Do non-Marxists distinguish Marxism from Leninism?

[The Idler]

Do any non-Marxists distinguish Marxism from Leninism?

[Red Economist]

Yes. I think if you read some western biographies of Lenin you'll find that certain non-marxists will distinguish between Marxism and Leninism; this is often to argue that 'Leninism' represents a specifically extreme and/or 'Russian' strain of Marxism, with heavy influence from the 'populist' terrorist ideology of the mid-nineteenth century and hence had a pronounced tendency towards revolutionary violence and dictatorship.
This is generally to dissociate the 'social democratic' and 'communist' branches of Marxism, often to paint social democracy as the legitimate ideological successor to Marx.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

At an academic level maybe but non-Marxists would also include 99% of the random people you interact with everyday and I really doubt they are aware of a difference.

[Slavic]

At an academic level maybe but non-Marxists would also include 99% of the random people you interact with everyday and I really doubt they are aware of a difference.

Most of those people would consider any economic approach besides lassies-fair, communism.

[Fakeblock]

Most of those people would consider any economic approach besides lassies-fair, communism.

I really doubt that.

[reb]

I would think that on the whole, with the general population, most people would not be able to distinguish between marxism and leninism. There are people on this very forum who think that they are in some way the same thing. Even with some of the more knowledgable memebers of the public they might say that there is a difference between Lenin and the policies, practice and ideology that developed after his death and took his name.

[NGNM85]

Do any non-Marxists distinguish Marxism from Leninism?

Of course. In fact, everyone should make this distinction irrespective of their philosophical, or ideological perspective because there is, in fact, a substantial discrepancy between Lenin, and Marx on a great many points. Worse yet, there are a number of instances where Lenin deliberately misrepresents Marx, even to the point of altering quotes to make Marx say what he wants him to say. Several examples were presented in the following thread, quite recently;

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxists-stalinism-maoism-t186677/index.html

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Do any non-Marxists distinguish Marxism from Leninism?

Yes and no. Depends on what you mean exactly.

[Rurkel]

Most of those people would consider any economic approach besides lassies-fair, communism.
I think that this time it should fall upon me to remind people that the USA is not the whole world. Although this likely inaccurate even in regards to the States.

[Slavic]

I think that this time it should fall upon me to remind people that the USA is not the whole world. Although this likely inaccurate even in regards to the States.

It was a sweeping generalization that I made and I understand the error. The point I was trying to get across is that I do not believe that a large portion of the world understands the difference (appearance) between an interventionist and communist economic system. Let alone the difference between orthodox Marxism and Leninism.

Granted you are right, I am in the US and I can technically only speak from my experiences within the US. That being said, I still think that the majority of the world is in the dark with regards to these distinctions and if you can provide proof to the contrary, I will gladly change my position.

[NGNM85]

...Let alone the difference between orthodox Marxism and Leninism.

Leninism was a variant of Orthodox Marxism, provided by; `Leninism´, we mean the ideas of Lenin, as opposed to; `Marxist-Leninism´, the state religion of the USSR, codified by Stalin, which, I assume (???) is how the OP intended it. Presuming this is correct, the issue then is the real, and significant difference between Leninism, in the aforementioned context, and the ideas of Karl Marx, AKA; `Classical Marxism.´ Which I would agree is very poorly understood, if at all, by the public, at large, as well as academics, and even many self-proclaimed Marxists. There are plenty of people on this forum who would deny that this conflict exists, however, even a fairly casual investigation will reveal that this is false.

[liberlict]

Yeah I do. I think Leninism was a right-wing deviation from Marxism.

[Blake's Baby]

Quote not working again.

NGNM85 says: "Leninism was a variant of Orthodox Marxism, provided by; `Leninism´, we mean the ideas of Lenin, as opposed to; `Marxist-Leninism´, the state religion of the USSR, codified by Stalin, which, I assume (???) is how the OP intended it.."

Not sure that this is the case. The Idler is from a political tradition which, like Marxism-Leninism, sees Stalin as being the ideological successor to Lenin. Unlike Marxism-Leninsm, it sees Lenin's influence as being a negative one. The SPGB has what I would regard as a somewhat ideosyncratic approach to other tendencies that emerged in Marxism; they regard Pannekoek as a 'Leninist' for example, by which I think they mean 'anyone who was in the 3rd International, even briefly'.

Liberlict says:

"... I think Leninism was a right-wing deviation from Marxism ..."

So what and where (if it exists as a movement) is the 'pure left wing non-Leninist Marxism'?

[Rurkel]

It was a sweeping generalization that I made and I understand the error. The point I was trying to get across is that I do not believe that a large portion of the world understands the difference (appearance) between an interventionist and communist economic system.
Many continental European conservatives advocate interventionism from a state paternalistic perspective. "Scandinavian countries are communist" is a fairly rarely heard sentiment. True, many people claim that these countries are socialist, but they then distinguish between vague fluffy "socialism" and scary hardline "communism".

[liberlict]

Liberlict says:

"... I think Leninism was a right-wing deviation from Marxism ..."

So what and where (if it exists as a movement) is the 'pure left wing non-Leninist Marxism'?

I thought Kautsky made some good points in his debates with Lenin. As for where it exists now I'm not really sure.

[Blake's Baby]

You think Kautsky was to the left of Lenin?

What do 'left' and 'right' mean to you exactly?

[ThatGuy]

Nope, don't really know the difference. Actually I was under the impression that Marx never really put forward a system of his own, but rather tried to analyze how capitalism works.

[liberlict]

You think Kautsky was to the left of Lenin?

What do 'left' and 'right' mean to you exactly?

Yeah I do think Kautsky was to the left of Lenin. As for left and right I don't think they mean much it the real world, but around here I view 'left' as the more anarchistic tendencies (Luxemburg, Chomsky and such), and the 'right' as the more authoritarian ones (Leninism and Maoism for example).

[reb]

NGNM85 said: "Leninism was a variant of Orthodox Marxism, provided by; `Leninism´, we mean the ideas of Lenin, as opposed to; `Marxist-Leninism´, the state religion of the USSR, codified by Stalin,"

That's not what happened. Stalin codified Leninism in the Foundations of Leninism. Leninism is used these days in the majority to mean marxism-leninism. If you are trying to apply this term to Lenin himself then it would not make sense. Why? Because Lenin changed his mind throughout his life so leninism if applied to him could mean anything, which is why it's used by stalinists in a way that is called quote mining.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The first person who attempted to "codify Leninism" was Zinoviev, in his aptly-titled "Leninizm". Generally, Leninism is understood as a set of theories - on imperialism, class-consciousness, the vanguard etc. that are shared by both Marxists-Leninists (of all flavors), Trotskyists, and partly Bordigists and the recent Lih-MacNair "Kautsky revival"... thing.

I think most people understand that Leninism is a subset of Marxism, although it needs to be pointed out that, if we except groups that only exist on the Internet and in print shops, most modern Marxist groups are Leninist. The exceptions are councilists and the ultra-microscopic "Hekmatist" grouping, which has origins in a Leninist party. I guess the PLP and Love and Rage could also qualify.

The time of major non-Leninist Marxist parties - the London Bureau and similar outliers - has pretty much passed.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah I do think Kautsky was to the left of Lenin. As for left and right I don't think they mean much it the real world, but around here I view 'left' as the more anarchistic tendencies (Luxemburg, Chomsky and such), and the 'right' as the more authoritarian ones (Leninism and Maoism for example).

Kautsky was hella into voting, Lenin allied with the Anarchists and supported Anarchist sailors closing down the Constituent Assembly. Which is more 'anarchist'?

[NGNM85]

Kautsky was hella into voting, Lenin allied with the Anarchists and supported Anarchist sailors closing down the Constituent Assembly. Which is more 'anarchist'?

Lenin wasn't categorically opposed to parliamentary activity, either, quite the contrary. Incidentally, I would argue that while many Anarchists would, and have argued otherwise, that parliamentary activity, voting, etc., isn't actually incompatible with Anarchism, at all, but that's a matter for another thread. Kautsky was hardly an Anarchist, but to argue that Anarchists should have some affection or affinity for Lenin (!!!) is kind of ridiculous. Beyond the massive philosophical differences, his love affair, which was really just a momentary tactical pivot, with Anarchism lasted about five months after the revolution, then his government started throwing Anarchists in jail, and shooting them.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Lenin wasn't categorically opposed to parliamentary activity, either, quite the contrary. Incidentally, I would argue that while many Anarchists would, and have argued otherwise, that parliamentary activity, voting, etc., isn't actually incompatible with Anarchism, at all, but that's a matter for another thread. Kautsky was hardly an Anarchist, but to argue that Anarchists should have some affection or affinity for Lenin (!!!) is kind of ridiculous. Beyond the massive philosophical differences, his love affair, which was really just a momentary tactical pivot, with Anarchism lasted about five months after the revolution, then his government started throwing Anarchists in jail, and shooting them.

Except many anarchists ended up in Bolshevik ranks, and the leader of the Anarchist sailors who closed down the Constituent Assembly became a commander in the Red Army. Lenin wasn't opposed to parliamentary activity - in order to provide the revolutionary party with a tribune for socialist propaganda. He never thought that socialism could be ordained by parliamentary vote, unlike the late Kautsky.

[NGNM85]

I think most people understand that Leninism is a subset of Marxism, although it needs to be pointed out that, if we except groups that only exist on the Internet and in print shops, most modern Marxist groups are Leninist.

...

The time of major non-Leninist Marxist parties - the London Bureau and similar outliers - has pretty much passed.

I have no way of qualifying these statements, I, admittedly, know very little about modern Marxist groups, particularly outside of the United States, however, if that is accurate, and I'm not suggesting it isn't, that is really unfortunate.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I have no way of qualifying these statements, I, admittedly, know very little about modern Marxist groups, particularly outside of the United States, however, if that is accurate, and I'm not suggesting it isn't, that is really unfortunate.

Such is life.

As an exercise, try to name five non-Leninist Marxist groups, even in the US, that actually exist - I mean, that have members doing political things in real life. I can think of, well two, - PLP, who used to be Leninist and might still consider themselves to be Leninists, I don't even know anymore, Love and Rage which doesn't exist anymore, and, er, that's it I guess. Solidarity is far from being consistently Leninist and had ties to all manner of Hekmatist and similar groups, but they proclaim themselves to be Leninists.

edit: There's also the Fire by Night group, which also doesn't exist anymore, and which can't've had more than 20 members, so now we're really reaching into the minutiae of applied sectology.

[NGNM85]

Such is life.

That's not particularly comforting. It seems to me that is something that needs to be confronted, and changed. Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. From what I can tell, the radical left, in the US, is a bad joke, primarily a subculture, as opposed to a movement.

[Sea]

Certainly not in the same way that Leninists distinguish Leninism from (anarcho-, left-, libertarian-, council-)communism, because such a distinction flows only from an acceptance of Leninism.

[liberlict]

Kautsky was hella into voting, Lenin allied with the Anarchists and supported Anarchist sailors closing down the Constituent Assembly. Which is more 'anarchist'?

Lenin used anything he felt could help his cause, anarchists, thugs, machine guns, what-have you.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of Lenin's actions. If he was just using "anything he felt could help his cause" then he was both a genius who took up the most unlikely instruments and an idiot who wasted loads of chances.

[liberlict]

I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of Lenin's actions. If he was just using "anything he felt could help his cause" then he was both a genius who took up the most unlikely instruments and an idiot who wasted loads of chances.

He was definitely a genius ...

You can argue it out with your comrades as to whether his genius improved communist doctrine or not.

[Blake's Baby]

He wasn't a genius. There wasn't some overarching machiavellian master-plan.

[liberlict]

He wasn't a genius. There wasn't some overarching machiavellian master-plan.

Machiavellian? No I wouldn't characterize him as that. He believed the end justifies the means though. Did he say "the worse things get, the better things get"? I've googled to see if this quote is real and I haven't found a primary source for it.

[NGNM85]

Machiavellian? No I wouldn't characterize him as that. He believed the end justifies the means though. Did he say "the worse things get, the better things get"? I've googled to see if this quote is real and I haven't found a primary source for it.

The source of this quote is Nikokay Chernyshevsky, who was a major influence on Lenin.