Marxism-Leninism

[Alonso Quijano]

Okay, I can accept that Lenin and Trotsky had no other chance. Still they failed as Rosa predicted, and more importantly - they didn't feet because they "skipped a stage". Now, I've notice European and American parties calling themselves ML. WHY? Leninism was pragmatic to its time. How is the hammer and sickle relevant today?

If there's no danger of being vanished, and many of us didn't believe their ideals long before they ended in a glorious suicide - why after Rosa was proven right still all the love for a system that failed miserably in convincing its citizens they have a proletarian identity?

I mean, Stalin supported SPD, prefered the Nazis, installed a puppet list in every possible party, has to rule the international as the sole representative of God - Now isn't our time to take BACK Marxism?

[Brotto Rühle]

Marxism-Leninism has nothing to do with Lenin, besides the name. It's a practice of bourgeois economics, and idol worship of Stalin and what Stalin claims Lenin was.

[motion denied]

Okay, I can accept that Lenin and Trotsky had no other chance.

Regarding what exactly?


Still they failed as Rosa predicted, and more importantly - they didn't feet because they "skipped a stage".Russian proletariat did not skip any stages, this kind of stageist talk is counter-revolutionary. Rosa did 'predict', as Marx already had, that there can be no transition to socialism in one country. Let the woman say it:


Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and all the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honor and capacity which western Social-Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks. Their October uprising was not only the actual salvation of the Russian Revolution; it was also the salvation of the honor of international socialism.


[...]


In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia



Now, I've notice European and American parties calling themselves ML. WHY? Leninism was pragmatic to its time. How is the hammer and sickle relevant today?Because they adhere to what's been called 'leninism'. Well, I too, would think why - even after the complete failure of USSR - some party would call itself ML.

The hammer and sickle represent world socialism, not bolshevism.


If there's no danger of being vanished, and many of us didn't believe their ideals long before they ended in a glorious suicide - why after Rosa was proven right still all the love for a system that failed miserably in convincing its citizens they have a proletarian identity?I'm not sure what you mean here. This 'system' did not fail in convincing its citizens they had proletarian identity (what?); it didn't need too, as there still were classes.


I mean, Stalin supported SPD, prefered the Nazis, installed a puppet list in every possible party, has to rule the international as the sole representative of God -Oh boy, be prepared for trouble.


Now isn't our time to take BACK Marxism?Yes (if you mean what I think you mean).

[Red_Banner]

Marxism-Leninism has nothing to do with Lenin, besides the name. It's a practice of bourgeois economics, and idol worship of Stalin and what Stalin claims Lenin was.

Alot of Marxist-Leninists do not like Stalin.

[Brotto Rühle]

Alot of Marxist-Leninists do not like Stalin.

A lot of Marxist-Leninists are full of shit...make that all of them.

[Red_Banner]

A lot of Marxist-Leninists are full of shit...make that all of them.


Anymore than you are?

[Stalinist Speaker]

Alot of Marxist-Leninists do not like Stalin.

i don't think that you've met a lot of marxist leninists..

[Durruti's friend]

Alot of Marxist-Leninists do not like Stalin.
Which ML's do not "like" Stalin, or at least uphold him to a certain extent? That's a weird presumption, since Marxism-Leninism is basically Stalin's bastardized interpretation of both Marxism and Leninism. I mean, Stalin was the guy who invented the term Marxism-Leninism, so saying there are ML's who don't at least think he was a respectable theoretician is, well... ignorant of political terminology.

[Alonso Quijano]

Sorry: Was not clear.



Regarding what exactly?
Meaning that maybe they really did support democracy as said, only couldn't.
And maybe only made the farmer part of their symbol.


Russian proletariat did not skip any stages, this kind of stageist talk is counter-revolutionary.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/refugee-literature/ch05.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch02.htm


The stage theory of Marxism is one of its founding stones, for me.


Because they adhere to what's been called 'leninism'. Well, I too, would think why - even after the complete failure of USSR - some party would call itself ML.

The hammer and sickle represent world socialism, not bolshevism.
Hammer are Sickle walked into this world with the Russian Revoluion, the Hammer supposefly symbolising the proletariat, and the sickle the farmers.


I'm not sure what you mean here. This 'system' did not fail in convincing its citizens they had proletarian identity (what?); it didn't need too, as there still were classes.

Wasn't one of the main goals of socialism is class and political consciousness? Have you ever spoken to ex-USSR people? You made people hate the whole original ideology. Revolution comes from the masses. who should get accurate consciouss. Not only Rosa said that. Marx & Engels said that.


Oh boy, be prepared for trouble.
I'm preparing. Is it true or not that after WWI the USSR had no problem establishing relations with the traitors of the SPD? I hope that at least they thgouth about stopping, after what happened when Rosa was murdered, or in the RUHR. And the German Communist Party that they lead voted together with Hitler, as opposition. That's kind of a huge stain on someone's history, and I don't really need to claim that Stalin wasn't so much pro-other-Internationals, right?



Now isn't our time to take BACK Marxism?
Yes (if you mean what I think you mean).
I was sure, to be honest, not sure anymore...

[Red_Banner]

Which ML's do not "like" Stalin, or at least uphold him to a certain extent? That's a weird presumption, since Marxism-Leninism is basically Stalin's bastardized interpretation of both Marxism and Leninism. I mean, Stalin was the guy who invented the term Marxism-Leninism, so saying there are ML's who don't at least think he was a respectable theoretician is, well... ignorant of political terminology.

He invented it?

Zinoviev didn't invent the term?


Why can't somone be a Marxist and a Leninist without being a Stalinist?

[bluemangroup]

Okay, I can accept that Lenin and Trotsky had no other chance. Still they failed as Rosa predicted, and more importantly - they didn't feet because they "skipped a stage". Now, I've notice European and American parties calling themselves ML. WHY? Leninism was pragmatic to its time. How is the hammer and sickle relevant today?

If there's no danger of being vanished, and many of us didn't believe their ideals long before they ended in a glorious suicide - why after Rosa was proven right still all the love for a system that failed miserably in convincing its citizens they have a proletarian identity?

I mean, Stalin supported SPD, prefered the Nazis, installed a puppet list in every possible party, has to rule the international as the sole representative of God - Now isn't our time to take BACK Marxism?

One: the Russian (October) Revolution didn't fail. Backward conditions and major weaknesses aside, the USSR under the New Economic Policy (NEP) and later the Five-Year Plan did pretty well considering the USSR under Lenin was far too brittle and backwater for socialism (hence NEP or state-capitalism as advocated by Lenin)

Two: Marxism-Leninism is/was far from being solely a Russian phenomenon. (According to this theory, the Nazis were right about the USSR being a foreign Bolshevik conspiracy) Many countries, from China to Cuba and across to eastern Europe have experienced at one point in their histories Marxism-Leninism.

Three: Actually, Stalin favored the German Communist Party (KPD) over both the Nazis and the German Social-Democrats; a major fault of the German Revolution was treating the Social-Democrats as a greater threat than Nazism. A serious correction of policy would be undertaken by the KPD after 1945, chiefly through forming a united front against fascism with the Social-Democrats and numerous other smaller anti-fascist political parties. This was in effect a massive overhaul from the KPD's initial sectarian stance which cost it the revolution in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's.

Otherwise, I'd suggest you read up on Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc. to get a better grasp of what constitutes Marxism-Leninism. That, and pick out several good history books from the library on the USSR under Lenin and Stalin or China under Mao.

[Red_Banner]

Which ML's do not "like" Stalin, or at least uphold him to a certain extent? That's a weird presumption, since Marxism-Leninism is basically Stalin's bastardized interpretation of both Marxism and Leninism. I mean, Stalin was the guy who invented the term Marxism-Leninism, so saying there are ML's who don't at least think he was a respectable theoretician is, well... ignorant of political terminology.

Tito used Marxist-Leninist and he wasn't all that thrilled with Stalin.

[reb]

I believe that when people first come to socialism they know nothing else than that the USSR was "socialist", something that both the bourgeoisie and Stalinsts share in common and both for pretty much the same reasons. Stalinism, being a bourgeois ideology, fits in nicely with kids who haven't shed their bourgeois beliefs and moralism. Stalinism by it's very nature seeks to obfuscate marxism as much as possible, turning marxism into another bourgeois ideology which is then modified by the cult of Lenin. I would hope that if people actually bothered to read Marx then they'd know how full of shit stalinism is.


Why can't somone be a Marxist and a Leninist without being a Stalinist?

Because Lenin didn't consider himself to be a leninist. He probably just considered himself to be an orthodox marxist and marxism-marxism doesn't have a nice ring to it.

[Red_Banner]

I believe that when people first come to socialism they know nothing else than that the USSR was "socialist", something that both the bourgeoisie and Stalinsts share in common and both for pretty much the same reasons. Stalinism, being a bourgeois ideology, fits in nicely with kids who haven't shed their bourgeois beliefs and moralism. Stalinism by it's very nature seeks to obfuscate marxism as much as possible, turning marxism into another bourgeois ideology which is then modified by the cult of Lenin. I would hope that if people actually bothered to read Marx then they'd know how full of shit stalinism is.



Because Lenin didn't consider himself to be a leninist. He probably just considered himself to be an orthodox marxist and marxism-marxism doesn't have a nice ring to it.

Yeah but Marx shied away from the term "Marxist" when people using it were misrepresnting him.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah but Marx shied away from the term "Marxist" when people using it were misrepresnting him.
He did not. I swear that quote is tossed around out of context about as much as any other on here. It was a snide insult made in personal correspondance, it didnt mean Marx didnt conceive of himself as a Marxist.

[Blake's Baby]

He invented it?

Zinoviev didn't invent the term?...

Zinoviev invenbted the term. But a term (ie, the name of something) is not the same as the thing itself. Stalin codified 'Marxist-Leninism' from the name invented by Zinoviev, and various policies advocated by (variously) Bukharin, and Trotsky & the Left Opposition.


...
Why can't somone be a Marxist and a Leninist without being a Stalinist?

I'm a Marxist, and some people think I'm a Leninist; but I'm not a 'Marxist-Leninist', because a Marxist-Leninist is a follower of the doctrine codified by Stalin; that is, what we call 'a Stalinist'. Or now, more likely a Maoist (which can be seen as a form of Stalinism, in that it supports the doctrine of socialism in one country, the defining feature of Marxist-Leninism/Stalinism).


Tito used Marxist-Leninist and he wasn't all that thrilled with Stalin.

Does liking someone have anything to do with politics? If he followed Stalin's policies he was a Stalinist, even if he thought Stalin was an idiot, a boor, had bad breath and a terrible moustache.

I think Marx sounds like he was an arse, sometimes. Doesn't stop me being a Marxist.

[Art Vandelay]

Why can't somone be a Marxist and a Leninist without being a Stalinist?

You certainly can be. I am both a Marxist and a 'Leninist'; I'd actually go as far to argue that 'Leninism' and Marxism are synonyms and that for one to be both a Marxist/'Leninist,' one could not be a stalinist.

[LiamChe]

It is possible for someone to say they are an ML, but not like Stalin. However, doing so would deny all of Stalin's many great theoretical contributions to Marxism-Leninism. In retrospect it wouldn't really make much sense for an ML to be anti-Stalin. Stalin was the one who first coined the term Marxism-Leninism and he was able to synthesize Marxism with Lenin's theoretical contributions to Marxism.

If you're interested in learning more about Marxism-Leninism and dispelling some of the falsehoods about Marxist-Leninists made by Trotskyists and the Ultra-Left, then I suggest reading these:

Stalin: The Myth and Reality (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1999/x01/x01.htm)

Foundations of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm)

Concerning Questions of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm)

The Social-Democratic Deviation in our Party (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/11/01.htm)

[reb]

Yeah but Marx shied away from the term "Marxist" when people using it were misrepresnting him.

And Marxism, like Leninism, became a dogma after the death of their respective namesake.

[Red_Banner]

It is possible for someone to say they are an ML, but not like Stalin. However, doing so would deny all of Stalin's many great theoretical contributions to Marxism-Leninism. In retrospect it wouldn't really make much sense for an ML to be anti-Stalin. Stalin was the one who first coined the term Marxism-Leninism and he was able to synthesize Marxism with Lenin's theoretical contributions to Marxism.

If you're interested in learning more about Marxism-Leninism and dispelling some of the falsehoods about Marxist-Leninists made by Trotskyists and the Ultra-Left, then I suggest reading these:

Stalin: The Myth and Reality (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1999/x01/x01.htm)

Foundations of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm)

Concerning Questions of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm)

The Social-Democratic Deviation in our Party (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/11/01.htm)

So when did Stalin first use it then?

[bluemangroup]

I'm a Marxist, and some people think I'm a Leninist; but I'm not a 'Marxist-Leninist', because a Marxist-Leninist is a follower of the doctrine codified by Stalin; that is, what we call 'a Stalinist'. Or now, more likely a Maoist (which can be seen as a form of Stalinism, in that it supports the doctrine of socialism in one country, the defining feature of Marxist-Leninism/Stalinism).

I, on the other hand, don't shy away from calling myself a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. (oh my!)

Maoism was/is internationalist and, being as it deviated from orthodox Marxist viewpoints towards the peasantry, emphasized the revolutionary rural peasantry as a means to seize the 'teeming proletarian centers' or urban centers with an army pooled together from the countryside. (to paraphrase Philip Short, who wrote Mao: A Life)

Furthermore, although Mao emphasized that the Chinese Revolution was essentially New Democratic owing to China's backwardness industry, which had initially been left in the hands of industrial capitalists, was nationalized in the 1950's

This was followed by an attempt at voluntary collectivization of agriculture, something which Lenin prior to his death and later Stalin both advocated resolutely.

Socialism in one country is misleading; soviet Marxists actively expected outside help (chiefly from China and Germany) while they constructed socialism in the USSR. Stalin hoped for a revolution in Germany and China.


So when did Stalin first use it then?

Although some contemporaries did coin the term "Stalinism," it falls under the same category as 'I'm not a Marxist!' "Stalinism" was a renewal of Bolshevism - chiefly, through rapid industrialization, collectivization/socialization of agriculture (something which Lenin was a fervent believer in, that an central planning), and economic planning (i.e. the first Five-Year Plan)

[Brotto Rühle]

so when did stalin first use it then?

1929, afaik.

[Prometeo liberado]

A lot of Marxist-Leninists are full of shit...make that all of them.

Sorry, that weird feeling in the room was me pissing my pants laughing and trying not to let my cat spray on the help again.:rolleyes: