Questions on Marxist Leninism???

[The_Red_Spark]

I am just learning about the varying tendencies within RevLeft and I have a few questions to ask on Marxism Leninism. I want to ask that people forgive my ignorance on the subject and I ask everyone who wants to post a reply to consider that though I have read a good bit of reading material I am still new to all of this.

Let me begin by saying that I self identify as M-L. I have read Lenin's writings extensively and consider Lenin's works(paired with Marx's of course) to be excellent. It is for this reason that I have chosen this tendency as the one that best represents my personal view of Marxism. With this out of the way I am confused on several points after reading a few things around the site.

How do people who identify with this tendency view the works of Trotsky? How is the theory of Permanent Revolution viewed? Is it accepted or rejected? Is he considered a renegade in the exile period?

How do the majority of M-L view the USSR? In other words do they recognize any short comings or areas that would be done differently if events and conditions provided a chance to give it a second go around? Do they feel Russia was ready for Socialism in 1917?

What is the take on Stalin? I personally take a neutral or somewhat supportive position on Stalin. I recognize that there were extraordinary material conditions at the time when he took power that greatly influenced his decision making and the available options open to him. I do not want to be labeled an apologist because I do not wish to justify his actions but I feel it must be looked at objectively and honestly.

I think he is shrouded in myth that was created after Khrushchev came to power and that there was an attempt to bury all of the negatives under a caricature of the actual man himself. I think the CP thought they could wipe the slate clean by blaming Stalin and claim that their hands were clean. At the same time I do not think he was flawless either. Does this coincide with the views of this tendency or does this run contrary to it?

The last thing I want to ask in this post is if there is an orthodox or somewhat dogmatic approach within this tendency that forbids any new theory to be added as an extension to the established theory in order to meet new material conditions that are prevalent today? Is this a tendency that considers any deviation to be revisionist and therefore a breach of the M-L concept?

I have more questions but I want to hear what others have to say on this first. I am just curious as to where my position is in comparison to other people within the tendency to see if this is a tendency that is in line with my personal take. I hope these do not sound like silly questions. I am not looking for a label or clique to join. I just don't want to state I am M-L if I am not on the same page as the tendency's core beliefs.

[JPSartre12]

Well, comrade, this is requires a lot of answers. But I'll do my best to answer some of them :lol:


How do people who identify with this tendency view the works of Trotsky? How is the theory of Permanent Revolution viewed? Is it accepted or rejected? Is he considered a renegade in the exile period?

I'm not a Trotskyist, so I'm not qualified to answer the first part. But Sartre was also an advocate of a permanent revolution too, so maybe I can approach the question from his perspective. He said that, once the revolution against the institution succeeds, the revolution becomes the institution - the revolutionaries that revolt against the ones in power become the ones in power the day after the revolution. He said that a permanent revolution was better than a single capitalism-to-socialism mass proletarian uprising because it prevents the revolutionary force from becoming the conservative new leaders of tomorrow. Could a Trotskyist here elaborate for us both, please?


How do the majority of M-L view the USSR? In other words do they recognize any short comings or areas that would be done differently if events and conditions provided a chance to give it a second go around? Do they feel Russia was ready for Socialism in 1917?

I also wouldn't call myself a Leninist per se, but I think that he had some creative ideas. I am a Marxist, though, so I'll make this point - the historical dialectic shows that there is a path that history will take. Feudalism turns to capitalism, capitalism turns to socialism, and socialism turns to communism. We accept this. What happened in the USSR, some say (and I mostly agree with this position), is that Russia was not ready for socialism because it did not pass through capitalism first - the revolutionaries attempted to surgically insert themselves into the historical process and create a socialist economy when the feudal-agrarian peasant society in Russia was not developed or sophisticated enough to overcome scarcity. You can't just jump from feudalism to socialism - there has to be a period of capitalist industrialization in-between the two. There are plenty of Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, etc that disagree with this though. If there was a revolution in Russia today, though, I think that the results would be entirely different because they'd be happening in a different historical context with entirely different material circumstances. After everything's said and done, though, the USSR made some enormous steps forward in terms of industrialization - they developed pretty rapidly and that's at least worthy of some credit :)


What is the take on Stalin? I personally take a neutral or somewhat supportive position on Stalin. I recognize that there were extraordinary material conditions at the time when he took power that greatly influenced his decision making and the available options open to him. I do not want to be labeled an apologist because I do not wish to justify his actions but I feel it must be looked at objectively and honestly.

I don't know enough about Stalin as a person to pass judgement on him, but I think that his ideas were flawed from the beginning. Let me justify this, cause there are probably plenty of MLs, Stalinists, etc who will jump on that statement: Stalin's idea of "socialism in one country" runs against the concept of proletarian internationalism. The revolution has to be global - it can't be isolated in one area, or external capitalist forces will just wear it down. The Cold War is evidence of this, I think.


The last thing I want to ask in this post is if there is an orthodox or somewhat dogmatic approach within this tendency that forbids any new theory to be added as an extension to the established theory in order to meet new material conditions that are prevalent today? Is this a tendency that considers any deviation to be revisionist and therefore a breach of the M-L concept?

I don't think that questioning ML concepts makes anyone a "revisionist". Right now, we live in an entirely different historical moment than Marx did in 1848 when he wrote the Manifesto. We have plenty of things to consider that he didn't - world wars, the internet, advanced technology, nuclear weapons, generations of history to look back over, and so on. If anything, I think that it's logical to try to look at his views and see how they would applied in our current situation. I think that he himself would have written his ideas a little differently if he could see everything that we saw. That being said, I think that an overwhelming majority of what Marx says is still very much applicable, and his analysis of capitalism are still fantastic.


I have more questions but I want to hear what others have to say on this first. I am just curious as to where my position is in comparison to other people within the tendency to see if this is a tendency that is in line with my personal take. I hope these do not sound like silly questions. I am not looking for a label or clique to join. I just don't want to state I am M-L if I am not on the same page as the tendency's core beliefs.

Questions are never silly, comrade! Ask away :lol: I'd say ask some more, but we probably have enough here to occupy us for a little while :cool:

[jookyle]

1.Permanent revolution is out the window.

2. ML has a generally more positive view of the USSR under Stalin. As far as Russia being ready for 1917, you'll probably get different answers from different people. The fact is, everyone at the time was counting on Germany to have a socialist revolution themselves as it was already a developed/industrialized nation while Russia was not.

3.Stalin is also seen more positively and his time in charge is seen as a time of when socialism was actually being implemented.

4.Your statement on myths surrounding Stalin based on on Krushchev lies is correct.

5. The only real dogmatic(which in the minority imo) are people who just have hero worship for Stalin.

[Art Vandelay]

I am just learning about the varying tendencies within RevLeft and I have a few questions to ask on Marxism Leninism. I want to ask that people forgive my ignorance on the subject and I ask everyone who wants to post a reply to consider that though I have read a good bit of reading material I am still new to all of this.

Sounds good.


Let me begin by saying that I self identify as M-L. I have read Lenin's writings extensively and consider Lenin's works(paired with Marx's of course) to be excellent. It is for this reason that I have chosen this tendency as the one that best represents my personal view of Marxism. With this out of the way I am confused on several points after reading a few things around the site.

While M-L's (stalinists) would tell you different, that majority of the revleft agrees that Stalinism (aka Marxism-Leninism) is not simply if you follow the works of Marx and Lenin. Marxism-Leninists also support Stalin and view the USSR pre-1953 as correctly "building socialism" (an absurd term).


How do people who identify with this tendency view the works of Trotsky? How is the theory of Permanent Revolution viewed? Is it accepted or rejected? Is he considered a renegade in the exile period?

Trotsky was murdered on Stalin's orders. They view him as a counter revolution and many time stooped as low as a leftist can and likened him to a fascist. They deny the theory of permanent revolution, despite the fact that the October revolution, was an example of permanent revolution.


How do the majority of M-L view the USSR? In other words do they recognize any short comings or areas that would be done differently if events and conditions provided a chance to give it a second go around? Do they feel Russia was ready for Socialism in 1917?


I believe that all M-L's support the USSR until 1953, although I could be wrong on that and despite their support of the USSR, some will admit mistakes were made.


What is the take on Stalin? I personally take a neutral or somewhat supportive position on Stalin. I recognize that there were extraordinary material conditions at the time when he took power that greatly influenced his decision making and the available options open to him. I do not want to be labeled an apologist because I do not wish to justify his actions but I feel it must be looked at objectively and honestly.

IMO, psychopath.


I think he is shrouded in myth that was created after Khrushchev came to power and that there was an attempt to bury all of the negatives under a caricature of the actual man himself. I think the CP thought they could wipe the slate clean by blaming Stalin and claim that their hands were clean. At the same time I do not think he was flawless either. Does this coincide with the views of this tendency or does this run contrary to it?

That's sounds about in-line with the whole revisionism took over when Stalin died nonsense that they peddle.


The last thing I want to ask in this post is if there is an orthodox or somewhat dogmatic approach within this tendency that forbids any new theory to be added as an extension to the established theory in order to meet new material conditions that are prevalent today? Is this a tendency that considers any deviation to be revisionist and therefore a breach of the M-L concept?

I think I'll let an M-L answer that.


I have more questions but I want to hear what others have to say on this first. I am just curious as to where my position is in comparison to other people within the tendency to see if this is a tendency that is in line with my personal take. I hope these do not sound like silly questions. I am not looking for a label or clique to join. I just don't want to state I am M-L if I am not on the same page as the tendency's core beliefs.

Smart man.

[The_Red_Spark]

Well, comrade, this is requires a lot of answers. But I'll do my best to answer some of them :lol:



I'm not a Trotskyist, so I'm not qualified to answer the first part. But Sartre was also an advocate of a permanent revolution too, so maybe I can approach the question from his perspective. He said that, once the revolution against the institution succeeds, the revolution becomes the institution - the revolutionaries that revolt against the ones in power become the ones in power the day after the revolution. He said that a permanent revolution was better than a single capitalism-to-socialism mass proletarian uprising because it prevents the revolutionary force from becoming the conservative new leaders of tomorrow. Could a Trotskyist here elaborate for us both, please?



I also wouldn't call myself a Leninist per se, but I think that he had some creative ideas. I am a Marxist, though, so I'll make this point - the historical dialectic shows that there is a path that history will take. Feudalism turns to capitalism, capitalism turns to socialism, and socialism turns to communism. We accept this. What happened in the USSR, some say (and I mostly agree with this position), is that Russia was not ready for socialism because it did not pass through capitalism first - the revolutionaries attempted to surgically insert themselves into the historical process and create a socialist economy when the feudal-agrarian peasant society in Russia was not developed or sophisticated enough to overcome scarcity. You can't just jump from feudalism to socialism - there has to be a period of capitalist industrialization in-between the two. There are plenty of Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, etc that disagree with this though. If there was a revolution in Russia today, though, I think that the results would be entirely different because they'd be happening in a different historical context with entirely different material circumstances. After everything's said and done, though, the USSR made some enormous steps forward in terms of industrialization - they developed pretty rapidly and that's at least worthy of some credit :)



I don't know enough about Stalin as a person to pass judgement on him, but I think that his ideas were flawed from the beginning. Let me justify this, cause there are probably plenty of MLs, Stalinists, etc who will jump on that statement: Stalin's idea of "socialism in one country" runs against the concept of proletarian internationalism. The revolution has to be global - it can't be isolated in one area, or external capitalist forces will just wear it down. The Cold War is evidence of this, I think.



I don't think that questioning ML concepts makes anyone a "revisionist". Right now, we live in an entirely different historical moment than Marx did in 1848 when he wrote the Manifesto. We have plenty of things to consider that he didn't - world wars, the internet, advanced technology, nuclear weapons, generations of history to look back over, and so on. If anything, I think that it's logical to try to look at his views and see how they would applied in our current situation. I think that he himself would have written his ideas a little differently if he could see everything that we saw. That being said, I think that an overwhelming majority of what Marx says is still very much applicable, and his analysis of capitalism are still fantastic.



Questions are never silly, comrade! Ask away :lol: I'd say ask some more, but we probably have enough here to occupy us for a little while :cool:
Your ideas correlate with those of my own. This is why I wonder if my views are not Marxist Leninist proper and I think that there is a wee bit of orthodoxy among that tendency but I do not want to be hasty in my judgement. I feel that Revolutionary Marxist is perhaps more fitting so long as that entails borrowing from Lenin, Trotsky, Hoxha, and some others I think are right in their analysis. I am not up to speed on Sartre though I once attempted a book on Transcendence and the Ego.

I agree with you in part on Stalin. Yet I think he had inherited a situation where the world revolution had stalled and that he tried to make the best of it with predictable results. I agree with the assertion that Russia was not ready to jump from the state it was in straight to Socialism too. I think it was an attempt to force a premature transition but an entirely understandable one at the same time. I cannot imagine any true Marxist who would not make an honest attempt to introduce Socialism if given half a chance under any condition.

I also agree with Marx and Engels that revolution must spread throughout all of the advanced countries or through most in order for true Socialism to be successful. Yes I do believe the Cold War is supportive evidence indeed. I think this more than anything led to the conditions in the USSR and that Stalin was left with few realistically feasible options. I think it is easy to criticize and play armchair quarterback too and refrain from judging too harshly. I like your take on Stalin as well. It is best to reserve judgement when unsure of the particulars.

I think modern conditions necessitate new refinements to theory but not major deviations from Marxism in it's core essence. I don't question Marx very much at all but I question Soviet policy and the dogmatic approach that existed under Stalin and can exist today in certain circles. I still believe that it is best to consider the successes and I do not dismiss anything Stalin etc just because I disagree with some of the key points from that era. I just don't think the correct approach is to bind ones self to a strict observance of dogmatic thought, the way a Christian does the bible, when it comes to historical figures and their works. Nor do I want to recreate the USSR because as Marx said in the 18th Brumaire, the first time is a tragedy, the second time a farce. I feel that Marx gave us the tools to work with and that we must apply them to today's material conditions and the developments within society.

[Art Vandelay]

Trotsky, Hoxha,

These 2 don't really go together.

[The_Red_Spark]

I want to thank Neue Rheinische Zeitung, JPSartre12, and Jookyle for posting. You have all helped clarify some things and answer some of my questions and I appreciate your input.

I understand Hoxha and Trotsky had contradictory takes but the point I was trying to make is that you can take something from each person if it is applicable. I have read things attributed to both that I agree with and borrow from though each one is not wholly compatible with each other in their totality. I hope that makes sense.

I am certainly not a Stalinist by any stretch. While I can understand some of the reasons for some of the things he did at times; I do not agree with it fundamentally. I think it best to approach the era from an objective standpoint and attempt to look at the conditions and options that were open to him and the Central Committee and I feel they made desperate choices in desperate situations. It was more a case of reacting to conditions that were rarely favorable yet I do not think they should be emulated or replicated either. It is full of lessons that are valuable though and that is the key.

I think it is tempting for some to look at the USSR and all the symbols and slogans and the promise of a workers state and disregard the mistakes that were glaring from the beginning. I think there is more than a bit of nostalgia to this time period(history of USSR) and that it is alluring to many but we must look forward while learning from the past. To attempt to imitate or mimic the USSR is a mistake we must not make and which we must move beyond in order to raise class consciousness and gain the confidence of the working class. Few people will rally around a new openly proclaimed Bolshevik party with all of the Soviet trappings and decorum. This I think is important for us to keep in mind and I am sure I am not the first to point that out here.

[Ismail]

You can't mix and match. Eclecticism leads to opportunism. Whatever good qualities Trotsky had and whatever good stuff he wrote ("Permanent Revolution" or his rants against "Stalinism" not among them) is scarcely different from what Marxist-Leninists hold. The necessity of a vanguard party (although Trotskyists tend to praise the existence of different factions and whatnot), the defense of the October Revolution, opposition to anarchism and left-communism, etc. are common to both ideologies since both, obviously, consider themselves derived from Leninism.


I believe that all M-L's support the USSR until 1953, although I could be wrong on that and despite their support of the USSR, some will admit mistakes were made.Marxism-Leninism is a broad term in real life. RevLeft has few Brezhnevites, so you don't tend to get those types who think that the USSR was socialist until Gorbachev came along, even though that's the line of a lot of formerly pro-Soviet communist parties and certain other parties, e.g. FRSO, WWP, PSL, etc.

The line of pro-Chinese (i.e. Maoist) and pro-Albanian parties was that after Stalin's death the new leadership took a rightward turn economically and in foreign affairs, culminating in the 20th Party Congress which, besides attacking Stalin as a way of indirectly attacking Marxism-Leninism in all but words, proclaimed Khrushchev's peculiar conception of "peaceful co-existence" and opened the way for further right-wing policies at home and abroad which led to the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and its transformation into a social-imperialist ("socialist in words, imperialist in deeds") superpower.

Countries as diverse as the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK until the 90's, Maoist China, modern-day China, Vietnam, Albania and even Yugoslavia proclaimed/proclaim themselves "Marxist-Leninist." On RevLeft the term is mostly synonymous with anti-revisionist (i.e. Maoist or pro-Albanian) "Stalinists" though.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

What is the take on Stalin? I personally take a neutral or somewhat supportive position on Stalin. I recognize that there were extraordinary material conditions at the time when he took power that greatly influenced his decision making and the available options open to him.

I am very much confused when many people say this about the Soviet Union.
The ambiguity of 'extraordinary material conditions' is absolutely enormous, with no mention as well of how it even begins to connect with the plethora of changes supposedly brought to the system through said conditions.

What exactly where these extraordinary conditions, and why did they prompt Stalin's (and the beurocracy's) somewhat radical and monarchic applications to the state?

[The_Red_Spark]

Countries as diverse as the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK until the 90's, Maoist China, modern-day China, Vietnam, Albania and even Yugoslavia proclaimed/proclaim themselves "Marxist-Leninist." On RevLeft the term is mostly synonymous with anti-revisionist (i.e. Maoist or pro-Albanian) "Stalinists" though.
So the position on RevLeft is not consistent at all times with all M-L's? Someone told me that all M-L's are not Stalinist. It seems that you are saying the same thing. It seems that this tendency encompasses more than I realized at the beginning of this thread. Thank you Ismail for your contribution.

I must say that the Theory of Permanent Revolution is the only Trotsky formulation that I am truly fond of but I will also add that I am not well versed in his writings in general. I will be honest and admit that I have not had the time to read much of his work but I plan to in the near future. I was aware that they both stem from the same line of thought and share many principles.

I think the necessity for a vanguard party is why I prefer this tendency most of all. I cannot see Socialism coming into being at this point in history without it. I think that conditions necessitate it. This seems to me to be purely a matter of logic.

I suppose my biggest concern is that I do not want to be chained to some sort of restrictive dogma that prohibits necessary change that is due to material conditions in this era that differ from those of the early 20th century. I fear that this condition would restrict a party and lead to what could rightly be referred to as a schism in some cases. I think there is a need for a limited degree of flexibility but I don't advocate radical revision or dramatic deviation from Marx or any other.

I think that this term revisionist is used far too often in word wars that are used to keep each flock in line. It seems that it is far too often used subjectively rather than from an objective standpoint. I do not want to be shackled to a line of theory when it becomes obvious that it no longer meets material and historical conditions of today. Other than that I feel that my personal beliefs are much like those I have seen within the M-L tendency.

I also feel that there is an important need for a political dichotomy within the party and that this provides a harmonious balance that is needed in politics. This is why I disagree with Stalinism in concept though I recognize the reasons he chose this course at that time. In other words he had his reasons due to conditions but I would be opposed to such a position in the future because of where it ultimately leads. Without a counterbalance within a party there is a runaway train in one direction or the other. This can be bad for Socialism if it is too extreme and not in line with the goals of Socialism.

Are these ideas and positions congruent with Marxist-Leninist thinking or are they positions that would be considered contrary to the tendency itself? I would like to know if my positions in this thread are consistent with those of the M-L tendency and I hope to hear more from those that are M-L?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I must say that the Theory of Permanent Revolution is the only Trotsky formulation that I am truly fond of but I will also add that I am not well versed in his writings in general. I will be honest and admit that I have not had the time to read much of his work but I plan to in the near future. I was aware that they both stem from the same line of thought and share many principles.

In that case, you are not an M-L at all, lol. M-L's are extremely opposed to the idea of permanent revolution.

Actually (I hope not to derail the thread) here is an interesting criticism of Trotsky's permanent revolution by, not a Marxist-Leninist (called "Stalinists" by typically everyone else) but an Orthodox Marxist.
http://vimeo.com/14808875


I think the necessity for a vanguard party is why I prefer this tendency most of all. I cannot see Socialism coming into being at this point in history without it. I think that conditions necessitate it. This seems to me to be purely a matter of logic.

M-L isn't the only tendency that agrees with the conception of the vanguard party. Left Communism, Trotskyism, etc. also agree with a vanguard party.


Other than that I feel that my personal beliefs are much like those I have seen within the M-L tendency.

From what I have read of your posts I would actually disagree, and I think other Stalinists would as well. (Such as placing importance on permanent revolution).


I also feel that there is an important need for a political dichotomy within the party and that this provides a harmonious balance that is needed in politics. This is why I disagree with Stalinism in concept though I recognize the reasons he chose this course at that time. In other words he had his reasons due to conditions but I would be opposed to such a position in the future because of where it ultimately leads.

If you have a historical defense of Stalin and his regime, then that is something you and M-L's have in common.


Are these ideas and positions congruent with Marxist-Leninist thinking or are they positions that would be considered contrary to the tendency itself? I would like to know if my positions in this thread are consistent with those of the M-L tendency and I hope to hear more from those that are M-L?

The historical defense of Stalin, yes. Placing importance on permanent revolution, no. I would suggest you do a couple things.

1. Before subscribing to a tendency, read the basics of Marx and Engels.

2. Check out other tendencies (such as Orthodox Marxism, Left Communism, etc.) before subscribing to one tendency.

[Geiseric]

Marxism Leninism is Stalinism, since Socialism in one country is the core dogma they all adhere to be possible, which leads to defensism on a world wide scale, which obviously would be bad. Bolshevik Leninism is Trotskyism, since his ideas laid out in "the transitional programme" and "perminant revolution" are pretty much central to the history of Bolshevism. If anybody says that PR is wrong, October must not of happened. but i'd reccomend reading the "Transitional Programme" by Trotsky, it's really good, and applies to today. However ML is equivelant to Stalinist, if being politically correct with labels matters, b/c in the 1920s when Stalin was debating pro SioC, he called himself that, to build the "leader and successor" cult of personality around Lenin and himself.

[The_Red_Spark]

In that case, you are not an M-L at all, lol. M-L's are extremely opposed to the idea of permanent revolution.

Actually (I hope not to derail the thread) here is an interesting criticism of Trotsky's permanent revolution by, not a Marxist-Leninist (called "Stalinists" by typically everyone else) but an Orthodox Marxist.




M-L isn't the only tendency that agrees with the conception of the vanguard party. Left Communism, Trotskyism, etc. also agree with a vanguard party.



From what I have read of your posts I would actually disagree, and I think other Stalinists would as well. (Such as placing importance on permanent revolution).



If you have a historical defense of Stalin and his regime, then that is something you and M-L's have in common.



The historical defense of Stalin, yes. Placing importance on permanent revolution, no. I would suggest you do a couple things.

1. Before subscribing to a tendency, read the basics of Marx and Engels.

2. Check out other tendencies (such as Orthodox Marxism, Left Communism, etc.) before subscribing to one tendency.

Thanks for answering these questions. I don't know if subscribing is the right word. I am just wondering where my beliefs fall in with regard to tendencies. That is what I am trying to understand. I don't intend to come to a hasty decision. Once I saw how these expressions exist within the RevLeft community I realized how much I have to learn about these tendencies. So I agree that I need to learn more and I don't plan to subscribe to anything until I have a greater understanding of them.

I have read quite a bit of Marx and Engels. I have read all of the more common writings with the exception of Das Kapital vol.s 2 and 3. I am currently working on that. I have been reading these texts, some of them as many as five times, since the 90's. I concede that I am no expert on theory though and hope to learn what I can from the community here and elsewhere. Please do not refrain from pointing out my flaws through constructive criticism.

I don't mean to sound like I am not taking your advice here because I do indeed need to better my understanding of Marx and I hope that people will point me in the right direction as you just did. I am grateful that you have lent me your advice and suggestions on this and I want to thank you for taking your time to help me on my way:).

[The_Red_Spark]

Marxism Leninism is Stalinism, since Socialism in one country is the core dogma they all adhere to be possible, which leads to defensism on a world wide scale, which obviously would be bad. Bolshevik Leninism is Trotskyism, since his ideas laid out in "the transitional programme" and "perminant revolution" are pretty much central to the history of Bolshevism. If anybody says that PR is wrong, October must not of happened. but i'd reccomend reading the "Transitional Programme" by Trotsky, it's really good, and applies to today. However ML is equivelant to Stalinist, if being politically correct with labels matters, b/c in the 1920s when Stalin was debating pro SioC, he called himself that, to build the "leader and successor" cult of personality around Lenin and himself.
Thanks for this insight brother. I will look into the Transistional Programme by Trotsky. As I said I have been meaning to read his major works in the near future, but I think I may make it sooner rather than later;).

I am beginning to feel as though I am not M-L as I had wrongfully assumed before coming to RevLeft. I had no understanding of the depth of these tendencies though I have seen the word used in titles like The International Marxist Tendency etc. I am afraid that, just when I thought I had acquired a little bit of polish, I have come to the realization that I have quite a ways to go LOL. It encourages more diligent study on my and has piqued my interest.

[Thirsty Crow]

M-L isn't the only tendency that agrees with the conception of the vanguard party. Left Communism, Trotskyism, etc. also agree with a vanguard party.

This needs to be repeated over and over: this agreement is so vague that it becomes meaningless considering the fact that concrete conception of the role, function, and structure of the revolutionary party differ widly from one tendency to another.
And furthermore, one historical pole of left communism, German-Dutch left communism (which is not to be confused with later developments in so called councilism or council communism), differed in their view on the party in 1920s from the newly constructed Marxism-Leninism, not to mention the differences in contemporary political organizations.
And finally, you could even argue that even class struggle anarchists agree with the conception of the vanguard party, only that they don't call it a vaguard party.
And what does that tell us? That the notion itself is vague and needs much qualification and clarification.

[The_Red_Spark]

This needs to be repeated over and over: this agreement is so vague that it becomes meaningless considering the fact that concrete conception of the role, function, and structure of the revolutionary party differ widly from one tendency to another.
And furthermore, one historical pole of left communism, German-Dutch left communism (which is not to be confused with later developments in so called councilism or council communism), differed in their view on the party in 1920s from the newly constructed Marxism-Leninism, not to mention the differences in contemporary political organizations.
And finally, you could even argue that even class struggle anarchists agree with the conception of the vanguard party, only that they don't call it a vaguard party.
And what does that tell us? That the notion itself is vague and needs much qualification and clarification.
I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing this with me. This thread has given me quite a bit of historical and ideological insight. I am enjoying the chance to learn and I appreciate everyone's help.

[Geiseric]

the way I see it, whoever is actually delegating for the working class, i.e. whoever is voted into political power at the time of revolution, i.e. the revolutionists who are from the working class seizing power, is the vanguard.

You can't just name youself a communist party and say "We're the vanguard! Suck it!" A vanguard has to be formed from the class struggle itself, and the vanguard is basically whoever is leading the class struggle. The structure and composition of the vanguard is subject to dispute.

However there are many differences between MLism and Trotskyism. There is next to no internal democracy (or was) in Stalinist parties, which during the German Revolution really was a bad thing, as well as during the degeneration of the USSR.

But basically, if you support the Purges, which killed a few hundred thousand communists, you're a ML. If you don't support the purges and attack Stalin as a counter revolutionary figure, you are not a Stalinist, but I probably don't need to tell you that, but unconditional support for everything Stalin did is a prerequisite as well. Also whenever you ask MLs why the USSR collapsed, they yell "revisionism," not realizing that SioC was itself a revision, and Stalin an opportunist.

[Ismail]

I think that this term revisionist is used far too often in word wars that are used to keep each flock in line. It seems that it is far too often used subjectively rather than from an objective standpoint. I do not want to be shackled to a line of theory when it becomes obvious that it no longer meets material and historical conditions of today.What policies are deemed revisionist which you don't see as being so? It should be reasonably obvious that post-50's Soviet views that the USSR was transformed into a "state of the whole people," that the dictatorship of the proletariat had run its course, obviously weren't proclaimed in the service of Marxism, much in the same way that Gorbachev going on about the wonders of humanism and how the CPSU must "return to Lenin" via market economics against the "distortions" caused by "Stalinism" evidently had ulterior motives.


Are these ideas and positions congruent with Marxist-Leninist thinking or are they positions that would be considered contrary to the tendency itself? I would like to know if my positions in this thread are consistent with those of the M-L tendency and I hope to hear more from those that are M-L?You're not a Marxist-Leninist in any sense, really. You don't seem to have any real ideology at the moment.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

This needs to be repeated over and over: this agreement is so vague that it becomes meaningless considering the fact that concrete conception of the role, function, and structure of the revolutionary party differ widly from one tendency to another.

Well, obviously. I was just pointing out that the Stalinists don't have a monopoly over the idea of a vanguard party.


And furthermore, one historical pole of left communism, German-Dutch left communism (which is not to be confused with later developments in so called councilism or council communism), differed in their view on the party in 1920s from the newly constructed Marxism-Leninism, not to mention the differences in contemporary political organizations.

Yes, the believed that the party shouldn't take state power, that the party is a product of the class (contrary to the idea that the party finds the class like many Bordigists think) etc.


And finally, you could even argue that even class struggle anarchists agree with the conception of the vanguard party, only that they don't call it a vaguard party.

If you're talking about the Platformists, then I agree.


And what does that tell us? That the notion itself is vague and needs much qualification and clarification.

Yes, but I didn't think that I had to go into detail on this to let someone know that M-L isn't the only tendency that agrees with a conception of a vanguard party (regardless of form, function, etc.)

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes, but I didn't think that I had to go into detail on this to let someone know that M-L isn't the only tendency that agrees with a conception of a vanguard party (regardless of form, function, etc.)
But this is precisely the point. If you disregard the questions of structure and function, you're left with a useless abstraction, which can potentially mislead, or worse, mistify real political issues.
It really boils down to this: the notion of the vanguard party is, imo, beyond salvation if it isn't qualified.


If you're talking about the Platformists, then I agree. No, I'm talking also about so called dual organization anarcho-syndicalists who argue for the existence of the political organization (for instance, the historical FAI in Spain), In my opinion, the only tendency which fundamentally disagrees with the notion as you describe it are the syndicalists.

[The_Red_Spark]

What policies are deemed revisionist which you don't see as being so? It should be reasonably obvious that post-50's Soviet views that the USSR was transformed into a "state of the whole people," that the dictatorship of the proletariat had run its course, obviously weren't proclaimed in the service of Marxism, much in the same way that Gorbachev going on about the wonders of humanism and how the CPSU must "return to Lenin" via market economics against the "distortions" caused by "Stalinism" evidently had ulterior motives.

You're not a Marxist-Leninist in any sense, really. You don't seem to have any real ideology at the moment.
As I said earlier I was unsure if I was in line with this tendency which is why I started the thread. I now believe that though I agree on many M-L points that I am not a true and through M-L and that stating that previous conclusion was extremely premature. The point of this thread was to help clarify my own position in relation to these tendencies. I am not attempting to claim that I am M-L though I have made this claim in my introduction. At this point I was unaware or even ignorant or extremely naive in relation to the facts in regard to how M-L's believe. I hope you will forgive me for my honest mistake.

I hope you understand that I have various takes on various issues and that I cannot state any given tendency until my position solidifies and takes proper form. If I have learned one thing through the information graciously provided to me it is that I have a lot to learn when it comes to theory and tendency. This should come as no surprise when considering the nature of this thread. Once again I apologize for my ignorance on the subject and ask that I will be fortunate enough to be permitted a chance to learn throughout the thread. After all this was my intended design.

As far as revision is concerned I don't disagree with you on any of that. I will say that I agree with you on Gorbachev and he has made quite a fortune as a true Capitalist. I think you may have misunderstood my post and point in this regard because I am in total agreement with you on these points. I meant the term itself is often used as a weapon or tactic to discredit various ideas by various groups and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular. What some may call revision I agree with and at other times I do not. It really is that simple. I am using this in general terms and do not intend to use specifics due to the potential for derailment of this thread. I am truly trying to understand the tendencies here in relation to my own position, not defend my position, or wage war against anyone or any tendency.

[The_Red_Spark]

I am very much confused when many people say this about the Soviet Union.
The ambiguity of 'extraordinary material conditions' is absolutely enormous, with no mention as well of how it even begins to connect with the plethora of changes supposedly brought to the system through said conditions.

What exactly where these extraordinary conditions, and why did they prompt Stalin's (and the beurocracy's) somewhat radical and monarchic applications to the state?
I am referring to the economic development and the lack of fully developed Capitalism that were present material conditions and the way the world in general fought against the USSR that required decisions that would have been different had the advanced nations carried out a revolution as stated by Marx and Engels. I consider this to be an exception to the typical theory that would have been applied to advanced nations like the UK, USA, or Germany and France where conditions were as stated in the Manifesto. I consider the state of development that was proclaimed in the Communist Manifesto, for right or for wrong, to be the ordinary, while the conditions that Marx talked of in Russia to be 'extraordinary'.

I believe the conditions would have been different if the revolution would have taken place across the developed world as theorized by Marx and Engels and that the options would have been different if Russia had been as advanced as say England. I don't feel this is ambiguous in any way I feel it is obvious that these material conditions were less than ideal. I also feel that if the revolution was to happen today and Stalin was placed at the head of a government that the results would be entirely different. Do you find that ambiguous or unreasonable?

I think that these were extraordinary material conditions and that as a result the options open to the party were much different and more limited than if the world had followed suit and carried out revolutions simultaneously as theorized. Where do you see ordinary conditions in a world where the exact opposite of what was theorized in the Manifesto happened and the weight of the Capitalist world was bearing down on a workers state? Did this not demand decisions and reaction to the existing material conditions that would have been absent and unnecessary if the world revolution had been victorious or if Russia had already reached the period of actual Capitalism before the revolution?

[Lucretia]

So the position on RevLeft is not consistent at all times with all M-L's? Someone told me that all M-L's are not Stalinist. It seems that you are saying the same thing. It seems that this tendency encompasses more than I realized at the beginning of this thread. Thank you Ismail for your contribution.

I must say that the Theory of Permanent Revolution is the only Trotsky formulation that I am truly fond of but I will also add that I am not well versed in his writings in general. I will be honest and admit that I have not had the time to read much of his work but I plan to in the near future. I was aware that they both stem from the same line of thought and share many principles.

I think the necessity for a vanguard party is why I prefer this tendency most of all. I cannot see Socialism coming into being at this point in history without it. I think that conditions necessitate it. This seems to me to be purely a matter of logic.

I suppose my biggest concern is that I do not want to be chained to some sort of restrictive dogma that prohibits necessary change that is due to material conditions in this era that differ from those of the early 20th century. I fear that this condition would restrict a party and lead to what could rightly be referred to as a schism in some cases. I think there is a need for a limited degree of flexibility but I don't advocate radical revision or dramatic deviation from Marx or any other.

I think that this term revisionist is used far too often in word wars that are used to keep each flock in line. It seems that it is far too often used subjectively rather than from an objective standpoint. I do not want to be shackled to a line of theory when it becomes obvious that it no longer meets material and historical conditions of today. Other than that I feel that my personal beliefs are much like those I have seen within the M-L tendency.

I also feel that there is an important need for a political dichotomy within the party and that this provides a harmonious balance that is needed in politics. This is why I disagree with Stalinism in concept though I recognize the reasons he chose this course at that time. In other words he had his reasons due to conditions but I would be opposed to such a position in the future because of where it ultimately leads. Without a counterbalance within a party there is a runaway train in one direction or the other. This can be bad for Socialism if it is too extreme and not in line with the goals of Socialism.

Are these ideas and positions congruent with Marxist-Leninist thinking or are they positions that would be considered contrary to the tendency itself? I would like to know if my positions in this thread are consistent with those of the M-L tendency and I hope to hear more from those that are M-L?

It's not as complicated as it sounds from all the answers you've been getting. The distinguishing idea of Marxism-Leninism is socialism in one country. That is what divides Marxist-Leninists as a tendency or group of tendencies from all other tendencies, even if they do disagree on when this or that country was no longer "socialist."

[The_Red_Spark]

It's not as complicated as it sounds from all the answers you've been getting. The distinguishing idea of Marxism-Leninism is socialism in one country. That is what divides Marxist-Leninists as a tendency or group of tendencies from all other tendencies, even if they do disagree on when this or that country was no longer "socialist."
Thank you. I have had replies from M-L's today and it has become fairly clear. While I feel I have a good grasp of M-L the intricacies of the varying tendencies themselves is another story. I still do not see where my beliefs or ideas fit in regard to the other tendencies. I think it will be a while before I am done studying the various concepts enough to make a stand that is firm.

[jookyle]

Socialism in one country is not a dogmatic view, or universal goal, of marxist-leninism. It is a simple a tactic/strategy to be used when/if needed.

[Lucretia]

Socialism in one country is not a dogmatic view, or universal goal, of marxist-leninism. It is a simple a tactic/strategy to be used when/if needed.

Characterize it however you wish. It is the view that separates Marxists-Leninists from others.

[Peoples' War]

You also have to look at the view ML's have on defending the actions of Stalin. This is a scary thought for any other tendency which may have thought about working with ML's. The problems persist within the ML parties as well, with sectarianism taking a leading role at times, well above working with other workers.

To tackle another issue of MLism, a claim often brought up, and which i consider legitimate, is that SioC is revision of Marxism. Engels states that a revolution cannot occur in one country. Stalin claims it can, citing that material conditions now allow it...though, I don't know which material conditions allow it, I don't think he said. Remember, Stalin claimed socialism was established. Socialism is the "lower phase of communism". Just read about the lower phase from Lenin and Marx, and compare it to what the USSR really was. You will notice that not only was socialism NOT achieved, the workers state established by the workers/bolsheviks no longer existed.

[Thirsty Crow]

Stalin claims it can, citing that material conditions now allow it...though, I don't know which material conditions allow it, I don't think he said.
Rhetorical refrence to these material conditions is often a useful alibi in communists' arguments. It's really rampant, in my opinion, and is used to further any argument whatsoever while never providing any further determination to what these conditions actually are and how do they relate to the viability of a certain political practice.

[Ismail]

Engels states that a revolution cannot occur in one country. Stalin claims it can, citing that material conditions now allow it...though, I don't know which material conditions allow it, I don't think he said.In a 1925 letter:

Engels's negative answer to the question: "Can this revolution take place in one country alone?" wholly reflects the epoch of pre-monopolist capitalism, the pre-imperialist epoch, when the conditions did not yet exist for the uneven, spasmodic development of the capitalist countries, when, consequently, the premises did not yet exist for the victory of the proletarian revolution in one country (as is known, the possibility of the victory of such a revolution in one country follows from the law of uneven development of capitalist countries under imperialism). The law of uneven development of capitalist countries, and the concomitant thesis that the victory of the proletarian revolution is possible in one country, where, and could be, advanced by Lenin only in the period of imperialism. That, incidentally, explains why Leninism is Marxism of the epoch of imperialism, why it is a further development of Marxism, which arose in the pre-imperialist epoch. Genius though he was, Engles could could not see what did not yet exist in the pre-monopolist period of capitalism, the the forties of the last century, when he wrote his Principles of Communism, and which arose only later, in the monopolist period of capitalism. On the other hand, Lenin, being a Marxist of genius, could not fail to see what had already arisen after Engels's death, in the period of imperialism. The difference between Lenin and Engels is the difference between the two historical periods that separate them.Furthermore it's worth quoting from the Short Course of 1939, which Stalin oversaw:

Before the Second Russian Revolution (February 1917), the Marxists of all countries assumed that the parliamentary democratic republic was the most suitable form of political organization of society in the period of transition from capitalism to Socialism. It is true that in the seventies Marx stated that the most suitable form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was a political organization of the type of the Paris Commune, and not the parliamentary republic. But, unfortunately, Marx did not develop this proposition any further in his writings and it was committed to oblivion. Moreover, Engels' authoritative statement in his criticism of the draft of the Erfurt Program in 1891, namely, that "the democratic republic . . . is . . . the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat" left no doubt that the Marxists continued to regard the democratic republic as the political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Engels' proposition later became a guiding principle for all Marxists, including Lenin. However, the Russian Revolution of 1905, and especially the Revolution of February 1917, advanced a new form of political organization of society—the Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies. As a result of a study of the experience of the two Russian revolutions, Lenin, on the basis of the theory of Marxism, arrived at the conclusion that the best political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was not a parliamentary democratic republic, but a republic of Soviets. Proceeding from this, Lenin, in April 1917, during the period of transition from the bourgeois to the Socialist revolution, issued the slogan of a republic of Soviets as the best political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The opportunists of all countries clung to the parliamentary republic and accused Lenin of departing from Marxism and destroying democracy. But it was Lenin, of course, who was the real Marxist who had mastered the theory of Marxism, and not the opportunists, for Lenin was advancing the Marxist theory by enriching it with new experience, whereas the opportunists were dragging it back and transforming one of its propositions into a dogma.

What would have happened to the Party, to our revolution, to Marxism, if Lenin had been overawed by the letter of Marxism and had not had the courage to replace one of the old propositions of Marxism, formulated by Engels, by the new proposition regarding the republic of Soviets, a proposition that corresponded to the new historical conditions? The Party would have groped in the dark, the Soviets would have been disorganized, we should not have had a Soviet power, and the Marxist theory would have suffered a severe setback. The proletariat would have lost, and the enemies of the proletariat would have won.

As a result of a study of pre-imperialist capitalism Engels and Marx arrived at the conclusion that the Socialist revolution could not be victorious in one country, taken singly, that it could be victorious only by a simultaneous stroke in all, or the majority of the civilized countries. That was in the middle of the nineteenth century. This conclusion later became a guiding principle for all Marxists. However, by the beginning of the twentieth century, pre-imperialist capitalism had grown into imperialist capitalism, ascendant capitalism had turned into moribund capitalism. As a result of a study of imperialist capitalism, Lenin, on the basis of the Marxist theory, arrived at the conclusion that the old formula of Engels and Marx no longer corresponded to the new historical conditions, and that the victory of the Socialist revolution was quite possible in one country, taken singly. The opportunists of all countries clung to the old formula of Engels and Marx and accused Lenin of departing from Marxism. But it was Lenin, of course, who was the real Marxist who had mastered the theory of Marxism, and not the opportunists, for Lenin was advancing the Marxist theory by enriching it with new experience, whereas the opportunists were dragging it back, mummifying it.

What would have happened to the Party, to our revolution, to Marxism, if Lenin had been overawed by the letter of Marxism and had not had the courage of theoretical conviction to discard one of the old conclusions of Marxism and to replace it by a new conclusion affirming that the victory of Socialism in one country, taken singly, was possible, a conclusion which corresponded to the new historical conditions? The Party would have groped in the dark, the proletarian revolution would have been deprived of leadership, and the Marxist theory would have begun to decay. The proletariat would have lost, and the enemies of the proletariat would have won.

Opportunism does not always mean a direct denial of the Marxist theory or of any of its propositions and conclusions. Opportunism is sometimes expressed in the attempt to cling to certain of the propositions of Marxism that have already become antiquated and to convert them into a dogma, so as to retard the further development of Marxism, and, consequently, to retard the development of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat.

It may be said without fear of exaggeration that since the death of Engels the master theoretician Lenin, and after Lenin, Stalin and the other disciples of Lenin, have been the only Marxists who have advanced the Marxist theory and who have enriched it with new experience in the new conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat.

And just because Lenin and the Leninists have advanced the Marxist theory, Leninism is a further development of Marxism; it is Marxism in the new conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat, Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, Marxism of the epoch of the victory of Socialism on one-sixth of the earth's surface.And finally Stalin in 1926, in response to Zinoviev digging out Engels' quote:

Engels said that a proletarian revolution with the programme set forth above could not take place in one separate country. But the fact is that, in the new conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat, the conditions of imperialism, we have in the main already accomplished such a revolution in one separate country, in our country, having carried out nine-tenths of its programme...

Of course, if Engels were alive, he would not cling to the old formula. On the contrary, he would heartily welcome our revolution, and would say: “To the devil with all old formulas! Long live the victorious revolution in the U.S.S.R.!”

[JPSartre12]

It's not as complicated as it sounds from all the answers you've been getting. The distinguishing idea of Marxism-Leninism is socialism in one country. That is what divides Marxist-Leninists as a tendency or group of tendencies from all other tendencies, even if they do disagree on when this or that country was no longer "socialist."

Yes, this is partially why I don't suscribe to Marxist-Leninism.

[jookyle]

Characterize it however you wish. It is the view that separates Marxists-Leninists from others.

I did not deny it's existence as a concept to marxists-leninists, simply it's nature/purpose.

[Art Vandelay]

I did not deny it's existence as a concept to marxists-leninists, simply it's nature/purpose.

Well in all honesty there is a difference between attempting to advance the productive forces as much as possible within the confines of a country and actually claiming that socialism can be achieved in one country.

[JPSartre12]

Well in all honesty there is a difference between attempting to advance the productive forces as much as possible within the confines of a country and actually claiming that socialism can be achieved in one country.

I wouldn't say that advancing productive forces isn't part of ML, I'd just say that it's more of capitalizing (no pun intended :tt2:) on the production that already been accomplished and changing its mode.

[Art Vandelay]

I wouldn't say that advancing productive forces isn't part of ML, I'd just say that it's more of capitalizing (no pun intended :tt2:) on the production that already been accomplished and changing its mode.

The idea that socialism can be achieved in one country is a complete break with Marxist thought; anyone who peddles the nonsense about it being a "necessity" or whatever misses the point entirely.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/may/04.htm). It is short, trust me. It wont take more that fifteen minutes.

After reading it, tell me what you think about the application of the ideas put forth, in general, today. Forget the names of dead people and long forgotten publication; and look at it through the lens of today.

[Peoples' War]

In a 1925 letter:
Furthermore it's worth quoting from the Short Course of 1939, which Stalin oversaw:
And finally Stalin in 1926, in response to Zinoviev digging out Engels' quote:
His reasoning is that the capitalism of his time was not the capitalism of Engels' time, pre-imperial vs imperial, which is fine. However, the problem I have is that he doesn't explain why imperialist capitalism allows for socialism in one country. He just goes on to praise Lenin, and falsely state, that Lenin was the one who formulated the idea of socialism in one country.

All those paragraphs contain are two things:

a) Imperialist capitalism allows for SioC, with no explanation how/why.

b) Promoting the idea that Lenin came up with SioC.

Can you tell me, in your words, without making me read extensive quotes from Stalin, how/why socialism in one country can occur within imperialist capitalism?

[Geiseric]

Engels was from germany as well, so on top of him not thinking SioC could work there, i'm assuming he thought that Germany would be the first to fall, what makes you or Zinoviev think that the USSR is "more ripe for socialism," than Germany, an industrialized country?

Basically if Engels thought SioC couldn't work in Germany, how would it work only 30 years later in Russia? None of this bullshit makes any sense, and this discussion is pointless. The USSR doesn't exist anymore, and SioC was a failure. Unless of course if Stalin's goal was to re-establish capitalism, in which case he utterly succeeded.

[JPSartre12]

The idea that socialism can be achieved in one country is a complete break with Marxist thought; anyone who peddles the nonsense about it being a "necessity" or whatever misses the point entirely.

Oh, I agree comrade! :)

The "socialism in one country" concept is sort of why I associate with Marxism itself instead of Marxist-Leninism ... It seems to forget about the whole proletarian internationalism and replaces it. Acknowledging State boundaries and working inside them doesn't suit me :p

[Ismail]

Lenin did in fact defend the doctrine of socialism in one country. Lenin himself noted, "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country, taken singly. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries."

Practically every single quote Trotskyists throw out to "prove" Lenin was against socialism in one country is along the lines of "we are doomed; the German armies will destroy us if there is no international revolution." Obviously that didn't come to pass and Lenin said as such.


Can you tell me, in your words, without making me read extensive quotes from Stalin, how/why socialism in one country can occur within imperialist capitalism?I do recall Soviet sources discussing this, but I don't have access to them at the moment.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me how socialism in one country cannot occur?


The USSR doesn't exist anymore, and SioC was a failure.That's not an argument. Revisionism caused the demise of the USSR, just as it caused the demise of the Second International and of various other parties and organizations.

[Geiseric]

Yes Ismail, I agree. Stalinist revisionism was what killed the USSR. How about you explain how socialism in one country was supposed to build socialism, specifically, other than the planned economy? Did he think that capitalism would just take its hands off of the USSR's throat? He must of, and tried to win their support worldwide by demanding socialism be built in the USSR, since "It can't be built anywhere else. The revolutionary wave is over," during the 2nd period specifically, which forced the KPD to focus its efforts on supporting the SPD.

[Art Vandelay]

Lenin did in fact defend the doctrine of socialism in one country. Lenin himself noted, "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country, taken singly. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries.

Lenin also defined socialism as state capitalism turned to the benefits of the people; he wasn't infallible.

[Geiseric]

I have to say that Lenin stressed on every other occasion, including when he founded the communist international, that international revolution was the sole point of the Russian revolution, including the quote "I would gladly of made the russian revolution not happen if it meant a German one," that I read in his collected works.

[Peoples' War]

Lenin did in fact defend the doctrine of socialism in one country. Lenin himself noted, "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country, taken singly. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries."In the context of the full article, or just the full quote, this quote seems much different than what you and Stalin try to present.

Let's look at it in totality, at the notion the article Lenin wrote was making, beginning with what was left out of your quote: "...stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states."

Lenin is referring to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, when he discusses the "victory of socialism". Not a literal achievement of socialism (read Lower Phase of Communism), but the initial victory of the movement. This is not too hard to believe, reading many Marxists at the time, they would use "socialism" in a similar way.

Yes, obviously a single nation can achieve a proletarian dictatorship, but unless the rest of the world follows suit, it is doomed to isolation and failure, which as history shows, is fact.

Lenin, it should be noted, used the phrase "The complete victory of socialism", in his article "The Importance of Gold Now and After The Complete Victory of Socialism". Suggesting that he uses the term socialism, to not only refer to the lower phase of communism, but the movement as well.

Another similar use is "the workers who are absorbed in the struggle of socialism.", referring to the movement. Lenin said this in "Better, Fewer, but Better".

Another user of the phrase, Rosa Luxembourg, the German Left Communist, is quoted as saying "We stand today... before the awful proposition: either the triumph of imperialism and the destruction of all culture, and, as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration, a vast cemetery; or, the victory of socialism."

Now, the article, On the Slogan for a United States of Europe (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm), is the article in question. I urge others to read and compare the context Stalin presents to the context of the entire piece, and what I have put forward as the real context.


Practically every single quote Trotskyists throw out to "prove" Lenin was against socialism in one country is along the lines of "we are doomed; the German armies will destroy us if there is no international revolution." Obviously that didn't come to pass and Lenin said as such.Okay? We see that "revisionism" had nothing to do with it, however. This "revisionism" had to do with the demise of the Soviet Empire, but not with a socialism which was never achieved. I'll go beyond Trotskyists, and acknowledge that the USSR, post-Lenin a few years, lost it's proletarian character. It ceased being a workers state, most notably when Stalin, in an act of major revisionism of Lenin, abolished the powers of the Workers Councils. The "common property", as is supposed to exist within socialism, existed not as the "common property" of all, but the common property of a select few elites within the government.

With no worker ownership over the state, there is no workers ownership over property.


I do recall Soviet sources discussing this, but I don't have access to them at the moment.So, why do you believe in it, if you cannot explain even this? It can't be that complicated.


Perhaps you'd like to tell me how socialism in one country cannot occur?This is a cop out, I asked you to provide a defense, in your own words, of your position of support for SioC.


That's not an argument. Revisionism caused the demise of the USSR, just as it caused the demise of the Second International and of various other parties and organizations.The demise of the USSR wasn't caused by some mystical "revisionism". It had never achieved socialism, and that's part of the issue. To expand, the Workers State ceased to exist not long after Stalin took the reigns, and began a crusade of concentrating the power of the workers via councils, into the hands of the bureacrats of the party, eliminating proletariat control of the state.

You can blame "revisionism" of Lenin and Marx, coupled and a result of material conditions -- failure of the German proletariat, etc. -- for the demise of the workers state, and you can blame "revisionism" of Stalin for the demise of an anti-democratic and capitalistic empire, but not the demise of socialism itself...it wasn't there.

[Peoples' War]

Lenin also defined socialism as state capitalism turned to the benefits of the people; he wasn't infallible.
A mistake made by the SPGB, another example of a quote taken out of context.

I've made this point in another thread;it is in reference to the DOTP, as far as I can tell.

Of course, Lenin was NOT infallible. Though, we must always keep context in what we quote.

[Art Vandelay]

A mistake made by the SPGB, another example of a quote taken out of context.

I've made this point in another thread;it is in reference to the DOTP, as far as I can tell.

Of course, Lenin was NOT infallible. Though, we must always keep context in what we quote.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this honestly. It's always been one of my biggest beefs with him, but undoubtedly the dotp was going to take the form of a strain of state capitalism; so if that is indeed what he meant, that would reconcile one of my biggest critiques of Lenin.

[Peoples' War]

I'd be interested in hearing more about this honestly. It's always been one of my biggest beefs with him, but undoubtedly the dotp was going to take the form of a strain of state capitalism; so if that is indeed what he meant, that would reconcile one of my biggest critiques of Lenin.
"Left-Wing" Childishness (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm) pretty much explains it.

Talks about state capitalism being involved in transition, not socialism itself.

Also, you can read more here: On Cooperation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm) in part II.

[Geiseric]

In russia, they needed state capitalism to industrialize. Germany wouldn't have, so the transition to socialism would of been quicker there, but in Russia state capitalism was needed to keep the country togather, build up farms, factories, but everybody did technically benefit from it, so at least the early N.E.P. was totally justified.

[Ismail]

Lenin also defined socialism as state capitalism turned to the benefits of the people; he wasn't infallible.Except he didn't define it that way. Left-communists take that quote completely out of context.

[JPSartre12]

In russia, they needed state capitalism to industrialize. Germany wouldn't have, so the transition to socialism would of been quicker there, but in Russia state capitalism was needed to keep the country togather, build up farms, factories, but everybody did technically benefit from it, so at least the early N.E.P. was totally justified.

Agreed. They didn't have the means of production sophisticated enough to overcome scarcity and hop into socialism and they needed to induce rapid industrialization.

On a side note .... I'm familiar and comfortable with the concept of state capitalism, yes. I've heard the term state socialism used to describe the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Is there a difference between state cap and state soc? I was under the impression that state soc is inherently contradictory because socialism aspires for the abolition of the State?

[The_Red_Spark]

Read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/may/04.htm). It is short, trust me. It wont take more that fifteen minutes.

After reading it, tell me what you think about the application of the ideas put forth, in general, today. Forget the names of dead people and long forgotten publication; and look at it through the lens of today.
This is exactly why I like the works of Lenin and exactly what I think needs to be done right now. Though my idea, which I hoped to present here a little later on once I tested the ideological waters, was to use social media and a large body of contributing authors to the same effect as a newspaper would've done in the early 20th century.

I started my own blog with this concept in mind but I lack the necessary support and community credibility to gather known and talented Marxist writers at this point. It is linked in my profile here on RevLeft. I just do not know if I am sound enough on Marxist theory to fully undertake such a task by myself. I have read a good bit but I don't know if or how I measure up to others here or elsewhere in the Marxist world. I do believe I will catch up very quickly by reading and engaging others in discussion here and elsewhere.

What do the others here think about this idea? Does anyone else think we could create a blog that would be composed of Socialists and Marxists that could become a major source of news, media, and ideological food for thought? One that could gather and organize the masses and prepare it for political and economic struggles? I think it could but it isn't something I think one writer could do on their own. It would take a collectivized collaborative effort and a large amount of 'marketing', for lack of a better word, to build it up into a powerful tool. Is anyone interested in such an idea?

[Rusty Shackleford]

If you're keen on writing, maybe look at some blogs that exist currently and see if you can write for them?

The emphasis is on the dissemination of propaganda, but also a focus on maintaining and building an organization in non revolutionary times and developing a strategy and tactics and the capacity to take on work at a moment's notice. But, to avoid being an organization that simply reacts to events erratically.

[Ismail]

On a side note .... I'm familiar and comfortable with the concept of state capitalism, yes. I've heard the term state socialism used to describe the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Is there a difference between state cap and state soc? I was under the impression that state soc is inherently contradictory because socialism aspires for the abolition of the State?State Socialism (in modern context) appears to be a bourgeois political economy concept and basically means obtaining socialism by "authoritarian" means via the state, or as a way to distinguish between other forms of "socialism" and the "State Socialism" of the USSR, China, etc.

[JPSartre12]

State Socialism (in modern context) appears to be a bourgeois political economy concept and basically means obtaining socialism by "authoritarian" means via the state, or as a way to distinguish between other forms of "socialism" and the "State Socialism" of the USSR, China, etc.

Is there a way that you could rephrase that?
What I'm getting out of it is that you're saying that establishing socialism from the top-down is state socialism - but I'm under the impression that that's what the USSR tried to do, but we call the USSR state cap and not state soc.

[Ismail]

"State socialism" (again in modern context) is a term in bourgeois political economy, it doesn't make sense because it has little basis in materialist analysis. It basically just means "authoritarian socialist state," which is likewise defined by a criteria that has little to do with Marxism.

[Geiseric]

"state capitalism," is basically a nationwide, government enforced, growth that for a time gives capitalists some amount of profit untill they're not needed any more for the specfic industries. At that point, a fully planned economy should be instituted, as soon as whatever "N.E.P." in effect rebuilds the economy to a somewhat stabile level.

[Geiseric]

"state socialism," is redundant, since a state will still exist in a socialist sphere of influence, to keep capitalism from restoring itself from the outside. NOTE: If the state somehow starts working for itself and abandons all democracy in politics, socialism is impossible.

[JPSartre12]

"State socialism" (again in modern context) is a term in bourgeois political economy, it doesn't make sense because it has little basis in materialist analysis. It basically just means "authoritarian socialist state," which is likewise defined by a criteria that has little to do with Marxism.

Oh, yes, that makes sense :) Thank you, comrade!

[The_Red_Spark]

If you're keen on writing, maybe look at some blogs that exist currently and see if you can write for them?

The emphasis is on the dissemination of propaganda, but also a focus on maintaining and building an organization in non revolutionary times and developing a strategy and tactics and the capacity to take on work at a moment's notice. But, to avoid being an organization that simply reacts to events erratically.
Exactly, I feel that a blog consisting of many strong writers would facilitate the organization of the movement. It would bring about a collaboration between the writers themselves which would provide direction and leadership, and also allow a direct and immediate response to any new development that would guide the actions of the reader while simultaneously developing a heightened class consciousness. I think this is a tool that is available for free and that it is being under utilized. It is being used but not effectively and efficiently enough to establish a very large and diverse readership.

I would like to write for a blog but I think I have to learn more about the varying tendencies in order to establish my own position in that regard and work on my overall understanding of theory too. My take on things is not developed in regard to tendency and it may clash at times with other writers.

This is why I thought of managing and writing my own blog where my neutral stance would allow many different writers to contribute without discriminating along tendency lines. I also think that by being open to multiple tendencies my blog would help foster cooperation among the various lines of thought as well. To me the blogs I have seen resemble the multiple local newspapers that Lenin refers to rather than the concept of a national paper. Then again I am not an expert and this may be overly optimistic in scope.

With that being said, I would gladly write for a blog or any other format of publication that would consider permitting me the opportunity to contribute. I would love to work with a group of writers that liked the general concept I want to develop. Whether it is my blog or another it makes no difference so long as the general idea is the same. I just feel that this idea could be the literal equivalent of Iskra or any other major periodical of that type and could really be effective.

[JPSartre12]

"state socialism," is redundant, since a state will still exist in a socialist sphere of influence, to keep capitalism from restoring itself from the outside. NOTE: If the state somehow starts working for itself and abandons all democracy in politics, socialism is impossible.

Ah, I'm not so sure that I agree with that first statement, comrade. Socialism includes not only the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but also of the State as we know it - it will no longer be an organ of class oppression.

"state socialism" sounds extraordinarily contradictory because socialism is anti-statist.

[jookyle]

Ah, I'm not so sure that I agree with that first statement, comrade. Socialism includes not only the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but also of the State as we know it - it will no longer be an organ of class oppression.

"state socialism" sounds extraordinarily contradictory because socialism is anti-statist.

You should read Lenin's The State And Revolution in which Lenin describes the role of the state quite well and methodically and the differences between a bourgeoisie state and a proletarian state. Chapter one specially talks about the state in this manner. In other chapters, he also describes the difference between the lower and higher state of communism, in which the role of state is also described for the purposes of the lower stage.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s4

[JPSartre12]

You should read Lenin's The State And Revolution in which Lenin describes the role of the state quite well and methodically and the differences between a bourgeoisie state and a proletarian state. Chapter one specially talks about the state in this manner. In other chapters, he also describes the difference between the lower and higher state of communism, in which the role of state is also described for the purposes of the lower stage.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s4

I have read it, but haven't had a chance to go over it for a long time. Thanks comrade :) It's definitely a good read! It's one of the few Leninist reads that I actually like :thumbup1:

What I'm trying to ask is at what point can we draw a distinction between state cap and state soc. Woud we consider it state capitalism if the government owns the commanding heights of (or possibly the majority of) production and distribution while there is private property, and state socialism wherein the government does the same but there is no public property?

That would be the best distinction that I can think of.

[jookyle]

To be honest, I don't see a difference between state capitalism and state socialism. The whole state socialism is a bourgeois term as a way to get people to think that under socialism, the people and the state at the time are not a part of eachother, the state owns and does everything and people sit there and wait for the state to give them something or tell them do something. I'm sure the term could be used towards any "progressive" state who would have control over(by way of nationalism or what have you) resources that America wants/needs.

[The_Red_Spark]

To be honest, I don't see a difference between state capitalism and state socialism. The whole state socialism is a bourgeois term as a way to get people to think that under socialism, the people and the state at the time are not a part of eachother, the state owns and does everything and people sit there and wait for the state to give them something or tell them do something. I'm sure the term could be used towards any "progressive" state who would have control over(by way of nationalism or what have you) resources that America wants/needs.
The bourgeois propagandists love phrase mongering and deliberate mis-labeling. It is completely ridiculous the way the mere mention of a word can ignite such passionate resistance without any real understanding that the word is used incorrectly by the source of the propaganda. You cannot unravel the minds of many due to misuse of words like Socialism or Communism because it inspires a knee jerk response that is drilled into their minds in this fashion. It is truly sad and disappointing.

[JPSartre12]

To be honest, I don't see a difference between state capitalism and state socialism. The whole state socialism is a bourgeois term as a way to get people to think that under socialism, the people and the state at the time are not a part of eachother, the state owns and does everything and people sit there and wait for the state to give them something or tell them do something. I'm sure the term could be used towards any "progressive" state who would have control over(by way of nationalism or what have you) resources that America wants/needs.

Right, that's what I was thinking ... I have the feeling that state socialism is just a perversion of the term state capitalism by the West, so as to associate real socialism with the big, bad state-run production of the liberty-hating Soviet Union, or something ridiculous like that.