Fundamentals of various theories?

[syzygy]

What are the fundamentals of the following terms, which anyone calling themselves by those terms will have to accept, and which all their fellows will agree on?

Of course anyone can call themselves anything they like, but we give words meanings to help us distinguish things, and so a word, unless it's a synonym, must mean something that differentiates it from everything else.

I've read the Wikipedia article for each of these, but I'm probably more confused than before. I'm hoping for very brief summaries of the absolute fundamentals. I understand that summaries are incomplete and insufficient for a full understanding. Thanks in advance.

Marxism
Classical Marxism
Orthodox Marxism
Leninism
Marxism–Leninism
Stalinism
Trotskyism
Maoism

[tuwix]

Marxism


Material equality, socializing means of productions, elimination of private property, rule of workers.



Classical Marxism


Don't trust further developments of Marxism.



Orthodox Marxism


Only what Marx and Engels discovered is great. And the rest is either idiocy or
bourgeois activity.



Leninism


In theory, vanguardism that means that people are too stupid to govern themselves, so they need the very wise party who will govern in their behalf.
In practice, dictatorship of bureaucracy that means members of that party which is never very wise. Besides censorship and secret police.



Marxism–Leninism


The same as Leninism. The term invented by Stalinists to enforce intellectually Leninism.



Stalinism


In theory, Leninism with effort to build socialism in one country.
In practice, Leninism with terror upon own citizens and mass killings.



Trotskyism


Leninism against Stalinism.



Maoism

In theory, Leninism that recognizes peasants as revolutionary force.
In practice, capitalist China with a rule with so-called "communists".

[BolshevikBabe]

Marxism

History as class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a communist society without money, private property etc., the dialectical method combined with materialism.


Classical Marxism

Same as above with a distrust for anything that came after Marx & Engels


Orthodox Marxism

An economistic, mechanistic distortion of Marxism that arose during the Second International.


Leninism

Marxists who recognize the developments of Lenin to Marxism.


Marxism–Leninism

Marxism + the development of Marx's theories by Lenin, specifically the vanguard party, the theory of imperialism, dialectical materialism in its modern form, a realization that socialism cannot take the entire world at once and that socialism will appear in only a small amount of countries at first, and a lot of new theory on how the state functions in socialism.


Stalinism

A pejorative term for Marxist-Leninists.


Trotskyism

Leninism but without the emphasis on building socialism on a smaller scale first and with the belief that the revolution needs to be held in permanence until socialism has spread everywhere.


Maoism

Further development of Leninism with beliefs such as the mass line, New Democracy, a revitalized dialectic centred on contradiction and (sometimes) the Three Worlds Theory

[Tim Cornelis]

What are the fundamentals of the following terms, which anyone calling themselves by those terms will have to accept, and which all their fellows will agree on?

Of course anyone can call themselves anything they like, but we give words meanings to help us distinguish things, and so a word, unless it's a synonym, must mean something that differentiates it from everything else.

I've read the Wikipedia article for each of these, but I'm probably more confused than before. I'm hoping for very brief summaries of the absolute fundamentals. I understand that summaries are incomplete and insufficient for a full understanding. Thanks in advance.

Marxism

Marxist historiography is based on the idea that the material conditions shape the base (mode of production) and consequently the superstructure (politics, legal structure). Material conditions are the technological level in terms of production —the productive forces. As the productive forces increase, the base and thus the superstructure are reshapen.
A new mode of production is brought about when the old relations of production no longer fit the old mode of production due to increases in the productive forces, which leads to a rupture: a social revolution (again, which reshapes the base and superstructure of society). For instance, industrialisation from the 16th century onward and consolidated with the Industrial Revolution brought into existence a dispossessed working class owning nothing but their labour-power and a bourgeoisie owning means of production. This created the capitalist mode of production and brought the bourgeoisie into conflict with the aristocracy which culminated in bourgeois revolutions around the developed world: Iberian liberal revolutions, French revolution, American revolutionary war, revolutions of 1848.

Historical materialism summarised by Engels:


I. Mediaeval Society — Individual production on a small scale. Means of production adapted for individual use; hence primitive, ungainly, petty, dwarfed in action. Production for immediate consumption, either of the producer himself or his feudal lord. Only where an excess of production over this consumption occurs is such excess offered for sale, enters into exchange. Production of commodities, therefore, only in its infancy. But already it contains within itself, in embryo, anarchy in the production of society at large.

II. Capitalist Revolution — transformation of industry, at first be means of simple cooperation and manufacture. Concentration of the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social means of production — a transformation which does not, on the whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropriation remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the products and turns them into commodities. Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light.

A. Severance of the producer from the means of production. Condemnation of the worker to wage-labor for life. Antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

B. Growing predominance and increasing effectiveness of the laws governing the production of commodities. Unbridled competition. Contradiction between socialized organization in the individual factory and social anarchy in the production as a whole.

C. On the one hand, perfecting of machinery, made by competition compulsory for each individual manufacturer, and complemented by a constantly growing displacement of laborers. Industrial reserve-army. On the other hand, unlimited extension of production, also compulsory under competition, for every manufacturer. On both sides, unheard-of development of productive forces, excess of supply over demand, over-production and products — excess there, of laborers, without employment and without means of existence. But these two levers of production and of social well-being are unable to work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents the productive forces from working and the products from circulating, unless they are first turned into capital — which their very superabundance prevents. The contradiction has grown into an absurdity. The mode of production rises in rebellion against the form of exchange.

D. Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.

III. Proletarian Revolution — Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.

Marxist economics sought to define capitalism in terms of materialism and prove that advances and changes in the material conditions--increase of the productive forces--under capitalism would lead to a new mode of production: socialism. According to Marxist economics, increases in the productive forces in capitalism ensured there was a tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Capitalists have a short-term interest in investing in machinery, but in the long run this leads to a fall in profits (though there are counter-acting tendencies such as monopolization of markets, state intervention, concentration of capital, increasing rate of exploitation by extending work day or slashing wages). This is because only labour (and nature) creates value, according to the labour theory of value or law of value that is, and fixed capital does not. Because of this, there are internal contradictions within capitalism that makes it inherently unstable, it is argued.
Capitalist development also concentrates capital over time. We've seen this: from small-scale businesses and local factories to worldwide conglomerations and joint-ventures. This socialises production as it creates longer production chains which interconnects the working class, and class conflict leads to the proletariat assuming control over the socialised economy through a social revolution.

The Marxist revolutionary strategy involves the dictatorship of the proletariat. The state came into existence when social classes did (in their turn, social classes came into existence due to an increase in the productive forces: the neolithic revolution). The state became a necessity to protect the privilege of the ruling class--the state serves as a body of the ruling class as its protector. The state is a manifestation of class antagonisms, as long as class antagonisms exist there is a need for a violent centralised body to keep the exploited class at bay, Marx and Engels reasoned. Shortly after the workers come to power there will still be class antagonisms because the bourgeoisie wants to initiate a counter-revolution, a state is thus necessary to crush the reaction to the revolution. This workers' state will need to be based on workers' power but be unitary and centralised at the same time. It's nevertheless a semi-state because it contains within the structures of a stateless society based on the free association of equal producers and consumers. As class antagonisms die out, the need to suppress the bourgeoisie (who no longer exist) disappears and thus the state dies out, and what's left is the associations.



Classical Marxism

Exclusively the writings of Marx and Engels.


Orthodox Marxism

Based around the Second International and figurehead Kautksy. Modern reincarnation the CPGB in the UK and…. the newly started Communist Platform in the Netherlands. Advocates a democratic republic achieved through the building of a mass party-movement, similar to the SPD and Bolsheviks, which is supposed to encompass the majority of the workers and unite them under a communist programme for that democratic republic (the dictatorship of the proletariat). It's also associated with economic determinism, but I don't see that in the CP and CPGB (although I may be simply unaware of that). Often considered the seed that lead to the degeneration of social-democracy.


Leninism

Emphasizes the vanguard party leading the working class, and the theory of imperialism.


Marxism–Leninism
Stalinism

My view: Ideological whitewashing as a consequence of the degenerated Russian revolution and its failure. Sought to rationalise the continued existence of wage-labour and commodity production and the law of value and finance and economic growth, etc., as somehow socialist. Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism are considered synonymous, but most tendencies deny continuity between Lenin and Stalinism, while Stalinists do not.


Trotskyism

Provided a Leninist alternative to explain the failure of the Russian revolution. Involves theories about degenerated and deformed workers' states and permanent revolution.


Maoism

My view: Bourgeois-romanticist ideology based on the degenerated ideas of Stalinism applied to Chinese society, embedded in idealism and a bourgeois paradigm, including but not limited to, new democracy (bloc of four classes, class collaboration) and nationalism.

[syzygy]

Material equality, socializing means of productions, elimination of private property, rule of workers.

This doesn't seem unique to Marxism.


Only what Marx and Engels discovered is great. And the rest is either idiocy or bourgeois activity.

How does this make Orthodox Marxism different from Classical Marxism?


In theory, vanguardism that means that people are too stupid to govern themselves, so they need the very wise party who will govern in their behalf.
In practice, dictatorship of bureaucracy that means members of that party which is never very wise. Besides censorship and secret police.

Would the first sentence be accepted by Leninists? (I'm sure the second wouldn't.)


The same as Leninism. The term invented by Stalinists to enforce intellectually Leninism.

The existence of separate Wikipedia articles suggests that they are not synonymous.


In theory, Leninism with effort to build socialism in one country.
In practice, Leninism with terror upon own citizens and mass killings.

Would the first sentence be accepted by supporters of Stalin (I'm sure the second wouldn't); and is that the extent of its fundamental addition(s) to Leninism?


Leninism against Stalinism.

Against in which fundamental way(s)?


In theory, Leninism that recognizes peasants as revolutionary force.
In practice, capitalist China with a rule with so-called "communists".

Is the first sentence the extent of the fundamental difference between Maoism and Leninism?

[syzygy]

History as class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a communist society without money, private property etc., the dialectical method combined with materialism.

The creation of a communist society without money, private property, etc., seems common to several theories. Would you say that the rest (history as a class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the dialectical method combined with materialism) constitute the fundamentals that make Marxism a unique theory?


An economistic, mechanistic distortion of Marxism that arose during the Second International.

Would you please elaborate briefly on what those distortions consisted of?


Marxists who recognize the developments of Lenin to Marxism.


Marxism + the development of Marx's theories by Lenin, specifically the vanguard party, the theory of imperialism, dialectical materialism in its modern form, a realization that socialism cannot take the entire world at once and that socialism will appear in only a small amount of countries at first, and a lot of new theory on how the state functions in socialism.

These two leave me confused. If Marxism-Leninism is Marxism + the development of Marx's theories by Lenin, then what does "Leninism" mean, if not the same thing?

Also, did Lenin originate the theory of imperialism? How does Lenin's modern form of dialectical materialism differ from previous forms? Did previous generations of Marxists believe that socialism would take the entire world at once?


A pejorative term for Marxist-Leninists.

The Wikipedia article is rather long for a mere pejorative. Did Stalin's theories not differ in any way from Lenin's?


Leninism but without the emphasis on building socialism on a smaller scale first and with the belief that the revolution needs to be held in permanence until socialism has spread everywhere.

If the lack of emphasis on building socialism on a smaller scale first is part of what makes Trotskyism different from non-Trotskyist Leninism, and if the answer to my earlier question, regarding whether previous generations of Marxists disagreed with Marxist-Leninists that socialism would take the entire world at once, is no, then does that mean that Trotskyism is in agreement with those earlier Marxists?

Also, is Trotskyism a form of Leninism but not of Marxism-Leninism, or is it a form of both?


Further development of Leninism with beliefs such as the mass line, New Democracy, a revitalized dialectic centred on contradiction and (sometimes) the Three Worlds Theory

Is the mass line unique to Maoism? Also, how does the Maoist dialectic differ from Lenin's (or whichever one it grew out of)?

[syzygy]

Based around the Second International and figurehead Kautksy. Modern reincarnation the CPGB in the UK and…. the newly started Communist Platform in the Netherlands. Advocates a democratic republic achieved through the building of a mass party-movement, similar to the SPD and Bolsheviks, which is supposed to encompass the majority of the workers and unite them under a communist programme for that democratic republic (the dictatorship of the proletariat). It's also associated with economic determinism, but I don't see that in the CP and CPGB (although I may be simply unaware of that). Often considered the seed that lead to the degeneration of social-democracy.

In what ways do Orthodox Marxists differ from Bolsheviks? Also, what are the reasons given for it leading to the degeneration of social-democracy?


Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism are considered synonymous, but most tendencies deny continuity between Lenin and Stalinism, while Stalinists do not.

Are there separate Wikipedia articles merely because most tendencies deny continuity between Lenin and Stalinism, or are there actual theoretical differences between them?

[Q]

In what ways do Orthodox Marxists differ from Bolsheviks?
Given that the Bolsheviks were what is here called orthodox Marxists, standing fully in the Marxist tradition of the Second International, there is no difference programmatically or strategically. Sadly, there are many misconceptions about what the Bolsheviks did, stemming from a misunderstanding of their sources (the SPD, Erfurt programme, etc. as opposed to them being something "unique") and the context they worked in (a tsarist police state).


Also, what are the reasons given for it leading to the degeneration of social-democracy?
That is a long and complicated topic. Leftwing academic Lars Lih has written quite a bit of useful articles about this subject over the last few years (one archive can be found here (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/authors/lars-t-lih)). His basic thesis, for which he has done much research, is that Lenin broke with Kautsky in 1914, from the position that, in Lenin's view, Kautsky betrayed his politics. Lenin on the other hand remained true to Kautsky's politics up to 1914 until the day he died, again, in Lenin's own view.


Are there separate Wikipedia articles merely because most tendencies deny continuity between Lenin and Stalinism, or are there actual theoretical differences between them?
'Marxist-Leninists' don't generally refer to themselves as Stalinists, so that might have to do with it.

[Alexios]

Neither Lenin nor the Bolsheviks were "Orthodox Marxists" in 1917; that's a bizarre myth drawn up by neo-Kautskyites seeking to give legitimacy to their social democracy. Read Gilles Dauve's "The Renegade Kautsky" for more info.

[Q]

Neither Lenin nor the Bolsheviks were "Orthodox Marxists" in 1917; that's a bizarre myth drawn up by neo-Kautskyites seeking to give legitimacy to their social democracy. Read Gilles Dauve's "The Renegade Kautsky" for more info.
Dear OP: As you can see, Lih's et al work is certainly not uncontroversial. This has to do that this work is slaughtering quite a few sacred cows and quite a few people have a somewhat Pavlovian reflex to this, as you can see in the quotation above.

Alexios: Are you referring to The "renegade" Kautsky and his disciple Lenin (https://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve)? If so, doesn't this 1977 text only underscore the continuity between Kautsky and Lenin, be it purely from a negative angle?

[Alexios]

Dear OP: As you can see, Lih's et al work is certainly not uncontroversial. This has to do that this work is slaughtering quite a few sacred cows and quite a few people have a somewhat Pavlovian reflex to this, as you can see in the quotation above.

Alexios: Are you referring to The "renegade" Kautsky and his disciple Lenin (https://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve)? If so, doesn't this 1977 text only underscore the continuity between Kautsky and Lenin, be it purely from a negative angle?

The argument is that Lenin broke with Kautskyism in 1917, changing his politics to accept the Soviet phenomenon. You and Lih aren't wrong in arguing that Lenin followed Kautsky up to 1905, but I disagree that the Bolshevik movement was a continuation of Kautsky's thought.

[BolshevikBabe]

Orthodox Marxism is based very much in a reading of Marx as laying emphasis on productive-forces determinism, and given that this emphasis has almost always been the shibboleth of revisionism and capitalist restoration, I think we should be more than wary of it. It's based a lot on the infamous 1859 Contribution in which Marx saw the productive forces as the primary mover of history, whereas in the Communist Manifesto (and almost everywhere else) he gave this role to the class struggle.

[Rafiq]

Class struggle is a primary component of the productive forces, there is no contradiction here.

[BolshevikBabe]

Class struggle is a primary component of the productive forces, there is no contradiction here.

Both are interlinked of course, and productive forces are an important factor in any analysis, but it is of crucial importance as to which is seen as primary - a focus on class struggle as determinant in the last instance allows us to see class struggle as the motor of history, numerous modes of production as being based in differing forms of class struggle etc. whereas a focus on productive forces produces an evolutionist, economistic logic much like that which came to dominate the Second International.

[Left Voice]

The existence of separate Wikipedia articles suggests that they are not synonymous.
In a practical sense (putting aside the various tendency disagreements as much as possible), Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism are the same thing, it is the connotations of the terms that differ. Stalinism is generally a derogative term applied to Marxism-Leninism. Marxist-Leninist generally claim that Stalin correctly interpreted and applied Leninism within the constraints of what was possible at the time. Stalinist will identify as Marxist-Leninists. Marxism-Leninism introduces various concepts to regular Leninism such as Socialism in One Country, but these may or may not be accepted by Marxist-Leninists - some see such 'innovations' as simply necessary in context to protect the revolution. Regardless, they are not elements of Leninism and therefore should not be classified as such.

For reference, the core concepts of Leninism are the concept of a vangard party of 'professional revolutionaries' to lead the working class, these revolutionaries being organised under 'democratic centralism', as well as Lenin's concepts of imperialism (to make up for Marx's own lack of a theory of international relations). However, some will react quite negatively to suggestions that these are innovations by Lenin - Leninists see these as correct implementations of Marxism.

It is extremely confusing at first and takes a while to get your head around. The key thing to remember is much of the terminology is actually politically-charged - there are often very few or minor differences between the various 'isms', the terms being used as terms of identification or exclusion rather than referring to actual differences. For example, Trotskyism and Maoism are two completely unrelated expansions on Leninism and both will identify as Leninists, but that doesn't change the fact that both Maoists and Marxist-Leninists hate Trotskyists.

[ComradeOm]

Keep in mind that most of these terms are the product of political disputes a century ago. That said, some notes on 'Leninism':

Never used by Lenin himself, the term gathered cachet in his later, invalid, years as his potential 'heirs' (Zinoviev, Trotsky, Stalin, etc) sought to align their policies with his. In that sense the term is fairly meaningless beyond serving as a common ancestor for a whole range of post-Lenin ideologies.

Still, if we are to look at the policies of Lenin's life then we can say that the fundamentals of 'Leninism' would include: insistence of a revolutionary seizure of power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, anti-imperialism and national self-determination, and a conception of the state as an organ of class rule. All of which are today fairly 'orthodox' (and Lenin took great care to relate all to Marx's writings, perhaps too much) but were fairly revolutionary in 1917. (Pun fully intended.) Basically, it's a fundamental rejection of Second International Marxism.

What was not a feature of Lenin's thought in 1917 was the idea of a 'vanguard party' (a term that he never used) comprised of 'professional revolutionaries'. This is a common misunderstanding, born of the emphasis on the vanguard ("the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes") but the Bolshevik Party in 1917 was a democratic, mass organisation. I deal with this extensively here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html).

('Marxism-Leninism' is an extension of 'Leninism as cachet' that took form in the 1920s to describe the state policies of the USSR. It's an attempt to legitimise the latter by reference to both Marx and Lenin. In ideological terms it's synonymous with 'Stalinism' but the latter also has useful broader terms when describing the actions/composition of the Soviet state during the Stalin period. Eg, 'the Stalinist elite' or 'Stalinist agricultural policy'.)


That is a long and complicated topic. Leftwing academic Lars Lih has written quite a bit of useful articles about this subject over the last few years (one archive can be found here (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/authors/lars-t-lih)). His basic thesis, for which he has done much research, is that Lenin broke with Kautsky in 1914, from the position that, in Lenin's view, Kautsky betrayed his politics. Lenin on the other hand remained true to Kautsky's politics up to 1914 until the day he died, again, in Lenin's own viewThe key phrase being "in Lenin's own view". It's hardly unsurprising that Lenin was unwilling to concede that the theoretical framework for which he'd been polemicising for for the previous two/three decades was in fact bunk. After all, on such was built his reputation. Hence Lenin's greatest slight of hand: portraying Kautsky as the betrayer of Marxist orthodoxy, while in fact substantially reworking the latter himself.

For Lenin's contemporaries, who were rather less invested in his reputation, the contrast was obvious. His 1917 unveiling in Petrograd (Lenin 2.0, if you will) was met with genuine shock by the RSDLP, who considered the April Theses as nothing short of a decisive break with Marxism. Hence the rumour that he had become a 'semi-anarchist' during his time in exile.

[Five Year Plan]

The Lars Lih thesis discussed above is highly questionable, since it basically consists of a simplistic comparison of the reported self-perceptions of Lenin and Kautsky, rather than an analysis of their politics, and how otherwise seemingly similar abstract ideas can be implemented very differently in practice. Lars Lih defends this approach by asking his detractors, "Do you think you know Lenin's politics and ideas better than Lenin did?" But the same question can be asked of Lih. A split between Lenin and Kautsky had clearly developed by 1917, while both Kautsky and Lenin claimed that they had not changed their fundamental political ideas at all. One of them, obviously, must be wrong in their self-perception, at the very least. At most, both were working from different frameworks all along, albeit ones whose differences were papered over with similar language, which is actually what I find the more persuasive explanation.

Alan Shandro has written extensively in response to the Lih thesis, demonstrating how Lenin's politics (though similar in some superficial sense) departed significantly from Kautsky's, but not Marx's, as early as What Is To Be Done?

[Five Year Plan]

Never used by Lenin himself, the term gathered cachet in his later, invalid, years as his potential 'heirs' (Zinoviev, Trotsky, Stalin, etc) sought to align their policies with his. In that sense the term is fairly meaningless beyond serving as a common ancestor for a whole range of post-Lenin ideologies.

Lenin never conceived of the working class party as a party of the working-class vanguard? Really?


The epoch of imperialism cannot permit the existence, in a single party, of the revolutionary proletariat’s vanguard and the semi-petty-bourgeois aristocracy of the working class, who enjoy morsels of the privileges of their “own” nation’s “Great-Power” status.(https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/ix.htm)

[ComradeOm]

Lenin never conceived of the working class party as a party of the working-class vanguard? Really?Not sure where you're getting that from but Lenin spoke of the vanguard in class terms, rather than as a single organisation.

[Five Year Plan]

Not sure where you're getting that from but Lenin spoke of the vanguard in class terms, rather than as a single organisation.

I posted the URL so you could follow the quote to the original source, a writing of Lenin's from 1915 explaining what he saw as the degeneration of the Second International, and so you could check it if you wish. The dichotomy you are presenting between a vanguard "in class terms" and a vanguard in organizational terms is purely of your own making. You won't find that splitting of concepts in Lenin's writings. As the quote above illustrates, Lenin strove to build a revolutionary party of the working class, one led by the class's vanguard and pursuing a program reflecting the struggle of the class's vanguard, not its backward layers or vacillating centrists. Hence the revolutionary party of the working class is the vanguard party. This is all abundantly clear from a reading of the document I linked above. Some people on this website have a bad habit of making all sorts of sweeping claims about what Lenin thought or didn't think, without ever having read Lenin, and instead only having read Lenin-as-read-by-Lih, or Lenin-as-read-by-some-anarchist.

[ckaihatsu]

Orthodox Marxism is based very much in a reading of Marx as laying emphasis on productive-forces determinism, and given that this emphasis has almost always been the shibboleth of revisionism and capitalist restoration, I think we should be more than wary of it. It's based a lot on the infamous 1859 Contribution in which Marx saw the productive forces as the primary mover of history, whereas in the Communist Manifesto (and almost everywhere else) he gave this role to the class struggle.


---





productive-forces determinism




class struggle [as the primary mover of history]


Here's a graphic illustration of these on a hierarchical scale of determinism -- I have class struggle as being of paramount significance, followed by the overall mode of production (today's capitalism, and tomorrow's socialism), only then followed by the productive forces ('technology / technique').

So 'productive-forces determinism' could be rephrased as 'technological determinism', which is an erroneous concept:





[E]ven the international proliferation of nuclear weaponry has not brought about its technological logical outcome -- a nuke in every garage, much less all-out nuclear warfare and global annihilation.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimage.org/zbpxjshkd/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zbpxjshkd/)

[Rafiq]

Both are interlinked of course, and productive forces are an important factor in any analysis, but it is of crucial importance as to which is seen as primary - a focus on class struggle as determinant in the last instance allows us to see class struggle as the motor of history, numerous modes of production as being based in differing forms of class struggle etc. whereas a focus on productive forces produces an evolutionist, economistic logic much like that which came to dominate the Second International.

I don't follow. How could the productive forces exist and develop without class struggle? What are the productive forces if not different classes with different interests and their social relationships to production? Evolutionist politics did not dominate the Second International, Bernstein was clearly denounced by Kautsky among several others.

If we assume that the base determines the superstructure, even in the most vulgar fashion, this could not lead us to the conclusion that we are to adopt evolutionist politics. On the contrary, to put sole emphasis on the reformist politics which could shape the base to socialism - in other words, a conscious effort for us to change the mode of production politically by participating in bourgeois politics, which apparently have a natural predisposition towards socialism, would force us to adhere to the exact opposite conclusion.

[Rafiq]

The key phrase being "in Lenin's own view". It's hardly unsurprising that Lenin was unwilling to concede that the theoretical framework for which he'd been polemicising for for the previous two/three decades was in fact bunk. After all, on such was built his reputation. Hence Lenin's greatest slight of hand: portraying Kautsky as the betrayer of Marxist orthodoxy, while in fact substantially reworking the latter himself.


You're largely correct, but here you miss the point. It is not so much that Kautsky betrayed the same second international politics, but the fact that he himself pursued continually the same politics despite of changes in conditions. In other words, it was Lenin who was truly carrying forward Marxist orthodoxy by radically changing it - this radical break with the Second International was necessary in preserving the legacy of Marxism.

It is for that reason that Lenin's decisiveness during the Second world war and the October Revolution was in fact a logical conclusion of Lenin's previous standing. Like those Christians who say that Protestantism - this radical split was necessary in order to save the legacy of western Christianity (which had according to them had been spoiled and become rotten) despite the split (or reworking, as you say) itself.

[BolshevikBabe]

I don't follow. How could the productive forces exist and develop without class struggle? What are the productive forces if not different classes with different interests and their social relationships to production? Evolutionist politics did not dominate the Second International, Bernstein was clearly denounced by Kautsky among several others.

If we assume that the base determines the superstructure, even in the most vulgar fashion, this could not lead us to the conclusion that we are to adopt evolutionist politics. On the contrary, to put sole emphasis on the reformist politics which could shape the base to socialism - in other words, a conscious effort for us to change the mode of production politically by participating in bourgeois politics, which apparently have a natural predisposition towards socialism, would force us to adhere to the exact opposite conclusion.

I'm distinguishing relations of production from productive forces here, with productive forces being as ckaihatsu put it, technique/technology. This has a dialectical relationship with the relations of production though - what I'm saying is that the class struggle is determinant in the last instance.

With the Second International, it was more an unconscious tendency than anything open, at least early on. Some of the circumstances which led to the Second International's dissolution - the outbreak of the First World War and the social chauvinism of many of the parties involved in supporting it - stemmed from economism and the rise of the notion that what mattered was the economic struggle above the political struggle. Social democracy grew out of that economism and evolutionism, which Lenin condemned so often.

The base/superstructure is a different matter - there is again a dialectical relationship at work with the base determinant in the last instance. I distinguish that from the relations of production and the productive forces, both of which are situated in the base by my understanding.

[ckaihatsu]

The base/superstructure is a different matter - there is again a dialectical relationship at work with the base determinant in the last instance. I distinguish that from the relations of production and the productive forces, both of which are situated in the base by my understanding.


(From a web search....)


http://www.penelopeironstone.com/base-superstructure.png




http://www.penelopeironstone.com/cs2032014ideology-hegemony.htm


---


http://fall12eng451.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/base-and-superstructure-chart.jpeg?w=400&h=337




http://win13eng451.wordpress.com/lecture-notesstudy-guide/cultural-materialism/

[syzygy]

I remain skeptical that the Stalinism article could persist at Wikipedia if it wasn't a thing. From personal experience, editors there are quick to push for deletion of articles without a preponderance of evidence to support them.

I accept testimony that the term "Stalinist" is rejected by those to whom it might best apply. That is for them to say. But that doesn't erase Stalinism as a thing.

[ComradeOm]

On an ideological level, the difference between 'Marxism-Leninism' and 'Stalinism' is that the latter is specific to the Stalin era. That is, between c1927 and 1953, the terms were synonymous but divergences appear after Stalin's death as official policy of the USSR evolved. For example, Khrushchev considered himself a Marxist-Leninist, a claim that Stalinists flatly reject.

And, as mentioned above, on a more prosaic level the label 'Stalinist' is useful in describing the actions and policies (as opposed from just the ideology) of the Soviet state during the quarter century that Stalin was in control. In this sense the use of 'Stalinism' as an adjective - eg, the 'Stalinist elite' or 'Stalinist wage policy' or 'Stalinist architecture' or 'Stalinist repression' or 'Late Stalinism' - isn't really synonymous with the more ideologically loaded 'Marxist-Leninist'.

[Rafiq]

When speaking historically this is undoubtedly the case, but if we concern ourselves with terminology on a more political or even ideological level, we can see that Stalinism as a general phenomena survived as a condition long after his death. That isn't to say there is a historically distinct period charactetized by his rule, though.

[ComradeOm]

Well yeah, obviously there were strong continuities between the Stalin and post-Stalin periods. I'm certainly not one of those who would suggest that there was a clean break in the 1950s; arguably the political and economic structures of the USSR remained fundamentally 'Stalinist' until the Union's demise. Certainly the post-Stalinist Soviet elite were all products of the 1930s. But the Stalin years do have a enough distinct features that differentiated them from the decades before and after to justify the specific label.

[robbo203]

I think it is important to distinguish between the vanguard as a sociological phenomenon i.e. the most militant, class conscious and revolutionary-minded section of the working class - and vanguardism as a political theory.

No one in their right mind would deny the existence of a vanguard. Revolutionary socialists comprise a tiny minority of the working class which almost by defintion makes them a vanguard. That is a sociological fact whether we like or not. Vanguardism is something different, however. People misunderstand when they think that to criticise vanguardism is to criticise -for want of a better expression - the idea of "leading by example", of being militant in the interests of fellow workers etc. I dont have any problem with that but that is not the problem. The problem is quite simply that "vanguardism" means a lot more than just that. In fact the essence of vanguardism consists in the idea that the vanguard , or the "enlightened minority" or whatever you want to call it, should first capture political power before the majority of workers had become socialist and from that position of power should seek to run in society in the interests of workers and, at the same time, to educate the majority into becoming socialists.

This is the Leninist position and is one of the main things that distinguish Leninists from Marxists who insist that the emanicipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. It cannot be done for you by an enlightened elite. You simply cannot have a socialist society without a majority wanting and understanding it. Socialists seek to bring about the disappearance of the vanguard in the sense of helping a majority of workers to become socialists as a precondition of socialism itself

If you cannot have socialism without a socialist majority then it follows that by default you are left with capitalism. And capitalism can only be operated in one way - in the interests of capital and against the interests of the exploited majority. That is why the Bolsheviks ended up operating a system of state run capitalism which Lenin candidly acknowleged would be a "step forward" for Russia. The Bolshevik revolution was thus a capitalist revolution that inaugurated precisely such a system of society.

The inevitable outcome was a fundamental disconnect between the whole Leninist project and the interests of the workers themselves which widened over time. Doubtless many of the old Bolsheviks were knowledgeable in their understanding of socialism and sincere in their desire to see it come into being. But they were a tiny tiny fraction of the population in that respect . Even Lenin admitted this on several occasions.

The Bolsheviks swept to power not on the basis of mass socialist consciousness - the great majority of workers were clearly not revolutionary socialist, let alone the great majority of the population who were not even workers at all but peasants - and so by default had to administer capitalism in the interests of capital (how else?). The rest, as they say, is history. The whole soviet expereince served, probably more than any other single factor I can think of, to besmich the good name of socialism, drag it through the mud and set back the cause of revolutionary socialism by decades. The result is that today when most workers hear the word socialism they automatically think of the authoritarian state, nationalisation etc etc

And a good deal of the blame for this must be laid at the feet of that utterly misguided policy of "vanguardism"

[Five Year Plan]

In fact the essence of vanguardism consists in the idea that the vanguard , or the "enlightened minority" or whatever you want to call it, should first capture political power before the majority of workers had become socialist and from that position of power should seek to run in society in the interests of workers and, at the same time, to educate the majority into becoming socialists.

This is the Leninist position and is one of the main things that distinguish Leninists from Marxists who insist that the emanicipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.

Do you mind showing me where Lenin ever advocated that only the "enlightened minority" should capture political power and run a society on behalf of everybody else?

As I said earlier in this thread, this forum is filled with claims of "Lenin said this," and "Lenin advocated that," by people who either never show us where Lenin said these things, or where they badly misrepresent things he did say.

The idea behind Lenin's "vanguardism" (if you wish to call it that) is that the revolutionary party should be the organizational crystallization of the most advanced workers' struggles, alongside the rest of the working class, against capital. It was a reaction against social democracy's attempt to create parties that encompass entire classes by watering down its program and its activities in order to appeal to that class's most backward elements and unite them with the "vanguard."

Lenin's theory of revolutionary leadership of the vanguard was not that it would seize political power "independent of" or "on behalf of" the rest of the class. It was that the vanguard would represent the head of a mass working class movement that would support the seizure of power, even if the majority of the class had not yet become well-heeled and theoretically sophisticated Marxists. Why? Because Lenin believed that the experience of going through a revolutionary political process would be the mechanism through which most workers would learn the lessons required to become socialist, to manage a socialist society. In other words, the revolution didn't represent a substitution by an elite vanguard for an entire class. It was the working class wielding power and, in the process of wielding that power, catching up ever more with the vanguard to the point where such a distinction would disappear altogether. But make no mistake about it: it was the workers, organized into workers' councils, who would seize power, an action that in no way requires a person to be a Marxist socialist.