Basic Communist Marxist Philociphy

[Bostana]

Can the fine members here on Revleft explain to me the some of the basics of Marx's and Engels's philosophy.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Workers control of production and industry, the abolition of private property, the transition to socialism through the DOTP, the destruction of capitalism...these seem like the basic principles I guess.

[Bostana]

More on the economic progress of a Communist Nation

[The Jay]

I would like to add the idea that ideas themselves arise from the material conditions of the time. This determines how history unfolds, but there is still an element of uncertainty as to what particular ideas spring to life.

[Art Vandelay]

More on the economic progress of a Communist Nation

I realize that you ascribe to the tennant of socialism in one country, so I will not say a socialist nation is impossible (even though it is) but would just like to point out that communism is a stateless classless society; not even uncle Joe would have argued other wise.

Also how can one considered themselves a marxist without even knowing the basics of marxist thought.

[Railyon]

More on the economic progress of a Communist Nation

Production will be for social needs and not profit obviously; because of the productive forces capitalism helped to unleash it has become possible to live in a world without any meaningful scarcity while only needing minimal labor input (in fact, crises of overproduction are a feature of capitalism). A lot of the jobs today only serve to perpetuate the capitalist system or have no useful social functions. Think of the police, ruling class, a hell of a lot office jobs, the whole insurance sector. Concrete example, train conductors. In most cases they're only working to make sure you pay for the ride.

So as basic tenets of communist society we can see that the material need to work compared to how easily our needs are able to be fulfilled will leave us free to restructure our life as we want. Economic progress will mainly be defined by minimizing the necessary labor input while keeping up the material abundance.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Reads Engels' Principles of Communism on Marxists.org, its very short and can be read in 20 minutes. Critique of the Gotha Programme is also pretty short, its simple, and lays out the basic tenets of what a Marxist party should strive for. If you read the chapter 'The Paris Commune' from Marx's 'The Civil War in France' you will get an indication of what form the DOTP might take. All these texts are short and can be found on Marxists.org. These should be read before commiting to any particular tendancy.

[Rooster]

Marxism is basically a materialist approach to history. This helped define class struggle, mode of production, etc and how they all relate to one another. It's not really a program of action other than "this is what capitalism is and we need to move beyond it". So you really should know what capitalism is first and the way that history progesses from a Marxist perspective. If you want a simple run through of this then you should read Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Of course, there's many other works that you can read such as Wage-Labour and Capital for a quick introduction.

[honest john's firing squad]

Can the fine members here on Revleft explain to me the some of the basics of Marx's and Engels's philosophy.
hahahaha

So you decided you were an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist-Maoist before you knew the basics of Marx and Engels?

[Tim Cornelis]

In my view, Marxism consists of three elements:

1. historiography

2. economics

3. revolutionary strategy

All three are based on a materialist analysis.

Marxist historiography is based on the idea that the material conditions shape the base (mode of production) and consequently the superstructure (politics, legal structure). Material conditions are the technological level in terms of production--the productive forces. As the productive forces increase, the base and thus the superstructure are reshapen.
A new mode of production is brought about when the old relations of production no longer fit the old mode of production due to increases in the productive forces, which leads to a rupture: a social revolution (again, which reshapes the base and superstructure of society).

Marxist economics sought to define capitalism in terms of materialism and prove that advances and changes in the material conditions--increase of the productive forces--under capitalism would lead to a new mode of production: socialism. According to Marxist economics, increases in the productive forces in capitalism ensured there was a tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Capitalists have a short-term interest in investing in machinery, but in the long run this leads to a fall in profits (though there are counter-acting tendencies such as monopolization of markets, state intervention, concentration of capital, increasing rate of exploitation by extending work day or slashing wages). This is because only labour (and nature) creates value, according to the labour theory of value that is, and machinery (capital) does not. Because of this, there are internal contradictions within capitalism that makes it inherently unstable, it is argued.
Eventually it would lead to a working class revolution that will overthrow capitalism and establish a new mode of production in accordance with the prevailing material conditions.

The Marxist revolutionary strategy involves the dictatorship of the proletariat. The state came into existence when social classes did (in their turn, social classes came into existence due to an increase in the productive forces: the neolithic revolution). The state became a necessity to protect the privilege of the ruling class--the state serves as a body of the ruling class as its protector. The state is a manifestation of class antagonisms, as long as class antagonisms exist there is a need for a violent centralised body to keep the exploited class at bay, Marx and Engels reasoned. Shortly after the workers come to power there will still be class antagonisms because the bourgeoisie wants to initiate a counter-revolution, a state is thus necessary. But it will be a workers' state, administrated from below by the workers, democratically and modeled after the Paris Commune.

As class antagonisms die out, the need to suppress the bourgeoisie (who no longer exist) disappears and thus the state dies out.

(I don't agree with this analysis, obviously, although I recognise it is a valid approach, I consider the argument of the necessity of a state to be a fallacy).

Materialism is the binder that holds together all aspects of Marxism.


hahahaha

So you decided you were an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist-Maoist before you knew the basics of Marx and Engels?

Better late than never.

[Anderson]

hahahaha

So you decided you were an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist-Maoist before you knew the basics of Marx and Engels?

That's a great observation Miss Marple !!:)

[Valdyr]

-snip-

Excellent post!

While this may be controversial in some quarters, there is one more factor I'd like to add, which is the philosophy of dialectical materialism. While there are those who think that dialectical materialism is at best wrong and at worst a sort of mysticism, personally I think it is integral to Marxism. Feel free to reject it if you wish, but I at least want to explain it.

Dialectical materialism can be easily understood by breaking the term into its two constituent parts:

-Dialectical: Dialectics is a method, or an approach, to studying things in all their motion, change, complexity, and interrelation. This is as opposed to "formal" thinking, which takes Aristotelian formal logic ("If A then B, A, therefore B") as fundamental. Dialectics holds that this sort of formal, linear thinking is an excellent approximation for everyday purposes, but fails to understand things in their totality. The world can't ultimately be divided into "states of affairs" neatly represented by propositions, and truth ultimately is found in the concrete, rather than these abstract propositions. The world of dialectics is a world of processes and interconnection, rather than isolated subjects or objects which change is effected upon.

-Materialism: A response to the classical question concerning the relation between thought and that which lies outside of thought, materialism holds that substance has primacy in said relationship. All that is not thought/consciousness is the foundation of said consciousness, and exists independently of it. This "materialism" is much more general in meaning than the more narrow understanding of "materialism" being commonly forwarded, which is the view that the world is fundamentally composed of those entities described by the "hard" natural sciences (physics, chemistry, sometimes biology); that only those entities fundamentally exist, and everything else is a composite of them.

So dialectical materialism is just the combination of those two views. It is worth noting that dialectical materialism is not a rigid, mechanistic procession of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, as it is sometimes characterized. That view is more similar to the dialectics of the philosopher Fichte, rather than those of Hegel, while Marxist dialectics are based off the latter. Both were so-called "objective idealists" though, and Marx and Engels' great philosophical accomplishment was basically "inverting" Hegel.

For an example of how dialectical materialism works, look no further than historical materialism, which is the application of dialectical materialism to history.

[garymeyer]

deeply observation great...!

[Rafiq]

Sure. There is no "Communist Marxist Philosophy". That's quite a contradictory bunch of words there.

For one, Communism never was, is, or can be a philosophy. It was an ideology and a movement.

Secondly, Marxism in itself is not necessarily and Philosophy or an Ideology. It contains philosophical elements to it (Dialectical Materialism) but it is more a method in which we understand the origin and function of things like philosophy and Ideology.

I don't like this interchangeable use of Marxism and Communism. It's terribly inaccurate. Marxism is not some "Advanced" or even "Scientific" version of Communism. It isn't a "Communism" at all. It is the science, that of which Scientific Socialism (More or less and Ideology of some sort) replaced Utopianism, but all together Scientific Socialism doesn't constitute as some kind of representative of all Marxian thinking. Among Marxist schools of thought, there are thinkers, revolutionary and bourgeois alike who cover a wide range of topics, from Economic theory, Psychology and of course Philosophy.

[Rafiq]

hahahaha

So you decided you were an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist-Maoist before you knew the basics of Marx and Engels?

It isn't surprising. Hoxhaists aren't Marxists by any means, as matter of fact, Marxism, to them, only exists as an ideological re assuring of their pathetic and intellectually puny bankrupt Ideology.

For them, Marxism is simply a means of defending dear leader.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

It isn't surprising. Hoxhaists aren't Marxists by any means, as matter of fact, Marxism, to them, only exists as an ideological re assuring of their pathetic and intellectually puny bankrupt Ideology.

For them, Marxism is simply a means of defending dear leader.

Ohhhh, because we do not look to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are not materialists, we do not look at history in a materialistic fashion, we do not believe in the dialectic, and communism is not our end goal.

So, yeah, you are wrong. Stop flaming. You are just doing this so you can get Ismail to come and argue with you AND YOU CAN START WRITING LIKE THIS, LIKE A FIVE YEAR OLD.

[Rooster]

Ohhhh, because we do not look to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat,

Contestable, at best.


we are not materialists, we do not look at history in a materialistic fashion,

Which isn't really the case. Anti-revisionism or Stalinism or whatever you want to call it is an ideology of political-example, not materialist analysis.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

People on this page:
Broseph Stalin, Goti123, Rafiq+, Manic Impressive, LiquidState+

An ultra-left festival of pure stupidity is about to begin on a thread that was not even meant to be about Hoxha or Marxism-Leninism, but about pure Marxist philosophy.

[Art Vandelay]

People on this page:
Broseph Stalin, Goti123, Rafiq+, Manic Impressive, LiquidState+

Ultra-left festival of pure stupidity about to begin on a thread that was not even about Hoxha or Marxism-Leninism, but about Marxism.

I like how you name people with diverse political leanings and then label them all with the sweeping generalization of "ultra-left," which is thrown around so often as to make it almost meaningless.

[Rafiq]

Ohhhh, because we do not look to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat,

Yes, you don't. This has never been your goal, ever since the very term, in 1928 was coined.


we are not materialists,

Anti Revisionists certainly aren't materialists, not by any means. They credit Ideas for the downfall of the USSR, the revision of thought, rather than the base, that of which would have been responsible, or necessitated this revision of thought in order to adjust to this material base.


we do not look at history in a materialistic fashion,

No, you don't. Hoxhaists, like I said, believe History is not influenced by changes in the mode of productions, social relations and the productive forces, but the revision or establishment, or conserving of thought and Ideas, even if a material base, or productive forces necessitate otherwise. Which is impossible.


we do not believe in the dialectic,

This doesn't make you a Marxist, fuck, anyone can adhere to the notion of the Dialectic. Even so, you're all inconsistent in doing so. What is the contradiction in Revisionism? Huh? There is none. There, on the other hand, certainly is a contradiction with the capitalist mode of production existent in the Soviet Union which necessitated this.


and communism is not our end goal.


Congratulations, you're a bunch of Utopians who have "End goals" even though:

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things

-Karl Marx



So, yeah, you are wrong.

What? All you did was attempt sarcasm but pathetically failed in doing so.


Stop flaming.

Aww, sorry, are you insulted? Did I insult your dear leader?


You are just doing this so you can get Ismail to come and argue with you

Well, it looks like you're going to have to go and get him, you little shit, considering I doubt you have the mental capacity to address this post. He certainly doesn't, well, without calling me a Juche Nazi Titoist Dengist Trotskyist Khruschevite revisionist, of course.


AND YOU CAN START WRITING LIKE THIS, LIKE A FIVE YEAR OLD.

I did this once in a thread with Ismail for an exceptionally long number of posts, and only to, say, highlight what I was saying so users could go up for reference and spot them, when Ismail started to put words in my mouth. In the end, it provided useful, and of course I won the debate, anyway. He gave up.

Christ, grow up. Who opened the door for insects like you out of Chit Chat, anyway?

[Rafiq]

It's also very cute, in my opinion, how Goti, a self proclaimed anarchist liked his post. I mean, he's willing to align himself with Hoxhaists, and believe their shit, as long as it's targeted at me. Really pathetic. What a consistent Anarchist, man.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I like how you name people with diverse political leanings and then label them all with the sweeping generalization of "ultra-left," which is thrown around so often as to make it almost meaningless.

Some of you are anarchists, some left communists, and some council communists; but the point is that none of you are pragmatic and only fantasize about successfully leading the proletariat to liberation, while Marxist-Leninists actually have historical precedent to learn from and prove the viability of their ideology with. Even Trotskyites are more pragmatic and have more historical precedent than the whole lot of ultra-leftists.

[Rafiq]

People on this page:
Broseph Stalin, Goti123, Rafiq+, Manic Impressive, LiquidState+

An ultra-left festival of pure stupidity is about to begin on a thread that was not even meant to be about Hoxha or Marxism-Leninism, but about pure Marxist philosophy.

Such is a contradiction in terms, "Pure Marxist Philosophy". It just so happens a Hoxhaist created it as well. What, you think you can assert all sorts of nonsense and not except to be ridiculed for it?

[Hermes]

Production will be for social needs and not profit obviously; because of the productive forces capitalism helped to unleash it has become possible to live in a world without any meaningful scarcity while only needing minimal labor input (in fact, crises of overproduction are a feature of capitalism). A lot of the jobs today only serve to perpetuate the capitalist system or have no useful social functions. Think of the police, ruling class, a hell of a lot office jobs, the whole insurance sector. Concrete example, train conductors. In most cases they're only working to make sure you pay for the ride.

So as basic tenets of communist society we can see that the material need to work compared to how easily our needs are able to be fulfilled will leave us free to restructure our life as we want. Economic progress will mainly be defined by minimizing the necessary labor input while keeping up the material abundance.

To add to this, even though it seems really obvious, the workers would no longer be so separated from the end product of their labor since everyone would be free to enjoy the fruits of labor instead of a select few.

Although some work is unavoidably a type of drudgery, it could be fairly distributed so that it isn't one person doing all of the drudgery while another is completely exempt (barring disabilities, etc).

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

P.S. The term ultra-leftist is just an umbrella term I use for the likes of left communists, council communists, whatever the hell you call violence obsessed pseudo-Leninists like Rafiq, and (sometimes) Anarchists.

[Caj]

Marxist-Leninists actually have historical precedent to learn from and prove the viability of their ideology with.

These seem pretty mutually exclusive to me. The only way in which one could "prove the viability" of Marxism-Leninism is by refusing to learn from its historical precedent.

[Rafiq]

Some of you are anarchists, some left communists, and some council communists; but the point is that none of you are pragmatic and only fantasize about successfully leading the proletariat to liberation,

I don't think many of us "Ultra Left" types, Marxists, if you will seek to lead the proletariat. I for one support the Vanguard, but conditions for such a movement have to exist organically, not in the sense of this "Grassroots democracy" nonsense but as something in direct reflection of material conditions, and not of a pathetic remnant of 20th century Socialism.


while Marxist-Leninists actually have historical precedent to learn from and prove the viability of their ideology with.

Like what? Name me a proletarian revolution lead by Marxist Leninists. There are none.

You fucks have no right to claim the October Revolution as yours, it certainly wasn't. As a matter of fact, you were merely the poisonous excrements of the Revolution.


Even Trotskyites are more pragmatic and have more historical precedent than the whole lot of ultra-leftists.


Yeah, like selling newspapers. Trotskyists are just as irrelivent and counter revolutionary. Personally I don't like council fetishizers myself as I consider a whole lot to be Utopian, however, at least they recognize the deadlock of traditional Leninism (That is, Stalinism and Trotskyism) as something which morphed antithetical from the proletariat's interests and movement all together.

Of course I would disagree why, none the less.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

There is nothing wrong with being what I would call an ultra-leftist, but there is something wrong with flaming, which is what Rafiq often does.

[Rafiq]

There is nothing wrong with being what I would call an ultra-leftist, but there is something wrong with flaming, which is what Rafiq often does.

There isn't such of a thing as "Ultra Leftist". That's in itself flaming.

[Railyon]

Although some work is unavoidably a type of drudgery, it could be fairly distributed so that it isn't one person doing all of the drudgery while another is completely exempt (barring disabilities, etc).

Yes, though I consider this to be little of a problem especially once alienation is eliminated and work once considered repulsive or cumbersome may have changed its social character into activities worthy of praise and use. Then maybe new ways of dealing with special kinds of drudgery may also be introduced which would not be implemented under capitalism because it does not serve its logic (aka costs too much, or does not provide enough profit). Self-cleaning toilets for everyone!

To throw my hat into the ring, MLs are Neo-Mensheviks; the right wing of the left wing. AWESOME

[Rooster]

Some of you are anarchists, some left communists, and some council communists; but the point is that none of you are pragmatic and only fantasize about successfully leading the proletariat to liberation, while Marxist-Leninists actually have historical precedent to learn from and prove the viability of their ideology with. Even Trotskyites are more pragmatic and have more historical precedent than the whole lot of ultra-leftists.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing though?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

There isn't such of a thing as "Ultra Leftist". That's in itself flaming.

Says the flamer who curses at people for no reason, derails thread (i.e. this fucking thread), calls random people liberal capitalists without care, and tendency baits Marxist-Leninists like crazy

[Art Vandelay]

Some of you are anarchists, some left communists, and some council communists; but the point is that none of you are pragmatic and only fantasize about successfully leading the proletariat to liberation,

I could be wrong, but that seems like the exact opposite of what "ultra-leftists" would fantasize about; that is if I am an "ultra-leftist," however treating them as a homogeneous group would be a mistake.


while Marxist-Leninists actually have historical precedent to learn from and prove the viability of their ideology with. Even Trotskyites are more pragmatic and have more historical precedent than the whole lot of ultra-leftists.


If you want to fall back on historical examples man, you are going to lose. Your historical examples ain't exactly a positive for your movement.

[Omsk]

You fucks have no right to claim the October Revolution as yours, it certainly wasn't. As a matter of fact, you were merely the poisonous excrements of the Revolution.


We see Marxism-Leninism as a continuation of Leninism,(Or to go further,we see the two as a whole,as a single political ideology.) the original observations,theories and improvements constructed by Vladimir Lenin during his days as a revolutionary.Our roots are in the October revolution and Lenins works,and no one can separate that from our movement.

As for the entire Trotskyist/Marxist-Leninist deal,don't you remember which side Iron Felix took? (Although i doubt you care about that.)

[Rafiq]

We see Marxism-Leninism as a continuation of Leninism

What continuation? Leninism estabilished at the same time Marxism Leninism did. A split between Trotsky and Stalin, whatever.


,(Or to go further,we see the two as a whole,as a single political ideology.)

Sure (Except Trots, and the old Bordigist Leninism, if you will).


the original observations,theories and improvements constructed by Vladimir Lenin during his days as a revolutionary.

That isn't true by any means. While I don't doubt it has a basis in the old Lenin thinking around the mid twenties, it certainly isn't the embodiment of Pre Revolution Lenin or Civil War Lenin. There is a spark of continuation there, but not necessarily in the right direction.


Our roots are in the October revolution and Lenins works,and no one can separate that from our movement.


Your roots aren't in the October revolution, your roots are in it's failure. There isn't a need to separate anything from your movement, it was already separate not too long after the revolution began degeneracy in the twenties.


As for the entire Trotskyist/Marxist-Leninist deal,don't you remember which side Iron Felix took? (Although i doubt you care about that.)


You're right, I don't care about which side Iron Felix took. He died in 1926, anyway. Iron Felix, though, strikes me as someone who Stalin, if he could have, would have attempted to purge. Or, on the other hand, Iron Felix might have just staged a coup against the Soviet State via the NKVD, there are a shit ton of possibilities.

If Iron Felix would have taken the "Trotskyist" side, I would have condemned him. At least back then, know one knew.

[Art Vandelay]

We see Marxism-Leninism as a continuation of Leninism,(Or to go further,we see the two as a whole,as a single political ideology.) the original observations,theories and improvements constructed by Vladimir Lenin during his days as a revolutionary.Our roots are in the October revolution and Lenins works,and no one can separate that from our movement.

As for the entire Trotskyist/Marxist-Leninist deal,don't you remember which side Iron Felix took? (Although i doubt you care about that.)

We see Trotskyism as a continuation of Leninism, (Or to go further, we see the two as a whole, as a single political ideology). the original observations,theories and improvements constructed by Vladimir Lenin during his days as a revolutionary.Our roots are in the October revolution and Lenins works,and no one can separate that from our movement.

See how easy that was? But now, to you, that does not justify Trotskyism as a continuation of Leninism; just as your justification won't convince anyone else of Marxism-Leninism as a continuation of Leninism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

More on the economic progress of a Communist Nation

There is absolutely no such thing ever. The nation-state is unique to the economic epoch of capital. It did not exist in previous epochs, and it will not in future ones. I am honestly annoyed by how often I have to say this.

The elements at the very heart of Marxism are proletarian internationalism, historical materialism, and revolutionary socialism imo.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's also very cute, in my opinion, how Goti, a self proclaimed anarchist liked his post. I mean, he's willing to align himself with Hoxhaists, and believe their shit, as long as it's targeted at me. Really pathetic. What a consistent Anarchist, man.

The irony is that I had just liked your post backing your initial statement up by dissecting Comissar's sarcasm. You imply I have a person grudge against you, which I don't see why you would think that.

I do not align myself with anyone on the basis of person or ideology, but with whom I agree. Why couldn't an anarchist agree that anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninism (Hoxhaism) is a form of Marxism? Is that so out of the blue? Apparently, since it's "pathetic" to agree on something -- not even relevant --with someone who does not subscribe to the same ideology.

I liked his/her post on the basis that I considered it wrong for anyone to dismiss another as "un-socialist", "un-Marxist", "un-anarchist" if that person's ideas do not fit your own narrow interpretation (e.g. an anarcho-communist dismissing individualist anarchism as unanarchist), but without proper argumentation.

You did not provide that proper argumentation, hence I liked Comrade Commissar's post.

But I guess now that I liked your post, Comrade Commissar is going to call me "pathetic" and "inconsistent of an anarchist" for agreeing with an orthodox Marxist--he would be in his right by extension of your logic.


People on this page:
Broseph Stalin, Goti123, Rafiq+, Manic Impressive, LiquidState+

An ultra-left festival of pure stupidity is about to begin on a thread that was not even meant to be about Hoxha or Marxism-Leninism, but about pure Marxist philosophy.

What exactly warrants me of such an unprovoked attack? Did I derail the thread? Did I (initially) disagree with you?


An ultra-left festival of pure stupidity is about to begin on a thread that was not even meant to be about Hoxha or Marxism-Leninism, but about pure Marxist philosophy.

Freudian slip?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

The irony is that I had just liked your post backing your initial statement up by dissecting Comissar's sarcasm. You imply I have a person grudge against you, which I don't see why you would think that.

I do not align myself with anyone on the basis of person or ideology, but with whom I agree. Why couldn't an anarchist agree that anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninism (Hoxhaism) is a form of Marxism? Is that so out of the blue? Apparently, since it's "pathetic" to agree on something -- not even relevant --with someone who does not subscribe to the same ideology.

I liked his/her post on the basis that I considered it wrong for anyone to dismiss another as "un-socialist", "un-Marxist", "un-anarchist" if that person's ideas do not fit your own narrow interpretation (e.g. an anarcho-communist dismissing individualist anarchism as unanarchist), but without proper argumentation.

You did not provide that proper argumentation, hence I liked Comrade Commissar's post.

But I guess now that I liked your post, Comrade Commissar is going to call me "pathetic" and "inconsistent of an anarchist" for agreeing with an orthodox Marxist--he would be in his right by extension of your logic.



What exactly warrants me of such an unprovoked attack? Did I derail the thread? Did I (initially) disagree with you?



Freudian slip?

I wasn't attacking you, I was just showing who was viewing the page at that moment.

[Manic Impressive]

People on this page:
Broseph Stalin, Goti123, Rafiq+, Manic Impressive, LiquidState+

An ultra-left festival of pure stupidity is about to begin on a thread that was not even meant to be about Hoxha or Marxism-Leninism, but about pure Marxist philosophy.
looks like an attack to me and all I was doing was reading :rolleyes:

also you derailed the thread not Rafiq


An ultra-left festival of pure stupidity is about to begin on a thread that was not even meant to be about Hoxha or Marxism-Leninism, but about pure Marxist philosophy.

Freudian slip?
Also ROFL

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

looks like an attack to me and all I was doing was reading :rolleyes:

also you derailed the thread not Rafiq


Also ROFL

Yeah, I responded to Rafiq's shit post and I'm the one who derailed the thread. :rolleyes:

[Manic Impressive]

yup you don't need to be so sensitive about every tiny thing, it makes you look very insecure. Do you think I go mental every time someone incorrectly labels me an anarchist or says something vaguely disparaging about my politics, shit if I did that I would have literally no time for anything else.

[Revolution starts with U]

Can the fine members here on Revleft explain to me the some of the basics of Marx's and Engels's philosophy.

Philosophy: The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.

I'm not sure, but I don't think you meant their philosophy, so much as their politics.

[Art Vandelay]

Freudian slip?

I missed that one, :lol: Maybe it was a Freudian slip....

[Omsk]

What continuation? Leninism estabilished at the same time Marxism Leninism did. A split between Trotsky and Stalin, whatever.


Leninism is usually a name for the theories of Vladimir Lenin before his death.After he died,Stalin and Trotsky went into open conflict yet again and each claimed that he was a follower of Leninism.Leninism came before Marxism-Leninism. (The term Leninism actually came into common everyday language in 1922,a lot before he died.)



That isn't true by any means. While I don't doubt it has a basis in the old Lenin thinking around the mid twenties, it certainly isn't the embodiment of Pre Revolution Lenin or Civil War Lenin. There is a spark of continuation there, but not necessarily in the right direction.


You are making the mistake of trying to 'cut down' Leninism,when in fact,that just can't be done,as Lenin said (showing his clear thoughts about the continuation and the theoretical value of Bolshevism: (Leninism.)

"Bolshevism," "as a trend of political thought and as a political party, has existed since 1903. Only the history of Bolshevism during the whole period of its existence can satisfactorily explain why it was able to build up and to maintain under most difficult conditions the iron discipline needed for the victory of the proletariat" (see Vol. XXV, p. 174).

It's substance will be lost if we try to cut it down into periods.Not to mention,that Trotsky had huge differences in their theories.Both before,and after the 1917.


Your roots aren't in the October revolution, your roots are in it's failure. There isn't a need to separate anything from your movement, it was already separate not too long after the revolution began degeneracy in the twenties.


Both Lenin,and Stalin,who are obviously important in Marxism-Leninism wrote a lot,a lot before this 'degeneration' of the revolution. It's false to say our roots are in the '20 because most of the major theory linked with Marxism-Leninism comes a lot before.


You're right, I don't care about which side Iron Felix took. He died in 1926, anyway. Iron Felix, though, strikes me as someone who Stalin, if he could have, would have attempted to purge. Or, on the other hand, Iron Felix might have just staged a coup against the Soviet State via the NKVD, there are a shit ton of possibilities.



Ah,i see,this devout knight of the proletariat you seem to admire because of some of his actions (Against the counter-revolutionaries.) , but you ignore his later words,when he basically fully sided with Stalin.



If Iron Felix would have taken the "Trotskyist" side, I would have condemned him. At least back then, know one knew.


Because you see more merit in the side that was against the Trotskyists,or because you don't like Trotsky?