Decent Marxist-Leninist Anti-Revisionist parties in the US

[MustCrushCapitalism]

(Although I have the strangest feeling of looming sectarian arguments.)

For ML A-Rs up in here - what's your opinion on different parties in the US right now? I know a few members of the American Party of Labor, which seems to be fairly active for a small party, but that's really it.

[Prometeo liberado]

There are many parties that claim to be ML but none will claim, at least openly, that they are revisionist. More often than not you have to go to some of their internal meetings to get a true sense of where they stand. APL is probably most well known for towing the orthodox ML line in the US as of now.

[TrotskistMarx]

By anti-revisionism you mean anti-stalinism? Because I suspect that many of the marxist-leninist political parties of this world are stalinists. Some Marxist-Leninist-Maoist political parties are not stalinists though. Thanks


.



(Although I have the strangest feeling of looming sectarian arguments.)

For ML A-Rs up in here - what's your opinion on different parties in the US right now? I know a few members of the American Party of Labor, which seems to be fairly active for a small party, but that's really it.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

'Stalinism' itself doesn't exist. It's simply Marxism-Leninism. Stalin made no theoretical contributions that went outside of the realm of Marxism-Leninism.

If you speak of 'Stalinists' as a factional grouping though, no, I wouldn't want to be in an anti-Stalinist party.

[Grenzer]

As Jbeard state, the American Party of Labor is an anti-revisionist party in the United States. Their website can be found here (http://americanpartyoflabor.org/). They actually have a pretty good blog.

Anti-revisionism is not anti-Stalinism. Anti-revisionism is a doctrine which holds the lines of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha to be fundamentally correct. An example of a revisionist Marxist-Leninist party would be the Party of Socialism and Liberation, which supports the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Krushchevite invasion of Hungary, and the Chinese repression of the Tiananmen Square protests. Anti-revisionist Marxistm-Leninism holds these positions to be in support of imperialism and capitalism.

Maoism is regarded by non Marxist-Leninists to be a permutation of Stalinism. Maoists regard the line of Stalin to have been correct, but uphold Mao as a continuation and advancement of Marxism-Leninism. Most Marxist-Leninists state that Mao abandoned the line of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and wasn't a true socialist.

It's easy to see how someone unfamiliar with these doctrines might be confused, but hopefully I've cleared things up a bit.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

American Party of Labor if you lean towards Hoxha.

[TrotskistMarx]

Hello, thanks for clearing that up. And indeed I think that leftists should be anti-revisionism, and follow the theories of Marx, F. Engels, Trotsky, Lenin the way they wrote it. Instead of trying to merge socialism with capitalism and turning the theories of Karl Marx into a sort of third-way, social-democracy political theory. Which is what many many leftists in America do, specially the progressive liberal leftists that read websites such as http://www.truthdig.com http://www.commondreams.org http://www.alternet.org http://www.counterpunch.org http://www.democracynow.org http://www.rt.com http://www.salon.com and many many many other alternative progressive liberal news websites, which are real great, have great articles against US Imperialism, Zionism, Capitalism, and government corruption. But they do not advocate for 100% marxist socialist government in USA, and neither most of the commentators-members-readers-supporters of those alternative progressive liberal news websites.

What the real 100% marxism left of this world needs in each country, is united fronts of 100% marxists, and real good news websites of anti-revisionism 100% marxism writters and thinkers like Alan Woods, the people of The World Socialist Website, and many other real marxists


Thanks





As Jbeard state, the American Party of Labor is an anti-revisionist party in the United States. Their website can be found here (http://americanpartyoflabor.org/). They actually have a pretty good blog.

Anti-revisionism is not anti-Stalinism. Anti-revisionism is a doctrine which holds the lines of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha to be fundamentally correct. An example of a revisionist Marxist-Leninist party would be the Party of Socialism and Liberation, which supports the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Krushchevite invasion of Hungary, and the Chinese repression of the Tiananmen Square protests. Anti-revisionist Marxistm-Leninism holds these positions to be in support of imperialism and capitalism.

Maoism is regarded by non Marxist-Leninists to be a permutation of Stalinism. Maoists regard the line of Stalin to have been correct, but uphold Mao as a continuation and advancement of Marxism-Leninism. Most Marxist-Leninists state that Mao abandoned the line of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and wasn't a true socialist.

It's easy to see how someone unfamiliar with these doctrines might be confused, but hopefully I've cleared things up a bit.

[Delenda Carthago]

What answers would a hoxhaist party give to a 2012 working class person that lives in USA?

[TrotskistMarx]

wow, how cool is your blogger. I am reading the articles. Check out my blogspot website http://workers-dictatorship-solution-for-usa.blogspot.com/ I have some cool rock videos there as well, and documentaries videos. Thanks


.



What answers would a hoxhaist party give to a 2012 working class person that lives in USA?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Hello, thanks for clearing that up. And indeed I think that leftists should be anti-revisionism, and follow the theories of Marx, F. Engels, Trotsky, Lenin the way they wrote it.

Why Trotsky? He spent a great deal of his time opposing the first socialist state in history. Stalin spent his time establishing the first socialist state in history, which was undergoing smooth development until the mid 50s. I once was more of a Trotskyist, but the more I've looked into it, it's an inferior line in comparison to Marxism-Leninism. Lenin would have entirely supported Socialism in One Country.


What answers would a hoxhaist party give to a 2012 working class person that lives in USA?

The establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat in the United States. And I don't particularly prefer it called Hoxhaism. Hoxha didn't make theoretical contributions, he pointed out the Maoist revision. I'm a lot softer on Maoism than Hoxha was, myself, I just recognize it has some revisionist elements of class collaboration to it.

[Ismail]

What answers would a hoxhaist party give to a 2012 working class person that lives in USA?I'd imagine socialism and, once the rest of the world gets around to the former, communism.

Not like pro-Albanian types are Maoists who call for protracted people's war in the South or something.

[Kassad]

Why Trotsky? He spent a great deal of his time opposing the first socialist state in history. Stalin spent his time establishing the first socialist state in history, which was undergoing smooth development until the mid 50s. I once was more of a Trotskyist, but the more I've looked into it, it's an inferior line in comparison to Marxism-Leninism. Lenin would have entirely supported Socialism in One Country.

Have you ever read Lenin before or did you start drinking a little bit early today?

[Ismail]

Have you ever read Lenin before or did you start drinking a little bit early today?I've read Lenin. His positions on foreign affairs are more consistent with those of Stalin than Trotsky.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Why Trotsky? He spent a great deal of his time opposing the first socialist state in history. Stalin spent his time establishing the first socialist state in history, which was undergoing smooth development until the mid 50s. I once was more of a Trotskyist, but the more I've looked into it, it's an inferior line in comparison to Marxism-Leninism. Lenin would have entirely supported Socialism in One Country.

The establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat in the United States. And I don't particularly prefer it called Hoxhaism. Hoxha didn't make theoretical contributions, he pointed out the Maoist revision. I'm a lot softer on Maoism than Hoxha was, myself, I just recognize it has some revisionist elements of class collaboration to it.

Not so much. Trotsky spent his life -- and lost his life, defending the Soviet Union. And BTW, even Stalin's revisions of Leninism fell short of declaring the USSR socialist. I don't know how you can say that Lenin would have supported Socialism in One Country -- It goes against almost everything he said up until his death. I know my ML comrades can dredge up a couple of quotes, taken out of context, that appear to bolster this idea. If you like I will more than match each of these quotes with two to the contrary. The idea of "socialism" existing within the boundaries of one nation is antithetical to Marxism and Leninism. SIOC was the program of the exhausted peasantry and the rising bureaucracy in the USSR.

[Delenda Carthago]

I'd imagine socialism and, once the rest of the world gets around to the former, communism.

Not like pro-Albanian types are Maoists who call for protracted people's war in the South or something.

So you think the analysis for a post WWII Albania is the same with a 2012 USA? The framework is the same? The needs are the same? The abilities are the same?

[l'Enfermé]

'Stalinism' itself doesn't exist. It's simply Marxism-Leninism. Stalin made no theoretical contributions that went outside of the realm of Marxism-Leninism.

If you speak of 'Stalinists' as a factional grouping though, no, I wouldn't want to be in an anti-Stalinist party.
Socialism in One Country, the "Reactionary Utopian Theory"(As Comrade Trotsky put it), the defining feature of Marxism-Leninism, is not Stalin's theoretical contribution to Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism? It's Marxism-Leninism that doesn't exist, it's neither Marxist nor Leninist, it's Stalinist! Why should we call Stalinism something else?

[Grenzer]

What answers would a hoxhaist party give to a 2012 working class person that lives in USA?

So says the person from the KKE? I hope I'm not the only one to fail to notice the irony here.

A Hoxhaist party has much the same to offer as most normal Leninist parties. It's not like their programmes are all that different.

[Delenda Carthago]

So says the person from the KKE? I hope I'm not the only one to fail to notice the irony here.

Last I checked, KKE was not a hoxhaist party. If you know different, please inform me.

[NoPasaran1936]

Socialism in One Country, the "Reactionary Utopian Theory"(As Comrade Trotsky put it), the defining feature of Marxism-Leninism, is not Stalin's theoretical contribution to Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism? It's Marxism-Leninism that doesn't exist, it's neither Marxist nor Leninist, it's Stalinist! Why should we call Stalinism something else?

Because stalinism sounds scwary :(

[l'Enfermé]

Not so much. Trotsky spent his life -- and lost his life, defending the Soviet Union. And BTW, even Stalin's revisions of Leninism fell short of declaring the USSR socialist. I don't know how you can say that Lenin would have supported Socialism in One Country -- It goes against almost everything he said up until his death. I know my ML comrades can dredge up a couple of quotes, taken out of context, that appear to bolster this idea. If you like I will more than match each of these quotes with two to the contrary. The idea of "socialism" existing within the boundaries of one nation is antithetical to Marxism and Leninism. SIOC was the program of the exhausted peasantry and the rising bureaucracy in the USSR.
Stalin declared socialism "built" after the Second Five-Year Plan.

And regarding the reactionary dribble that is "Socialism in One Country", Trotsky says:

The basis for the theory of socialism in one country, as we have seen, sums up to sophistic interpretations of several lines from Lenin on the one hand, and to a scholastic interpretation of the “law of uneven development” on the other. By giving a correct interpretation of the historic law as well as of the quotations in question we arrive at a directly opposite conclusion, that is, the conclusion that was reached by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and all of us, including Stalin and Bukharin, up to 1925.

[Ismail]

So you think the analysis for a post WWII Albania is the same with a 2012 USA? The framework is the same? The needs are the same? The abilities are the same?"There is nothing unknown about what socialism is, what it represents and what it brings about, how it is achieved and how socialist society is built. A theory and practice of scientific socialism exists. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin teach us this theory. We find the practice of it in that rich experience of the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union in the time of Lenin and Stalin, and we find it today in Albania, where the new society is being built according to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism.

Of course, as Lenin said, socialism will look different and will have its own special features in different countries as a result of the differing socio-economic conditions, the way in which the revolution is carried out, the traditions, the international circumstances, etc. But the basic principles and the universal laws of socialism remain unshakeable and are essential for all countries." - Enver Hoxha, Report to the 8th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, November 1, 1981.

[Delenda Carthago]

"There is nothing unknown about what socialism is, what it represents and what it brings about, how it is achieved and how socialist society is built. A theory and practice of scientific socialism exists. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin teach us this theory. We find the practice of it in that rich experience of the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union in the time of Lenin and Stalin, and we find it today in Albania, where the new society is being built according to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism.

Of course, as Lenin said, socialism will look different and will have its own special features in different countries as a result of the differing socio-economic conditions, the way in which the revolution is carried out, the traditions, the international circumstances, etc. But the basic principles and the universal laws of socialism remain unshakeable and are essential for all countries." - Enver Hoxha, Report to the 8th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, November 1, 1981.

I dont want to resort to quotes, I am going to give examples based on things I know and experience.

As we all know, exept the dude in the previous page that thinks that "all leninists parties say the same", the communist parties line in the 1930's, what has resorted to be called "Stalin's line", was to create Popular Fronts with its basic goal to create democratic antifascist goverments, most of the times in order to get it finished with the feudocratic elements many capitalist states had. That was probably the best line back in the days, or not, we can analyse it on a different occasion and make our conclusions.

What was the right thing to do in the 1930s, today it is plain stupidity. You cannot want to have a bourgoeis democratic revolution in a EU country in 2012. Its over. Done.

In Greece we have 4 parties that have a historical reference to Stalin. KKE, KKE (m-l), ML KKE and KOE. With the exception of KKE, which is NOT a stalinist party, because it is probably the only western communist party that produces ideology and doesnt stay in the "stalinist/trotskyist" stereotype, everybody else wants to create "antiimperialist democratic fronts" to have a bourgeois revolution! In Greece of 2012!! Why? Because thats what the communists did back then.


Now elaborate that times 100 and you can see how silly it would look the answer for a semi-feudal country like post war Albania to ask for the same answers as the biggest imperialist power of today.

History is to make conclusions on today out of it, not copy/paste it in every situation. Every question needs a different answer! For example in Greece the Syntagma sq. gatherings were a step back, in USA OWS is a step forward. How do you find similarities and refferences to Hohxa on this one?

[Roach]

In Greece we have 4 parties that have a historical reference to Stalin. KKE, KKE (m-l), ML KKE and KOE. With the exception of KKE, which is NOT a stalinist party, because it is probably the only western communist party that produces ideology and doesnt stay in the "stalinist/trotskyist" stereotype, everybody else wants to create "antiimperialist democratic fronts" to have a bourgeois revolution! In Greece of 2012!! Why? Because thats what the communists did back then.

The domination of capital over labour and of most over the world to financial capital through imperialism are virtually the same, Greece being part of this world and not being one of the main bases for financial capital probably means that it is currently being oppressed by Imperialism, wheter or not a national-democratic revolution is necessary basically comes from that factor and also wheter or not the Greek working-class is corrently capable of organising itself. Those are Greece's own particularities that must be analised by Greek MLs, and are out of my area of knowledge. Through scientific analisys of their own country, Greek Marxist-Leninists should built their political tactics and strategies.


Now elaborate that times 100 and you can see how silly it would look the answer for a semi-feudal country like post war Albania to ask for the same answers as the biggest imperialist power of today.
No sane ML does that.

[Delenda Carthago]

The domination of capital over labour and of most over the world to financial capital through imperialism are virtually the same, Greece being part of this world and not being one of the main bases for financial capital probably means that it is currently being oppressed by Imperialism, wheter or not a national-democratic revolution is necessary basically comes from that factor and also wheter or not the Greek working-class is corrently capable of organising itself.

Greece is in a middle imperialistic stadium. We are being oppresed by countries like Germany and USA, and lately China, but the greek bourgeois class has interests mostly through banks to other countries. Of course anti-imp is one of the basic targets of the revolution, but this is going to happen through the socialist revolution, not through leading a new capitalistic one.

[Brosip Tito]

Marxist-Leninists are the biggest revisionists. They give Kautsky a run for his money.

[Ismail]

Hoxha's 1980 book Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism has a chapter on what Marxist-Leninists should do in regards to trade unions, democratic organizations, illegal and legal work, etc. You can read it here: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/eurocommunism/IV.pdf

I don't see how anything he says is the least bit dated. You should read it (it's less than 50 pages.)

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Have you ever read Lenin before or did you start drinking a little bit early today?
“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”


‘The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time.’”

[Brosip Tito]

“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”


‘The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time.’”
Socialism [read: dictatorship of the proletariat].

Stalin didn't mean a DOTP, he meant socialism as in the lower phase of communism.