Are they synonymous?

[larimar1212]

I mean, what's the main big difference between Leninism and Trotskyism?

[Sentinel]

Moved from Introductions to Learning.

[Blake's Baby]

Trotskyists are also known as Bolshevik-Leninists. So yeah, they're Leninists. But not all Leninists are Trotskyists. Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists) are also Leninists.

[l'Enfermé]

The biggest difference is that "Leninism" is not a real tendency. Trotskyism is an umbrella term for a bunch of different Trot traditions existing today.

[Emmeka]

The majority of Marxists identify as Leninists (save the few who identify as Luxemburgists, Kautskyists, Anarcho-communists [those ideologies contemporary to Lenin's time that disagreed with Lenin] or so-called "classical Marxists"). Marxists tend to identify with which "line" of theoreticians they consider most accurate. A couple of examples:

Marx-Engels-Lenin = Marxism-Leninism
Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky = Trotskyism
Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao = Maoism
Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao-Hoxha = Hoxhaism

So on, so forth. There's a lot of disagreement between various Trotskyite groups today and so Trotskyism is more of an umbrella term for anyone who upholds the theories of Leon Trotsky.

A really really abridged version of Trotskyism:

- The USSR under Stalin became a "degenerated worker's state" / "state capitalist" / "bureaucratic collectivist" (the term used and exact criticism will vary from one group to another), which variously means that workers no longer held political power there.

- Less-developed countries will not undergo bourgeois revolutions of the sort that happened in western nations in the 18th and 19th centuries. Before the Russian revolution it was sort of thought to be impossible for countries that weren't thoroughly industrialized to become socialist. Trotsky's theory was that the small, developing proletariat in less-developed nations needs to seize power in co-operation with the feudal peasantry, bringing down the old feudal rulers as well as the new capitalist class all at once. He called this theory "permanent revolution".

[chase63]

Marx-Engels-Lenin = Marxism-Leninism
Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky = Trotskyism
Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao = Maoism
Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao-Hoxha = Hoxhaism


I could be wrong, but I always thought hoxhaism was Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Hoxha? Could someone clear this up?

[Blake's Baby]

The majority of Marxists identify as Leninists (save the few who identify as Luxemburgists, Kautskyists, Anarcho-communists [those ideologies contemporary to Lenin's time that disagreed with Lenin] or so-called "classical Marxists")....

I would dispute this, at least as far as RevLeft is concerned. I don't think the majority of Marxists do identify as 'Leninists'. The Impossiblists don't (whether SPGBers or De Leonists); the Left Communists (Italian or German) and the Council Communists dont. Anarchist-Communists are not Marxists at all, even though some accept some of Marx's analyses.

Those who identify as 'Leninist' fall mostly into the camps of Stalinism (Marxist-Leninism) and its offshoots (primarily Maoism); and Trotskyism (Bolshevik-Leninism), in its many varieties.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The majority of Marxists identify as Leninists (save the few who identify as Luxemburgists, Kautskyists, Anarcho-communists [those ideologies contemporary to Lenin's time that disagreed with Lenin] or so-called "classical Marxists"). Marxists tend to identify with which "line" of theoreticians they consider most accurate. A couple of examples:

Marx-Engels-Lenin = Marxism-Leninism
Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky = Trotskyism
Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao = Maoism
Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao-Hoxha = Hoxhaism

So on, so forth. There's a lot of disagreement between various Trotskyite groups today and so Trotskyism is more of an umbrella term for anyone who upholds the theories of Leon Trotsky.

A really really abridged version of Trotskyism:

- The USSR under Stalin became a "degenerated worker's state" / "state capitalist" / "bureaucratic collectivist" (the term used and exact criticism will vary from one group to another), which variously means that workers no longer held political power there.

- Less-developed countries will not undergo bourgeois revolutions of the sort that happened in western nations in the 18th and 19th centuries. Before the Russian revolution it was sort of thought to be impossible for countries that weren't thoroughly industrialized to become socialist. Trotsky's theory was that the small, developing proletariat in less-developed nations needs to seize power in co-operation with the feudal peasantry, bringing down the old feudal rulers as well as the new capitalist class all at once. He called this theory "permanent revolution".

There is a lot wrong with this.
First of all Marxism-Leninism is usually seen as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin. I personally see it as only Stalin with some marxist rhetoric.
Now Hoxhaists do no have Mao in their line of leaders. In 1976 Hoxha broke with China and there was a book published called Imperialism and Revolution where he attack Mao-Zedong Thought as anti-marxist. Again I do not see Hoxhaism as following Marx, Engels or Lenin (and Stalin is usually included in the line of Hoxhaism as well, which is correct) but officially hoxhaists don't follow Mao anymore since the seventies.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

First of all Marxism-Leninism is usually seen as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin. I personally see it as only Stalin with some marxist rhetoric.

I think that is far too harsh; certainly the line of some tankies amounts to "Stalin (or Brezhnev) with some Marxist rhetoric" (just like an ultraminority of Trots are social democrats with some Marxist rhetoric), but Marxism-Leninism is recognisable as a Marxist theory. This does not, of course, mean that it is entirely orthodox, or that it is correct. But let's not get carried away.

Anyway, Marxism-Leninism is divided into Anti-Revisionists, Maoists (usually Marxists-Leninists-Maoists; of course they MLMs consider themselves to be against revisionism as well, just as Trotskyists do, but Anti-Revisionism specifically refers to those who follow the line of the PPSh in the seventies and so on), and proponents of "really existing socialism", the Brezhnevites that many would exclude from Marxism, and Marxism-Leninism.

The chief theoretical difference between Bolshevism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism is that the former advocate the permanent revolution and the impossibility of establishing socialism in one country, an impossibility that the latter deny.

[Emmeka]

Those who identify as 'Leninist' fall mostly into the camps of Stalinism (Marxist-Leninism) and its offshoots (primarily Maoism); and Trotskyism (Bolshevik-Leninism), in its many varieties.

> "Stalinism (Marxist-Leninist)"

Oh revleft.

[Blake's Baby]

> "Stalinism (Marxist-Leninist)"

Oh revleft.

And this means exactly?

What I said (if you look at what you quoted) was 'Stalinism' (Marxist-Leninism), intending that 'Marxist-Leninism' and 'Stalinism' be taken as synonyms. What you wrote implied that there was a (Marxist-Leninist) variety of Stalinism, which there isn't, as 'Stalinism' and 'Marxist-Leninism' are the same thing.

[Ismail]

Handy guide:

To Trots every single self-proclaimed communist leader (except, for some Trots, Castro) was/is a "Stalinist." From Stalin himself to Khrushchev and Brezhnev, to Tito, Gorbachev, the Kims, etc.; all "Stalinists." This is apparently rooted in the idea that there's a fundamental break between Lenin (and Trotsky) and Stalin over the issue of "socialism in one country."

Marxism-Leninism was the de jure ideology of practically every self-proclaimed communist ruling party, from the USSR of Stalin onwards to Yugoslavia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc.

The treatment of Stalin by the Soviet leadership after him was combined with a repudiation of a number of theoretical views developed under him in all fields, from foreign policy, the nature of class struggle under socialism, the role of commodities under socialism, etc. Marxism-Leninism was thus split into a revisionist and anti-revisionist camps, the former attacked Stalin as an aberration whereas the latter upheld him. A few parties took intermediate positions between the two groups (notably the Vietnamese and North Koreans) but increasingly sided with the former as time went on.

The Soviet revisionist verdict on Stalin's leadership, FWIW, can be seen in a 1968 work published by their hands:

Special mention should be made of the gross subjectivist errors made during the Stalin personality cult period. There were violations of socialist democracy and of the Leninist standards of political and Party life. The principle of collective leadership was ignored. One man made most of the decisions, often profoundly erroneous and contrary to the objective laws governing the development of socialist society.

The errors and abuses stemming from the Stalin personality cult went against the basic principles of socialism, its essence, its mission and morality. They were not rooted in the socialist system as such, and constituted a departure from its substance and the objective general line of development. Indeed, what could there be in common between socialism, on the one hand, and the violations of socialist democracy and legality, on the other Socialism is the result of the free endeavours of the people. Its development and consolidation is impelled by the productive and political activity of the millions. Socialism and people's democracy are inseparable. True and consistent democracy expressing the rockbottom interests of the working people, for its part, is inconceivable without socialism. Democracy is not simply a means of achieving socialism. It is part and parcel of socialism as the goal of the working-class liberation struggle. This is how Marx, Engels and Lenin conceived it. As for the hideous un-Marxist cult of one person, it is incompatible in all respects with socialist democracy and constitutes an outright negation of the creative activity of the masses, of their freedom and constructive initiative.

There is also this other aspect: socialism is real humanism, the practical embodiment of respect and devotion to man. Socialism is built in order to make man happy, to emancipate his labour, his thoughts, his conscience from outside compulsion, to open up for man all the opportunities of untrammelled development. There can be nothing in common between this mission of socialism and the cult of one man attended by violations of legality and crude restraints on human rights.

There is no denying the fact that the Stalin cult retarded the development of socialist society. But one thing is certain: it could not alter the nature of socialism. Socialism has emerged beyond the frontiers of one country. It has grown into a world socialist system. This bore out the objective character of the laws governing the making of socialist society. Stalin abused the trust put in him by the Party and the people and did great damage to socialist democracy. But nothing on earth could hold up the revolutionary stride of the Party and the people, their revolutionary creativeness, spurred by the great socialist idea.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has taken every step to root out the personality cult and its harmful consequences, and to preclude all departures from the principles of socialist democracy.

To be sure, the foes of communism have other opinions about the Stalin cult. They have everything to gain from portraying it as an innate feature of socialism. To make their point, they say socialism is contrary to "human nature" and therefore has to rely on violence, on a "strong man." But their contention is untenable; it is paradoxical and illogical to maintain that socialism, which expresses the basic interests of the people, has to be imposed on the people by force.

All anti-communist efforts to identify socialism with the personality cult are prompted by the wish of discrediting the new society and imputing qualities to it that would make it unacceptable and repulsive.

Yet all these champions of democracy who howl about the Stalin cult keep totally silent about the crying lawlessness, the fascist abuse, the wholesale killings and savage racist discrimination in some of the capitalist countries. While they attack the personality cult that once existed in the Soviet Union, these sham democrats and quasi-humanists see fit to justify the genocide loosened on the people of Vietnam, the terrorism against the Negro populations, and plead tearfully for the release of imprisoned nazi executioners.

Their attempts to portray socialism as antidemocratic and totalitarian cannot conceal the fact that socialism yielded not only a new economic system best adapted to fulfil the wishes and aspirations of the masses, but also a new form of political government best adapted to fulfil the sovereign will of the people.And a 1974 Soviet work:


J. V. Stalin had held, since 1922, the post of General Secretary of the Communist Party Central Committee. He had made important contributions to the implementation of the Party’s policy of socialist construction in the USSR, and he had won great popularity by his relentless fight against the anti-Leninist groups of the Trotskyites and Bukharinites. Since the early 1930s, however, all the successes achieved by the Soviet people in the building of socialism began to be arbitrarily attributed to Stalin. Already in a letter written back in 1922 Lenin warned the Party Central Committee: "Comrade Stalin," he wrote, "having become General Secretary, has concentrated boundless authority in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be able to exercise that authority with sufficient discretion." During the first few years after Lenin’s death Stalin reckoned with his critical remarks. As time passed, however, he abused his position of General Secretary of the Party Central Committee more and more frequently, violating the principle of collective leadership and making independent decisions on important Party and state issues. Those personal shortcomings of which Lenin had warned manifested themselves with greater and greater insistence: his rudeness, capriciousness, intolerance of criticism, arbitrariness, excessive suspiciousness, etc. This led to unjustified restrictions of democracy, gross violations of socialist legality and repressions against prominent Party, government and military leaders and other people.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Handy guide:

To Trots every single self-proclaimed communist leader (except, for some Trots, Castro) was/is a "Stalinist." From Stalin himself to Khrushchev and Brezhnev, to Tito, Gorbachev, the Kims, etc.; all "Stalinists."

I don't think that is true, strictly speaking; of course some Trotskyists use the term "Stalinist" as some universal insult (which is why I avoid the term), but I am not familiar with anyone that would seriously claim that Tito, for example, or Deng, are essentially the same as Stalin, Molotov, and so on. And certainly not Gorbachev.


This is apparently rooted in the idea that there's a fundamental break between Lenin (and Trotsky) and Stalin over the issue of "socialism in one country."

Or rather, between Trotsky (at least those works by Trotsky that modern Bolsheviks-Leninists uphold) and Stalin (and other Marxist-Leninist theoreticians). "Whose side Lenin was on" is a question that only invites sectarian venom, and I don't think it is that relevant; surely Lenin could have been wrong, whatever position he took?

[Ismail]

I don't think that is true, strictly speaking; of course some Trotskyists use the term "Stalinist" as some universal insult (which is why I avoid the term), but I am not familiar with anyone that would seriously claim that Tito, for example, or Deng, are essentially the same as Stalin, Molotov, and so on. And certainly not Gorbachev.They claim they're all "Stalinists." I never claimed Trots viewed them as exactly the same, just like Korean revisionism obviously has pecularities which distinguish it from Soviet, Chinese, etc. revisionism.

[l'Enfermé]

The majority of Marxists identify as Leninists (save the few who identify as Luxemburgists, Kautskyists, Anarcho-communists [those ideologies contemporary to Lenin's time that disagreed with Lenin] or so-called "classical Marxists")
Well that's misleading. "Kautskyists" are not opposed to "Leninism" because Lenin belonged to the same Marxist tradition as us.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

They claim they're all "Stalinists." I never claimed Trots viewed them as exactly the same, just like Korean revisionism obviously has pecularities which distinguish it from Soviet, Chinese, etc. revisionism.

I don't want to belabour the point; certainly the bogeyman of "Stalinism" has been raised far too many times, and the term might not actually mean anything at this point. But I am not aware of any Trotskyist theoretician that has referred to Tito, for example, as a "Stalinist" after the Soviet-Yugoslav split (Grant, for example, calls him a "dissident" and opposed to Stalinism).

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Well that's misleading. "Kautskyists" are not opposed to "Leninism" because Lenin belonged to the same Marxist tradition as us.

Depends what you mean by Kautskyists. If you mean renegade Kautsky, the term renegade obviously implies that before that he was alright, neither us nor Lenin follow that tradition.

Lenin was obviously influenced by pre-renegade Kautsky and the politics of the Second International, while not identical to.

[Q]

Wait, "renegade" wasn't his first name? You mean he reneged on his Marxism? Oh.

#themoreyouknow

But yeah, "Kautskyism" is a slur that Lenin used to describe the renegade Kautsky. Lenin saw himself as upholding the Orthodox Marxism that Kautsky professed in earlier times. In fact, he recommended to read the revolutionary Marxist Kautsky until his death. An advise we should still consider taking.

[Drosophila]

Wait, "renegade" wasn't his first name? You mean he reneged on his Marxism? Oh.

#themoreyouknow

But yeah, "Kautskyism" is a slur that Lenin used to describe the renegade Kautsky. Lenin saw himself as upholding the Orthodox Marxism that Kautsky professed in earlier times. In fact, he recommended to read the revolutionary Marxist Kautsky until his death. An advise we should still consider taking.


Depends what you mean by Kautskyists. If you mean renegade Kautsky, the term renegade obviously implies that before that he was alright, neither us nor Lenin follow that tradition.

Lenin was obviously influenced by pre-renegade Kautsky and the politics of the Second International, while not identical to.

Lenin broke with Kautsky (both "renegade" and "pre-renegade") in 1917, whether he admitted it or not. He, unlike many others in the Bolshevik Party, realized that the party failed to make a revolution and connect "socialism with the worker's movement" (Kautsky & WITBD) as the Bolsheviks simply tail-ended the revolutionary proletariat in Russia. It's inaccurate to claim that Lenin was still a disciple of "the original" Kautsky when the revolution actually took place.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Neither of us said he was a disciple of Kautsky at the time of the revolution, you are the only one using the word disciple.

I said that Lenin was influenced by Kautsky. Q said Lenin still recommended reading Kautsky.

[Drosophila]

Neither of us said he was a disciple of Kautsky at the time of the revolution, you are the only one using the word disciple.

I said that Lenin was influenced by Kautsky. Q said Lenin still recommended reading Kautsky.

Yet that is the standard position that you all take, is it not? (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/categories/party-programme/bolshevism) Contemporary Kautskyites (the CPGB-PCC and the ones here) try to claim October 1917 as their own by stressing the success of the Bolshevik "mass party," when in reality, the revolution proceeded contradictory to the ideals of Kautsky and pre-1917 Lenin.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yet that is the standard position that you all take, is it not? (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/categories/party-programme/bolshevism) Contemporary Kautskyites (the CPGB-PCC and the ones here) try to claim October 1917 as their own by stressing the success of the Bolshevik "mass party," when in reality, the revolution proceeded contradictory to the ideals of Kautsky and pre-1917 Lenin.

I have no allegiance to the CPGB so I don't really see what you are trying to prove here.

Not too surprising that you have to put words in other people's mouth to make an argument.

[Drosophila]

I have no allegiance to the CPGB so I don't really see what you are trying to prove here.

Not too surprising that you have to put words in other people's mouth to make an argument.

Please stop trying to weasel your way out of this. Just a few posts ago you said:

"neither us nor Lenin follow that tradition"

So, who's "us"? There's only one Marxist clique that upholds Kautsky as a primary influence, and their views fall pretty much 100% in line with the CPGB. I only put the link there because that's what every "orthodox Marxist" I've come across (including myself a few months ago) upholds.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Please stop trying to weasel your way out of this. Just a few posts ago you said:

"neither us nor Lenin follow that tradition"

So, who's "us"? There's only one Marxist clique that upholds Kautsky as a primary influence, and their views fall pretty much 100% in line with the CPGB. I only put the link there because that's what every "orthodox Marxist" I've come across (including myself a few months ago) upholds.

Just because you regarded CPGB texts as holy scripture does not mean I do.
I don't think I have to apologize for your politics a few months ago or the people you've met.

But, if you really want to know. Us in that case meant the orthodox marxists who do not uphold the renegade Kautsky.

[Emmeka]

What I said (if you look at what you quoted) was 'Stalinism' (Marxist-Leninism), intending that 'Marxist-Leninism' and 'Stalinism' be taken as synonyms.

Oh, sorry, to be specific I was scoffing at the fact that you consider "Marxism-Leninism" and "Stalinism" to be the same things. Or do you consider "Marxist-Leninism" and "Marxism-Leninism" to be two distinct things, I'm not entirely sure why you're being specific about using the former.


I could be wrong, but I always thought hoxhaism was Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Hoxha? Could someone clear this up?

Hoxha sided with China in the Sino-Soviet split and as such is generally considered to be a Maoist, though later there was a division between the Albanians and the Chinese, leading to the separate ideology of Hoxhaism. I suppose the correct line would be "Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Hoxha", because Hoxha upheld the legacy of Joseph Stalin.


Marxism-Leninism is usually seen as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin. I personally see it as only Stalin with some marxist rhetoric.

I can assure you my organization (the largest Marxist-Leninist organization in my country, the Communist Party of Canada) does not uphold Stalin's legacy. I can think of at least a dozen sister organizations in other countries which have the same position - that Stalin committed acts of genocide and murder and is generally responsible for fostering a cult of personality and dictatorship within the USSR.

You must not have read a lot of Stalin. The policies of my organization are overwhelmingly contrary to Stalinist ideology - or example, support of self-determination rights for minority nations within Canada, as opposed to Stalinist Socialism in One Country.

[Ismail]

Hoxha sided with China in the Sino-Soviet split and as such is generally considered to be a Maoist,Bourgeois sources speak of Hoxha as being an "unrepentant Stalinist" and whatnot. He was only considered a "Maoist" by those who were ill-informed or were using "Maoism" as a broad brush for any pro-Stalin opposition to the USSR. Hoxha was privately criticizing the Chinese as early as 1956 (when he had his first and only meeting with Mao) both in his diaries and to other Politburo members. Albanian materials during the alliance with China specifically refused to consider Mao Zedong Thought a "higher stage" of Marxism-Leninism.


I can assure you my organization (the largest Marxist-Leninist organization in my country, the Communist Party of Canada) does not uphold Stalin's legacy. I can think of at least a dozen sister organizations in other countries which have the same position - that Stalin committed acts of genocide and murder and is generally responsible for fostering a cult of personality and dictatorship within the USSR.

You must not have read a lot of Stalin. The policies of my organization are overwhelmingly contrary to Stalinist ideology - or example, support of self-determination rights for minority nations within Canada, as opposed to Stalinist Socialism in One Country.Well there's two issues here:

1. What on earth does the right of nations to self-determination have to do with "socialism in one country" (or Trotskyist "Permanent Revolution" for that matter)?
2. Stalin was Lenin's Commissar of Nationalities. He helped draw up the 1918 Constitution of the RSFSR which established the federal principle to begin with, a principle that remained untouched in the 1936 Constitution (and the 1977 Constitution for that matter.)

Also the CPC was so pro-revisionist it couldn't afford to register itself in the 1993 election because Soviet subsidies had been cut off, and one of those "sister organizations" is probably the supremely shitty CPUSA.

[JoeySteel]

I can assure you my organization (the largest Marxist-Leninist organization in my country, the Communist Party of Canada) does not uphold Stalin's legacy. I can think of at least a dozen sister organizations in other countries which have the same position - that Stalin committed acts of genocide and murder and is generally responsible for fostering a cult of personality and dictatorship within the USSR.

You must not have read a lot of Stalin. The policies of my organization are overwhelmingly contrary to Stalinist ideology - or example, support of self-determination rights for minority nations within Canada, as opposed to Stalinist Socialism in One Country.

This is an interesting post... Firstly, I strongly doubt that the CPC is the biggest self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist organization in Canada. It has been aggressively recruiting young people in the last few years, but often without a clear basis for doing so or clear tasks to accomplish. As your post also indicates, there is a seriously low ideological level among many young people in the organization. But based on other factors, including election candidates, I doubt it can be said that the CPC is "the largest."

Secondly, I don't know how long your history in the party is, but there are many members of the CPC that consider themselves anti-revisionists and have a positive view of Stalin. The CPC is a revisionst organization with a revisionist line, but there is conserable disagreement among members about the question of Stalin among others. Many CPC members would find abhorrent both your factual errors about Stalin (committing genocide, against self-determination) but also the right opportunism of promoting the CPC by attacking Stalin. For what it's worth, the main group in Canada that opposes self-determination for First Nations is the IMT/Fightback! and according to them the CPC is most definitely "Stalinist."

As Ismail pointed out, the CPC was for most of its existence materially and ideologically dependent on Soviet revisionism and was unable to work out how to break new ground or think for itself at all. While the CPC was exhibiting signs of the problems to come by the 1940's, after the death of Stalin it sank into the ideological revisionist swamp which it has yet to really emerge. The CPC's written output still bears all the marks of liberalism and revisionism particularly on domestic issues. Not that I am so hostile to the CPC - I have plenty of friends involved with it, and I appreciate that they are mobilizing people to support various struggles, but you clearly have some misconceptions.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I can assure you my organization (the largest Marxist-Leninist organization in my country, the Communist Party of Canada) does not uphold Stalin's legacy. I can think of at least a dozen sister organizations in other countries which have the same position - that Stalin committed acts of genocide and murder and is generally responsible for fostering a cult of personality and dictatorship within the USSR.

You must not have read a lot of Stalin. The policies of my organization are overwhelmingly contrary to Stalinist ideology - or example, support of self-determination rights for minority nations within Canada, as opposed to Stalinist Socialism in One Country.

First of all, I don't read all of a party's stuff everytime someone of that party posts on RevLeft. I'm speaking not about your party but of Marxism-Leninism as a whole which is generally regarded as upholding Stalin.

As for reading Stalin, I used to be a Stalinist and have read extensive amounts of Stalin's and Hoxha's works. So your accusation, although I don't think there is something bad about not having read a lot of Stalin, is baseless.

[Emmeka]

I doubt it can be said that the CPC is "the largest."

By the numbers we have the largest numbers of clubs in the country, especially if you include its sister organization the YCL-LJC. The only organization which comes close to us in numbers is the CPC-ML, and though their presence in Quebec is larger than ours, they have virtually no presence on the east coast and in the western provinces (we do).


Secondly, I don't know how long your history in the party is, but there are many members of the CPC that consider themselves anti-revisionists and have a positive view of Stalin.

This is true, there are comrades within our organization I would identify as Stalinist. However, our official party position is recognition of the excesses committed under the Stalinist regime. Specifically, we state that while there were serious crimes committed in the USSR, it was a genuine example of Socialism.

And since we adhere to democratic centralism, that is the party's position, regardless of individuals within the organization that disagree.


Not that I am so hostile to the CPC - I have plenty of friends involved with it, and I appreciate that they are mobilizing people to support various struggles, but you clearly have some misconceptions.

Always good to tell me what my own organization is like. Listen - I've been kicking around for a few years now, I'm not completely new to this. I know my own organization's politics. I don't have misconceptions, you have your own conceptions which I disagree with.

[Emmeka]

I'm speaking not about your party but of Marxism-Leninism as a whole which is generally regarded as upholding Stalin.

Generally regarded? By whom? You?

Marxist-Leninists by-and-large do not identify as Stalinists. The so-called mainstream communist parties identify as Marxist-Leninist, but by-and-large criticize Joseph Stalin.

Call it revisionism, call it what you'd like - I'm not trying to make an ideological point here. Fact is that a vast swathe of organizations which identify as Marxist-Leninist (And not Trotskyist, or Maoist, or any other further lines) do not uphold Joseph Stalin. I would go so far as to say that the majority do, but that would constitute nothing more than a guess as I have no statistics to work with. So it's obviously ridiculous to insinuate that Marxism-Leninism "as a whole" is Stalinist.


Marxism-Leninism was the de jure ideology of practically every self-proclaimed communist ruling party, from the USSR of Stalin onwards to Yugoslavia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say, thank you comrade. Marxism-Leninism is sort of the "default" from which most other tendencies break off, and is proclaimed as the ideology of most every communist organization, from the Cubans to Stalin to Tito.

Saying "Marxism-Leninism = Stalinism" or "Marxism-Leninism =" anything besides upholding Marx-Engels-Lenin is ridiculous.

[Emmeka]

Bourgeois sources speak of Hoxha as being an "unrepentant Stalinist" and whatnot. He was only considered a "Maoist" by those who were ill-informed or were using "Maoism" as a broad brush for any pro-Stalin opposition to the USSR.

I retract my statement - a little bit of research shows that I was wrong, despite his siding with China in the Sino-Soviet split Hoxha's ideology was definitely not Maoist.


What on earth does the right of nations to self-determination have to do with "socialism in one country" (or Trotskyist "Permanent Revolution" for that matter)?

What doesn't it have to do with socialism in one country? That being said I can think of better examples as to why we don't uphold Joseph Stalin (specifically our official statements criticizing him).


Also the CPC was so pro-revisionist it couldn't afford to register itself in the 1993 election because Soviet subsidies had been cut off, and one of those "sister organizations" is probably the supremely shitty CPUSA.

1) If you knew your history you would know in 1993 we were prevented from entering into elections based on a new law which required registered political parties to field at least 50 candidates. It wasn't a matter of "not affording it", the Soviets have never directly subsidized our organization.

As per a 1993 amendment to the Elections Act, if parties were unable to field 50 candidates, they were forced to de-register and turn over their assets to Elections Canada (something we obviously didn't want to happen). The CPC's general secretary challenged this in the landmark case Figueroa vs. Canada [2003], and won. Look it up.

2) The CPUSA is hardly our "sister organization". We've been very vocal in our criticism of Sam Webb and have refused their submissions to our publications. Our organization has in turn been restricted from publishing in their publications, specifically Political Affairs where a CPCer in Winnipeg used to run a column. We signed onto a KKE motion calling for Webb's resignation and the CPUSA has been isolated by most other organizations worldwide.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Stalinists should stop getting so pissy over the word Stalinist.

[JoeySteel]

they have virtually no presence on the east coast and in the western provinces (we do).


This is not true (CPC-ML presence, I don't know the case with the CPC.) In any case it seems indeed you are well aware of the revisionism and liberalism of the CPC and consider it a merit rather than a factor in the weakness and confusion of the organization. That's a bigger discussion but frankly your critique of socialism in one country is not Marxist-Leninist at all and points to the serious ideological confusion in the CPC. We have to draw a firm like between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism and I am surprised to find this kind of Krushchevist (or what? It seems incoherent what exactly is the connection between socialism in one country netating the rights of nations to self-determination) thought around in the YCL considering there is little remaining historical basis for it. Seriously though, the reason for the rebirth of the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada in the 1970's was the revisionism and servility of the CP. The CP was not fulfilling the role of a Communist Party. It still clings to the notions adopted then of Parliamentary coalitions with the NDP, equality within the Canadian state, etc. I actually think the CP is better now than it was then. If the CP had been a genuine Marxist-Leninist organization there would have been no basis for the upsurge of Marxist-Leninist forces in the 1960s and 70s after the consolidation of revisionism. And likewise, most people taking up Marxism-Leninism today understand Stalin positively from a Marxist-Leninist perspective as opposed to a Trotskyite or Soviet revisionist one because the latter is completely bound up in the anti-Marxist notions of Soviet and local revisionism.

Ultimately, for Marxists and Materialists self-identification is not the issue. One is not a Marxist-Leninist by calling oneself so. A party or individual is Marxist-Leninist if they actively apply Marxism-Leninism as opposed to revisionism

[Ismail]

What doesn't it have to do with socialism in one country?It has nothing to do with it. Neither Stalin nor Trotsky or anyone else spoke of self-determination in the 1920's debates. It's not like Trotsky said "Stalin doesn't want the Kazakhs/Ukrainians/Uzbeks/Armenians/Tatars/Bashkirs/etc. to create socialism in multiple countries, and instead just wants socialism in one country!"


Stalinists should stop getting so pissy over the word Stalinist.Maybe when Trots stop getting "so pissy" over their own label being applied to the POUM, Sparts, etc. by "Stalinists."

[Blake's Baby]

Oh, sorry, to be specific I was scoffing at the fact that you consider "Marxism-Leninism" and "Stalinism" to be the same things. Or do you consider "Marxist-Leninism" and "Marxism-Leninism" to be two distinct things, I'm not entirely sure why you're being specific about using the former...

And you were scoffing why precisely? Stalin formulated the theory of socialism in one country, and called his doctrine 'Marxist-Leninism'. The rest of us call his bundle of philosophy and policy 'Stalinism', whether those policies are put forward by Stalin or anyone else.

The reason I was being specific about Stalinism (Marxist-Leninism) as opposed to Stalinism (Marxist-Leninist) is because you changing what I'd written made it less clear. Marxist-Leninism is Stalinism, as I tried to make plain. What I wrote - Stalinism (Marxist-Leninism) - can be read as Stalinism, also known as Marxist-Leninism. What you wrote - Stalinism (Marxist-Leninist) - implies that 'Marxist-Leninist' is a variety of Stalinism among several, which it isn't. All Marxist-Leninism is Stalinism, and vice versa. Two names for the same thing.


...
You must not have read a lot of Stalin. The policies of my organization are overwhelmingly contrary to Stalinist ideology - or example, support of self-determination rights for minority nations within Canada, as opposed to Stalinist Socialism in One Country.

You do realise it was Stalin that wrote the Bolsheviks' policy on the National Question in 1913, don't you? The right of nations to self determination was Stalin's policy. So, that doesn't so 'anti-Stalinist' to me.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Maybe when Trots stop getting "so pissy" over their own label being applied to the POUM, Sparts, etc. by "Stalinists."

This is an important point; in one of my earlier posts I had categorised Brezhnevites as Marxists-Leninist. It should be said that, according to the criteria I had implicitly used, not only are certain elements of POUM and the Spartacists Bolsheviks-Leninists, so are the contemptible Shachtmanites.

I know a lot of people, both M-Ls and B-Ls, would find that unsatisfying. An alternative would be to only consider orthodox, revolutionary Marxists as Marxists- or Bolsheviks-Leninists. But this might lead to useless quibbling over categorisation; are adherents of Mao Zedong Thought revolutionary and orthodox? Are Cliffites? And so on, and so on.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Maybe when Trots stop getting "so pissy" over their own label being applied to the POUM, Sparts, etc. by "Stalinists."

I expected more nuance from you Ismail. Surely you know that the POUM was a fusion in Spain of elements from the International Left Opposition and the International Right Opposition? Zinoviev was hardly a 'Trotskyist', how his followers in Spain could be is a bit of mystery. Trotsky argued against the merger; how the organisation that Trotsky opposed is 'Trotskyist' doesn't make sense.

One major difference between Trotskyist an Stalinist approaches to this is that Troskyists admit Trotskyism exists. They then argue about who is or isn't in. Stalinists however claim that Stalinism doesn't exist, and then claim that even if it did such and such an organisation isn't Stalinist because someone one criticised Stalin. Of course, one doesn't have to support everything Stalin did to be a Stalinist. Just to support the idea of socialist construction in an isolated revolutionary territory.

[Ismail]

I expected more nuance from you Ismail. Surely you know that the POUM was a fusion in Spain of elements from the International Left Opposition and the International Right Opposition? Zinoviev was hardly a 'Trotskyist', how his followers in Spain could be is a bit of mystery.Sometime after the 50's the Soviets started referring to the POUM as "anarchists" rather than Trots, because of the POUM's close cooperation with the most infantile elements of Spanish anarchism.

As for why the POUM were considered "Trotskyist" for all intents and purposes, a 1939 CPGB work should suffice: "It is denied both the I.L.P. and the Trotskyists that the P.O.U.M. was a Trotskyist party. Formally they were correct. The P.O.U.M. was associated not with the Fourth International of Trotsky, but with the International Bureau for Revolutionary Socialist Unity whose headquarters are in London and whose secretary is Mr. Fenner Brockway. Indeed it appears that the Spanish Trotskyists were roundly denounced by Trotsky when they preferred to unite with Maurin's group to form the P.O.U.M. rather than enter the Socialist Party of Spain. Still it is one of the privileges of Trotskyists to be roundly denounced by Trotsky at some time or another. Quarrels between Trotsky and his followers and between rival Trotskyist sects are by no means infrequent. On all essentials, however, the P.O.U.M. was Trotskyist—in its attitude to the Soviet Union, to the Popular Front, to the problems of the Spanish Revolution, it was infinitely closer to Trotsky than it was to any of the parties in Mr. Brockway's group. Within it there was a group called the 'Bolshevik-Leninists' who were for every dot and comma in the Revelation of Trotsky." (J.R. Campbell, Soviet Policy and Its Critics, p. 347.)

Also Trotsky's followers did try to establish contact with Zinoviev after the former's expulsion from the USSR. That Zinoviev went from being Trotsky's foremost critic in the early 20's to being one of his partisans in the late 20's is an indication of his own opportunism than anything. It appears you meant to type Bukharin and not Zinoviev, though.

[Blake's Baby]

No, I meant Zinoviev. The International Right Opposition (AKA IBRSU) was a group that Zinoviev sponsored, as far as I know.

As to the idea that 'you can tell Trotskyist groups because they are attacked by Trotsky', that would make at various times Lenin, Stalin and Hitler Trotskyists.

[Ismail]

No, I meant Zinoviev. The International Right Opposition (AKA IBRSU) was a group that Zinoviev sponsored, as far as I know.I'm pretty sure it was a collection of parties and groups which sympathized with Bukharin, Rykov and Co., hence "Right Opposition." Zinoviev and Kamenev were associated in the late 20's with the "Left Opposition."


As to the idea that 'you can tell Trotskyist groups because they are attacked by Trotsky', that would make at various times Lenin, Stalin and Hitler Trotskyists.The work I quoted is clear on why the Soviets attacked the POUM as Trotskyist. If you think "because Trotsky criticized it" is the reason then you're free to look at it again.


One major difference between Trotskyist an Stalinist approaches to this is that Troskyists admit Trotskyism exists. They then argue about who is or isn't in. Stalinists however claim that Stalinism doesn't exist, and then claim that even if it did such and such an organisation isn't Stalinist because someone one criticised Stalin. Of course, one doesn't have to support everything Stalin did to be a Stalinist. Just to support the idea of socialist construction in an isolated revolutionary territory.Of course if "support[ing] the idea of socialist construction in an isolated revolutionary territory" (as opposed to capitulation) makes one a "Stalinist" then you can indeed bunch together all sorts of disparate parties and groupings under that label. Most people, however, would consider that rather dumb, myself included.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No, I meant Zinoviev. The International Right Opposition (AKA IBRSU) was a group that Zinoviev sponsored, as far as I know.

Not really; the International Communist Opposition (a continuation of the Right Opposition in Russia) was led by Bukharin and certain elements in the KPD. Zinoviev had nothing to do with it, as far as I recall, though he had contacts with Right Opposition members in Russia.

The International Bureau for Revolutionary Socialist Unity, International Revolutionary Marxist Centre, or just the London Bureau, was a group of centrist parties such as the Independent Labour Party in the UK. They vacillated between the position of the Third International and the International Left Opposition; as a consequence they were sometimes called the "Third and a Half International". Trotsky dedicated many beautifully venomous quips to the organisation.

[Blake's Baby]

Ah, OK. Seems I'm wrong then. I was going to edit the 'AKA IBRSU' out of my post as I became unconvinced that it was the same organisation anyway, but either way, it seems that I'm ascribing to Zinoviev the activity of Bukharin.

I get lost in all these wranglings over who best preserved the corpse of Leninism, I have to admit.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Actually, now that I think about it, certain members of the International Communist Opposition left for the London Bureau, and eventually the remnants of the ICO affiliated themselves to the London Bureau.

So yes, it's all a bit of a mess, really.

[Ismail]

In other words, if you hated Stalin you had fine company in any of the "rival" internationals.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Of course if "support[ing] the idea of socialist construction in an isolated revolutionary territory" (as opposed to capitulation) makes one a "Stalinist" then you can indeed bunch together all sorts of disparate parties and groupings under that label. Most people, however, would consider that rather dumb, myself included.

I agree it's dumb to support 'socialist construction in an isolated territory', because it makes no more sense than supporting a unicorn breeding-programme in an isolated territory, but many do, and yes, that's what makes them Stalinists (AKA Marxist-Leninists).

[Ismail]

I agree it's dumb to support 'socialist construction in an isolated territory', because it makes no more sense than supporting a unicorn breeding-programme in an isolated territory, but many do, and yes, that's what makes them Stalinists (AKA Marxist-Leninists).Har-de-har. Of course this "isolated territory" had the support of all proletarians and progressive persons worldwide, and through socialist construction not only oversaw revolutions throughout Eastern Europe and Asia, but was able to give these revolutions all sorts of assistance while the Soviet Union became a world power in its own right.

Lenin and Stalin did not look at things from a purely "national" perspective, nor did Hoxha who noted that so long as the Albanians retained their principles and their militant stands they would never be alone, even when pitted simultaneously against the Americans and the Soviet revisionists. Such is genuine internationalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In other words, if you hated Stalin you had fine company in any of the "rival" internationals.

Well, the ICO was fairly supportive of the policy of the Soviet Union, actually, far more than the original Right Opposition. The London Bureau vacillated between support for the Soviet Union and mild opposition.

Also, the POUM is probably the only Trotskyist group that was ever affiliated with the IRMC, unless you want to count the extremely small group led by Serge.

And of course, not even the Right Opposition wanted anything to do with the Bern and Vienna Internationals, and the Labour and Socialist International.

[Emmeka]

And you were scoffing why precisely? Stalin formulated the theory of socialism in one country, and called his doctrine 'Marxist-Leninism'. The rest of us call his bundle of philosophy and policy 'Stalinism', whether those policies are put forward by Stalin or anyone else

Okay, I'd just like to clarify your opinion here - anyone who didn't align themselves with critics of the Soviet Union under Stalin (Such as Trotsky) or the Russian revolution itself (such as Luxemburg or Kautsky) is a Stalinist.

Notwithstanding that there's the obvious divide between what some people identify as "revisionist" Marxism-Leninism (those who upheld Nikita Krushchev's criticism of Joseph Stalin and continue to criticize Stalin) and "anti-revisionist" Marxism-Leninism (those who consider Joseph Stalin the last non-revisionist leader of the USSR, and criticize Nikita Kruschev, his allies and those that followed him).

So regardless of ones opinion of Joseph Stalin, if one doesn't identify with a theoretician that criticized Stalin in his time, that makes them a Stalinist.

Alright.

[Blake's Baby]

Okay, I'd just like to clarify your opinion here - anyone who didn't align themselves with critics of the Soviet Union under Stalin (Such as Trotsky) or the Russian revolution itself (such as Luxemburg or Kautsky) is a Stalinist...

Do you mean, 'anyone who claims to be a Marxist but isn't an Impossiblist, a Kautskyist, a Left Communist, a Council Communist, an Autonomist, a Trotskyist or a Communisation-theory Libertarian Communist, is a Stalinist'? In which case, probably, yeah. 'Stalinist' = 'Marxist-Leninist' = 'supporter of socialism in one country'.


...Notwithstanding that there's the obvious divide between what some people identify as "revisionist" Marxism-Leninism (those who upheld Nikita Krushchev's criticism of Joseph Stalin and continue to criticize Stalin) and "anti-revisionist" Marxism-Leninism (those who consider Joseph Stalin the last non-revisionist leader of the USSR, and criticize Nikita Kruschev, his allies and those that followed him)...

You can criticise Stalin's 'excesses', you can criticise taste in cigars, you can even criticise his moustache. If you support 'socialism in one country', as Kruschev did, you're a Stalinist. No matter what you think of Stalin as a man, as a leader or as a moustache-wearer. And, to be fair, you say 'obvious' divide. but to be honest, I've assumed that to sheep, other sheep look different, but to me they all look the same. From the outside, the difference between the stalinist sects (pro-/anti-collectivisation, pro-/anti-China, pro-/anti-Albania) look about as interesting and important as the differences between Border Leicesters and Brecknock Hill Cheviots.


...So regardless of ones opinion of Joseph Stalin, if one doesn't identify with a theoretician that criticized Stalin in his time, that makes them a Stalinist...

No, if one supports 'socialism in one country'. Are you not listening?


...Alright.

So, can we assume you've now got it?

[Emmeka]

And, to be fair, you say 'obvious' divide. but to be honest, I've assumed that to sheep, other sheep look different, but to me they all look the same. From the outside, the difference between the stalinist sects (pro-/anti-collectivisation, pro-/anti-China, pro-/anti-Albania) look about as interesting and important as the differences between Border Leicesters and Brecknock Hill Cheviots.

You're serious. You see very little to no difference between, say, Hoxhaists - about as far on the spectrum of "anti-revisionism" as you can go - and those that are identified as "revisionist Marxist-Leninists". Honestly. Regardless of the fact that you disagree with them both (which really isn't what I'm concerned with, I'm trying to get definitions straight here), you see no difference between them. Like, to you, the difference between Sam Webb and Enver Hoxha is so minute it's essentially non-existant... honestly.


'Stalinist' = 'Marxist-Leninist' = 'supporter of socialism in one country'.

No, if one supports 'socialism in one country'. Are you not listening?

So any marxist-leninist organization that intends socialism can exist without a global revolution is Stalinist? I'm listening now, now that we've come to an actual definition. By this definition, I would like to clarify, you believe that at no point has socialism existed in history until present, because it is necessary for revolution to have rid the world of capitalism in its entirety before progressing to socialism. You do not believe that any historical self-identified socialist states have actually been socialist.

To clarify, the idea that socialism can exist in one country predates Stalin and has its origins with Lenin, who argued that socialism in a single country was possible but insufficient, and that in the event of a single socialist country this single socialist country should seek to instigate other revolutions and to challenge capitalist powers militarily. It was actually Nikolai Bukharin, not Stalin, who cemented the idea with his pamphlet Can We Build Socialism in One Country in the Absence of the Victory of the West-European Proletariat? [1925]


"As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others. 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 alone."

- On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, Lenin, 1915
"To wait until the working classes carry out a revolution on an international scale means that everyone will remain suspended in mid-air. This is senseless. Everyone knows the difficulties of a revolution. It may begin with brilliant success in one country and then go through agonising periods, since final victory is only possible on a world scale, and only by the joint efforts of the workers of all countries."

- Report on Foreign Policy, Lenin, May 4th 1918

[Blake's Baby]

You're serious. You see very little to no difference between, say, Hoxhaists - about as far on the spectrum of "anti-revisionism" as you can go - and those that are identified as "revisionist Marxist-Leninists". Honestly. Regardless of the fact that you disagree with them both (which really isn't what I'm concerned with, I'm trying to get definitions straight here), you see no difference between them. Like, to you, the difference between Sam Webb and Enver Hoxha is so minute it's essentially non-existant... honestly...

I have no idea who Sam Webb is. But yes, you've grasped the essential point.


...
So any marxist-leninist organization that intends socialism can exist without a global revolution is Stalinist?...

I would doubt that any 'Marxist-Leninist' organisation that thinks the opposite even exists. By definition, if an organiosation is 'Marxist-Leninist', it supports socialism in one country, because that's what makes it 'Marxist-Leninist'.


...I'm listening now, now that we've come to an actual definition. By this definition, I would like to clarify, you believe that at no point has socialism existed in history until present, because it is necessary for revolution to have rid the world of capitalism in its entirety before progressing to socialism. You do not believe that any historical self-identified socialist states have actually been socialist...

Of course. I wasn't aware that needed clarification, but if it does, yes, you're right, no 'socialist state' has ever been socialist. It is necessary to rid the world of capitalism on a world scale, just as it is necessary to cure blood poisoning in an entire body, not just one finger.


To clarify, the idea that socialism can exist in one country predates Stalin and has its origins with Lenin, who argued that socialism in a single country was possible but insufficient, and that in the event of a single socialist country this single socialist country should seek to instigate other revolutions and to challenge capitalist powers militarily. It was actually Nikolai Bukharin, not Stalin, who cemented the idea with his pamphlet Can We Build Socialism in One Country in the Absence of the Victory of the West-European Proletariat? [1925]

And? Did Bukharin attempt to rule the Soviet Union for 25 years on that basis? Stalin took Bukharin's stupid idea (as he took Trotsky's stupid ideas about industrialisation) and ran with it. Just because Stalin was pretty much incapable of innovation doesn't mean he didn't set up a system built on the mistakes of better minds than his.

You seem to be confusing 'the construction of socialist society' with 'the proletarian revolution' here. The revolution breaks out in one country or another. It cannot remain there.

[Emmeka]

It has nothing to do with it. Neither Stalin nor Trotsky or anyone else spoke of self-determination in the 1920's debates. It's not like Trotsky said "Stalin doesn't want the Kazakhs/Ukrainians/Uzbeks/Armenians/Tatars/Bashkirs/etc. to create socialism in multiple countries, and instead just wants socialism in one country!"

I never stated that Trotsky had anything to say on the subject, I'm talking about Stalin. Now, I would argue that allowing for self-determination rights for nations when it could potentially detract from the strength of a pre-existing socialist state is pretty contradictory with the policy of strengthening that socialist state internally for the purpose of expansion.


"This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national movement, everywhere and always, in every individual concrete case. It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries came into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement."

"Hence the necessity of fighting against the national isolationism, narrowness and aloofness of the Socialist in the oppressed countries, who do not want to rise above their national parochialism and who do not understand the connection between the liberation movement in their own countries and the proletarian movement in the ruling countries. Without such a struggle it is inconceivable that the proletariat of the oppressed nations can maintain an independent policy and its class solidarity with the proletariat of the ruling countries in the fight for the overthrow of the common enemy, in the fight for the overthrow of imperialism."

- The Foundations of Leninism, Stalin 1924

Stalin goes on to give the example of Soviet support for the ongoing rebellion in Egypt of the time, despite the fact that it was a rebellion led by the bourgeois merchant class, because it strategically challenges imperialism and thus benefits the socialist revolution (regardless of the fact that it is not a socialist revolution), but opposition by Marx to the calls for independence of the Czechs in the 1840s, because this would have led to the Czechs becoming an outpost of Tsarism.

There's a difference between supporting self-determination when it benefits pre-existing socialist states or hinders capitalism and supporting self-determination as a principle, regardless of national liberation's impact on capitalism. As I said, the CPC here in Canada supports the right of self-determination for Quebec - even though, invariably, Quebec's separation would weaken the Canadian left and would see it most likely fall prey to the Americans.

[Emmeka]

I have no idea who Sam Webb is. But yes, you've grasped the essential point.

Sam Webb is the general secretary of the CPUSA, pretty much unanimously criticized by every other organization around the world as revisionist (even those organizations which themselves are referred to as revisionist). He endorses / apoligizes for Obama. Seriously you're missing out if you haven't had a crack at some of his apoligism.


And? Did Bukharin attempt to rule the Soviet Union for 25 years on that basis? Stalin took Bukharin's stupid idea (as he took Trotsky's stupid ideas about industrialisation) and ran with it. Just because Stalin was pretty much incapable of innovation doesn't mean he didn't set up a system built on the mistakes of better minds than his.

I was merely trying to establish that "socialism in one state", at least in the way you're describing it, wasn't a "Stalinist" concept but a Leninist one, even then Stalin's addendum to the idea originally came from Bukharin.

Lenin more of less said that it was possible for socialism to exist in a single country as a worldwide revolution was in a lull, but that this single country should strive constantly to challenge capitalist forces and to support revolution in other nations. Stalin's addendum was that since it is possible for a single country to be socialist, this country should focus on strengthening itself internally to protect itself as an "island" of socialism.

There's a very obvious difference there, a Leninist conception of socialism in one country and a Stalinist conception of socialism in one country (adopted from Bukharin).

[Blake's Baby]

Sam Webb is the general secretary of the CPUSA, pretty much unanimously criticized by every other organization around the world as revisionist (even those organizations which themselves are referred to as revisionist). He endorses / apoligizes for Obama. Seriously you're missing out if you haven't had a crack at some of his apoligism...

'every other organisation'... do you mean, every other Stalinist organisation? The rest of us don't care. 'Revisionism' is one of those concepts that seems to be terribly important if your a Stalinist, no-one else is interested.


...
I was merely trying to establish that "socialism in one state", at least in the way you're describing it, wasn't a "Stalinist" concept but a Leninist one, even then Stalin's addendum to the idea originally came from Bukharin...

And? Bukharin floated it. Stalin codified it. Would you rather we refered to Stalinists as 'Trotsky-Bukharinists'?


...Lenin more of less said that it was possible for socialism to exist in a single country as a worldwide revolution was in a lull, but that this single country should strive constantly to challenge capitalist forces and to support revolution in other nations. Stalin's addendum was that since it is possible for a single country to be socialist, this country should focus on strengthening itself internally to protect itself as an "island" of socialism...

Not sure Lenin did actually, but if he did, it was something else he was wrong about. All Stalin did was take the mistakes of Lenin, Trotsky, and Bukharin, write 'em all down, and run the USSR using the stupidest manual imaginable.


...There's a very obvious difference there, a Leninist conception of socialism in one country and a Stalinist conception of socialism in one country (adopted from Bukharin).

In that one's an error, and the other is also an error? I don't really see what the difference is.

[Emmeka]

In that one's an error, and the other is also an error? I don't really see what the difference is.

Seriously. You just acknowledged that they're different, and then somehow dismissed them because they're "both wrong", which somehow makes them the same thing. I can think of a thousand and one things that are wrong but different. I'm not even concerned whether you agree with Lenin's conception of socialism in one country. I'm just trying to get you to acknowledge the extremely obvious fact that not every Marxist-Leninist is a Stalinist.

1) Stalin didn't conceive of "socialism in one country", Lenin did. The idea predates Stalin's rise through the bolsheviks by a decent 15 years. It if therefore, quite obviously, not a Stalinist idea.

2) Stalin's later use of "socialism in one country" was a different, ammended version of Lenin's definition. It thus stands to reason that Lenin's and Stalin's "socialism in one country" are two different things.

Since Stalin didn't conceive of it and there is a definition of it by Lenin different than Stalin's, it is not only possible for someone to uphold socialism in one country without being a Stalinist but it is most likely that a majority of Marxist-Leninists do. You literally have to acknowledge this - I'm not concerned at all whether you agree with the concept, merely where you understand that this position isn't derived from or tied to Stalin.


Not sure Lenin did actually, but if he did, it was something else he was wrong about. All Stalin did was take the mistakes of Lenin, Trotsky, and Bukharin, write 'em all down, and run the USSR using the stupidest manual imaginable.

Literally five posts ago I have two direct quotes from Lenin on socialism in one country. I even boldfaced the relevant sentence. Or did you just skip over it, because it's obvious that I'm a Stalinist and that's just the end of it. Anyway, here's one quote: "the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone" - On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, Lenin, 1915

[Blake's Baby]

Seriously. You just acknowledged that they're different, and then somehow dismissed them because they're "both wrong", which somehow makes them the same thing. I can think of a thousand and one things that are wrong but different. I'm not even concerned whether you agree with Lenin's conception of socialism in one country. I'm just trying to get you to acknowledge the extremely obvious fact that not every Marxist-Leninist is a Stalinist.
...

That's not just 'not obvious' it's not possible. As the one is a synonym for the other, their non-identity is not possible.


...1) Stalin didn't conceive of "socialism in one country", Lenin did. The idea predates Stalin's rise through the bolsheviks by a decent 15 years. It if therefore, quite obviously, not a Stalinist idea...

I disagree, I think it was Bukharin.


...2) Stalin's later use of "socialism in one country" was a different, ammended version of Lenin's definition. It thus stands to reason that Lenin's and Stalin's "socialism in one country" are two different things...

I don't think Lenin had a 'definition'. But, if he did, a Brecknock Hill Cheviot can possibly identify a Border Leicester, but to me they're 'sheep'. They are the same, for the purposes of this conversation.


...Since Stalin didn't conceive of it and there is a definition of it by Lenin different than Stalin's, it is not only possible for someone to uphold socialism in one country without being a Stalinist but it is most likely that a majority of Marxist-Leninists do. You literally have to acknowledge this - I'm not concerned at all whether you agree with the concept, merely where you understand that this position isn't derived from or tied to Stalin...

No, really it is. There are no Bukharinists, and the other major Leninist strand - the Bolshevik-Leninists - dispute socialism in one country. It is only Marxist-Leninists that support it. It is the defining feature of Marxist-Leninism.


...

Literally five posts ago I have two direct quotes from Lenin on socialism in one country. I even boldfaced the relevant sentence. Or did you just skip over it, because it's obvious that I'm a Stalinist and that's just the end of it. Anyway, here's one quote: "the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone" - On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, Lenin, 1915

Did you ignore the part where I said you were mixing up the proletarian revolution with the establishment of socialist society? Is that because your a Stalinist and that's the end of it?

[Ismail]

'every other organisation'... do you mean, every other Stalinist organisation? The rest of us don't care. 'Revisionism' is one of those concepts that seems to be terribly important if your a Stalinist, no-one else is interested.That's a strange claim for a self-proclaimed Marxist to make. Every Marxist knows that revisionism was fought by Marx and Engels, Lenin and Luxemburg, De Leon and Stalin, and countless other Marxists (Marxist-Leninist or otherwise.) The fight against Bernsteinism, Kautskyism, and various other opportunist and nationalist deviations are, I'd imagine, pretty important and of enduring significance. Soviet revisionism, Chinese (Maoist/Dengist) revisionism, etc. are just modern trends of revisionist thought.

Trotsky certainly didn't shy away from using the word either, nor have various Trot organizations decades after his death.


I never stated that Trotsky had anything to say on the subject, I'm talking about Stalin.And I'm asking you what this has to do with the "socialism in one country" vs. "Permanent Revolution" debate.


Did you ignore the part where I said you were mixing up the proletarian revolution with the establishment of socialist society? Is that because your a Stalinist and that's the end of it?Lenin pointed out that the USSR had the preconditions for the construction of a socialist society.

See:
* http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2106911&postcount=14
* http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2110477&postcount=16

[l'Enfermé]

Lenin broke with Kautsky (both "renegade" and "pre-renegade") in 1917, whether he admitted it or not.
(I'm not even going to mention that Lenin broke with Kautsky-the-Renegade not in 1917 but 1914.)
See, your dubious assertions are very hard to take seriously, comrade, given that all the evidence points to the contrary conclusion. Lenin did break with Kautsky-the-renegade, or more specifically, Kautsky-the-renegade broke with Marxism and thus all Marxists, including Lenin.

If you bothered to check, you would find, to your surprise, that Lenin actually wrote an entire pamphlet dedicated to discussing Kautsky's renegacy and Kautsky's prior adherence Marxism. Here, a link:

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/index.htm

Your argument, then, is reduced to either:
I)Lenin broke with Marxism in 1917 and said so explicitly
or
II)Lenin pretended he didn't break with Marxism in 1917, but he actually did, and you are the only one clever enough to notice this


He, unlike many others in the Bolshevik Party, realized that the party failed to make a revolution There you betray your ignorance again. You must have payed very little attention during DNZ's indoctrination classes. Party? "Make" a revolution? Who said the party makes the revolution? Oh, I get it. You're saying that until 1917, Lenin was in accord with Kautsky that the party arbitrarily makes a revolution, and that's how we proceed to socialism, but he broke with this idea during because he learned the lessons of 1917.

Except, Kautsky says in the Road to Power, in 1909, and Lenin agrees with him:
"The Socialist party is a revolutionary party, but not a revolution-making party. We know that our goal can be attained only through a revolution. We also know that it is just as little in our power to create this revolution as it is in the power of our opponents to prevent it. It is no part of our work to instigate a revolution or to prepare the way for it. And since the revolution cannot be arbitrarily created by us, we cannot say anything whatever about when, under what conditions, or what forms it will come."



and connect "socialism with the worker's movement" (Kautsky & WITBD) as the Bolsheviks simply tail-ended the revolutionary proletariat in Russia. It's not like the October Insurrection was decided by the Central Committee of the RSDLP, right? It's not like the Bolsheviks organised the communist-workers of Russia into a Red Army under Bolshevik leadership, right? It's not like the Bolsheviks organised the communist-workers of the world under the banner of the Bolshevik Comintern, right? Those darned tail-ending Bolsheviks! Such tail-enders!

Comrade, you really need to stop pretending that the Bolsheviks somehow abandoned pre-renegade Kautsky. That's just nonsense. Kautsky was considered one of the big five of Marxism by the Bolsheviks, before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. His articles and pamphlets and books were used as textbook materiel in Soviet communist schools until the height of the Stalinist counter-counterevolution. This one (http://marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/index.htm), for example, was used as a textbook in the International Lenin School in Moscow until it was closed down in 1937 or 1938. After October, Bolshevik party registration and re-registration forms included questions like "What works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kautsky and Plekhanov have you read?". One of Lenin's re-registration forms in available on the MIA actually, from 1920: http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/sep/17.htm

The list goes on and on and on....

[Drosophila]

(I'm not even going to mention that Lenin broke with Kautsky-the-Renegade not in 1917 but 1914.)
See, your dubious assertions are very hard to take seriously, comrade, given that all the evidence points to the contrary conclusion. Lenin did break with Kautsky-the-renegade, or more specifically, Kautsky-the-renegade broke with Marxism and thus all Marxists, including Lenin.

Which is why I said..."Lenin broke with Kautsky (both "renegade" and "pre-renegade") in 1917, whether he admitted it or not."

Lenin may have continued to see Kautsky as an important figure, as one of his own primary ideological influences, but he broke with Kautskyism when he realized that the Bolshevik Party was incapable of containing the revolution and in fact did not represent the Russian working class. He went from saying that the soviets were "not a labour parliament and not an organ of proletarian self-government, nor an organ of self-government at all, but a fighting organisation for the achievement of definite aims" in 1905(source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/24.htm))to "All power to the soviets" in 1917. The former view was his Kautskyist self speaking, the latter his unconsciously anti-Kautskyite self. He realized that the Kautskyist view that the mass party serves to educate the working class in the ideas of socialism had failed to meet all expectations and the revolution was proceeding very quickly without any theoretical intervention.


If you bothered to check, you would find, to your surprise, that Lenin actually wrote an entire pamphlet dedicated to discussing Kautsky's renegacy and Kautsky's prior adherence Marxism. Here, a link:

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/index.htm
Wow! Thank you! I had never seen that before! :rolleyes:


Your argument, then, is reduced to either:
I)Lenin broke with Marxism in 1917 and said so explicitly
or
II)Lenin pretended he didn't break with Marxism in 1917, but he actually did, and you are the only one clever enough to notice this
Wait a minute, who ever said that Lenin broke with Marxism?


There you betray your ignorance again. You must have payed very little attention during DNZ's indoctrination classes.Woah, who ever mentioned DNZ?!? You really have an obsession with that guy, comrade.


Party? "Make" a revolution? Who said the party makes the revolution? Oh, I get it. You're saying that until 1917, Lenin was in accord with Kautsky that the party arbitrarily makes a revolution, and that's how we proceed to socialism, but he broke with this idea during because he learned the lessons of 1917.



Except, Kautsky says in the Road to Power, in 1909, and Lenin agrees with him:
"The Socialist party is a revolutionary party, but not a revolution-making party. We know that our goal can be attained only through a revolution. We also know that it is just as little in our power to create this revolution as it is in the power of our opponents to prevent it. It is no part of our work to instigate a revolution or to prepare the way for it. And since the revolution cannot be arbitrarily created by us, we cannot say anything whatever about when, under what conditions, or what forms it will come."
Hmm, so much for all the vitriol directed toward "spontaneity," "economism," "Bakuninism" and whatever else the Kautskyists attempt to defile anti-voluntarist frameworks. I guess "Educate, Agitate, Oranize!" doesn't actually mean anything.


It's not like the October Insurrection was decided by the Central Committee of the RSDLP, right? It's not like the Bolsheviks organised the communist-workers of Russia into a Red Army under Bolshevik leadership, right? It's not like the Bolsheviks organised the communist-workers of the world under the banner of the Bolshevik Comintern, right? Those darned tail-ending Bolsheviks! Such tail-enders!Once they hijacked the revolution and disbanded the proletarian dictatorship, yes. You seem to think that I'm talking about post-1917 Russia. I'm not.


Comrade, you really need to stop pretending that the Bolsheviks somehow abandoned pre-renegade Kautsky. That's just nonsense. Kautsky was considered one of the big five of Marxism by the Bolsheviks, before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. His articles and pamphlets and books were used as textbook materiel in Soviet communist schools until the height of the Stalinist counter-counterevolution. This one (http://marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/index.htm), for example, was used as a textbook in the International Lenin School in Moscow until it was closed down in 1937 or 1938. After October, Bolshevik party registration and re-registration forms included questions like "What works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kautsky and Plekhanov have you read?". One of Lenin's re-registration forms in available on the MIA actually, from 1920: http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/sep/17.htm

The list goes on and on and on....Neat. Still doesn't change the fact that Lenin, whether he liked it or not, broke with Kautskyism in 1917. Whether this was the result of opportunism, a conscious realization of Kautskyism's invalidity, or both is the only thing in question here.

And please, stop calling me "comrade." I'm not your comrade, in fact I hardly know you. I can see why people get creeped out and annoyed by leftists.

[Emmeka]

And I'm asking you what this has to do with the "socialism in one country" vs. "Permanent Revolution" debate.

It has nothing to do with Trotsky's criticism of "socialism in one country". This comrade here is just trying to contend that since "socialism in one country" was promoted by Stalin, that makes it a Stalinist idea and all who accept it to be Stalinists. I'm merely trying to establish that Stalin's interpretation of the idea is sort of... an addendum to Lenin's, and that one can accept "socialism in one country" without being a Stalinist and thus differing from Stalin's definition.

[Ismail]

It has nothing to do with Trotsky's criticism of "socialism in one country". This comrade here is just trying to contend that since "socialism in one country" was promoted by Stalin, that makes it a Stalinist idea and all who accept it to be Stalinists. I'm merely trying to establish that Stalin's interpretation of the idea is sort of... an addendum to Lenin's, and that one can accept "socialism in one country" without being a Stalinist and thus differing from Stalin's definition.You were contrasting "self-determination rights for minority nations within Canada" with "Stalinist Socialism in One Country." I asked you why you were making such a contrast when self-determination was never an issue in the 1920's debate. You haven't answered that.

[Blake's Baby]

That's a strange claim for a self-proclaimed Marxist to make. Every Marxist knows that revisionism was fought by Marx and Engels, Lenin and Luxemburg, De Leon and Stalin, and countless other Marxists (Marxist-Leninist or otherwise.)...

Hardly. Every Marxist knows that Stalin was a paranoid megalomaniac, a murderer of communists and the gravedigger of the revolution. By the time Stalin came to power the Revolution was on the ropes and Stalin represented the triumph of the counter-revolution in Russia.

You seem to be using 'revisionism' here as a some ahistoric category of original sin.


...
The fight against Bernsteinism, Kautskyism, and various other opportunist and nationalist deviations are, I'd imagine, pretty important and of enduring significance. Soviet revisionism, Chinese (Maoist/Dengist) revisionism, etc. are just modern trends of revisionist thought...

No they aren't. 'Soviet revisionism' (I assume you mean Kruschev etc) - which is what I assumed Emmeka was referring to, and what my answer referred to - was a particular set of policy decisions for administering a capitalist state (to whit, the Soviet Union). It was opposed to a marginally different policy for administering a capitalists stae. So, I'm not interested in the distinction between them.

Luxemburg, however, was fighting revisionism inside the socialist movement. That's a very different matter. Luxemburg's struggle against Bernstein's revisionism was the struggle of a Maarxist conception of the revolution against a social-democratic (bourgeois) conception. The struggle of the 'anti-revisionists' post-1956 against the 'revisionists' was a struggle inside a bourgeois movement over policy. What possible connection can there be between them?

[Ismail]

Every Marxist knows that Stalin was a paranoid megalomaniac,"Marxists" like who? Khrushchev?


a murderer of communistsLike whom? You certainly don't seem to regard any of the Bolsheviks as "good" Marxists since they supposedly "usurped Soviet democracy" or whatever.

But of course Zinoviev who called for a "dictatorship of the party" and Bukharin who spoke of kulaks peacefully "growing" into socialism were valiant Marxists up against the evil that is Joseph Stalin. Rykov was a man who both Khrushchev and Mikoyan spoke highly of, and both said he would have been working with them in the 50's had he not been shot in 1938. Béla Kun and others were rehabilitated by the revisionists and most likely would have been classified by you as "Stalinists" had they lived longer.


You seem to be using 'revisionism' here as a some ahistoric category of original sin.No, revisionism refers to revising Marxism to deprive it of its revolutionary and scientific credentials, as I noted. Bernstein and Co., Khrushchev and his cronies (who included Brezhnev), the Maoists, the Eurocommunists, etc. spoke of "new conditions" which supposedly justified "creatively developing" Marxism in such ways as to render it an obstacle to the cause of the emancipation of labor.


Luxemburg, however, was fighting revisionism inside the socialist movement. That's a very different matter. Luxemburg's struggle against Bernstein's revisionism was the struggle of a Maarxist conception of the revolution against a social-democratic (bourgeois) conception. The struggle of the 'anti-revisionists' post-1956 against the 'revisionists' was a struggle inside a bourgeois movement over policy. What possible connection can there be between them?The struggle against Soviet revisionism was a struggle within the international communist movement. The Soviet revisionists called for reconciliation with social-democracy, spoke of "peaceful transition" to socialism and other "theories" reminiscent of Bernstein.

Soviet revisionism manifested itself in practically every field, from ideology and philosophy to economics, from military doctrines to foreign affairs. Basic aspects of Marxist analysis such as the inevitability of world wars under imperialism were denounced as "dogmatic" by the Soviet revisionists. Socialism was proclaimed its own separate historical epoch in the 70's under Brezhnev's "developed socialism," as an extension of the bastardized economics pursued by the Soviet revisionists since the 50's.

Of course it's much easier to ignore all this and just write it off as "Stalinists bickering amongst themselves" or whatever to hide your own ignorance of things. After all you're the one who has said that exploitation still exists under communist society, no doubt as part of your own "creative development" of Marxism.

[Blake's Baby]

"Marxists" like who? Khrushchev?...

Kruschev wasn't a Marxist, he was a Stalinist.


...
Like whom? You certainly don't seem to regard any of the Bolsheviks as "good" Marxists since they supposedly "usurped Soviet democracy" or whatever...

How about Miasnikov?

People are not right or wrong. They can be right about some things and wrong about others - at the same time.


...But of course Zinoviev who called for a "dictatorship of the party" and Bukharin who spoke of kulaks peacefully "growing" into socialism were valiant Marxists up against the evil that is Joseph Stalin. Rykov was a man who both Khrushchev and Mikoyan spoke highly of, and both said he would have been working with them in the 50's had he not been shot in 1938. Béla Kun and others were rehabilitated by the revisionists and most likely would have been classified by you as "Stalinists" had they lived longer...

If they supported socialism in one country, then yes, they'd be Stalinists. Because that's what Stalinism is.


No, revisionism refers to revising Marxism to deprive it of its revolutionary and scientific credentials, as I noted...

In which case, the 'Soviet revisionism' that Emmeka is we think refering to is not 'revisionism' as you define it, because Stalinism isn't Marxism. It is, instead, itself 'revisionism' as you define it. The difference between Stalin and Bernstein is that, though Bernstein said it was possible to move from capitalism to socialism, Stalin said that Russia already had. Oh, and Stalin killed more communists.


...Bernstein and Co., Khrushchev and his cronies (who included Brezhnev), the Maoists, the Eurocommunists, etc. spoke of "new conditions" which supposedly justified "creatively developing" Marxism in such ways as to render it an obstacle to the cause of the emancipation of labor.

The struggle against Soviet revisionism was a struggle within the international communist movement. The Soviet revisionists called for reconciliation with social-democracy, spoke of "peaceful transition" to socialism and other "theories" reminiscent of Bernstein...

No it wasn't, Stalinism was the triumph of the counter-revolution. the ideology of a party passing from the socialist movement into the camp of the bourgeoisie.


...Soviet revisionism manifested itself in practically every field, from ideology and philosophy to economics, from military doctrines to foreign affairs. Basic aspects of Marxist analysis such as the inevitability of world wars under imperialism were denounced as "dogmatic" by the Soviet revisionists. Socialism was proclaimed its own separate historical epoch in the 70's under Brezhnev's "developed socialism," as an extension of the bastardized economics pursued by the Soviet revisionists since the 50's.

Of course it's much easier to ignore all this and just write it off as "Stalinists bickering amongst themselves" or whatever to hide your own ignorance of things. After all you're the one who has said that exploitation still exists under communist society, no doubt as part of your own "creative development" of Marxism.

I'm sure you're very interested in the internal workings of the British Labour Party. It is after all a bourgeois social democratic party that oppresses the working class. Just up your street.

[Ismail]

Kruschev wasn't a Marxist, he was a Stalinist.He was neither. To quote Hoxha, "The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Stalinists, thinking that they insult us and, in fact, that is what they have in mind. But, on the contrary, they glorify us with this epithet; it is an honor for us to be Stalinists for while we maintain such a stand the enemy cannot and will never force us to our knees." (Selected Works Vol. IV, pp. 234-235.)


How about Miasnikov?During the 1945-46 period the USSR was luring back lots of émigrés who they figured still posed a danger. For instance, around the time Miasnikov was taken to the USSR, Konstantin Rodzaevsky and a number of other White Guardists were promised a new start if they returned. Instead they arrested upon landing on Soviet soil and executed.

And let us not forget that Miasnikov was already being denounced and imprisoned during Lenin's time.


People are not right or wrong. They can be right about some things and wrong about others - at the same time.Apparently this only applies if they oppose Stalin, like Khrushchev's "Secret Speech."


If they supported socialism in one country, then yes, they'd be Stalinists. Because that's what Stalinism is.Much in the same way Trotskyism, Stalin noted (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1937/03/03.htm), "ceased to be a political tendency within the working class, that from that political tendency within the working class which it was seven or eight years ago, Trotskyism has transformed into a frenzied and unprincipled band of wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, acting upon the instructions of the intelligence service organs of foreign states."


Oh, and Stalin killed more communists."Stalinists" in your definition excepting one guy you mentioned who no one particularly cares about.


No it wasn't, Stalinism was the triumph of the counter-revolution. the ideology of a party passing from the socialist movement into the camp of the bourgeoisie.No, the Khrushchevites oversaw the transformation of the CPSU from a Marxist-Leninist party into a revisionist, bourgeois party, a "party of the whole people" as Khrushchev termed it.


I'm sure you're very interested in the internal workings of the British Labour Party. It is after all a bourgeois social democratic party that oppresses the working class. Just up your street.If I ever became interested in them I'd just ask the many Trots around the world that are either deluded into thinking it is some sort of workers' party, or actually went so far as to practice entryism within it.

[Blake's Baby]

He was neither. To quote Hoxha, "The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Stalinists, thinking that they insult us and, in fact, that is what they have in mind. But, on the contrary, they glorify us with this epithet; it is an honor for us to be Stalinists for while we maintain such a stand the enemy cannot and will never force us to our knees." (Selected Works Vol. IV, pp. 234-235.) ...

Interesting technique. I talk about Kruschev, you talk about Hoxha.

Kruschev was a Stalinist. A Stalinist is someone who supports socialism in one country. Kruschev supported socialism in one country. Kruschev was a Stalinist.


...During the 1945-46 period the USSR was luring back lots of émigrés who they figured still posed a danger. For instance, around the time Miasnikov was taken to the USSR, Konstantin Rodzaevsky and a number of other White Guardists were promised a new start if they returned. Instead they arrested upon landing on Soviet soil and executed...

Interesting technique. I give you the name of a communist Stalin had murdered, after you pooh-poohed any such notion, and you reply with 'Stalin also killed rightists'.

So? Stalin had lots of people killed. Not all of them were communists. Also, not none of them were communists.


...And let us not forget that Miasnikov was already being denounced and imprisoned during Lenin's time...

Well, exactly. Because already, by Lenin's time, there were currents in the Bolshevik Party resisting its degeneration. UNfortunately, they lost, and Stalin (as the representative of the counter-revolution) won.


...Apparently this only applies if they oppose Stalin, like Khrushchev's "Secret Speech."...

Oh, no, Stalin was right too, sometimes. He was right that the way Russian national capitalism would survive was through becoming a superpower to challenge the USA.


...Much in the same way Trotskyism, Stalin noted (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1937/03/03.htm), "ceased to be a political tendency within the working class, that from that political tendency within the working class which it was seven or eight years ago, Trotskyism has transformed into a frenzied and unprincipled band of wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, acting upon the instructions of the intelligence service organs of foreign states."...

Not quite the same thing. Because Stalin's rantings are those of a paranoid megalomaniac in charge of a bourgeois state, whereas Trotsky's were those of a one-time revolutionary who was desperately trying to justify his previous failures, like Marlon Brando shouting 'I could have been a contender!'

What that has to do with the 'soviet revisionists' however is anyone's guess.


..."Stalinists" in your definition excepting one guy you mentioned who no one particularly cares about...

Every single person Stalin had killed was a supporter of socialism in one country? Are you seriously claiming that?


...No, the Khrushchevites oversaw the transformation of the CPSU from a Marxist-Leninist party into a revisionist, bourgeois party, a "party of the whole people" as Khrushchev termed it...

So? Marxism-Leninism is a bourgeois ideology. Why do I care when it was minutely altered so that everyone no longer had to genuflect to portraits of Comrade First Secretary Super-Moustache?


...If I ever became interested in them I'd just ask the many Trots around the world that are either deluded into thinking it is some sort of workers' party, or actually went so far as to practice entryism within it.

You love bourgeois parties. You're just deluded enough to think they're not bourgeois.

[Ismail]

Kruschev was a Stalinist. A Stalinist is someone who supports socialism in one country. Kruschev supported socialism in one country. Kruschev was a Stalinist.And I obviously don't agree with that stupid characterization.


Interesting technique. I give you the name of a communist Stalin had murdered, after you pooh-poohed any such notion, and you reply with 'Stalin also killed rightists'.You claim Stalin killed communists and you give me an irrelevancy. You see, at least Trots and the Soviet revisionists had a whole bunch of people they could classify as "communists." Left-coms just ape the Trot list of "people we'd almost certainly denounce as 'Stalinists' if they didn't bite the bullet in 1936-38," and when they leave this list you get a guy who was already viewed as someone worthy of imprisonment (and expulsion from the Party) under Lenin.


So? Stalin had lots of people killed. Not all of them were communists. Also, not none of them were communists.Anyone of importance, pretty much all the persons in the Trials, are "Stalinists" in your lexicon.


Well, exactly. Because already, by Lenin's time, there were currents in the Bolshevik Party resisting its degeneration. UNfortunately, they lost, and Stalin (as the representative of the counter-revolution) won.It is always amusing to hear so many left-communists pretend to "uphold" Lenin and contrast him to whoever came after. It is a bit reminiscent of Maoists who artificially divide Mao from his successors.


Not quite the same thing. Because Stalin's rantings are those of a paranoid megalomaniac in charge of a bourgeois state,Again, "paranoid megalomaniac" in the eyes of who? Khrushchev?


whereas Trotsky's were those of a one-time revolutionaryAs opposed to Stalin, whose political activity from the time he became a Bolshevik until 1917 apparently consisted of sitting around and not being a revolutionary.


who was desperately trying to justify his previous failures, like Marlon Brando shouting 'I could have been a contender!'His failures at taking over the Bolsheviks with his quasi-Menshevik politics, yes. While doing this he also communicated with the FBI (http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/trotsky.htm), had a plethora of liberals and "socialists" who later became anti-communists "defend" his name from the Moscow Trials, was a respectable figure in the Western anti-communist press, etc.


Every single person Stalin had killed was a supporter of socialism in one country? Are you seriously claiming that?Well this is where things get amusing because either:

1. Trotsky was right in his public utterances and practically the entire "Left" Opposition all "capitulated" to Stalin and abandoned their former views;
2. Most (certainly not the main figures) didn't and continued their conspiratorial activities which eventually culminated in the Moscow Trials.

Archival sources demonstrate that the latter was the case. In any case the existence of Trotskyist terrorist cells and whatnot was what the NKVD reported on, whereas no one cared about Trotsky's bastard version of "Permanent Revolution" after the economic successes achieved under the Five-Year Plan invalidated it (as Preobrazhensky among others publicly declared.)


So? Marxism-Leninism is a bourgeois ideology. Why do I care when it was minutely altered so that everyone no longer had to genuflect to portraits of Comrade First Secretary Super-Moustache?I know you don't care about anything of importance, that's why it's hard for anyone in turn to care about your tendency, one which can't come to grips with the fact that it's been irrelevant since the 20's.

Also Khrushchev's personality cult had little trouble supplanting the one built up around Stalin, of which Khrushchev had been one of the leading builders (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If I might interject, while certain Bolsheviks-Leninists criticise Stalin for the execution of former members of the Left Opposition, this is far from the point of the Trotskyist criticism of Stalin and other theoreticians of socialism in one country. And while the truth concerning the great purges is interesting from a historical perspective, their relevance to contemporary politics is, I think, marginal at best. Even if the purges were nothing more than a cynical attempt to get rid of all opposition, personally orchestrated by Stalin, modern Marxist-Leninists have no intention of ice-picking us Trotskyists in our sleep. On the other hand, even if there did exist a terrorist block of Trotskyists and Rightists, this is not the sort of "Trotskyism" that modern Bolsheviks-Leninists uphold.

(For what it's worth, I don't think the existence of a clandestine terrorist block of Trotskyists and Rightists is credible. That said, given that the Left Opposition associated with all sorts of renegades, Miasnikov included, and that Trotsky made some fucking idiotic statements, such as the one concerning Kirov's murder, I can understand how the Left Opposition as a whole became suspicious to the organs of state security.)

And of course, criticising Stalin because the Soviet Union executed people, even communists, is nothing more than a social-democratic criticism.

[Old Bolshie]

Again, "paranoid megalomaniac" in the eyes of who? Khrushchev?



Stalin was actually diagnosed with “typical clinical form of paranoia” in 1927 by the leading psychiatrist/neurologist Doctor Bekhterev.

[Blake's Baby]

And I obviously don't agree with that stupid characterization...

Which is why you fail to say anything of merit.


...
And of course, criticising Stalin because the Soviet Union executed people, even communists, is nothing more than a social-democratic criticism.

Classic.

By that token, opposing the counter-revolution is counter-revolutionary. Brilliant.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Classic.

By that token, opposing the counter-revolution is counter-revolutionary. Brilliant.

Except that revolutionaries do not oppose the counter-revolution because it kills people, but because it aims to destroy the progress made by the revolution. In order to preserve the revolution, no sacrifice is too great, and petty casuistry is inimical to revolutionary resolve. So certain people were executed while Stalin was the Secretary General, or the chairman of the Soviet of Ministers. What of it? Our assessment of Stalin should not be influenced by that - if the Soviet Union "under Stalin" pursued a consistently revolutionary policy, well, you can't make an omelet without having a few people shot. Or something to that effect. Conversely, if the Soviet Union pursued a confused policy that was at times contrary to the objective interests of the revolution, it would not matter even if the death penalty was abolished, if free candy was given to the opposition and so on.

[Blake's Baby]

What about if it was a bourgeois state that was consistently counter-revolutionary and murdered communists, as well as millions of others?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What about if it was a bourgeois state that was consistently counter-revolutionary [...] ?

Then revolutionary leftists should condemn it, even if it has abolished the death penalty.

[Ismail]

Stalin was actually diagnosed with “typical clinical form of paranoia” in 1927 by the leading psychiatrist/neurologist Doctor Bekhterev.A friend of Dmitri Shostakovich's family claimed this to him. The revisionists then used it in their campaign to denigrate Stalin. That's seemingly the only evidence of this event ever happening.

[Old Bolshie]

A friend of Dmitri Shostakovich's family claimed this to him. The revisionists then used it in their campaign to denigrate Stalin. That's seemingly the only evidence of this event ever happening.

It would be difficult to find any evidence of it since the referred Doctor Bekhterev died in the next day and I assume that Stalin would have wanted to eliminate any evidence of such diagnosis.

[Ismail]

It would be difficult to find any evidence of it since the referred Doctor Bekhterev died in the next day and I assume that Stalin would have wanted to eliminate any evidence of such diagnosis.Good news, I emailed ol' Grover Furr and he noted that Bakhterev's granddaughter (a member of the Academy of Sciences) said in 1995 that the claim was bullshit and that in the late 80's the Soviet government was pressuring her to say otherwise. See her comments on the subject at: http://www.e-reading-lib.org/chapter.php/99198/7/Martirosyan_2_Stalin_i_repressii_1920-h___1930-h_gg..html

This was, of course, during Gorbachev's "return to Leninism" which, like Khrushchev's, intended to blot out anything positive about Stalin.

[Old Bolshie]

Good news, I emailed ol' Grover Furr and he noted that Bakhterev's granddaughter (a member of the Academy of Sciences) said in 1995 that the claim was bullshit and that in the late 80's the Soviet government was pressuring her to say otherwise. See her comments on the subject at: http://www.e-reading-lib.org/chapter.php/99198/7/Martirosyan_2_Stalin_i_repressii_1920-h___1930-h_gg..html

This was, of course, during Gorbachev's "return to Leninism" which, like Khrushchev's, intended to blot out anything positive about Stalin.

She says that she would know if her grandfather had diagnosed Stalin with paranoia but once again how would anyone know if he was poisoned hours later? I am sure that all the records regarding it would have been destroyed immediately.

[Blake's Baby]

So, larimar1212, are you any clearer yet as to whether 'Leninism' and 'Trotskyism' are synonymous?