Why is stalinism considered equivilent to (and not an extension of) marxism-eninism?

[Skyhilist]

Stalinists often refer to themselves as "Marxist-leninists". I don't understand this. Maoists, for example, recognize that Mao's ideas were an extension of Lenin's, so they refer to themselves as Maoists (or Marxist-Leninist-Maoists), rather than simply "Marxist-Leninists". Seeing as Stalin's ideas were also an extension of Lenin's, why do stalinists refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninists (as if Stalin and Lenin were equivalent or something). Why don't they call themselves Marxist-Leninists-Stalinists and use "Stalinists" as shorthard, rather than just calling themselves M-Ls?

[Brutus]

Stalin was the first to coin the term "Marxism-Leninism". It was a claim for legitimacy, like Trotskyism being called "Bolshevist-Leninism".

[Art Vandelay]

Marxists-Leninists reject the term Stalinism, cause they interpret Stalin as continuing on the traditions of both Marx and Lenin. It was first used as a term, following Lenin's death as an attempt to appropriate the legacy of Lenin. Maoists, use the term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, cause they considered it the qualitative addition to Marxism-Leninism. Now whether or not Stalin or Mao's theoretical contributions had anything to do with Marxism, is obviously quite contentious.

[Red Economist]

"Stalinist" was a term used primarily by opponents of Stalin who wanted to distinguish between Stalin and Lenin (particularly Trotsky). The 'continuity' issue between Lenin and Stalin is a central one for deriving ideological legitimacy between Stalinists/Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyists, and to a lesser extent left communists who supported the October revolution, but not the authoritarianism of Lenin and Stalin. As a term "Stalinism" consequently has strong negative connotations of authoritarian rule, or certainly as much more authoritarian than Lenin (and/or what people hoped Trotsky would have been).

Stalin seized on the public response to Lenin's death, and wrote the Foundations of Leninism, which was where he established the ideological orthodoxy and his ideological authority as heir to Lenin and then proceeded to consolidate power through the twenties by ousting his major opponents. Marxism-Leninism is essentially derived from this point as the official communist orthodoxy of the soviet union, where as 'trotskyism' (and virtually anything else) was labeled a 'petit bourgeois' deviation (i.e. a secret liberal trying to undermine the communist party from within and ultimately supporting counter-revolution).
Marxism-Leninism was subsequently changed over the soviet union, so there are 'internal disputes' as well. (e.g. Anti-revisionists who objected to Khrushchev's reforms and de-stalinisation as the start of the degeneration of the Soviet Union, vs. those who would support the efforts at liberalization). Officially, Gorbachev would have been a Marxist-Leninist simply because he belonged to the ideological tradition of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (though anti-revisionists would disown him as a 'counter-revolutionary').

[Skyhilist]

Marxists-Leninists reject the term Stalinism, cause they interpret Stalin as continuing on the traditions of both Marx and Lenin.

But don't Maoists interpret Mao as continuing on the traditions of both Marx and Lenin? They don't reject the term Maoism though since it's shorthand for M-L-M. So going by that, why would stalinists see it as bad to use "stalinism" as shorthand for M-L-S?


It was first used as a term, following Lenin's death as an attempt to appropriate the legacy of Lenin. Maoists, use the term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, cause they considered it the qualitative addition to Marxism-Leninism.

If Stalin coined the term to appropriate Lenin's legacy but what Stalin did was an addition to what Lenin did (and not the same thing), doesn't that mean Stalin's coining of the word Marxist-Leninism and use of it in context was somewhat dishonest? And if so, why would Stalinists want to continue to use this term?

Also, let me get this straight:
Stalinism = Marxist-Leninism
Maoism = Marxist-Leninism + Mao
therefore, Maoism = Stalin + Mao
But how could you have both Stalin + Mao combined into one philosophy? Wouldn't that be contradictory given that Stalin and Mao disagreed on some things?


Now whether or not Stalin or Mao's theoretical contributions had anything to do with Marxism, is obviously quite contentious.

Indeed

[Brutus]

Maoists see themselves as continuing the line of Stalin (thus the line of Lenin, etc.). Of course, those who uphold purely Hoxha see Mao as a revisionist and right wing deviator or something like that. Cue ismail...

[Skyhilist]

Maoists see themselves as continuing the line of Stalin (thus the line of Lenin, etc.).

Well that might make sense for historically for older Maoists, but how would that make any sense for current Maoists, or for that matter any Maoists after the Sino-Soviet split?

I mean after that there were certain things where supporting Stalin and supporting Mao were mutually exclusive. So in those instances, how could a MAOist possibly see themselves as "continuing the line of Stalin"?


Of course, those who uphold purely Hoxha see Mao as a revisionist and right wing deviator or something like that. Cue ismail...

sounds accurate lol

[Brutus]

The sino-soviet split was (Officially) about ideological differences. Mao upheld Stalin, Khrushchev didn't. I can't answer for maoists, so I'm not much use with the other questions.

[Ismail]

Obviously the term "Marxism-Leninism" was self-applied to pretty much every single self-described "socialist" country ever, from Cuba to Vietnam, from China to (until 1992) the DPRK, from South Yemen to Yugoslavia, etc.

Likewise in the USSR Khrushchev declared that Stalin had departed from "Leninist norms" and that the 20th Party Congress thus constituted a "defense" of Marxism-Leninism. This position was upheld by all of his successors. Gorbachev, too, was nominally a Marxist-Leninist until July 1991 when he moved to jettison the term from the Party's statues. Of course actions matter more than words.

Here's a bit from a 1968 Soviet work which sums up the revisionist claims about Stalin:

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.Anyway, the reason "Stalinist" is not used is because Stalin never claimed his theoretical work as having "advanced" Marxism-Leninism to a qualitatively higher stage. Just as Hoxha, who also contributed to Marxist-Leninist theory, never made such claims of himself. "Mao Zedong Thought" is a right-wing deviation from Marxism-Leninism, formed in opposition to the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

The term "Leninist-Stalinist" was used in the USSR and elsewhere during the 30's-50's, but in the context of Stalin's personal imprint on various fields such as organizational norms, military theory, etc. and not as an ideological extension.

[Brutus]

"Mao Zedong Thought" is a right-wing deviation from Marxism-Leninism, formed in opposition to the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
Could you expand on why it is opposed to Marxism-Leninism? That's really what I was going for when I cued you. ;)1

[Skyhilist]

"Mao Zedong Thought" is a right-wing deviation from Marxism-Leninism, formed in opposition to the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

Wait so the philosophy that's supposed to be an extension of Stalin (and therefore Marxist-Leninism) is somehow in opposition to all Stalin, Marx, AND Lenin? Could you please explain that?

[Ismail]

Could you expand on why it is opposed to Marxism-Leninism? That's really what I was going for when I cued you. ;)1The theory of "New Democracy" was meant to justify class-collaborationism. His "two lines in the party" was meant to justify tolerance for right-wing factions. His "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" essentially liquidated the leading role of the party in all fields and extolled the leading role of the army and students as opposed to the working-class. His "Three Worlds Theory" was designed to justify an alliance with US imperialism, an alliance of which he had been aiming for since the 40's (http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/cousml-neo/part4.htm).

Stalin strongly distrusted Mao and, by Mao's own admission, saw him as a Tito-type figure. Stalin warned the CPC that it had strong nationalist elements within it which would strangle the party if not checked. That prediction was obviously manifest as the years progressed.

Hoxha's critique of Maoism remains a basic text on the subject: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/imperialism-and-revolution/part2/III.pdf


Wait so the philosophy that's supposed to be an extension of Stalin (and therefore Marxist-Leninism) is somehow in opposition to all Stalin, Marx, AND Lenin? Could you please explain that?Juche was supposedly (until it was eventually elevated as its own thing) the "creative development" of Marxism-Leninism in the conditions of the Korean revolution. Obviously that was not the case. Likewise Yugoslav "self-management," Castroism, etc. were all presented as "creative developments" of Marxism-Leninism. Revisionism would not be so if it did not claim allegiance to Marxism-Leninism and socialism in some way.

[Brutus]

@Skybutton
Maoists believe their line to be a continuation of Stalin's (Et al) line, for example:
http://chineseposters.net/images/g2-26.jpg

Those who uphold Hoxha tend to hold Ismail's view, although some people uphold both Mao and Hoxha, seeing them both as Marxist-Leninists.

[Skyhilist]

Interesting. The argument over "this person was/wasn't M-L and therefore wrong" seems to be really internal though seeing as it almost seems to presuppose that M-Lism is the superior of all socialist philosophies to begin with. I mean, suppose you and your friend find ice cream to be the tastiest food and get into an argument about whether or not sorbet counts as a type of ice cream. Whether it does or not wouldn't really prove or disprove that sorbet tastes good, so is that really a type of argument worth having?

[Ismail]

I mean, suppose you and your friend find ice cream to be the tastiest food and get into an argument about whether or not sorbet counts as a type of ice cream. Whether it does or not wouldn't really prove or disprove that sorbet tastes good, so is that really a type of argument worth having?I'm pretty sure the dispute over whether or not the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" was the greatest advance towards communism ever achieved and that every country must go through a similar process is a bit more important than whether sorbet is ice cream or not, not to mention things like the "foco" theory of Castro and Che (which substituted a bunch of "heroic" guerrilla fighters for the proletarian vanguard), the "non-capitalist path" proposed by the Soviet revisionists (wherein Ba'athist Iraq and Syria, Burma under Ne Win, India, etc. were supposedly laying the foundations for socialism with "revolutionary democrats" at the head of these countries standing in for the proletariat), and so on.

[Skyhilist]

I'm pretty sure the dispute over whether or not the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" was the greatest advance towards communism ever achieved and that every country must go through a similar process is a bit more important than whether sorbet is ice cream or not

It was a metaphor... I wasn't equivocating sorbet and communism obviously.

My point was, shouldn't whether or not something has a chance of advancing us towards communism be considered more important than whether or not something can technically be considered Marxist-Leninism?


not to mention things like the "foco" theory of Castro and Che (which substituted a bunch of "heroic" guerrilla fighters for the proletarian vanguard), the "non-capitalist path" proposed by the Soviet revisionists (wherein Ba'athist Iraq and Syria, Burma under Ne Win, India, etc. were supposedly laying the foundations for socialism with "revolutionary democrats" at the head of these countries standing in for the proletariat), and so on.

Right, I don't see anything wrong with that criticism (other than the used of the word "revisionist" to basically mean "everyone who acts left wing but is actually wrong") But the initial criticism was that the were wrong because they "opposed" Stalin, Mao, and Marx. The argument shouldn't be over whether they're in the right category, in my opinion, but over whether or not their actions alone were helpful or hurtful (without denouncing all actions of an entire person because they weren't in category x, y, or z, which seems to detract from the ability to judge that person's individual actions separately).

[synthesis]

I just want to say that I like Ismail's posts in this thread, as it seems to be very hard to find critiques of the ideologies under the "Stalinist" umbrella that evince a sense of historical materialism and not simply anarchist/Trotskyist moralizing.

[Ismail]

My point was, shouldn't whether or not something has a chance of advancing us towards communism be considered more important than whether or not something can technically be considered Marxist-Leninism?Marxism-Leninism is the most advanced doctrine available to the working-class. Of course all sorts of figures can fight for progress in their own way, despite their limitations (such as anarchists, syndicalists, etc.) but when it comes to the proletarian revolution, the construction of a socialist society and the triumph of communism on a world scale, the individual actions of well-meaning persons are obviously not sufficient.


Right, I don't see anything wrong with that criticism (other than the used of the word "revisionist" to basically mean "everyone who acts left wing but is actually wrong")Declaring that Nasser was objectively moving Egypt onto a socialist road and that Egyptian Communists should liquidate their party and join his was not "left-wing." Nor was declaring that "new circumstances" (i.e. nuclear weapons) invalidated Lenin's thesis that wars were inevitable under imperialism. Both these and other "innovations" launched by Khrushchev and continued by his successors were right-wing policies using "left-wing" rhetoric, just as Kautsky's siding with German imperialism in WWI was covered by all sorts of "socialist" justifications, and Bernstein declared his continued "allegiance" to Marxism while attacking its fundamental aspects.


But the initial criticism was that the were wrong because they "opposed" Stalin, Mao, and Marx. The argument shouldn't be over whether they're in the right category, in my opinion, but over whether or not their actions alone were helpful or hurtful (without denouncing all actions of an entire person because they weren't in category x, y, or z, which seems to detract from the ability to judge that person's individual actions separately).The Soviet revisionist, Chinese, Yugoslav, etc. attacks on Stalin had ulterior motives. You can't separate these attacks from the right-wing policies these revisionists pursued. Both Khrushchev and Gorbachev, for instance, prefaced every policy of theirs as a "return to Leninism."

[Hivemind]

Marxism-Leninism is the most advanced doctrine available to the working-class.

If this is the case then humanity is doomed :cool:

[Comrade Jacob]

It should really be called "Marxist-Engelist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maosit", but that is too damn long.

[Teacher]

Ismail it sounds to me like you are understanding the Maoist period entirely through reading the critiques of its opponents. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I also think you are way too dismissive of the accomplishments of the Maoist period. For example, rightists and enemy classes were suppressed during the Mao period, despite whatever implications you draw from Mao's texts. Mao never did anything as "rightist" or class collaborationist as the NEP -- should we throw Lenin on the garbage heap too?

I agree that the Chinese foreign policy was off the rails.

[Ismail]

For example, rightists and enemy classes were suppressed during the Mao period, despite whatever implications you draw from Mao's texts.It was Deng who Mao rehabilitated and sent to the UN to announce the "Three Worlds Theory." Mao's closest confidant, Zhou Enlai, was likewise a rightist ("rightist" in this case meaning those who were against the "leftist" Gang of Four.) Mao's "Hundred Flowers" campaign was one of many examples of him trying to woo rightists within and outside of the party.

Throughout the 50's Mao and Co. blatantly defended the Chinese bourgeoisie against the working-class, with Mao considering the contradictions between both as being "among the people" (i.e. reconcilable) rather than antagonistic. One pamphlet which discuses this in detail (and from a position otherwise sympathetic to Mao, no less) can be DLed here: http://www.sendspace.com/file/5tsu4k

An Albanian analysis of Chinese state-capitalism throughout the Maoist period can be found here: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/chinecon.htm


Mao never did anything as "rightist" or class collaborationist as the NEP -- should we throw Lenin on the garbage heap too?The fact that you consider the NEP "class-collaborationist" shows your fundamental ignorance of what it was. It seems that Maoists cannot go very far without attacking Lenin and Stalin, anything to justify their defense of Mao.

[kowalskil]

Stalinists often refer to themselves as "Marxist-leninists". I don't understand this. Maoists, for example, recognize that Mao's ideas were an extension of Lenin's, so they refer to themselves as Maoists (or Marxist-Leninist-Maoists), rather than simply "Marxist-Leninists". Seeing as Stalin's ideas were also an extension of Lenin's, why do stalinists refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninists (as if Stalin and Lenin were equivalent or something). Why don't they call themselves Marxist-Leninists-Stalinists and use "Stalinists" as shorthard, rather than just calling themselves M-Ls?

Probaly because Stalin, who controlled everything in the USSR, wanted to be seen as a "modest" person.

Ludwik Kowalski,

author of "Diary of a Former Communist" (FREE ONLINE BOOK, Google will provide the link)

[Ismail]

Probaly because Stalin, who controlled everything in the USSR, wanted to be seen as a "modest" person.Or maybe it's because Leninism, as Stalin noted, was Marxism in the epoch of imperialism. Stalin defended and contributed to Marxism-Leninism in that same epoch, expanding upon Lenin's theories through the vantage point of overseeing the construction of socialism in the USSR, the rise of fascism in the world and the response to it, etc. In fact the revisionists mainly attacked Stalin for his supposed "dogmatism" and "mechanical" understanding of phenomena.