Differences between Marx, Lenin and Mao

[TomVine92]

Can someone please sum up the differences between these three prominent communists? I'm seeing varying opinions all over the internet and am quite confused!

Thanks.

[Rooster]

What do you mean?

[daft punk]

I dont think there was much difference between Marx and Lenin. Mao however was a Stalinist. He subscribed to Stalinist ideology so he wanted China to have several decades of capitalism after 1945. However he was forced to collectivise/nationalise much quicker than that. The other main difference was that Mao concentrated on the peasantry. That is not Marxist. Although he was a Stalinist, I think Mao genuinely wanted socialism ultimately, after several decades. He didnt understand that Stalin was just taking the piss.

[Ostrinski]

On what terms? Theory? Accomplishments? Facial features?

[islandmilitia]

I dont think there was much difference between Marx and Lenin. Mao however was a Stalinist. He subscribed to Stalinist ideology so he wanted China to have several decades of capitalism after 1945. However he was forced to collectivise/nationalise much quicker than that. The other main difference was that Mao concentrated on the peasantry. That is not Marxist. Although he was a Stalinist, I think Mao genuinely wanted socialism ultimately, after several decades. He didnt understand that Stalin was just taking the piss.

Saying that Mao "wanted China to have several decades of capitalism after 1945" is really a misrepresentation of Mao's ideas, and you're going to have to provide some form of empirical evidence to support your argument. The concept of New Democracy does have an important role in Mao's thought but Mao did not understand this concept to mean that the state would allow for the open development of a capitalist economy, especially not over a long period of time. Mao saw New Democracy as a structural necessity in societies emerging from semi-feudal semi-colonial relations, but he also recognized that New Democracy, embodying private ownership of land alongside state control of the leading sectors, embodied internal tensions and contradictions that would ultimately be resolved only through a transition to socialism or through the installation of a fully capitalist economy. In particular, Mao recognized that although land reform had transformed land holdings across China, the fact that land had fallen under the private ownership of individual peasant households meant that, because individual families had different access to resources and connections, unless there was also a rapid move to collectivize agriculture, there would rapidly arise a situation of renewed rural inequality, because of better-positioned families being able to buy the newly-acquired holdings of poorer peasants.

It was for this reason that Mao called for further change in the Chinese countryside in the early 1950s, leading to the formation of mutual aid teams and then cooperatives, against the arguments of Liu Shaoqi, whose positions were nearer to what you describe, about there being a capitalist economy for several decades in order to develop a technological base. Mao's arguments for continuous socialist change after 1949 were not arguments he was forced into, they were central to his theoretical understanding of New Democracy before 1949, and were consistent with the key themes of his thought from the 1930s onwards. In fact, you should explain what you mean about Mao being "forced" to collective/nationalize more quickly than planned.

[TomVine92]

On what terms? Theory? Accomplishments? Facial features?

Well I'm talking about theory specifically. I've read that Lenin was in favour of Vanguardism and Marx was not necessarily. Are there any other major differences between the two?

[Blake's Baby]

Without putting meanings to terms it's a bit difficult to find out what you mean. By 'vanguardism' do you mean an organised revolutionary party? Marx wasn't opposed to that, though he doesn't write about it much. The First International was an attempt to help the working class organise itself; the Second International (with its ostensibly Marxist programme) was a similar attempt... Marx was heavily involved with organisation, when he thought there were good reasons for doing it. And when he considered that theoretical work was more important he did that.

If you mean something else by 'vanguardism', then it would be a good idea to explain what you think it is.

[TomVine92]

No that's exactly what I meant - 'Vanguardism' being a party driving the revolution. So if there is little difference between Marx and Lenin, how did Trotsky differ? I hear people where I live in London call the SWP 'Troskyists'. What makes Trotsky's ideas different to Lenin's?

[seventeethdecember2016]

Mao however was a Stalinist. He subscribed to Stalinist ideology so he wanted China to have several decades of capitalism after 1945. However he was forced to collectivise/nationalise much quicker than that.
Sigh... When will you idiots realize that there is no such thing as Stalinism? The ideology that Stalin followed and partially invented was Marxist-Leninism. Kaganovich once said, "Long live Stalinism,"-I paraphrase- and Stalin replied by ridiculing him and saying that they were Marxist-Leninists.

[Tim Cornelis]

One of the differences between Marx and Lenin is on the role of the state.

The state exists because of class antagonisms, and will disappear as class antagonisms disappear, according to Marx and Engels. Lenin, however, argued that the state would continue to exist as long as labour-notes existed to manage this "bourgeois law," which makes no sense since the state does not exist to manage minor inequalities but because of class antagonisms.

In addition Marx called for "the vanguard of the proletariat” to be “capable of assuming power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new system, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie.”

It is thus the vanguard party that organises the new system and thus whether or not labour-notes exist. The vanguard decides whether the state lives or dies.

This is clearly a difference between Marx and Lenin.

Mao advocated "new democracy" which entails four classes, including the capitalist class, to participate in politics.


Sigh... When will you idiots realize that there is no such thing as Stalinism? The ideology that Stalin followed and partially invented was Marxist-Leninism. Kaganovich once said, "Long live Stalinism,"-I paraphrase- and Stalin replied by ridiculing him and saying that they were Marxist-Leninists.

That doesn't mean anything. Marxism-Leninism is Stalin's interpretation/implementation of Marx, Lenin, and Engels, hence Stalinism.

If Marxism-Leninism is not Stalinism, then Trotskyism and Luxemburgism do not exist either.

[Blake's Baby]

No that's exactly what I meant - 'Vanguardism' being a party driving the revolution...

OK, now you're saying that there's a party 'driving' the revolution. That's not what I said.

[TomVine92]

OK, now you're saying that there's a party 'driving' the revolution. That's not what I said.

I know. That's what I'm saying! You asked me what I meant by Vanguardism.

Gah, all this disagreement and in-fighting is exactly why we remain in a capitalist world, the left is so divided!

[Dave B]

I think when it comes to Leninist 'vanguardism' it is not so much about the word or label itself but the idea concept and meaning of it.

For some Leninist 'vanguardism' was just a modern form and rebranding of what had previously been called by Karl and Fred ‘Blanquism’.

And thus that the essence or ‘content’ of the ideology of Leninist 'Vanguardism' and 'Blanquism' were the same, and just the label and name had changed.

I suppose then it is a matter of seeing if the hat fits and as to whether Blanquism (as defined by Engels) and Leninism are basically the same.

And thus is;



Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm

The same basic idea as;




In fact, it is only after the vanguard of the proletariat, supported by the whole or the majority of this, the only revolutionary class, overthrows the exploiters, suppresses them, emancipates the exploited from their state of slavery and-immediately improves their conditions of life at the expense of the expropriated capitalists—it is only after this………… that the masses of the toilers and exploited can be educated, trained and organised [a]round the [...vanguard of the..]proletariat under whose influence and guidance, they can get rid of the selfishness, disunity, vices and weaknesses engendered by private property; only then will they be converted into a free union of free workers.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/04.htm

And whether or not the Blanquist as ‘instinctive’ socialist had the same kind of programme as Lenin put into practice as above in 1920.

Actually Engels predicted that the Russian revolution might be a Blanquist inspired one, in a letter to a later Menshevik Vera ‘trigger Zasulich.

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

And the Mensheviks in 1905 did in fact label and describe the Bolsheviks as neo Russian Blanquists, thus;


Trotsky; Our Political Tasks (the last chapter) A Dictatorship Over The Proletariat



Thus we have charged our Ural Comrades with Blanquism. ……………..…… we consider it highly useful to quote Engels on the question of the role which the Blanquists ascribe to themselves at the moment of the socialist revolution.

“Trained in the conspiratorial school, accustomed to the strict discipline required in a conspiracy, they acted on the view that a relatively small number of determined and well organised people may, under favourable circumstances, not only capture the power, but through the application of powerful merciless energy maintain it until they succeed in rallying to the revolution the masses of the people and grouping them around the small handful of leaders. This requires, above all, the strictest dictatorial centralization of power in the hands of the new government.”

(Marx “The Civil War in France”, Engels’ Preface to the third German Edition

On Stalin it depends whether or not you are talking about Stalin the Marxist in 1906 eg page 337 ;


where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3

And whether or not ‘revisionist’ Marxist-Leninism rejects the idea of ‘political power’ and the state.


Mao like Lenin saw the road forward to socialism being through state capitalism, thus;


THE ONLY ROAD FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF CAPITALIST INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE September 7, 1953



The transformation of capitalism into socialism is to be accomplished through state capitalism.
………………….

3. The policy laid down in Article 31 of the Common Programme should now be clearly understood and concretely applied step by step. "Clearly understood" means that people in positions of leadership at the central and local levels should first of all have the firm conviction that state capitalism is the only road for the transformation of capitalist industry and commerce and for the gradual completion of the transition to socialism. So far this has not been the case either with members of the Communist Party or with democratic personages. The present meeting is being held to achieve that end.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/TC53.html

And from Lenin;



It is because one possible way to proceed to communism is through state capitalism, provided the state is controlled by the working class. This is exactly the position in the “present case”.

……….we are still making progress along the path of state capitalism, a path that leads us forward to socialism and communism (which is the highest stage of socialism),

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm

which was also Trotskys position in 1922;


……………this is explicable in part by an incomprehension of an expression frequently used by us, that we now have state capitalism. I shall not enter into an evaluation of this term; for in any case we need only to qualify what we understand by it. By state capitalism we all understood property belonging to the state which itself was in the hands of the bourgeoisie, which exploited the working class. Our state undertakings operate along commercial lines based on the market. But who stands in power here? The working class. Herein lies the principled distinction of our state ‘capitalism’ in inverted commas from state capitalism without inverted commas.

What does this mean in perspective? Just this. The more state capitalism say, in Hohenzollern Germany, as it was, developed, the more powerfully the class of junkers and capitalists of Germany could hold down the working class. The more our ‘state capitalism’ develops the richer the work ing class will become, that is the firmer will become the foundation of socialism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/youth/youth.htm


As Lenin correctly said Marx never wrote a word about Lenin’s, Mao’s and Trotsky’s state capitalism under communism.


Not a single book has been written about state capitalism under communism. It did not occur even to Marx to write a word on this subject; and he died without leaving a single precise statement or definite instruction on it. That is why we must overcome the difficulty entirely by ourselves
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm

So it wasn't marxism.

[seventeethdecember2016]

That doesn't mean anything. Marxism-Leninism is Stalin's interpretation/implementation of Marx, Lenin, and Engels, hence Stalinism.

If Marxism-Leninism is not Stalinism, then Trotskyism and Luxemburgism do not exist either.
Which leads me to repeat my indignation from the previous comment...

By the way, your reasoning for Stalinism existing is a logical fallacy.

[BE_]

The difference between them was their sexiness factor.

Marx was a sexy human. Mainly because of His lustful beard. If I was around in his time, I would of ran my fingers through his beard. When ever I think of him, I imagine me and him just running through glorious green fields with Hoppípolla by Sigur Ros playing in my mind. Then I imagine us stopping at a tree, and then him starting read me excerpts from the communist manifesto whilst I am trying my hardest not to touch myself.

The other two were just mere mortal humans compared to immortal Marx with his uncombed hair and his crumb filled beard.

[Blake's Baby]

I think that you should try not to derail the thread with pointless crap that belongs in Chit-Chat: this is the Learning sub-forum and people are allowed to post questions even if you think they're stupid.

From the description of this sub-forum:

"Learning A place for beginners and learners to ask their political questions about theory or specific issues. Don't worry if you think your questions are stupid or pointless, ask away. Learning is not stupid and is never pointless."

[BE_]

Sorry about that. That was last night, and I was half asleep and half awake. I really don't remember posting that.

But seriously,




Gah, all this disagreement and in-fighting is exactly why we remain in a capitalist world, the left is so divided!

I totally agree with you on that one, buddy.

[Anderson]

Each has taken revolutionary science to a higher level:)

Marx = Dialectical and Historical materialism; Revolution to be done by working class
Lenin = Communist Party to organize revolution, full time revolutionaries; Democratic centralism
Mao = After revolution capitalists do counter-revolution through the communist Party