I'm back!

[RedGuevara]

After a long hiatus, I'm back. Most of you folks won't remember me. My name is Lee but you can call me Red. I'm not new here but I hope to provide to the site in a better and involved way. I would describe myself as a Marxist/Leninist. Thanks!

[Comrade Strong]

Why are you a Marxist-Leninist?

[Q]

Welcome back.

[RedGuevara]

Thanks Q. Why am I an ML? I've read Marx and Lenin. I agree with Communism as the solution to our problems today. I believe in a vanguard party to lead folks into a truly Communist society.

[Blake's Baby]

None of those things make you a Marxist-Leninist. Maybe, the leading role of the party makes you a Leninist, but you could be a Bolshevik-Leninist (ie Trotskyist), or even a Bordigist (a Left Communist current).

What makes you a Marxist-Leninist is the belief that Socialism in One Country is possible. If you don't accept Socialism in One Country, you're not a Marxist-Leninist. If you do, reading Marx and Lenin and believing in the leading role of the Party don't matter.

[RedGuevara]

:o I believe I have still more to learn. I apologize for my error.

[Q]

:o I believe I have still more to learn. I apologize for my error.
Blake is posting his view from the position that "Marxism-Leninism" has little to nothing to do with the ideas of either Marx or Lenin, exactly because "socialism in one country", the defining feature of "Marxism-Leninism", has nothing to do with the ideas of Marx or Lenin. His post was therefore of a polemical nature. Thought I might as well point this out.

[Blake's Baby]

:o I believe I have still more to learn. I apologize for my error.

No need to apologise.

Q is right, to my mind 'Marxism-Leninism' has little to do with Marx or Lenin. But that's probably not so important.

I've read a lot of Marx and quite a lot of Lenin, and I "agree with Communism as the solution to our problems today" - but I'm not a Marxist Leninist. Most people on this site have read Marx and Lenin and pretty much everyone would "agree with Communism as the solution to our problems today", and most of them aren't Marxist-Leninists either. That's not a defining feature of Marxist-Leninists as opposed to any other current.

However, "...I believe in a vanguard party to lead folks into a truly Communist society" is a position that relates to Leninism. But as I said, Trotskyists (Bolshevik-Leninists) also support the leading role of the Party, as do Bordigists (who have been described as 'more Leninist than Lenin'). Neither of these currents is 'Marxist-Leninist'. So saying you're a Marxist-Leninist for those reasons doesn't hold up. You could equally be a Bordigist or a Trotskyist. It's still not a defining feature of Marxist-Leninism.

What differentiates Marxist-Leninists from other currents that claim to be Marxist (whether I personally think that they are or not) is the theory of 'Socialism in One Country'. No other currents adhere to 'Socialism in One Country' - that's pretty much the defining feature of 'Marxism-Leninism'. So if you're a Marxist-Leninist, it's because you support 'Socialism in One Country'. If you don't support 'Socialism in One Country', you're not a Marxist-Leninist.

'Marxism-Leninism' is also what most of the rest of us call 'Stalinism'.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What differentiates Marxist-Leninists from other currents that claim to be Marxist (whether I personally think that they are or not) is the theory of 'Socialism in One Country'. No other currents adhere to 'Socialism in One Country' - that's pretty much the defining feature of 'Marxism-Leninism'. So if you're a Marxist-Leninist, it's because you support 'Socialism in One Country'. If you don't support 'Socialism in One Country', you're not a Marxist-Leninist.

I would just like to add that two groups that are arguably not Marxist-Leninist in the standard sense - the Marcyists and the Pathfinder tendency, both derived from Trotskyist currents - also support "socialism in one country".

I would say the defining features of Marxism-Leninism are socialism in one country, stagism, and popular fronts. Of course those who think socialism is possible in one country generally uphold the latter two positions as well.

[Blake's Baby]

I've come across the Marcyists but never heard of the Pathfinder tendency.

It comes down to a functionalist approach in the end - SIOC is as SIOC does, or something. If the Marcyists originated in Trotskyism, but now support SIOC as opposed to world revolution, they've pretty much ceased to be Trotskyists, in my opinion.

[RedGuevara]

Then at the moment I leave my tendency as unspecified or student. Thanks for the clarifying the differences. Anything I can learn is a plus in my book.

[Q]

I've come across the Marcyists but never heard of the Pathfinder tendency.

It comes down to a functionalist approach in the end - SIOC is as SIOC does, or something. If the Marcyists originated in Trotskyism, but now support SIOC as opposed to world revolution, they've pretty much ceased to be Trotskyists, in my opinion.
The "Pathfinder tendency" is called after the SWP USA's bookshop. The SWP was of course the original Trotskyist party in the USA, one of the founding parties of the Fourth International in 1938. They've developed themselves to become Castro fans and booted out any remaining Trotskyists by the end of the '80's.

The Workers World Party and its more recent split Party of Socialism and Liberation do originate from a 1958 split of the SWP. The split was long coming as the group around Marcy supported the Chinese revolution and the Hungarian repression in '56. From there it developed more along the lines of classical "Marxism-Leninism".

[Blake's Baby]

In which case, I'd argue (whatever its origins), it's no longer Trotskyist.

[Q]

In which case, I'd argue (whatever its origins), it's no longer Trotskyist.
Eh, yes, that was what I said :p

They no longer self-identify as Trotskyist either, both of them, given those developments.