Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist)?

[daft punk]

A lot of people on here call themselves Marxist-Leninist. Why? I want to here from the younger ones, the fairly new people, who use this name.

To me, Marxist-Leninist means Stalinist, and is neither Marxist nor Leninist. I believe Stalin gave up on socialism in the mid-late 1920s, and after 1934 was completely opposed to socialism.

He killed most of the socialists he could in the purges and crushed the revolution in Spain.

After that his policy was to stop revolutions going socialist. In fact his policy was to establish capitalism in countries outside the USSR.

A good example of this is his telegram to Mao in 1948:

"To Terebin to be passed to Mao Zedong.

We have received both letters from Comrade Mao Zedong from 30 November 1947, and 15 March 1948. We could not react to them immediately because we were checking some information necessary for our answer. Now that the facts are verified, we can answer both letters. First. The answer to the letter of 30 November 1947. We are very grateful for the information from Comrade Mao Zedong. We agree with the assessment of the situation given by Comrade Mao Zedong. We have doubts only about one point in the letter, where it is said that “In the period of the final victory of the Chinese Revolution, following the example of the USSR and Yugoslavia, all political parties except the CCP should leave the political scene, which will significantly strengthen the Chinese Revolution.” We do not agree with this. We think that the various opposition parties in China which are representing the middle strata of the Chinese population and are opposing the Guomindang clique will exist for a long time. And the CCP will have to involve them in cooperation against the Chinese reactionary forces and imperialist powers, while keeping hegemony, i.e., the leading position, in its hands. It is possible that some representatives of these parties will have to be included into the Chinese people’s democratic government and the government itself has to be proclaimed a coalition government in order to widen the basis of this government among the population and to isolate imperialists and their Guomindang agents. It is necessary to keep in mind that the Chinese government in its policy will be a national revolutionary-democratic government, not a communist one, after the victory of the People’s Liberation Armies of China, at any rate in the period immediately after the victory, the length of which is difficult to define now. This means that nationalization of all land and abolition of private ownership of land, confiscation of the property of all industrial and trade bourgeoisie from petty to big, confiscation of property belonging not only to big landowners but to middle and small holders exploiting hired labor, will not be fulfilled for the present. These reforms have to wait for some time. It has to be said for your information that there are other parties in Yugoslavia besides the communists which form part of the People’s Front. Second. The answer to the letter from Comrade Mao Zedong from 15 March 1948. We are very grateful to Comrade Mao Zedong for the detailed information on military and political questions. We agree with all the conclusions given by Comrade Mao Zedong in this letter. We consider as absolutely correct Comrade Mao Zedong’s thoughts concerning the creation of a central government of China and including in it representatives of the liberal bourgeosie. With Communist greetings"

Stalin
20 April 1948 (http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=HOME.document&identifier=CA9A2341-EFF8-0392-03026972E39F2528&sort=Coverage&item=China)


Mao had fought the capitalist KMT from 1945-8. Mao also wanted China to be capitalist for several decades. But despite this, Stalin had backed the vicious communist-murdering KMT from 1925-48, swapping sides when Mao won.

So, Marxist-Leninists, why are you M-Ls? What is is that makes you call yourself that? Did you even know Stalin wanted Eastern Europe, China etc to be capitalist? What is your opinion on the purges?

I would urge you to read this short piece before replying
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1009

as it could change the way you think.

I'm not interested in:
1. Left coms opinions (on this, at the moment).
2. Jaded old Stalinists with their mine of quotes, out of context, with no links or dates and no supporting argument.
3. Opinions unsupported by logical argument and facts. No shit posts.
4. Biased moderators.
5. People who can't see the value in this thread.
6. People who want to divert it from a political debate into personal shit/slander/lies/attacks/accusations.

Any shit posts will be ignored or exposed.

This will be a comradely debate. I am interested only in people who want an honest discussion on this subject of what actually is Marxism-Leninism.

I will reply to all decent replies and only them.

[daft punk]

No takers?

[daft punk]

Hellooooo! Can anybody hear meeeee?

[Manic Impressive]

This will be a comradely debate. I am interested only in people who want an honest discussion on this subject of what actually is Marxism-Leninism.
Marxist-Leninists do not understand this

[Leftsolidarity]

When I think of Marxism-Leninism I think of the theories of Marx and Lenin. That's why I don't have a problem calling myself that. I usually just call myself a Marxist, though, to avoid all these pointless sectarian flame wars people like you love to start.

Who gives a shit really? Do you realize Stalin is dead? Do you realize that everyone who disagrees with you is not a Stalinist? Do you realize you stir up shit for absolutely no reason, over things that have absolutely no sway in the real world right now?

What makes you think "Stalinism" by the words "Marx" and "Lenin"? Personally, I like Marx and Lenin so I have no problem with Marxist-Leninists or considering myself one.

[Geiseric]

Lol there are 0 replies. I'd like to hear a response as well. however ones conception of history is often central to ones politics, and if somebody thinks that the U.S.S.R. turned out great after sioc was the doctrine, that can be negative on their current mindset.

[daft punk]

Marxist-Leninists do not understand this
I'm not sure what you mean.

[Leftsolidarity]

Lol there are 0 replies. I'd like to hear a response as well.

Psstt. I just posted.

Really serious question I had in there though. Why do some people take "Marxism-Leninism" as "Stalinism". That's not what it means to me at all. Some M-L's might like Stalin and some may not. I don't think 1 leader describes the entire tendency or theory behind it.

[Manic Impressive]

I'm not sure what you mean.
That M-L's are incapable of having an honest conversation. :D

But really I was just trying to give your thread an extra bump because it's fucked that none of them have replied, after you made a pretty good OP.

[daft punk]

That M-L's are incapable of having an honest conversation. :D

But really I was just trying to give your thread an extra bump because it's fucked that none of them have replied, after you made a pretty good OP.

Thanks. Well, I hate to prejudge the thread, but you could well be right. Maybe one can prove us wrong.

Most of them cant even admit that the policy was as per the quote in the OP.

[Geiseric]

They'll say something like "the chinese working class wasn't significant," while ignoring that the situation was very similar to Russia. They deny perminant revolution which opens the doors to populism and reformism, and the acceptance of 3rd world national bourgeois dictators. As we see now, their cheuvanism of the 3rd world working class to lead themselves apart from Islamists and Ghadaffi leads to an instant condemnation of forces against these national bourgeois, which often has a working class and popular support against Assad or Ghadaffi propelling it.

[daft punk]

I dont think most of them actually realised that Mao and Stalin both planned for China to be capitalist. A few will admit to the counter-revolution of the Stalinists in Spain. None seem to realise it was policy everywhere. Even some Trots seem to think Stalin was trying to spread Stalinism and just pretended to back capitalism. Perhaps they are just simplifying and skipping to what came later.

[Offbeat]

What makes you think "Stalinism" by the words "Marx" and "Lenin"?
Because apparently Stalin coined the term 'Marxism-Leninism'. I don't have an actual source for that, it's just what I've heard other people on here say.

[Bostana]

Well of course China wouldn't be totally communist for China to be completely Communist means that the whole word would be Communist. I am not an expert on history but I am sure that the whole world wasn't Communist in 1948.

Murders of innocent? Where was this concern when the Chinese Nationalist Government murdered and imprisoned thousands of people for being Communist? Why wasn't the brought up? Was it okay for the KMT to do that? To say that Communist Revolution 'murdered' people would be correct. But that is what war is. When you fight in a Revolution you are 'murdering' people. Would I call you a murderer? And Mao never wanted China to be Capitalist. I mean he risked execution and imprisonment for meeting with Communist and having Communist Part meetings. Why would he risk his life just so he could make China what it already is?

Where does Mao say that he was for Capitalism?

[daft punk]

Well of course China wouldn't be totally communist for China to be completely Communist means that the whole word would be Communist. I am not an expert on history but I am sure that the whole world wasn't Communist in 1948.
Stalin didnt say anything about China not being 'totally communist', he said what he said, as per the OP.



Murders of innocent? Where was this concern when the Chinese Nationalist Government murdered and imprisoned thousands of people for being Communist? Why wasn't the brought up? Was it okay for the KMT to do that? To say that Communist Revolution 'murdered' people would be correct. But that is what war is. When you fight in a Revolution you are 'murdering' people. Would I call you a murderer?

That is exactly what I said in the OP
"Stalin had backed the vicious communist-murdering KMT from 1925-48"

ie the KMT were vicious and murdered communists

basically you misread what I said.



And Mao never wanted China to be Capitalist. I mean he risked execution and imprisonment for meeting with Communist and having Communist Part meetings. Why would he risk his life just so he could make China what it already is?

Where does Mao say that he was for Capitalism?

"Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development in certain given conditions. Our answer is simple. The substitution of a certain degree of capitalist development for the oppression of foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism is not only an advance but an unavoidable process. It benefits the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie, and the former perhaps more. It is not domestic capitalism but foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism which are superfluous in China today; indeed, we have too little of capitalism."

"Our Party must also have a specific programme for each period based on this general programme. Our general programme of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades."

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/index.htm)

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/index.htm)
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/index.htm)
ON COALITION GOVERNMENT

April 24, 1945


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm

This is standard Stalinist Two Stage Theory, that capitalism must come before socialism.

[Rainsborough]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2420200#post2420200)
This is standard Stalinist Two Stage Theory, that capitalism must come before socialism.

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't this also a prerequisite of Marx?

[Geiseric]

if you agree with what marx said on perminant revolution Trotsky's theory is a follow-up. socialism in one country is the biggest revision to marxism to date. there is no distinct theory of MLism that is applicable to any present country. The reason for its creation was socialism in one country.

[daft punk]

if you agree with what marx said on perminant revolution Trotsky's theory is a follow-up. socialism in one country is the biggest revision to marxism to date. there is no distinct theory of MLism that is applicable to any present country. The reason for its creation was socialism in one country.

I think Marx used the phrase differently to Trotsky. Although Marx did talk about the idea in the way Trotsky used it, briefly, eg

"The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development." Karl Marx & Frederick Engels
January 21, 1882, London
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882

from the into to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto

[daft punk]

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't this also a prerequisite of Marx?

No, Marx simply said that the world as a whole had to be of a certain development, and that it had achieved that and was ripe for socialism.

"And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm




Of course everyone from Marx to Lenin expected any socialist revolutions to start in advanced countries, this was Trotsky's breakthrough, in 1906, the idea that the revolution could start in Russia. Although Marx & Engels did briefly mention it as a possibility, see the quote above.

[Brosip Tito]

Did I read a Marxist-Leninist mention sectarianism, as if Marxism-Leninism is anything but?

Marxist-Leninist Party Leader: "We must build socialism in one country!"
party subordinate: "I disagree, it won't work!"

**Sub is sent to gulag**

[Rainsborough]

No, Marx simply said that the world as a whole had to be of a certain development, and that it had achieved that and was ripe for socialism.

"And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm




Of course everyone from Marx to Lenin expected any socialist revolutions to start in advanced countries, this was Trotsky's breakthrough, in 1906, the idea that the revolution could start in Russia. Although Marx & Engels did briefly mention it as a possibility, see the quote above.

Hmm, I always thought that Marx had specified that socialism would only arise in an industrial nation such as Britain or Germany. Given that Russia at the time was largely unindustrialised surely the idea of a socialist Russia was not possible for Marx.
I also thought that he spoke of a period of bourgeois control. That before socialism there had to be a bourgeois revolution. If this is true, and I bow to others greater knowledge of Marxism here, surely this mirrors the Stalinist 'two stage theory'?

[Bostana]

Stalin didnt say anything about China not being 'totally communist', he said what he said, as per the OP.

He said to Mao that China wouldn't be Communist because again World Revolution. He didn't mean that China shouldn't be Communist.




basically you misread what I said.

Ahh yes sorry.
Can you quote Stalin's open backing of the KMT? Because it seems a little weird that he would supply the People's Liberation Army and back the KMT at the same time.




"Our Party must also have a specific programme for each period based on this general programme. Our general programme of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades."

The section you were reading was about the Japanese aggressors and how China was to try to achieve Socialism.
They needed two revolutions. One to start China on the path towards proletarian democracy and Socialism and the second was the Socialist Revolution.


Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are two essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society.

Mao also knew that China has not yet reached the total stage of Communism and China is not yet Completely Socialist


"Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right now. We cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus - mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts - in order to consolidate national defense and protect the people's interests

And Mao on says that he has not yet achieved total Socialism because he has a semi Socialist Capitalist economy pursay. Which is what you read in the quote.

The present-day capitalist economy in China is a capitalist economy which for the most part is under the control of the People's Government and which is linked with the state-owned socialist economy in various forms and supervised by the workers. It is not an ordinary but a particular kind of capitalist economy, namely, a state-capitalist economy of a new type. It exists not chiefly to make profits for the capitalists but to meet the needs of the people and the state. True, a share of the profits produced by the workers goes to the capitalists, but that is only a small part, about one quarter, of the total. The remaining three quarters are produced for the workers (in the form of the welfare fund), for the state (in the form of income tax) and for expanding productive capacity (a small part of which produces profits for the capitalists). Therefore, this state-capitalist economy of a new type takes on a socialist character to a very great extent and benefits the workers and the state.

[Sentinel]

Topic split -- please discuss the meaning of the term 'marxist-leninist' in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/term-marxist-leninist-t170474/index.html) thread from now on. Renamed this thread to avoid further 'misunderstandings'.

[Omsk]

Daft Punk would you accept me in this thread?

[A Marxist Historian]

Hmm, I always thought that Marx had specified that socialism would only arise in an industrial nation such as Britain or Germany. Given that Russia at the time was largely unindustrialised surely the idea of a socialist Russia was not possible for Marx.
I also thought that he spoke of a period of bourgeois control. That before socialism there had to be a bourgeois revolution. If this is true, and I bow to others greater knowledge of Marxism here, surely this mirrors the Stalinist 'two stage theory'?

The first ones to really formalize the "two stage" theory weren't the Stalinists but the Mensheviks. The "author" was Plekhanov, who wasn't exactly a Menshevik, but that was only the case as a misunderstanding, as if anything he turned out to be to the right of the Mensheviks during WWI.

Marx didn't have a formal "two stage theory," indeed he is the one who is the first author of the theory of "permanent revolution," usually ascribed to Trotsky (Trotsky's version was a bit different, but not in any way relevant here).

That was in Germany in 1850-51, when Marx, erroneously, was thinking that Germany was already well enough developed for communist victory. He shortly realized his error and dissolved the Communist League, on the grounds that it would be decades before Germany was sufficiently industrially developed to go socialist.

So it wasn't that Marx had a "two stage theory," rather that for most of his lifetime, as far as he was concerned only England and maybe France were sufficiently economically and socially mature for a socialist revolution. So he didn't in fact have a concept of a bourgeois revolution followed directly by a socialist as a "second stage."

Nowadays however, in this era of imperialism, the entire world is ripe, indeed rotten ripe, for socialist revolution, as capitalism drags us all in the direction of economic collapse, social degeneration, barbarism and war. (And if somehow we manage to escape all that, environmental collapse and global warming.) However, as the experience of the USSR graphically demonstrated, you simply can't build socialism in one country.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Daft Punk would you accept me in this thread?

DP does not own this thread. Indeed nobody owns any threads on Revleft, that's the whole point. Anybody can say whatever they like here, as long as they follow the rules, and of course as long as they are revolutionaries and leftists, this being Revleft after all.

-M.H.-

[ArrowLance]

Why should any of us respond to Daft Punk's bait? Then Manic Impressive's. Why should we bother?

[Leftsolidarity]

Wait, I'm confused. What was the split for? What is this thread now discussing? Sorry, I was offline and I'm not following well now.

[Manic Impressive]

Why should any of us respond to Daft Punk's bait? Then Manic Impressive's. Why should we bother?
To prove our Ultra Left arses wrong of course. At the moment you're just proving me right. ;)

p.s. it wuz just a joke don't spit yer dummy out the pram

[daft punk]

Hmm, I always thought that Marx had specified that socialism would only arise in an industrial nation such as Britain or Germany. Given that Russia at the time was largely unindustrialised surely the idea of a socialist Russia was not possible for Marx.
I also thought that he spoke of a period of bourgeois control. That before socialism there had to be a bourgeois revolution. If this is true, and I bow to others greater knowledge of Marxism here, surely this mirrors the Stalinist 'two stage theory'?

If you look at the quote I gave earlier he says

"this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being"

so what this means is socialism requires a certain level on a world scale.

Yes he did of course think it was most likely in an advanced country.

But Marx and Engels did say:

"Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/o/b.htm#obshchina), though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882

in the intro to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto.

ok this is not exactly what happened in Russia, but is shows that Marx and Engels were not rigid stagists when it came to backward countries.

Anyway, we know for a fact that Russia did not go through a period of bourgeois control in anything like the classical sense.

[daft punk]

He said to Mao that China wouldn't be Communist because again World Revolution. He didn't mean that China shouldn't be Communist.

True, he said communism would happen later, and I think possibly Mao believed him, or pretended to, but I dont believe Stalin actually wanted communism anywhere because it would mean him losing his position at the top of a privileged dictatorship.





Ahh yes sorry.
Can you quote Stalin's open backing of the KMT? Because it seems a little weird that he would supply the People's Liberation Army and back the KMT at the same time.

Stalin backed both parties from 1925, but he backed the KMT more than the CCP.

If you want some examples, in the first revolution, 1925-7, Stalin got Mao to merge the CCP into the KMT. Mao was on the KMT executive, and Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the KMT, went to Moscow to be a member of the Comintern exec. In the mid 1930s most of Stalin's aid went to the KMT. During WW2 Stalin ordered the rescue of Chiang when he was kidnapped. In 1945 Stalin recognised Chiang as President and signed a friendship treaty with him. You can look all that up and more. For a quick rundown read this:
The roots of Chinese Stalinism


http://www.socialismtoday.org/132/china60.html








Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2420253#post2420253)
"Our Party must also have a specific programme for each period based on this general programme. Our general programme of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades."
The section you were reading was about the Japanese aggressors and how China was to try to achieve Socialism.
They needed two revolutions. One to start China on the path towards proletarian democracy and Socialism and the second was the Socialist Revolution.

The stage of bourgeois-democratic revolution. We need more capitalism. It is perfectly clear. This is classic Stalinist Two Stage Theory - capitalism first, for several decades, to build up industry and create a sizeable working class, and later, after several decades, socialism. It is a crude twisting of historical materialism. It might have seemed to make sense to people like Mao, but for Stalin it was just an excuse to stop anything like a workers democracy from springing up anywhere, which would threaten his rule in Russia (because he feared the Russian workers wanting genuine democratic socialism.)

Hence the purges in Russia at the same time Stalin first deliberately sabotaged a revolution - in Spain.




"Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are two essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society."
Mao also knew that China has not yet reached the total stage of Communism and China is not yet Completely Socialist

The democratic revolution means capitalist or bourgeois. Exactly what I have been saying.

The difference between Stalin and Mao is that Mao actually believed it, at least in those days.







""Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right now. We cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus - mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts - in order to consolidate national defense and protect the people's interests "
And Mao on says that he has not yet achieved total Socialism because he has a semi Socialist Capitalist economy pursay. Which is what you read in the quote.
It was 1949 when he said that, things were changing rapidly. The Korean war was about to kick off and Mao was soon to be forced to fast-track towards collectivisation and nationalisation. However even in that 1949 article he says:

"There remain the national bourgeoisie; at the present stage, we can already do a good deal of suitable educational work with many of them. When the time comes to realize socialism, that is, to nationalize private enterprise, we shall carry the work of educating and remoulding them a step further. The people have a powerful state apparatus in their hands -- there is no need to fear rebellion by the national bourgeoisie."

"The national bourgeoisie at the present stage is of great importance. Imperialism, a most ferocious enemy, is still standing alongside us. China's modern industry still forms a very small proportion of the national economy. No reliable statistics are available, but it is estimated, on the basis of certain data, that before the War of Resistance Against Japan the value of output of modern industry constituted only about 10 per cent of the total value of output of the national economy. To counter imperialist oppression and to raise her backward economy to a higher level, China must utilize all the factors of urban and rural capitalism that are beneficial and not harmful to the national economy and the people's livelihood; and we must unite with the national bourgeoisie in common struggle. Our present policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it."

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch03.htm

Uniting with the national bourgeoisie, classic Stalinism.

[daft punk]

Daft Punk would you accept me in this thread?

Yeah, just try avoid the usual thing many Stalinists do which is posting a pile of uncheckable quotes with little or no explanation. The quotes are to support your arguments not replace them. And we need to be able to see the context, so links if possible.

Tell us why you still think this 2 stage theory was right for example, we have already proved it to be policy (something some Stalinists seem unaware of).

[dodger]

daft punk it's all too late and long ago. Mao pla and cp were the players. whoops nearly forgot the chinese people. Take it from there. Trotsky was irrelevant. No place on the stage for him. He could scribble all day and night, probably did. How might we weigh up what was achieved. Did the alliance with KMT get results? Seems on the face of it better than facing 2 enemies at once. Japan and KMT. the base in Yenan? Development of a coherent military/political strategy. A policy for women emancipation. land reform. A revolution without zig-zags? These might be worthy subjects of further study.

[ArrowLance]

To prove our Ultra Left arses wrong of course. At the moment you're just proving me right. ;)

p.s. it wuz just a joke don't spit yer dummy out the pram

I sort of feel like you are the one proving me right.

[Manic Impressive]

I sort of feel like you are the one proving me right.
oh touché Monsieur

[daft punk]

daft punk it's all too late and long ago.


too long? Well, here's something to calm down all the stressed out comrades anyway...

Z6_ZNW1DACE



Mao pla and cp were the players. whoops nearly forgot the chinese people. Take it from there. Trotsky was irrelevant. No place on the stage for him. He could scribble all day and night, probably did. How might we weigh up what was achieved. Did the alliance with KMT get results? Seems on the face of it better than facing 2 enemies at once. Japan and KMT. the base in Yenan? Development of a coherent military/political strategy. A policy for women emancipation. land reform. A revolution without zig-zags? These might be worthy subjects of further study.

This is a bit random innit? Trotsky wasnt irrelevant because he was right about everything. Stalin didnt need to back the KMT against the CCP from 1945-8 to defeat the Japanese did he? :laugh:

Trotskyists predicted the outcome of the Chinese revolution better than Mao did, what do you say to that?

[Leftsolidarity]

Trotsky wasnt irrelevant because he was right about everything.

You are too funny. I don't have anything against Trotsky. In fact, I agree with a lot of what I read from him but you view him as some sort of divine messenger. It's hilarious. Why does everything boil down to Trotsky and Stalin for you?

[daft punk]

Trotsky and Stalin represent revolution and counter revolution of the 20th century, the theory and the practice. The whole of 20th century history hinged on whether the revolution in Russia succeeded or not. As it happened, it went down a weird counter-revolutionary route which bizarrely managed to masquerade as revolution.

Consequently most westerners think communism is a pile of shit.

Once they realise that Russia wasnt communist, and why it went like it did (because of the isolation of the revolution in a backward country), socialism might get taken seriously again.

Now, wanna list what he wasn't right about? He admitted Lenin was right on the Trade Union dispute. He said the USSR would end up capitalist if the workers didnt implement workers democracy, but he didnt foresee the Stalinist leaders simply going capitalist voluntarily. Yeah, he got the odd thing wrong.

[Leftsolidarity]

Once they realise that Russia wasnt communist, and why it went like it did (because of the isolation of the revolution in a backward country), socialism might get taken seriously again.

That is a wonderful thought but utter garbage. You are stuck in the past. Normal people do not give a shit about the history of the USSR and many do not even know who Trotsky is.

While history is important, we shouldn't be completely focused (like you) on trying to "teach" (I put that in quotes because you spin everything as if Trotsky was a god and Stalin is responsible for everything wrong in the world. Nice great man ideology you got going) the history of past countries.

You don't get people to take socialism seriously by digging up arguments between two long dead old men. No one cares. Not even a ton of socialists care.

Working people do not care about that stuff. They care about stuff that actually applies to them. Make socialism apply to them. Then they will care.

[Bostana]

Stalin actually wanted communism anywhere because it would mean him losing his position at the top of a privileged dictatorship.

I am trying to base it off of common logic, if Stalin hated Communism why would he do what he did just to make Russia capitalist? After years with the Bolshevik Party, and being arrested and sent to Siberia 8 times.

This is me personally but if I was sent to a Siberian Prison for a cause then I would stick to that cause.





Stalin backed both parties from 1925, but he backed the KMT more than the CCP.

Yes but I want a quote from Stalin where he openly supports the KMT murdering of Chinese Communist? A quote from Stalin.



The democratic revolution means capitalist or bourgeois. Exactly what I have been saying.

Where did you Capitalist and Bourgeois from Democratic?
The democratic revolution was to kick out the Japanese Imperialist who colonized China in WW2 and pretty much the rest of History.

Here is Mao on the bourgeois-democratic revolution:

It is perfectly obvious that the Chinese revolution at the present stage is still a bourgeois democratic and not a proletarian socialist revolution in nature. Only the counter-revolutionary Trotskyites talk such nonsense as that China has already completed her bourgeois-democratic revolution and that any further revolution can only be socialist. The revolution of 1924-27 was a bourgeois-democratic revolution, which was not carried to completion but failed. The agrarian revolution which we have led since 1927 is also a bourgeois-democratic revolution, because it is directed not against capitalism, but against imperialism and feudalism. This will remain true of our revolution for quite a long time to come

http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/TAJI35.html


So sort of. The aim of New Democracy is to accomplish the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution while maintaining the leadership of the proletariat. This is why the chinese revolution could transition so well from overthrowing feudalism + imperialism to establishing socialism, and also why mao differs from the patronising mechanical materialists who say proletarian revolution is hopeless while the bourgeois revolution is incomplete. Regarding Nepal, it seems as though prachanda and bhattarai have fallen into the latter camp, giving up the entities of proletarian power (particularly the PLA) for the sake of consolidating bourgeois democracy


When the time comes to realize socialism, that is, to nationalize private enterprise

Nationalize enterprise is to get rid of corporations and businesses and start a Proletarian run working place. Not a CEO bourgeoisie run place that enslaves the Proletariat of that nation.


Trotsky wasnt irrelevant because he was right about everything.
No one can be this ignorant or bias towards their ideological tendency.
PEACE

[Lanky Wanker]

Why does everything boil down to Trotsky and Stalin for you?

Because the future of communism relies entirely on what happened not short of 100 years ago, and whether Stalin or Trotsky would've got a higher score on a Marxism exam. We must all be completely obsessed with certain communists and apply every single word of what they say to our revolution when it happens, which means removing our title of 'communist' and replacing it with 'Trotskyist' or 'Stalinist'. I agree with Harry Potter on a lot of things regarding revolution, so I'm going to call myself a Harryist-Potterist.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2421343#post2421343)
"Once they realise that Russia wasnt communist, and why it went like it did (because of the isolation of the revolution in a backward country), socialism might get taken seriously again."

That is a wonderful thought but utter garbage. You are stuck in the past. Normal people do not give a shit about the history of the USSR and many do not even know who Trotsky is.

Normal people would give a shit if a party that said it was Marxist was vying for power. They would think of Russia and say 'sod that'. 54% of the world's population things the breakup of the USSR was a good thing, 22% say bad thing, and 24% dont know. The 22% would include people like me who supported the USSR despite the Stalinist regime. So, very few supported the regime.




While history is important, we shouldn't be completely focused (like you) on trying to "teach" (I put that in quotes because you spin everything as if Trotsky was a god and Stalin is responsible for everything wrong in the world. Nice great man ideology you got going) the history of past countries.


I have explained many times why you or others are wrong about this. My position is the same as Marx- dialectical materialism.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue. When we think about this conjuring up of the dead of world history, a salient difference reveals itself. Camille Desmoulins, Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Napoleon, the heroes as well as the parties and the masses of the old French Revolution, performed the task of their time – that of unchaining and establishing modern bourgeois society – in Roman costumes and with Roman phrases. The first one destroyed the feudal foundation and cut off the feudal heads that had grown on it. The other created inside France the only conditions under which free competition could be developed, parceled-out land properly used, and the unfettered productive power of the nation employed; and beyond the French borders it swept away feudal institutions everywhere, to provide, as far as necessary, bourgeois society in France with an appropriate up-to-date environment on the European continent. Once the new social formation was established, the antediluvian colossi disappeared and with them also the resurrected Romanism – the Brutuses, the Gracchi, the publicolas, the tribunes, the senators, and Caesar himself. Bourgeois society in its sober reality bred its own true interpreters and spokesmen in the Says, Cousins, Royer-Collards, Benjamin Constants, and Guizots; its real military leaders sat behind the office desk and the hog-headed Louis XVIII was its political chief. Entirely absorbed in the production of wealth and in peaceful competitive struggle, it no longer remembered that the ghosts of the Roman period had watched over its cradle."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm


Trotsky puts it even better:


"Naive minds think that the office of kingship lodges in the king himself, in his ermine cloak and his crown, in his flesh and bones. As a matter of fact, the office of kingship is an interrelation between people. The king is king only because the interests and prejudices of millions of people are refracted through his person. When the flood of development sweeps away these interrelations, then the king appears to be only a washed-out man with a flabby lower lip. He who was once called Alfonso XIII could discourse upon this from fresh impressions. [1]
The leader by will of the people differs from the leader by will of God in that the former is compelled to clear the road for himself or, at any rate, to assist the conjuncture of events in discovering him. Nevertheless, the leader is always a relation between people, the individual supply to meet the collective demand. The controversy over Hitler’s personality becomes the sharper the more the secret of his success is sought in himself. In the meantime, another political figure would be difficult to find that is in the same measure the focus of anonymous historic forces. Not every exasperated petty bourgeois could have become Hitler, but a particle of Hitler is lodged in every exasperated petty bourgeois.
The rapid growth of German capitalism prior to the First World War by no means signified a simple destruction of the middle classes. Although it ruined some layers of the petty bourgeoisie it created others anew: around the factories, artisans and shopkeepers; within the factories, technicians and executives. But while preserving themselves and even growing numerically – the old and the new petty bourgeoisie compose a little less than one-half of the German nation – the middle classes have lost the last shadow of independence. They live on the periphery of large-scale industry and the banking system, and they live off the crumbs from the table of the monopolies and cartels, and off the spiritual alms of their theorists and professional politicians.
The defeat in 1918 raised a wall in the path of German imperialism. External dynamics changed to internal. The war passed over into revolution. Social Democracy, which aided the Hohenzollerns in bringing the war to its tragic conclusion, did not permit the proletariat to bring the revolution to its conclusion. The Weimar democracy spent fourteen years finding interminable excuses for its own existence. The Communist Party called the workers to a new revolution but proved incapable of leading it. The German proletariat passed through the rise and collapse of war, revolution, parliamentarism, and pseudo-Bolshevism. At the time when the old parties of the bourgeoisie had drained themselves to the dregs, the dynamic power of the working class also found itself sapped.
The postwar chaos hit the artisans, the peddlers, and the civil employees no less cruelly than the workers. The economic crisis in agriculture was ruining the peasantry. The decay of the middle strata did not mean that they were made into proletarians, inasmuch as the proletariat itself was casting out a gigantic army of chronically unemployed. The pauperization of the petty bourgeoisie, barely covered by ties and socks of artificial silk, eroded all official creeds and first of all the doctrine of democratic parliamentarism.
The multiplicity of parties, the icy fever of elections, the interminable changes of ministries aggravated the social crisis by creating a kaleidoscope of barren political combinations. In the atmosphere brought to white heat by war, defeat, reparations, inflation, occupation of the Ruhr, crisis, need, and despair, the petty bourgeoisie rose up against all the old parties that had bamboozled i.e. The sharp grievances of small proprietors never out of bankruptcy, of their university sons without posts and clients, of their daughters without dowries and suitors, demanded order and an iron hand.
The banner of National Socialism was raised by upstarts from the lower and middle commanding ranks of the old army. Decorated with medals for distinguished service, commissioned and noncommissioned officers could not believe that their heroism and sufferings for the Fatherland had not only come to naught, but also gave them no special claims to gratitude. Hence their hatred of the revolution and the proletariat. At the same time, they did not want to reconcile themselves to being sent by the bankers, industrialists, and ministers back to the modest posts of bookkeepers, engineers, postal clerks, and schoolteachers. Hence their “socialism.” At the Yser and under Verdun they had learned to risk themselves and others, and to speak the language of command, which powerfully overawed the petty bourgeois behind the lines. [2] Thus these people became leaders"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm






Working people do not care about that stuff. They care about stuff that actually applies to them. Make socialism apply to them. Then they will care.

I agree that most socialists should not focus mainly on the differences beween Trotskyism and Stalinism. But is needs to be done. Most Trotskyist just learn all this in the first few weeks when they get active and then concentrate on the up to date stuff.

It's not easy for me to be active for various reasosn so that's why maybe I concentrate on the historical stuff a bit more. Plus, it's different on an internet forums. I was a Marxist for 30 years, never even met a Stalinist or a left com. Not that I was aware of, just a few SWP and so on.

[Lanky Wanker]

I think someone has...

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lymnshNzyu1rnurujo1_500.jpg

[daft punk]

So, which M-L is gonna put the case for Stalinism then? Omsk?

[daft punk]

I think someone has...

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lymnshNzyu1rnurujo1_500.jpg

I think someone has found they cannot answer a post so they have to post a silly picture instead.

[robbo203]

No, Marx simply said that the world as a whole had to be of a certain development, and that it had achieved that and was ripe for socialism.

"And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm




Of course everyone from Marx to Lenin expected any socialist revolutions to start in advanced countries, this was Trotsky's breakthrough, in 1906, the idea that the revolution could start in Russia. Although Marx & Engels did briefly mention it as a possibility, see the quote above.


Yes, they fully expected a revolution to happen in Russia but the revolution they expected to happen was a capitalist revolution. And they were spot on about that! The Bolshevik bourgeois revolution, aided and abbetted at first by the urban proletariat (as with the French bourgeois revolution), established state capitalism.

Remarkably enough, Engels in a letter to Vera Zasulich in 1885 not only predicted this would happen but even the manner in which it happened. As he put it

"What I know or believe about the situation in Russia impels me to the opinion that the Russians are approaching their 1789 "

Ths was a reference to the aforementioned French capitalist revolution and then , Engels goes on, when

"1789 has once been launched, 1793 will not be long in following."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885/letters/85_04_23.htm


This was presumably a reference to execution of King Louis in 1793 and the reign of terror which found it counterpart in Russia with the execution of the Tsar and the establishment of the Bolshevik capitalist dictatorship over the proletariat

[Zealot]

Daft Punk, a self-styled expert on the true scientific socialism of Marxism-Leninism, doesn't even know why the term is used and who claimed in another thread it was "code" for Stalinist. Do you know why no one responds to your pathetic threads? Because no one cares for your ultra dogmatic trollism. You know very well why we call ourselves Marxist-Leninists, stop playing dumb. You're actually more Stalinist than the Stalinists because you make the mistake of confusing an ideology with a man, Stalin in this case, and attribute everything bad to him as if he was some sort of superman that went around causing natural disasters. The only Great Man theorists on Revleft are the people like you and your clique of dogmatic idealists.

[Lanky Wanker]

I think someone has found they cannot answer a post so they have to post a silly picture instead.

Hey, it's not my job to defend Marxist-Leninism. I just find these Trotsky vs Stalin debates hilariously tiring.

[Geiseric]

Daft Punk, a self-styled expert on the true scientific socialism of Marxism-Leninism, doesn't even know why the term is used and who claimed in another thread it was "code" for Stalinist. Do you know why no one responds to your pathetic threads? Because no one cares for your ultra dogmatic trollism. You know very well why we call ourselves Marxist-Leninists, stop playing dumb. You're actually more Stalinist than the Stalinists because you make the mistake of confusing an ideology with a man, Stalin in this case, and attribute everything bad to him as if he was some sort of superman that went around causing natural disasters. The only Great Man theorists on Revleft are the people like you and your clique of dogmatic idealists.

Nice ad hominem. Anyways, I've seen more Stalinists with a major case of great manism who far overshadow the admiration for Trotsky that most Bolshevik Leninists have. Anyways, Stalinism doesn't really have any theoretical basis, it kinda just rose out of the Russian Revolution in the same way that Napoleon rose out of the French Revolution. Adhering to "Stalinism," is the same ass adhering to any personality cult, made even more rediculous since Stalin's been dead for 50 years.

The only way Stalinists can really make themselves seem like a cohesive ideology is by taking Menshevik stances and disguising it in a quote or two that is taken out of context from Lenin. "Two Stage Theory," is menshevism incarnate, and from what I understand most Stalinists believe in Stagism. Or at least in the case of China, Vietnam, Peru, Cuba and most of the 3rd world they did.

[Omsk]

It's really great to see how an inexperienced Trot rambles about menshevism linking it to Marxist-Leninists.

Do you see the irony,comrades?



So, which M-L is gonna put the case for Stalinism then? Omsk?


I replied in a similar thread,i doubt i will repeat myself.

[Geiseric]

No I don't see the Irony. Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, Bukharin, Sverdlov, and every other Bolshevik were more or less Mensheviks until Febuary and October came. At that point Lenin and Trotsky made the Bolsheviks implement Perminant Revolution. The issue was who didn't want to give up Menshevism, which concerned a minority among the old Bolshevik cadres.

At the point of March 1917, Kamanev, Zinoviev, and Stalin, who all had chief posts in Pravda, were vehemently against October and Lenin's call for revolution over the Provisional Government. This is well documented, . Stalin even took a "Social Patriot," stance at this point. Zinoviev and Kamanev edited and made public information regarding political conflict within the Bolshevik party. Stalin was so inept at his job editing Pravda that I think Lenin removed him from it once he got back to Russia.

Pravda had a new editorial board after Feburary happened composed of Kamanev and Stalin at it's head in March. They declared as early as March 15 (28) that the Bolsheviks would resolutely support the Provisional Government “in so far as it fights reaction or counter-revolution”. Stalin’s stand on war showed the same mettle: as long as the German Army remained subservient to its Emperor, the Russian soldier should “staunchly stand at his post, answering bullet for bullet and salvo for salvo.”

Social Patriotism, Menshevism.

”Some comrades have argued,” Stalin reported, “that, because capitalism is poorly developed in our country, it is utopian to pose the question of the socialist revolution. They would have been right, had there been no war, no collapse, had not the very foundations of national economy gone to pieces. But today these questions of intervention in the economic sphere are posed in all countries as imperative questions …” Moreover, “nowhere did the proletariat have such broad organizations as the Soviets … All this precludes the possibility that the laboring masses should refrain from intervening in economic life. Therein is the realistic foundation for posing the question of the socialist revolution in Russia.”

[Rusty Shackleford]

I
I wanna u-nite
I wanna u-nite with the nation-al boooooozhwaseeee!

(big band)

[Zealot]

Nice ad hominem. Anyways, I've seen more Stalinists with a major case of great manism who far overshadow the admiration for Trotsky that most Bolshevik Leninists have. Anyways, Stalinism doesn't really have any theoretical basis, it kinda just rose out of the Russian Revolution in the same way that Napoleon rose out of the French Revolution. Adhering to "Stalinism," is the same ass adhering to any personality cult, made even more rediculous since Stalin's been dead for 50 years.

Actually, I wasn't referring to Trotsky's personality cult, I haven't even come to that yet. But when someone attributes something good to Stalin they're called great man theorists and then, on the other hand, are the "anti-Stalinists" who attribute every bad thing in the Soviet Union to him and get off scot-free. Furthermore, we don't adhere to any personality cult unless you consider respect a cult. Some Marxist-Leninists ("Stalinists") actually have no care in the world for Stalin, such as Comrade Rainsborough. Worshiping Stalin is not a tenet of Marxism-Leninism and he isn't the theoretical basis of it so your straw-man has failed. Setting up arguments of your own fancies and smashing them down: Hero.

[Geiseric]

ok how is Marxism Leninism different from "Marxism?" other than the fact that it upholds Stalinist U.S.S.R?

[Rusty Shackleford]

ok how is Marxism Leninism different from "Marxism?" other than the fact that it upholds Stalinist U.S.S.R?
its more than just upholding 'stalinist' ussr, its the application of the concept of imperialism (and therefore acting against it), the concepts of the organization of the working class, and the maintenance of a materialist and scientific socialist outlook.

[NorwegianCommunist]

Stalinism; Isn't that more of Marxist-Leninism mixed with his views?

[Geiseric]

its more than just upholding 'stalinist' ussr, its the application of the concept of imperialism (and therefore acting against it), the concepts of the organization of the working class, and the maintenance of a materialist and scientific socialist outlook.

That's Marxism/Leninism, the title Marxist-Leninist is very specific. Like Brobespierre said, it's all about the -. That term rose when Stalin was trying to make himself seem like the heir to Lenin, which made most people not savvy to the political struggle in the U.S.S.R. look at him with more legitimacy.

However if what you're describing is Leninism (Lenin always thought of himself as an orthodox marxist but things like imperialism and vanguardism he refined into solidified theory), you're forgetting the Perminant Revolution aspect of it.

[Ostrinski]

That's Marxism/Leninism, the title Marxist-Leninist is very specific. Like Brobespierre said, it's all about the -. That term rose when Stalin was trying to make himself seem like the heir to Lenin, which made most people not savvy to the political struggle in the U.S.S.R. look at him with more legitimacy.Indeed, but I didn't mean it as an attack on Marxism-Leninism, I meant that if you're a Marxist and a Leninist then you should be able to call yourself that regardless of your position on Stalin or Trotsky.

[Rusty Shackleford]

That's Marxism/Leninism, the title Marxist-Leninist is very specific. Like Brobespierre said, it's all about the -. That term rose when Stalin was trying to make himself seem like the heir to Lenin, which made most people not savvy to the political struggle in the U.S.S.R. look at him with more legitimacy.

However if what you're describing is Leninism (Lenin always thought of himself as an orthodox marxist but things like imperialism and vanguardism he refined into solidified theory), you're forgetting the Perminant Revolution aspect of it.

i dont make a distinction between the two with our without a hyphen.



yes, i will defend stalin"'s" ussr, but im not going to ignore shortcomings or hide criticisms.


towing a party line from the 20s and 30s is about as useless as using a spoon to dig a canal.

[Geiseric]

Right makes sense. I think i'm gonna start calling myself a Bolshevist instead of attatching to names.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Right makes sense. I think i'm gonna start calling myself a Bolshevist instead of attatching to names.
bolshevism is pretty much period centric as well. though this is just semantics. (or however you use the phrase)


im fine with using the term marxism and leninism as they represent defined and real contributions to the field of science they exist in. just as one would use 'Kantian' or 'Newtonian' theres a non-anthronym(made that up :D) for those too im sure, just as there is Scientific Socialism and its synonym Marxism.

[daft punk]

Yes, they fully expected a revolution to happen in Russia but the revolution they expected to happen was a capitalist revolution. And they were spot on about that!

when will you ever learn?



The Bolshevik bourgeois revolution, aided and abbetted at first by the urban proletariat (as with the French bourgeois revolution), established state capitalism.

This is ridiculous. The French revolution established capitalism. The Bolsheviks' revolution ended up establishing half of what they aimed for, a planned economy but unfortunately not controlled by the workers. This was because of the isolation of the revolution in a backward country.



Remarkably enough, Engels in a letter to Vera Zasulich in 1885 not only predicted this would happen but even the manner in which it happened. As he put it

"What I know or believe about the situation in Russia impels me to the opinion that the Russians are approaching their 1789 "

Ths was a reference to the aforementioned French capitalist revolution and then , Engels goes on, when

"1789 has once been launched, 1793 will not be long in following."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885/letters/85_04_23.htm


This was presumably a reference to execution of King Louis in 1793 and the reign of terror which found it counterpart in Russia with the execution of the Tsar and the establishment of the Bolshevik capitalist dictatorship over the proletariat
Well, he was right. The February revolution got rid of Tsarism and established a capitalist Provisional Government. But Lenin and Trotsky realised that this was their chance, as the PG was not gonna do anything progressive like end the war or implement land reform, so the Bolsheviks could merge those unfinished bourgeois tasks into a socialist revolution.

[daft punk]

Daft Punk, a self-styled expert on the true scientific socialism of Marxism-Leninism, doesn't even know why the term is used and who claimed in another thread it was "code" for Stalinist. Do you know why no one responds to your pathetic threads? Because no one cares for your ultra dogmatic trollism. You know very well why we call ourselves Marxist-Leninists, stop playing dumb. You're actually more Stalinist than the Stalinists because you make the mistake of confusing an ideology with a man, Stalin in this case, and attribute everything bad to him as if he was some sort of superman that went around causing natural disasters. The only Great Man theorists on Revleft are the people like you and your clique of dogmatic idealists.
The terminology has been rightly split into a derail thread. Stop going on about it on this one ffs.

As for the great man nonsense, I have debunked this man many times. My position is not a great man one it is a dialectical materialist, Marxist one, which recognises the supremacy of materialism while acknowledging the critical importance of leadership or lack of it at certain times. The leadership is always a reflection of the material conditions.

Now, listen to this and try to absorb it for once:

Stalin was a product of the counter-revolution, not it's cause. But as leader he played a massive part in it.

Now, answer the OP and explain why you are a M-L ie Stalinist.

[daft punk]

Hey, it's not my job to defend Marxist-Leninism. I just find these Trotsky vs Stalin debates hilariously tiring.
as do I, only without the hilarity

[daft punk]

It's really great to see how an inexperienced Trot rambles about menshevism linking it to Marxist-Leninists.

Do you see the irony,comrades?



I replied in a similar thread,i doubt i will repeat myself.

Explain why Stalinist Popular Frontism stagism differs from Menshevism. It is similar. Stalin advocated capitalism. I proved that in the OP. When are you going to justify your support for capitalism?

[Omsk]

I proved that in the OP

You proved nothing.



When are you going to justify your support for capitalism?


Will you stop it already?It just reminds me why i stopped reading your shambles.

I don't have to justify anything,not to you,not to anyone else.

[Leftsolidarity]

Now, answer the OP and explain why you are a M-L ie Stalinist.


When are you going to justify your support for capitalism?

Could you stop trolling your own thread please? You're fucking annoying.

[Rooster]

I don't have to justify anything,not to you,not to anyone else.

Then why even participate in discussion? :confused:

[Rainsborough]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2425321#post2425321)
Now, answer the OP and explain why you are a M-L ie Stalinist.

There are probably many reasons, and only comrade Omsk could answer those (although I guess no answer would satisfy you).
However, one of those reasons could be annoying prats like you.
Heres a question back, why are you a Troskyist?

[Franz Fanonipants]

i am scandalized that men who have been dead for fifty+ years were incorrect and possibly morally spurious

[Geiseric]

Id say that I'm a trotskyist because he wrote down some theoretical books as a progression of communism from focusing it on the first world only to realising that imperialised countries will have communist revolutions before first world ones and that process is what described the 20th century more or less. But its a given that I'm also a marxist and a leninist relative to their contributions.