The term Marxist-Leninist - split from 'Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist)?'

[daft punk]

When I think of Marxism-Leninism I think of the theories of Marx and Lenin.

My point is, that makes no sense. Stalin abandoned Marxism and Leninism. I gave a rock solid example on China in the OP, unless you wanna argue that Marx was a stagist.




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.

Marxist-Leninist means Stalinist. That is just a fact, not something I made up. Few on here would dispute that. Any party that calls itself M-L will be a Stalinist one.

Marx and Lenin are dead too, what has that got to do with anything?

What are you on about 'stirring up shit'? This is a political debate forum. The debates of the nature of the USSR etc are fundamental to theory. Everyone talks about the Russian revolution etc.

If the real world is like revleft, then about a third of socialists are Stalinists, a third are Trots, and a third are anarchists/left coms.

What are the chances of these 3 groups working together to make socialism a reality?

The left coms denounce the other two groups as little different, creators of a dictatorship, a capitalist one in fact.

The Trots point out that Russia wasn't socialist according to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg, and that Stalin had no interest in world socialism.

The Stalinists still repeat the lies made up in the 1930s, calling Trotsky a collaborator with fascism to bring down the USSR.

It's a fucking madhouse. You cant pretend otherwise. Either we establish the facts, and the best way to achieve socialism, or we sweep it all under the carpet to continue festering.

I showed in the OP Stalin calling for capitalism in China. Watch how every Stalinist on revleft puts his fingers in his ears and starts singing la la la.

All I want is honest debate. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

You are a Stalinist. Explain why, explain your views, explain why you think Stalin was right to want China to be capitalist. Don't pretend it's not important or sectarian to discuss the history of revolution and counter-revolution.

[daft punk]

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.

ok there are variations like Maoist, but essentially Mao was a Stalinist, even though Stalin was backing the other side (KMT).

[Rainsborough]

So, if we can't use the name Marxist-Leninist without being accused of being Stalinist, what would you suggest? :confused:

[daft punk]

So, if we can't use the name Marxist-Leninist without being accused of being Stalinist, what would you suggest? :confused:


Well most Marxists who are not Stalinists (actually I don't consider Stalinists to be Marxists, for obvious reasons) are either Trots or consider themselves to be 'left coms', although there are a few other minor trends who follow various 'dead guys'.

Some Stalinists dont consider themsleves to be Stalnists, eg in North Korea, but they are just variants, like Totskyism has variants.

[Rainsborough]

So, a Marxist-Leninist who doesn't wish to be a Stalinist is really a Trotskyist?
And for a Marxist-Leninist who has no use for Stalin or Trotsky?

[OCMO]

Who cares if Stalin used this term first? The first guys to use the word socialism have different views and definitions of a socialist society than most members of Revleft, but I think they don't mind being called socialists. Same principle applies.

Stalin himself said that Marxism-Leninism is a ideology that follows the theory of Marx and Lenin, so to be a Marxist-Leninist I don't have to have the same interpretation of the theory of Marx and Lenin that Stalin had, or Mao, or Hohxa, or Breznev, or everybody that claims to be one.

If I apply correctly the theory of Marx and Lenin can be subjected to criticism and the same goes for every other person/organization claiming to be M-L. I in a self-criticism I don't consider my ideas and practice to be aligned as with Stalin, same goes for the organization i'm in, that claims to be M-L too. Some M-L uphold Stalin, other don't.

As for my opinion of Stalin, far from thinking that he's the devil and the killer of socialism, he had many flaws, namely on organization (I mean, he pushed away all "traitors" and stuff and the next guy in the chair all of the sudden is a revisionist?) and sectarianism (whereas Lenin allowed some dissent within the Party, Stalin didn't allowed dissent even outside of the Party). On the other side, he stabilized a economic and societal framework that was different from capitalism and one step closer to the full marxist society (even Trotsky agrees with this). So he's so-so.

[Sentinel]

So, if we can't use the name Marxist-Leninist without being accused of being Stalinist, what would you suggest? :confused:

Non-stalinist marxists have used a variety of labels to describe themselves. I've no problem with the term 'trotskyist' myself, but some prefer 'orthodox marxist' or simply 'marxist'.

Trotsky suggested 'bolshevik-leninist' and called himself that, but I haven't heard many others use it.

[daft punk]

So, a Marxist-Leninist who doesn't wish to be a Stalinist is really a Trotskyist?
And for a Marxist-Leninist who has no use for Stalin or Trotsky?

Trotskyists would not call themselves Marxist-Leninist, because it implies Stalinist.

As I say, Marxist-Leninist means neither Marxist- Leninist. That is the opinion of Trotskyists anyway. So, if you are Marxist and Leninist you would be wise not to call yourself Marxist-Leninist.

Most socialists who consider themselves to be Leninists are Stalinist or Trotskyist. If you want to reject Trotskyism you should know why because basically Leninism and Trotskyism are the same.

[Ostrinski]

It's all just semantics really, and really ridiculous semantics at that. It all revolves around the "-". You can be a Marxist, a Leninist, and not a Stalinist, but if you are a Marxist-Leninist you are a Stalinist.

[Ostrinski]

Also, Rainsborough, you could look into Italian school left communism, which is Leninist.

[Conscript]

What does it mean to be an orthodox marxist today? Anything?

I mean, I think I remember robbo referring to himself as one a while ago, that's about it, but I don't think even he uses the term anymore.

[Ostrinski]

Pretty sure robbo is an anarchist.

[daft punk]

Who cares if Stalin used this term first? The first guys to use the word socialism have different views and definitions of a socialist society than most members of Revleft, but I think they don't mind being called socialists. Same principle applies.

Stalin himself said that Marxism-Leninism is a ideology that follows the theory of Marx and Lenin, so to be a Marxist-Leninist I don't have to have the same interpretation of the theory of Marx and Lenin that Stalin had, or Mao, or Hohxa, or Breznev, or everybody that claims to be one.

If I apply correctly the theory of Marx and Lenin can be subjected to criticism and the same goes for every other person/organization claiming to be M-L. I in a self-criticism I don't consider my ideas and practice to be aligned as with Stalin, same goes for the organization i'm in, that claims to be M-L too. Some M-L uphold Stalin, other don't.


Name me a party that labels itself M-L but is explicitly not Stalinist in politics.





As for my opinion of Stalin, far from thinking that he's the devil and the killer of socialism, he had many flaws, namely on organization (I mean, he pushed away all "traitors" and stuff and the next guy in the chair all of the sudden is a revisionist?) and sectarianism (whereas Lenin allowed some dissent within the Party, Stalin didn't allowed dissent even outside of the Party). On the other side, he stabilized a economic and societal framework that was different from capitalism and one step closer to the full marxist society (even Trotsky agrees with this). So he's so-so.



Harsh words, calling Trotsky a so-so. Yes Trotsky agreed that the USSR was one step towards socialism. Why not take the second step and have actual socialism? That was what Trotsky wanted Russia to do. In fact they had the other step up to 1924, the workers government, not proper workers democracy but it was a backward country in a world war, civil war and then famine and economic devastation.

Ok, tell me, why do you think Stalin did little about collectivising in the 1920s, and then suddenly, after he had kicked out the Left Opposition, rapidly collectivised from 1929 onwards?

Bear in mind that from 1924-8 he allowed the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. Why the sudden lurch in policy to rapid forced collectivisation?

[Rainsborough]

Also, Rainsborough, you could look into Italian school left communism, which is Leninist.

Thank you comrade, any links would be welcome

[daft punk]

robbo is an impossiblist. Impossiblism is a variant of Marxism based on the ideas of De Leon. They are a bit like anarchists though.

[Conscript]

Pretty sure robbo is an anarchist.

Now at least, but I meant a while ago, if my memory serves me correctly it was said in like 2010. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Leftsolidarity]

My point is, that makes no sense. Stalin abandoned Marxism and Leninism. I gave a rock solid example on China in the OP, unless you wanna argue that Marx was a stagist.



And I'm saying, what does Marx and Lenin have to do with that? I'm not talking about China nor am I talking about stagism. I'm saying, why does "Marxism-Leninism" = "Stalinism" to you?




Marxist-Leninist means Stalinist. That is just a fact, not something I made up. Few on here would dispute that. Any party that calls itself M-L will be a Stalinist one.



No, it doesn't. It means a follower of the ideological path of Marx and Lenin. Hence, Marxism-Leninism. That a "fact" to you. You even said in the OP, "to me" when equating it to "Stalinism". So no, it is not a fact. It is your view based on your personal feelings of people who don't call themselves Trotskyists.



Marx and Lenin are dead too, what has that got to do with anything?

What are you on about 'stirring up shit'? This is a political debate forum. The debates of the nature of the USSR etc are fundamental to theory. Everyone talks about the Russian revolution etc.


Sectarian flame wars are not "political discussions" or fundamental to theory. They are pointless and counter-productive.



If the real world is like revleft, then about a third of socialists are Stalinists, a third are Trots, and a third are anarchists/left coms.

What are the chances of these 3 groups working together to make socialism a reality?

The left coms denounce the other two groups as little different, creators of a dictatorship, a capitalist one in fact.

The Trots point out that Russia wasn't socialist according to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg, and that Stalin had no interest in world socialism.

The Stalinists still repeat the lies made up in the 1930s, calling Trotsky a collaborator with fascism to bring down the USSR.


God, this is fucking dumb. I doubt there are many at all who describe themselves as "Stalinists" or even look favorably at Stalin. You just think every communist that isn't a Trotskyist is a Stalinist because apparently they had the only 2 communist views ever. So no, a third is not "Stalinist" and there isn't even a real Stalinist tendency.

Also, I love your bias in your explanation. The Trots "point out", as if they are all knowing.



All I want is honest debate. Otherwise it's a waste of time.



lololol sure.... :lol::laugh::laugh:



You are a Stalinist.

Oh, really?

Thanks for informing me. I had no idea. I didn't know I subscribed to Stalin's theories or even looked at him kindly.

In case you didn't catch on, no. I'm not a Stalinist you dumb piece of shit. I'm just a communist who doesn't think that anyone who doesn't call themselves a Trotskyist is suddenly a Stalinist.

I love how you think you can tell me what tendency I belong too.


Explain why, explain your views, explain why you think Stalin was right to want China to be capitalist. Don't pretend it's not important or sectarian to discuss the history of revolution and counter-revolution.

I don't think that at all you fucking dumbass. Stop trying to put words in my mouth with your bullshit sectarian lies.



ok there are variations like Maoist, but essentially Mao was a Stalinist, even though Stalin was backing the other side (KMT).


lolol "Mao was a Stalinist even though Mao and Stalin were againist each other." You get more ridiculous with every post.



Well most Marxists who are not Stalinists (actually I don't consider Stalinists to be Marxists, for obvious reasons) are either Trots or consider themselves to be 'left coms', although there are a few other minor trends who follow various 'dead guys'.

Some Stalinists dont consider themsleves to be Stalnists, eg in North Korea, but they are just variants, like Totskyism has variants.

So either I'm a Trotskyist, a left-com, a Stalinist, or just a minor trend for a "dead guy"? Holy fucking shit. What about just a fucking Marxist? Or maybe, like this thread is titled, a MARXIST-LENINIST. Stop pooling every communist you disagree with as a Stalinist.


Trotskyists would not call themselves Marxist-Leninist, because it implies Stalinist.



It does? I thought it implied Marx and Lenin.


As I say, Marxist-Leninist means neither Marxist- Leninist. That is the opinion of Trotskyists anyway. So, if you are Marxist and Leninist you would be wise not to call yourself Marxist-Leninist.


Oh yeah, I forgot you see everything through your tendency beer-goggles.


Most socialists who consider themselves to be Leninists are Stalinist or Trotskyist.

Really?


If you want to reject Trotskyism you should know why because basically Leninism and Trotskyism are the same.

Maybe to you.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

ML's might not be explicitly Stalinist but it is their support for Stalin's theory of 'Socialism in one country' that differentiates them from the orthodox Leninism of Lucaks and Trotskyism. So whilst many ML's don't care for Stalin as an individual they are his theoretical descendants . If a ML rejects SIOC then they cease to be a ML regardless of what the name may suggest.

[OCMO]

I called Stalin a so-so, not Trotsky.

As for parties, I think the Portuguese Communist Party, the one I know, is not stalinist. Sure it has a past with stalinist, and some members are stalinists, but is not mandatory to be stalinist, it's not a criteria to have responsabilities within the party, rarely Stalin is mentioned in public speeches and such, I think i've never seen a picture of Stalin hanging on a wall, some (A)'s drawn tough, and if some exist, not even close to Marx, Lenin, Engels, Che and others. It's public enemies are capitalist parties, not others who call themselves socialists, not anti-religious. SIOC is not followed, patriotism is claimed but that is more on a propagandistic nature than a programatic and ideological one. Literature published is more focused on Marx, Lenin and Cunhal than Stalin. It's unitary policy is different from the Popular Fronts, etc.

In summary, it doesn't evokes Stalin as a proeminent socialist (on the party programme only is refered Marx, Engels and Lenin) and doesn't share, in my view the party organics with the stalin-era CPSU (at least, no more that CPSU shared with the Bolshevik Party).

[Sentinel]

No, it doesn't. It means a follower of the ideological path of Marx and Lenin.


I'd really like it to be as you say, as it would be logical, but daft punk is correct -- it really is an internationally established fact since way back that 'marxist-leninist' is synonymous with 'stalinist', due to Stalin basically hijacking that term.

[OCMO]

And socialism was hijacked since way back by european liberal capitalists.

[Sentinel]

Well, I don't really care, but everyone will think that you are a Stalinist if you use that term. Suite yourselves. :)

[daft punk]

I'm saying, why does "Marxism-Leninism" = "Stalinism" to you?

Because that's what it is. Stalinists call themselves Marxist-Leninists.

"According to G. Lisichkin, Marxism–Leninism as a separate ideology was compiled by Stalin in his book "The questions of Leninism".[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism#cite_note-8) During the period of Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union), Marxism–Leninism was proclaimed the official ideology of the state.

Whether Stalin's practices actually followed the principles of Karl Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) and Lenin is still a subject of debate among historians and political scientists.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism#cite_note-10) Trotskyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism) in particular believe that Stalinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism) contradicted authentic Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) and Leninism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism),[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism#cite_note-11) and they initially used the term "Bolshevik–Leninism" to describe their own ideology of anti-Stalinist (and later anti-Maoist) communism. Left communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism) rejected "Marxism–Leninism" as an anti-Marxist current.

The term "Marxism–Leninism" is most often used by those who believe that Lenin's legacy was successfully carried forward by Joseph Stalin (Stalinists). However, it is also used by some who repudiate Stalin, such as the supporters of Nikita Khrushchev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev).[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism#cite_note-12)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism#Historical





"Marxist-Leninist means Stalinist. That is just a fact, not something I made up. Few on here would dispute that. Any party that calls itself M-L will be a Stalinist one. "

No, it doesn't. It means a follower of the ideological path of Marx and Lenin. Hence, Marxism-Leninism. That a "fact" to you. You even said in the OP, "to me" when equating it to "Stalinism". So no, it is not a fact. It is your view based on your personal feelings of people who don't call themselves Trotskyists.

see above




Sectarian flame wars are not "political discussions" or fundamental to theory. They are pointless and counter-productive.

This thread is for Stalinists to explain why they are Stalinists. A Platform for the Opposition. Not a single bullet to the head. Call it sectarian to ask them to explain their ideas if you want, funny way of looking at it if you ask me.




God, this is fucking dumb. I doubt there are many at all who describe themselves as "Stalinists" or even look favorably at Stalin. You just think every communist that isn't a Trotskyist is a Stalinist because apparently they had the only 2 communist views ever. So no, a third is not "Stalinist" and there isn't even a real Stalinist tendency.



Also, I love your bias in your explanation. The Trots "point out", as if they are all knowing.

I think most M-Ls on here would defend Stalin, they seem to. As I say, apart from left coms, what are there apart from Stalinists and Trotskyists? That is the basic divide.

What are you, a Titoist or something?

As for pointing out that Russia wasnt like the communism Marx described, er, did the state wither away?

As for pointing out that Stalin had no interest in world revolution, did I not show you in Stalin's own word how that applied to China in the OP?





lololol sure.... :lol::laugh::laugh:

Try is sometime. You might like it.




Oh, really?

Thanks for informing me. I had no idea. I didn't know I subscribed to Stalin's theories or even looked at him kindly.

In case you didn't catch on, no. I'm not a Stalinist you dumb piece of shit. I'm just a communist who doesn't think that anyone who doesn't call themselves a Trotskyist is suddenly a Stalinist.

I love how you think you can tell me what tendency I belong too.

Your profile says WWP. The WWP is a weird one, but I would say Stalinist, yeah, or Stalinist-lite maybe. How about semi-Stalinist?

By the way, dont accuse me of flaming and then call me dumb shit, it stinks.






I don't think that at all you fucking dumbass. Stop trying to put words in my mouth with your bullshit sectarian lies.


ooh! So much for the anti-flaming left unity. You only had to say you didnt agree that China should be capitailist. Well, your party didnt exist in 1945 so I dunno what you thought. Your party was however, leaning towards Maoism in it's early years. It's not surprising that you are so freaked out on this as the WWP went form Trotskyist, sorta, to Stalinist-lite, via Maoism on the way. A bit of a mixed bag.






lolol "Mao was a Stalinist even though Mao and Stalin were againist each other." You get more ridiculous with every post.

You just like digging a hole for yourself more like. I already showed Mao in his own words speaking of the Stalinist Two Stage Theory/Popular Frontist policies to be applied to China. Earlier he had merged with the KMT under Stalin's instructions, but twice massacred, thrice shy as they say.








"Trotskyists would not call themselves Marxist-Leninist, because it implies Stalinist. "

It does? I thought it implied Marx and Lenin.

This is basic stuff and I have explained it about 10 times on this one thread already.

[Sentinel]

Split from here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-leninist-stalinisti-t170316/index.html).

[Lucretia]

So, a Marxist-Leninist who doesn't wish to be a Stalinist is really a Trotskyist?
And for a Marxist-Leninist who has no use for Stalin or Trotsky?

I think you're missing the point. What you "want" isn't really relevant here. If you're following a theoretical line that was devised by Stalin, and which differs markedly from what Marx and Lenin wrote, it makes little sense to dub you a "Marxist-Leninist" and a lot more sense to call you a "Stalinist." Whether you like it or not. If we're going to go around and start referring to people only by what they wish to be called, why don't you start by calling me The Greatest Revleft Poster in History? :)

[Manic Impressive]

Also, Rainsborough, you could look into Italian school left communism, which is Leninist.
He could also look into Dutch/German Left communism which is also Leninist, so basically he could look into Left communism.

Pretty sure robbo is an anarchist.
Nope he's pretty much the same as me Marxist without the bullshit

robbo is an impossiblist. Impossiblism is a variant of Marxism based on the ideas of De Leon. They are a bit like anarchists though.
Nope De Leon was pretty much a Leninist. De Leon had only a tiny tiny influence on our party. The other party which formed at the same time as ours the Socialist Labour Party was De Leonist, if the similarities had been that great we would have formed one party not two. There is a massive difference between us and De Leon

[El Oso Rojo]

ML's might not be explicitly Stalinist but it is their support for Stalin's theory of 'Socialism in one country' that differentiates them from the orthodox Leninism of Lucaks and Trotskyism. So whilst many ML's don't care for Stalin as an individual they are his theoretical descendants . If a ML rejects SIOC then they cease to be a ML regardless of what the name may suggest.

I disagree with that I believe people shouldn't tell people who prefer to refer to themselves as marxist, or trotskyist whatever, they are not so and so. You don't have to be ideologically pure to be something unless it have some bourgeoise ideology to it.

[Aurora]

Marxist-Leninist was the term created and used by Stalin's faction in the SU they adopted it after Lenin died. Marxist-Leninists are Stalinists.

Trotsky's faction called themselves Bolshevik-Leninists although today they refer to themselves as Trotskyists which perhaps ironically was a term created by Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev to try to make Trotsky seem separate from the Bolshevik party, Zinoviev admitted this when he was in the Left Opposition but again rallied against 'Trotskyism' when he flipped over to Stalin's group.

[A Marxist Historian]

So, a Marxist-Leninist who doesn't wish to be a Stalinist is really a Trotskyist?
And for a Marxist-Leninist who has no use for Stalin or Trotsky?

One cannot reinvent the wheel. There are practically no contemporary notions with respect to socialism that you didn't already have in the 1920s. And the reverse is not the case.

Why is this? Because the world left movement was far, far bigger and broader than it is now, and the general level of theoretical understanding was higher, as this was the immediate aftermath of bunches of workers revolutions, one of which being successful. Theoretical understanding depends on practice, and there was a whole lot more successful praxis back then.

There have been plenty of changes in the world since then, but really only one fundamental one, namely the rise of other states similar to the USSR and the collapse of the USSR itself. If anything, the world is fundamentally economically more similar now to what it looked like when Lenin was writing the pamphlet than it was 20 years ago before the USSR collapsed. This is still the era of imperialism and monopoly capitalism, and just about everything Lenin talked about in his famous pamphlet on imperialism is totally relevant to right now.

If you like Marx & Lenin and don't like either Stalin or Trotsky, well, you are probably either a Bordiga style leftcom or a Bukharinist, whether or not you realize this. Or even a Zinovievite, perish the thought. (The American SWP are sort of Zinovievites, though you'd never get them to admit that.)

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I called Stalin a so-so, not Trotsky.

As for parties, I think the Portuguese Communist Party, the one I know, is not stalinist. Sure it has a past with stalinist, and some members are stalinists, but is not mandatory to be stalinist, it's not a criteria to have responsabilities within the party, rarely Stalin is mentioned in public speeches and such, I think i've never seen a picture of Stalin hanging on a wall, some (A)'s drawn tough, and if some exist, not even close to Marx, Lenin, Engels, Che and others. It's public enemies are capitalist parties, not others who call themselves socialists, not anti-religious. SIOC is not followed, patriotism is claimed but that is more on a propagandistic nature than a programatic and ideological one. Literature published is more focused on Marx, Lenin and Cunhal than Stalin. It's unitary policy is different from the Popular Fronts, etc.

In summary, it doesn't evokes Stalin as a proeminent socialist (on the party programme only is refered Marx, Engels and Lenin) and doesn't share, in my view the party organics with the stalin-era CPSU (at least, no more that CPSU shared with the Bolshevik Party).

You have to differentiate personal admiration for Stalin from Stalinism as a theoretical doctrine.

Stalin's one and only theoretical innovation was the concept of "socialism in one country," which was completely alien to the ideas of Marx and Lenin.

So if someone wants to be a Marxist Leninist in fact, he has to oppose the idea of "socialism in one country." But in practice, "Marxist-Leninists" invariably support SIOC, whatever they think of Stalin personally.

That is why not just Trotskyists but just about all non "Marxist Leninists" consider the term to be deceptive and dishonest.

-M.H.-

[o well this is ok I guess]

Ya'll ever read Wittgenstein?

[Blake's Baby]

Marxist-Leninist was the term created and used by Stalin's faction in the SU they adopted it after Lenin died. Marxist-Leninists are Stalinists.

Trotsky's faction called themselves Bolshevik-Leninists although today they refer to themselves as Trotskyists which perhaps ironically was a term created by Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev to try to make Trotsky seem separate from the Bolshevik party, Zinoviev admitted this when he was in the Left Opposition but again rallied against 'Trotskyism' when he flipped over to Stalin's group.


Well, yes, pretty much. The official name for what the rest of us call 'Stalinism' is Marxist-Leninism.

Much as the official name of what we call 'Troskyism' is (or was) Bolshevik-Leninsm.

Now, the Troskyists may disagree and say that Stalinists are neither Marxist nor Leninist, and Stalinists may disagree and say that Trotskyists are neither Bolsheviks nor Leninists, but really both of those are beside the point; the official names that the founders of those two tendencies (respectively, Stalin and Trosky) gave to them were 'Marxist-Leninsm' and 'Bolshevik-Leninsm'. So 'Marxist-Leninists' are Stalinists whatever they think of Stalin. If they reject Stalin's contributions to Marxist theory - Socialism in One Country for instance - it's hard to see how they can be Marxist-Leninists.

Lenin, was neither a Marxist-Lenist, nor a Bolshevik-Leninist. He was a Marxist. The SPGB may dispute how good a Marxist, as is their right as 'Marxians'. But 'Marxist-Leninism' was formulated after 1924 by Stalin, and there's no way round that; it is what the rest of us call 'Stalinism'.



...

If you like Marx & Lenin and don't like either Stalin or Trotsky, well, you are probably either a Bordiga style leftcom or a Bukharinist, whether or not you realize this. Or even a Zinovievite, perish the thought...

-M.H.-

The Bordigists are a small minority of Left Comms. Most of the rest of us I think regard him in a similar way to Trotsky, with positives and negatives. But then Bukharin had his moments too. Left Comms (including Bordigists) generally support Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. Do we then all qualify as Trotskyists?

[Magón]

So, if we can't use the name Marxist-Leninist without being accused of being Stalinist, what would you suggest? :confused:

So, a Marxist-Leninist who doesn't wish to be a Stalinist is really a Trotskyist?
And for a Marxist-Leninist who has no use for Stalin or Trotsky?

How about just Leninist? It's short, simple, and to the point if you don't adhere to Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc.

[Leftsolidarity]

I might respond more in depth later tonight or tomorrow. I just got off work and am exhausted. I want to point out that everyone calling Marxism-Leninism "Stalinism" is a Left-Com or a Trotskyist. All people who don't subscribe to the tendency labeling the tendency as they wish, while those who do (or could) describe themselves as M-L's have denounced Stalin and his theories.

I don't see how the accusations stand. It seems as if it is just different communists with different views, it doesn't make any of us "Stalinists".

[Ostrinski]

boy oh boy do we give too much of a shit about what we call ourselves

edit: sorry that was elementary but it had to be said

[Grenzer]

boy oh boy do we give too much of a shit about what we call ourselves

edit: sorry that was elementary but it had to be said

Well when Daft Punk is on his trolling streak again, what else can you really expect? He's stuck in the 1940's.(and likely with his head up his ass, as well).

Labels are pretty irrelevant, and leftists obsess over them far too much. Hopefully with the next revolutionary wave some great theorist that everyone can obsess over comes along so Stalin, Trotsky, and all those other irrelevant dead guys can be forgotten about. What is more important is theory and programme, which exist independently of figures of pseudo-religious worship like Trotsky and Stalin.

[dodger]

I cannot make head nor tail of this thread. Bit like the court case on the ownership of Trotsky's Death Mask. To be sure there was a rightful owner who deserved to be united with that sacred object. Justice must be done! Though who really gives a hoot?

[daft punk]

This thread is a derail split from another one. All this thread is about is Leftsolidarity doesnt like that fact that non M-Ls regard M-L and Stalinism as synonymous.

This is because he is in an unusual party which started out as sort of Trotskyist but migrated to sort of Stalinist.

They are Stalinist, but deny it because they try to put a bit of distance between themselves and Stalin.

They try to avoid political debate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party#Ideological_background_and_pla tform)

They were big fans of Kim in North Korea.

"I’d like to avail myself of this opportunity to extend the greatest honor and thanks to the great leader of the 40 million Korean people, Comrade Kim Il-song, ever-victorious, iron-willed, brilliant commander and outstanding leader of the international communist and working-class movements"

[Omsk]

We all know what the terms: "Marxist-Leninist" and "Stalinist" mean.The first is used to describe the policies of Lenin,some of his own theories,anf the theories of the men before him,who influenced him.We see Marxism-Leninism as something which has existed for a long time,but with a different name,the name was there for various small reasons.

On the other hand,the term: " Stalinist " is used by many people,and is a pejorative,for Marxist-Leninists.It was,supposedly first said in the Soviet Union,by Kaganovich,but this term and it's rise was,at least in the CCCP harshly and utterly rejected by Joseph Stalin himself,who despised the attempts to build the cult of personality around him.

Nowdays,it is rarely used,mostly in non-academic historian circles,mostly in leftist circles,and mostly by people who don't understand it,or are simply too close-minded to look into Marxism-Leninism,and because of that,they jump to 'shock' words such as "Stalinism". (The term has no real theoretical weight.)


This is the absolute truth.

[Rainsborough]

I think you're missing the point. What you "want" isn't really relevant here. If you're following a theoretical line that was devised by Stalin, and which differs markedly from what Marx and Lenin wrote, it makes little sense to dub you a "Marxist-Leninist" and a lot more sense to call you a "Stalinist." Whether you like it or not. If we're going to go around and start referring to people only by what they wish to be called, why don't you start by calling me The Greatest Revleft Poster in History? :)

:confused: So a Marxist-Leninist is a Stalinist because Stalin said so? Then surely you are obeying Stalins wishes, therefore your a Stalinist.

[Rainsborough]

This thread is a derail split from another one. All this thread is about is Leftsolidarity doesnt like that fact that non M-Ls regard M-L and Stalinism as synonymous.

This is because he is in an unusual party which started out as sort of Trotskyist but migrated to sort of Stalinist.

They are Stalinist, but deny it because they try to put a bit of distance between themselves and Stalin.

They try to avoid political debate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party#Ideological_background_and_pla tform)

They were big fans of Kim in North Korea.

"I’d like to avail myself of this opportunity to extend the greatest honor and thanks to the great leader of the 40 million Korean people, Comrade Kim Il-song, ever-victorious, iron-willed, brilliant commander and outstanding leader of the international communist and working-class movements"

Pardon me comrade, but didn't you say no usage of unsourced quotes?

[Blake's Baby]

:confused: So a Marxist-Leninist is a Stalinist because Stalin said so? Then surely you are obeying Stalins wishes, therefore your a Stalinist.

I'm afraid you've got that backwards.

A 'Marxist-Leninist' is something Stalin invented. If you a 'Marxist-Leninist' you are doing something Stalin wanted.

Stalin didn't want people calling Marxist-Leninists 'Stalinists', so it's probably rude of the rest of us to do so. It's decidedly not what Stalin wanted.

However, a Marxist-Leninist is pretty much defined by 'one who accepts the doctrine of Socialism in One Country'. If you accept the doctrine of 'Socialism in One Country' you are, in Stalin's definition, a Marxist-Leninist, and everybody else's definition, a Stalinist. Whatever you may think of Stalin or his other policies. Following the doctrine of 'Socialism in One Country' is pretty much what defines 'Marxist-Leninism'/'Stalinism'.

[Rainsborough]

I'm afraid you've got that backwards.

A 'Marxist-Leninist' is something Stalin invented. If you a 'Marxist-Leninist' you are doing something Stalin wanted.

Stalin didn't want people calling Marxist-Leninists 'Stalinists', so it's probably rude of the rest of us to do so. It's decidedly not what Stalin wanted.

However, a Marxist-Leninist is pretty much defined by 'one who accepts the doctrine of Socialism in One Country'. If you accept the doctrine of 'Socialism in One Country' you are, in Stalin's definition, a Marxist-Leninist, and everybody else's definition, a Stalinist. Whatever you may think of Stalin or his other policies. Following the doctrine of 'Socialism in One Country' is pretty much what defines 'Marxist-Leninism'/'Stalinism'.

Okay, so if you don't follow the doctrine of 'Socialism in One Country' you can't be a Maxist-Leninist? (now I'm really confused), Yet it stands to reson that socialism has to start in one country, unless you subscribe to the idea of a spontaneous socialist revolution everywhere at the same instant?

[Blake's Baby]

Okay, so if you don't follow the doctrine of 'Socialism in One Country' you can't be a Maxist-Leninist? ...

As Marxist-Leninism is a doctrine that involves accepting Socialism in One Country, no you can't. You can call yourself a Marxist-Leninist, much as you can call yourself a Catholic even if you don't believe Jesus was the Son of God; but that doesn't mean that your use of the term 'Marxist-Leninist' (or Catholic) has any validity outside of your own personal definitions.




(now I'm really confused)...

About what?




...Yet it stands to reson that socialism has to start in one country...

Does it? When someone is dies, do they die somewhere first and then die somewhere else afterwards? Does their leg die, then a finger, then their nose, their liver, their other leg, all their other organs and finally their stomach?

When you eat, do your ears stop being hungry before your knees, or vice versa? Perhaps the left side of your body (one knee and one ear) stops being before (or after) the right side, I don't know.

I don't think a 'socialist revolution' creates socialism. I think a 'socialist revolution' suppresses capitalsim, and that happens worldwide before socialism is built. You can't have socialism here and capitalism there, because socialism can't start until all property relations are done away with.

What you can have is a revolution here but not there, a revolution in one country. But that 'political revolution' is merely the openning of a 'social revolution' that must engulf the whole world, pretty rapidly. An isolated revolutionary territory cannot 'hold on' while the rest of the world catches up. Not for long, at any rate. A couple of years maybe? I guess it depends on how long the isolated territory can act autarchically... even then, it's not socialism, just at best a form of worker-managed capitalism, like a great big co-operative.



...unless you subscribe to the idea of a spontaneous socialist revolution everywhere at the same instant?

Well, no, because the revolution against capitalism and the state doesn't establish socialism, that's for the post-revolutionary society. But the revolution against capitalism - the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat that is - is the same as the world civil war. It's going on from the beginning of the revolution (wherever that is) until the end of the revolution (wherever else that is) because the revolution (world civil war; establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) is a process that has to defeat capitalism which after all is a world system.

So, the way I'd look at the question is, given that socialism is the establishment of a classless communal society, how could this not have to be done worldwide?

[Rainsborough]

Now I'm starting to understand. So the October revolution in Russia 1917 (ostensibly socialist) was nothing more than an uprising, a successfull revolution that could have been socialist but failed, as it could not have been socialist untill the whole world had been engulfed in successful revolutions?

This is beginning to sound very Trotskyist (and we know what he achieved). Maybe socialism in one country is viable, after all "every journey begins with one small step".

[Blake's Baby]

Now I'm starting to understand. So the October revolution in Russia 1917 (ostensibly socialist) was nothing more than an uprising, a successfull revolution that could have been socialist but failed, as it could not have been socialist untill the whole world had been engulfed in successful revolutions?...

Sort of.

If the whole world had been engulfed in successful revolutions, then the process of beginning socialism could have started.


This is beginning to sound very Trotskyist (and we know what he achieved). Maybe socialism in one country is viable, after all "every journey begins with one small step".

A journey may begin with a single step but it doesn't encompass it. You can't go on holiday to New York by getting a taxi to the airport, which has no flights because it closed, and then shouting 'This is where I want to go! New York is here!' because that's insanity, not travel. Likewise, establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, turning it into the dictaorship of the party, and deciding that's what 'socialism' is, is counter-revolution not revolution. If you're happy with redefining 'socialism' so it means 'counter-revolution', that's your choice, but be aware of what you're signing up for.

Oh, and it's probably easier if you don't call it socialism either. Why not call it 'counter-revolution'? That's what it is.

[Искра]

Read: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm

If you agree with this you are Marxist-Leninist aka. stalinist.

End of story.

[daft punk]

Pardon me comrade, but didn't you say no usage of unsourced quotes?
the source is the embedded link just above it

[daft punk]

Now I'm starting to understand. So the October revolution in Russia 1917 (ostensibly socialist) was nothing more than an uprising, a successfull revolution that could have been socialist but failed, as it could not have been socialist untill the whole world had been engulfed in successful revolutions?

This is beginning to sound very Trotskyist (and we know what he achieved). Maybe socialism in one country is viable, after all "every journey begins with one small step".
SIOC was invented by Stalin in 1924. I did a thread specifically on it.

[Leftsolidarity]

I hate to start throwing around dictionaries but fuck it

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Marxism-Leninism

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Marxism-Leninism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism-leninism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marxism-leninism


Not one mention of Stalin, SOIC, or anything else non-M-L's seem to like to say M-L's believe in.

[Rainsborough]

“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.” (Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14 May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.).

Hmm, I think I'll stay a Marxist-Leninist thanks

[A Marxist Historian]

The Bordigists are a small minority of Left Comms. Most of the rest of us I think regard him in a similar way to Trotsky, with positives and negatives. But then Bukharin had his moments too. Left Comms (including Bordigists) generally support Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. Do we then all qualify as Trotskyists?

Well, the difference is that Bordiga, or so is my impression, was sometimes willing to call himself a Leninist, even though he had disagreements with Lenin. Unlike KAPD/Pannekoek/Gorter style leftcoms. Bordiga never supported the KAPD.

It's rather like the Cliffites, who like to call themselves Trotskyists, even though they totally disagree with Trotsky as to the nature of the Soviet Union, something Trotsky saw as all-important.

Though Bordiga was rather more honest about his disagreements with Lenin than Cliff et.al. on his manyfold disagreements with Trotsky, definitely not limited to the nature of the USSR.

-M.H.-

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Now I'm starting to understand. So the October revolution in Russia 1917 (ostensibly socialist) was nothing more than an uprising, a successfull revolution that could have been socialist but failed, as it could not have been socialist untill the whole world had been engulfed in successful revolutions?

This is beginning to sound very Trotskyist (and we know what he achieved). Maybe socialism in one country is viable, after all "every journey begins with one small step".

Hmmm, perhaps you are a Zinovievist. Not a popular choice.

He did write a very good book on the history of German socialism. Read it once, I highly recommend it.

-M.H.-

[Sentinel]

“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.” (Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14 May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.).


Hmm, I think I'll stay a Marxist-Leninist thanks

Just out of interest, who is the quote by? But in any case, it's not like people here (trotskyists leftcoms etc) are suggesting that the revolution must break out everywhere simultaneously.

What we are saying is that it's impossible to successfully build socialism in one country, and the primary task of socialists that have taken control of a country is therefore to spread the revolution as soon as possible..

[Blake's Baby]

... the primary task of socialists that have taken control of a country is therefore to spread the revolution as soon as possible...

... and not to pretend that what has been done - the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalists in one territory - is in and of itself 'socialism'.

[Sentinel]

Indeed, I should have added that perhaps.

[Rainsborough]

Just out of interest, who is the quote by? But in any case, it's not like people here (trotskyists leftcoms etc) are suggesting that the revolution must break out everywhere simultaneously.

What we are saying is that it's impossible to successfully build socialism in one country, and the primary task of socialists that have taken control of a country is therefore to spread the revolution as soon as possible..

In answer to you query about the quote, it was Lenin.
In response to the rest of your post, whether or not a member believes in a Utopian spontaneous world revolution or not is up to them, I happen to differ, not in the overall desire for world revolution, but its beginning.

@ Marxist Historian,
You can call me what you like, however I have no desire to be labeled as a 'Zinovievist', simply a Marxist-Leninist-Non Stalinist.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Hmmm, perhaps you are a Zinovievist. Not a popular choice.

He did write a very good book on the history of German socialism. Read it once, I highly recommend it.

-M.H.-

Does Zinovievism exist a separate tendency? Did Zinoviev contribute anything that substantial to marxist theory that would justify naming a tendency after him?

[Sentinel]

In response to the rest of your post, whether or not a member believes in a Utopian spontaneous world revolution or not is up to them, I happen to differ, not in the overall desire for world revolution, but its beginning.


Could you explain what you mean with this please? Because I explained in the post that you quoted, precisely that I don't believe in any 'utopian spontaneous world revolution' but that socialists must actively try to spread any successful revolution instead of attempting to build 'socialism in one country'.

So that quote by Lenin hardly applies on me, or other opponents of the theory of 'socialism in one country'. I'm not going to start repeating myself here.

And Trotsky, of course, was one of those most staunch proponents of the revolution in Russia -- indeed he was one of the key figures of the revolution and the civil war, founded the Red Army etc, so I very much doubt that Lenin meant him, either.

[daft punk]

I hate to start throwing around dictionaries but fuck it

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Marxism-Leninism

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Marxism-Leninism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism-leninism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marxism-leninism


Not one mention of Stalin, SOIC, or anything else non-M-L's seem to like to say M-L's believe in.

dictionary writers being well know experts on the ins and outs of Marxist theory.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#marxism-leninism



Marxism-Leninism
A label of Lenin's approach to Marxism at the beginning of the 20th-century, in a capitalist Russia (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/places/r/u.htm#russia) emerging from feudalism. While Lenin considered himself only a Marxist, after his death his theory and practice was given the label of Marxism-Leninism, considered to be an overall evolution of Marxism in the "era of the proletarian revolution". Marxism-Leninism was the official political theory of the former Soviet state and was enforced throughout most of the former Eastern European socialist governments of the 20th-century.

Historical Development: The creation and development of Marxism-Leninism can be divided into two general categories: the creation and development by Stalin (1924-1953), and the revision by Khrushchev and continual revisions by the Soviet government to follow (1956-1991).
Stalin defined Leninism in his work The Foundations of Leninism : "Leninism is Marxism in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular." Stalin explained that Leninism first began in 1903, and was identical to Bolshevism.

Stalin explained that a foundation of Marxist-Leninist theory was that a socialist revolution could only be accomplished by the Communist Party of a particular nation, the vanguard of the working class (its organizer and leader). After the socialist revolution had been affected, this vanguard would act as the sole representative of the working class.

While in some ways a direct product of Lenin's philosophy for Russia, Marxism-Leninism also took on new approaches. For example, though Lenin believed that socialism could only exist on an international scale, Marxism-Leninism supported Stalin's theory of "Socialism in One Country". Stalin enforced Marxism-Leninism as an international platform by explaining that its principles and practices applied to the whole world.

In this way Marxism-Leninism became the only true theory and practice of Marxism in the 20th-century – 'without adhering to Marxism-Leninism a socialist revolution could not be achieved'. This assertion was partly based on one of the foundations of dialectical materialist (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectical-materialism) thinking: that practice is the criterion of truth. Stalin explained that Lenin had shown through his practice, a particular way to establish a socialist government in Russia; thus that practice substantiated Lenin's theory as true in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. That particular (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/a.htm#particular) however, was extracted from its historical context and converted into a universal (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/u/n.htm#universal). Hence the basis for why some considered the label Marxist-Leninist to be partially idealist (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#idealism), because it placed the conditions of practice particular to Russia at the beginning of the 20 century as true for all countries in the world.

Despite Stalin's creation and evolution of the Marxist Leninist philosophy, the term was later used by the Soviet government in support of "De-Stalinification". While Stalin had recognized the theory of the Communist vanguard as a creation of Lenin, the Soviet government headed by Khrushchev had explained that the Communist vanguard was in fact a part of the "Marxist" aspect of Marxism-Leninism (an aspect which hitherto had been little addressed). The Leninist aspect, Khrushchev explained, began in the "era of the proletarian revolution and socialist construction".

Khrushchev developed Marxism-Leninism to explain that a worldwide war between workers and capitalists was no longer necessary, but instead that the ideal of peaceful coexistence is inherent in the class struggle. The new Soviet government further explained that while Marxism-Leninism was created by the theory and practice of the dictatorship of the proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dictatorship-proletariat) (which Lenin had explained as a short and transitionary form of government) Marxism-Leninism evolved into the theory of a "state of the whole people" (This development was directly opposite of Marx, Engels, and Lenin's theory of the state – that the state always acts in the interests of a certain class, and when no classes existed, the state would cease to exist).

After Lenin's death, the creation, development and evolution of Marxism-Leninism was the focus of crippling sectarian (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/e.htm#sectarianism) battles throughout the world over what Lenin "had really meant". Stalin explained that the practice and understanding of Trotsky was completely opposite of Leninism (Trotskyism or Leninism? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm)) , while Trotsky criticized Stalin's Marxism-Leninism as a failure (Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm)). Mao criticized Khrushchev's Marxism-Leninism as bourgeois revisionism (On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm)), while Khrushchev and later the Chinese government itself declared Mao a renegade to Marxism-Leninism, etc, etc, etc.....

hmm.. I'm not a big fan of that explanation.

The CWI line is clear:

"It was only in 2006 that the PCQ removed from its statutes, all references to ‘Marxism-Leninism’. This is the title with which proponents of ‘socialism in one country’, one party rule and of authoritarian party discipline generally identify themselves. It has nothing to do with Marx or Lenin."

http://www.socialistworld.net/mob/doc/3301

That's more like it!

[daft punk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

Stalinism (Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language): Сталинизм; Georgian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_language): სტალინიზმი) refers to the ideology that Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) conceived and implemented in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union), and is generally considered a branch of Marxist–Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) ideology but considered by some historians to be a significant deviation from this philosophy.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism#cite_note-B._Bottomore._1991._Pp._54-0) Stalinist policies in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) included: rapid industrialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization), socialism in one country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country), a centralized state, collectivization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization) of agriculture, and subordination of interests of other communist parties to those of the Soviet party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism#cite_note-B._Bottomore._1991._Pp._54-0) When used in its broadest sense, the term "Stalinist" refers to socialist states comparable to the Stalin-era Soviet Union (i.e., those characterized by a high degree of centralization, totalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism), the use of a secret police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_police), propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda), and especially brutal tactics of political coercion). According to Encyclopædia Britannica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica), "Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule." [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism#cite_note-1)

[Leftsolidarity]

The CWI line is clear:



I'm not a member of the CWI. I don't give a shit about what your line is.

[Rainsborough]

Could you explain what you mean with this please? Because I explained in the post that you quoted, precisely that I don't believe in any 'utopian spontaneous world revolution' but that socialists must actively try to spread any successful revolution instead of attempting to build 'socialism in one country'.

So that quote by Lenin hardly applies on me, or other opponents of the theory of 'socialism in one country'. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Apologies if you thought I was referring to you. I am used to people around me running scared before I have a chance to explain that when I refer to 'Socialism in One Country' I'm not referring to some kind of Nationalistic bullshit, simply a place to begin. In my opinion Stalin can be given a certain amount of sympathy in the early years, as the situation hardly presented him with a chance to develop anything other that the means of war. However later after the war he had plenty of chance, but did nothing other than turn a possibility into a personal dictatorship. And while he did that Trotsky simply dreamed and planned impossible dreams.
Now I know that others will disagree with me (I can hear the howls and gnashing of teeth from here), that is their perogative, but that is how I see it. I may be wrong, I often am, but that is my take on it. Does that make me any less of a socialist than anyone else?

[Rainsborough]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

Stalinism (Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language): Сталинизм; Georgian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_language): სტალინიზმი) refers to the ideology that Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) conceived and implemented in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union), and is generally considered a branch of Marxist–Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) ideology but considered by some historians to be a significant deviation from this philosophy.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism#cite_note-B._Bottomore._1991._Pp._54-0) Stalinist policies in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) included: rapid industrialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization), socialism in one country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country), a centralized state, collectivization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization) of agriculture, and subordination of interests of other communist parties to those of the Soviet party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism#cite_note-B._Bottomore._1991._Pp._54-0) When used in its broadest sense, the term "Stalinist" refers to socialist states comparable to the Stalin-era Soviet Union (i.e., those characterized by a high degree of centralization, totalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism), the use of a secret police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_police), propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda), and especially brutal tactics of political coercion). According to Encyclopædia Britannica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica), "Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule." [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism#cite_note-1)

Okay you've proved your ability to cut and paste, but what the hell has this got to do with anything? It refers to Stalinism, yet this thread is dealing with Marxist-Leninism, It defines Stalinism as being a " branch of Marxist–Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) ideology" and I would define 'branch' as an offshoot, so you can be a Marxist-Leninist without being a Stalinist.

[daft punk]

Apologies if you thought I was referring to you. I am used to people around me running scared before I have a chance to explain that when I refer to 'Socialism in One Country' I'm not referring to some kind of Nationalistic bullshit, simply a place to begin. In my opinion Stalin can be given a certain amount of sympathy in the early years, as the situation hardly presented him with a chance to develop anything other that the means of war. However later after the war he had plenty of chance, but did nothing other than turn a possibility into a personal dictatorship. And while he did that Trotsky simply dreamed and planned impossible dreams.
Now I know that others will disagree with me (I can hear the howls and gnashing of teeth from here), that is their perogative, but that is how I see it. I may be wrong, I often am, but that is my take on it. Does that make me any less of a socialist than anyone else?

Yes. Nah, only kidding. I dont understand this, after the war... Trotsky was... Trotsky died in 1940, which war are you on about?

Stalin should be given no sympathy, he ruined a struggling revolution and killed the people who tried to save it.

[Sentinel]

Does that make me any less of a socialist than anyone else?


Well, I'm personally convinced that many with these views are sincere socialists, despite being horribly wrong and misled. Perhaps I'm biased though, as I was brought up in a stalinist home? :lol:

[daft punk]

Okay you've proved your ability to cut and paste, but what the hell has this got to do with anything? It refers to Stalinism, yet this thread is dealing with Marxist-Leninism, It defines Stalinism as being a " branch of Marxist–Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) ideology" and I would define 'branch' as an offshoot, so you can be a Marxist-Leninist without being a Stalinist.

I didnt say I agreed with it I was simply chucking in a few definitions into the ring. I said my definition right at the start.
My definition is the CWI one and I would imagine most Trotskyists'. I disagree with wiki, well, it's a bit vague at the start put it that way.

[daft punk]

Listen, the simple proof is in the pudding. What parties call themselves Marxist-Leninist but dont back Stalin to some degree?

Probably none.

[Leftsolidarity]

Stalin should be given no sympathy, he ruined a struggling revolution and killed the people who tried to save it.

With his own bear hands! Don't you know? Great men theories are totally correct and are very materialist!

This is really pathetic. I don't like Stalin either but it was Stalin alone. I'm so sick of reading that garbage.

[daft punk]

http://www.rcpbml.org.uk/images/rcpbml.gif

STALIN
Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.............................................. ............ .75p
Marxism and Problems of Linguistics .................................................. .....................75p
The Proletarian Class and
the Proletarian Party............................................. .................................................. .......75p
Lenin .................................................. .................................................. ...£1.00
Concerning Questions of Leninism .................................................. ............£1.50
Dialectical and Historical Materialism .................................................. .........£1.50
The Foundations of Leninism .................................................. ....................£1.50
Anarchism or Socialism? .................................................. ..........................£2.00
On the Opposition .................................................. ...................................£2.90
Problems of Leninism .................................................. .............................£3.10

[Leftsolidarity]

Listen, the simple proof is in the pudding. What parties call themselves Marxist-Leninist but dont back Stalin to some degree?

Probably none.

What? That is the worst fucking reasoning and your argument has been shot to shit so much that this is what you're left with.

"To some degree". What the fuck does that even mean?

It means if they don't denounce him as the Devil on Earth, they are Stalinists to Daft Punk.

[daft punk]

With his own beer hands! Don't you know? Great men theories are totally correct and are very materialist!

This is really pathetic. I don't like Stalin either but it was Stalin alone. I'm so sick of reading that garbage.

Here we go. Great man blah blah blah.

I said Stalin represented counter-revolution. Which bit of dialectical materialism do you not recognise in that? Stalin was the personification of the degeneration in Russia, as Trotsky said then describing Hitler, the "individual supply to meet the collective demand"

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

read this brilliant article to understand the correlation between 'great men' and the material conditions. And this:

"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."

Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm

[Rainsborough]

Yes. Nah, only kidding. I dont understand this, after the war... Trotsky was... Trotsky died in 1940, which war are you on about?

Stalin should be given no sympathy, he ruined a struggling revolution and killed the people who tried to save it.

Sorry about getting it wrong (proves I probably know as much about Trotsky as you seem to about Stalin).

To his mind he was executing those who he saw as betraying the revolution. Who was right and who was wrong, does it really matter now?

[daft punk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-revisionist#Anti-revisionist_leaders

[daft punk]

Sorry about getting it wrong (proves I probably know as much about Trotsky as you seem to about Stalin).

To his mind he was executing those who he saw as betraying the revolution. Who was right and who was wrong, does it really matter now?

lol. No, he was execution those who wanted socialism, because socialism would mean the end to his dictatorship. Plus it would cause loads of aggro with the west etc.

Of course it matters, and who was right has been proved. Stalin's charges were made up, even right wing historian admit that, and they are no friends of Trotskyists. The CIA did a bit on it, how Stalins agents infiltrated Trotsky's organisations and then made false confessions.

Try reading this:

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1009

This is about a bloke who risked his life daily to save the USSR from the Nazis, a bloke who reckoned only the Trots knew what was what.

[The Douche]

Left Solidarity, the official doctrine of the USSR under stalin was "marxism-leninism" which is why, in common usage, "marxism-leninism" refers to "stalinism", and its why all stalinist call themselves "marxist-leninists" and say that "stalinism" does not exist.

When the USSR went "revisionist", and the Moscow aligned parties started splitting up, over the issue of whether to remain hardliners or denounce Stalin, the people who continued to back Stalin formed parties which defined themselves as "communist party" (ML).

Also, you seem really afraid to call yourself a Stalinist and everything. But the party you're joining, the WWP, is a "marxist-leninist" (i.e. "stalinist") party, they support Stalin's lines regarding things like SIOC and the national question.


You can deny what "marxist-leninist" means all you want. But I challenge you to talk to a single person on the board who calls themself a ML and find one who doesn't support Stalin's interpretation of Marxism.

People who are down with Lenin but neither Stalin nor Trotsky would probably call themselves "orthodox leninists" or something...

[Ostrinski]

Something like "Heterodox Leninist" would be a more appropriate term I feel, as it's not a very conventional opinion to uphold Lenin but neither Trotsky or Stalin. I guess I'm something of a heterodox Leninist

[Rainsborough]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2421345#post2421345)
The CIA did a bit on it, how Stalins agents infiltrated Trotsky's organisations and then made false confessions.

Ah and we trust the CIA implicitly. :rolleyes:

[Omsk]

and say that "stalinism" does not exist.



Which is absolutely true,as it's just an empty phrase.Do you want any reading material regarding the issue?

The same questions goes to Rainsborough.Just say if you are interested in Marxism-Leninism. (Ideology related,not history.)

[The Douche]

Which is absolutely true,as it's just an empty phrase.Do you want any reading material regarding the issue?

The same questions goes to Rainsborough.Just say if you are interested in Marxism-Leninism. (Ideology related,not history.)

You read my post, you know I understand what marxism-leninism is.

[Omsk]

No you don't.

[The Douche]

No you don't.

I am more than familiar with the vanguard party, democratic centralism, Lenin's theory of imperialism, socialism in one country, I have read "Marxism and the National Question", I am familiar with Stalin's concept of the aggravation of class struggle during the construction of socialism. These are the defining points of marxism-leninism.

[Comrade Samuel]

Listen, the simple proof is in the pudding. What parties call themselves Marxist-Leninist but dont back Stalin to some degree?

Probably none.

First of all there Is a lot of people here on revleft even those who are not M-L that dont consider themselves affiliated with any major political party because most are just horrible idiots who know nothing of Marxism (CPUSA, KPRF, CPBG-ML ect.)

The man has been dead for nearly 60 years, it would be fair to say we agreed with some of what he did back then and defend his actions from right-wing anti-commies but belive it or not the world has changed a lot since then and so too has Marx-Leninism, we are not a bunch of dogmatic half-wits who belive everything in the Soviet union was perfect under Stalin's rule and everything he said or published was right but we do feel compelled to exspose the lies and proaganda surrounding this issue yet still be able to function as part of a relevant and modern political ideology.

[Ostrinski]

Only ML's can understand Marxism-Leninism, obviously.

[Omsk]

While the Vanguard party,the organizational role and the idea of democratic centralism are not the 'core' of the Marxist-Leninist ideological thought,it can be said that they have their role,and they are something which came from -Leninism. This is a broad definition,yet informative:

“Some think that the fundamental thing in Leninism is the peasant question, that the point of departure of Leninism is the question of the peasantry, of its role, its relative importance. This is absolutely wrong. The fundamental question of Leninism, its point of departure, is not the peasant question, but the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the conditions under which it can be achieved, of the conditions under which it can be consolidated. The peasant question, as the question of the ally of the proletariat in its struggle for power, is a derivative question

And:

“Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.”

You may,or may not agree with this,but it's the general line.It's less about Socialism in One Country,which is just a 'strategy' and not the 'founding principle' of MLism,and more about the theories set up by Vladimir Lenin,and those before him,and this theories are related to the questions of the world socialist proletarian revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.



he said or published was right


Find me what you see as,'wrong'.

[A Marxist Historian]

In answer to you query about the quote, it was Lenin.
In response to the rest of your post, whether or not a member believes in a Utopian spontaneous world revolution or not is up to them, I happen to differ, not in the overall desire for world revolution, but its beginning.

@ Marxist Historian,
You can call me what you like, however I have no desire to be labeled as a 'Zinovievist', simply a Marxist-Leninist-Non Stalinist.

I have no particular desire to force you into any particular pigeonhole, just trying to figure out where you fit into the actual spectrum, created in the 1920s when the revolutionary movement was far, far ahead of where it is now, and much more ideologically sophisticated.

I can understand the idea of not wanting to be labelled a Zinovievist, as he was the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bolshevik leadership, definitely not getting much respect from anybody.

In fact Zinoviev, not Trotsky, was the first Bolshevik leader to raise the alarm against Stalin's idea of Socialism in One Country, so perhaps that's not a shoe that fits you.

However, your trying to create a strawman (as nobody except certain anarchists really thinks the revolution has to begin simultaneously everywhere at once) to dodge the question is a bit Zinoviev like.

-M.H.-

[The Douche]

I can understand the idea of not wanting to be labelled a Zinovievist, as he was the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bolshevik leadership, definitely not getting much respect from anybody.



Holy lol, that is hilarious.

[A Marxist Historian]

Does Zinovievism exist a separate tendency? Did Zinoviev contribute anything that substantial to marxist theory that would justify naming a tendency after him?

Zinovievism as such is not existent. But he certainly did his best to contribute to Marxist theory, he wrote oodles of books, saw himself as a brilliant theoretician and Lenin's true successor. A plausible notion, as Zinoviev was indeed Lenin's #2 for most of the history of the Bolshevik Party.

Trouble is, few agreed with him later, though some did so at the time.

Formally speaking, he was the leader of the Soviet Communist Party between Lenin's death and Stalin's consolidation of power, insofar as anyone was, as well as quite officially the leader of the Communist International from its foundation to 1926 when he was booted out after he joined forces with Trotsky.

He was the guy who invented and baptised "Leninism" as a doctrine. The main polemics vs. the Trotsky opposition in 1923 were his, not Stalin's, who in 1923 was still a fairly obscure figure if you weren't a party official, whom the public was largely aware of.

He also was the guy who first officially formulated the concept that a workers state should be ruled by a single party, and should not be multiparty.

His main theoretical innovation was the idea that the USSR was "state capitalist," but nonetheless a great thing. He claimed this was orthodox Leninism. Essentially the Cliffite argument that Lenin called the USSR "state capitalist" is word for word unacknowledged plagiarism from Zinoviev.

French CP leader Albert Treint, a follower of Zinoviev, took the Zinovievite conception of Soviet "state capitalism" to its logical conclusion, in an article he wrote in the French CP theoretical magazine arguing that the foreign policy of the USSR was "workers imperialism," and that it was the duty of all French workers to support this "workers imperialism."

Zinoviev, like most 1920s Zinovievites (Treint, Fischer/Maslow in Germany, etc. etc.) got expelled from the Comintern, by and large did not join the Left Opposition, and, quite naturally, all decided that the USSR was "state capitalist" in a more conventional sense. Trotsky's polemics in the 1930s vs. "state capitalism" are directed vs. former Zinovievites.

He deserves credit as the first party leader to denounce Stalin's "SIOC" position as a deviation from "Leninism," the party doctrine Zinoviev baptised. Trotsky at first did not solidarize with him on this, as he saw Zinoviev's argument that the USSR was "state capitalist" as an equally dangerous deviation from Marxism.

He rejected Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution" as a deviation from Leninism. His arguments to that effect were (again without acknowledgment) taken up by the American SWP when they broke from Trotskyism.

His positions on what revolutionaries should do in the Third World were about halfway between Trotsky's and Stalin's, and in fact are very similar to those of the Barnesite SWP, who I think could fairly be called Zinovievite.

In general his positions tended to be halfway between Trotsky's and Stalin's, which is why he vacillated back and forth between them.

So anybody who wants a compromise position between Trotskyism & Stalinism should definitely investigate Zinoviev. Nobody else however would want to, I should think.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Sorry about getting it wrong (proves I probably know as much about Trotsky as you seem to about Stalin).

To his mind he was executing those who he saw as betraying the revolution. Who was right and who was wrong, does it really matter now?

Actually it does.

There has only been one really successful and impactful workers revolution in human history, the Russian Revolution. When you get right down to it, the history of the Russian Revolution is the history of the 20th century.

When you talk to people you know about the idea of socialism, what do they say? Donuts gets you dollars that they say well, socialism is a nice idea, but they tried that in Russia and it didn't work.

That being the case, what went wrong with the Russian Revolution is subject #1, if you want to persuade anybody that a workers revolution to establish socialism is a good idea. And I assume we all here want to do that.

Inevitably, this broad question gets personalized into do you support Stalin or Trotsky or Bukharin or the Workers Opposition or the Mensheviks or whoever, because that is how things actually happened.

Many folk may find that distasteful, but that I am afraid is life in the big city.

As we've all noticed, political discussions on Revleft almost always turn into Stalin v. Trotsky v. anarchism or something. That is not accidental. That is the political lay of the land we live in, whether you like it or not.

-M.H.-

[Rainsborough]

Actually it does.

There has only been one really successful and impactful workers revolution in human history, the Russian Revolution. When you get right down to it, the history of the Russian Revolution is the history of the 20th century.

When you talk to people you know about the idea of socialism, what do they say? Donuts gets you dollars that they say well, socialism is a nice idea, but they tried that in Russia and it didn't work.

That being the case, what went wrong with the Russian Revolution is subject #1, if you want to persuade anybody that a workers revolution to establish socialism is a good idea. And I assume we all here want to do that.

Inevitably, this broad question gets personalized into do you support Stalin or Trotsky or Bukharin or the Workers Opposition or the Mensheviks or whoever, because that is how things actually happened.

Many folk may find that distasteful, but that I am afraid is life in the big city.

As we've all noticed, political discussions on Revleft almost always turn into Stalin v. Trotsky v. anarchism or something. That is not accidental. That is the political lay of the land we live in, whether you like it or not.

-M.H.-

Then socialism is confined to a footnote of history. Surely its time to stop refighting battles of the 20th Century, and concentrate on what happens now?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Then socialism is confined to a footnote of history. Surely its time to stop refighting battles of the 20th Century, and concentrate on what happens now?

If you are advocating some kind of tabula rasa approach to revolutionary politics I´m afraid that´s impossible. Events of the past determine to a large extent where we are today.
However, I do think many socialists/communists place too much emphasis on Russia and the Soviet Union. My view is that it was just one battlefield of many and what took place in Russia and the Soviet union was also determined by the situation and events in other countries.

[Per Levy]

The man has been dead for nearly 60 years, it would be fair to say we agreed with some of what he did back then and defend his actions from right-wing anti-commies but belive it or not the world has changed a lot since then and so too has Marx-Leninism, we are not a bunch of dogmatic half-wits who belive everything in the Soviet union was perfect under Stalin's rule and everything he said or published was right but we do feel compelled to exspose the lies and proaganda surrounding this issue yet still be able to function as part of a relevant and modern political ideology.

you know the same can be said about trots and trotskyism yet still you call them trotskyists(or trotskyites) instead of bolshevik-leninists, why is that? isnt that a bit hypocritical?

"marxism-leninism" is stalinism, since its main contributor is stalin and stalins interpretation of marx and lenin. also pretty much any ML i've ever met was a stalinfanboy and you can see it that many MLs have a stalin avatar(even though they claim not to be stalinists).

[Althusser]

It really doesn't matter what Marxist-Leninist means to you. The whole point of the term's creation was for propaganda purposes to make Stalin seem like a follower of Marx and Lenin. He was not.

Solution: Call yourself a Marxist.:thumbup1:

[daft punk]

Ah and we trust the CIA implicitly. :rolleyes:
They seemed kinda shocked that Trotsky wasnt more security conscious. They called him a 'dupe of the NKVD'. Anyway, they seem to have taken some interest in it all. You should read it before simply dismissing it.

One of the key players was Valentin Olberg for example. He was an NKVD agent working undercover in Trotsky's organisation. He made the false confessions, expecting a pat on the back, but was promptly shot for consistency, and to make sure he never spoke about his role. This happened quite a bit.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol16no1/html/v16i1a03p_0001.htm#34-sayers-and-kahn

[Rainsborough]

you know the same can be said about trots and trotskyism yet still you call them trotskyists(or trotskyites) instead of bolshevik-leninists, why is that? isnt that a bit hypocritical?

Really? I was under the impression that they referred to themselves as 'Trotskyists', furthermore I was told that Trotsky once referred to himself as a Bolshevik-Leninist, but it was a label never seen elsewhere.


Originally Posted by Sentinel http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2421457#post2421457)
Trotsky suggested 'bolshevik-leninist' and called himself that, but I haven't heard many others use it.

[Per Levy]

Really? I was under the impression that they referred to themselves as 'Trotskyists', furthermore I was told that Trotsky once referred to himself as a Bolshevik-Leninist, but it was a label never seen elsewhere.

nowadays they do yes, but in trotskys time he and his followers called themselfs bolshevik-leninists. trotskyism and trotskyists was actual a slander used by the stalinists to make them sound like they had nothing to do with lenin and marx unlike the stalinists who were "marxists-leninists".

dont know exactly why trots called themself trots in the end, maybe to give trotskyism a better meaning or something.

EDIT: i take this back though to an extent, even trotsky used troskyists, trotskyism and so on for his supporters. but i do remember that trotskyism was used as a slander first and that trotsky and other refered to themselfs as bolshevik-leninists for a time. so yeah, im a bit wrong up there.

[Omsk]

A little reminder for Vladimir Makarov,- could you link me or write down what you see as wrong in his writings and deeds?

[daft punk]

Events of the past determine to a large extent where we are today.
However, I do think many socialists/communists place too much emphasis on Russia and the Soviet Union. My view is that it was just one battlefield of many and what took place in Russia and the Soviet union was also determined by the situation and events in other countries.

Well, all the revolutions after Russia were influenced by it, and after 1924 by Stalinism. To some extent at least.

[Rainsborough]

Well, all the revolutions after Russia were influenced by it, and after 1924 by Stalinism. To some extent at least.

And to what extent were they influenced by Trotsky?

[A Marxist Historian]

Then socialism is confined to a footnote of history. Surely its time to stop refighting battles of the 20th Century, and concentrate on what happens now?

An entire century is a pretty big "footnote."

So far there has been only one successful seizure of power by the working class that lasted more than a few weeks or months. Nothing else has come close. So the Bolshevik Revolution is the only historical model to work from, if one wants to actually win.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, lots of leftists have tried to come up with brand new models, and have failed miserably, which is why the left has been circling the drain.

Trying to reinvent the wheel is very very stupid. The Bolshevik Revolution worked. But then unfortunately...

So if what you want to happen now is workers victory, as opposed to the endless string of defeats lately, you have to study the Bolshevik Revolution and the fate of the Soviet Union, in all aspects, positive and negative, and learn the lessons.

Otherwise, we are toast.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Really? I was under the impression that they referred to themselves as 'Trotskyists', furthermore I was told that Trotsky once referred to himself as a Bolshevik-Leninist, but it was a label never seen elsewhere.

Far from the case. The Left Opposition called itself "Bolshevik Leninist." From a purely numerical standpoint, the Left Opposition in the USSR was definitely the peak size and influence of "Trotskyism," with tens of thousands of members and lots and lots of top Soviet officials involved, from Red Army commander Trotsky and top Ukrainian Soviet leader Rakovsky on down. When Trotsky was exile, the international left opposition called itself, guess what, the "International Left Opposition."

Until Trotsky was assassinated, the Left Opposition never called itself "Trotskyist," Trotsky wouldn't have allowed it, any more than Lenin allowed people to call themselves "Leninist" when he was alive. When the word appears in his writings, it's always in quote marks.

After he died, that changed. Why do Trotskyists call themselves Trotskyists, whereas Stalinists have to claim that they are merely "Marxist Leninists"?

Because even Stalinists know in their heart that to be a Stalinist is a shameful thing.

-M.H.-