A few questions

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Hello.
I registered yesterday and already lost half a dozen hours reading a few topics. My first impression was how ugly this site is, but it's probably a matter of getting used to, however there's something annoying, when I open more than 3 or 4 tabs the site stops responding, it only happens on this forum, why is that? I use chrome, I tried with Firefox and it got better. Also, it seems every time I post, a moderator as to accept the comment, is this a thing for new users or for everyone?

Anyway, skipping to what I really wanted to talk about. I've notived some people argue that Marxism-Leninism is the same as Stalinism. Do you mean then, that most Comunist parties have Stalinism ideology?
Shouldn't Marxism-Leninism be what Lenin did and Stalinism what Stalin did, even if Marxism-Leninism was named during Stalin rule? They have different wikipedia articles after all.

Heritage. Communists are against heritages right?
In theory in a Communist society there's not heritage since there's not property, but right now, because we live in a capitalist society would you favor a law prohibiting heritage? The second most richest person in Portugal got his business by heritage. If that law was put into place, the means of production would revert to the state after its founder death? What about little things in most families, like objects? What do you think about that?

What's your stance on domestic animals?

Also, I see many theoric discussions around here, where is the most practical stuff? Discussing wages, taxes, labour hours etc that can be acomplished by pressure from the left in a capitalistic society.

Thanks.

[Dagoth Ur]

1. Vbulletin forums are always ugly. Although this color scheme is downright depressing.
2. Marxism-Leninism is a real thing, Stalinism isn't. Most "Stalinists" haven't even read Stalin. Stalinism was really just the period of Stalin's rule, referring to it in any other format just doesn't make sense.
3. Most parties, and communists, are Marxist-Leninist yes. How much they respect or uphold Stalin is a completely different matter. The CPUSA for instance claims to be M-L but explicitly condemns Stalin completely.
4. Marxism-Leninism is simply Marx being number one commie, Lenin being number two. It's basically just identifying on the basis of which thinkers you value most. Stalin also had no hand in coining the term.
5. Let's be clear. Marxism-Leninism of the 30's-40's cannot be compared to today's M-L at all. We just uphold the history of Marxism versus the cowards who defame it.
6. Inheritance is bullshit and basically ever Marxist of every stripe rejects the entire concept.
7. Private property are things that generate capital from their operation, things that do not do this are irrelevant to the state and of no concern. So give your kid that trinket you think is important.
8. What kind of domestic animals? No communist I know has a problem with pets though.
9. This is an ultra-leftist site so praxis isn't considered so important. But really if you want real world activism join a party.

[Blake's Baby]

'Stalinism' is what the rest of us call 'Marxism-Leninism' because 'Marxism-Leninism' is an ideology cobbled together by Stalin (name by Zinoviev, but predominantly theorised by Bukharin, Trotsky and Gramsci, weirdly enough) in the 1920s to justify his political decisions. By the same token 'Trotskyism' should really be calledd 'Bolshevik-Leninism', but no Stalinist ever calls it that.

So yes, Stalinism is Marxist-Leninism, the defining characteristic of which is support for the theory of Socialism in one Country; if you follow SioC, you are a Marxist-Leninist (even if personally you agree more with some other later leader like Mao) and thus a Stalinist.

[Dagoth Ur]

Except only idiots think SIOC is an eternal policy. World revolution didn't happen and SIOC was just the plan for the USSR after this failure. No real "Stalinist" thinks SIOC is better than world revolution.

[Queen Mab]

Except only idiots think SIOC is an eternal policy. World revolution didn't happen and SIOC was just the plan for the USSR after this failure. No real "Stalinist" thinks SIOC is better than world revolution.

Yes, the debate is over whether socialism in one country is possible. Stalinists say yes, most others say no.

[Dagoth Ur]

America could have SIOC. SIOC was also possible in Russia if Russia hadn't been so buttfucked by Czarism. Even Lenin's regime was ridiculously over-centralized becaise of this national peculiarity.

What is the so-called proof that SIOC cannot work?

[Queen Mab]

America could have SIOC. SIOC was also possible in Russia if Russia hadn't been so buttfucked by Czarism. Even Lenin's regime was ridiculously over-centralized becaise of this national peculiarity.

What is the so-called proof that SIOC cannot work?

Because Marx's theory of history says that socialism will succeed capitalism. And capitalism being a global system means that a single socialist country cannot succeed it. The material basis for socialism wouldn't exist.

[G4b3n]

Marxism-Leninism has taken on many different traditions over the decades. The only time MLs are to be referred to as Stalinists is when they defend the theoretical positions of Joseph Stalin or the crimes against humanity that occurred under his rule.

As for heritage, that is simply a means of sustaining the existence of a privileged class. The bourgeois state has no desire to interfere with this notion. If you support the use of a state as a means of establishing socialism you must account for the differences of bourgeois states and worker's states, both of which are established through revolution. For example, take a look at the state and its functions during feudalism as a mode of production and then compare it to the bourgeois democracies of today. Study closely the revolutions that established the bourgeois states.
As for "little things", it is important to distinguish between private property and personal property. Private property is employed in social relationships or has a relation to some sort of social function such as production. Personal property is just as it sounds, i.e, personal, and can not be use a means exploit the labor of others.
Example: Tooth brush = Personal property. Factory machinery= private property

As for practical issues, we do not speak too much on those because we have little means of participating in them, we are hopelessly irrelevant politically. In America, we just recently (as in last month) had the first genuine socialist (a trot) to be elected to a political office in over 60 years and it was a city council seat. What we need to focus on is introducing our ideas to fellow workers.

[motion denied]

America could have SIOC. SIOC was also possible in Russia if Russia hadn't been so buttfucked by Czarism. Even Lenin's regime was ridiculously over-centralized becaise of this national peculiarity.

What is the so-called proof that SIOC cannot work?

Yeah, had it not been Czarism, i.e., centuries and centuries of Czars, Russia could have become socialist successfully and alone. But then again, how on Earth can you assert such a thing is beyond me.

To me it seems that the self-collapse of the USSR proves that there can be no socialist transition in one country or, if you consider USSR socialst at any point, that it can't survive by itself. Either way, socialism in one country is impossible.

[reb]

Anyway, skipping to what I really wanted to talk about. I've notived some people argue that Marxism-Leninism is the same as Stalinism. Do you mean then, that most Comunist parties have Stalinism ideology?
Shouldn't Marxism-Leninism be what Lenin did and Stalinism what Stalin did, even if Marxism-Leninism was named during Stalin rule? They have different wikipedia articles after all.

Marxism-Leninism was the ideology of the soviet state and it was formulated as such under Stalin. Hence it being Stalinism. And yes, the communist parties around the world acted as organs of the soviet state. It barely has anything to do with what Marx thought and just about as much as Lenin.


Heritage. Communists are against heritages right?
In theory in a Communist society there's not heritage since there's not property, but right now, because we live in a capitalist society would you favor a law prohibiting heritage? The second most richest person in Portugal got his business by heritage. If that law was put into place, the means of production would revert to the state after its founder death? What about little things in most families, like objects? What do you think about that?Property is an economic designation that refers to means of production. Your father's pocket watch wouldn't count as property.


What's your stance on domestic animals?They are domestic animals.


Also, I see many theoric discussions around here, where is the most practical stuff? Discussing wages, taxes, labour hours etc that can be acomplished by pressure from the left in a capitalistic society.

The most practical stuff happens in the face-to-face relations of labor and capital.

[reb]

America could have SIOC. SIOC was also possible in Russia if Russia hadn't been so buttfucked by Czarism. Even Lenin's regime was ridiculously over-centralized becaise of this national peculiarity.

What is the so-called proof that SIOC cannot work?

Buttfucked? Nice.

SIOC is stupid because it's just a justification of the stalinist state. Then you get into the utopian nature of stalinism with the whole socialism thing.

[reb]

Except only idiots think SIOC is an eternal policy. World revolution didn't happen and SIOC was just the plan for the USSR after this failure. No real "Stalinist" thinks SIOC is better than world revolution.

Yeah because we can will ourselves into socialism! Idealism at it's finest, a trade mark of stalinism.

[Dagoth Ur]

Because Marx's theory of history says that socialism will succeed capitalism. And capitalism being a global system means that a single socialist country cannot succeed it. The material basis for socialism wouldn't exist.
.... The base is the proletariat in socialism. Capitalism is all you need to create a proletariat and socialism can happen before it wins the entire globe exactly as capitalism did.


Yeah, had it not been Czarism, i.e., centuries and centuries of Czars, Russia could have become socialist successfully and alone. But then again, how on Earth can you assert such a thing is beyond me
Yeah if I had asserted that I'd be a real tool. There is no reason to believe socialism would have even come to Russia without the Czars, but that is an argument I don't care to engage in. I was specifically referring to the degeneration of Russia was a direct result of inheriting a state last occupied by czars. It's conditons things, those who came before. But hey who am I to use materialism in my analysis?


Buttfucked? Nice.

SIOC is stupid because it's just a justification of the stalinist state. Then you get into the utopian nature of stalinism with the whole socialism thing.
How're we utopian? Because we deal more in praxis? Okay. And SIOC precedes Stalin's rule.


Yeah because we can will ourselves into socialism! Idealism at it's finest, a trade mark of stalinism.
Productive forces bro.

Also itt: no world revolution? Okay guys let's all go home we'll try again later.

[Remus Bleys]

.... The base is the proletariat in socialism. Capitalism is all you need to create a proletariat and socialism can happen before it wins the entire globe exactly as capitalism did.
But how does that work when the rest of the world follows the law of value?


Yeah if I had asserted that I'd be a real tool.
you kinda did

There is no reason to believe socialism would have even come to Russia without the Czars, but that is an argument I don't care to engage in.
what

I was specifically referring to the degeneration of Russia was a direct result of inheriting a state last occupied by czars.
nah the degeneration was due to the failure of the german revolution and the fact russia was still largely pre-capitalist and had to advance to capitalism.

It's conditons things, those who came before. But hey who am I to use materialism in my analysis?

you are stalinist like it or not so guess what you do think that russia was socilaist else why would you be psl/wwp, but you say russia wasnt socialist?


How're we utopian? Because we deal more in praxis? Okay. And SIOC precedes Stalin's rule.
because you think that socialism in one country works
also, no it didnt


Productive forces bro. capitalist development, bro


Also itt: no world revolution? Okay guys let's all go home we'll try again later.
stalinism has strangled countless revolutions so shut the fuck up

[Fourth Internationalist]

Hello.
I registered yesterday and already lost half a dozen hours reading a few topics.

Welcome to the site! :)


My first impression was how ugly this site is, but it's probably a matter of getting used to,

RevLeft is an incredibly ugly site, I agree.


however there's something annoying, when I open more than 3 or 4 tabs the site stops responding, it only happens on this forum, why is that? I use chrome, I tried with Firefox and it got better.

It's probably some technical thing with your browser. That never happens to me.


Also, it seems every time I post, a moderator as to accept the comment, is this a thing for new users or for everyone?

Once you make ten posts, your posts no longer need mod approval. This is to prevent spambots, fascists, etc. from spamming and trolling the forum.


Anyway, skipping to what I really wanted to talk about. I've notived some people argue that Marxism-Leninism is the same as Stalinism. Do you mean then, that most Comunist parties have Stalinism ideology?

Most supposed "communist" parties do, yes, adhere to some form of Stalinism. I'd disagree with considering those parties to be communist, though.


Shouldn't Marxism-Leninism be what Lenin did and Stalinism what Stalin did, even if Marxism-Leninism was named during Stalin rule? They have different wikipedia articles after all.

Marxism-Leninism was a term used by the Stalinist bureaucracy to justify their regime. It was made up after Lenin's death. Because it justified the Stalinist bureaucracy's rule, and lacked both Marxism and Leninism, actual adherents to Marxism and Leninism don't agree with calling the Stalinist regime "Marxist-Leninist". Hence, "Stalinism" is used to describe said regimes and their ideologies.


Heritage. Communists are against heritages right?
In theory in a Communist society there's not heritage since there's not property,

Inheritance of personal property is fine. Private property is what communists aim to abolish.


but right now, because we live in a capitalist society would you favor a law prohibiting heritage? The second most richest person in Portugal got his business by heritage. If that law was put into place, the means of production would revert to the state after its founder death?

Abolition of inheritance of both private property and personal property could never ever come about under capitalism. The bourgeoisie, too, receive inheritance. Inheritance of private property will be abolished in a transitional workers' state, however.


What about little things in most families, like objects? What do you think about that?

Those are personal property, so there is nothing communists have against it.


What's your stance on domestic animals?

As long as you don't abuse them and they can obtain a healthy home, any reasonable person would say they're OK.


Also, I see many theoric discussions around here, where is the most practical stuff? Discussing wages, taxes, labour hours etc that can be acomplished by pressure from the left in a capitalistic society.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say?


Thanks.

I look forward to hearing more from you soon! :)

[Remus Bleys]

i actually like the way revleft looks

[Logical seal]

Marxism-Leninism has taken on many different traditions over the decades. The only time MLs are to be referred to as Stalinists is when they defend the theoretical positions of Joseph Stalin or the crimes against humanity that occurred under his rule.

Thank you for clearing that up.

[Remus Bleys]

Thank you for clearing that up.
its still not true
marxism + leninism =/= marxist-leninist

trotsky was not a marxist-leninist
lenin was not a marxist-leninist
bordiga was not a marxist-leninist
etc.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Why do most of you think SioC would not work?
I can only think of two reasons:
1st - Exterior pressure
2nd - Lack of resources

Then, in a big country like US or Russia, couldn't it work? Or all of European Union?

...
Can you clarify what you're trying to say?
...


Thanks.
So, you're a Communist and apparently Zelda and Avatar fan eh? Nice tastes. Unless there's another Aang out there that I do not know about.


I mean practical discussions. On what we can do during our lives to better the working class conditions. Discussing theory is fine and I intend to learn a lot around here (I never knew there were that many types of Communism), but I think the present and the practise is more important.
In some, maybe most countries, Communists are few and under respresented, but in others there's already quite a few communists that maybe could achieve something, even in a capitalistic society, that could help the working class.
Strikes, manifestations, propaganda. These are important tools, that have been useful to improve our conditions, and we can go even further.

For example, I never saw around here, solutions for the poor European Countries. How to deal with debt, taxation, production, working hours, wages, etc.
Or are you going to say the only real solution is a Socialist revolution?

edit: I can't post links before having 25 posts. So go to google images type capitalism socialism communism and check the 3rd image.
Is what is represented correct?

[Blake's Baby]

Why do most of you think SioC would not work?
I can only think of two reasons:
1st - Exterior pressure
2nd - Lack of resources...

If someone is dead, can you regard their leg as being alive?

If the world is capitalist, can you regard a country in it as being socialist?

The answer to both questions is the same. Socialism happens after capitalism. Unless I'm delusional, we're not 'after capitalism'. So... no socialism.