The differences between Marxism, Leninism and Marxism-Leninism.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What are the main differences between Marxism, Leninism and Marxism-Leninism?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Marxism is the basis of all these ideologies you listed and Leninism is the adaptation of Marxism to the material conditions of the present age (more specifically, to the material conditions of Russia). The main concept Leninism added to Marxism is the idea of the vanguard, or a group of "professional" revolutionaries from the working class that helps guide the workers to socialism and communism, protects them from capitalist restoration (both from external imperialists and internal counterrevolutionaries), and helps them maintain a successful dicatorship of the proletariat. Marxism-Leninism is basically the incorporation of the ideals of Marx and Lenin into one ideology, but with the indroduction of some "Stalinist" principles, such as Socialism in One Country and the theory of two non-opposing classes (the working class and the peasants). Anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism is what you would call Stalinism or Hoxhaism (or even Maoism).

This is the most unbiased answer I could give you, although you should expect to soon hear biased ultra-leftists whine about authority and Trotskyists whine about how Marxist-Leninists do not follow the ideals of Marx or Lenin.

[The Idler]

Debate: Did Lenin Distort Marx? | The Socialist Party of Great Britain (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/debate-did-lenin-distort-marx)

[Zulu]

Another significant addition by Lenin to Marxism was the postulate that the world revolution is likely to begin in the "weak links" of the world capitalist system. And "socialism in one country" as a matter-of-fact conclusion (of the period when the socialist revolution has occurred in one country, but hasn't yet spread to others) began with him, while Stalin only elaborated on it further.

[Ostrinski]

Marxism- Ideas of Marx
Leninism- Ideas of Lenin
Marxism-Leninism- Ideas of Stalin

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Marxism- Ideas of Marx
Leninism- Ideas of Lenin
Marxism-Leninism- Ideas of Stalin

I mean . . . there is no denying that.

In my opinion, Stalin was a good and pragmatic successor to Marx, Engels, and Lenin, so it does not matter that much to me if Marxism-Leninism incorporates so many of his ideals.

Plus, I like the witty way Brospierre said it. Usually that shit would get me mad.

[Geiseric]

SioC was never once in Lenin's goals for the Russian Revolution, you are distorting everything the man's done in his entire life for Internationalism by saying he was ever at once point a supporter of such a revisionist theory.

All you have to counter Lenin are several quotes that are taken out of context. If he was an advocate of SoiC he wouldn't of founded Comintern. Don't tell me that his ideas "changed" throughout the civil war, because that's a load of bollocks. He died for the 3rd International, not for Soviet Russia. He said on many occasions that he would sacrifice the Russian revolution for a German one.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

If he was an advocate of SoiC he wouldn't of founded Comintern.

Yeah, and if Stalin hated internationalism so much he would have not continued Comintern or helped the partisans in WWII.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Marxism is the basis of all these ideologies you listed and Leninism is the adaptation of Marxism to the material conditions of the present age (more specifically, to the material conditions of Russia). The main concept Leninism added to Marxism is the idea of the vanguard, or a group of "professional" revolutionaries from the working class that helps guide the workers to socialism and communism, protects them from capitalist restoration (both from external imperialists and internal counterrevolutionaries), and helps them maintain a successful dicatorship of the proletariat. Marxism-Leninism is basically the incorporation of the ideals of Marx and Lenin into one ideology, but with the indroduction of some "Stalinist" principles, such as Socialism in One Country and the theory of two non-opposing classes (the working class and the peasants). Anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism is what you would call Stalinism or Hoxhaism (or even Maoism).

This is the most unbiased answer I could give you, although you should expect to soon hear biased ultra-leftists whine about authority and Trotskyists whine about how Marxist-Leninists do not follow the ideals of Marx or Lenin.
Seriously?! I've stated several times (as have pretty much every other 'ultra-left' here) that all revolution is authoritarian

Your post was okay until that last bit. Cut the sectarian crap. It's completely unnecessary. :glare:

[Geiseric]

That doesn't mean he was internationalist, he did those things to dominate those nations instead of genuine internationalism. If he was internationalist, he would put the interests of the worldwide proletariat in front of the U.S.S.R's foreign policy with capitalist countries, which he didn't.

Even assuming that "SoiC," would of worked without tons of investment from Capitalist countries, like the U.S. and Nazi Germany is ludicrous. The Industrialisation of the U.S.S.R. should of happened earlier and with materials from a revolutionary germany, however Stalin's disastrous and non bolshevist policies in Comintern ensured that they came from Capitalists and Nazis.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Seriously?! I've stated several times (as have pretty much every other 'ultra-left' here) that all revolution is authoritarian

Your post was okay until that last bit. Cut the sectarian crap. It's completely unnecessary. :glare:


I was just warning the OP of what to expect. Is that so bad? Whenever you guys get the chance to comment on a thread first, you always add in you sectarian bullshit too. Don't overreact to the truth. Don't tell me that you don't see Caj and other . . . I don't know what to call them, users attack Stalin with opinions right off the bat and, worst of all, state their opinions as fact.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I was just warning the OP of what to expect. Is that so bad? Whenever you guys get the chance to comment on a thread first, you always add in you sectarian bullshit too. Don't overreact to the truth. Don't tell me that you don't see Caj and other . . . I don't know what to call them, users attack Stalin with opinions right off the bat and, worst of all, state their opinions as fact.
So call individuals out on their sectarian crap when they do it. Don't react to sectarian crap with more sectarian crap. :glare:

But if you want to have a debate over Stalin with someone, for fuck's sake keep it civil. That's for everyone, not just Comrade Commistar

[Proukunin]

I was just warning the OP of what to expect. Is that so bad? Whenever you guys get the chance to comment on a thread first, you always add in you sectarian bullshit too. Don't overreact to the truth. Don't tell me that you don't see Caj and other . . . I don't know what to call them, users attack Stalin with opinions right off the bat and, worst of all, state their opinions as fact.

I don't understand why you come right off the bat with a comment geared towards ultra-leftists and Trotskyists as being whiny.

We could warn the OP that he should expect Marxist-Leninists as being assholes to other people that don't totally agree with their ideas.

But then that would just be rude.;)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Seriously?! I've stated several times (as have pretty much every other 'ultra-left' here) that all revolution is authoritarian

Your post was okay until that last bit. Cut the sectarian crap. It's completely unnecessary. :glare:

You know what, you are correct. I ask that everyone ignore my little fit of inappropriate sectarianism at the end of my fist post. That was wrong. This is a place to learn, not to start shitting on each other. It was wrong of me to try to attack bias with more bias.

[Caj]

What are the main differences between Marxism, Leninism and Marxism-Leninism?

Understanding the differences between these might be easier if you introduce yourself to the main writings associated with each one.

To get a basic understanding of Marxism, I'd recommend Marx's Value, Price, and Profit, Wage, Labour, and Capital, and The Communist Manifesto. The first two should give you a general understanding of Marx's critique of capitalism with which you can move on to bigger things like Capital. The Manifesto provides a broad picture of all aspects of Marxism, not simply Marx's critique of capitalism.

To get a basic understanding of Leninism, you could read any of Lenin's major works such as What is to be Done? or State and Revolution.

To get a basic understanding of Marxism-Leninism, start with Stalin's Foundations of Leninism.

You can find all of the works I mentioned and more for free at marxists.org

[Geiseric]

Imperialism is also a central Leninist concept that should be understood. It had a way, at least for me, of "wrapping it all togather," as it's said.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Leninism is the adaptation of Marxism to the material conditions of the present age (more specifically, to the material conditions of Russia).
Yes, because 1917 is the present age.

[Geiseric]

Leninism was developed in the intention that the revolution would happen in Europe, so his program that worked in russia, where it was thought would of been impossible, was made for a German or French revolution.

Leninism developed as an evolution of non reformist communism, however Lenin's was different than Marx's time, and Marx didn't know everything. However Leninism and Vanguardism are the closest to orthodox marxism. The organisational structure used by Marx didn't work, so Leninism was a development, not a revision of Marxism, like the 2nd international fell into.

[Caj]

Leninism was developed in the intention that the revolution would happen in Europe, so his program that worked in russia, where it was thought would of been impossible, was made for a German or French revolution.

Leninism developed as an evolution of non reformist communism, however Lenin's was different than Marx's time, and Marx didn't know everything. However Leninism and Vanguardism are the closest to orthodox marxism. The organisational structure used by Marx didn't work, so Leninism was a development, not a revision of Marxism, like the 2nd international fell into.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revising

Revise - a : to make a new, amended, improved, or up-to-date version of <revise a dictionary>

Nope, pretty sure Leninism was a revision of Marxism, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Marxism is (supposed to be) a science. Science requires the constant revision of hypotheses. Let's not try to distort Marxism into some quasi-religious set of dogmas.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Yes, because 1917 is the present age.

No, it is not, but I wrote that because Leninism is still relevant to the modern day.

[Caj]

Leninism is still relevant to the modern day.


worst of all, [they] state their opinions as fact.

:rolleyes:

[Yuppie Grinder]

No, it is not, but I wrote that because Leninism is still relevant to the modern day.
Yes, after an entire centuries worth of failed attempts at building socialism, it's still relevant. Cool.

[Geiseric]

If you're going by that logic, great job left communists!

Anyways, "Leninism," won the first workers republic in the history of the world... Show some respect... It degenerated but that wasn't because of Leninism, it degenerated for the same reasons that Napoloenic France did.

[Caj]

Anyways, "Leninism," won the first workers republic in the history of the world...

Oh, really? Leninism won the first workers' republic? Silly me, I thought it was the workers.


Show some respect... It degenerated but that wasn't because of Leninism, it degenerated for the same reasons that Napoloenic France did.

Yes, but Leninism is still irrelevant apart from historical reflection. I mean, for fuck's sake, it was an adaptation of Marxism to the material conditions of 1917 Russia. Why should it be relevant today?

[Geiseric]

It was an adaption to the failure of reformism and left communism to win a revolution through the 1800s, if we didn't learn from the 2nd International and the pre-marxian socialists, we wouldn't of made it anywhere past the SPD in terms of a seriously taken communist political force.

It wasn't just for Russia, you're buying into the stalinist's myth that Lenin was a Nationalist. He planned everything and wrote everything while he was in continental europe, and he thought that his theories were going to be used in Germany rather than Russia.

I'm not trying to act childish with "you guys lost and are useless so you're not revolutionary," like Stalinists say, i'm saying that we need to look at things materialistically. Leninism wasn't the cause of the degeneration of the U.S.S.R. and you're using the same logic as the old capitalist "Communism (whenever you talk about anything progressive in terms of politics) didn't work, so we can't try it again." We need to examine what went wrong.

Once we start examining things, we will see that the Purges are the most important factor in the Beureaucracy's rise to power, since coincedentally anybody who opposed Stalin was killed... I wonder if that means that there was some sort of ideological disagreement... Probably not, they're all just power hungry Leninists! Who the entire time called for power to the soviets, when they could have reformed and been part of the constitutent assembly.

[Caj]

It wasn't just for Russia, you're buying into the stalinist's myth that Lenin was a Nationalist. He planned everything and wrote everything while he was in continental europe, and he thought that his theories were going to be used in Germany rather than Russia.

It's not that he was a nationalist (he wasn't); it was that he was a Marxist and a materialist who recognized that revolution is not going to be identical in all countries, especially in a semi-feudal, backward peasant country like early 1900s Russia.


I'm not trying to act childish with "you guys lost and are useless so you're not revolutionary," like Stalinists say,

Try harder then, because that's exactly what you did.


i'm saying that we need to look at things materialistically.

Yeah, bullshit. You just fluctuate between materialism and idealism to justify your tendency. Leninism created the first dictatorship of the proletariat! The degeneration of the Russian Revolution? No, that's not Leninism's fault. It was just the material conditions of Russian society. If you're going to talk about looking at things materialistically, at least be consistent.


Leninism wasn't the cause of the degeneration of the U.S.S.R. and you're using the same logic as the old capitalist "Communism (whenever you talk about anything progressive in terms of politics) didn't work, so we can't try it again." We need to examine what went wrong.

Well, firstly the USSR never degenerated, as the Russian Revolution had already degenerated several years before 1922. Secondly, when the fuck did I say Leninism caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution? That would be as ridiculous as maintaining that Leninism created the first proletarian dictatorship.


Once we start examining things, we will see that the Purges are the most important factor in the Beureaucracy's rise to power, since coincedentally anybody who opposed Stalin was killed... I wonder if that means that there was some sort of ideological disagreement... Probably not, they're all just power hungry Leninists! Who the entire time called for power to the soviets, when they could have reformed and been part of the constitutent assembly.

"Power hungry Leninists"? Have you actually heard left communists argue that the rise of Stalin was due to "power hungry Leninists", or did you just pull this idiotic strawman out of your ass? Of course, blaming it on "power hungry Leninists" isn't really any more ridiculous than doing what you're doing: blaming it on "ideological differences". Yep, "ideological differences" led to the degeneration of the USSR. Big Bad Stalin came along and fucked it all up. Seriously, this argument has about as much legitimacy as the M-Ls' blaming of the "revisionists" for everything. Is it really that hard to understand that the "ideological differences" were a reflection of the material conditions of Russian society at the time?

[Ostrinski]

Leninism certainly was an adaptation to certain conditions and so on but to say that Leninism adapted to the failure of left communism or w.e. isn't really coherent. The concrete split didn't happen until after the revolution. You might recall the first issue being the Brest-Litovsk treaty, which the left wing opposed. 1918 was when we really see it become visible. But I am personally pro Ocotober, pro Bolshevik, and even pro Lenin up until around the first congress of the international. The Dutch-Germans however see the Russian Revolution as a bourgeois revolution.

So you can't really say that Leninism addressed the contradictions of left communism when left communists supported the revolution.

But let's take a look at something else you said. You say we blame the degeneration of the revolution on Leninism. That is completely false. That is the anarchist view. Left communists hold that it was mainly the isolation of the revolution that led to its degeneration. Of course things like war and famine intensified the process but the authoritarianism that followed this period was a result of its necessity, but at the same time made the party less accountable to the proletariat and placed the Bolsheviks at the helm of counter revolution. So we are both pro and anti Bolshevik.

[Geiseric]

It is alot more than ideological differences, that's my entire point! Stalin purged the people who lived through and led the revolution, that's why he was able to gain power.

Sorry if my sarcasm wasn't recieved correctly. However connecting the failure of Stalinism to Leninism is disrespectful, and if you make that connection you're buying into their game of "We're Lenin's disciples." when they murdered and exiled most of the people who have been with Lenin since the founding of the Bolshevik party.

[Ostrinski]

However connecting the failure of Stalinism to Leninism is disrespectfulNo one is doing this.

[Geiseric]

I'm sorry. I'm so frustrated with people, I need to go on a camping trip or something.

[Caj]

It is alot more than ideological differences, that's my entire point! Stalin purged the people who lived through and led the revolution, that's why he was able to gain power.

So had the purges not occurred and Stalin not taken power, what do you think would have happened differently?

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friends, this is not related to this topic but I would like to share this google search link for lots of links and articles on these google-searches:

"Dictatorship of the working class"
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22dictatorship+of+the+working+class%22&oq=%22dictatorship+of+the+working+class%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...4453l7271l0l8131l12l12l0l0l0l2l119l1 126l8j4l12l0.frgbld.

"Government of the workers"
https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS271&q=%22Government+of+the+workers%22&oq=%22Government+of+the+workers%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=igoogle.3...2862l9153l0l9943l27l16l0l0l0l0l44 8l1791l1j1j2j2j1l7l0.

"Dictatorship of the workers"
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22dictatorship+of+the+workers%22&oq=%22dictatorship+of+the+workers%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...45726l53446l0l54254l33l30l2l0l0l0l33 0l4030l11j9j6j1l27l0.frgbld.

"Dictatorship of the proletariat"
https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS271&q=%22dictatorship+of+the+proletariat%22&oq=%22dictatorship+of+the+proletariat%22&aq=f&aqi=g4g-v6&aql=&gs_l=igoogle.3..0l4j0i15l6.2683l20732l0l21077l37l3 2l2l1l0l0l337l4080l0j17j5j1l23l0.

"Workers state"
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS271&q=%22Workers+state%22&oq=%22Workers+state%22&aq=f&aqi=g-c10&aql=&gs_l=serp.3..0i7l10.5075l5075l0l6205l1l1l0l0l0l0l1 09l109l0j1l1l0.frgbld


.



What are the main differences between Marxism, Leninism and Marxism-Leninism?

[Caj]

Dear friends, this is not related to this topic but I would like to share this google search link for lots of links and articles on these google-searches:

"Dictatorship of the working class"
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22dictatorship+of+the+working+class%22&oq=%22dictatorship+of+the+working+class%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...4453l7271l0l8131l12l12l0l0l0l2l119l1 126l8j4l12l0.frgbld.

"Government of the workers"
https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS271&q=%22Government+of+the+workers%22&oq=%22Government+of+the+workers%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=igoogle.3...2862l9153l0l9943l27l16l0l0l0l0l44 8l1791l1j1j2j2j1l7l0.

"Dictatorship of the workers"
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22dictatorship+of+the+workers%22&oq=%22dictatorship+of+the+workers%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...45726l53446l0l54254l33l30l2l0l0l0l33 0l4030l11j9j6j1l27l0.frgbld.

"Dictatorship of the proletariat"
https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS271&q=%22dictatorship+of+the+proletariat%22&oq=%22dictatorship+of+the+proletariat%22&aq=f&aqi=g4g-v6&aql=&gs_l=igoogle.3..0l4j0i15l6.2683l20732l0l21077l37l3 2l2l1l0l0l337l4080l0j17j5j1l23l0.

"Workers state"
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS271&q=%22Workers+state%22&oq=%22Workers+state%22&aq=f&aqi=g-c10&aql=&gs_l=serp.3..0i7l10.5075l5075l0l6205l1l1l0l0l0l0l1 09l109l0j1l1l0.frgbld


.

Why?

[Caj]

The Dutch-Germans however see the Russian Revolution as a bourgeois revolution.

For the most part, yeah, but the Dutch-German left initially saw the Bolshevik Revolution as proletarian and its degeneration as attributable to the war, isolation, etc. The initial criticisms of Leninism from the Dutch-German left were more criticisms of the Third International's attempt to impose Leninism on West European socialist organizations and parties. They maintained that Leninism, although effective in Russia, was incompatible with the material conditions of West Europe. Personally, I think this initial view of the Dutch-German left was more accurate than what emerged later.

[l'Enfermé]

Oh, really? Leninism won the first workers' republic? Silly me, I thought it was the workers.



Yes, but Leninism is still irrelevant apart from historical reflection. I mean, for fuck's sake, it was an adaptation of Marxism to the material conditions of 1917 Russia. Why should it be relevant today?
It's not an adaption of Marxism to the material conditions of Russia in 1917. How can you people be arguing about Leninism if you can't even define it?

[Manic Impressive]

“The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government at a time when society is not yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents and for the measures which that domination implies. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the degree of antagonism between the various classes, and upon the level of development of the material means of existence, of the conditions of production and commerce upon which class contradictions always repose. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him or the stage of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to the doctrines and demands hitherto propounded which, again, do not proceed, from the class relations of the moment, or from the more or less accidental level of production and commerce, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus, he necessarily finds himself in a unsolvable dilemma. What he can do contradicts all his previous actions and principles, and the immediate interests of his party and what he ought to do cannot be done. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whose domination the movement is then ripe. In the interest of the movement he is compelled to advance the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with talk and promises, and with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. He who is put into this awkward position is irrevocably lost.”
Sounds pretty much like Lenin to me

[daft punk]

Marxism-Leninism is basically the incorporation of the ideals of Marx and Lenin into one ideology, but with the indroduction of some "Stalinist" principles, such as Socialism in One Country and the theory of two non-opposing classes (the working class and the peasants). Anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism is what you would call Stalinism or Hoxhaism (or even Maoism).

This is the most unbiased answer I could give you, although you should expect to soon hear biased ultra-leftists whine about authority and Trotskyists whine about how Marxist-Leninists do not follow the ideals of Marx or Lenin.

Too right. Well said. Any Trotskyist will add Stagism and Popular Fronts to your list of Stalinist principles.

Lets wiki them:

"The two-stage theory (or stagism) is the Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist) political theory which argues that underdeveloped countries, such as Tsarist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsarist) Russia, must first pass through a stage of bourgeois democracy before moving to a socialist stage.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage_theory#cite_note-0) The two stage theory was applied to countries worldwide which had not passed through the capitalist stage. The discussion on stagism focuses on the Russian Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_%281917%29). However, Maoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoist) theories, such as New Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democracy), tend to apply a two-stage theory to struggles elsewhere. In the Soviet Union the two stage theory was opposed by the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage_theory


"A popular front is a broad coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition) of different political groupings, often made up of leftists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics) and centrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism). Being very broad, they can sometimes include centrist and liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) (or "bourgeois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois)") forces as well as socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) and communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) ("working-class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class)") groups. Popular fronts are larger in scope than united fronts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_front), which contain only working-class groups."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front

So, the principles of Stalin are SIOC, workers and peasants nonopposing, stagism and Popular Fronts.

SIOC was invented by Uncle Joe in late 1924. Early in 1924 he explicitly rejected it. I have a thread on the subject.

Nonopposing workers and peasants you need to define.

Stagism was dropped by Lenin in 1917 and resurrected by Stalin some time later to stop other countries doing a Russia.

Popular Front was Stalins policy to avoid countries doing a Russia. It was like as if the Bolsheviks joined the Provisional Government in 1917 and said no to revolution.

[daft punk]

Another significant addition by Lenin to Marxism was the postulate that the world revolution is likely to begin in the "weak links" of the world capitalist system.
Didn't Trotsky say that 11 years earlier in Results and Prospects?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm

Leon Trotsky

The Permanent Revolution &
Results and Prospects







And "socialism in one country" as a matter-of-fact conclusion (of the period when the socialist revolution has occurred in one country, but hasn't yet spread to others) began with him, while Stalin only elaborated on it further.

Stalin only elaborated on? Matter of fact? You mean it always existed or something? So why did Stalin say in 1924:

"...can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible... For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary."
Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, April 1924

[daft punk]

"Marxism- Ideas of Marx
Leninism- Ideas of Lenin
Marxism-Leninism- Ideas of Stalin "


I mean . . . there is no denying that.

In my opinion, Stalin was a good and pragmatic successor to Marx, Engels, and Lenin, so it does not matter that much to me if Marxism-Leninism incorporates so many of his ideals.


I deny that. I have refuted it a thousand times on this forum. Stalin was a bad Bolshevik and when the revolution began to degenerate due to it's isolation in a backward country, he became the personification of the degeneration, in the 'great man' way, it's leader.

Stalin's base was the wealthy and the privileged bureaucratic elite, all the people Lenin and Trotsky despised. Stalin based himself on these people in order to 'fire to the left', eventually kicking out the Left Opposition (who wanted to stick to Lenin's policies) in 1927.

I have a thread on this, about the Platform of the Opposition. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=168026)

[daft punk]

Yeah, and if Stalin hated internationalism so much he would have not continued Comintern or helped the partisans in WWII.

Well, obviously he started fighting the Nazis once they got close to Moscow. However the Comintern was used to try to stop socialist revolutions. I did a thread on it, but unfortunately some mod decided to close it down for god knows what reason.

Also, when you say helped the partisans, that soon changed at the end of the war.

In Poland Stalin had closed the Communist Party and exterminated it's leadership, so a few communists had to be parachuted in to help the resistance.

In many countries the resistance ended up sort of de facto in power and the first thing Stalin did was to stop that situation. First he wanted Popular Fronts to establish capitalism. That failed so the CP took over and absorbed them into Russia's sphere of influence. This was speeded up by the Marshall Plan which completely backfired, and the Cold War invented by Truman to justify military intervention in Greece.

[Zulu]

Marxism- Ideas of Marx
Leninism- Ideas of Lenin
Marxism-Leninism- Ideas of Stalin

Which means... Stalin is Marx&Lenin, 2in1.

[Geiseric]

Not true, don't even try to revise it. SoiC is in defiance of basic Marxism. The way it turned out with Stalinist "Socialism," which reverted to capitalism was spitting on Marx's grave.

[Omsk]

How did the glorious Trotskyite revolutions turn out?


Oh yes,i see..

This entire line of argumentation you and other 'professional' Trots are using is empty rhetoric.

[Grenzer]

As opposed to the glorious Stalinist revolutions which have put us objectively further away from achieving socialism than we were a hundred years ago?

Engels states directly in the Principles of Communism that socialism in one country is impossible. So long as the Soviet Union existed and propagated its junk philosophy by throwing money at "communist" parties, there was a near insurmountable obstacle to the development of the workers' movement. Now that it's gone, the communist movement can start to get going once again. Not as a socia-democratic movement as the Stalinists of the 20th century, but the genuine organization of the proletariat as a class for itself.

[Omsk]

As opposed to the glorious Stalinist revolutions which have put us objectively further away from achieving socialism than we were a hundred years ago?




Yes,the "Stalinists" are responsible for everything.. And how many "Stalinist" revolutions were there?Two or three at best.Typical demagogic baseless rhetoric.

[Rooster]

Omsk is dealing with the typical idealist claptrap of ideology making revolution and of ideology changing society. Ideas form society, apparently, and not society that forms ideas.

[Anarpest]

Bad.
Worse.
Worst.

/anarchy

Alright, to be fair, Marxism, as far as I am aware, is primarily a theoretical framework on political economy, philosophy, etc., Leninism is an interpretation of the political content of Marxism, and Marxism-Leninism is a bastardization of it.
Dear friends, this is not related to this topic but I would like to share this google search link for lots of links and articles on these google-searches:^ An illustration of the birth of Marxism-Leninism.

[Brosip Tito]

Yes,the "Stalinists" are responsible for everything.. And how many "Stalinist" revolutions were there?Two or three at best.Typical demagogic baseless rhetoric.
The Stalinist counter-revolution in Russia was by far the biggest setback to international socialism.

When you then look at the revolutions in Albania, China, Cuba, etc. we can clearly see that these sideshows, coined revolutions, were also poisoned by the counter-revolutionary ideology of Stalin, and failed in every way.

Not only have Stalinists managed to fuck everything up, they keep purporting the idea that they didn't fuck things up, in a enormous display of historical ignorance and blind support of their failed revisionist Masters.

[Omsk]

Omsk is dealing with the typical idealist claptrap of ideology making revolution and of ideology changing society. Ideas form society, apparently, and not society that forms ideas.


I didn't understand this post quite good,because it is uncertain wether you are saying i am dealing with such ideas,or that i have to put up with ridiculous posts such as the ones from the users above.No matter,as my point was that it is laughable to talk about wether the 'Stalinist' revolutions failed or succeeded,because this is irrelevant to the modern day struggles,and is idealistic and simplistic.On the other hand,saying that the 'Stalinist revolutions were bad and destroyed the future of socialism' is also false,mainly because there were no 'Stalinist' revolutions,and because Marxism-Leninism as a political state ideology did not exist during the 1917 revolution.And the revolutions after the Bolshevik one were either dubious,or failures.However,there were some examples where it was otherwise.

And i see an 'anarkist' joined the dicussion.Great.


The Stalinist counter-revolution in Russia was by far the biggest setback to international socialism.



Give me the precise date of this counter-revolution,and the exact complete changes that happened.


When you then look at the revolutions in Albania, China, Cuba, etc. we can clearly see that these sideshows, coined revolutions, were also poisoned by the counter-revolutionary ideology of Stalin, and failed in every way.


They were coined,and at the same time somehow,poisoned with the ideology of Stalin (Which didn't exist at the time being,but lets ignore your ignorance.)

And by saying they were poisoned,that would basically mean that they were in one point,'healty' - which is from your "Anti-Stalinite" (You like making up word's,don't you.) perspective,something you don't agree.Contradictions.


Not only have Stalinists managed to fuck everything up


If that is your Marxism,i'd rather be a "Stalinite counter-revolutionary".

[Brosip Tito]

Give me the precise date of this counter-revolution,and the exact complete changes that happened.Precise dates? There is no precise date determinable. We know that it began near the end of Lenin's life and continued until every foothold of workers' control was in the hands of the bureaucracy and Stalin. It wasn't some violent uprising with militia men in the streets fighting the Bolsheviks like the civil war, but a counter-revolution from within the Bolshevik revolution.


They were coined,and at the same time somehow,poisoned with the ideology of Stalin (Which didn't exist at the time being,but lets ignore your ignorance.)The ideology of Stalin certainly existed. Considering he coined the term Marxism-Leninism in 1926, and these revolutions occurred later.


And by saying they were poisoned,that would basically mean that they were in one point,'healty' - which is from your "Anti-Stalinite" (You like making up word's,don't you.) perspective,something you don't agree.Contradictions.They were workers' movements, however, the poison (stalinism), resulted in the elimination of the proletariat from the equation, as it did in every example of a Marxist-Leninist led revolution.



If that is your Marxism,i'd rather be a "Stalinite counter-revolutionary".You are a stalinite counter-revolutionary, and I am a Marxist. Thank you for admitting it.

[Anarpest]

And i see an 'anarkist' joined the dicussion.Great. ANARKY! ANARKY FOR THE UK!

Thanks for the welcome, it was very decorous of you.
How did the glorious Trotskyite revolutions turn out?Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism or whatever you want to call it was the official ideology of a state, and created to be such. It reflected, being born of good 'materialists,' the real needs and agendas of that state. Its spread and hegemony over the communist movement was not simply the spread of ideas, it was the overall subsumption of the socialist movement to the needs and interests of the Soviet Union, and represented a form of dependence in which revolutions opposed to the US and such turned to the Soviet bloc for support and funding. As such, the reality and fate of the Soviet Union are rather relevant to judging the validity of 'Marxism-Leninism.'

Pointing out a lack of Trotskyist revolutions is entirely besides the point, namely that the Stalinist ideology and the material conditions of which it was born have had their say, and what they have had to say has not been encouraging. There is a reason why Stalin was not a Trotskyist, and presumably Trotskyists wouldn't particularly expect their ideas to arise in such a regime.


Yes,the "Stalinists" are responsible for everything.. And how many "Stalinist" revolutions were there?Two or three at best.Typical demagogic baseless rhetoric. Being a superpower gives one a certain amount of power, hegemony, money, resources, etc., and in the case of Stalinism this worked to the detriment of the socialist movement. I'm not sure it's particularly idealist to argue that a superpower was able to work against the furtherance of the communist movement, unless you think that materialism entails people's actions having no impact upon the world.
And by saying they were poisoned,that would basically mean that they were in one point,'healty' - which is from your "Anti-Stalinite" (You like making up word's,don't you.) perspective,something you don't agree.Contradictions. There is such a thing as stillbirth. In any case, that does not follow from what they said. However, you can continue making up the laws of logic, if you like.

[Omsk]

Precise dates? There is no precise date determinable. We know that it began near the end of Lenin's life and continued until every foothold of workers' control was in the hands of the bureaucracy and Stalin. It wasn't some violent uprising with militia men in the streets fighting the Bolsheviks like the civil war, but a counter-revolution from within the Bolshevik revolution.


Yes of course,there are no precise dates because there was no 'counter-revolution' because the point of a counter-revolution is to bring back the past state of things,and to bring back the past type of economy,and to mainly oppose and stop the revolution,and this was simply not the case,unless you argue that the CCCP reached socialism before Lenin died.Or you can be idealistic and cry about the counter-revolution,when in fact,such an even,or a process,if you wish,didn't happen.But if it did,i want you to name me the direct consequences and the exact changes in the economical organization level and in the political structures.


The ideology of Stalin certainly existed. Considering he coined the term Marxism-Leninism in 1926, and these revolutions occurred later.


Too bad i was talking about the Soviet revolution,and not the revolutions that happened after that one,and in 1917 Marxism-Leninism as used by the enemies of MLism and some ML's themselves,didn't exist.And Stalin,of course,did not create an ideology himself.



They were workers' movements, however, the poison (stalinism), resulted in the elimination of the proletariat from the equation, as it did in every example of a Marxist-Leninist led revolution


Of course,false - the role of the proletariat was instrumental in the few genuine revolutions that happened after the Bolshevik one,and there was no 'elimination' as a class cannot be 'eliminated' - or simply removed.Without the proletariat,these struggle would have not happened.


You are a stalinite counter-revolutionary, and I am a Marxist. Thank you for admitting it.


Why don't you leave attempts at humour alone and adress the point of my post - that blaming a political ideological stream and a few people who were the main theoreticians (Marxism-Leninism) for the changing of the course of history is hardly adequate.



Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism or whatever you want to call it was the official ideology of a state, and created to be such. It reflected, being born of good 'materialists,' the real needs and agendas of that state. Its spread and hegemony over the communist movement was not simply the spread of ideas, it was the overall subsumption of the socialist movement to the needs and interests of the Soviet Union, and represented a form of dependence in which revolutions opposed to the US and such turned to the Soviet bloc for support and funding. As such, the reality and fate of the Soviet Union are rather relevant to judging the validity of 'Marxism-Leninism.'

Pointing out a lack of Trotskyist revolutions is entirely besides the point, namely that the Stalinist ideology and the material conditions of which it was born have had their say, and what they have had to say has not been encouraging. There is a reason why Stalin was not a Trotskyist, and presumably Trotskyists wouldn't particularly expect their ideas to arise in such a regime.




This post is completely off-center,because my note that 'the Trots didn't have many revolutions' was an answer to a user who posted the quite simplistic and laughable 'point' - and it was an ironic comment,as an answer to the equally,if not more,comment that the 'Stalinist revolutions all failed' - (When in fact they didn't.)



Being a superpower gives one a certain amount of power, hegemony, money, resources, etc., and in the case of Stalinism this worked to the detriment of the socialist movement. I'm not sure it's particularly idealist to argue that a superpower was able to work against the furtherance of the communist movement, unless you think that materialism entails people's actions having no impact upon the world.


Yes,because the USSR=Marxism-Leninism.

That is fundamentally incorrect.The moving spear-head of progress and the conglomerate of struggle,tactics and theory was present in many other countries,but it failed to gain controll of the situation and thus,enable the proletarian dictatorship.My comment was not about the USSR,but the Marxists-Leninists as a ideological group,a movement.



There is such a thing as stillbirth. In any case, that does not follow from what they said. However, you can continue making up the laws of logic, if you like.




It does.And their logic is going against them.Why?Because they spent more time making up prhases to mock Marxism-Leninism than to actually study the subject,or history.

[Brosip Tito]

Yes of course,there are no precise dates because there was no 'counter-revolution' because the point of a counter-revolution is to bring back the past state of things,and to bring back the past type of economy,and to mainly oppose and stop the revolution,and this was simply not the case,unless you argue that the CCCP reached socialism before Lenin died.Or you can be idealistic and cry about the counter-revolution,when in fact,such an even,or a process,if you wish,didn't happen.But if it did,i want you to name me the direct consequences and the exact changes in the economical organization level and in the political structures.There WAS a counter-revolution. The counter-revolution reversed all the gains made by the working class under the Bolshevik revolution. Eliminating the workers power (soviets) and concentrating power and control into the bureaucracy. It began to focus on maintaining a capitalist mode of production, and divorcing the workers further from the means of production. Russia did not achieve a DOTP, let alone socialism.


Too bad i was talking about the Soviet revolution,and not the revolutions that happened after that one,and in 1917 Marxism-Leninism as used by the enemies of MLism and some ML's themselves,didn't exist.And Stalin,of course,did not create an ideology himself.Actually, I listed a number of revolutions (Albania, Cuba, China) and you responded with:

"They were coined,and at the same time somehow,poisoned with the ideology of Stalin (Which didn't exist at the time being,but lets ignore your ignorance.)"

Which suggests in it's wording, and the fact that you responded to my list of revolutions, even referencing the term "coined", that you believed Stalin's ideology was not yet in the books.

Ergo, you were talking about these revolutions, and not the revolution in Russia.

I do not believe the Bolshevik revolution was conducted with the ideas of Stalin, as he had no ideas at the time. He was a ditherer, who was reluctant to agree with even Lenin at times. It was conducted with the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and all of the Bolsheviks involved. "Leninism", for which I am a critical proponent of, would be an accurate representation of the ideas. Not "Marxism-Leninism", as that is a vulgar revision of Marx and Lenin.


Of course,false - the role of the proletariat was instrumental in the few genuine revolutions that happened after the Bolshevik one,and there was no 'elimination' as a class cannot be 'eliminated' - or simply removed.Without the proletariat,these struggle would have not happened.I never said the class was eliminated, you dolt. I mentioned their removal from the equation as meaning, they were no longer included in the revolution. The bureaucrats achieved their goal of becoming state bourgeoisie, and put the workers back in their place as the exploited class.


Why don't you leave attempts at humour alone and adress the point of my post - that blaming a political ideological stream and a few people who were the main theoreticians (Marxism-Leninism) for the changing of the course of history is hardly adequate.I would love to leave the humour alone, however, Marxism-Leninism is such a huge joke in itself.

[Omsk]

There WAS a counter-revolution.

Hitting CAPS-LOCK does not make this 'counter-revolution' something which happened ,sometimes,people like you should be explained everything.


The counter-revolution reversed all the gains made by the working class under the Bolshevik revolution

Oh yes?What gains did they workers win,and what of these gains were reversed?



Eliminating the workers power (soviets) and concentrating power and control into the bureaucracy. It began to focus on maintaining a capitalist mode of production, and divorcing the workers further from the means of production. Russia did not achieve a DOTP, let alone socialism.



Do you want to say the Soviets were somehow eliminated,or removed?

"They were coined,and at the same time somehow,poisoned with the ideology of Stalin (Which didn't exist at the time being,but lets ignore your ignorance.)"


Which suggests in it's wording, and the fact that you responded to my list of revolutions, even referencing the term "coined", that you believed Stalin's ideology was not yet in the books.

Ergo, you were talking about these revolutions, and not the revolution in Russia.



The point is,there was no ideology of Stalin.Do i need to draw this for you?


I do not believe the Bolshevik revolution was conducted with the ideas of Stalin, as he had no ideas at the time. He was a ditherer, who was reluctant to agree with even Lenin at times. It was conducted with the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and all of the Bolsheviks involved. "Leninism", for which I am a critical proponent of, would be an accurate representation of the ideas. Not "Marxism-Leninism", as that is a vulgar revision of Marx and Lenin.


This post shows exactly what i thought of you,you have no idea what Marxism-Leninism is,and i would be scared to go into your understanding of other political 20th century ideologies.


I never said the class was eliminated, you dolt. I mentioned their removal from the equation as meaning, they were no longer included in the revolution. The bureaucrats achieved their goal of becoming state bourgeoisie, and put the workers back in their place as the exploited class.


Of course i didn't mean that the proletariat was somehow 'eliminated' - i responded in your logic,but you can't seem to understand the fallacy of your argument.No 'elimination' happened,no such thing,because without the role of the proletariat and its power,there would have been no revolutions without the active role of the proletariat,and it was impossible to somehow 'diminish' the role of the proletariat,because the Vanguard party represnted it,and fought for it,still,it was a struggle of the entire proletariat.


I would love to leave the humour alone, however, Marxism-Leninism is such a huge joke in itself.

So says an 'Anti-Stalinite'. How do you even expect people to take you seriously?

[Grenzer]

There WAS a counter-revolution. The counter-revolution reversed all the gains made by the working class under the Bolshevik revolution. Eliminating the workers power (soviets) and concentrating power and control into the bureaucracy. It began to focus on maintaining a capitalist mode of production, and divorcing the workers further from the means of production. Russia did not achieve a DOTP, let alone socialism.


I pretty much agree with most of your post, there is just something I wanted to chip in here.

The dissolution of the Soviets did happen under Lenin, but I don't think it could be said to be a form of counter-revolution, conscious or otherwise. Through the course of the Civil War, the proletariat was reduced to a mere fraction of its pre-war numbers to the point where they only made up about 1% of the population. There simply weren't enough workers for there to really be a functioning proletarian dictatorship in my opinion. What little was left probably WAS the party itself.

With that said, I don't think Stalinism can be considered counter-revolution because I don't think the Russian Revolution ever surpassed the capitalist mode of production.. in other words, there were no revolutionary gains to be reversed more or less; unless you are counting mere reformist gains. It had the potential to become something more if revolution had spread, but the way things went I don't think it surpassed capital; not even Lenin claimed that it had.

But yeah, Stalinism is basically a joke. Social-democracy in my opinion. Both the doctrines of degenerated workers' state and anti-revisionism(defense of revisionist states) are reactionary in their strategic implications:

1. They protect states that are not socialist. (fSU, China, DDR, Vietnam, etc)
2. They protect states that are actively moving away from socialism. (China, fSU, etc)
3. In effect don't combat the effort of said countries to propagate reformism in the form of funding reformist parties(i.e. CPUSA) and directly damage the communist movement

[daft punk]

How did the glorious Trotskyite revolutions turn out?


Well, let me see....

Stalin Telegram to Lenin 1917

"All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized. The principal assistants of Comrade Trotsky were Comrades Antonov and Podvoisky."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/11/06.htm

[Zulu]

There WAS a counter-revolution. The counter-revolution reversed all the gains made by the working class under the Bolshevik revolution. Eliminating the workers power (soviets) and concentrating power and control into the bureaucracy. It began to focus on maintaining a capitalist mode of production, and divorcing the workers further from the means of production. Russia did not achieve a DOTP, let alone socialism.

...

I do not believe the Bolshevik revolution was conducted with the ideas of Stalin, as he had no ideas at the time. He was a ditherer, who was reluctant to agree with even Lenin at times. It was conducted with the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and all of the Bolsheviks involved. "Leninism", for which I am a critical proponent of, would be an accurate representation of the ideas. Not "Marxism-Leninism", as that is a vulgar revision of Marx and Lenin.

Actually, you might want to reacquaint yourself with pure and own Lenin's Leninism then:


"It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state-capitalist or state-socialist. This is an unquestionable fact of reality whose misunderstanding lies at the root of many economic mistakes. The profiteer, the commercial racketeer, the disrupter of monopoly—these are our principal “internal” enemies, the enemies of the economic measures of the Soviet power.

...

In the first place economically state capitalism is immeasurably superior to our present economic system.

In the second place there is nothing terrible in it for the Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the power of the workers and thc poor is assured.

...


Now power has been seized, retained and consolidated in the hands of a single party, the party of the proletariat, even without the “unreliable fellow-travellers”. To speak of compromise at the present time when there is no question, and can be none, of sharing power, of renouncing the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, is merely to repeat, parrot-fashion, words which have been learned by heart but not understood. To describe as “compromise” the fact that, having arrived at a situation when we can and must rule the country, we try to win over to our side, not grudging the cost, the most efficient people capitalism has trained and to take them into our service against small proprietary disintegration, reveals a total incapacity to think about the economic tasks of socialist construction.

...

In our country bureaucratic practices have different economic roots, namely, the atomised and scattered state of the small producer with his poverty, illiteracy, lack of culture, the absence of roads and exchange between agriculture and industry, the absence of connection and interaction between them. This is largely the result of the Civil War. We could not restore industry when we were blockaded, besieged on all sides, cut off from the whole world and later from the grain-bearing South, Siberia, and the coalfields. We could not afford to hesitate in introducing War Communism, or daring to go to the most desperate extremes: to save the workers’ and peasants’ rule we had to suffer an existence of semi-starvation and worse than semi-starvation, but to hold on at all costs, in spite of unprecedented ruin and the absence of economic intercourse. We did not allow ourselves to be frightened, as the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks did (who, in fact, followed the bourgeoisie largely because they were scared). But the factor that was crucial to victory in a blockaded country—a besieged fortress—revealed its negative side by the spring of 1921, just when the last of the whiteguard forces were finally driven from the territory of the R.S.F.S.R. In the besieged fortress, it was possible and imperative to “lock up” all exchange; with the masses displaying extraordinary heroism this could be borne for three years. After that, the ruin of the small producer increased, and the restoration of large-scale in dustry was further delayed, and postponed. Bureaucratic practices, as a legacy of the “siege” and the superstructure built over the isolated and downtrodden state of the small producer, fully revealed themselves."

V. I. Lenin, "The Tax in Kind", 1921.
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm


So you see,

1. The bureaucracy was already there, and before Stalin got even appointed to the position of the secretary general. Hence, not his fault. It's the illiteracy of the masses' fault.

2. State capitalism is not so bad, as long as it helps combat private capitalism, speculation and petty commodity production.

Stalin was doing what Lenin would do under the same circumstances at least 90% of the time, at least until the Moscow Trials.

[daft punk]

how many "Stalinist" revolutions were there?Two or three at best.

Which were these then? Tell us about them.

[Omsk]

anti-revisionism(defense of revisionist states) are reactionary in their strategic implications:


? Anti-Revisionism is not the defense of the revisionist states,its the direct opposite of that.Keep in mind,we are talking about the ML revisionists. (As the only revisionist states of the anti-revisionist period were actually led by pro USSR elements after the big political changes happened in the USSR.)


1. They protect states that are not socialist. (fSU, China, DDR, Vietnam, etc)


I am not sure if we are talking about the same things,but from the anti-revisionist perspective,these states, (except the USSR pre reforms) were all revisionist.



2. They protect states that are actively moving away from socialism. (China, fSU, etc)



So we are talking about past?If we are,i doubt the anti-revisionists of the post reform period in global ML movement,actually supported the USSR,or later,China.

[daft punk]

i'd rather be a "Stalinite counter-revolutionary".

Yes, we know you would, and you are.



Originally Posted by Omsk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2399889#post2399889)
"Give me the precise date of this counter-revolution,and the exact complete changes that happened."

Precise dates? There is no precise date determinable. We know that it began near the end of Lenin's life and continued until every foothold of workers' control was in the hands of the bureaucracy and Stalin. It wasn't some violent uprising with militia men in the streets fighting the Bolsheviks like the civil war, but a counter-revolution from within the Bolshevik revolution.

There was plenty of violence though, from around 1926 onwards, peaking in the great purge around 1936-8.



The ideology of Stalin certainly existed. Considering he coined the term Marxism-Leninism in 1926, and these revolutions occurred later.

They were workers' movements, however, the poison (stalinism), resulted in the elimination of the proletariat from the equation, as it did in every example of a Marxist-Leninist led revolution.


Yes, well, their (Stalinists) aim was to establish capitalism in these revolutions in Eastern Europe, China etc. At least that was what they said and they certainly appeared to have tried for 2 or 3 years before giving up. Of course Stalin got no thanks from Truman for his services rendered. The Cold War maybe came as a bit of a shock to him.

[daft punk]

There WAS a counter-revolution. The counter-revolution reversed all the gains made by the working class under the Bolshevik revolution. Eliminating the workers power (soviets) and concentrating power and control into the bureaucracy. It began to focus on maintaining a capitalist mode of production, and divorcing the workers further from the means of production. Russia did not achieve a DOTP, let alone socialism.



Hmm... There was a counter-revolution, correct. It reversed all the gains, yeah. Eliminating... yep. Now what do you mean by maintaining capitalist production? Stalin was having a love affair with the capitalists up to 1928, but then that all fell apart as Trotsky predicted. The USSR was collectivised and that aint socialism the way it was done, but it certainly isnt capitalism.

Also I would say Russia had a DOTP around 1917-24.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What exactly do you mean by a counter-revolution?

[Bostana]

I don't understand why you come right off the bat with a comment geared towards ultra-leftists and Trotskyists as being whiny.

We could warn the OP that he should expect Marxist-Leninists as being assholes to other people that don't totally agree with their ideas.

But then that would just be rude.

Because we all know you guy's never whine and never complain about anything
;)

[Bostana]

Too right. Well said. Any Trotskyist will add Stagism and Popular Fronts to your list of Stalinist principles.

Lets wiki them

I'm going to stop you right there,
If you're planning to get ideas of an ideology from Wikipedia that's a huge fail.

Here Read About Stalin's principal's:
http://red-channel.de/Ordner_Lit/Literatur_Sprache.htm#p

And other Marxist-Leninist principal's:
http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/

Instead of looking it up on a site where anybody can enter anything

[Grenzer]

The USSR was collectivised and that aint socialism the way it was done, but it certainly isnt capitalism.

Also I would say Russia had a DOTP around 1917-24.

But this has zero bearing on the marxist definition of economic modes of production. Engels said that the economic mode of production is determined by the manner in which the surplus value of labor is extracted. State ownership of businesses did not change this.

In addition, you haven't addressed the issue that actual proletarian dictatorship ended before 1924. You've just picked 1924 arbitrarily because it was when Lenin died so as to absolve him of all responsibility for the fate of the Soviet Union. You're an idealist if you don't think that Lenin wouldn't have filled the same historical role as Stalin if he had lived longer.

[Caj]

Also I would say Russia had a DOTP around 1917-24.

On what basis? Workers' power, which in Russia manifested itself in the form of soviets, had dissolved by June 1918 at the latest.

[Bostana]

What exactly do you mean by a counter-revolution?

Here's a good book on a person who was Counter-Revolutionary but disguised himself as a "Communist" when he really wasn't anything but an opportunism.
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/MJ%20Olgin/index.htm

[Zulu]

On what basis? Workers' power, which in Russia manifested itself in the form of soviets, had dissolved by June 1918 at the latest.

Yeah, but Trotsky the Saint Martyr was not yet marginalized.

[Ostrinski]

I would like to point out that anyone who thinks that their tendency is gonna have their own revolution is a counter revolutionary in every sense of the term.

[Caj]

I would like to point out that anyone who thinks that their tendency is gonna have their own revolution is a counter revolutionary in every sense of the term.

What about my tendency? Pretty sure workerism will have its own revolution. :D

[Franz Fanonipants]

I would like to point out that anyone who thinks that their tendency is gonna have their own revolution is a counter revolutionary in every sense of the term.

too late

[Geiseric]

Actually it does very much matter who is in fact extracting the surplus value, and what the surplus value is going into. Collectivisation and state control of the economy is one of the first tasks of any Socialist government, because at the point where it was collectivised, it wasn't owned by a Kulak. It was owned by the Workers State, which was, due to the purges, controlled by the Beauraucracy. That isn't capitalism, and I don't see why there is such insistence on argueing that it was. If it was capitalism the land would of never been expropiated from the Kulaks, and the state wouldn't of started building up heavy industry.

There would have been ALOT of changes if Trotsky and the Left Opposition won power by 1923. Collectivisation would of started sooner without the bloodshed. Different policies and tactics used by the Communist International, which were always to the farthest conservative or to the farthest left, would of also made a decisive change. Popular Frontism doesn't work! A united front against Fascism would of been the most important event in human history, hell WW2 might of been averted if the Stalinists worked to defeat the Nazis in their embryo. Worldwide capitalists were with them, and we didn't do jack shit!

Anyways, nobody could have predicted what a failure the fSU was going to be. I would have shot that moustached bastard before he was able to support the Kulaks for as long as he did.

[Franz Fanonipants]

A united front against Fascism would of been the most important event in human history, hell WW2 might of been averted if the Stalinists worked to defeat the Nazis in their embryo.

i think the elves are the best part of middle earth too[1]

[1] which is to say this trotskyite (or whatever the shit you are) thirst for alt-history is super silly

[Red Rabbit]

i think the elves are the best part of middle earth too

Seriously? The Hobbits are clearly the most revolutionary of all the races of Middle Earth.

Stupid Marxist-Elfist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

this thread as with every single tendency history thread on this website = "everything would have been great if not for that dirty Stalin"

[Caj]

There would have been ALOT of changes if Trotsky and the Left Opposition won power by 1923.

No, there wouldn't have. For wanting to look at things materialistically, you sure are advancing a kind of bourgeois-idealist, "great man" account of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. It's not because Big Bad Stalin came along and ruined everything, and it's not as if anything would have been much different had Trotsky taken power. Something resembling Stalinism was an inevitability because of Russia's situation, not because of one of its individual leaders being a dick.


I would have shot that moustached bastard before he was able to support the Kulaks for as long as he did.

And had that "moustached bastard" not existed, you'd be saying the same thing about a certain spectacled, goat-like bastard.

[Brosip Tito]

Actually it does very much matter who is in fact extracting the surplus value, and what the surplus value is going into. Collectivisation and state control of the economy is one of the first tasks of any Socialist government, because at the point where it was collectivised, it wasn't owned by a Kulak. It was owned by the Workers State, which was, due to the purges, controlled by the Beauraucracy. That isn't capitalism, and I don't see why there is such insistence on argueing that it was. If it was capitalism the land would of never been expropiated from the Kulaks, and the state wouldn't of started building up heavy industry.

There would have been ALOT of changes if Trotsky and the Left Opposition won power by 1923. Collectivisation would of started sooner without the bloodshed. Different policies and tactics used by the Communist International, which were always to the farthest conservative or to the farthest left, would of also made a decisive change. Popular Frontism doesn't work! A united front against Fascism would of been the most important event in human history, hell WW2 might of been averted if the Stalinists worked to defeat the Nazis in their embryo. Worldwide capitalists were with them, and we didn't do jack shit!

Anyways, nobody could have predicted what a failure the fSU was going to be. I would have shot that moustached bastard before he was able to support the Kulaks for as long as he did.
Had the state been under workers control, you would be quite right. However, it was NOT under proletariat control.

[Brosip Tito]

Hitting CAPS-LOCK does not make this 'counter-revolution' something which happened ,sometimes,people like you should be explained everything.CAPS-LOCK certainly doesn't, the fact that it happened, made it happen.



Oh yes?What gains did they workers win,and what of these gains were reversed?You know, control of the state and economy, even though the democracy in Russia was flawed, it was the best we could expect under the situation. Although Lenin abolished the soviets, I do not think he was in the same line as Stalin, who went even further to divorce the proletariat from the means of production.


Do you want to say the Soviets were somehow eliminated,or removed?See above.



The point is,there was no ideology of Stalin.Do i need to draw this for you?There was, it was his revision of Leninism and Marxism.


This post shows exactly what i thought of you,you have no idea what Marxism-Leninism is,and i would be scared to go into your understanding of other political 20th century ideologies.Marxism-Leninism, is Stalin's vulgar revision of Lenin and Marx's theories.


Of course i didn't mean that the proletariat was somehow 'eliminated' - i responded in your logic,but you can't seem to understand the fallacy of your argument.No 'elimination' happened,no such thing,because without the role of the proletariat and its power,there would have been no revolutions without the active role of the proletariat,and it was impossible to somehow 'diminish' the role of the proletariat,because the Vanguard party represnted it,and fought for it,still,it was a struggle of the entire proletariat.No, the struggle for the proletariat continued, but the Bolsheviks, Stalin and the State were it's bourgeois enemy.


So says an 'Anti-Stalinite'. How do you even expect people to take you seriously?Marxist-Leninists are the only ones who do not. What can you expect from revisionists like yourself?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Marxism-Leninism, is Stalin's vulgar revision of Lenin and Marx's theories.

what a ridiculous and hilarious position

e: oh wait nm you are a person whose political identity is predicated on being anti-a guy who died in 1953

[Brosip Tito]

what a ridiculous and hilarious positionOh, do explain..

[Rooster]

Actually it does very much matter who is in fact extracting the surplus value, and what the surplus value is going into.

But that doesn't denote the mode of production. What is important is how surplus value is extracted from the immediate producers and this involves their relation to the means of production. To quote Marx:

"The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers — a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity — which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state. This does not prevent the same economic basis — the same from the standpoint of its main conditions — due to innumerable different empirical circumstances, natural environment, racial relations, external historical influences, etc. from showing infinite variations and gradations in appearance, which can be ascertained only by analysis of the empirically given circumstances."

-http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch47.htm

So it is how surplus value is directly pumped out of direct producers that determines the economic foundations of a society, linked to a definite stage in productive forces, but the economic structure built above it can appear different. Did the USSR at any point, reach a stage where it was able to out produce the USA? Did it at any stage out produce any of the western powers?

Engels also in the Anti-Duhring comments that it's not how surplus value that is distributed that matters, but how it is again produced; distribution being secondary to production. Also, if you are going to tie this in with the USSR being the DotP then you are going to have to show how that related at all to the form found within the Paris Commune. Which, in itself, was in no way socialist.

You could also say that Leninism is an inversion of this with "socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people". Something that Trotsky was guilty of as well.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Oh, do explain..

fetishizing against or for stalin is silly

[Brosip Tito]

fetishizing against or for stalin is silly
Of course, as is calling someone out for supposedly being wrong, and then failing to support your claim when asked.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Of course, as is calling someone out for supposedly being wrong, and then failing to support your claim when asked.

oh i'm sorry

as a m-l, i'd point out that even those crazy ass trotskyites are m-ls regardless of your incorrect and hilarious definition of m-lism

[Brosip Tito]

oh i'm sorry

as a m-l, i'd point out that even those crazy ass trotskyites are m-ls regardless of your incorrect and hilarious definition of m-lism
I'm still waiting for you to tell me why I am wrong in saying Marxism-Leninism (more specifically Stalinism) is revision of Marx and Lenin.

Trotskyism is a branch of Leninism, not Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism was a term coined by Stalin, used to cover his theories and opinions of Lenin and Marx.

[Lilith]

as a m-l, i'd point out that even those crazy ass trotskyites are m-ls

That is not what the term Marxism-Leninism refers to in the real world. In the real world, it refers to Stalinites.

[Omsk]

What amazing political education.

Marxism-Leninism is the ideological stream originated from the theories of Marx and Engels,and later,Lenin.That's what it is.You can call it whatever you like,but this is the only correct definition.


CAPS-LOCK certainly doesn't, the fact that it happened, made it happen.


You can repeat your lines all day if you want,that won't change anything.


You know, control of the state and economy, even though the democracy in Russia was flawed, it was the best we could expect under the situation. Although Lenin abolished the soviets, I do not think he was in the same line as Stalin, who went even further to divorce the proletariat from the means of production.

Oh yes?Explain to me just how did Stalin 'divorce' the proletariat from the means of production?(We are talking about the post-Lenin period.


Marxism-Leninism, is Stalin's vulgar revision of Lenin and Marx's theories.

I explained what Marxism-Leninism is,if you want a correct answer,read my answer.But i understand you are much more interested in a sectarian and demagogic explanation.


No, the struggle for the proletariat continued, but the Bolsheviks, Stalin and the State were it's bourgeois enemy.



Oh yes,well how did this struggle manifest itself?


Marxist-Leninists are the only ones who do not. What can you expect from revisionists like yourself?

I seriously doubt that.I should have stopped reading your posts after a discussion we had,you showed all your worth there.

[Kyu Six]

There WAS a counter-revolution. The counter-revolution reversed all the gains made by the working class under the Bolshevik revolution.

Indeed, but it wasn't Stalin's. It was after Stalin's death when the economy was no longer centrally planned and Khrushchev began the undoing of 30+ years of socialist progress.



Actually, I listed a number of revolutions (Albania, Cuba, China)

How can Albania not be considered a success? It may have been materially poor, but it was nearly as successful from a revolutionary standpoint as Stalin's USSR even despite being tiny and isolated.

The counter-revolutions in the USSR and Albania were only the fault of Stalin and Hoxha, respectively, insofar as they did not adequately purge bourgeois elements from society. Had they overseen a sufficient transformation of the culture, the republics of the former Soviet Union and Albania would still be socialist countries.

[Kyu Six]

In addition, you haven't addressed the issue that actual proletarian dictatorship ended before 1924. You've just picked 1924 arbitrarily because it was when Lenin died so as to absolve him of all responsibility for the fate of the Soviet Union. You're an idealist if you don't think that Lenin wouldn't have filled the same historical role as Stalin if he had lived longer.

I don't believe the proletarian dictatorship did end before 1924, so I'll disagree with you on that point, but I think you made an excellent point that the Trots and the like conveniently sidestep. Stalin was Secretary General of the CPSU during Lenin's lifetime and while Trotsky was still a member of the Party. Stalin didn't appoint himself. Obviously, the Party thought very highly of Stalin. He wasn't some bogeyman or crude thug as the Trots would have us believe. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the USSR would not have projected on its same course had Lenin continued to exercise control over the direction of the Party and the country. Stalin, for the most part, did exactly the same as Lenin himself would have.