Leninism, Maoism and 'right communism' inherently revisionist?

[RO17]

I guess I'd consider myself a left communist, I do not like how Maoism and Leninism turned out (tyrannical government that just replaced the old ruling class).

It seems that Leninism and Maoism is inherently revisionist as they seem only establish what they supposedly got rid of.

I am fairly clear on Leninism, but not much with Maoism however I understand that it is consider a branch or flavour of Leninism (and even some leninist call it revisionist).

So what are your thoughts? Why would people ever want to be Leninist or Maoist if it only sets up a centralized government with a new ruling class?

Why not left communism? Perhaps I am confused?

[Diirez]

I liked Lenin as the leader, not Stalin. I did not like Mao.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Well, my reasoning for why I would ever want to be a Leninist excludes the idea that Leninism sets up new class societies. If I accepted that notion, I would not want to be a Leninist. I am not a left communist because I disagree with its strategies and tactics. Many left communists are not anti-Lenin, as in believing that he and the Bolsheviks set up a new class society.

[Ocean Seal]

I guess I'd consider myself a left communist, I do not like how Maoism and Leninism turned out (tyrannical government that just replaced the old ruling class).
If you are going to reason like this you are not prepared to be a left-communist.


It seems that Leninism and Maoism is inherently revisionist as they seem only establish what they supposedly got rid of.

Revisionism is inherent to Marxism.



I am fairly clear on Leninism, but not much with Maoism however I understand that it is consider a branch or flavour of Leninism (and even some leninist call it revisionist).
Yep.


So what are your thoughts? Why would people ever want to be Leninist or Maoist if it only sets up a centralized government with a new ruling class?
Why not left communism? Perhaps I am confused?

Why not anarchism, if left-communism creates institutions which lead to centralized government?

[RO17]

If you are going to reason like this you are not prepared to be a left-communist.

Well I am opposed to hierarchial societies and the futility in Leninism and Maoism as you eventually just replace the old ruling class.



Revisionism is inherent to Marxism.

Of course because Marx never really left a theoretical framework. I seems he has introduced us to dialectics/materialism and gave quite brilliant criticisms of capitalism.



Why not anarchism, if left-communism creates institutions which lead to centralized government?
It think you mean right communism. I am under the impression that left communism was less government and not as centralized as right communism is.

The problem I have with anarchism is how will offenders of society (criminals) be handled? Will society break down? Why would you want society to no longer be connected? What about the internet (the very thing that has given more information to mankind? Art? Research? Etc. There is much to answered.

[Sea]

I guess I'd consider myself a left communist, I do not like how Maoism and Leninism turned out (tyrannical government that just replaced the old ruling class).

It seems that Leninism and Maoism is inherently revisionist as they seem only establish what they supposedly got rid of.

I am fairly clear on Leninism, but not much with Maoism however I understand that it is consider a branch or flavour of Leninism (and even some leninist call it revisionist).

So what are your thoughts? Why would people ever want to be Leninist or Maoist if it only sets up a centralized government with a new ruling class?

Why not left communism? Perhaps I am confused?Before I start prescribing FDA-unapproved remedies for your infantile disorder, I'd like to know what you've read of Lenin's work and to have a rundown of what you thought of it, and what you think warrants Lenin being called anything other than a plain ol' Marxist, let alone a 'right-communist'.
I liked Lenin as the leader, not Stalin. I did not like Mao.And this is based off personal experience?
Revisionism is inherent to Marxism.Before I attempt to chop your cock off for making such an assertion, I would like to know what exactly you mean by "revisionism".
Of course because Marx never really left a theoretical framework. I seems he has introduced us to dialectics/materialism and gave quite brilliant criticisms of capitalism.All three of these things predate Marx by a longshot.

[RO17]

Before I start prescribing FDA-unapproved remedies for your infantile disorder, I'd like to know what you've read of Lenin's work and to have a rundown of what you thought of it, and what you think warrants Lenin being called anything other than a plain ol' Marxist, let alone a 'right-communist'.And this is based off personal experience?Before I attempt to chop your cock off for making such an assertion, I would like to know what exactly you mean by "revisionism".All three of these things predate Marx by a longshot.
I have read a little of Lenin's work. But it is seems quite irrelevant when you look at how his revolution ended and what became of it.

Why would you ever want to become a leninist? All maoist and leninist movements have failed and left the people the same/worse condition before.

[#FF0000]

Why not left communism? Perhaps I am confused?

I think you're really, really confused. Leninism/Maoism don't make the "right wing" of socialism -- that's usually used to describe "Reformists" a la Eduard Bernstein and, I suppose, modern social democrats.

People are leninists and maoists because they read Lenin and Mao and like their ideas on organization and strategy. Before coming to an opinion on them, you should probably read them and read about them yourself.

And finally, "Left-Communism" isn't what you think it is. They are not necessarily anti-centralization. Bordigist, for example, are extreme supporters of centralization. Bordiga himself was called "more Leninist than Lenin".


I have read a little of Lenin's work. But it is seems quite irrelevant when you look at how his revolution ended and what became of it.

Why would you ever want to become a leninist? All maoist and leninist movements have failed and left the people the same/worse condition before.

Leninists don't want to just re-create the USSR all over again, though. They just use some of the theoretical framework laid down by Lenin/Mao. Plus, ideology isn't all there is to things. Russia's overall situation could just as easily be blamed for the failure of the revolution.

[Diirez]

And this is based off personal experience?
You don't have to first hand experience a leader in order to decide if you like them.

[Brotto Rühle]

Nobody who considers themselves a Leninist has any fucking clue what they're talking about. It's a dogma around something that doesn't exist, Leninism, and a cult of personality around (insert Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Hoxha, or whoever here). Yeah, failed strategies and tactics from 1918 Russia are certainly going to apply to 2014 America/Europe.... :laugh:

[Rusty Shackleford]

'Right Communism' is probably more accurately attributed to Social Democracy and other variants of 'soft socialism.'

Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism are identified as middle-roaders in terms of revolutionary socialism/communism.

The reason for this is that they oppose outright liberalism and gross/excessive market reforms and also oppose doctrinaire marxism in terms of everything having to fit in the paradigm of theory and not always reality(not to talk shit, I generally enjoy the left-coms).

Leninsts did preside over things like the NEP which was a step back from socialism, but it was in response to the reality of the situation they were in, they had nothing. Maoists had aggressive leftist stances for a while in response to the more passive Soviet relationship with the west.

ML (and everything that follows) usually operates on a line of being aggressive (being pro-rev and so on) but also 'bending so as not to break.'

And yeah, a lot of what is left over from the last century in terms of ML is pretty much wasted and rightist where their programs are more accurately social democratic rather than Marxist-Leninist.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Sorry for the double post...



Nobody who considers themselves a Leninist has any fucking clue what they're talking about. It's a dogma around something that doesn't exist, Leninism, and a cult of personality around (insert Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Hoxha, or whoever here). Yeah, failed strategies and tactics from 1918 Russia are certainly going to apply to 2014 America/Europe.... :laugh:


Tell me how only Europe and America are relevant in proletarian struggle. Oh, and do tell how Leninism operates only on the ideas of the Russian revolution?

[Brotto Rühle]

Tell me how only Europe and America are relevant in proletarian struggle. Oh, and do tell how Leninism operates only on the ideas of the Russian revolution?

Sorry for not listing every country on the planet dude, I didn't mean to hurt your liberal feels.

Leninism doesn't exist.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Sorry for not listing every country on the planet dude, I didn't mean to hurt your liberal feels.

Leninism doesn't exist.

No, It's just funny that someone could disregard 2/3rds of the planets population where most of the active struggles currently exist.

And Leninism doesn't exist? Surely you're joking.

[Remus Bleys]

Nobody who considers themselves a Leninist has any fucking clue what they're talking about. It's a dogma around something that doesn't exist, Leninism, and a cult of personality around (insert Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Hoxha, or whoever here). Yeah, failed strategies and tactics from 1918 Russia are certainly going to apply to 2014 America/Europe.... :laugh:

Nobody who considers themselves a Marxist has any fucking clue what they're talking about. It's a dogma around something that doesn't exist, Marxism, and a cult of personality around (insert Pannekeok, Lenin, Gorter, CLR James, Dunayevskaya or Dauve, or whoever here). Yeah, failed strategies and tactics from 19th Century Europe are certainly going to apply to 2014 America/Europe.... :laugh:

yeah leninism is very much a post Lenin invention... But Marx never considered himself a marxist.

Your criticism is not only applicable to most of the left but leninism does not mean in the eyes of lenininsts everything the Bolsheviks did. Make a better argument.

[Brotto Rühle]

No, It's just funny that someone could disregard 2/3rds of the planets population where most of the active struggles currently exist.Whoa there, almighty defender of the rest of the world. Get a grip, I didn't list them because I didn't list them. Not because I disregard anything.


And Leninism doesn't exist? Surely you're joking.Surely I didn't stutter.


Nobody who considers themselves a Marxist has any fucking clue what they're talking about. It's a dogma around something that doesn't exist, Marxism, and a cult of personality around (insert Pannekeok, Lenin, Gorter, CLR James, Dunayevskaya or Dauve, or whoever here). Yeah, failed strategies and tactics from 19th Century Europe are certainly going to apply to 2014 America/Europe.... :laugh:I don't get you're point...are there people who call themselves Pannekoekites, or Dunayevskayaists?


yeah leninism is very much a post Lenin invention... But Marx never considered himself a marxist.You should read up on the context of that quote I know you're talking about.


Your criticism is not only applicable to most of the left but leninism does not mean in the eyes of lenininsts everything the Bolsheviks did. Make a better argument.It certainly is applicable to most of the left...but this thread isn't about most of the left.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Whoa there, almighty defender of the rest of the world. Get a grip, I didn't list them because I didn't list them. Not because I disregard anything.

Surely I didn't stutter.




You started, and then stopped. Must've been a stutter.

So how can you declare that Leninism does not exist? What does? Self-righteous indignation?

[Lokomotive293]

I guess I'd consider myself a left communist, I do not like how Maoism and Leninism turned out (tyrannical government that just replaced the old ruling class).

It seems that Leninism and Maoism is inherently revisionist as they seem only establish what they supposedly got rid of.

I am fairly clear on Leninism, but not much with Maoism however I understand that it is consider a branch or flavour of Leninism (and even some leninist call it revisionist).

So what are your thoughts? Why would people ever want to be Leninist or Maoist if it only sets up a centralized government with a new ruling class?

Why not left communism? Perhaps I am confused?

This is the learning section, so may I suggest you something to read? You don't have to agree with it, but it gives you a good sense of what the arguments for Leninism and against "left communism" are.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/

[Remus Bleys]

I don't get you're point...are there people who call themselves Pannekoekites, or Dunayevskayaists?

Oh please lets all act like Marxist-Humanism isn't what Dunayevskaya thought plus what Marx thought plus what Dunayevskaya thought Marx thought. It seems as if you are more concerned with the fact it is named after Lenin and not some name.

You should read up on the context of that quote I know you're talking about.
Yeah Marx thought up of his method but he never referred to them as "marxism" and your main disagreement seems to be the name of it is leninism, in which case, this is relevant.

It certainly is applicable to most of the left...but this thread isn't about most of the left.
Right, its about Leninism, which isn't everything lenin said or did, it isn't "hey lets emulate everything lenin did" (nor is everything lenin wrote applicable solely to early 20th century russia) Leninism is the idea that Lenin correctly applied what is deemed to be "Marxism." Its not really that hard of a concept.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah Marx thought up of his method but he never referred to them as "marxism" and your main disagreement seems to be the name of it is leninism, in which case, this is relevant.

I actually agree with alot of what you said Remus (can't believe I'm actually saying that heh) but on this point I believe you are mistaken. That whole "I'm not a Marxist" quote comes from some personal correspondence of Marx's, in which he was discussing some French (I believe) socialists of his time. What he said was that if what these individuals were Marxists (as they claimed) then he himself must not be a Marxist, seeing as how he vehemently disagreed with them. It wasn't that Marx did not consider himself a Marxist, but rather that he was claiming these other individuals were not, in a somewhat ironic fashion.

[Remus Bleys]

I actually agree with alot of what you said Remus (can't believe I'm actually saying that heh) but on this point I believe you are mistaken. That whole "I'm not a Marxist" quote comes from some personal correspondence of Marx's, in which he was discussing some French (I believe) socialists of his time. What he said was that if what these individuals were Marxists (as they claimed) then he himself must not be a Marxist, seeing as how he vehemently disagreed with them. It wasn't that Marx did not consider himself a Marxist, but rather that he was claiming these other individuals were not, in a somewhat ironic fashion.
Yes I know that story I have read the correspondence. My point was that Marx never used the term "Marxism" but if we are to use the modern day meaning, then Marx would be considered a "Marxist" but according to Councillists Marx would also be a councillist, according to humanists he would be a humanist, according to Leninists he would be a Leninist.
Do you get what I am saying?

[Art Vandelay]

Yes I know that story I have read the correspondence. My point was that Marx never used the term "Marxism" but if we are to use his modern day meaning, then Marx would be considered a "Marxists" but according to Councillists Marx would also be a councillist, according to humanists he would be a humanist, according to Leninists he would be a Leninist.
Do you get what I am saying?

Yeah I got the point you were trying to make, was more nitpicking. ;)

[Geiseric]

Right communists? Is that a serious term? Is that to mean "not left communist"? Because left communist, aka ultra leftism would seem like the norm to anybody who used the term "right communists" to describe Leninist, which I find laughable if it was intentional by the OP. Maoism and Leninism aren't on an imaginary "right" to "left" scale including anarchists and other ultra lefts. That is a false dichotomy self styled left communists pulled out of their ass. The differences between Leninism and Maoism are substantial, because Maoism is counter revolutionary and acts in spite of the working class. Current day China is the result of Maoism, which rose after the purging of the third international. Left communism is different than Leninism because it abandons mass struggle, and mainly only exists to argue with other socialists.

[Rafiq]

There can be no such thing as "revisionist Communism" as Communism is an ideology, all revisions of Communism as an ideological phenomena reflect a wider change in the social basis of life. With regard to Marxism, Stalinism and all of it's bastards are not revisionist, but degenerate. Leninism is the ideology of the October revolution's failure. The revolution failed, so there can be no real "Leninism". We must start to recognize Lenin as an adherent of Marxism, rather than a successor. Marxism is what we call the recognition of the laws of historical motion, and the social basis of all societies.

[Rafiq]

Yes I know that story I have read the correspondence. My point was that Marx never used the term "Marxism" but if we are to use the modern day meaning, then Marx would be considered a "Marxist" but according to Councillists Marx would also be a councillist, according to humanists he would be a humanist, according to Leninists he would be a Leninist.
Do you get what I am saying?

We have no other existing term for the summation of Marx's works, and his own reluctance to label it as such reflected a prehumous modesty. Leftists today underestimate the magnitude of how revolutionary Marx's works really are, they provide a conception of human social relations never before discovered, as Darwin did natural history. The difference is that while it can be debated as to whether Marx espoused "councilist" beliefs, or was a "humanist" (Though it is generally accepted that, older Marx was no humanist), it can most certainly be recognized that he adhered to the materialist conception of history, understood the nature of human social organization and so on. And it is this we call Marxism.

[Leftsolidarity]

I noticed someone else pointed to Lenin's work "Left-Wing Communism" which is probably the best thing to read if you want to understand why Leninists reject ultra-leftism. Another work that would help understand this perspective is Lenin's "What Is To Be Done?" which also touches on fundamentals regarding spontaneity and revolutionary organizations.

[Per Levy]

I noticed someone else pointed to Lenin's work "Left-Wing Communism" which is probably the best thing to read if you want to understand why Leninists reject ultra-leftism. Another work that would help understand this perspective is Lenin's "What Is To Be Done?" which also touches on fundamentals regarding spontaneity and revolutionary organizations.

well if you want to give the masses lenins work "left-wing communims and infantile disorder" then why not also give them the "open letter to comrade lenin" to at least get the other side and let them make a decision for themself? but if you dont do i will:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

[reb]

I noticed someone else pointed to Lenin's work "Left-Wing Communism" which is probably the best thing to read if you want to understand why Leninists reject ultra-leftism. Another work that would help understand this perspective is Lenin's "What Is To Be Done?" which also touches on fundamentals regarding spontaneity and revolutionary organizations.

That's garbage. Go read it if you want to understand why Leninists reject a left communism that no one accepts anymore. And "What is to be Done?" is a terrible pamphlet to understand Lenin without mentioning that Lenin completely dropped it and never had it published again after the events of 1905 and 1917 because history had again out paced theory. There's a reason why Leninism is a dogma, and upholding out dated texts as if they are gospel is one of them.

[reb]

Right communists? Is that a serious term? Is that to mean "not left communist"? Because left communist, aka ultra leftism would seem like the norm to anybody who used the term "right communists" to describe Leninist, which I find laughable if it was intentional by the OP. Maoism and Leninism aren't on an imaginary "right" to "left" scale including anarchists and other ultra lefts. That is a false dichotomy self styled left communists pulled out of their ass. The differences between Leninism and Maoism are substantial, because Maoism is counter revolutionary and acts in spite of the working class. Current day China is the result of Maoism, which rose after the purging of the third international. Left communism is different than Leninism because it abandons mass struggle, and mainly only exists to argue with other socialists.

Yes, you are right that it is a false dichotomy because we call Leninists and Maoists the left wing of capital, not "right communists".

[Leftsolidarity]

OP: Why are non-Left communists what they are?

Me: Here's two fundamental pieces of literature that directly deal with that question.

Ultra-leftists: WHY DON'T YOU TELL THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY!!11! L3NIN $uCkSsSS!!!11!

[RedMaterialist]

I guess I'd consider myself a left communist, I do not like how Maoism and Leninism turned out (tyrannical government that just replaced the old ruling class).

So what are your thoughts? Why would people ever want to be Leninist or Maoist if it only sets up a centralized government with a new ruling class?

Because Marx and Engels both showed that only a dictatorship of the working class (a tyrannical government) can replace the old ruling class. The new ruling class tyrannizes, oppresses, suppresses and finally eliminates the old ruling class. The only political structure that can do this is a tyranny. With this difference, though: once the capitalist class is destroyed there will no longer be any class left to exploit, therefore the class system and the state will disappear. It won't happen overnight, won't be the same process in different countries, probably won't happen all over the world at the same time. Some tyrannies will be less peaceful than others.

You can't destroy the vampire class without destroying the vampires. This doesn't preclude, however, taking democratic, reformist action against the vampires.


Why not left communism? Perhaps I am confused?

I would say Lenin's chief complaint about the left-communists was that they made it a matter of principle never to participate in bourgeois parliamentary politics. They were too pure for that. Thus, their juvenilism.

[Geiseric]

Yes, you are right that it is a false dichotomy because we call Leninists and Maoists the left wing of capital, not "right communists".

But you call yourself left communist, meaning you choose to differentiate yourself from actual communism. Which shows how stupid you are if you actually believe what you just said.

[Remus Bleys]

But you call yourself left communist, meaning you choose to differentiate yourself from actual communism. Which shows how stupid you are if you actually believe what you just said.

This had got to be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. And that's saying something.

[Brutus]

I actually agree with alot of what you said Remus (can't believe I'm actually saying that heh) but on this point I believe you are mistaken. That whole "I'm not a Marxist" quote comes from some personal correspondence of Marx's, in which he was discussing some French (I believe) socialists of his time. What he said was that if what these individuals were Marxists (as they claimed) then he himself must not be a Marxist, seeing as how he vehemently disagreed with them. It wasn't that Marx did not consider himself a Marxist, but rather that he was claiming these other individuals were not, in a somewhat ironic fashion.

"If these people are Marxist, then I am not a Marxist."

[Zukunftsmusik]

But you call yourself left communist, meaning you choose to differentiate yourself from actual communism.

Oh wow. You took some time thinking up this one, did you?

[Sea]

I have read a little of Lenin's work. But it is seems quite irrelevant when you look at how his revolution ended and what became of it.

Why would you ever want to become a leninist? All maoist and leninist movements have failed and left the people the same/worse condition before.The trainwreck that was the USSR (no matter when your pet ideology says that this trainwreck began) came out of the material conditions that existed there, not because of "Leninism". Unless you're an idealist, it should not be relevant what happened there.

What's more, it was not "his revolution". If you ascribe 1917 to Lenin as if it was "his", you shouldn't really be passing judgement on Lenin's work until you learn more about the history of the Russian revolution.

You don't have to first hand experience a leader in order to decide if you like them.I respectfully disagree. Besides, you were speaking in the past tense. Tell us more about your secret double life as a revolution observer. What was Blanqui's favorite color? Did Babeuf really invent rock-n-roll?
It certainly is applicable to most of the left...but this thread isn't about most of the left.So? Remus's point is still valid because pointing out that it's applicable to most of the left contradicts the position that it's specific to Leninism, which is very relevant. Furthermore, the various varieties of Maoism and "Leninism" probably do account for 'most of the left'.