New to Socialism/Communism

[StalinBad]

I'll start off by saying I am new to the Socialist world and I am only 14 years of age.

I'd like to know just basically a good definition of Socialism and Communism, and the differences between the two. From what I have learned already Communism can only be achieved through Socialism? And that Socialism is the first step towards Communism?

I'd like to know more about Marx and Engels, and Socialism and Communism's roots.

I'd like to have a good definition of Marxism.

From my understanding, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, and others branch out from Marxism, so I think to be able to understand those I must have a good understanding of Marxism first.


Basically I'd just like a very good definition of Marxism, and perhaps Leninism as well and it's theories.

Thank you Comrades.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hello and welcome. I don't think I considered myself a socialist until I was 24; so pretty impressive at 14.

I think for your questions, you might find some existing threads in the Learning section... you also might find that there are many differnet answers to these questions depending on someone's viewpoint.

I guess just to take a stab at it: for Marx "socialism/communism" seemed to have been used interchangeably. But he described it ultimately as a society where people didn't have power over eachother and the advancement of one (or a few) required the advancement of society generally (so basically people don't advance themselves by exploiting and holding power over others). It would be a society without classes (so, again, one group doesn't win by exploiting or causing others to loose) and without a State.

For myself and many modern Marxists, "Socialism" is used to describe a post-revolution society that is transitioning from present capitalism to a "classless, stateless" society and is run by the working class. Because the working class can produce cooperativly and do not need to exploit others, their larger class interests would favor getting rid of exploitation and class divisions, creating the possibility for communism or a society where we cooperate to run society for mutual benifit.

Marxism is a specific kind of socialism: I think fundamentally it looks for a materialist understanding of present society and how communism might be achieved given social conditions in capitalism. Central to Marxist socialism IMO is the central role of the working class, as the main exploited class in capitalism, in ending their own exploitation and creating the possibility for a world without inherent social and economic inequality.

Most marxists might more or less agree with the above - the question of Leninism is maybe more divisive and unsettled (though I think it's important to see revolutionary ideas and tactics as living and changing and flexible in new conditions, not doctrines or set abstract rules). I think mainly Leninism is an attempt to counter some of the tendencies towards reformism and supporting capitalist states that developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I think that's maybe the broadest stroke I can paint it in, if I got more specific it'd probably derail the thread.:lol:

[bluemangroup]

I'll start off by saying I am new to the Socialist world and I am only 14 years of age.

I'd like to know just basically a good definition of Socialism and Communism, and the differences between the two. From what I have learned already Communism can only be achieved through Socialism? And that Socialism is the first step towards Communism?

I'd like to know more about Marx and Engels, and Socialism and Communism's roots.

I'd like to have a good definition of Marxism.

From my understanding, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, and others branch out from Marxism, so I think to be able to understand those I must have a good understanding of Marxism first.


Basically I'd just like a very good definition of Marxism, and perhaps Leninism as well and it's theories.

Thank you Comrades.

Welcome! I became a Marxist at 15 or 16, and am now currently embroiled in the rigors of a university.

Socialism, to put it simply, is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism; i.e. the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China at a certain point in their respective histories.

Under socialism, inequality will still exist and there will still be a state IMHO; workers (and peasants, depending on the circumstances) will exercise power through, say, soviets (councils) or other forms of grassroots popular power.

As a Marxist-Leninist (and this is just me) I would agree that a form socialism can take is that of the leading vanguard party alongside forms of power like soviets, trade unions, peasants' assemblies, which is representative of proletarian rule etc. Feel free to make up your own mind about what constitutes socialism though. No hard feelings if you end up getting into Anarchism or Council Marxism (I was there once, believe it or not)

Anyways, communism is the stateless, classless society appearing after socialism; that is, after the dictatorship of the proletariat (or the proletariat organized as the ruling class) withers away and becomes redundant over a period of many years.

Society under communism would no longer be exploitative, with workers (producers) no longer being alienated from their product. Its different from utopian notions, that and Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, etc. were all materialists who stood publicly and in writing against utopian socialism.

Here's the famous Communist Manifesto, which is probably the first work I've ever read on communism: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

And Engel's Principles of Communism which is also deeply informative for a beginner: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

If you can find it at a library or used book shop, I'd recommend The Communist Manifesto: A Road Map to History's Most important Political Document, which also includes Engel's Principles of Communism and is annotated with notes throughout the original text. Worth reading esp. for someone new to Marxism.

Finally, I'd recommend looking up the awesome Kasama Project, which is a Maoist organization in the U.S. which started out as a blog but became its own web site recently: http://kasamaproject.org/

I hope you enjoy your stay here on this forum. Feel free to ask questions (as this is the learning section), and don't hesitate to find your own path when it comes to deciding what you believe in as a Marxist or soon-to-be Marxist.

[Blake's Baby]

"Other forms of socialism are available."

Welcome to the forum, StalinBad. You will get into trouble with that name.

Socialism and communism... those of us who aren't Leninists use those interchangeably, as did Marx and Engels (who weren't Leninists either of course). Socialism is not a 'stage'. It's a synonym for communism.

Marx said that his one contribution to a theory of history was not the existence of classes or that these classes struggle, but that class struggle in capitalism must lead the proletariat to overthrow bourgeois power and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. It's primarily that which seperates Marxism from anarchism - the recognition that the proletariat must establish its own power over society, in order to be able to re-organise it. That, to me, is the essence of Marxism.

Nothing to do with one-party states or 'actually existing socialism' or anything, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the working class itself laying its own hands on the whole of capitalist society and transforming it into socialist society (or communist society, if you prefer).

[Brotto Rühle]

I'll start off by saying I am new to the Socialist world and I am only 14 years of age. Welcome.


I'd like to know just basically a good definition of Socialism and Communism, and the differences between the two. From what I have learned already Communism can only be achieved through Socialism? And that Socialism is the first step towards Communism?Socialism and Communism, to Marxists, are the same thing. Sometimes, Leninists like to use "socialism" to refer to the initial phase of communist society...but, at the end of the day...socialism = communism.


I'd like to know more about Marx and Engels, and Socialism and Communism's roots.There's a lot of good works you can look into. Particularly those by Marx and Engels. Wage Labour and Capital, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, the Grundrisse, Critique of the Gotha Programme, the Civil War in France, and pretty much anything else (capital being the top thing to read once you are more familiar with Marx).


I'd like to have a good definition of Marxism.I'l let someone else handle this. I've never been good at "wording" it together.


From my understanding, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, and others branch out from Marxism, so I think to be able to understand those I must have a good understanding of Marxism first.Well, you should definitely read, and try to understand MARX before you try to delve into Lenin, Stalin, or whomever. Some Marxists, such as myself, argue that "Stalinism" and "Maoism" are revisions (taking basic fundamental principles and changing them) of Marxism.



Basically I'd just like a very good definition of Marxism, and perhaps Leninism as well and it's theories. Since you asked again, Marxism can be defined, vaguely, as a set of ideas and a form of analysis of the material conditions of society.

Leninism is a dogma around Lenin, and his ideas. His ideas being specific, for the most part, to the material conditions of Russia at the time. Basically, if you call yourself a (insert name of person)ist, you're probably not very critical of anything. Most Leninists, be they Trotskyists or Stalinists, don't even agree with Lenin on most things.


Thank you Comrades.Don't thank anyone, go read.

[StalinBad]

"Other forms of socialism are available."

Welcome to the forum, StalinBad. You will get into trouble with that name.

Socialism and communism... those of us who aren't Leninists use those interchangeably, as did Marx and Engels (who weren't Leninists either of course). Socialism is not a 'stage'. It's a synonym for communism.

Marx said that his one contribution to a theory of history was not the existence of classes or that these classes struggle, but that class struggle in capitalism must lead the proletariat to overthrow bourgeois power and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. It's primarily that which seperates Marxism from anarchism - the recognition that the proletariat must establish its own power over society, in order to be able to re-organise it. That, to me, is the essence of Marxism.

Nothing to do with one-party states or 'actually existing socialism' or anything, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the working class itself laying its own hands on the whole of capitalist society and transforming it into socialist society (or communist society, if you prefer).

I made this name because when I first got into Socialism I found myself anti-Stalinist, and still am.

Also thanks to all whom replied, can anyone give me links or PDFs or something to Marx's works or links to help me find out more about Marxism?

[StalinBad]

Hello and welcome. I don't think I considered myself a socialist until I was 24; so pretty impressive at 14.

I think for your questions, you might find some existing threads in the Learning section... you also might find that there are many differnet answers to these questions depending on someone's viewpoint.

I guess just to take a stab at it: for Marx "socialism/communism" seemed to have been used interchangeably. But he described it ultimately as a society where people didn't have power over eachother and the advancement of one (or a few) required the advancement of society generally (so basically people don't advance themselves by exploiting and holding power over others). It would be a society without classes (so, again, one group doesn't win by exploiting or causing others to loose) and without a State.

For myself and many modern Marxists, "Socialism" is used to describe a post-revolution society that is transitioning from present capitalism to a "classless, stateless" society and is run by the working class. Because the working class can produce cooperativly and do not need to exploit others, their larger class interests would favor getting rid of exploitation and class divisions, creating the possibility for communism or a society where we cooperate to run society for mutual benifit.

Marxism is a specific kind of socialism: I think fundamentally it looks for a materialist understanding of present society and how communism might be achieved given social conditions in capitalism. Central to Marxist socialism IMO is the central role of the working class, as the main exploited class in capitalism, in ending their own exploitation and creating the possibility for a world without inherent social and economic inequality.

Most marxists might more or less agree with the above - the question of Leninism is maybe more divisive and unsettled (though I think it's important to see revolutionary ideas and tactics as living and changing and flexible in new conditions, not doctrines or set abstract rules). I think mainly Leninism is an attempt to counter some of the tendencies towards reformism and supporting capitalist states that developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I think that's maybe the broadest stroke I can paint it in, if I got more specific it'd probably derail the thread.:lol:

Very nice answer, as all were. Is there still more I should find out about Marxism or does that pretty much sum it up? So basically, Marxism sounds like a Utopia, for sure.

How can we achieve true Marxism (Utopia)? And in which ideology can we achieve it? Do we achieve it in Leninism, Trotskyism? Or dare I say in Stalinism, but I think Stalin betrayed Marx. Hence my anti-Stalin username.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Marx said that his one contribution to a theory of history was not the existence of classes or that these classes struggle, but that class struggle in capitalism must lead the proletariat to overthrow bourgeois power and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. It's primarily that which seperates Marxism from anarchism - the recognition that the proletariat must establish its own power over society, in order to be able to re-organise it. That, to me, is the essence of Marxism.

Of course, depending on how one understands "the dictatorship of the proletariat" it doesn't make for a particularly clear line between Marxists and anarchists. It actually requires us to ask several questions, like, "What is the state?" "Is proletarian dictatorship a state, and, if so, in what sense?" "Does it make sense to equate all forms of class power, especially given the historically specific character of various forms of sovereignty?"

If anything, I'm of the opinion that the distinctions between Marxism and anarchism are increasingly a "hangover" from the "First International", and an era of capitalism that is definitively over. In my opinion, the best of contemporary Marxism and anarchism are moving increasingly away from the enlightenment liberal ideals that divided them. In the case of Marxism, this is expressed as weird Hegelian idealism (and Marx's unfortunate ambiguity concerning progress and historical necessity), and, in the case of anarchism, individualism.

Maybe this is a bit "heavy" for an "I'm just learning!" thread. I guess my point is, when it comes to communist theory, avoid any "answer" that can't be posed as a question.

[StalinBad]

Of course, depending on how one understands "the dictatorship of the proletariat" it doesn't make for a particularly clear line between Marxists and anarchists. It actually requires us to ask several questions, like, "What is the state?" "Is proletarian dictatorship a state, and, if so, in what sense?" "Does it make sense to equate all forms of class power, especially given the historically specific character of various forms of sovereignty?"

If anything, I'm of the opinion that the distinctions between Marxism and anarchism are increasingly a "hangover" from the "First International", and an era of capitalism that is definitively over. In my opinion, the best of contemporary Marxism and anarchism are moving increasingly away from the enlightenment liberal ideals that divided them. In the case of Marxism, this is expressed as weird Hegelian idealism (and Marx's unfortunate ambiguity concerning progress and historical necessity), and, in the case of anarchism, individualism.

Maybe this is a bit "heavy" for an "I'm just learning!" thread. I guess my point is, when it comes to communist theory, avoid any "answer" that can't be posed as a question.


From your reply I get Marxism is also more about single-party states? Whilst Anarchism believes the Workers should run the country with no parties???? I guess it is how you perceive "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

I would think there has to be a party, but it has to be a pro-Worker party and the People should watch it like a hawk.

[Brotto Rühle]

Here's some stuff by Marx/Engels:

Wage Labour and Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/)

Grundrisse (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/)

Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm)

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/)

The Civil War in France (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)

Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm)

That should set you up for a little while.

[StalinBad]

Here's some stuff by Marx/Engels:


That should set you up for a little while.

Thanks. Keep in mind I already have a hatred for Engels, as he was supposedly against LGBT rights whilst Marx was friendly towards it?

I am for LGBT rights.

[Thirsty Crow]

From your reply I get Marxism is also more about single-party states? Whilst Anarchism believes the Workers should run the country with no parties???? I guess it is how you perceive "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat". I don't think that you understood TGDU best.

But to offer my own perspective, no Marxism is not about single party states, especially if we are talking about state constitution along the lines of the historical Soviet state.

That historical experience, and the experience of the projected Spanish revolution is hugely important. In short, lessons that some variants of Marxism have drawn are:

1) revolutionary mass parties are not viable; the party of the class is a tightly knit formation of workers' militants who propose concrete measures and aid the class in its struggles; it is its co-ordinating body, providing guidelines and not a command center (the relationship based on trust, mutual recognition and open discussion)

2) the power of the working class cannot be exercised in its name by the party which had become fused with the state apparatus which is basically a capitalist state (delegation, based on active participation in political life, as opposed to representation); class wide organs of rule such as soviets can fulfill the role of the basic institutional framework for working class power (and beyond that, workplace committees in case of the regulation of day to day functioning and matters of workplaces); soviets can fulfill both the political and the economic function - economic in the sense of the creation of bodies for coordinating the social plan of what to produce, how to produce it, and how to to distribute the total social product.



I would think there has to be a party, but it has to be a pro-Worker party and the People should watch it like a hawk.I too agree with the idea that the party of the class is necessary.


Thanks. Keep in mind I already have a hatred for Engels, as he was supposedly against LGBT rights whilst Marx was friendly towards it?

I am for LGBT rights.I don't know the specifics of the problem. But keep in mind that it makes no sense to harbor hatred and distrust towards the theoreticians of the workers' movement which as a whole back then did not consider homosexuality as nothing short from bourgeois decadence (that was the general tendency, not that every single individual held the exact same view)

[StalinBad]

I don't think that you understood TGDU best.

But to offer my own perspective, no Marxism is not about single party states, especially if we are talking about state constitution along the lines of the historical Soviet state.

That historical experience, and the experience of the projected Spanish revolution is hugely important. In short, lessons that some variants of Marxism have drawn are:

1) revolutionary mass parties are not viable; the party of the class is a tightly knit formation of workers' militants who propose concrete measures and aid the class in its struggles; it is its co-ordinating body, providing guidelines and not a command center (the relationship based on trust, mutual recognition and open discussion)

2) the power of the working class cannot be exercised in its name by the party which had become fused with the state apparatus which is basically a capitalist state (delegation, based on active participation in political life, as opposed to representation); class wide organs of rule such as soviets can fulfill the role of the basic institutional framework for working class power (and beyond that, workplace committees in case of the regulation of day to day functioning and matters of workplaces); soviets can fulfill both the political and the economic function - economic in the sense of the creation of bodies for coordinating the social plan of what to produce, how to produce it, and how to to distribute the total social product.


I too agree with the idea that the party of the class is necessary.

I don't know the specifics of the problem. But keep in mind that it makes no sense to harbor hatred and distrust towards the theoreticians of the workers' movement which as a whole back then did not consider homosexuality as nothing short from bourgeois decadence (that was the general tendency, not that every single individual held the exact same view)

You and I share similar ideologies. Are you Marxist-Leninist? Trotskyist?

[Blake's Baby]

I made this name because when I first got into Socialism I found myself anti-Stalinist, and still am...

Still, you have to be aware that on a site like this, many people will take it as a provocation. There are many Stalinists on this site.


...Also thanks to all whom replied, can anyone give me links or PDFs or something to Marx's works or links to help me find out more about Marxism?

The Marxists Internet Archive - https://www.marxists.org/ - is the most comprehensive archive of Marx's (and loads of other revolutionary writers') works on the web.

I particularly like (after 'The Manifesto' of course) 'The Critique of the Gotha Programme' (by Marx) and 'Socialism, Utopian and Scientific' (by Engels). They both go a long way towards providing a framework for the developments of the 20th century, which is something Marxism as Marx and Engels knew it lacks.


(To LinksRadical): You and I share similar ideologies. Are you Marxist-Leninist? Trotskyist?

If you look in the top right corner of someone's post there's a small amount of info about that person. Sometimes that info includes a 'tendency'. LinksRadical is a Left Communist (as am I). Left Communists are supporters of the groups that were expelled from the Communist International in the 1920s for being too 'left wing' (Lenin wrote a pamphlet condemning them, called 'Left Wing Communim: an Infantile Disorder').

[Thirsty Crow]

You and I share similar ideologies. Are you Marxist-Leninist? Trotskyist?Neither.
Marxists-Leninists are what you would call Stalinists.

The kind of class politics which can best describe my views is left communism.

[StalinBad]

Neither.
Marxists-Leninists are what you would call Stalinists.

The kind of class politics which can best describe my views is left communism.

So what would you call the Trotskyists? And can you be Marxist-Leninist without being Stalinist?

[Thirsty Crow]

So what would you call the Trotskyists?
Trots are Marxists.


And can you be Marxist-Leninist without being Stalinist?
The two terms are synonyms.

[Blake's Baby]

Of course, depending on how one understands "the dictatorship of the proletariat" it doesn't make for a particularly clear line between Marxists and anarchists. It actually requires us to ask several questions, like, "What is the state?" "Is proletarian dictatorship a state, and, if so, in what sense?" "Does it make sense to equate all forms of class power, especially given the historically specific character of various forms of sovereignty?"...

Certainly. It's an argument i was constntly having when I was an Anarchist and i still have it now I'm a Marxist. My contention is that the DotP is not a state in the way Anarchists conventionally understand a state, but it is in the way Marxists understand a state. But a Marxist state, if it doesn't have the content of an Anarchist state, shouldn't bother Anarchists.

But this might be a bit off-topic.

[StalinBad]

Trots are Marxists.


The two terms are synonyms.

So it is the Trots always saying Stalin betrayed Marx.

I thought the Trots were friendly towards Lenin, though. Orthodox Trotskyism.

Also, im probably a Trot to be honest :P

[Sea]

Thanks. Keep in mind I already have a hatred for Engels, as he was supposedly against LGBT rights whilst Marx was friendly towards it?

I am for LGBT rights.Engels presumably said some mean things regarding LGBT rights, speaking of homosexuality as pederasty. Keep in mind, though, that an accurate analysis of the topic in Marx's and Engels' lifetime was more or less impossible. Engels, like everyone else, was limited by his conditions. You could not expect someone in the middle ages to be able to analyze capitalism and come to accurate conclusions, and we should not expect Engels or Marx to preform such miracles either.

The modern homophobe, however, has no such excuse. We know now that there is nothing wrong with LGBT persons and have reached a consensus on that fact. Engels was limited by what facts were available to him, the modern homophobe, on the contrary, refuses to acknowledge the facts. There is a large difference between these two scenarios, and though Engels' views on LGBT rights are certainly obsolete and were certainly incorrect, they did not necessarily originate in bigotry or ignorance of information so much as in a lack of information; it is therefore very unfair therefore to accuse Engels of bigotry, and there is really no good reason to harbor a hatred against Engels on account of this.

Marx and Engels are very often lumped together, and though Marx is certainly the most famous of the two, Engels was a highly capable theoretician in his own right and has produced a great deal of very worthy material that ought to be studied and understood, rather than brushed off to the side.

[Blake's Baby]

So it is the Trots always saying Stalin betrayed Marx.

I thought the Trots were friendly towards Lenin, though. Orthodox Trotskyism.

Also, im probably a Trot to be honest :P

'Trotskyism' is 'officially' known as 'Bolshevik-Leninism'. That's what Trotsky got his followers to call themselves. 'Stalinism' is 'officially' known as 'Marxist-Leninism'. That's what Stalin and his followers called the philosophical basis of their policies in the USSR and elsewhere. Both men claimed the heritage of Lenin, both groups of followers claim the other betrayed that heritage.

[StalinBad]

'Trotskyism' is 'officially' known as 'Bolshevik-Leninism'. That's what Trotsky got his followers to call themselves. 'Stalinism' is 'officially' known as 'Marxist-Leninism'. That's what Stalin and his followers called the philosophical basis of their policies in the USSR and elsewhere. Both men claimed the heritage of Lenin, both groups of followers claim the other betrayed that heritage.

Which in your opinion is more true to Leninism?

[StalinBad]

'Trotskyism' is 'officially' known as 'Bolshevik-Leninism'. That's what Trotsky got his followers to call themselves. 'Stalinism' is 'officially' known as 'Marxist-Leninism'. That's what Stalin and his followers called the philosophical basis of their policies in the USSR and elsewhere. Both men claimed the heritage of Lenin, both groups of followers claim the other betrayed that heritage.

Also, what really is Bolshevism?

[Blake's Baby]

'Trotskyism' is 'officially' known as 'Bolshevik-Leninism'. That's what Trotsky got his followers to call themselves. 'Stalinism' is 'officially' known as 'Marxist-Leninism'. That's what Stalin and his followers called the philosophical basis of their policies in the USSR and elsewhere. Both men claimed the heritage of Lenin, both groups of followers claim the other betrayed that heritage.


Which in your opinion is more true to Leninism?

Difficult. I think Trotsky pretended that his vision of Marxism was identical with Lenin's because that meant more international cachet. I think Stalin pretended he had a vision of Marxism because he wasn't a theoretician at all (all his theoretical 'innovations' that are heavily criticised by others were actually the work of other people - including Trotsky).

I rate Trotsky as a better Marxist, because I don't rate Stalin as a Marxist at all. But I've never tried to square them with Lenin, because I don't really care who was the better 'Leninist'. The more important question I think is, how good a Marxist was Lenin?



EDIT: there's a little button to the bottom right of your post that allows you to edit it. Better than making multiple posts each asking a one-line question.


Also, what really is Bolshevism?

Depends who you ask. If you ask a pro-Bolshevik, it's the belief that a revolutionary party is necessary for the revolution. If you ask an anti-Bolshevik, it means the belief that a bunch of bloodthirsty conspirators stage a coup and establish a brutal regime. So, what does it mean 'really'? Who's to say if there is a 'real' meaning?

[Brotto Rühle]

Thanks. Keep in mind I already have a hatred for Engels, as he was supposedly against LGBT rights whilst Marx was friendly towards it?

I am for LGBT rights.

The...backwards views of Marx and Engels towards homosexuals is something you need to put behind the substance of their works. I mean, Marx called Lassalle a "Jewish Nigger"... and said other...not so cool things.

[Sea]

Which in your opinion is more true to Leninism?


And can you be Marxist-Leninist without being Stalinist?Marxism-Leninism was a term invented by Stalin himself, and therefore the two are often used interchangeably. There was no such thing as Marxism-Leninism in Lenin's lifetime, rather, Lenin was simply considered to be a Marxist. That said, and though personally I am not a big fan of Stalin, I find that unlike Trotskyists, most modern-day self-described Marxist-Leninists are rather agreeable.

Trotskyism is another topic entirely, and I do find many of Trotsky's propositions to be rather disagreeable -- personally I find Trotsky to have broken off rather abruptly from Marx, Engels and Lenin. There are some people who associate with Trotskyism simply because they are fond of Lenin and critical of Stalin and they see Trotsky as having been the same way. Needless to say, "Trotskyism" as such did not exist in Lenin's lifetime either.

The more of Lenin's works that I read, the more I tend towards the conclusion that Lenin himself was thoroughly a Marxist, and did not diverge from Marxist methods.

Left-communism is a tendency that is very much in disagreement with Lenin, so you can expect self-identifying left-communists to say very negative things about Lenin. Lenin addressed the concerns of left-communism, and you can read his response here (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm). I recommend you reserve judgement on Lenin until after you become familiar with his way of thinking and his work.

Personally, I'm rather surprised to see people railing against Lenin because of how he used the term 'socialism'. If Lenin is to be criticized, you should expect a more serious criticism than petty squabbles over wording.

[Blake's Baby]

Marxism-Leninism was a term invented by Stalin himself, and therefore the two are often used interchangeably...

No it wasn't - it was 'invented' by Zinoviev.


...
Left-communism is a tendency that is very much in disagreement with Lenin, so you can expect self-identifying left-communists to say very negative things about Lenin...

@ Sea:

StalinBad didn't ask about Left Communism. So why is this relevant?

Left Communists are not 'very much in disagreement with Lenin'. Only with Lenin's errors. So, where is this going?


... Lenin addressed the concerns of left-communism, and you can read his response here (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm). I recommend you reserve judgement on Lenin until after you become familiar with his way of thinking and his work...

@ Stalinbad:

Likewise, probably better to reserve judgement on the Left Communists until you become familiar with their work. I presume that Sea is referring to 'Left Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder' that I mentioned earier. Herman Gorter wrote a rejoinder - An Open Letter to Comrade Lenin (https://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm) - that's worth reading.


...
Personally, I'm rather surprised to see people railing against Lenin because of how he used the term 'socialism'. If Lenin is to be criticized, you should expect a more serious criticism than petty squabbles over wording.

@ Sea: Cheap shot. I wasn't criticising him, I was criticising Leninists. Lenin knew his usage wasn't the same as Marx's. But Leninists pretend that their usage is unproblematic. Only Jimmie Higgins of the 'Leninists' ('Marxist-' or 'Bolshevik-') flagged up that it's not the only interpretation of 'socialism'. And it's the usage that StalinBad was using. Fact is, it's going to cause problems with non-Leninists if you think socialism is a stage between capitalism and communism.

[bluemangroup]

Very nice answer, as all were. Is there still more I should find out about Marxism or does that pretty much sum it up? So basically, Marxism sounds like a Utopia, for sure.

How can we achieve true Marxism (Utopia)? And in which ideology can we achieve it? Do we achieve it in Leninism, Trotskyism? Or dare I say in Stalinism, but I think Stalin betrayed Marx. Hence my anti-Stalin username.

IMHO there is no such thing as "true Marxism," "true capitalism," etc. There are only variations on the economical and political concepts which we, as humans, can only follow to a certain degree of exactness.

Furthermore, just FYI, Marxism isn't a utopia; In the Communist Manifesto (which you must read if you want to start your descent into Marxism - trust me, it gets harder and more complex as you descend deeper into Marxist theory) Marx makes clear that communism, socialism, or whatever you wanna call it depending on your tendency is a new society arising out of capitalism (E.H. Carr explains this well in volume 2 of his 14-book series on the Soviet Union) that is still marred by the birthmarks of capitalist society (it arises out of the womb of capitalism so to speak, with all of its imperfections and flaws left over from capitalism)

Stalin IMHO didn't "betray" Marx or even Lenin; he arose as a unique individual best suited to the conditions prevailing in the USSR at the time; classify him as a monster or butcher, a bureaucrat, a theorist of Marxism, etc. and regardless of how one looks at it collectivization and rapid industrialization was bound to happen regardless with or without Stalin.

So I would argue that one should take a dialectical view of the Stalin era, that is a view which takes into account each and every contradiction inherent in that era. (But that's just me)

Personally, I'm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (I wear that label with pride, to those who would accuse me of being a Stalinist)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Heya Stalinbad!
I guess the point I was trying to make (maybe in an overly jargon-y way) with my original post was that, at this point a lot of what could be called Marxist and what could be called Anarchist is pretty indistinct. Often it says more about preferred lexicons and personalities than it does about any concrete politics.
So, if you ask two Marxists what Marxism is, you might get two really different answers.
If you ask two anarchists what anarchism is, you might get two really different answers.
If you ask a Marxist and an anarchist what we should be doing, or what communism means, you might get the same answer.

[Sea]

Blake's Baby:

Let's keep this thread addressed to StalinBad and their concerns. If you post your concerns in the "Was Lenin a Blanquist?" thread I'll respond to them there, because the last thing a new user needs is for their thread to turn into yet another back-and-forth Lenin squabble. :)

[Blake's Baby]

What concerns?

StalinBad asked a question about LinksRadical (a Left Comm's) politics; I responded on that point, and mentioned that Lenin had criticised them and where (didn't name any Left Comm texts, didn't say Lenin was wrong); StalinBad then asked about my opinion of Trotsky and Stalin's relationship to 'Leninism', whatever that is; then you came steaming in saying Left Comms (who weren't under discussion) were hyper-critical of Lenin, which is both irrelevant, and wrong. Then you also linked to 'an Infantile Disorder', that I had, I say again, already mentioned.

So; why disrupt this thread with misinformation about Left Comms?

[StalinBad]

What concerns?

StalinBad asked a question about LinksRadical (a Left Comm's) politics; I responded on that point, and mentioned that Lenin had criticised them and where (didn't name any Left Comm texts, didn't say Lenin was wrong); StalinBad then asked about my opinion of Trotsky and Stalin's relationship to 'Leninism', whatever that is; then you came steaming in saying Left Comms (who weren't under discussion) were hyper-critical of Lenin, which is both irrelevant, and wrong. Then you also linked to 'an Infantile Disorder', that I had, I say again, already mentioned.

So; why disrupt this thread with misinformation about Left Comms?


Thanks for everything guys, lawl. I'll come back to this thread soon with more questions probably, I am a Trotskyist by the way.

I'm going to go read some of Marx's works, I will have a better understanding of Marxism soon.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Which in your opinion is more true to Leninism?

On the question of Leninism (and Leninists themselves don't agree) I think a good starting point would be "State and Revolution" because in it Lenin covers his interpretation of Marx and the question of what is a state, how does a mass revolutionary worker's movement move from the present to communism.

This is also where the question of "Socilalism" being a "transition period" towards communism comes up. Lenin cites Marx's discussion of "lower and higher" phases of communism for this. The pamphlet also goes into the necissity of the worker's revolution smashing the current capitalist state (i.e. getting rid of the current military and beurocracy) so that workers can create their own means and power to organize society. I think it's a fantastic work of synthesis that unites many threads of different revolutionary tradditions from Anarchism to revolutionary Marxism.

[reb]

I'd like to know just basically a good definition of Socialism and Communism, and the differences between the two. From what I have learned already Communism can only be achieved through Socialism? And that Socialism is the first step towards Communism?

Marx and Engels never described their conception of socialism like that. To then, socialism and communism was the same thing. A social movement that arises from within capital to abolish capital. To parse out revolution into a series of steps would be going against what they were arguing for, the immediacy of social revolution, the position of the proletariat in history way in which capital has developed our social relations.

[Remus Bleys]

Which in your opinion is more true to Leninism?
Neither. They are both Bourgeoisie ideologies based on a cult of lenin + 1 (trotsky or stalin). A perversion of leninism designed for opportunist needs.

[reb]

I forgot to mention that when people say Leninism, what they are referring to is the ideology of the Soviet State and became a dogma after the death of Lenin. Lenin himself was not a Leninist. So when a person tells you they are a Leninist, it more often than not means that they're a stalinist. Stalinists dont like being called stalinists so they prefer either to be called a Leninist or a marxist-leninist. Trotskyists too are leninists in that they also supported the soviet state and the myth making that has surrounded it such as the vanguard party.

In short, leninism is the ideology of the soviet state and as all with ideology, it is a capitalist ideology the same way that social-democracy, republicanism, libertarianism, free market capitalism and Keynesian are ideologies that serve capitalist states. They serve to obfuscate the actual relationships within the state but specifically with the soviet state, it tried to answer the question as to how it came to be that a nominally socialist party ran a capitalist state after a proletarian revolution.