The difference between Marxism, Troskyism, Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism etc

[Vladimir Sovetsky]

Hi,

I've been a communist when it comes to principle ideology since birth, but I never bothered reading about all the different variations of communism. I tried reading it on wikipedia and since my memory is lacking its kind of hard to remember everything that's said on the articles. Could someone simply list me facts about what the differences are between all these?

An example that I would like so I can remember much easier is simply one liner facts, something like this.

Leninism
- fact 01
- fact 02
- fact 03

Marxism
- fact 01
- fact 02
- fact 03

I would very much appreciate this if someone can take his or her time doing this, if there is any other variations of communism such as anarcho plus list them as well.

Thank you so much :D

[MarxSchmarx]

Hi,

I've been a communist when it comes to principle ideology since birth, but I never bothered reading about all the different variations of communism. I tried reading it on wikipedia and since my memory is lacking its kind of hard to remember everything that's said on the articles. Could someone simply list me facts about what the differences are between all these?

An example that I would like so I can remember much easier is simply one liner facts, something like this.

Leninism
- fact 01
- fact 02
- fact 03

Marxism
- fact 01
- fact 02
- fact 03

I would very much appreciate this if someone can take his or her time doing this, if there is any other variations of communism such as anarcho plus list them as well.

Thank you so much :D

I think you have to understand the historical context to a lot of these phrases.

Maybe a taxonomy would help.

Marxist: class struggle, dictatorship of the proletariat, economic interpretation of history

Leninist = Marxist + vanguard party + strong authoritarian state
Trotskyist = Leninist + assorted criticism of post-Lenin USSR
Stalinist = Leninist + socialism in one country + Stalin's accomplishments were great
Maoist = Stalinist + 3rd world peasantry as revolutionary class + Mao's accomplishments were great

In summary:
All Trotskyists are Leninists, no Trotskyist is a Stalinist.

Most Maoists are Stalinists, and all Stalinists are Leninists.

All Leninists are Marxists.

That's the broad outline, there are of course much details and I'll let someone else deal with anarchism, etc...

[Vladimir Sovetsky]

no, i know enough about communism, i'm a natural in this ideology, i always thought since a young child that people should get equal pay and that there shouldn't be any class amongst people.

i've read a few wikipedia articles, i've read the principles of communism by engels just to make sure if i had it right (and i did), i'd say i'm an amateur.

i just wanted quick facts, and thank you ;]

[Hiero]

Marxist: class struggle, dictatorship of the proletariat, economic interpretation of history

Leninist = Marxist + vanguard party + strong authoritarian state
Trotskyist = Leninist + assorted criticism of post-Lenin USSR
Stalinist = Leninist + socialism in one country + Stalin's accomplishments were great
Maoist = Stalinist + 3rd world peasantry as revolutionary class + Mao's accomplishments were great

In summary:
All Trotskyists are Leninists, no Trotskyist is a Stalinist.

Most Maoists are Stalinists, and all Stalinists are Leninists.Then it gets complicated. Mao would qualify what goes around here as a Stalinists and a Leninist, but his Cultural Revolution was harmful to the right wing factions of the state and party . In Stalin's USSR a bunch of students wouldn't have been able to overtake a party building or state institute, it would be deemed as utlra left wing or saboteur. Stalin on the other hand used to state against the right-wing and left wing factions of the state and party.

[Luís Henrique]

no, i know enough about communism, i'm a natural in this ideology, i always thought since a young child that people should get equal pay and that there shouldn't be any class amongst people.

That's a fine sentiment, no doubt, but... if all people should get equal pay, then who pays them? Doesn't that imply two classes of people, one that is paid, and another who pays them?


i've read a few wikipedia articles

Beware of them, they are usually very flawed.

Luís Henrique

[Geiseric]

I think you have to understand the historical context to a lot of these phrases.

Maybe a taxonomy would help.

Marxist: class struggle, dictatorship of the proletariat, economic interpretation of history

Leninist = Marxist + vanguard party + strong authoritarian state
Trotskyist = Leninist + assorted criticism of post-Lenin USSR
Stalinist = Leninist + socialism in one country + Stalin's accomplishments were great
Maoist = Stalinist + 3rd world peasantry as revolutionary class + Mao's accomplishments were great

In summary:
All Trotskyists are Leninists, no Trotskyist is a Stalinist.

Most Maoists are Stalinists, and all Stalinists are Leninists.

All Leninists are Marxists.

That's the broad outline, there are of course much details and I'll let someone else deal with anarchism, etc...

All Maoists are Stalinists and no Stalinists are Leninist, it shouldn't even be considered an ideology since it's basically trying to theorize off of what a state bureaucracy did to stay in power, with pseudo marxist zig zags in international politics.

[Red Enemy]

To be clear, Leninism is a tendency within Marxism originally applied to backward Russian conditions.

Everything Lenin did organizationally, a lot of his theory, etc. was based on the Russian situation, and should not be applied to the entire world.

Lenin was even opposed to the translation of "What is to be done?" into non-russian.

[Geiseric]

To be clear, Leninism is a tendency within Marxism originally applied to backward Russian conditions.

Everything Lenin did organizationally, a lot of his theory, etc. was based on the Russian situation, and should not be applied to the entire world.

Lenin was even opposed to the translation of "What is to be done?" into non-russian.

The vanguardist theory is applicable to the whole world, Russia wasn't its own planet with different social laws, and a unique mode of production, its place in the capitalist international economy was simply one of uneven development, which a lot of people think makes Russia "unique," but in actuality, he was wrong about a lot of things untill 1917. He thought the peasantry could be a revolutionary class which he was flat out wrong about. he learned the peasantry were after their own interests of land distribution, which had them supporting the SRs, a counter revolutionary party, for a long time.

[Let's Get Free]

Marxism- Theories of Karl Marx, foundations of modern day socialism/communism. History is one of class struggle.

Leninism- States that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. Communism can only come about through workers being led by a vanguard "communist party."

Stalinism- Most Marxists state that Stalinism is not a form of Marxism and has little to do with communism. It includes an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, as well as extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission and silence political dissent.

Trotskyism- Trotsky considered himself a Bolshevik Leninist and Orthodox Marxist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party. Differs from Stalinism and Maoism in declaring the need for international "permanent revolution."

Maoism- Focuses on the peasantry as the main source of revolution more than the others. Mao emphasized "people's war," or mobilizing the population in guerilla warfare for the struggle for socialism. Includes the concept of "New Democracy," and the Theory of Productive Forces as applied to village-level industries independent of the outside world (see Great Leap Forward).

[Old Bolshie]

In summary:
All Trotskyists are Leninists, no Trotskyist is a Stalinist.



I agree with the most of your post except for this.

All Trotskyists are Leninists, every Trotskyist is a Stalinist. If you take a look at everything Trotsky wrote before he was removed from the power sphere and sent to exile you will see that Stalin followed exactly that path. From permanent revolution to the planned economy, passing by the submission of Trade Unions to the state interests (Lenin accused Trotsky of bureaucrat over this issue), the party dictatorship and the ban of plurality within the party.

Of course, once away from any prominent position in USSR and without any kind of political responsibility Trotsky changed his position and argued for more democracy within the soviet system, less bureaucracy and a different type of collectivization. This was just mere opportunism of Trotsky. It is very easy to sag to idealism when you don't have to deal with reality.

The truth is that today you have the same level of democracy within Trotskyists parties as you have within ML's.

SIOC is not a really difference between trotskyists and ML's. ML's are internationalists too and argue for a world revolution. They just advocate that if the revolution doesn't spread beyond the country where the revolution happened like it happen to USSR after the failure of the German revolution, that country shouldn't stop seeking its revolutionary purposes and continue its revolutionary course.

[Art Vandelay]

To be clear, Leninism is a tendency within Marxism originally applied to backward Russian conditions.

Everything Lenin did organizationally, a lot of his theory, etc. was based on the Russian situation, and should not be applied to the entire world.

Lenin was even opposed to the translation of "What is to be done?" into non-russian.

And we are just now over a 102 years later, figuring out what he meant.

[Vladimir Sovetsky]

you guys argue a lot about this stuff, one states wikipedia is flawed, another states his opinion towards the variants and then someone says they are wrong.

how am i supposed to figure out who is right here? :lol:

[Brutus]

Theoretically, Trotskyism and Stalinism, are all Leninism and the same. It all boils down to history. The differences are minimal. It is to do with the soviet union under Stalin, and Albania under hoxha, china under Mao etc.
If you believe Stalin was a genuine marxist leader, and democracy was fully implemented, the 20 million deaths are wildly exaggerated (which they are)
On the other hand, if you think stalin and his bureaucracy betrayed the revolution, installed a dictatorship, and socialism in one country betrays Marxism, but are Leninist, you are a Trotskyist.
But as I said before, it's all mainly history, and is irrelevant.
We're all leninists, we should unite under the theories, leaving out the Stalin/Trotsky debate that you will see 1,000,000 times during your time on rev left
:marx: :engles:

[cantwealljustgetalong]

it's a shame that whenever a newcomer asks about tendencies, they get thrown a bunch of confusing sectarian opinions. I won't pretend to be unbiased but I'll try to give relatively uncontroversial definitions.

Marxism
- historical materialist philosophy: a dialectical, materialist theory of historical change and revolution.
- proletariat as revolutionary class.
- socialism as an international stateless, marketless society.
- systematic critique of capitalist political economy.
- transitional regime between capitalism and socialism modeled after the Paris Commune ("dictatorship of the proletariat").

Leninism (variant of Marxism)
- vanguard party: an organization of working-class militants and radical intelligencia to lead revolution.
- democratic centralism: majority vote, but passed resolutions must be carried out by all party members. a higher body can overrule a lower body's vote.
- stage theory of socialism: transitional regime --> constitutional semi-state ("first stage of communism") --> socialism ("second stage of communism").
- theory of imperialism: militarism and colonialism as an effect of capitalist expansion.
- strong authoritarian state after collapse of soviet democracy.
- willingness to consider revolutionary potential of peasantry in addition to proletariat.
- national question: right of national minorities to succession.

Trotskyism (variant of Leninism)
- combined and uneven development/permanent revolution: capitalism does not develop all countries equally, so undeveloped countries may 'skip' capitalism if aided by a worldwide revolution.
- considers the USSR (1917-23) to be a result of ad-hoc measures to hold onto state power despite lacking material basis for socialism (not enough food, etc).
- analysis of Stalinist USSR as degenerated worker's state or state-capitalism. client states considered to be deformed worker's states or state-capitalism.
- peasantry as mostly reactionary class.

Stalinism (variant of Leninism)
- considers the USSR (1917-23) to be an appropriate application of Leninism.
- socialism in one country: analysis of Stalinist USSR as genuine socialism.
- development of personality cult.
- wavering position on peasantry.

Maoism (variant of Stalinism)
- peasantry as revolutionary class.
- people's war: guerrilla warfare as class struggle.

that's as fair of a job as I can do for now. hope it suffices.

[Vladimir Sovetsky]

What if I think that it's better for socialist/communist countries to be international/stateless but if no one wants to join a Union then (if I had a choice) I'd vote to have socialism/communism only in my country.

What if I think peasants/proletariat should be the same class? both helping the revolution?

I think everyone in the socialist/communist countries or unions should be paid the same until money is removed entirely. "managers" would simply be managers and paid/benefit the same as everyone else.

I don't believe in classes, everyone should be equal regardless of job position. If someone wants to lead the vanguard party, go ahead, if someone wants to farm rice, if someone wants to be a musician... all paid/benefit the same way as everyone else.

I think we do need a party to lead the masses, but they wouldn't be a upper class, simply a different role in society. paid/benefit the same as the rest. this party should be democratically elected with open discussions/debates etc.

What would that make me? (not trying to start a debate just trying to "classify" myself into one of these variants)

[tuwix]

Perhaps I will define it from anarchist perspective:

Anarchism:

abolition of state and property; first term used by Proudhon;

Marxism:

ideology based on negative estimation of (private) property and developed into a science by Marx and Engels;

Anarcho-collectivism:

ideology based on criticism on Marx's view on state by Bakunin, advocating abolition and replacing it with free societies of cooperatives; the cooperatives would be a common property of their workers;

Anarcho-communism:

A lack of Marx's transitional period between capitalism and communism; immediate abolition of money and private property

Anarcho-syndicalism

Similar to anarcho-collectivism but the major force organizing cooperatives would be workers' unions.

Leninism, maoism and stalinism are excluded from socialist movement from anarchist perspective due to efforts to build a state because a state is contradiction to socialism.

[Blake's Baby]

What if I think that it's better for socialist/communist countries to be international/stateless but if no one wants to join a Union then (if I had a choice) I'd vote to have socialism/communism only in my country...

What if I thought that I should be rich and be able to defy gravity? In fact, I'm voting for that right now.

You can't have socialism in your country, because socialist society can't exist locally. It can only exist after capitalism. So while capitalism survives, socialist society hasn't come into existence. If, however, you mean that you want the working class to take control of the economy and state in one area before the rest of the world is ready, then it's dangerous but on the whole I can't object: but the first revolutionary territory will have to be prepared for internal hardship and external threats before the rest of the world 'catches up'.


...
What if I think peasants/proletariat should be the same class? both helping the revolution?...

What if I think vacuum cleaners and sharks are the same thing? Neither of them are egg sandwiches after all.

Class isn't a matter of 'thinking' it's a relationship to the means of production. If you run a farm and employ some people to help, or even if you and your family run a farm and take the produce to market, you don't have the same relationship to production as someone who works in a faactory or even a call centre. That doesn't mean that some members of the peasantry can't be revolutionary. But they do so in spite of their class interest not because of it.


...I think everyone in the socialist/communist countries or unions should be paid the same until money is removed entirely. "managers" would simply be managers and paid/benefit the same as everyone else...

You're using confusing terminology here. Until money is removed entirely, and countries too, there is no 'socialist/communist' society. so you can't talk about 'socialist/communist countries' any more than you can talk about 'socialist/communist money'.

But in a revolutionary society, if money or a similar system still exists, I agree that 'managers' shouldn't receive more for their work than other workers.


...I don't believe in classes, everyone should be equal regardless of job position. If someone wants to lead the vanguard party, go ahead, if someone wants to farm rice, if someone wants to be a musician... all paid/benefit the same way as everyone else...

Oooh, good, I'm going to be the Queen.

What do you mean you don't believe in classes/ Do you mean that you don't think there is any difference between someone who owns a company and someone who works for that company? Or do you mean that socialist society shouldn't have classes?


...I think we do need a party to lead the masses, but they wouldn't be a upper class, simply a different role in society. paid/benefit the same as the rest. this party should be democratically elected with open discussions/debates etc.

What would that make me? (not trying to start a debate just trying to "classify" myself into one of these variants)

Why do you think we need a party to 'lead the masses'? Do you mean lead them (us) before the revolution, in order to get to that situation, or lead them afterwards? Would there be only one party? What would this party do after the revolution? Would it run a government? Would it have some other role? Or would it disband itself?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

On the other hand, if you think stalin and his bureaucracy betrayed the revolution, installed a dictatorship, and socialism in one country betrays Marxism, you are a Trotskyist.


Bullshit.

[kat]

Count me cynical but how does anyone conclude the original post is anything other than a trolling provocation - especially after the winking little follow-up comments?

[Blake's Baby]

Bullshit.

Quite.

A great many of us - I would say, all Marxists who aren't Stalinists - think that Stalin betrayed the revolution, that socialism in one country is incompatible with Marxism, and that the Stalinist states were dictatorships (though we'd disagree over whether they were actually 'installed' by Stalin).

Anarchists, on the whole, would also agree. So unless 'Trotskyist' is intended to mean 'every single socialist who isn't a Stalinist' then I'd say you're very wrong. And if you do intend 'Trotskyist' to mean 'every single socialist who isn't a Stalinist' then your definition of 'Trotskyist' is ridiculous and you should stop using it.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

All Maoists are Stalinists

This is plain old false, I've pointed it out before and I'll point it out again, Stalinism doesn't equate Maoism. We just don't see the need for a dichotomy between "Stalinism" and "Anti-Stalinism". It's just plain unproductive. That being said, the "Five heads" (Pro-Stalin) Vs "Three Heads" (Neutral) debate in the Maoist community is real. Generally speaking, The three headed faction sees Kruschev's revisionism as rooted in Lenin (Yes, Lenin was a revisionist when he ditched building socialism for his "internationalist" excuse for installing state capitalism) and Stalin, where the last two represent the leaders of socialist states while the first is just a capitalist with no merit what so ever. The five heads faction supports Stalin and Lenin completely with the expected "oh well they made some mistakes but they were genuine socialists through and through!" routine that is typical of ML's. The argument being that the rational abandoning the "five heads" uses an opportunist logic that harbors the tendency for revisionism. This argument isn't without merit. The RCP USA ditched Stalin before going to it's New Synthesis insanity and wrecking the RIM by trying to force THE ALMIGHTY BOB onto every MLM party in existence. And supposedly Kasama is guilty of some weird ass deviations right after it ditched Stalin, though in all honesty that is just based off of here say since I haven't read much of Kasama's stuff so I am in no place of calling them anything. Still, I don't really think Stalin question really needs to have such a weight on ideology. I uphold all of the basic tenets of MLM and yet I see myself as a three headed Maoist, and the RCP Canada is a three header but no one mocks them for it (I think that awful FRSO blog the Marxist-Leninist complained about it, but they are basically a living parody of ML so if anything that should go to show how cool the RCP Canada is). Plus I'd also reply that during the MLM Vs MZT debate the MZT faction accused the MLM faction of not upholding Stalin enough while participating in elections and overall being lame reformists. So I have to say that as a 3-header I don't see how this makes my mind more receptacle to revisionism. Still it is a valid debate to have since there have been insitiances where ditching Stalin was used as an excuse to throw sanity out the window.

Mao himself was a three header, as I've noted before. Here are some Anti-Stalin quotes from Mao, I hope they make your head spin, and I hope it is the last time that you lump my tendency into the "Stalinist" catogory.



“Stalin should be criticized, but we have differing opinions as to the form the criticism ought to take. There are some other questions, too, on which we disagree.”
—Remarks about the Criticism of Stalin (Oct. 23, 1956), WMZ2, p. 148, in full. A comment made to P. F. Yudin, the Soviet ambassador to China.

“From the very beginning our Party has emulated the Soviet Union. The mass line, our political work, and [the theory of] the dictatorship of the proletariat have all been learned from the October Revolution. At that time, Lenin had focused on the mobilization of the masses, and on organizing the worker-peasant-soldier soviet, and so on. He did not rely on [doing things by] administrative decree. Rather, Lenin sent Party representatives to carry out political work. The problem lies with the latter phase of Stalin’s leadership [which came] after the October Revolution. Although [Stalin] was still promoting socialism and communism, he nonetheless abandoned some of Lenin’s things, deviated from the orbit of Leninism, and became alienated from the masses, and so on. Therefore, we did suffer some disadvantages when we emulated the things of the later stages of Stalin’s leadership and transplanted them for application in China in a doctrinaire way. Today, the Soviet Union still has some advanced experiences that deserve to be emulated, but there are some other [aspects] in which we simply cannot be like the Soviet Union. For example, the socialist transformation of the capitalist industries and commerce, the cooperativization of agriculture, and the Ten Major Relationships in economic construction; these are all ways of doing things in China. From now on, in our socialist economic construction, we should primarily start with China’s circumstances, and with the special characteristics of the circumstances and the times in which we are situated. Therefore, we must still propose the slogan of learning from the Soviet Union; just that we cannot forcibly and crudely transplant and employ things blindly and in a doctrinaire fashion. Similarly, we can also learn some of the things that are good in bourgeois countries; this is because every country must have its strengths and weaknesses, and we intend chiefly to learn other people’s strengths.
“Stalin had a tendency to deviate from Marxism-Leninism. A concrete expression of this is [his] negation of contradictions, and to date, [the Soviet Union] has not yet thoroughly eliminated the influence of this viewpoint of Stalin’s. Stalin spoke [the language of] materialism and the dialectical method, but in reality he was subjectivist. He placed the individual above everything else, negated the group, and negated the masses. [He engaged in] the worship of the individual; in fact, to be more precise, [in] personal dictatorships. This is antimaterialism. Stalin also spoke of the dialectical method, but in reality [he] was metaphysical. For example, in the [Short] History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik), he wrote of the dialectical method, put [the theory of] contradictions [only] at the very end. We should say that the most fundamental problem of dialectics is the unity of contradictory opposites. It is [precisely] because of his metaphysical [character] that a one-sided viewpoint was produced, in which the internal connections in a thing are repudiated, and problems are looked at isolatedly and in a static way. To pay heed to dialectics would be to look at problems and treat a problem as a unity of opposites, and that is why it would be [a] comprehensive [methodology]. Life and death, war and peace, are opposites of a contradiction. In reality, they also have an internal connection between them. That is why at times these oppositions are also united. When we [seek to] understand problems we cannot see only one side. We should analyze [it] from all sides, look through its essence. In this way, with regard to [understanding] a person, we would not be [taking the position] at one time that he is all good, and then at another time that he is all bad, without a single good point. Why is our Party correct? It is because we have been able to proceed from the objective conditions in understanding and resolving all problems; in this way we are more comprehensive and we can avoid being absolutists.
“Secondly, the mass line was seen as tailism by Stalin. [He] did not recognize the good points about the mass line, and he used administrative methods to resolve many problems. [B]But we Communists are materialists; we acknowledge that it is the masses who create everything and are the masters of history. [For us] there are no individual heroes; only when the masses are united can there be strength. In fact, since Lenin died, the mass line has been forgotten in the Soviet Union. [Even] at the time of opposing Stalin, [the Soviet Union’s leadership] still did not properly acknowledge or emphasize the significance of the mass line. Of course, more recently, attention has begun to be paid to this, but the understanding is still not [sufficiently] deep.
“Furthermore, class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat were [items] that Lenin had emphasized. At one time, the divergence between Lenin and the Third International and the Second International was mainly along the lines that the Marxists emphasized the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat whereas the opportunists were unwilling to acknowledge them. One of the lessons to be learned from the occurrence of the Polish and Hungarian Incidents, in addition to [the fact that] there were shortcomings in the work [of the Communist parties], is that after the victory of the revolution they had not properly mobilized the masses to weed out thoroughly the counterrevolutionary elements.”
—Speech at the Second Plenum of the Eight Central Committee (Nov. 15, 1956), Version II, WMZ2, pp. 185-6. One excessively long paragraph in the report of this speech has been broken up into three paragraphs for readability purposes. Note that an expurgated version of this speech, which drastically tones down the criticisms of Stalin, is given as “version I” in WMZ2, and was also published in slightly different form after Mao’s death in the Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, vol. V. (An excerpt from “version I” is presented above, just before this item.)

[Brutus]

Quite.

A great many of us - I would say, all Marxists who aren't Stalinists - think that Stalin betrayed the revolution, that socialism in one country is incompatible with Marxism, and that the Stalinist states were dictatorships (though we'd disagree over whether they were actually 'installed' by Stalin).

Anarchists, on the whole, would also agree. So unless 'Trotskyist' is intended to mean 'every single socialist who isn't a Stalinist' then I'd say you're very wrong. And if you do intend 'Trotskyist' to mean 'every single socialist who isn't a Stalinist' then your definition of 'Trotskyist' is ridiculous and you should stop using it.

I apologise, I forgot to include 'if you are Leninist'.

[Sea]

Leninism- States that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. Communism can only come about through workers being led by a vanguard "communist party."says you ;)

you guys argue a lot about this stuff, one states wikipedia is flawed, another states his opinion towards the variants and then someone says they are wrong.

how am i supposed to figure out who is right here? :lol:Might be better to figure out who's left.


What if I think that it's better for socialist/communist countries to be international/stateless but if no one wants to join a Union then (if I had a choice) I'd vote to have socialism/communism only in my country.

What if I think peasants/proletariat should be the same class? both helping the revolution?

I think everyone in the socialist/communist countries or unions should be paid the same until money is removed entirely. "managers" would simply be managers and paid/benefit the same as everyone else.

I don't believe in classes, everyone should be equal regardless of job position. If someone wants to lead the vanguard party, go ahead, if someone wants to farm rice, if someone wants to be a musician... all paid/benefit the same way as everyone else.

I think we do need a party to lead the masses, but they wouldn't be a upper class, simply a different role in society. paid/benefit the same as the rest. this party should be democratically elected with open discussions/debates etc.

What would that make me? (not trying to start a debate just trying to "classify" myself into one of these variants)
Commies will usually hold you to a higher standard of politics than that. It's not enough to say "I think ...", you also have to have a solid knowledge of theory to back you up. Why do you see peasants as inherently revolutionary, despite history telling us that the peasantry tends to take reactionary positions and is usually reluctant to achieve class consciousness? Why should the party not be composed of proletarians? How would the party be able to wield power from the standpoint of a different (non-proletarian) roll without losing touch with the working class? How can a country be communist when the maintenance of a country necessitates the measurement of labor value?

Honestly your best bet would be to start with the basics of Marxian politics and work your way up to the whole tendency question.

[Old Bolshie]

- analysis of Stalinist USSR as degenerated worker's state or state-capitalism. client states considered to be deformed worker's states or state-capitalism.

Which is hilarious since Trotsky was the number one defendant of "state capitalism" in USSR.



Stalinism (variant of Leninism)

- considers the USSR (1917-55) to be an appropriate application of Leninism.



- development of personality cult.

Personality cult was result of the backward material conditions of Russia and not from any ideological aspect. You won't find any ML advocating any personality cult today.


- wavering position on peasantry.

ML's have the same position on peasantry as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin...

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

no, i know enough about communism, i'm a natural in this ideology, i always thought since a young child that people should get equal pay and that there shouldn't be any class amongst people.

i've read a few wikipedia articles, i've read the principles of communism by engels just to make sure if i had it right (and i did), i'd say i'm an amateur.

i just wanted quick facts, and thank you ;]

You must be the one which is spoken of in the prophecy, do you hold the other half of Stalin's proletarian amulet?

[kasama-rl]

The Maoist movement is worldwide. In some countries, Maoist strategies rely on a peasant majority (to form a worker peasant alliance lead by the communists).

But in developed countries, we Maoists don't have a peasant strategy (for obvious reasons -- i.e. there is no peasantry in the U.S.)

So it is wrong (fundamentally) to equate Maoism with a peasant strategy.

Mao led a popular rural guerilla war to power in China -- but Maoism is not a plan to "repeat what mao did" in that narrow a sense.

Maoism is a theory of mass line, a view of contradiction, a sense of continuous revolution, a theory of capitalist restoration, a developed communist military doctrine and much more.

Most of what is distinctive about Maoism is (naturally) a break with Stalin -- so I find the claim that "All Maoists are Stalinists" to be misleading, and factually wrong. I am a lifelong Maoist, and am not a stalinist... and that applies to the movement I was trained within.

Overall, understanding complex political controversies using little checklists of labels and bit-summation tends to cheapen the controversies.

Good luck with sorting it out.