Marxism-Leninism vs. Stalinism

[Comrade Walter]

Here I see group with very interesting name "Non-Stalinist Marxist-Leninists"... For me it's so weird to follow ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin, but support neither Stalin, nor Trotsky. I've heard only for Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism) and Trotskyism (Bolshevism-Leninism), but haven't heared for anything like Non-Stalinist Marxism-Leninism.

What do you think about this? Especially I would be happy to hear how members of this group explain their views.

[Brotto Rühle]

Marxism-Leninism is a term which specifically refers to Stalinism.

[motion denied]

Some leninists claim to not follow Trotsky nor Stalin.

OldBolshie, revleft user, is one of them iirc.

[Comrade Jacob]

Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism.
Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism.
That is all.

[Goblin]

Marxist-Leninist's are people who follow Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin (and sometimes Hoxha and Mao). "Stalinist" is just a slur for Marxist-Leninist's.

[Sea]

Marxism-Leninism is a term which specifically refers to Stalinism.Not always. The latter is often a derogatory term for the former and can otherwise be usually taken as synonyms. When the terms do differ, it is usually in the case of self-professed Marxist-Leninists who are critical of Monsieur Stalinoso. However, the majority (AFAIK) of Marxist-Leninists uphold Señor Staliñ, contributing to the confused position that the two terms are always synonyms. I suspect that another reason is that J to the Oeseph Stalin help popularized the term "Marxism-Leninism", which adds to its association with him.

Nevertheless there are some who profess to being Marxists, and Leninists, and by the power of logic they reason that this must make them Marxist-Leninists.
Marxist-Leninist's are people who follow Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin (and sometimes Hoxha and Mao). "Stalinist" is just a slur for Marxist-Leninist's.Marxist-Leninist's what?

[Remus Bleys]

Here I see group with very interesting name "Non-Stalinist Marxist-Leninists"... For me it's so weird to follow ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin, but support neither Stalin, nor Trotsky. I've heard only for Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism) and Trotskyism (Bolshevism-Leninism), but haven't heared for anything like Non-Stalinist Marxism-Leninism.

What do you think about this? Especially I would be happy to hear how members of this group explain their views.
this is a brezhnevite group. they are like post-stalin stalinists. they want the theory but not the baggage.
and there is leninism which predates stalinism and trotksyism, and there is bordiga, who was a left communist theoretician and was also very into Lenin and till his last day would proudly define himself as a leninist, even though he disagreed with, and derided stalin and trotksy.

[reb]

Marxism-Leninism was the ideology of the soviet union that came into being under Stalin. It is extremely dogmatic in that it takes every work of Lenin to be true, even when it contradicts itself and reality. It's just a way to muddy your way out of questions by attributing different weights to certain quotations, just like any other religious freak with a religious book. The same goes with Trotsky's variant of it. Marxism-Leninism used to refer to just Lenin is also stupid. Lenin never considered himself to be a "leninist". The term has a historic origin and meaning which those who try to appropriate the title are trying to circumvent. Lenin also had a history as well. He didn't just spring into being as a super man with no ideological hang ups. It takes Lenin out of context, both ways of using it.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Here I see group with very interesting name "Non-Stalinist Marxist-Leninists"... For me it's so weird to follow ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin, but support neither Stalin, nor Trotsky. I've heard only for Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism) and Trotskyism (Bolshevism-Leninism), but haven't heared for anything like Non-Stalinist Marxism-Leninism.

What do you think about this? Especially I would be happy to hear how members of this group explain their views.

Perhaps they align themselves more with Mao?

[Red Shaker]

We do not call the theory of gravity Newtonism, or the theory of relativity Einsteinism or atomic theory Bohrism. so why should we call the theory of communist revolution Marxism, Leninism etc. They and many others contributed to our understanding of the revolutionary process. Naming a science after an individual or group of individuals leads to dogmatism and/or cultism.

[Geiseric]

Hasn't anybody learned that Stalinism is neither Marxism nor Leninism? Or did we just ignore 100 years of history?

[Slavic]

We do not call the theory of gravity Newtonism, or the theory of relativity Einsteinism or atomic theory Bohrism. so why should we call the theory of communist revolution Marxism, Leninism etc. They and many others contributed to our understanding of the revolutionary process. Naming a science after an individual or group of individuals leads to dogmatism and/or cultism.

If we resorted to calling all of the different theories of communism from Marxism to Juche under one blanket term "Communism", it would make just as much sense as combining Newton's, Einstein's, and Bohrism's work under the blanket term "Physics".

A name is a name is a name is a name. Just because a theory is called Marxism did not force its followers into cultlike obedience. Cultism and hero worship can happen within any field or ideology regardless of its name.

So according to your understanding, Marxism is more likely to breed cultish worshipers then Fascism because Marxism is named after a man and Fascism is not.

[A Psychological Symphony]

It's Stalinism for people who don't want to be aligned with Stalin. As said above it's the theory without the baggage

[SovietCommie]

The term "Marxist-Leninism" is to Stalinism, what the term "National Socialist" is to Nazism. It's just a word used to sugar-coat what normally has negative connotations.
The practices of Lenin are a complete contrast to Stalin, just as the practices of Hitler had nothing (at all) to do with Socialism.

[DasFapital]

PSL describe themselves as being Marxists and Leninists but don't claim to adhere to Stalin or Trotsky.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbfRmOUb82U&noredirect=1

[Sabot Cat]

I think it's relevant to note that Joseph Stalin was the one who introduced the phrase "Marxism-Leninism" before it was reclaimed by Khrushchev in an impressive feat of politicking. Regardless, Marxism-Leninism was the ideology of the Soviet Union, and even if one does not associate it with Stalin specifically, it is the historical product of the Bolshevik regime's phraseology.

[Prometeo liberado]

Stalin codifying MLism doesn't Stalinism make.

[Prometeo liberado]

PSL describe themselves as being Marxists and Leninists but don't claim to adhere to Stalin or Trotsky.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbfRmOUb82U&noredirect=1

Just read this! I thought this was a serious thread?:laugh:

[reb]

I think it's relevant to note that Joseph Stalin was the one who introduced the phrase "Marxism-Leninism" before it was reclaimed by Khrushchev in an impressive feat of politicking. Regardless, Marxism-Leninism was the ideology of the Soviet Union, and even if one does not associate it with Stalin specifically, it is the historical product of the Bolshevik regime's phraseology.

But no one takes Khrushchev seriously. How many marxist-leninists have you met that don't have a fetish for Stalin and great man theory of history?


Stalin codifying MLism doesn't Stalinism make.

Yes it does, every marxist-leninist has a boner for Stalin. They just don't call themselves stalinists because like all true capitalist supporters they're obsessed with PR. Oh but Stalin introduced industrialization! He defeated the Nazis! He didn't like his cult of personality! Out of a blind taste test people choose soviet socialism over capitalism!

This is the whole reason why the term came to be. It's so that Stalin could claim a theoretical heritage to Lenin and to use it against Trotskyites. I don't expect stalinoids to understand this though, the bourgeois minded can't see the bourgeois wood from the bourgeois trees.

[Red Intellectual]

Because Stalin and Mao were a authoritarian, totalitarian, narcissistic dictators that don't deserve the name communist imo.
Marxism-Leninism refers to the theories of Marx and the theoretical expansions of Lenin, combined. Whatever Stalin turned it into is irrelevant.
And because people, nonetheless, associate it with Stalin, some Leninists like me have adapted Trotsky's term 'Bolshevik-Leninist'; but neither does that mean we are Trotskyists, we just oppose Stalin.

There is not a compulsory choice between Trotskyism and Stalinism. Lenin developed theories, and if you follow the Leninist ideology, you do not necessarily follow the thing Stalin and the others turned it into.

But that's just what I make of it.

[Red Intellectual]

Stalin forced worship of his person in a way Lenin could never ever match, and he also turned the USSR's politics in a direction Lenin did not approve of whatsoever. He exiled or framed all Communists that were not in support of his radical change of course.
Have you ever read Lenin's testament? He heavily critizes the remaining members of the Central Committee there, and especially Stalin.

"Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has concentrated an enormous power in his hands; and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution. On the other hand, Comrade Trotsky. as was proved by his struggle against the Central Committee in connection with the question of the People's Commissariat of Ways and Communications, is distinguished not only by his exceptional abilities -- personally he is, to be sure, the most able man in the present Central Committee.". - Lenin

I am not a Trotskyist at all, but Trotskyism was, I think, a reaction to Stalin's courses of action; if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin, I think, there would have been no specific Trotskyist thought, just a continuation of Leninism.


The term "Marxist-Leninism" is to Stalinism, what the term "National Socialist" is to Nazism. It's just a word used to sugar-coat what normally has negative connotations.
The practices of Lenin are a complete contrast to Stalin, just as the practices of Hitler had nothing (at all) to do with Socialism.

Perfect, thank you.

[celticnachos]

There is no such thing as "Stalinism" it's a derogatory term that was created by Trotskyists. The term Stalinism is redundant, we don't have "Engelsism." Engels expanded Marx's work, just as Stalin applied Marxism-Leninism to specific conditions and expanded the theoretical foundations of Marxism-Leninism. Stalin was simply carrying out Lenin's political strategies through Marxism-Leninism, and instead of developing entirely new theory like Trotsky did he defended the existing theory of Marxism-Leninism. This way the party could focus on building a strong socialist Soviet Union, which they did until revisionism took it's course against the party.

[Fourth Internationalist]

There is no such thing as "Stalinism" it's a derogatory term that was created by Trotskyists. The term Stalinism is redundant, we don't have "Engelsism." Engels expanded Marx's work, just as Stalin applied Marxism-Leninism to specific conditions and expanded the theoretical foundations of Marxism-Leninism. Stalin was simply carrying out Lenin's political strategies through Marxism-Leninism, and instead of developing entirely new theory like Trotsky did he defended the existing theory of Marxism-Leninism. This way the party could focus on building a strong socialist Soviet Union, which they did until revisionism took it's course against the party.The "existing theory" of Marxism-Leninism? Pretty sure it didn't exist until the Stalinists invented the term. Trotsky continued to identify with Bolshevism, not a "new theory" he supposedly created.

[celticnachos]

The "existing theory" of Marxism-Leninism? Pretty sure it didn't exist until the Stalinists invented the term. Trotsky continued to identify with Bolshevism, not a "new theory" he supposedly created. Stalin repeatedly stated that he was carrying out Lenin's political tactics. Marxism-Leninism is Marxism as applied by Lenin. Followers of Trotsky identify with a romantic interpretation of Marx, by advocating ideas such as a theory of Permanent Revolution. Followers of Stalin identify with a practical interpretation of Marx by abiding to Lenin's political framework. This is why followers of Stalin call themselves Marxist-Leninist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Stalin repeatedly stated that he was carrying out Lenin's political tactics. Yes, he and the rest of the Stalinist bureaucracy did claim that and continued to use it as a justification for their policies.
Marxism-Leninism is Marxism as applied by Lenin. Except it isn't. The term itself was invented after Lenin died by the Stalinist bureaucracy to justify its policies by claiming orthodoxy to Marx and Lenin.
Followers of Trotsky identify with a romantic interpretation of Marx, by advocating ideas such as a theory of Permanent Revolution. Permanent Revolution isn't romanticism at all, at least not when its content is actually known rather than believing what the Stalinist bureaucracy, in defending the anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist policy of socialism in one country, said about it.
Followers of Stalin identify with a practical interpretation of Marx by abiding to Lenin's political framework. They only identify with it, sure. I have yet to see them actually apply it.
This is why followers of Stalin call themselves Marxist-Leninist.It's because the term was the term used by the Stalinist bureaucracy, which Stalin headed, to justify its Stalinist policies as somehow adhering to Marx and Lenin's political line, not because it actually was.

[Marshal of the People]

I agree with comrade Link. Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism with a nicer name.

[celticnachos]

Yes, he and the rest of the Stalinist bureaucracy did claim that and continued to use it as a justification for their policies.Except it isn't. The term itself was invented after Lenin died by the Stalinist bureaucracy to justify its policies by claiming orthodoxy to Marx and Lenin. Permanent Revolution isn't romanticism at all, at least not when its content is actually known rather than believing what the Stalinist bureaucracy, in defending the anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist policy of socialism in one country, said about it. They only identify with it, sure. I have yet to see them actually apply it.It's because the term was the term used by the Stalinist bureaucracy, which Stalin headed, to justify its Stalinist policies as somehow adhering to Marx and Lenin's political line, not because it actually was.

"Stalinist bureaucracy?" What's a bureaucracy? A bureaucracy is necessary when running a revolutionary state in a country that is one-sixth of the Earth's surface, it's easy for you to slander but you weren't running a country of vast area during rough conditions. What is "socialism in one country?" Where in any of Stalin's works does he reference such a thing? When I google "socialism in one country" all I get are Trotskyist articles, and the rest second hand accounts. In defending Marxism-Leninism Stalin and the Soviet Union actually achieved socialism in Russia, similar Marxist-Leninist movements have also achieved socialism. Such as the Korean people applying Juche, and the Chinese people applying Maoism. The DPRK is still a socialist country today, which disproves the impossibility of socialism in one country. Marxism-Leninism has been applied and has had successful results, Trotskyists are just going to wait until revolutions occur all around the world. That is the underlying romanticism in Trotskyist ideology.

[Panda Tse Tung]

The "existing theory" of Marxism-Leninism? Pretty sure it didn't exist until the Stalinists invented the term. Trotsky continued to identify with Bolshevism, not a "new theory" he supposedly created.

I didn't care much for this discussion untill i read this.
What about Trotsky's 'permanent revolution', that surely was a new theory. To name but one.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I didn't care much for this discussion untill i read this.
What about Trotsky's 'permanent revolution', that surely was a new theory. To name but one.

In the discussion above, theory had been referring to tendency (i.e. the theory of Marxism-Leninism). Regardless, permanent revolution was an idea developed far before the split between Stalin and Trotsky, and what it advocated for was exactly what Lenin advocated for in his April Theses, a Russian proletarian revolution rather than waiting for the completion of a bourgeois-democratic revolution and subversion to the provisional government. It's only a "new theory" as much as Leninism was because it is an inherent part of it.

[Fourth Internationalist]

"Stalinist bureaucracy?" What's a bureaucracy? A bureaucracy is necessary when running a revolutionary state in a country that is one-sixth of the Earth's surface, it's easy for you to slander but you weren't running a country of vast area during rough conditions. What is "socialism in one country?" Where in any of Stalin's works does he reference such a thing? When I google "socialism in one country" all I get are Trotskyist articles, and the rest second hand accounts. In defending Marxism-Leninism Stalin and the Soviet Union actually achieved socialism in Russia, similar Marxist-Leninist movements have also achieved socialism. Such as the Korean people applying Juche, and the Chinese people applying Maoism. The DPRK is still a socialist country today, which disproves the impossibility of socialism in one country. Marxism-Leninism has been applied and has had successful results, Trotskyists are just going to wait until revolutions occur all around the world. That is the underlying romanticism in Trotskyist ideology.

Socialism in one country is possible, you state. "Marxism-Leninism" has been applied successfully, you believe. Your evidence is... China and North Korea *facepalm*

[thc]

In the discussion above, theory had been referring to tendency (i.e. the theory of Marxism-Leninism). Regardless, permanent revolution was an idea developed far before the split between Stalin and Trotsky, and what it advocated for was exactly what Lenin advocated for in his April Theses, a Russian proletarian revolution rather than waiting for the completion of a bourgeois-democratic revolution and subversion to the provisional government. It's only a "new theory" as much as Leninism was because it is an inherent part of it.

Lenin advocated permanent revolution, really?

"I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense." (Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14 May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.).

Let's not forget about what Trotsky stated in some his correspondence to Chkeidze,

"The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay."

Trotsky and Lenin condemned each other.

[Remus Bleys]

It is unfair to use trotsky's pre-bolshevik days to discredit trotskyism. Modern day trotskyists do not subscribe to trotsky's pre-bolshevik theories (as far as I am aware) so such an argument is as absurd as it is stupid and rather unbecoming of stalinism. If all stalinism can do is lie about trotskyism in order to give credit to itself, it shows how incorrect and infantile (like seriously? reducing yourself to that argument for a cheap shot instead of an actual, you know, critique?) that ideology is.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Lenin advocated permanent revolution, really?

"I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense." (Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14 May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.).

A proletarian revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is what he means by taking power, is in no way the same thing as socialism. Did the workers take power in Russia prior to "socialism" being built (which supposedly occurred in the 1930's, according to Stalin)? Yes. Did Trotsky, or do Trotskyists, condemn this seizing of power in 1917? No.


Let's not forget about what Trotsky stated in some his correspondence to Chkeidze,

"The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay."

Let us look at the description of this letter from which you quote this passage (source: Marxists Internet Archive)


A letter written by Trotsky from Vienna, on April 1, 1913, to N.S. Chkheidze, then chairman of the Menshevik fraction of the Duma, in which Lenin is sharply attacked for what Trotsky considered his divisive activities in the Bolshevik organ, which had been launched by Lenin in that period under a name, Pravda [Truth], similar to the name of the popular revolutionary organ founded shortly before by Trotsky in Vienna. In the same letter, Trotsky warns Chkheidze against the liquidationist tendencies of the (Menshevik) parliamentary organ, Luch [Ray]. As was the case with many, if not moat of the political documents, and even private letters, of that period of intense factional struggle, the language employed by Trotsky in the letter Chkheidze was extremely sharp.

So before Trotsky was politically mature as a Bolshevik, a letter in which he expresses anger over what was going on with Pravda is enough to declare him anti-Leninist for life? Unless this issue with the newspaper was of central importance to Bolshevik theory, and Trotsky continued to say this sort of stuff about Lenin(ism) throughout his life, then you can make a case for him disliking Lenin. But then if you go on to read most of his other works, especially his works during his life after being exiled from the Soviet Union, then you will find the utmost praise for Lenin. How can you explain why he called himself a Leninist, then, if that quote has so much weight over Trotsky's life-long view of Lenin?


Trotsky and Lenin condemned each other.

On some issues that they disagreed on, yes, they did. But the picture of condemning each other as non-Bolsheviks or something similar is untrue. For if Lenin condemned Trotsky so much as to call him something like an untrue Bolshevik up to the last moments of his life, I would question his mental state when writing this (cheery-picking quotes, like you now):


Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

Similarly, I would wonder why Trotsky ever bothered to call himself a Bolshevik-Leninist if he hated Lenin(ism) so much.

[Art Vandelay]

Lenin advocated permanent revolution, really?

Link already responded to this, but this is really so disingenuous, I felt I had to comment. So lets take a look at what you did here.


"I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense." (Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14 May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.).

So to justify your point that Lenin didn't advocate permanent revolution, you drag up this quote from 1918, ironically not realizing it contradicts your original claim. The point Lenin is trying to make, is one against individuals who think that the seizure of state power should not have been made, until the revolution broke out in all countries, which is a view that Trotsky never held. In fact, Trotsky and Lenin were originally within a minority of the party when advocating the seizure of state power. The likes of Stalin, Kamanev, etc during this time period, were advocating support for the provisional government. The premise of permanent revolution is that in certain countries, the bourgeoisie are unable to carry forth all the tasks associated with the bourgeois democratic revolution and therefor these tasks fall to the proletariat, to be accomplished in conjunction with their revolution; it is in this sense that the revolution, is permanent, in that there is no stop between the bourgeois and proletarian revolution. It is by advocating all power to the soviets and the overthrow of the provisional government, that the Bolsheviks were objectively carrying out (whether subjectively or not) permanent revolution. These decisive decisions, within the Bolsheviks, were ultimately spearheaded by Lenin and Trotsky.


Let's not forget about what Trotsky stated in some his correspondence to Chkeidze,

"The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay."

Trotsky and Lenin condemned each other.

So now on top of the quote you misrepresented above, you randomly select a quote from a letter during Trotsky's time as a Menshevik and pay lip service to the fact the two condemned each other. This time your points are just irrelevant. The Trotsky of that time period was politically immature and later admitted his past mistakes and the correctness of Lenin's line, when he joined the Bolsheviks. Around the same time period, Lenin rejected his past stagist approach. As I said, disingenuous.

[Celtanarchy]

We do not call the theory of gravity Newtonism, or the theory of relativity Einsteinism or atomic theory Bohrism. so why should we call the theory of communist revolution Marxism, Leninism etc.
I often wonder the same, man,

[redguarddude]

There was a group, the Marxist Leninist Party, who called themselves Marxist Leninists, but did not follow either Trotsky or Stalin. They voted to disband at their final conference in 1993.

They started out as followers of Enver Hoxha, and defenders of Stalin. Sometime during the 1980's they became criticial of Stalin, and had the position that the USSR became state capitalist under Stalin's leadership. At they same time they claimed differences with Trotskyism.

[Ritzy Cat]

Stalin forced worship of his person in a way Lenin could never ever match

From my knowledge, Stalin was in fact very annoyed at how far his cult of personality had been taken.

[Sinister Intents]

From my knowledge, Stalin was in fact very annoyed at how far his cult of personality had been taken.

I'd like to read about that if you have a link :) or I'll find it later.

Also I was under the impression that Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism were the same...

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Also I was under the impression that Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism were the same...

I have heard one very knowledgeable Marxist-Leninist saying, when giving a lecture, that Stalinism doesn't exist, there's only Marxism-Leninism in practice.

[motion denied]

I have heard one very knowledgeable Marxist-Leninist saying, when giving a lecture, that Stalinism doesn't exist, there's only Marxism-Leninism in practice.

Which is the standard line of every Stalinist.

Anyway, we'd think that 60 years after the death of Stalin, and almost 100 years after Lenin's, this cult-like discussion would have got obsolete.

[Sinister Intents]

Which is the standard line of every Stalinist.

Anyway, we'd think that 60 years after the death of Stalin, and almost 100 years after Lenin's, this cult-like discussion would have got obsolete.

Nope :/ This thread keeps coming back up... I've seen it several times before, even when I was a lurker, but I never really read any of it until now

[Comrade Alex]

Their technically is no such thing as Stalinism, their is only Marxism-Leninism.
Now their are plenty of factions within Marxism-Leninism
Anti-Revisionism and revisionism.
Anti revisionism is often confused as stalinism because its adherents remain loyal to the 4 classics of Marxism-Leninism Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin. Now as for following only Marx, Engels and Lenin solely this is a concept that was introduced by the krushchevist revisionists so I would assume the group you found adheres to that.

[Rafiq]

Stalinsim refers to a specific historical tendency shared by all Communist states, regardless of their official position with regard to Stalin. All 20th century Communism (in this geopoitical context) is a bastard of the October revolution's failure.

[TC]

In the US and UK there is a great deal of fixation over the Trotsky/Stalin divide as the defining divide between followers of Marx and Lenin. However this is hardly the only one. Marxism-Leninism is a title claimed by not only pro-Stalin supporters of Lenin but also anti-Stalin supporters of Lenin. For example, both Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel Castro identified themselves consistently as "Marxist-Leninists" despite being firmly opposed to Stalin and Stalin's distinctive politics and policies.

It is therefore not at all accurate to say that "Marxist-Leninist" is simply a nice word for "Stalinist". There is a non-derogatory term for supporters of Stalin's politics and legacy: Anti-Revisionist (in contrast to the supposed 'revisionism' of Khruschev's destalinization policies). All Anti-Revisionist communists are Marxist-Leninists but not Marxist-Leninists are Anti-Revisionists or "Stalinists." Identifying as Maoist often implies adopting an Anti-Revisionist standpoint but some people identify as a Maoist because they believe in certain theoretical or political contributions of Mao (such as protracted people's war, cultural revolution, and agrarian based revolution) without agreeing with all of his (often shifting) positions and policies.

[TC]

Stalinsim refers to a specific historical tendency shared by all Communist states, regardless of their official position with regard to Stalin. All 20th century Communism (in this geopoitical context) is a bastard of the October revolution's failure.

This is not a general or neutral usage, but a technical usage limited to post-Trotsky Trotskyist theory. Outside of that tradition this usage is simply derogatory and inaccurate.

When people who are not contemporary Trotskyists refer to "Stalinism" they do not refer to the term "Stalinism" of post-Trotsky Trotskyist theory.

[TC]

Their technically is no such thing as Stalinism, their is only Marxism-Leninism.
Now their are plenty of factions within Marxism-Leninism
Anti-Revisionism and revisionism.
Anti revisionism is often confused as stalinism because its adherents remain loyal to the 4 classics of Marxism-Leninism Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin. Now as for following only Marx, Engels and Lenin solely this is a concept that was introduced by the krushchevist revisionists so I would assume the group you found adheres to that.

"Revisionism" is a term within Anti-Revisionism - it is derogatory and loaded with the assumptions of Anti-Revisionism. Saying that Marxism-Leninism is divided between "Anti-Revisionism" and "Revisionism" is not a neutral position but an Anti-Revisionist position (just like saying there is a division between Leninism and Stalinism is taking a Trotskyist position not a neutral position).