A Few Questions.

[littleredcircus]

Hi,

I hope you are all well.

Lately I've been doing a lot of in depth thinking about my politcal beliefs and have come across some questions that I wondered if you could help me with.

Up until a few months ago I was a member of the Socialist Appeal (Uk branch of the IMT) However I recently became disillusioned with them as time after time I would be presented with nothing but dogma and Idealism.

I also severely disagreed with them on other issues such as not being open about marxist beliefs. I my opinion they prefer entryism and secrecy and I prefer being open and honest, while still having respect for people who may not always agree with me. I also fought bitterly for left unity to which they didn't want to entertain. I would work with any kind of socialist to achieve the end-goals of marxism.

After this lengthy start the questions I would like to ask are:

* Do you think its possible to be a Marxist (not an armchair activist) without belonging to or totally agreeing with a group such as SA or IMT?

* Is it possible to just be a M-L or marxist without being a Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, or any other kind of ist.

* is it possible to be just an economic Marxist without agreeing with EVERYTHING that Marx wrote ? i.e materialism etc (just hypothetically speaking) as I know someone who is like this.

* Could Lenin be considered a revisionist? as he did adapt Marxism for the times.

I am grateful for all of your responses.

Thank you.

*

[MarxSchmarx]

I am well. Here are my answers to your questions




* Do you think its possible to be a Marxist (not an armchair activist) without belonging to or totally agreeing with a group such as SA or IMT?


Yes. There are plenty of groups (CWI for one) who work closely with for instance union members who are not party members.




* Is it possible to just be a M-L or marxist without being a Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, or any other kind of ist.



You want to be a marx-IST without being "any kind of ist"? There are leninists i believe who reject both Trotsky and Stalin but they are few and far between and I don't know of any IRL org that's like this. There are more Marxists who reject Lenin and his descendents.





* is it possible to be just an economic Marxist without agreeing with EVERYTHING that Marx wrote ? i.e materialism etc (just hypothetically speaking) as I know someone who is like this.


Yes, most people call this "Marxian" rather than "Marxism". But I think you would be hard pressed to find anybody (Engels included) who agrees with "EVERYTHING that Marx wrote."




* Could Lenin be considered a revisionist? as he did adapt Marxism for the times.


I would consi8der pming a user that goes by Die Neue Zeit, they introduced me to Lars Lih and his book "Lenin Reconsidered" that goes into this question to some depth. DNZ I know has given this a lot of thought although they aren't the only one. They are also reasonably up-to-date on the latest historical scholarship on how much Lenin borrowed from Marx and how much Lenin modified Marx.

[Skyhilist]

I think that you would find Autonomous Marxism to be quite appealing. Anyways, the answers to all of your questions is a resounding "yes", except for the last one, which although I'd also say yes to, is far more subjective and up to interpretation.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Hey OP!
As a general rule, I think it's best to avoid quibbling over what is or isn't "Maxism" or "Marxist", let alone what is "revisionist" or not. For one, I would hope that there would be some "revisions" to communist theory over the past twelve decades, and, for that matter, I'm relatively certain Marx would agree.
What is "central" to Marx - the "core" of Marxist analysis that sets it apart - is a matter of some dispute (and even further with attempts to periodize Marx's writing from humanist "Young Marx" through grouchy old anti-humanist economist Marx).
So, what's an aspiring Marxist to do? "Discover the truth through practice," as a certain Marxist of some ill repute put it. ;)

[blake 3:17]

Open and honest? Awesome! That doesn't mean that in every meeting you need to declare your commitment to world revolution and very precise analyses of w, x, y, and z.

You don't need to be part of a sect to be a Marxist, though going to some of their talks can be good learning opportunities.

[Red Economist]

* Do you think its possible to be a Marxist (not an armchair activist) without belonging to or totally agreeing with a group such as SA or IMT?

I'd hope so (but I haven't been a member of a party so far). having amicable disagreement is a healthy sign that a party is capable of development and is not just 'liberalism'. If they need you to agree 100% with the party line or they otherwise stop you from dissenting without giving you the opportunity to explain your views, it's a good time to leave.


* Is it possible to just be a M-L or marxist without being a Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, or any other kind of ist.

yes, but each of the current 'isms' raises important questions. In the main I say it depends on how you respond to questions like the class character of the soviet union and the existing 'communist states'; e.g. was it a degenerated worker's state, a socialist state, some form of bourgeois state capitalism etc. each has their own respective answer, though they do overlap occasionally (e.g. accusing the Soviet Union of being state capitalist comes up under neo-trotskyist and anti-revisionist/maoist ideologies)

(p.s. M-L is usually the same as Stalinist, but Khrushchev did make some changes to it in the 50's such as 'peaceful co-existence' between the Socialist and Capitalist Camps).


* is it possible to be just an economic Marxist without agreeing with EVERYTHING that Marx wrote ? i.e materialism etc (just hypothetically speaking) as I know someone who is like this.

Yes. being able to disagree with Marx is a good thing because it means your not following a personality cult, but up to a point. every ideology does have it's "breaking point" when the integrity of it's beliefs simply breakdown and they are no logically consistent.
I'd put the line on dialectics, since without dialectics you cannot explain the 'motion' within society that will lead to a revolution. (This is a very conservative and orthodox point of view from the ML's).

If the problem is you think marx was right about the problem (capitalism) and wrong about the solution (communism), an 'economic' Marxism focusing on criticizing the existing structures of society, rather than the changes within them, will do.


* Could Lenin be considered a revisionist? as he did adapt Marxism for the times.

it's possible. he definitely revised Marxism; what you have to decide is whether he revised it in such a way as to make it less revolutionary/more bourgeoisie.
This is not the same as saying he made it more 'right-wing' (i.e. the capitalists and workers must work together, capitalism will evolve into socialism etc.), as sometimes it happens it is too 'left-wing' to be practical and is therefore a form of bourgeois abstraction alienated from practice (i.e. Lenin made the argument that not participating in parliaments was such a case).

[Brotto Rühle]

Hi,

I hope you are all well.

Lately I've been doing a lot of in depth thinking about my politcal beliefs and have come across some questions that I wondered if you could help me with.


Up until a few months ago I was a member of the Socialist Appeal (Uk branch of the IMT) However I recently became disillusioned with them as time after time I would be presented with nothing but dogma and Idealism.I hear that quite a bit.


I also severely disagreed with them on other issues such as not being open about marxist beliefs. I my opinion they prefer entryism and secrecy and I prefer being open and honest, while still having respect for people who may not always agree with me. I also fought bitterly for left unity to which they didn't want to entertain. I would work with any kind of socialist to achieve the end-goals of marxism. Left Unity is a pipe dream, and it's quite frankly irrelevant. What matters is class unity, and the struggle of the proletariat against capital. Not whether we can have Stalinists work with trots, or council communists with Kautskyists.


After this lengthy start the questions I would like to ask are:

* Do you think its possible to be a Marxist (not an armchair activist) without belonging to or totally agreeing with a group such as SA or IMT?Yes, I do. I agree and disagree at the same time with many groups. Such as the ICC and MHI. Many people want to push their party or organization down your throat, don't get sucked in.


* Is it possible to just be a M-L or marxist without being a Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, or any other kind of ist. MLs are Stalinists. But, to answer the question, yes. You don't have to adopt every theory of one person or group. You can take Trotskys permanent revolution, The Marxist Humanist theory of state capitalism in the ussr, agree with Lenins vanguard party, reject his theory of imperialism in favour of Luxemburgs, etc.


* is it possible to be just an economic Marxist without agreeing with EVERYTHING that Marx wrote ? i.e materialism etc (just hypothetically speaking) as I know someone who is like this.Do you mean reject the political things Marx said? You can, anarchists usually take marxs economics and reject everything else out of misunderstanding.


* Could Lenin be considered a revisionist? as he did adapt Marxism for the times.Making an analysis of the present conditions doesn't make you a revisionist. Only when the views are contrary to Marx, with shoddy or no analysis. Do you think Marx's opinion on Irish independence would be the same today?

[Fred]

Hi,

I hope you are all well.

Lately I've been doing a lot of in depth thinking about my politcal beliefs and have come across some questions that I wondered if you could help me with.

Up until a few months ago I was a member of the Socialist Appeal (Uk branch of the IMT) However I recently became disillusioned with them as time after time I would be presented with nothing but dogma and Idealism.

I also severely disagreed with them on other issues such as not being open about marxist beliefs. I my opinion they prefer entryism and secrecy and I prefer being open and honest, while still having respect for people who may not always agree with me. I also fought bitterly for left unity to which they didn't want to entertain. I would work with any kind of socialist to achieve the end-goals of marxism.
*

QUOTE]* Do you think its possible to be a Marxist (not an armchair activist) without belonging to or totally agreeing with a group such as SA or IMT?
[/QUOTE]
I am very well, thank you comrade. Enjoying my second coffee this morning.

To address your questions:

In the abstract, maybe. But a I do think you need to be in a Leninist organization to have any hope of fighting successfully for proletarian revolution. As an individual, you just don't have any way of proceeding to effect change. I will grant that the far left is miniscule in most places. However, you can't choose the historical circumstances you are dealing with and that is the current state of affairs. I don't know what you mean by "idealism and dogmatism." I am a Trotskyist -- closest politically to the ICL. A group that you might also find "dogmatic." But I do agree that you should be able to raise differences within a group and that whenever possible, it is better, and even safer, to be upfront to the public about where the group stands. The idea that you can somehow bring people around inch by inch has marginal relationship to reality -- and it is kind of cynical. Quite a few left groups operate that way including some ostensibly Trotskyist groups. In unions it is a setup for redbaiting -- people feel like the comrades are trying to fool them.


* Is it possible to just be a M-L or marxist without being a Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, or any other kind of ist.


IMO, Trotskyism is merely a continuation and expansion of Marxism and Leninism. Certainly Trotsky collaborated more closely with Lenin from 1917 until Lenin's death than anyone else. Stalinsm/Maoism are conservative/nationalistic deviations from Marxism.


* is it possible to be just an economic Marxist without agreeing with EVERYTHING that Marx wrote ? i.e materialism etc (just hypothetically speaking) as I know someone who is like this.

As the comrade above put it so well, nobody agrees with everything Marx wrote. I doubt that Marx believe in everything Marx wrote. And in theory, one might agree with his economic works but disagree with his philosophy. But you would not be a Marxist in that case. Also, historically, everyone who tries to do this winds up supporting "better" forms of capitalism.


* Could Lenin be considered a revisionist? as he did adapt Marxism for the times.


Good question. Did he revise some of Marx's works? Well you might say that. But his revisions were not only in the spirit of Marx, but used Marx's methodology and were consistent with it. And the deeds of Lenin and the Bolsheviks were revolutionary, at least prior to the ascendance of the Soviet bureaucracy in 1924. The term "revisionist" is used as an epithet in the Marxist world and is taken to mean that someone has turned away from Marxist methodology

This is in VERY SHARP CONTRAST to someone like Kautsky, who played an absolutely horrible role in the German SPD, allowing reformism to take over the party and destroy it. (Which was perhaps the single biggest calamity to the world's revolutionary movement ever). I still scratch my head about the recent efforts to rehabilitate Kautsky. While some of his writings are worthwhile, in practice, he failed, and turned against the Russian Revolution at its birth. His party, instead of leading the proletariat to power in Europe, helped lead them to their slaughter in WWI. One should study Kautsky to learn what not to do.

[Red_Banner]

I hear that quite a bit.

Left Unity is a pipe dream, and it's quite frankly irrelevant. What matters is class unity, and the struggle of the proletariat against capital. Not whether we can have Stalinists work with trots, or council communists with Kautskyists.

Yes, I do. I agree and disagree at the same time with many groups. Such as the ICC and MHI. Many people want to push their party or organization down your throat, don't get sucked in.

MLs are Stalinists. But, to answer the question, yes. You don't have to adopt every theory of one person or group. You can take Trotskys permanent revolution, The Marxist Humanist theory of state capitalism in the ussr, agree with Lenins vanguard party, reject his theory of imperialism in favour of Luxemburgs, etc.

Do you mean reject the political things Marx said? You can, anarchists usually take marxs economics and reject everything else out of misunderstanding.

Making an analysis of the present conditions doesn't make you a revisionist. Only when the views are contrary to Marx, with shoddy or no analysis. Do you think Marx's opinion on Irish independence would be the same today?



MLs are Stalinists.

I'm not Stalinist.

[Brotto Rühle]

I'm not Stalinist.

You're not an ML.

Socialism in one country? Yes or no.

[Comrade Jacob]

1. I don't know much about those groups.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. He added to it he didn't take anything away, that's not revisionist.

[Red_Banner]

You're not an ML.

Socialism in one country? Yes or no.


Funny, I support Lenin on the idea of a Proletarian Mililita.

Am I atleast part Leninist.

"Socialism in one country? Yes or no."

It is not as simple as yes or no.

“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”-Lenin

[Blake's Baby]

...

"Socialism in one country? Yes or no."

It is not as simple as yes or no.

“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”-Lenin

That quote doesn't answer the question.

The question is, 'do you think that an isolated bastion can become socialist?', not 'should the revolution begin somewhere?'.

It doesn't matter if you think the USSR was the dictatorship of the proletariat or in fact a state-capitalist prison; the question revolves around whether the dictatorship of the proletariat, limited in space, is 'socialism' or not (ie, socialism is a world-wide society after the abolition of classes). So, it's not even about whether 'Socialism in one Country' was established, it's about whether it's possible. One could say that Stalin failed to establish socialism in Russia, and still be a Stalinist, if one thought that by applying different combinations of policy socialism could have been established in Russia (or anywhere else, by Mao or Hoxha or Tito or Castro or Pol Pot or whoever).

So; socialism in one country - yes or no?

[Red_Banner]

That quote doesn't answer the question.

The question is, 'do you think that an isolated bastion can become socialist?', not 'should the revolution begin somewhere?'.

It doesn't matter if you think the USSR was the dictatorship of the proletariat or in fact a state-capitalist prison; the question revolves around whether the dictatorship of the proletariat, limited in space, is 'socialism' or not (ie, socialism is a world-wide society after the abolition of classes). So, it's not even about whether 'Socialism in one Country' was established, it's about whether it's possible. One could say that Stalin failed to establish socialism in Russia, and still be a Stalinist, if one thought that by applying different combinations of policy socialism could have been established in Russia (or anywhere else, by Mao or Hoxha or Tito or Castro or Pol Pot or whoever).

So; socialism in one country - yes or no?


Yes an isolated bastion can become socialist, but socialism ≠ communism.

So while an isolated state can be socialist, it is detrimental just to only have it there and not spread it.
And without spreading it, complacency makes your country an easy target for capitalists.

Socialism is only a road to communism, not the end.

[Brotto Rühle]

Yes an isolated bastion can become socialist, but socialism ≠ communism.

So while an isolated state can be socialist, it is detrimental just to only have it there and not spread it.
And without spreading it, complacency makes your country an easy target for capitalists.

Socialism is only a road to communism, not the end.You agree with the Stalinist revisionist theory that socialism is a separate society from communism. Ergo, you're a Stalinist.

Who do you think came up with the term "Marxist-Leninist"?

[Blake's Baby]

Yes an isolated bastion can become socialist, but socialism ≠ communism.

So while an isolated state can be socialist, it is detrimental just to only have it there and not spread it.
And without spreading it, complacency makes your country an easy target for capitalists.

Socialism is only a road to communism, not the end.

OK, so what is socialism? You have to realise that for most of us (because we're Marxists) socialism = communism.

If you define it differently, then the question becomes, 'is communism (lower and/or higher stage) in one country possible?'

If the answer is 'yes' then you're a Stalinist.

[Marxaveli]

Yes an isolated bastion can become socialist, but socialism ≠ communism.

So while an isolated state can be socialist, it is detrimental just to only have it there and not spread it.
And without spreading it, complacency makes your country an easy target for capitalists.

Socialism is only a road to communism, not the end.

This is contradictory, and doesnt answer the question. You cannot have socialism in one country, because the capitalist states will always be a threat to your sovereignty, thus making the possibility of building socialism an impossibility. Although there are other factors, this was a big reason (if not the primary one) as to why all the states that attempted socialism in one country turned into state capitalist regimes.

So can socialism in one country work? yes or no.

Also, socialism and communism are used interchangeably unless you are a Leninist. To be a socialist is to be a communist, and vice versa.

[bluemangroup]

OK, so what is socialism? You have to realise that for most of us (because we're Marxists) socialism = communism.

If you define it differently, then the question becomes, 'is communism (lower and/or higher stage) in one country possible?'

If the answer is 'yes' then you're a Stalinist.

IMHO the lower stage of communism (socialism) is possible. And no, that doesn't make me a Stalinist.

First of all, throwing around the label Stalinist to describe any Marxist who believes that, say, in the USSR socialism was a reality is childish. It's an attempt to take a controversial term and to apply it to a whole group of people (i.e. Marxists who believe in the existence of socialism in a country or countries at one point in time) carelessly.

Do I believe that the USSR was socialist? Yes. Does that make me a Stalinist? No.


This is contradictory, and doesnt answer the question. You cannot have socialism in one country, because the capitalist states will always be a threat to your sovereignty, thus making the possibility of building socialism an impossibility. Although there are other factors, this was a big reason (if not the primary one) as to why all the states that attempted socialism in one country turned into state capitalist regimes.

Yes you can IMHO have socialism in one country (keeping in mind the fact that the Soviet leadership under Stalin actively worked with revolutionaries abroad in China to foment a revolution in the east while hoping for a late German revolution as well).

Socialism was-is-an international cause. We all reach socialism (and consequently communism) or none of us do. The Soviet Union, seeing as to how it was surrounded by capitalist powers (and later Nazi Germany) who wanted its destruction it did pretty well in adapting Marxism to Russian (Soviet) conditions after the October Revolution of 1917.

As a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (i.e. someone who studies the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.) I'd have to strongly disagree that the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and so forth were state-capitalist. The Soviet Union was arguably state-capitalist under the New Economic Policy, but was socialist after the implementation of the Five Year-Plan.

IMHO its idealism to assert that socialism never existed, and that the 20th century attempts at building socialism can be chalked up to state-capitalism in red garb.

[Brotto Rühle]

IMHO the lower stage of communism (socialism) is possible. And no, that doesn't make me a Stalinist.

First of all, throwing around the label Stalinist to describe any Marxist who believes that, say, in the USSR socialism was a reality is childish. It's an attempt to take a controversial term and to apply it to a whole group of people (i.e. Marxists who believe in the existence of socialism in a country or countries at one point in time) carelessly.

Do I believe that the USSR was socialist? Yes. Does that make me a Stalinist? No.



Yes you can IMHO have socialism in one country (keeping in mind the fact that the Soviet leadership under Stalin actively worked with revolutionaries abroad in China to foment a revolution in the east while hoping for a late German revolution as well).

Socialism was-is-an international cause. We all reach socialism (and consequently communism) or none of us do. The Soviet Union, seeing as to how it was surrounded by capitalist powers (and later Nazi Germany) who wanted its destruction it did pretty well in adapting Marxism to Russian (Soviet) conditions after the October Revolution of 1917.

As a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (i.e. someone who studies the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.) I'd have to strongly disagree that the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and so forth were state-capitalist. The Soviet Union was arguably state-capitalist under the New Economic Policy, but was socialist after the implementation of the Five Year-Plan.

IMHO its idealism to assert that socialism never existed, and that the 20th century attempts at building socialism can be chalked up to state-capitalism in red garb.

What is socialism?

[Red_Banner]

This is contradictory, and doesnt answer the question. You cannot have socialism in one country, because the capitalist states will always be a threat to your sovereignty, thus making the possibility of building socialism an impossibility. Although there are other factors, this was a big reason (if not the primary one) as to why all the states that attempted socialism in one country turned into state capitalist regimes.

So can socialism in one country work? yes or no.

Also, socialism and communism are used interchangeably unless you are a Leninist. To be a socialist is to be a communist, and vice versa.

Did you not read what I said?

Socialism in one country can't work, it must be spread to other countries.

[Red_Banner]

OK, so what is socialism? You have to realise that for most of us (because we're Marxists) socialism = communism.

If you define it differently, then the question becomes, 'is communism (lower and/or higher stage) in one country possible?'

If the answer is 'yes' then you're a Stalinist.


If you read Engels, you would realise he spoke of other kinds of "socialism".

[synthesis]

IMHO its idealism to assert that socialism never existed, and that the 20th century attempts at building socialism can be chalked up to state-capitalism in red garb.

Yes, I agree that that is idealist; but it is idealist to assert that they were anything other than straight-up capitalism, period.

[Red_Banner]

You agree with the Stalinist revisionist theory that socialism is a separate society from communism. Ergo, you're a Stalinist.

Who do you think came up with the term "Marxist-Leninist"?

I am "Stalinist" only to the extent that I like Stalinist Architecture such as the Hotel Ukraine building.

Do you know what the "Leninist" means in Marxist-Leninist?


It means VI Ulyanov, Lenin, not fucking Stalin!

[Blake's Baby]

If you read Engels, you would realise he spoke of other kinds of "socialism".

If you read my post, you'll realise I asked you a question.

I'm well aware of 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'. Are you claiming you're a utopian?

[Red_Banner]

If you read my post, you'll realise I asked you a question.

I'm well aware of 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'. Are you claiming you're a utopian?


I am not utopian.

[Sea]

Subvert and Destroy & Blake's Baby, way to spoil the thread and totally ignore the questions of the OP who is just trying to learn. Can't you two just post nice without ganging up on people?


edit: And Red_Banner, don't take the bait. The least you could've done was to take it to another thread if you think it's worth prattling about.

[Red_Banner]

Blake just is pushing a quasi-Classical Marxist definition of "socialism".

What Lenin was refering to as "socialism" was the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat as Marx put it" constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society"

This is what Marxists-Leninists mean by "socialism", a society that has not fully achieved communism.

And the attempt to paint all Marxist-Leninists as "Stalinist" is pathetic.

Stalin is not Marx, Stalin is not Lenin.

Not all "Marxist-Leninists" like Stalin.

[Brotto Rühle]

Blake just is pushing a quasi-Classical Marxist definition of "socialism".He's pushing Marx's definition of socialism.


What Lenin was refering to as "socialism" was the dictatorship of the proletariat.Lenin was not referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat.


The dictatorship of the proletariat as Marx put it" constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society"Wrong, Marx described it as the political -- key word-- transition period of the state during the "revolutionary transformation" of capitalism into communism.


This is what Marxists-Leninists mean by "socialism", a society that has not fully achieved communism.It's not Marx's definition. Nor Lenin's.


And the attempt to paint all Marxist-Leninists as "Stalinist" is pathetic.This is just painful... "Marxist-Leninist is a term that was made up BY Stalin, to describe his theories and what not, so as to claim they are a continuation of Marx and Lenin. If you want to call yourself a Leninist, do that. But you're belief in the ability of socialism to be achieved in one country make you a Stalinist.

Stalin is not Marx, Stalin is not Lenin.


Not all "Marxist-Leninists" like Stalin.Christ you're thick.

I suggest you actually read Lenin big guy. Check state and revolution out, chapter 5.

[bluemangroup]

Lenin was not referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Take a look at the notes of Lenin's entitled The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


For treatment in the pamphlet the question falls into 4 main sections:
(A) The dictatorship of the proletariat as new forms of the class struggle of the proletariat (in other words: its new stage and new tasks).
(B) The dictatorship of the proletariat as the destruction of bourgeois democracy and the creation of proletarian democracy.
(C) The dictatorship of the proletariat and the distinguishing features of imperialism (or the imperialist stage of capitalism).
(D) The dictatorship of the proletariat and Soviet power. Plan for the elaboration of these 4 sections:
Clearly he was referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Red_Banner]

He's pushing Marx's definition of socialism.

Lenin was not referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Wrong, Marx described it as the political -- key word-- transition period of the state during the "revolutionary transformation" of capitalism into communism.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05.htm

"My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat;[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05.htm#n1) 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."-Karl Marx

[Red_Banner]

Christ you're thick.

I suggest you actually read Lenin big guy. Check state and revolution out, chapter 5.

I suggest you read him.


State and Revolution makes no mention of Stalin.

[Red_Banner]

This is just painful... "Marxist-Leninist is a term that was made up BY Stalin, to describe his theories and what not, so as to claim they are a continuation of Marx and Lenin. If you want to call yourself a Leninist, do that. But you're belief in the ability of socialism to be achieved in one country make you a Stalinist.


"Titoist" was made up by Stalin.

Does that make Titoists pro-Stalin?

No!

Pavel Milyukov came up with "Trotskyist".

Does that make Trotskyists pro-Milyukov?

No!

Yes I said socialism in one country can happen, but it is doomed to failure unless it expands to other countries.

[Red_Banner]

A Stalinist. Again, because you agree with Stalin's theory of SioC.


No I do not.

[Brotto Rühle]

No I do not.

The Paris Commune was socialism in one city 7 years before Stalin was even born.

I was trying to edit my post into one, which you should do.. but I deleted it by accident. So I'll make my points again:

- Marxist-Leninist was a term created BY Stalin, to describe his own theories. If you want to call yourself such, fine, but historically it is a term that refers to Stalinists. Bolshevik-Leninist was a name for Trotskyists, so if I want to call myself such, then I have to be aware that I am using the term incorrectly... If I'm not a trot that is.

- The theory of socialism in one country is a product of Stalin.. you agreed that, although it's not sustainable, it's possible. Earlier, you also stated that the USSR was socialist.

- My point on State and Revolution wasn't that it mentions Stalin, but that Lenin makes very clear that he does not view socialism and the dotp as the same thing. Nor does he say the dotp exists within socialism. In fact, he labels his section on "Socialism" "the lower stage of communism". He mentions in this section that there are no classes, therefore no proletariat, and therefore no dotp.

- Lastly, on Marx's quote. Mar. Is talking about the DOTP in the same regard as I mentioned. As a political transition. Here's Marx from Critique of the Gotha Programme:


"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

[Red_Banner]

I was trying to edit my post into one, which you should do.. but I deleted it by accident. So I'll make my points again:

- Marxist-Leninist was a term created BY Stalin, to describe his own theories. If you want to call yourself such, fine, but historically it is a term that refers to Stalinists. Bolshevik-Leninist was a name for Trotskyists, so if I want to call myself such, then I have to be aware that I am using the term incorrectly... If I'm not a trot that is.


If "Marxism-Leninism"=Stalinism, why then didn't the CPSU drop the term with de-Stalinization?

:/

[Brotto Rühle]

If "Marxism-Leninism"=Stalinism, why then didn't the CPSU drop the term with de-Stalinization?

:/

Is that all you have? Really?

Couldn't be because they wanted people to believe they were continuing a theoretical line?

[Red_Banner]

I was trying to edit my post into one, which you should do.. but I deleted it by accident. So I'll make my points again:

- Marxist-Leninist was a term created BY Stalin, to describe his own theories. If you want to call yourself such, fine, but historically it is a term that refers to Stalinists. Bolshevik-Leninist was a name for Trotskyists, so if I want to call myself such, then I have to be aware that I am using the term incorrectly... If I'm not a trot that is.

- The theory of socialism in one country is a product of Stalin.. you agreed that, although it's not sustainable, it's possible. Earlier, you also stated that the USSR was socialist.

- My point on State and Revolution wasn't that it mentions Stalin, but that Lenin makes very clear that he does not view socialism and the dotp as the same thing. Nor does he say the dotp exists within socialism. In fact, he labels his section on "Socialism" "the lower stage of communism". He mentions in this section that there are no classes, therefore no proletariat, and therefore no dotp.

- Lastly, on Marx's quote. Mar. Is talking about the DOTP in the same regard as I mentioned. As a political transition. Here's Marx from Critique of the Gotha Programme:


"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."


You are pretty much right in what you are saying here, but I refuse to go along with the Stalin's definition of "Marxism-Leninism".

Stalinism is Stalinism,

It is kind of the same how "Cultural Marxists" have hijacked Marxism.

Marx didn't invent "Cultural Marxism"

[Red_Banner]

Is that all you have? Really?

Couldn't be because they wanted people to believe they were continuing a theoretical line?


Maybe it is because they thought they were continuing the ideas of Marx and Lenin and didn't view Stalinism as "Marxism-Leninism".


Now weather the CPSU actually followed the ideas of Marx and/or Lenin is another thing.

[bluemangroup]

I was trying to edit my post into one, which you should do.. but I deleted it by accident. So I'll make my points again:

- Marxist-Leninist was a term created BY Stalin, to describe his own theories. If you want to call yourself such, fine, but historically it is a term that refers to Stalinists. Bolshevik-Leninist was a name for Trotskyists, so if I want to call myself such, then I have to be aware that I am using the term incorrectly... If I'm not a trot that is.

- The theory of socialism in one country is a product of Stalin.. you agreed that, although it's not sustainable, it's possible. Earlier, you also stated that the USSR was socialist.

- My point on State and Revolution wasn't that it mentions Stalin, but that Lenin makes very clear that he does not view socialism and the dotp as the same thing. Nor does he say the dotp exists within socialism. In fact, he labels his section on "Socialism" "the lower stage of communism". He mentions in this section that there are no classes, therefore no proletariat, and therefore no dotp.

- Lastly, on Marx's quote. Mar. Is talking about the DOTP in the same regard as I mentioned. As a political transition. Here's Marx from Critique of the Gotha Programme:


"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Socialism in one country was the policy of the worker-peasant alliance, of the Soviet Union after the revolution failed to spread throughout Europe. It was the policy of the ruling communist party, of Stalin insofar as the USSR remained isolated.


Yes I said socialism in one country can happen, but it is doomed to failure unless it expands to other countries.

Which IMHO was what happened, after 1945 when the Red Army swept into eastern and central Europe; the Red Army allowed the German Communist Party to finally take power, along with the other communist parties across eastern Europe.

Several years later, in 1949, the People's Republic of China was proclaimed after the Chinese Civil War ended in a total victory for the Chinese communists. The east, which the Soviets had always hoped would undergo a revolution, did so in China after a long delay.

Call me a Stalinist. fine. IMHO socialism existed in the USSR under Stalin.

[Red_Banner]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/khrushchev/1956/02/24.htm
"
Thus writes Stalin himself! Then he adds:
“Although he performed his tasks as leader of the Party and the people with consummate skill, and enjoyed the unreserved support of the entire Soviet people, Stalin never allowed his work to be marred by the slightest hint of vanity, conceit or self-adulation.”
Where and when could a leader so praise himself? Is this worthy of a leader of the Marxist-Leninist type? No. Precisely against this did Marx and Engels take such a strong position. This always was sharply condemned also by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin."-Nikita Kruschev


Here Kruschev considers Marxism-Leninism to be the ideas of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.


Not Stalin.

[Homo Songun]

Can we keep the oddball definitions out of learning threads? It will just confuse people. Socialism is generally considered to be contiguous with the dictatorship of proletariat. And no, it's not all Stalin's fault:


This Socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.

[Thirsty Crow]

Can we keep the oddball definitions out of learning threads? It will just confuse people. Socialism is generally considered to be contiguous with the dictatorship of proletariat. And no, it's not all Stalin's fault:
What's the context of this quote? Is Marx here talking about socialism as in "the existing movement which abolishes the present state of things" or about a kind of society?

[Brotto Rühle]

You are pretty much right in what you are saying here, but I refuse to go along with the Stalin's definition of "Marxism-Leninism". It's not just Stalin, it's THE definition. Marxism-Leninism, means Stalinism. While we can argue that Stalin's:rolleyes: ideas were not the line of Marx or Lenin, we can't take back the term, nor should non Stalinist Leninists.


Stalinism is StalinismAnd Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism. Don't be stubborn.


It is kind of the same how "Cultural Marxists" have hijacked MarxismCultural Marxists never came up with "Marxism". However, Stalin came up with "Marxism-Leninism".


Maybe it is because they thought they were continuing the ideas of Marx and Lenin and didn't view Stalinism as "Marxism-Leninism".It's really just irrelevant.


Now weather the CPSU actually followed the ideas of Marx and/or Lenin is another thing.They, of course, never.

[Brotto Rühle]

Can we keep the oddball definitions out of learning threads? It will just confuse people. Socialism is generally considered to be contiguous with the dictatorship of proletariat. And no, it's not all Stalin's fault:

I think Stalinism is a result of people who don't have the ability to recognize context in a situation or piece of writing. Remember the ever popular "victory of socialism in one country" quote?

[Red_Banner]

It's not just Stalin, it's THE definition. Marxism-Leninism, means Stalinism. While we can argue that Stalin's:rolleyes: ideas were not the line of Marx or Lenin, we can't take back the term, nor should non Stalinist Leninists.

And Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism. Don't be stubborn.

Cultural Marxists never came up with "Marxism". However, Stalin came up with "Marxism-Leninism".

It's really just irrelevant.

They, of course, never.


It's not just Stalin, it's THE definition. Marxism-Leninism, means Stalinism. While we can argue that Stalin's:rolleyes: ideas were not the line of Marx or Lenin, we can't take back the term, nor should non Stalinist Leninists.

And Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism. Don't be stubborn.

Cultural Marxists never came up with "Marxism". However, Stalin came up with "Marxism-Leninism".

It's really just irrelevant.

They, of course, never.


You're a bone head.

Marxism-Leinism is Marxism + Leninism, it isn't Stalinism.

Even Kruschev felt the same way as I do.

When did Stalin come up with this "Marxism-Leninism" anyhow?

From what I can tell, Trotsky was using the term as early as 1924 in "Perspectives and Tasks In The East"..

marxists.org only shows Stalin using the term as early as 1928.

Stalin talks about Marxism and Leninism in "The Tasks of The Young Communist League" in 1925, but he does not use "Marxism-Leninism" or "Marxist-Leninist".

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1925/10/29.htm

[Blake's Baby]

As far as I'm aware, Zinoviev invented the term 'Marxism-Leninism'. And Bukharin came up with 'Socialism in One Country'. What makes both of these things 'Stalinism' is that Stalin applied them. Stalin was utterly unable to 'invent' anything.

Stalin took these ideas (from Zinoviev, Bukharin, even Trotsky) and turned them into the policy of the CPSU. That's what makes them 'Stalinism'.

Whether someone likes Stalin is utterly irrelevant to whether one is a Stalinist. To be a Stalinist one must ascribe to the theory of Socialism in One Country, because that's the defining feature of 'Stalinism'. One can think that Stalin was insane, megalomaniacal, paranoid, psychotic or had a really bad moustache... but if one accepts 'Socialism in One Country' one is a Stalinist. That's what 'Stalinist' means.

Stalinists do not like to be called 'Stalinists', they like to be called 'Marxist-Leninists', so they can pretend that Stalinism has something to do with Marxism and 'Leninism' (whatever that is, though whatever it is, the Trotskyists AKA 'Bolshevik-Leninists' have it too). So to be a 'Marxist-Leninist' is to be a Stalinist. That's what 'Marxist-Leninist' means.

Stalin is not Lenin. Stalin is not Marx. From which, we can deduce that Stalin, in calling his cobbled-together doctrine 'Marxism-Leninism', was a teensy bit of a liar.


... Socialism is generally considered to be contiguous with the dictatorship of proletariat...

Epic fail. Only Maoists, and a single confused Trotskyist, have ever claimed that socialism = DotP, in my experience. M-Ls regard socialism as 'the lower stage of communism' as they are good 'Leninists' (as are the Trotskyists of course). Marxists, however, regard 'socialism' and 'communism' as being synoyms.

[bluemangroup]

As far as I'm aware, Zinoviev invented the term 'Marxism-Leninism'. And Bukharin came up with 'Socialism in One Country'. What makes both of these things 'Stalinism' is that Stalin applied them. Stalin was utterly unable to 'invent' anything.

Stalin took these ideas (from Zinoviev, Bukharin, even Trotsky) and turned them into the policy of the CPSU. That's what makes them 'Stalinism'.

Whether someone likes Stalin is utterly irrelevant to whether one is a Stalinist. To be a Stalinist one must ascribe to the theory of Socialism in One Country, because that's the defining feature of 'Stalinism'. One can think that Stalin was insane, megalomaniacal, paranoid, psychotic or had a really bad moustache... but if one accepts 'Socialism in One Country' one is a Stalinist. That's what 'Stalinist' means.

Stalinists do not like to be called 'Stalinists', they like to be called 'Marxist-Leninists', so they can pretend that Stalinism has something to do with Marxism and 'Leninism' (whatever that is, though whatever it is, the Trotskyists AKA 'Bolshevik-Leninists' have it too). So to be a 'Marxist-Leninist' is to be a Stalinist. That's what 'Marxist-Leninist' means.

Stalin is not Lenin. Stalin is not Marx. From which, we can deduce that Stalin, in calling his cobbled-together doctrine 'Marxism-Leninism', was a teensy bit of a liar.In that case then I, being a Marxist-Leninist, must be a Stalinist.

Seriously though, socialism in one country wasn't applied with the aim of ignoring the rest of the world; the communists actively sought revolution in China and in Germany.

From a pragmatic point of view, socialism in one country was the only realistic goal for the isolated and backwards USSR in its transition to socialism.


... Socialism is generally considered to be contiguous with the dictatorship of proletariat...Which IMHO is true, socialism and the proletarian dictatorship being one and the same thing.

Or, we can say, it wasn't socialism that existed in the USSR but "communism" (and the lower stage of "communism" at that).

[Blake's Baby]

In that case then I, being a Marxist-Leninist, must be a Stalinist...

Yes, obviously. the two terms mean the same thing. If you are one then you are the other.


... we can say, it wasn't socialism that existed in the USSR but "communism" (and the lower stage of "communism" at that).

Are you serious?

I would claim it was neither the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor any sort of communism (which cannot exist until capitalism has been defeated worldwide).

[#FF0000]

Marxism-Leinism is Marxism + Leninism, it isn't Stalinism.

Stalinism is a political slur for Marxist-Leninists, dude.

[Thirsty Crow]

Are you serious?

He is, necessarily.
The whole deal with the extraordinarily clever invention of of the notion of the non-antagonistic classes is to actually proclaim the end of exploitation, ergo a classless society. In official ideology of the USSR, communism had become nothing more than that curious social formation which is, as opposed to the USSR, stateless (which becomes possible once the whole world goes the route of the Union).

[synthesis]

You are pretty much right in what you are saying here, but I refuse to go along with the Stalin's definition of "Marxism-Leninism".

Stalinism is Stalinism,

It is kind of the same how "Cultural Marxists" have hijacked Marxism.

Marx didn't invent "Cultural Marxism"

This is a flawed analogy. It would be more like calling yourself a "Cultural Marxist" just because you are cultured and a Marxist.

[Red_Banner]

This is a flawed analogy. It would be more like calling yourself a "Cultural Marxist" just because you are cultured and a Marxist.


What "flaw"?

[Red_Banner]

Stalinism is a political slur for Marxist-Leninists, dude.

What the hell are you talking about?

[#FF0000]

What the hell are you talking about?

Just what I said. "Stalinism" is a term used against Marxist-Lenininsts. Almost nobody (except for some real tankies) call themselves Stalinists. It's the equivalent of how folks call others "ultra-left" or whatever (except for those French "ultra-gauche" dudes who actually call themselves that unironically)

EDIT: you could do with being a little less hostile in literally every single post you make, btw.

[Red_Banner]

Just what I said. "Stalinism" is a term used against Marxist-Lenininsts. Almost nobody (except for some real tankies) call themselves Stalinists. It's the equivalent of how folks call others "ultra-left" or whatever (except for those French "ultra-gauche" dudes who actually call themselves that unironically)

EDIT: you could do with being a little less hostile in literally every single post you make, btw.

Ah, ok.

[synthesis]

What "flaw"?

The "complicated" reply: A term like "Marxist-Leninist" has connotations beyond just the individual semiotic units of which it is composed - meaning, 99.99% of people, at least on this forum, know that it doesn't just mean someone who is both a Marxist and a Leninist. I mean, it is, but it's more than that: it's a specific term used in a specific context that is going to confuse people if you keep using it outside of that context.

The "simpler" reply: In regards to the "flaw" - try to bear with me here - you said that using Marxism-Leninism to mean "someone who defends the legacy of Stalin" is similar to using the term "Marxist" to mean "someone who defends Cultural Marxism." In fact it is the opposite. It is like using the term "cultural Marxism" outside of the context to which you are referring (the New Left or whatever) - i.e., breaking it down to the point where it has lost the connotations that everybody else associates with it. They are parts of a whole; it's the kind of thing for which they invented the phrase "missing the forest for the trees."

The "simplest" reply: Just call yourself a Leninist; all Leninists consider themselves Marxists anyway.

[Sea]

I think Stalinism is a result of people who don't have the ability to recognize context in a situation or piece of writing. Remember the ever popular "victory of socialism in one country" quote?Tee-hee! There's a huge difference between "the victory of socialism in one country" and "the victory of socialism, in one country." One implies that socialism can exist in one country, the other simply implies that the socialist side of the battle has emerged as victorious in a given country.

Sort of like the difference between "Let's eat, grandpa!" and "Let's eat grandpa!"