolize a tough revolutionary soldier with a beard and a ciggar shooting at imperialists,than some other revolutionary figures.



I'm pretty sure Rodrigo regards North Korea as a healthy socialist state and is a supporter of the Juche ideology. If you look in that North Korea thread, he goes on about it quite a bit. That the proletariat can't be the revolutionary class, just like Kim Jong Il said, and that the military is the new "revolutionary" class. I really don't see how this can be interpreted as any other than a position directly supporting Juche. I can understand wanting to defend North Korea from imperialism, but he takes it way, way beyond that. He worships him enough that he's got to count for a few dozen people at least, thus earning Kim Jong Il a spot on the list.



I am not sure about this,Rodrigo wrote a lot about the DPRK,mostly ' defending it ' - but he,as a Marxist-Leninist has the right to have the opinion that it should be defended against foreign violent imperialism,however,there are many different opinions in the very Marxist-Leninist ideological groups,for an instance,i dont think the DPRK is going forward to socialism,and it was not going in that direction before,as the Dictatorship of the Proleteriat was never actually brought into the DPRK,and currently,it seems the DPRK has no intention on any 'socialist' advances,in fact,its actuley revisionist,and the entire idea of the Songun i dont find very attractive.The same goes for Juche.That is the ideological and political aspect of the situation,on the other hand,we should ask ourselves a question: "If we don't think the leadership [WPK] is socialist,should we agree that the working class of Korea is in a dire situation,being surrounded by foreign capital and foreign troops?" I think that is a correct stance.Is the DPRK anti-imperialist?Well,only in the simplified sense of the word,while on one hand,it is certainly not in close ties with the US [like the ROK] it still has diplomatic relations with the US,and as we have seen in the past few days,is negotiating.Generally,i think the DPRK has many problems,of which none would be solved with a foreign capitalist take-over.Could you maybe find examples where he (Rodrigo) worships Kim Jong Il?I remember there was this,most likely troll who wrote about the DPRK,and supported Kim Jong Il,but he first got restricted for being a real ' jucheist ' and than banned,if i remember,im not too sure about that.I bumped into occasional jucheists on the internet,but most of them were either: ' fake leftists ' who liked Juche just because of the military parades or something,and the hard-core followers of the idea,who agreed with everything set up by that ideological stream.


Durruti and Kautsky were also candidates for the list, but they are just too niche to be included. Well shit, I guess I forgot Dzherzhinsky: he'd definitely rate as being more popular than Makhno and Kim Jong Il.

Durruti is quite popular among the anarchists,but he is not so well known,and he was not in the same position as the most of the people you mentioned in your original post.On the other hand: Dzherzhinsky is quite popular,and known for,the "Iron Felix" is a mentioned a lot,and after all,he was the head of the Cheka and one of the original Bolsheviks and revolutionaries of the period,i think Rafiq holds him pretty high,you might ask him,or he can come in this topic and maybe write a couple of words about that himself?

[Ismail]

The general order seems to go something like this(from most worshipped to least):

Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Trotsky, Hoxha, Mao, Che, Kim Jong Il, and lastly, Makhno.Ho Chi Minh and Salvador Allende as persons and leaders are often praised as well, although not as much as they used to be. They are certainly more respected than the Kims. Thomas Sankara and Daniel Ortega were also praised very much in the 80's. Granted none of these guys had a distinct ideology (nor did Fidel, he still basically follows the post-1956 Soviet version of "Marxism-Leninism") but yeah.


A lot of people hate on Hoxhaists a lot, but they have the most consistent interpretation of Marxism-Leninism as it existed in the USSR under Stalin from my observation; from which viewpoint Che, Fidel, and Mao would be considered progressive, but still revisionist.This is correct.

"Mao Tsetung was not a Marxist-Leninist, but a progressive revolutionary democrat, who remained for a long time at the head of the Chinese Communist Party and played an important role in the triumph of the Chinese democratic anti-imperialist revolution. Within China, in the ranks of the party, among the people and outside China. he built up his reputation as a great Marxist-Leninist and he himself posed as a communist, as a Marxist-Leninist dialectician. But this was not so. He was an eclectic who combined some elements of Marxist dialectics with idealism, with bourgeois and revisionist philosophy, indeed, even with ancient Chinese philosophy"
(Enver Hoxha. Imperialism and the Revolution. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1979. p. 448.)

"The Latin-American peoples cherished many hopes, had many illusions, about the victory of the Cuban people, which became an inspiration and encouragement to them in their struggle to shake off the yoke of the local capitalist and landowner rulers and American imperialists. However, these hopes and this inspiration soon faded when they saw that Castroite Cuba was not developing on the road of socialism but on that of revisionist-type capitalism, and faded even more quickly when Cuba became the vassal and Mercenary of Soviet social-imperialism."
(Ibid. p. 199.)

"We have defended the Cuban revolution because it was against US imperialism. As Marxist-Leninists let us study it a bit and the ideas which guided it in this struggle. The Cuban revolution did not begin on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and was not carried out on the basis of the laws of the proletarian revolution of a Marxist-Leninist party. After the liberation of the country, Castro did not set out on the Marxist-Leninist course, either, but on the contrary, continued on the course of his liberal ideas. It is a fact, which nobody can deny, that the participants in this revolution took up arms and went to the mountains, but it is an undeniable fact also that they did not fight as Marxist-Leninists. They were liberation fighters against the Battista clique and triumphed over it precisely because that clique was a weak link of capitalism."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. IV. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1982. pp. 504-505.)

[Ostrinski]

Cult of personalities are kind of fun imo until they get in the way of productive discourse. Guess I'm part of the Dzherzhinsky cult, just because I find the archetype interesting.

[daft punk]

Actually, you worship Trotsky just as bad or worse than most ML's do Stalin here. It's not a single cult of personality that's the problem, it's the general phenomenon.

And no, I don't imagine physics professors worshiping Einstein, at least not to the effect that you do Trotsky.

No, you are fucking clueless mate. You can't understand the difference between theory, historical accuracy, and personality cult.

The reason I keep mentioning Trotsky is quite simple. To counter the Stalinist lies which still get repeated day after day on these forums to beginners.

You say you are considering Socialist Action. Well they are a Trotskyist organisation. Good luck with that.


Now that is a porky pie, dear daft punk. Such a big porky pie toooo

Not the sort of lie that can anger or enrage, just reduce me to tears of laughter.

What cobblers, do you have to be so pompous ,daft punk?
There again I am not a physics teacher, so perhaps your point went right over my head. "Zilch, nada!" Think you may have over egged the pudding there.....:closedeyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality


Hate to say it, but personality cults do seem to be a pretty big phenomenon here.

The general order seems to go something like this(from most worshipped to least):

Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Trotsky, Hoxha, Mao, Che, Kim Jong Il, and lastly, Makhno.

They're getting really annoying to be frank; but shit, a lot of tendencies wouldn't even exist without these personality cults. Never did understand the fascination with Fidel Castro either, which seems to be a pan-leninist phenomenon.

again wrong, there was no cult of personality around Lenin. Try googling the subject.




The Fidel thing I don't understand quite so much. I've seen both certain Marxist-Leninist groups and Trotskyist groups that worship the guy. The Trots in my town are particularly fanatical about it.

Well that makes no sense, Trots should be quite critical of Castro, he was hardly using the sort of tactics and policies advocated by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Castro wasn't even a socialist.

[Ostrinski]

Of course they're a Trotskyist organization. Hell I like Trotsky and agree with a lot of what he said. I'm just annoyed at your groupieism.

Edit: You're right, cult of personality was the wrong term to characterize your adoration for Trotsky with. Apotheosis would be more accurate.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Lenin did not encourage a cult of his personality. Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Bukharin played a minor role in developing a cult of Lenin's personality. Stalin elevated Lenin's personality cult into a state religion. Lenin was an interesting theorist who made many valid points up to and including his critique of "Leftism". On the issue of the vanguard party, though, Lenin was responsible for major erros, foremost of which were his conduct at the 1921 Party Congress and the development of an all-powerful Secretariat. Lenin compounded his blunder by appointing the likes of Stalin. Had Trotsky or Bukharin been the gensek they too would have become dictators, not as odious as Stalin but dictators nonetheless.

[daft punk]

It's funny how no-one gets accused of worshipping Marx and Engels, or a Marx and Engels cult of personality, or anything like that, not by left wingers anyway.

Now why is that I wonder?

Can anyone think of a reason?

I mean, after all, Marx is mentioned 3 times more often on revleft than Trotsky.

And these pathetic people grouping together to have a go at me for trying to defend and promote Trotkyism, well, Stalin is mentioned TWICE as much on revleft as Trotsky is, so maybe it's time to redress the balance.

These are the facts.

Please dont challenge them unless you want to look stupid.

[daft punk]

Lenin did not encourage a cult of his personality. Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Bukharin played a minor role in developing a cult of Lenin's personality. Stalin elevated Lenin's personality cult into a state religion. Lenin was an interesting theorist who made many valid points up to and including his critique of "Leftism". On the issue of the vanguard party, though, Lenin was responsible for major erros, foremost of which were his conduct at the 1921 Party Congress and the development of an all-powerful Secretariat. Lenin compounded his blunder by appointing the likes of Stalin. Had Trotsky or Bukharin been the gensek they too would have become dictators, not as odious as Stalin but dictators nonetheless.

Interesting post. Can you expand/support?

[gorillafuck]

Leninism can refer to Trotskyism or Marxist-Leninism. Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism mean the same thing.

Marxist-Leninism means adherence to the theory of "socialism in one country" and that the "actually existing socialism" of the eastern bloc was healthy workers states.

Trotskyism holds those states to have been either degenerated workers states (in the case of the USSR), or deformed workers states (in the case of every socialist country which was not part of the USSR), opposition to the theory of "socialism in one country", and the theory of "permanent revolution".

there are some other aspects but these are the main ideological divides presented in a simple, non-ideologically influenced mumbo jumbo way.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Daftpunk; What I have posted is all in the realm of opinion, but don't you believe that the powers of the Gensek were excessive? Since I don't subscribe to the Great Man Theory of History I have to blame the institution for the dictatorship rather than solely blame the man who became dictator. With respect to the 1921 Party Congress, it was Lenin who pushed to outlaw the factions, including the Democratic Centralists, a faction that stood against the erosion of democracy within the RCP (b). Given the erosion of party democracy in the subsequent years it seems again to be the proper Marxian view not to blame merely the Great and Powerful Stalin, Molotov, Rykov and/or Bukharin for this erosion of democracy, but to really get at the root of the matter one has to look to the decision of the party at its 1921 congress not to allow adherents of party democracy to organize on its behalf.

[Ismail]

Marxist-Leninism means adherence to the theory of "socialism in one country" and that the "actually existing socialism" of the eastern bloc was healthy workers states.What of the fact that the Albanians denounced "actually existing socialism" as an anti-Marxist concept?

[daft punk]

Daftpunk; What I have posted is all in the realm of opinion, but don't you believe that the powers of the Gensek were excessive? Since I don't subscribe to the Great Man Theory of History I have to blame the institution for the dictatorship rather than solely blame the man who became dictator. With respect to the 1921 Party Congress, it was Lenin who pushed to outlaw the factions, including the Democratic Centralists, a faction that stood against the erosion of democracy within the RCP (b). Given the erosion of party democracy in the subsequent years it seems again to be the proper Marxian view not to blame merely the Great and Powerful Stalin, Molotov, Rykov and/or Bukharin for this erosion of democracy, but to really get at the root of the matter one has to look to the decision of the party at its 1921 congress not to allow adherents of party democracy to organize on its behalf.

I dunno, not sure, you may have a point. Lenin was only doing what he thought best. 1921 was a difficult period. They banned factions, sort of, but then Kronstadt happened, and the Workers Opposition, the 'banned' faction, still joined with the Red Army.

In hindsight obviously it probably would have been better to allow factions and speed up the democratic process between 1921 and 1924. Trotsky also could be accused of the same. But both fought the growing bureaucratism, which was rooted in the material conditions.

The Workers Opposition wanted the economy controlled by the unions, and this was unacceptable to most Bolshevik leaders.

Thing to remember is the civil war was not completely over, and also the economy was completely devastated. Lenin's top priority was to tax the rich, start building state industries, subsidise co-operatives for poor peasants, and start mechanising agriculture. Also bear in mind there was a terrible famine.

If the unions had been handed control of the economy, would it have been less bureaucratic? maybe there would have been capitalist restoration instead. Hard to say. The bottom line is the Stalinist degradation was a reflection of the isolation of the revolution in a backward country, not Lenin's policies. They may have been a factor, but what were the options?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Of course, the objective conditions in which the Bolsheviks found the country were pretty awful in 1921. For this reason I can understand why the Party did not adopt the proposals of the Workers' Opposition, as these proposals may have incited further revolts among the peasantry, and given the contemporaneousness of the Tambov revolt such was a clear and present danger. OTOH I do not see how the proposals of the Democratic Centralists presented the same social and economic dangers as did the Workers' Opposition. The Democratic Centralists merely sough to preserve internal party democracy. Given the accretion of power that flowed to Stalin after he became gensek it seems to me that the Democratic Centralists were extremely prescient in their concerns about about party democracy. By 1923 Trotsky had begun to share these concerns and Trotsky ought to be credited with picking up the banner of party democracy, but perhaps had Trotsky come to this position in 1921 rather than 1923 it is possible that the creation of the all-powerful Secretariat might have been avoided. After all, the Secretariat made it possible for one man, Stalin, to become the dictator, so IMO the problem lies not merely in the man (Stalin) but more deeply in the very notion of an all-powerful Secretariat as proposed by Lenin.

[daft punk]

Well I was always under the impression that the General Secretary was regarded as a 'non-job', a grand meaningless title to keep Uncle Joe happy. Problem was he controlled appointments and so on, so he could gather a large clique around him. He had already started this when he was in charge of RABKRIN, the anti-corruption squad (!!)

I dunno much about the Democratic Centralists, I thought the Bolsheviks were operating democratic centralism anyway.

I have heard it said that maybe Lenin worried toward the end of his life if he had done everything right, well I would expect he did, he wasn't an arrogant fucker, he was very honest and genuine. Ditto Trotksky.

If Lenin had survived and Trotsky not been ill, no doubt they would have tried to get the party more democratic after 1923. However they were fighting 'the heap' and the downside of the NEP - the rising bourgeois. They might have secured some sort of semi-socialist state, but actual socialism was impossible, and the threat of capitalist restoration would still have been high. My guess, they would have collectivised, but in a much gentler way than actually happened, ie more voluntary than forced.

[GoddessCleoLover]

From my understanding of Russian history RABKRIN was something of a morass, initially well-intended as an inspectorate to fight corruption and bureaucracy, but it never amounted to much and under Stalin's leadership was not exactly in the best hands, to say the least. OTOH the Secretariat was apparently envisaged by Lenin as being powerful, but administrative rather than partisan. Stalin saw that the powers of the Secretariat were extremely broad and put them to use to build his own faction. Lenin came to realize this too, and sought Stalin's removal from his post as gensek, but was frustrated in this intention by a foolish and short-sighted Gregory Zinoviev and others.

The larger and more important question involves the extent to which the party practiced democratic centralism, and what is meant by democratic centralism. Unfortunately, the history not just of the Russian party but also the history of the Comintern and Comintern-associated parties is one in which centralism swallowed party democracy. The result leads me to the sad conclusion that democratic centralism doesn't really work in practice. A revolutionary workers' party ought to give precedence to democracy over centralism, since ruling parties that have practiced democratic centralism have repeatedly become dictatorial. Politically aware workers are cognizant of the tragic history of social revolution in the twentieth century. REgaining the confidence and support of workers will IMO require that revolutionaries unreservedly commit to political democracy within the working class movement.

[daft punk]

er, I'm stuck!

[GoddessCleoLover]

None of us are really "stuck", since Lenin's tragically early illness and death create something of a mystery as to his vision of the course of the Soviet workers' state.

[Blake's Baby]

...

And these pathetic people grouping together to have a go at me for trying to defend and promote Trotkyism, well, Stalin is mentioned TWICE as much on revleft as Trotsky is, so maybe it's time to redress the balance...

If that consists of a whole load of posts saying 'Trotsky is shit', until the numbers are equal, that will presumably redress the balance adequately, as all you have counted is when Trotsky and Stalin are mentioned, not what is said. For all you know, half of those post say 'Stalin is great' and the other half say 'Stalin was a monster'.

Your method is... unscientific to say the least.


...These are the facts.

Please dont challenge them unless you want to look stupid.

Do I need to labour the point?

[Rooster]

Wait... I think I have it... Marxism-Leninism bases it's strategies and perspectives upon political example instead of upon analyses of capitalism!

[daft punk]

If that consists of a whole load of posts saying 'Trotsky is shit', until the numbers are equal, that will presumably redress the balance adequately, as all you have counted is when Trotsky and Stalin are mentioned, not what is said. For all you know, half of those post say 'Stalin is great' and the other half say 'Stalin was a monster'.

Your method is... unscientific to say the least.


Damn, someone spotted the flaw in my argument!

However there are more M-L's on here than Trots, and as I say, Marx is mentioned even more often than Stalin, so it looks like my case might stand up after all.

[daft punk]

None of us are really "stuck", since Lenin's tragically early illness and death create something of a mystery as to his vision of the course of the Soviet workers' state.

Well, this is definitely an interesting and worthwhile area to discuss. I just don't know enough at the minute to say much more off the top of my head.

Of all the historical stuff on here, this is perhaps the most useful area to go deeper. So I would like to see more discussion on this. It has sometimes occurred to me that Trotsky should have pushed harder when he wrote the New Course in 1923 when he warned of the dangers of bureaucracy.

The way I see it though, they did need a centralised party to carry out the revolution and defend it in the civil war.

[citizen of industry]

Why not be a classical Marxist, since it is Marxian economics and the dialectic that binds us together, and reject as dogma all organizational theories arising from a particular place and time. I am so fucking tired of reading about 192x and how things might have been different. It's 2012, we have the same mode of production, the economics are the same. Stop appropriating organizational theories based on national conditions a century ago to fit every situation.

[thriller]

Why not be a classical Marxist, since it is Marxian economics and the dialectic that binds us together, and reject as dogma all organizational theories arising from a particular place and time. I am so fucking tired of reading about 192x and how things might have been different. It's 2012, we have the same mode of production, the economics are the same. Stop appropriating organizational theories based on national conditions a century ago to fit every situation.

I feel the same way sometimes. If materialism is something to be followed, it should be understood that the world will NEVER exist in the same conditions as it has in the past. You can love Lenin, or hate him (or any other leader), it doesn't matter since their ideas were based on the materialistic conditions of their time and place, not ours.

[DDR]

Why not be a classical Marxist, since it is Marxian economics and the dialectic that binds us together, and reject as dogma all organizational theories arising from a particular place and time. I am so fucking tired of reading about 192x and how things might have been different. It's 2012, we have the same mode of production, the economics are the same. Stop appropriating organizational theories based on national conditions a century ago to fit every situation.


Seriously? So in the name that we are in 2012 we must go back to 1848? Yeah, let's forget from all the revolutionary experiences in nearly 2 centuries. And BTW, the production is the same but the way economics works have changed, so you know.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Seriously? So in the name that we are in 2012 we must go back to 1848? Yeah, let's forget from all the revolutionary experiences in nearly 2 centuries. And BTW, the production is the same but the way economics works have changed, so you know.

I think there are lessons to be learned and major figures and events should be studied but I believe this sectarianism is nothing but a hobby enjoyed by basement dwelling autistics at this point. A few months ago I would have described myself as a Stalinist, but I've grown to question the superiority and the relevance of either side at this point. It's prevented me from finding and organization, I'm not interested in arguing about this idiocy anymore I want to organize the working class to confront capital, not theorize alternate Russian history.

[daft punk]

Why not be a classical Marxist, since it is Marxian economics and the dialectic that binds us together, and reject as dogma all organizational theories arising from a particular place and time. I am so fucking tired of reading about 192x and how things might have been different. It's 2012, we have the same mode of production, the economics are the same. Stop appropriating organizational theories based on national conditions a century ago to fit every situation.

says the person who feels the need to identify as Luxemburgist

[GoddessCleoLover]

Agree that organizing workers to confront capital is what it is all about, but IMO this means listening not workers rather than just giving them some party line. Workers may not be interested in alternate Russian histories but a dialogue on socialism and revolution will inevitably raise the issue of Russia. I am in my mid 50s and first became active back in the 70s and have also spent quite a few years as a worker, and workers will never buy into any revolutionary theory in which a vanguard party usurps their class power. This does NOT mean that workers do not recognize the principle of leadership in their movement, but that leadership must be responsive and democratic and NEVER dictate to the working class as occurred in Russia.

[daft punk]

I feel the same way sometimes. If materialism is something to be followed, it should be understood that the world will NEVER exist in the same conditions as it has in the past. You can love Lenin, or hate him (or any other leader), it doesn't matter since their ideas were based on the materialistic conditions of their time and place, not ours.


Noooooooo!

Lenin matters, Trotsky matters, Luxemburg matters. Marx and Engels matter. Even Uncle Joe matters in a perverse way, ie what not to do.

Yes the world is a bit different, no we cannot ignore history and just make shit up. You have 5 geniuses there to learn from.

I would say the number one lesson is no class-collaboration, number two is the need for a clear, bold decisive lead with socialism as the goal, number three the need for the workers to be organised as well as the need for the revolutionary party. Number four, anarchists pissed away their golden opportunity 'ON PRINCIPLE!'. Some fukin principle! 'I will not ever lead the workers to power when I have the chance.' Right.

It is true that we dont have much in the way of successful revolutions in advanced countries, but what we do have is loads of wasted opportunities eg Iran 1979, and quite a few terrible disasters thanks to Stalinism etc eg Indonesia 1965, Chile 1973 and so on.

Study and learn!

[daft punk]

I think there are lessons to be learned and major figures and events should be studied but I believe this sectarianism is nothing but a hobby enjoyed by basement dwelling autistics at this point. A few months ago I would have described myself as a Stalinist, but I've grown to question the superiority and the relevance of either side at this point. It's prevented me from finding and organization, I'm not interested in arguing about this idiocy anymore I want to organize the working class to confront capital, not theorize alternate Russian history.


You have a long way to go comrade, but you have taken a brave step. However please don't write off the important theory which is intrinsically linked to the history. Just look at it objectively and everything will make sense, all the history of the 20th century will fall into place. The history of the 20th century actually proves basic Marxist theory right.

For instance in Russia, 1917 the working class was tiny, just a few % of the population. Now India today is still relatively backward, but it has a far higher % of people in cities, ie working class.

So therefore socialist revolution should be a lot easier in India today than in Russia in 1917, leaving aside other factors.

Therefore socialists should be campaigning for socialist revolution in India. Popular Fronts, reformism and so on never got anyone anywhere.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Agree that organizing workers to confront capital is what it is all about, but IMO this means listening not workers rather than just giving them some party line. Workers may not be interested in alternate Russian histories but a dialogue on socialism and revolution will inevitably raise the issue of Russia. I am in my mid 50s and first became active back in the 70s and have also spent quite a few years as a worker, and workers will never buy into any revolutionary theory in which a vanguard party usurps their class power. This does NOT mean that workers do not recognize the principle of leadership in their movement, but that leadership must be responsive and democratic and NEVER dictate to the working class as occurred in Russia.

I think the issue will come up and we shouldn't avoid argument but the idea that Stalin vs Trotsky is still The Question is a delusion effecting both their partisans. I want to a find a revolutionary organization, but so far I've only been able to find 'revolutionary' book clubs or echo chambers masquerading as 'revolutionary' debate clubs.

[GoddessCleoLover]

EG; There are many micro-parties, but they have few if any organic links to the US working class. Is there an occupy movement where you live?

Daft; The problem in Chile was reformism rather than Stalinism. The Chilean CP was more Allende-loyal than Stalinistic. There was a more revolutionary wing (Altamirano) within Allende's own socialist party, but Allende was the leader and his leadership was clearly reformistic.

[daft punk]

I think the issue will come up and we shouldn't avoid argument but the idea that Stalin vs Trotsky is still The Question is a delusion effecting both their partisans. I want to a find a revolutionary organization, but so far I've only been able to find 'revolutionary' book clubs or echo chambers masquerading as 'revolutionary' debate clubs.

Here you go

http://socialistalternative.org/

these guys are good. They talk sense. You will have a job to fault them. Give them a ring.

you can watch them on youtube if you want, speaking at OWS or in a debate with the Tea Party and so on.

qXHAEX_5fMk

Part 1 of 22. The videos are in subject sections, eg immigration and so on.

[thriller]

Noooooooo!

Lenin matters, Trotsky matters, Luxemburg matters. Marx and Engels matter. Even Uncle Joe matters in a perverse way, ie what not to do.

Yes the world is a bit different, no we cannot ignore history and just make shit up. You have 5 geniuses there to learn from.

I would say the number one lesson is no class-collaboration, number two is the need for a clear, bold decisive lead with socialism as the goal, number three the need for the workers to be organised as well as the need for the revolutionary party. Number four, anarchists pissed away their golden opportunity 'ON PRINCIPLE!'. Some fukin principle! 'I will not ever lead the workers to power when I have the chance.' Right.

It is true that we dont have much in the way of successful revolutions in advanced countries, but what we do have is loads of wasted opportunities eg Iran 1979, and quite a few terrible disasters thanks to Stalinism etc eg Indonesia 1965, Chile 1973 and so on.

Study and learn!

Being a history major, I am not saying that learning about their ideas and actions is useless. But trying to implement them exactly as they did is useless, since the materialistic conditions are dead and gone. Should have made it clearer, my bad.

[citizen of industry]

says the person who feels the need to identify as Luxemburgist

Fixed it for you.

[citizen of industry]

Seriously? So in the name that we are in 2012 we must go back to 1848? Yeah, let's forget from all the revolutionary experiences in nearly 2 centuries. And BTW, the production is the same but the way economics works have changed, so you know.

How do you figure economics have changed?

[daft punk]

Daft; The problem in Chile was reformism rather than Stalinism. The Chilean CP was more Allende-loyal than Stalinistic. There was a more revolutionary wing (Altamirano) within Allende's own socialist party, but Allende was the leader and his leadership was clearly reformistic.

I agree, but they amount to the same thing so I chucked it in as and example. Allende's attempted appeasement of Pinochet was very similar to what happened in Indonesia.

[daft punk]

Being a history major, I am not saying that learning about their ideas and actions is useless. But trying to implement them exactly as they did is useless, since the materialistic conditions are dead and gone. Should have made it clearer, my bad.
well, I would hope nobody would regard one revolution as an exact blueprint for another.

[thriller]

well, I would hope nobody would regard one revolution as an exact blueprint for another.

Well there are those who do, and also those who think nothing can be learned from past revolutions. But I'd say most of those who take either stance have little knowledge of materialism (of course I don't have empirical evidence for this).

[daft punk]

I would say there is more to be learned from studying past revolutions than there is to be ignored. It's a question of getting to the important stuff and translating it to the present. Much of the basics are relevant.

The other reason for understanding the past is to be able to reassure the public that socialism doesnt mean a crappy dictatorship over a country you are not allowed to leave and so on.

[dodger]

And these pathetic people grouping together to have a go at me for trying to defend and promote Trotkyism, well, Stalin is mentioned TWICE as much on revleft as Trotsky is, so maybe it's time to redress the balance.

These are the facts.

Please dont challenge them unless you want to look stupid.
__________________

I wont challenge you to a ' looking stupid' competition. daft punk. I would however make one minor point, the reason Stalin is mentioned "TWICE as much", is because you keep mentioning him. May I humbly suggest you mention Trotsky twice or thrice more than you do. Even quadruple your mention will modestly redress the balance.

I did not challenge you on the facts daft punk, the last thing Dodger wants, is made to look stupid.

[Ostrinski]

The differences between Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, and Trotskyism lay in bed with each other, constantly fucking and giving birth to new pointless bullshit.