Anti Stalinist MLs?

[Brutus]

Can a Marxist-Leninist be anti Stalinist? The majority i have met have been devoutly Stalinist. I know Marxism Leninism and stalinism can be used inter changeably, but are there any non-Stalinist or anti Stalinist MLs?

[Anti-Traditional]

Marxism-Leninism is essentially defined by the belief that Socialism can be established in one country and ML's point to the USSR to have been an example of a Socialist state, including the years of Stalin. Contrary to what the name suggests it is not the mere fusion of Lenin and Marx but also includes Stalin's theory 'Socialism in one country' which most other Marxist tendencies believe is a revision of Marx's and Lenin's thought and that Stalin merely used the term Marxism-Leninism as a justification for the policies persued by his government. The other inheritor of Leninist thought is Trotskyism, a theory which most other Marxist tendencies argue is far closer to Lenins thought, in spite of its name. Much of the issue revolves around language, for example the word 'Trotskyist' whilst only mentioning Trotsky also includes Marxism and Leninism as the foundations of this thought with Trotsky himself representing the fullest development of Marxist and Leninist theory. So it is possible to be be 'Marxist and Leninist' without being 'Marxist-Leninist' which as I mentioned before is used by those who believe that socialism is possible in one country (a theory first put forward by Stalin and his supporters) and indeed was realised in the USSR. To answer your question, there are many anti-Stalin ML's insofar as they oppose some of his policies (such as Khruschev who opposed the purges), but all accept the premise that socialism is possible in one country using the USSR as an example. Thus, many Marxists, including myself, believe that those who call themselves 'Marxist-Leninists' are actually Stalinist in theory regardless of what they think of the man or his policies.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

"Stalinist" is a slur term used by Trotskyists, Left-Communists and Anarchists, it is not a real tendency. "Stalinist" denotes a Marxist-Leninist who can be highly critical of Stalin.

[IrishWorker]

"Stalinist" is a slur term used by Trotskyists, Left-Communists and Anarchists, it is not a real tendency. "Stalinist" denotes a Marxist-Leninist who can be highly critical of Stalin.

As someone who would describe themselves as an M-L in a multi-tendencey political party with loads of M-Ls in it I have never, in all my years, ever heard M-L describe themselves as a "Stalinist" or have an uncritical view of Stalin. Its a made up derogatory term used as a slur by the Trots and other reactionary's.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

As someone who would describe themselves as an M-L in a multi-tendencey political party with loads of M-Ls in it I have never, in all my years, ever heard M-L describe themselves as a "Stalinist" or have an uncritical view of Stalin. Its a made up derogatory term used as a slur by the Trots and other reactionary's.

Which is what I just said...

[IrishWorker]

Which is what I just said...

I was agreeing with you.

[Manic Impressive]

Anti-Stalinist ML = Bordiga

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I was agreeing with you.

Alright, sorry, I wasn't sure.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Anti-Stalinist ML = Bordiga

:lol:

[Goblin]

Khruschevism (if thats even a thing)

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Non-stalinist ML, that is like having a non-anarchist libertarian communist.

[hetz]

Or Brezhnevism or "M-L of the era of developed socialism"

[Ostrinski]

Anti-Stalinist ML = BordigaWell, Bordiga certainly didn't support Socialism in One Country, national liberation (until later in his life anyway), or the popular front, and considered the Soviet Union state-capitalist, although I believe he did support democratic centralism and a one party state as well as considered himself a Leninist, but his positions on the formers keep him squarely within the ultra left tradition.

[IrishWorker]

Alright, sorry, I wasn't sure.

Ok, don't let it happen again ...

[Let's Get Free]

I don't know, maybe Tito?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

"Stalinist" is a slur term used by Trotskyists, Left-Communists and Anarchists, it is not a real tendency. "Stalinist" denotes a Marxist-Leninist who can be highly critical of Stalin.
No, 'Stalinist' is the correct term for any self-described 'communist' who is influenced by Stalin. 'Marxist-Leninist' Is the dumbest name one could use for such a tendency, and Stalinist is much more accurate.

I know many people who ascribe to both Marx and Lenin that don't gobble up the rot dribbled out by stalin-apologists.

[Rafiq]

Non-stalinist ML, that is like having a non-anarchist libertarian communist.

Pannakoek

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Lord Hargreaves]

Yes, you can be a Marxist and a Leninist without being a Stalinist.

But personally, I've never really understood what the term "Marxist-Leninist" is supposed to mean: if you're a Leninist, you already believe Lenin was authentically Marxist, so isn't it a redundant phrase? You don't need to say or imply you are Marxist AND Leninist

[Questionable]

Yes, you can be a Marxist and a Leninist without being a Stalinist.

But personally, I've never really understood what the term "Marxist-Leninist" is supposed to mean: if you're a Leninist, you already believe Lenin was a Marxist, so isn't it a redundant phrase? You don't need to say or imply you are Marxist AND Leninist

On an ideological level I believe it was designed to differentiate between Marxists who followed Lenin's line and Marxists who denounced him. On a political level it probably made the tendency sound more legitimate.

I once met a guy who supported Lenin and everyone who came after Stalin. He said that Stalin was a revisionist but leaders like Brezhnev were getting the USSR back on track to what Lenin wanted, but Gorbachev screwed things up.

[Conscript]

An 'anti-stalinist' ML is just posturing. For all intents and purposes, he would do little different from Stalin as he has already accepted at least some of his revisings.

[hetz]

Pannakoek
Why Pannekoek of all people?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Why Pannekoek of all people?
because he fits this description:

Non-stalinist ML, that is like having a non-anarchist libertarian communist.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Anti-Stalinist ML = Bordiga

oh shut up

[Raúl Duke]

I believe it's possible. I think I might have met some. These are M-Ls who don't care about Trot-Stalin polemics, don't get all flustered about pointed criticisms towards Stalin, etc. Mostly focused on the "here and now" and I guess when it comes to Stalin they kinda "throw him under the rug."

[Yuppie Grinder]

Orthodox Trotskyists are pretty much Anti-Stalin MLs.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Non-stalinist ML, that is like having a non-anarchist libertarian communist.

Do you bring being an anarchist into every thread?

[Red Enemy]

"Stalinist" is a slur term used by Trotskyists, Left-Communists and Anarchists, it is not a real tendency. "Stalinist" denotes a Marxist-Leninist who can be highly critical of Stalin."Trotskyist" arose as a slur....why are you using it?

[Grenzer]

There is such a tendency in the real world, although it is very small. "Third Period Marxism-Leninism". In the United States, this was represented by the MLPUSA(Marxist-Leninist Party of the United States of America). The Party was originally a Hoxhaist group if I remember correctly, and they eventually came to reject traditional Stalinism all together. They virulently rejected Trotskyism, but at the same time rejected the later Stalinism of the 1930's that endorsed the Great Purges, Popular Fronts, and the alliance with Nazi Germany. Opinions within the party on the subject of Stalin are divided; some supported the early Stalin of the 1920's and early 30's, but some rejected him outright. The party liquidated in the early nineties and the remnants are based around something called the Communist Voice Organization that occasionally publishes pamphlets. They refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninists, and refer to the Stalinists that support the Purges, Popular Front, and the Soviet Union after 1934 as Stalinists.

Their website is located here (http://www.communistvoice.org). They consider themselves to be "anti-revisionist" in the sense that the both the Stalinism of the later 1930's as well as Trotskyism represented a departure from Marxism. I'm not even sure if they can be considered Stalinists in the traditional sense. They support the idea of building socialism in one country, but deny that it can actually be achieved within a single country. Recall that the Soviet Union did not formally state that it had achieved socialism until the constitution of 1936. Informally it had achieved socialism in 1934. The Soviet constitution of 1924 stated that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship of the proletariat; the constitution of 1936 claimed that it was a socialist state.

The idea that the word "Stalinist" is a slur is totally false and a fabrication of the most ridiculous sort. The word Stalinist was used from time-to-time by Soviet apparatchiks and partisans, sometimes by itself, and sometimes in the form of "Leninist-Stalinist". The Stalinists' aversion to this word stems from a cowardly desire to dissociate themselves from Stalin for propaganda purposes in order to use the bait and switch tactic on those uninformed of the the reality of the imaginary connection of "Marxism-Leninism" to revolutionary Socialism. If someone begins with the statement that they are a Stalinist, then most people that are possessed of their faculties would stop listening or leave, and rightfully so.

[Comrade Samuel]

Khruschevism (if thats even a thing)

Well luckily the only people who would dream of such a thing are either 90 years old living in Russia, continuing to be pissed of about the Berlin wall going down or 13 years old living in a western nation and thinking communism entails getting drunk and dancing alot.

I do not believe there is a form of Marxist-Leninism that is out right anti-Stalin but there are some who choose to be more critical of his decisions than others.

[Geiseric]

On an ideological level I believe it was designed to differentiate between Marxists who followed Lenin's line and Marxists who denounced him. On a political level it probably made the tendency sound more legitimate.

I once met a guy who supported Lenin and everyone who came after Stalin. He said that Stalin was a revisionist but leaders like Brezhnev were getting the USSR back on track to what Lenin wanted, but Gorbachev screwed things up.

That's not correct at all, trotskyists don't denounce lenin and their classical name is bolshevik leninists.

[hetz]

Since when is Pannekoek a Leninist of any sort?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

"Trotskyist" arose as a slur....why are you using it?

Because Trotskyists actually call themselves Trotskyists. This is in sharp contrast to M-L's who do not call themselves "Stalinist".

[Ottoraptor]

Since when is Pannekoek a Leninist of any sort?

They were citing Pannekoek as a non-anarchist libertarian communist in response to TRA23.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No, 'Stalinist' is the correct term for any self-described 'communist' who is influenced by Stalin. 'Marxist-Leninist' Is the dumbest name one could use for such a tendency, and Stalinist is much more accurate

Again, just repeating the same old junk. It feels like you don't really want to put any effort in engaging Anti-Revisionism as a tendency so you just say "STALIN" and think you won the debate. Marxist-Leninist is the name that has been used for almost a century now, It is here to stay, just because some guy on the internet would rather say "Stalinism" doesn't have any weight. It should be called Marxist-Leninism because that is what it calls itself.

And what do you mean by "influenced by Stalin". So supporting the theory of socialism in one country means that I automatically agree with everything Stalin did? Because this ignores the fact that the Mao of the Anti-Revisionist period pulled a 180 when it came to his policies and opinions of Stalin. There really isn't any merit to what you are saying, why should I be called a Stalinist because someone who influenced me was influenced by Stalin? So by that extension, are Marxists really Hegelians who support Monarchism. It's not a false equivlance. Literally my only similarity with Stalin is that I support socialism in one country theoretically speaking, just like the only similarity between Marx and Hegel was the fact that Marx thought that dialectics were cool even though he completely inverted them, just like I think that socialism in one country means something completely different in practice than what Stalin did.

[Red Enemy]

Because Trotskyists actually call themselves Trotskyists. This is in sharp contrast to M-L's who do not call themselves "Stalinist".Many do call themselves Stalinists, except for Maoists and "Hoxhaists".

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Many do call themselves Stalinists, except for Maoists and "Hoxhaists".

Other than the Stalin Society and maybe the Communist Party of Greece, I've never heard of this. So I'm going to call shenanigans on that statement until you can back it up.

[Jack]

Many do call themselves Stalinists, except for Maoists and "Hoxhaists".

Even most Hoxhaists just call themselves anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists.

[Jack]

Anyways in response to the OP there are numerous former pro-Soviet parties, like the Communist Party of India, who would fall under self declared "Marxism-Leninism" but denounce Stalin.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Many do call themselves Stalinists, except for Maoists and "Hoxhaists".

Aside from a few small sects (which is saying something by Leftist standards) most do not. This is a fact.

[ind_com]

That's not correct at all, trotskyists don't denounce lenin and their classical name is bolshevik leninists.

How is that the classical name for Trots when Lenin himself spoke of Trotskyism as something separate from Leninism?

[ind_com]

Anyways in response to the OP there are numerous former pro-Soviet parties, like the Communist Party of India, who would fall under self declared "Marxism-Leninism" but denounce Stalin.

The CPI doesn't denounce Stalin.

[Jack]

The CPI doesn't denounce Stalin.

Their leader called Grover Furr's work Khrushchev Lied a "pathetic defense of Stalinist repressions" http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article3616.html

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well we can both agree that the CPI is pretty shit anyways.

[Ottoraptor]

How is that the classical name for Trots when Lenin himself spoke of Trotskyism as something separate from Leninism?

How could he have said Trotskyism was separate from Leninism, which the formalized tendencies (yes tendencies since it seems like everyone and their mother has their own variety of leninism) didn't even exist until after his death, when trotskyism didn't even exist as a formal tendency until after the expulsion of the Left Opposition and the founding of the so called 4th International.

[ind_com]

Their leader called Grover Furr's work Khrushchev Lied a "pathetic defense of Stalinist repressions" http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article3616.html

I see that he has been referred to as the leader of the CPI in many links, but he is not even a politician in the CPI, and he certainly did not make a comment for the party when he opposed Furr's works. He might be a theorist linked to the CPI though.

I agree that the CPI is total shit, but at the moment the prestige of Stalin is such in the Indian leftist circles, that anyone who calls himself a communist will not be able to build any grassroots organization if he denounces Stalin.

[ind_com]

How could he have said Trotskyism was separate from Leninism, which the formalized tendencies (yes tendencies since it seems like everyone and their mother has their own variety of leninism) didn't even exist until after his death, when trotskyism didn't even exist as a formal tendency until after the expulsion of the Left Opposition and the founding of the so called 4th International.

Well, since Trots consider Lenin to be the authority over everything, then Trotskyism must have existed back then if Lenin said so.

[Let's Get Free]

Well, since Trots consider Lenin to be the authority over everything, then Trotskyism must have existed back then if Lenin said so.

Ah yes. no one dare criticize the Great Lenin.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Do you bring being an anarchist into every thread?

Obviously!

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Ah yes. no one dare criticize the Great Lenin.

On an unrelated note, alot of leftists in Canada accuse Maoists (MLM) of being Left-Communism because we reject Lenin's Left Wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder outright. Because you know, Leninism is all about participating in bourgeois elections and entryism into social democratic parties.

[Prometeo liberado]

Ok, don't let it happen again ...

Sweet, cat fight.:D

[YugoslavSocialist]

Trotskyism is a form of Marxist-Leninism that is against Stalin and Stalinism

[Ismail]

The Soviet view of Stalin after 1956 was that he played a notable role in defending the party against Trotskyism and Bukharinism, but that beyond 1928 he failed to reckon with Lenin's "warnings" about him, "violated" the principle of collective leadership, went against "socialist legality," and basically most everything he did as an actual leader of the country sucked. He was said to have made various theoretical "errors" as well (the intensification of class struggle under socialism, for instance.) After Khrushchev's fall Stalin could be praised in regards to his leadership of the Great Patriotic War (he was portrayed as incompetent under Khrushchev) but otherwise he was still condemned for everything else.

After 1956 Soviet and pro-Soviet publications almost never mentioned Stalin. You could read summaries or even histories of the 1930's USSR where Stalin isn't mentioned for anything significant, or publications about how the Bolshevik Party combated Trotskyism in the 20's with Stalin being mentioned maybe once or twice and in the context of "as head of the Central Committee" or "told to speak on behalf of the Central Committee..."

According to the Titoites, Stalin built up a "bureaucratic socialism" in the USSR that was supposedly continued by his successors although said successors had made great gains by "denouncing the Stalin cult" and whatnot. Yugoslav materials recognized a qualitative difference between the pre- and post-1956 Soviet state. So did Maoists and pro-Albanian parties although, of course, from a very different angle.

If adhering to the view that socialism could be built in a single country makes one a "Stalinist" then everyone from Stalin to Khrushchev to Gorbachev to Tito to the Kims, Mao, Castro, etc. qualifies, as does the modern-day CCP and probably even Chávez and other left-wing populist leaders. Actual attitudes to Stalin and every view and/or theory of his (note: Stalin did not imagine that he himself originated the concept of socialism in one country) apparently matter for naught.


But personally, I've never really understood what the term "Marxist-Leninist" is supposed to mean: if you're a Leninist, you already believe Lenin was authentically Marxist, so isn't it a redundant phrase? You don't need to say or imply you are Marxist AND LeninistLenin made major, fundamental contributions to Marxism. Leninism is the Marxism of the age of imperialism. Marxism-Leninism denotes adherence to scientific socialism against ultra-leftism and opportunism.


On an unrelated note, alot of leftists in Canada accuse Maoists (MLM) of being Left-Communism because we reject Lenin's Left Wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder outright. Because you know, Leninism is all about participating in bourgeois elections and entryism into social democratic parties.Entryism is a Trotskyist tactic that has nothing to do with Lenin's work. Rejecting said work at all is a sign of the opportunism of said Maoists.

[ind_com]

Ah yes. no one dare criticize the Great Lenin.

Tell that to Trots. We criticize everyone.


On an unrelated note, alot of leftists in Canada accuse Maoists (MLM) of being Left-Communism because we reject Lenin's Left Wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder outright. Because you know, Leninism is all about participating in bourgeois elections and entryism into social democratic parties.

Maoists usually don't reject that work. The RCP line is that those conditions don't exist now. When Lenin wrote that book, it was a correct criticism of left-communists. Lenin advocated parliamentarism in very special conditions in Russia and Europe. Otherwise he too stood for something very similar to PPW.

[JoeySteel]

On an unrelated note, alot of leftists in Canada accuse Maoists (MLM) of being Left-Communism because we reject Lenin's Left Wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder outright. Because you know, Leninism is all about participating in bourgeois elections and entryism into social democratic parties.

There is so much myth-making and misinformation spewed about Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder today it is astounding. The pamphlet literally does not discuss entryism. On one page Lenin states that he doesn't have enough information to comment on the idea of communists affiliating to the Labour Party (which is not even entryism as understood today). That's it. In that chapter the pamphlet discusses tactical alliances with and/or support for bourgeois and other working class parties in different circumstances, pointing out that the Bolsheviks engaged in such activity on many occasions when it was in the interest of the class. Please simply read it; it takes about a day or less.

Fightback, the section of the IMT in Canada tries to pretend that Lenin's pamphlet justifies their practice of entryism with regards to the NDP, which it doesn't. Maoists seem to fall for the lie that Fightback peddles and to distinguish themselves reject LWC. From there, Maoist myth-making says, to try to preserve agreement with Lenin, that LWC only advocates participation in parliaments in very specific conditions in certain places, and these conditions no longer exist.

In fact, Lenin says that as long as you cannot disperse a bourgeois parliament communists "must" work inside them. It's argued that even if only a minority of the class follows reactionary forces and participates in Parliament it is "obligatory" for communists to participate in parliament/elections. Particularly where communist parties enjoy a legality that does not exist everywhere it should be taken advantage of.

One of the worst conflations sold today, which seems to make sense at first, is that participating in elections, etc, for the gain of the party and class, is equal to or leads to the parliamentary cretinism Marx spoke of, or in itself leads to emphasis on parliament rather than revolution and class struggle. Lenin would be the first to disagree and in LWC specifically points to the experience of the Bolsheviks to argue that participation in alliances, parliament, was necessary and highly beneficial to the development of the class struggle in Russia. There are also times, as Lenin discusses, when communists should not participate in parliament and eschew any cooperation with other parties.

Ultra-leftism and ultra-left arrogance is one of the biggest problems among self-styled communists in some places today. I truly implore people to actually read LWC and don't accept what rightists or "leftists" say about it. It is very relevant to the problems of Marxism-Leninism today and the need for communists to intervene and participate in the whole of the political life of the countries they inhabit and not fall into self-righteous and isolating abstentionism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Tell that to Trots. We criticize everyone.



Maoists usually don't reject that work. The RCP line is that those conditions don't exist now. When Lenin wrote that book, it was a correct criticism of left-communists. Lenin advocated parliamentarism in very special conditions in Russia and Europe. Otherwise he too stood for something very similar to PPW.

He's right, pardon me for the correction.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

In terms of Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder there is a study guide: http://www.revleft.com/vb/study-guide-left-t173900/index.html?p=2487326#post2487326

Improvements are always welcome.

[Ottoraptor]

Well, since Trots consider Lenin to be the authority over everything, then Trotskyism must have existed back then if Lenin said so.

Ah cool so you were just being sectarian and immature. I hate trotskyism btw so I have no urge to defend it, but seriously how stupid are you?

[Luís Henrique]

In Brazil, when I was young, "Stalinist" and "Marxist-Leninist" were definitely very different things, opposed to each other indeed. "Stalinist" were the old Communist parties, PCB and PCdoB, which were considered reformist by all "Marxist-Leninist" tendencies and organisations - APML, OCML-PO, MEP, MR-8, ORM-DS, etc. (all these organisations discussed around a Socialist Program for Brazil set up by the OCML-PO's antecessor, the POLOP). Of course they (the PC's) called themselves Marxist-Leninist also, but this was usually considered bogus given their stageist strategy.

Nowadays such non-Stalinist Leninist left has mostly disappeared; the OCML-PO and the APML dissolved into the PT (as their strategic aim was the construction of a working class party, which they deemed achieved), the MR-8 degenerated into a more nationalist version of the stageist PCs, and the ORM-DS turned Trotskyist. Only the MEP (which fused with other similar organisations into an internal tendency of the PT, the Força Socialista, which afterwards left the PT for the PSOL) remained, but I am not sure they consider themselves Marxist-Leninist anymore. There is an internal tendency of the PT, however, the Articulação de Esquerda, which I think still upholds the label "Marxist-Leninist" while being strongly critical of Stalinism.

Stalinism as such is a label that doesn't make much sence anymore here; the PCB imploded, most of it turning to the right under the name of PPS - a small satellite of the PSDB - and the PCdoB being a more or less common-sence reformist party. The groups that hold to a Stalinist (ie, what you would call "Marxist-Leninist") line are very small and with very little impact in Brazilian politics: the rump of the PCB, which maintains the name but very little of the old cadres, some people in the PSTU (who can't organise as an internal tendency because those are forbidden by the Trotskyist direction), and one or two even smaller groups who spraypaint "Long life the Popular War in India" on the walls and little else. But Stalinism without the Soviet Union or other similar international backing is a joke.

And while it is true that Stalinists call themselves "Marxist-Leninist", but we shouldn't concede that to them. They are certainly not Marxist, and their Leninism is very dubious, quite limited to an acritical reading of What is to be Done and ignoring most of Lenin's actual analyses (and controversies with the Mensheviks, to whom the Stalinist position is much more closely related).

Luís Henrique

[ind_com]

Ah cool so you were just being sectarian and immature. I hate trotskyism btw so I have no urge to defend it, but seriously how stupid are you?

Wtf? Is it too complicated for you to realize that Lenin himself talked about Trotskyism well before 1917, and Trots cannot deny that?

[Ottoraptor]

Wtf? Is it too complicated for you to realize that Lenin himself talked about Trotskyism well before 1917, and Trots cannot deny that?

Quote please. Plus since Trotsky flipflop from being a Menshevik-Internationalist to Bolshevik, I'm not sure if any quote from before 1917 will really do much good. Plus you are still a dumbass for your statements, but what should I expect from a maoist.

[Geiseric]

Well, since Trots consider Lenin to be the authority over everything, then Trotskyism must have existed back then if Lenin said so.

He was wrong though, he thought a bourgeois revolution wasn't complete in Russia, untill he actually got there, at which point he was bought over by Perminant Revolution, and overthrowing the bourgeoisie in an underdeveloped, as Mensheviks and Stalinists used to parrot, "Not ready for a revolution," mostly peasant country.

If you know what the definition of PR is, it's undeniable that Lenin was bought over, seeing as the mensheviks were the stagists.

Trotsky was bought over to the idea of a vanguard party at the same time that Lenin was bought over to PR, so Trotskyists don't even think that Trotsky was always right, he was wrong about a bunch of things untill 1917 which is when he became president of the petrograd soviet and worked with Lenin to overthrow capitalism, with the rest of the bolsheviks.

[Geiseric]

Tell that to Trots. We criticize everyone.



Maoists usually don't reject that work. The RCP line is that those conditions don't exist now. When Lenin wrote that book, it was a correct criticism of left-communists. Lenin advocated parliamentarism in very special conditions in Russia and Europe. Otherwise he too stood for something very similar to PPW.

He was in the crowd that thought the peasantry could be revolutionary, but he admitted he was wrong about that by october.

[Leo]

Entryism is a Trotskyist tactic that has nothing to do with Lenin's work.Does it? Did Lenin not argue that communists in Britain enter the Labour Party while the left communists around Pankhurst vehemently argued against him?

Trotsky, for all his faults, didn't pull the French turn off his ass.

[ind_com]

Does it? Did Lenin not argue that communists in Britain enter the Labour Party while the left communists around Pankhurst vehemently argued against him?

Trotsky, for all his faults, didn't pull the French turn off his ass.

This is a very important point. Lenin's generalization of the Russian line might not have been correct.

[ind_com]

Quote please. Plus since Trotsky flipflop from being a Menshevik-Internationalist to Bolshevik, I'm not sure if any quote from before 1917 will really do much good.

Trotsky flipflopped many times before, something Lenin was utterly disgusted with. And his joining the Bolsheviks just before the revolution doesn't at all diminish the fact that Trotskyism was recognized by Lenin years ago.

Hence it is clear that Trotsky and the “Trotskyites and conciliators” like him are more pernicious than any liquidator; the convinced liquidators state their views bluntly, and it is easy for the workers to detect where they are wrong, whereas the Trotskys deceive the workers, cover up the evil, and make it impossible to expose the evil and to remedy it. Whoever supports Trotsky’s puny group supports a policy of lying and of deceiving the workers, a policy of shielding the liquidators. Full freedom of action for Potresov and Co. in Russia, and the shielding of their deeds by “revolutionary” phrase-mongering abroad—there you have the essence of the policy of “Trotskyism”. - V.I.Lenin, 1911.


Plus you are still a dumbass for your statements, but what should I expect from a maoist.

It'll be good for you if you get your head out of your ass sometime soon.

[ind_com]

He was wrong though, he thought a bourgeois revolution wasn't complete in Russia, untill he actually got there, at which point he was bought over by Perminant Revolution, and overthrowing the bourgeoisie in an underdeveloped, as Mensheviks and Stalinists used to parrot, "Not ready for a revolution," mostly peasant country.

If you know what the definition of PR is, it's undeniable that Lenin was bought over, seeing as the mensheviks were the stagists.

Trotsky was bought over to the idea of a vanguard party at the same time that Lenin was bought over to PR, so Trotskyists don't even think that Trotsky was always right, he was wrong about a bunch of things untill 1917 which is when he became president of the petrograd soviet and worked with Lenin to overthrow capitalism, with the rest of the bolsheviks.

Lenin's ideas were shaped by the concrete conditions of Russia and the world. He was not a dogmatist; he learned continuously from his revolutionary practice. So, his views kept changing over time. But that doesn't mean that Lenin ever upheld Permanent Revolution. If he did, then he would have written about it very clearly; naming the theory and stating that he thought it was correct. Lenin mentioned Permanent Revolution only to bash it and its proponents.


He was in the crowd that thought the peasantry could be revolutionary, but he admitted he was wrong about that by october.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I claimed. Lenin advocated guerrilla warfare against the Russian state, to gradually build up communist fighting forces.

[Luís Henrique]

Trotsky flipflopped many times before, something Lenin was utterly disgusted with.

As if Lenin didn't flipflop ever.


And his joining the Bolsheviks just before the revolution doesn't at all diminish the fact that Trotskyism was recognized by Lenin years ago.

Yes, but what he referred to as "Trotskyism" before 1917 was not what is called "Trotskyism" nowadays. As you say, Trotsky "flipflopped" - ie, legitimately changed his mind - so there is no actual continuity in his positions pre- and post-1917


Hence it is clear that Trotsky and the “Trotskyites and conciliators” like him are more pernicious than any liquidator;

This is perhaps Lenin's biggest fault as a political writer: the tendency to exaggerate, and transform anything into "the worst" or "worse than the worst". When such phraseology is manipulated by unscrupolous criminals such as Stalin and his gang, it becomes murderous. Not that Lenin could possibly predict the monstruous degeneration of his party.


It'll be good for you if you get your head out of your ass sometime soon.

It would be even better if he stopped his unjustifiable flaming - and if you don't fall into the temptation of responding in kind.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Lenin advocated guerrilla warfare against the Russian state, to gradually build up communist fighting forces.

Did he? Where? And when were such ideas put into practice?

The Russian Revolution utterly dispensed with guerrilla tactics.

Luís Henrique

[ind_com]

As if Lenin didn't flipflop ever.

Changing one's opinion because of experience through revolutionary practice is not something unusual. In fact, it is quite natural for any serious revolutionary. But Trotsky's flipfloping was rather extreme. Lenin sums it up like this:

The old participants in the Marxist movement in Russia know Trotsky very well, and there is no need to discuss him for their benefit. But the younger generation of workers do not know him, and it is therefore necessary to discuss him, for he is typical of all the five groups abroad, which, in fact, are also vacillating between the liquidators and the Party.

In the days of the old Iskra (1901—03), these waverers, who flitted from the Economists to the Iskrists and back again, were dubbed “Tushino turncoats” (the name given in the Troublous Times in Rus to fighting men who went over from one camp to another[10]).

When we speak of liquidationism we speak of a definite ideological trend, which grew up in the course of many years, stems from Menshevism and Economism in the twenty years’ history of Marxism, and is connected with the policy and ideology of a definite class—the liberal bourgeoisie.

The only ground the “Tushino turncoats” have for claiming that they stand above groups is that they “borrow” their ideas from one group one day and from another the next day. Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as “Lenin’s cudgel”. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i. e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that “between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf”. In 1904—05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left “permanent revolution” theory. In 1906—07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg.

In the period of disintegration, after long “non-factional” vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas. -V.I.Lenin, 1914


Yes, but what he referred to as "Trotskyism" before 1917 was not what is called "Trotskyism" nowadays. As you say, Trotsky "flipflopped" - ie, legitimately changed his mind - so there is no actual continuity in his positions pre- and post-1917

Trotskyism did change many of its official theoretical positions, but there is something very special about the last line in that quote of Lenin.



This is perhaps Lenin's biggest fault as a political writer: the tendency to exaggerate, and transform anything into "the worst" or "worse than the worst".

Can't agree with you here. Lenin hardly exaggerated.


When such phraseology is manipulated by unscrupolous criminals such as Stalin and his gang, it becomes murderous. Not that Lenin could possibly predict the monstruous degeneration of his party.


Stalin actually had a lot of material from Trotsky's side to use. His letter to Chkheidze comes to mind.

[ind_com]

Did he? Where? And when were such ideas put into practice?

He proposed that strategic line in 1906. The RSDLP did not implement it.


The Russian Revolution utterly dispensed with guerrilla tactics.

Luís Henrique

In 1917, the situation in Russia was favourable for an insurrection. Basing the revolution primarily on guerrilla warfare then would be wasting a revolutionary opportunity.

[goalkeeper]

Marxism-Leninism doesn't necessarily mean you dig both Marx and Lenin but you accept the official Soviet formulation of their ideas

[Roach]

Lenin not only wrote on guerrilla warfare, but he cleary never rejected the posibility of using it as a part of the Russian Social Democrats overall strategy, from Lenin's Collected Works:


When I see Social-Democrats proudly and smugly declaring “we are not anarchists, thieves, robbers, we are superior to all this, we reject guerrilla warfare”,—I ask myself: Do these people realise what they are saying? Armed clashes and conflicts between the Black-Hundred government and the population are taking place all over the country. This is an absolutely inevitable phenomenon at the present stage of development of the revolution. The population is spontaneously and in an unorganised way—and for that very reason often in unfortunate and undesirable forms—reacting to this phenomenon also by armed conflicts and attacks. I can under stand us refraining from Party leadership of this spontaneous struggle in a particular place or at a particular time because of the weakness and unpreparedness of our organisation. I realise that this question must be settled by the local practical workers, and that the remoulding of weak and unprepared organisations is no easy matter. But when I see a Social-Democratic theoretician or publicist not displaying regret over this unpreparedness, but rather a proud smugness and a self-exalted tendency to repeat phrases learned by rote in early youth about anarchism, Blanquism and terrorism, I am hurt by this degradation of the most revolutionary doctrine in the world. Part III from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/gw/index.htm

[Geiseric]

Lenin's ideas were shaped by the concrete conditions of Russia and the world. He was not a dogmatist; he learned continuously from his revolutionary practice. So, his views kept changing over time. But that doesn't mean that Lenin ever upheld Permanent Revolution. If he did, then he would have written about it very clearly; naming the theory and stating that he thought it was correct. Lenin mentioned Permanent Revolution only to bash it and its proponents.



That doesn't have anything to do with what I claimed. Lenin advocated guerrilla warfare against the Russian state, to gradually build up communist fighting forces.

you're not listening. the opposite of PR is Stagism, and Lenin De Facto was not a stagist, since he didn't wait for the "bourgeois revolution to complete itself," like the stagist Mensheviks did, which led to them being against the soviets.

The mere existence of the soviets, a working class organization to topple a backwards, mostly peasant, non industrialized nor democratic in any way tsarist political economy, was proof of PR. Lenin abided by PR because he said that the revolution wasn't pre mature like the Mensheviks said, and went through to abolish capitalism.

Stalin and EVERY other bolshevik believed in PR, otherwise they wouldn't of participated in the revolution. Stalin himself, 6 months ahead of when he supported it, simply stated that the world revolution was a necessity for the survival of the fSU. Meaning he believed in PR, the idea that a revolution inevitably happening in a non industrialized country before the industrialized, would have to spark the rest of europe, which it did.

[Geiseric]

Marxism-Leninism doesn't necessarily mean you dig both Marx and Lenin but you accept the official Soviet formulation of their ideas

every single person other than MLs would call it Stalinism. Labels don't really matter, because if it did, the Bolshevik Leninists would be just as legitimate as the ML's, simply because they use the label Bolshevik Leninist. MLism is the result of the ruling bureaucracy consolidating its power, in a bonapartist fashion, and consolidating its power in a country. Thus SioC.

[Ismail]

But Stalinism without the Soviet Union or other similar international backing is a joke.The problem here is that you're confusing adherence to Marxism-Leninism with the perceived need to have a "mother party." A number of Trotskyist parties try to do this with Cuba and Venezuela (hence some of them being enthused with Chávez's so-called "Fifth International" some years ago, and the Fourth International tried to get Yugoslavia to join it in the late 40's/early 50's), but their expulsion from the international communist movement in the 20's made such tendencies not very strong.

With Marxist-Leninist parties, by contrast, there was always fraternal collaboration with the CPSU and adherence to organs such as the Comintern, Cominform, etc. With the ascendancy of revisionism many cadres in these parties thought it impossible to go against "the Party of Lenin" and the "land of Soviets" and to break with a CPSU that had since degenerated into a party of the new bourgeoisie. A lot of persons found solace in recognition and guidance from the Chinese, and later some felt this same sort of "necessary" bond with the Albanians.

After 1976 for Maoists and after 1991 for pro-Soviet and pro-Albanian parties there was the view of many that without the fraternal direction of a "mother party" (which the Albanians worked to avoid being, FWIW) they themselves were screwed. The PCdoB was one of these parties. The CPC-ML was another, which is why after the end of Socialist Albania Bains not long afterwards spoke about how he was "wrong" about Cuba and the DPRK, and nowadays that party upholds both and maintains relations with both states.


And while it is true that Stalinists call themselves "Marxist-Leninist", but we shouldn't concede that to them. They are certainly not Marxist, and their Leninism is very dubious, quite limited to an acritical reading of What is to be Done and ignoring most of Lenin's actual analyses (and controversies with the Mensheviks, to whom the Stalinist position is much more closely related).As opposed to Trotskyists, whose shilling for SYRIZA, whose calls to enter into "workers' parties" such as British Labour, etc. are clear hallmarks of their mastering of Leninism?

[goalkeeper]

every single person other than MLs would call it Stalinism. Labels don't really matter, because if it did, the Bolshevik Leninists would be just as legitimate as the ML's, simply because they use the label Bolshevik Leninist. MLism is the result of the ruling bureaucracy consolidating its power, in a bonapartist fashion, and consolidating its power in a country. Thus SioC.

All I was saying was that the ideology "Marxism-Leninism" is the official formulation of the ideas of Marx and Lenin in the USSR, however vulgarised and bastardised that maybe; and that the OP need not call himself a ML just because he likes the ideas of both Marx and Lenin. We may disagree that Marxism-Leninism is a proper Marxism or a proper Leninism, but to call oneself a Marxist-Leninist is to accept general Soviet ideology, whether thats under Stalin only (for the anti-revisionists) or in general for the supporters of ex-Moscow line parties such as the Communist Party of Britain etc