Simple Definitions

[Comrade Chernov]

Alright, I'm about at breaking point.

Now, I've got to make this clear, I'm a dedicated Leftist. I'm fed up with everything Capitalism has to "offer". But at the same time, I feel a bit out of touch with some of the ideologies being discussed.

I've got a general idea of what Marxism and Marxism-Leninism are, and what Stalinism is. Aside from that...pretty much nothing.

I'm not the type of person who enjoys spending hours reading semi-indecipherable, idealistic language from the 1800s-mid 1900s. I like concise and to-the-point information. I don't like reading scientific thesis, I don't like philosophy, I like pragmatic, easy-to-understand definitions of things.

So, if someone doesn't mind, I'm basically looking for easy definitions of:

- Trotskyism
- Maoism
- Titoism
- Hoxhaism
- Titoism
- Basically any "ism" that draws its name from a Leftist leader that isn't MLism or Stalinism.

Telling me to "go read" isn't helpful, because it just ain't gonna happen.

[Comrade Chernov]

Oh, and Dialetical Materialism would be helpful, too.

If anyone actually wants to answer this, that is.

[Art Vandelay]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-left-39-t22627/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-left-dictionary-t22628/index.html

This is obviously very limited and there are some issues with it, but it seemed like it might be what you were looking for. The threads can be found stickied at the top of the learning forum.

[reb]

Trotskyism is leninism on crack. They promote democratic centralism as well as things called transitional demands which really just amounts to tricking the proletariat into following the party. Trotsky also introduced the idea of the militarization of labor and terrible stuff like that. Trotskyism formed the foundational basis for stalinism and as such, trotskyism is the loyal opposition to stalinism. Trotskyism today is pretty idealist in that it thinks that the crisis in the workers movement involves a crisis in leadership.

Maoism is a bourgeois ideology that promotes class collaboration and the idea that peasantry can be revolutionary. It basically takes stalinism as an ideology but has more regular market features economically and more traditional ideas philosophically such as contradiction leads to contradiction.

Titoism only survives in the brains of market socialists.

Hoxhaism only survives int he brains of 6 basement dwellers whose only contact with the real world is through the internet. It's basically an albanian version of maoism except that China is the bad guy and not Albania.

Dialectical materialism was something that was made up and doesn't relate to real dialectics of Marx or even materialism. It's just a way for pseudo-marxist to make themselves sound smart.

[Comrade Chernov]

Would it make me a Libertarian Socialist/AnCom/etc to say that I don't believe in democratic centralism or a vanguard party, but rather a degradation of government size in a slow, sustained process until any sort of governing body is on the county/town/commune level?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Trotskyism is leninism on crack. They promote democratic centralism as well as things called transitional demands which really just amounts to tricking the proletariat into following the party.

May I ask how it tricks the workers? Programs with transitional demands explicitly and openly fight for socialism, and openly states these demands can only be fully met through workers' socialist revolution. This isn't any sort of trick. It's not hard to understand, to be quite honest.

[consuming negativity]

Would it make me a Libertarian Socialist/AnCom/etc to say that I don't believe in democratic centralism or a vanguard party, but rather a degradation of government size in a slow, sustained process until any sort of governing body is on the county/town/commune level?

That sounds a lot like democratic socialism if you ask me, but then it also seems a bit different. It's certainly closer to that than any anarchist strain that I'm aware of, though.

[Remus Bleys]

Would it make me a Libertarian Socialist/AnCom/etc to say that I don't believe in democratic centralism or a vanguard party, but rather a degradation of government size in a slow, sustained process until any sort of governing body is on the county/town/commune level?

Id say that makes you anarchist. That is the main differencce between marxism and anarchism, to be in favor of localism and not centralism.
Not everyone who "believes" in vanguards sees the usefulness of democratic centralism btw.

[Comrade Chernov]

I feel like more than just an anarchist, though. I still think that communes and whatnot should be organized according to need, as well as the need for worker organization. I don't want to say that there should be socialist states, but I believe that confederated 'regions' if you will could band together to provide some sort of revolutionary council/committee during the early stages of the revolution.

[reb]

Would it make me a Libertarian Socialist/AnCom/etc to say that I don't believe in democratic centralism or a vanguard party, but rather a degradation of government size in a slow, sustained process until any sort of governing body is on the county/town/commune level?

It wouldn't make you a leninist if you don't believe in the vanguard party or that you don't believe in the totally asinine idea that there's the workers movement that needs to be merged with socialism. But I don't know what the rest of the thing makes you.

[reb]

May I ask how it tricks the workers? Programs with transitional demands explicitly and openly fight for socialism, and openly states these demands can only be fully met through workers' socialist revolution. This isn't any sort of trick. It's not hard to understand, to be quite honest.

Transitional demands need to be mediated and emerge from a party. It's social-democracy all over again. If the demands don't originate organically from the proletariat, and even if they do I don't think they need to be openly or understood to be "socialist", and that concept is pretty utopian, then it's just a social democratic part to dupe people into socialism.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Trotskyism is leninism on crack. They promote democratic centralism as well as things called transitional demands which really just amounts to tricking the proletariat into following the party. Trotsky also introduced the idea of the militarization of labor and terrible stuff like that. Trotskyism formed the foundational basis for stalinism and as such, trotskyism is the loyal opposition to stalinism. Trotskyism today is pretty idealist in that it thinks that the crisis in the workers movement involves a crisis in leadership.

Maoism is a bourgeois ideology that promotes class collaboration and the idea that peasantry can be revolutionary. It basically takes stalinism as an ideology but has more regular market features economically and more traditional ideas philosophically such as contradiction leads to contradiction.

Titoism only survives in the brains of market socialists.

Hoxhaism only survives int he brains of 6 basement dwellers whose only contact with the real world is through the internet. It's basically an albanian version of maoism except that China is the bad guy and not Albania.

Dialectical materialism was something that was made up and doesn't relate to real dialectics of Marx or even materialism. It's just a way for pseudo-marxist to make themselves sound smart.

Those aren't simple definitions, nor definitions themselves at all. It's just you getting angry at said tendencies.

[erupt]

So, if someone doesn't mind, I'm basically looking for easy definitions of:

- Trotskyism
- Maoism
- Titoism
- Hoxhaism
- Titoism
- Basically any "ism" that draws its name from a Leftist leader that isn't MLism or Stalinism.

Hopefully my answers aren't biased and are considered correct since you seem sincere in your inquiry.

Trotskyism is usually considered Marxist-Leninist if I'm not mistaken; Leon Trotsky knew both Lenin and Stalin and was involved in the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War. His theory differs from Stalinism in multiple ways, but one common difference is Stalinism's preference for "Socialism In One Country" compared to Trotskyism's "permanent revolution", in which global revolution must occur for true socialism. Stalin and Trotsky were rivals, especially in later years, to the point that Stalin ordered Trotsky's death. They even had rival Internationals.

Maoism is considered Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist, I believe. Achieving power relies heavily on agrarian organization and guerrilla warfare compared to the traditional Marxist-Leninist line of urban organization and the seizure of power by the proletariat in those urban areas.

Titoism is socialism (though many will argue this point) and is much less dominant in socialist/communist theory than Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, or Maoism. A rather popular synonym is "market socialism" and has much to do with the Non-Aligned Movement, which attempted to be independent from both the United Nations and Cominform. Worker's self-management and associated labor (basically profit sharing) were two main socio-political differences from Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism and the vast majority of most Marxist schools of thought.

Hoxhaism is Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist; Enver Hoxha considered almost all other "socialist" nations "revisionist". Thus, he is one of the main anti-revisionists. He split with the Soviet Union in the late 1950's over de-Stalinization and Krushchev's renewed relationship with Yugoslavia/Josip Broz Tito and pursued relations with Mao's China. In the late 1970's, those two nations split concerning what Hoxha viewed as China's subversion to U.S. interests and their subsequent abandonment of world communism.

Dialectical materialism is a way to scientifically analyze history, economics, society, and their relationships with each other; history and the economy continue onward despite changing economic systems and structures, and this always-changing trait is essential to this mode of thought, which, is essential to Marxism as a whole.
---
If you or anyone else is interested in my answers, which I tried to have as concise as possible, please just let me know. As usual, I may have left something out.

Also, MIA.org, or Marxists.org, has short definitions before the actual articles themselves, which may be of use to you, Comrade Chernov.

[Comrade Chernov]

I would 'thank' your post a million times if I could, erupt. That helps a lot, thank you very much.

[reb]

Those aren't simple definitions, nor definitions themselves at all. It's just you getting angry at said tendencies.

I'm still correct.

[reb]

Hopefully my answers aren't biased and are considered correct since you seem sincere in your inquiry.

Trotskyism is usually considered Marxist-Leninist if I'm not mistaken;

You are mistaken, marxism-leninism refers to stalinism and the ideology of the soviet union.


.Leon Trotsky knew both Lenin and Stalin and was involved in the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War. His theory differs from Stalinism in multiple ways, but one common difference is Stalinism's preference for "Socialism In One Country" compared to Trotskyism's "permanent revolution", in which global revolution must occur for true socialism.

Neither stalinism nor trotskyism differ that much in theory. They just differ politically. To have socialism in one country you need to have a theory of permanent revolution which is why Stalinists will try to say that Lenin came up with one that was different from Trotskys.


Maoism is considered Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist, I believe. Achieving power relies heavily on agrarian organization and guerrilla warfare compared to the traditional Marxist-Leninist line of urban organization and the seizure of power by the proletariat in those urban areas.

Maoism is at heart a substitutionist ideology, putting the party in the place of the proletariat, the same with Trotskyism, Stalinism and Balkanized Maoism. In China this was because there was practically no proletarian involvement, the party having to rely on peasants which constitutes a direct revision to Marx so they had to say that the party now represents the interests of the people.


Hoxhaism is Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist;

Stalinism is marxism-leninism.


Enver Hoxha considered almost all other "socialist" nations "revisionist".

Which had a lot more to do with geo-political situations rather than theory, regardless of how much he tried to dress it up as such. It is worth nothing that anti-revisionism in this context is a maoist thing.


Thus, he is one of the main anti-revisionists. He split with the Soviet Union in the late 1950's over de-Stalinization and Krushchev's renewed relationship with Yugoslavia/Josip Broz Tito and pursued relations with Mao's China. In the late 1970's, those two nations split concerning what Hoxha viewed as China's subversion to U.S. interests and their subsequent abandonment of world communism.

It was because he viewed these things as affecting Albanian nationalism. First a challenge from the Soviet Union then China aligning with Yugoslavia.


Dialectical materialism is a way to scientifically analyze history, economics, society, and their relationships with each other; history and the economy continue onward despite changing economic systems and structures, and this always-changing trait is essential to this mode of thought, which, is essential to Marxism as a whole.

It is not scientific. Marx didn't even consider his socialism "scientific", of which "dialectical materialism" only bares a passing resemblance, in the sense that you are trying to present. Dialectical materialism was a feeble attempt by orthodox marxists to make a dogma out of Marx. It's as I said, just a way for people to try to make themselves sound like they know what they are talking about.

[Art Vandelay]

Transitional demands need to be mediated and emerge from a party. It's social-democracy all over again. If the demands don't originate organically from the proletariat, and even if they do I don't think they need to be openly or understood to be "socialist", and that concept is pretty utopian, then it's just a social democratic part to dupe people into socialism.

I don't think you quite understand the transitional program. The transitional method doesn't entail duping people into anything, only a gross misreading of the document could ever lead one to said conclusion. The entire point is to avoid merely abstractly advocating for a socialist society and instead to articulate what socialist revolution would entail and to link it to the struggle for socialism, with demands which arise organically out of the proletarian struggle. Indeed it is only by linking demands to revolution, that workers can be convinced of the correctness of the Marxist program, to peel workers away from bourgeois hegemony and towards the understanding of their place in class society, their collective interests, etc. As a friend said to me recently in a discussion on this very topic:


The transitional part of the program is intended to get revolutionaries not to bandy about "socialism" as an abstraction, but to sharpen and concretize propaganda about it by spelling out what the practical implications for such a revolution would be, by invoking what workers could actually achieve through their own revolutionary agency but which the bourgeoisie can not or will not do -- all without having to win workers over to the complete program of eliminating commodity production and introducing full communism. In other words, the approach presupposes talking about revolution and drawing clear class lines.

Trotsky on the matter:


For us as a small minority this whole thing is objective including the mood of the workers. But we must analyze and classify those elements of the objective situation which can be changed by our paper and those which cannot be changed. That is why we say that the program is adapted to the fundamental stable elements of the objective situation and the task is to adapt the mentality of the masses to those objective factors. To adapt the mentality is a pedagogical task. We must be patient, etc. The crisis of society is given as the base of our activity. The mentality is the political arena of our activity. We must change it. We must give a scientific explanation of society, and clearly explain it to the masses. That is the difference between Marxism and reformism.

The reformists have a good smell for what the audience wants as Norman Thomas – he gives them that. But that is not serious revolutionary activity. We must have the courage to be unpopular, to say “you are fools,” “you are stupid,” “they betray you,” and every once in a while with a scandal launch our ideas with passion. It is necessary to shake the worker from time to time, to explain, and then shake him again – that all belongs to the art of propaganda. But it must be scientific, not bent to the moods of the masses. We are the most realistic people because we reckon with facts which cannot be changed by the eloquence of Norman Thomas. If we win immediate success we swim with the current of the masses and that current is the revolution.

How you interpret this to be tricking anyone, into anything, is beyond me.

[reb]

I don't think you quite understand the transitional program. The transitional method doesn't entail duping people into anything, only a gross misreading of the document could ever lead one to said conclusion. The entire point is to avoid merely abstractly advocating for a socialist society and instead to articulate what socialist revolution would entail and to link it to the struggle for socialism, with demands which arise organically out of the proletarian struggle. Indeed it is only by linking demands to revolution, that workers can be convinced of the correctness of the Marxist program, to peel workers away from bourgeois hegemony and towards the understanding of their place in class society, their collective interests, etc. As a friend said to me recently in a discussion on this very topic:



Trotsky on the matter:



How you interpret this to be tricking anyone, into anything, is beyond me.

Placing the party right at the center like I have said. Trotskyism is about as revolutionary as social-democracy of which it is a descendant.

[Art Vandelay]

Placing the party right at the center like I have said. Trotskyism is about as revolutionary as social-democracy of which it is a descendant.

How compelling. :rolleyes:

[Ismail]

The idea that the pro-Albanian tendency "only exists in basements" is absurd, both historically and today. In some countries pro-Albanian parties were practically the only ones around and had a notable influence, such as in Mali, Suriname, Benin, etc. Likewise in Latin America parties like the PCdoB and MAP-ML were significant.


Which had a lot more to do with geo-political situations rather than theory, regardless of how much he tried to dress it up as such.Well yes, when the Chinese revisionists put out claims that US imperialism was "weak" and "tamed," and divided the world into bourgeois geopolitical categories rather than capitalist and socialist worlds as Lenin and Stalin did, obviously geopolitics is going to be an important issue. Hoxha precisely pointed out that the Chinese claims "had a lot more to do with geo-political situations rather than theory, regardless of how much [they] tried to dress it up as such."


It is worth nothing that anti-revisionism in this context is a maoist thing.Marxists have been opposing revisionism since the days of Bernstein and the renegade Kautsky. The Chinese revisionists claimed they were opposing revisionism, but the Soviet revisionists also claimed they were opposing revisionism as well (including Maoism.) Indeed, even the Yugoslav revisionists denounced Stalin's supposed "revisionism." Trots, too, have used the word extensively. All this shows is that no Marxist openly supports revisionism and that opposing it is a central task of any revolutionary.


It was because he viewed these things as affecting Albanian nationalism. First a challenge from the Soviet Union then China aligning with Yugoslavia.A meaningless statement. The USSR under the revisionists as well as Yugoslavia tried to overthrow Albania, I don't see what "nationalism" has to do with it. Furthermore Hoxha criticized the Chinese a great many times before they went and praised the Titoites, which happened in 1977 when the Sino-Albanian split was well underway.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, I'm by no means a Hoxhaist, but the "6 basement dwellers" comment is pretty demonstrably false. In my city, members of the CPC(M-L) (http://www.cpcml.ca/) are some of the most active antiwar organizers, as well as being quite present in CUPW (http://www.cupw.ca/) (the most militant of the big Canadian unions).

It's pretty sad, in my opinion, that posters would use this thread - where a question was asked in good faith - to engage in sectarian mud-slinging.

Back to the original post, I think you're asking the impossible, since, for example, in the case of Trotskyism or Maoism, the variety of parties and ideas that fall under either banner is so broad that one might as well ask, "What is a communist?"

Within the Trotskyist tradition, for example, we get everything from the "Orthodox" Spartacists (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/) to quasi-anarchists like Martin Glaberman (http://www.marxists.org/archive/glaberman/). We could argue who are the "real" Trotskyists (CWI (http://www.socialistworld.net/) or IMT (http://www.marxist.com/)?), but it probably makes more sense to look at Trotskyism as a historical phenomenon, including a whole shit-tonne of positions and parties emerging out of the 4th International.

Maoism is arguably even more convoluted, since it doesn't have a lineage to trace back to Mao the way Trotskyism does: Gauche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauche_prol%C3%A9tarienne) Prolétarienne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauche_prol%C3%A9tarienne), the Black Panther Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party), and even the deeply fucked up Workers' Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/25/slavery-london) all described themselves as Maoist. That said, I think there are some good answers in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoismi-ask-maoist-t179097/index.html?t=179097).

[erupt]

You are mistaken, marxism-leninism refers to stalinism and the ideology of the soviet union.

Neither stalinism nor trotskyism differ that much in theory. They just differ politically. To have socialism in one country you need to have a theory of permanent revolution which is why Stalinists will try to say that Lenin came up with one that was different from Trotskys.

Maoism is at heart a substitutionist ideology, putting the party in the place of the proletariat, the same with Trotskyism, Stalinism and Balkanized Maoism. In China this was because there was practically no proletarian involvement, the party having to rely on peasants which constitutes a direct revision to Marx so they had to say that the party now represents the interests of the people.

Stalinism is marxism-leninism.

Which had a lot more to do with geo-political situations rather than theory, regardless of how much he tried to dress it up as such. It is worth nothing that anti-revisionism in this context is a maoist thing.

It was because he viewed these things as affecting Albanian nationalism. First a challenge from the Soviet Union then China aligning with Yugoslavia.

It is not scientific. Marx didn't even consider his socialism "scientific", of which "dialectical materialism" only bares a passing resemblance, in the sense that you are trying to present. Dialectical materialism was a feeble attempt by orthodox marxists to make a dogma out of Marx. It's as I said, just a way for people to try to make themselves sound like they know what they are talking about.

I'm pretty sure there are adherents of Marxism-Leninism that reject Stalinism on this forum.

Promoting "permanent revolution" as opposed to "socialism in one country" is largely different to me; can you elaborate on how they are so alike?

Concerning Maoism, you said how it was agrarian rather than urban and proletarian, just like I said.

Concerning Hoxhaism, again I maintain there are Marxist-Leninists that do not call themselves Stalinists. Hoxha, however, was loyal to Stalin, too. Geo-politics is relevant in almost every scenario so to mention it concerning Albania as if it is unique is inaccurate in my opinion. Also, it could be argued he viewed the splits from the USSR and the PRC as affecting Albania, not Albanian nationalism. He knew he was virtually a lone wolf at that point.

Saying dialectical materialism is just a way to sound smart is fine, but I'd be willing to bet that Comrade Chernov wanted an abbreviated, encyclopedic-like answer. Your opinion is fine, but it's not going to help him with his question any sooner.

EDIT: I'd like to add that I'm hostile to all this dogmatic Hoxhaism, Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism, etc. I was just trying to give simplified answers as requested.

[Comrade Chernov]

Encyclopedia-like is ideal, yeah.