Leftist ideologies

[U.S.S.R]

Hi everyone, Im looking for the main beliefs of all the 'major' forms of Socialism/Communism e.g Stalininsm, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyism etc. Im definitely left wing but I want to know which i would place myself in. When i say beliefs i mean main opinions/characteristics of each movement. Thanks in advance

[Tim Cornelis]

Im definitely left wing but I want to know which i would place myself in

If you start reading the basic works of Marx, Lenin, Engels, Trotsky, left-communists, etc. you will develop your own opinion along the way and your opinion is likely to coincide largely with one of the dozen tendencies. Of course it is important to know which tendencies stand for what, but I wouldn't worry about the label you subscribe to yet.

Someone else can probably give a more accurate concise description of each tendency so I will leave that up to them.

[Terminator X]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-left-dictionary-t22628/index.html

[TheGodlessUtopian]

As has been said here many time before, do this and simply this: read, educate yourself, and then decide where you fall.

Marxism-Leninism: Referred derogatory as "Stalinism" (such isn't the techinical term) Marxist-Leninists belive in Anti-revisionism, socialism in one country, and uphold figures such as Joesph Stalin,Mao Zedong,and Enver Hoxha as individuals who attempted to build legitimate socialist spaces.

Trotskyism: Sometimes called Bolshevik-Leninists, uphold Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution which stands in opposition to M-L theory of Socialism in One Country. Trotskyists oppose the figures which are upheld by Marxist-Leninists.

That is a very quick lowdown of the two major Leninist tendencies but there are many other ideologies such as Libertarian Socialism, and Left-Wing and Council Communism.

For some discussion visit the usergroups tab in the upper portion of the screen and search under "tendencies."

[U.S.S.R]

Ok thanks for the advice

[TheMyth]

Hi everyone, Im looking for the main beliefs of all the 'major' forms of Socialism/Communism e.g Stalininsm, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyism etc. Im definitely left wing but I want to know which i would place myself in. When i say beliefs i mean main opinions/characteristics of each movement. Thanks in advance
Read Marx and Engels first and you will find out what is socialism/communisn and what is revisionism .
Take a time and read all Marx and Engels works .
Make sure you read the France Civil War by Marx and search what it was the Paris commune and you will understand better what is Dictatorship of the Proletariat .

[hatzel]

the 'major' forms of Socialism/Communism e.g Stalininsm, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyism etc.

Fun fact: none of these things could be considered 'major.' Though I'm a fair young gentleman and I'm willing to stand corrected the minute anybody does anything worthwhile under these banners. I'm not holding my breath.

Drop this idea that these various shitty ideologies are - or could ever be - the lived experience of socialism (or whatever that Hakim Bey quote is), that's my advice to you.

[Ismail]

Actually yes, they can be considered major. Marxism-Leninism (broadly defined) and Trotskyism are the two most influential communist ideologies. Besides the former having the USSR, China, Cuba and other states (and the various parties loyal to them), the latter had/has plenty of notable parties (LSSP in Sri Lanka, the Algerian Workers' Party, the Militant tendency in Britain, etc.)

What you define as "worthwhile" has nothing to do with them being major or not. To the present day they have been incomparably more influential than Left-Communism.

Until the day when the average person immediately thinks of Luxemburg or Paul Mattick upon hearing the word "Communism" (rather than Lenin or Stalin), this will remain the case.

[TheMyth]

Actually yes, they can be considered major. Marxism-Leninism (broadly defined) and Trotskyism are the two most influential communist ideologies. Besides the former having the USSR, China, Cuba and other states (and the various parties loyal to them), the latter had/has plenty of notable parties (LSSP in Sri Lanka, the Algerian Workers' Party, the Militant tendency in Britain, etc.)

What you define as "worthwhile" has nothing to do with them being major or not. To the present day they have been incomparably more influential than Left-Communism.

Until the day when the average person immediately thinks of Luxemburg or Paul Mattick upon hearing the word "Communism" (rather than Lenin or Stalin), this will remain the case.
So why Stalin and Lenine must be so special to replace Luxemburg or Mattick ?
I advise you te read again Marx and Engels and find the Vanguardism and Democratic centralism in their works .
When you finish that you should read Luxembourg to see if their positions aren't the same as Marx and Lenine and Stalin different .
Left-Communist is the Utupia that Marx advocate not Marxist-Leninist that URSS put in pratice .

[Proukunin]

You can also read literature by Anarchists such as Bakunin and Proudhon. They're are some noteworthy books by Emma Goldman you can check out..along with a modern 'manifesto' of insurrectionist anarchism called The Coming Insurrection.

I wouldn't limit yourself to only Marxist Communism. I'd read literature from all ideologies equally.

[JAM]

It can't be denied the importance of Leninism in the left. All the so called "socialist" experiences in the XX Century were Leninist, from USSR to China. Leninism is still very influential in the world wide leftist movements.

It's also true that the average person thinks of Lenin and Stalin upon hearing the word "Communism" but is this positive for socialism? I'll let each one of you draw your own conclusions about this undeniable fact.

Regarding the op, all I can advise you is to read socialist literature (Marx, Engels, etc) and to study very carefully the different historical socialist experiences and compare it (Commune of Paris and USSR for instance) because each one of them tells very much about their own nature and why were different.

Other issue that I advise you to look at very carefully is the different interpretations of Marxism that we had since its inception and their respective application. These different interpretations led to different ideological currents within the left.

[hatzel]

I (almost) can't believe socialism has reduced itself to little more than an endlessly drawn out marketing campaign. Long live Debord!

[Valdyr]

So why Stalin and Lenine must be so special to replace Luxemburg or Mattick ?
I advise you te read again Marx and Engels and find the Vanguardism and Democratic centralism in their works .
When you finish that you should read Luxembourg to see if their positions aren't the same as Marx and Lenine and Stalin different .
Left-Communist is the Utupia that Marx advocate not Marxist-Leninist that URSS put in pratice .

The irony being the un-Marxist and idealist nature of treating the works of M + E as some kind of flawless divinely inspired doctrine which must be followed exactly and all deviations from which are the cause of failure, rather than treating them as the inauguration of a project which in particular instances must adapt itself to concrete conditions and to lessons learned. This kind of idealism fails at the dialectic of particular and universal.

Anyway, as others have said, just take a look at the "tendencies" usergroups in "community," and each group will give you a pretty good idea.

Just don't forget Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (shameless self-plug) ;)

[The Idler]

There's something to be said for getting involved in a few groups if reading long philosophical economic writing is not your thing. I think you can figure out what you do and don't like about the groups/tendencies as you go along. I think this will result in a tendency towards various issues which will coalesce in a consistent way.

[SpatialDisplacement]

I personally tend to align myself with the David Harvey school of thought; I am interested in Marx's method of analysis but refuse to subscribe to a specific tendency. I am not saying that the above mentioned are dogmatic and so on - but the dialectic method of analysis is inherently one of motion. This is why his critique of Capital has been so profound: it is a system of motion. Consequently, any stance that is rigid etc is contradictory to me. Just my 2 cents.

I am a Leftist, believe in a better society, and will strive for one. But the tendencies which supposedly claim the royal road to the summit have done far worse in dividing leftists than actually assisting in viable solutions.