Marxism-Leninism: Theory and Practice

[Chomskyan]

I'd like to know how Marxism-Leninism differs in theory from other Socialist ideologies, and how it worked in practice under Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin etc. in the countries it took root.

I know that, despite bourgeois propaganda, the Soviet Union's economic policies were quite productive considering the amount it time it took for the Soviet Union to grow from a pre-industrial economy into an economy with nuclear weapons, satellites, and an army on the same level as the German army.

Who can refer me to resources, or give me their opinion on how Marxism-Leninism was implemented in Cuba, Vietnam, China, the USSR etc.?

[RedWorker]

What exactly is not clear? Make a pseudo-revolution (coup d'etat), nationalize everything, install massive police state and establish an adequate enough authoritarian apparatus. As for the Marxist part, or even the Leninist one? It's the last step: propaganda.

[G4b3n]

As far as how Marxism-Leninism differs from other socialist ideologies, it is to the political right of them. Take for example what we would call today "left Marxism", formally the mainstream flow of Marxist thought, which condemned the Leninists for centralizing power within the hands of party leaders and effectively shutting down the means of workers control and quite frankly the means for establishing socialism.

Yes, Stalinism was very effective as far as industrialization goes, as for giving workers control over anything, not so much. Stalinists tend to establish this fictional narrative of the party bureaucrat being interchangeable with the worker, which is just blatantly false as their interests were only equal insofar as the workers submitted themselves to the decisions made at the highest levels of the party. Theoretically, these decisions are supposed to carried out through "freedom of discussion and unity of action", but this is of no value when in practice the Supreme Soviet simply pre-approved it's stamp for the decisions already made at the highest levels of the party with no system for insuring that the "discussions" at the lowest levels were even heard.

As for China, Marxism-Leninism or "Stalinism", already being a deviation from mainstream Marxist thought, underwent a further deviation in the construction of Maoism. Mao did not view the success of the CCP as a wholly proletarian revolution, as he incorporated the interests of the petty and nationalist bourgeoisie along with that of the workers and primarily the peasantry, which is why if you look at the PRC flag, you will see the 5 stars represent the party and these 4 classes. While Leninist thought argues that the workers (at least theoretically) ought to control the state and suppress the bourgeois, Mao takes a much more collaborationist approach, while looking to a future proletarian revolution down the road.

I feel like my analysis of Vietnam and Cuba would be lacking, so I will let someone else cover that. Hopefully you also get the Stalinist narrative to see both sides.

[Dodo]

Marxism-Leninism was a product of modernity and fordist capitalism. The world has moved on. The philosophy of Marxism-Leninism is the critical attitude of Marxism, its praxis is obsolete. Lenin himself would have said so.

Leninist praxis was tailored for Russia of early 20th century, it is not to be taken as a universal method that applies everywhere.

-just saying-

[Chomskyan]

It's good that I got some... opinions, but I'm looking more about how it fared economically.

[tuwix]

It's good that I got some... opinions, but I'm looking more about how it fared economically.

Firstly, you confuse Marxism with Leninism. The whole construction of so-called Marxism-Leninism is just an instrumental using of word Marxism to empower intellectually poor ideologies of Leninism and Stalinism. And economically it was just state capitalism with central planing. In the beginning there was enthusiasm and plans were ambitious. But when there was less end less of enthusiasm and more and more bureaucratic power the plans became less and less ambitious and empire get closer and close to collapse as it has collapsed.

[Chomskyan]

Firstly, you confuse Marxism with Leninism. The whole construction of so-called Marxism-Leninism is just an instrumental using of word Marxism to empower intellectually poor ideologies of Leninism and Stalinism. And economically it was just state capitalism with central planing. In the beginning there was enthusiasm and plans were ambitious. But when there was less end less of enthusiasm and more and more bureaucratic power the plans became less and less ambitious and empire get closer and close to collapse as it has collapsed.

Sure, I know what your opinions are. What I want are books, articles etc. on how the Stalinist system functioned and how it's economy fared. Specifics.

[Dodo]

you can ask "Tim Cornelis", I think he read a book on Soviet Economy.
I have read a good deal of economic history but I have not studied Soviet model particularly.
Also, I don't think we can really draw a straight line from what we call Leninism to Stalinist Soviet economy and the post-Stalin soviet economies.
Things have changed quiet rapidly after Lenin, though a good deal of what was done was influenced highly from Lenin's work and the institutional-frame he established in his time.
There are Lenin(s) before taking power and Lenin after he took power and the state model that formed throughout the process Bolsheviks took power to Stalin.
I don't think there is a consistent, one static model.
Something to keep in mind.

[Tim Cornelis]

"I know that, despite bourgeois propaganda, the Soviet Union's economic policies were quite productive"

despite RIVAL bourgeois propaganda.

Critical
Paresh Chattopadhyay, "The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience". Details the crisis of the absolute over-accumulation of capital in the USSR. The trajectory of economic growth in the USSR.

In between
"What Does the Eastern European Growth Experience Tell Us About the Policy and Convergence Debates?" by Charles Kenny.

"In 1913, Mexico and the USSR had almost exactly the same income per capita --in 1990 dollars, the Soviet Union’s income was $1,488, compared to Mexico’s $1,467 (see Graph One –data here and throughout the paper is from Maddison 1995). Mexico would not be held up as the model of liberalism since then, but having said that, democracy, private property and the market played a far larger role there than in the USSR. Yet, in 1989, Soviet income per capita was 46 percent larger than Mexican income, compared to about 1 percent larger in 1913. Despite suffering through two incredibly damaging world wars, a civil war, the Stalin-induced famines that killed millions in the 1930s, his jail and gulag system that killed millions more, and a range of environmental disasters, the Soviet Union’s growth over the period of communism put Mexico’s to shame. Only with the fall of the communist system did Mexico overtake the USSR --by 1992, Mexican income 2 was approximately $450 per capita higher than that of the Soviet Union at the eve of breaking up."

Apologetic/Positive
Joseph Ball, The Need for Planning: The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union in the 1950s and the Decline of the Soviet Economy


I'm not really familiar with a comparative analysis of state-capitalist economies. I'm interested too.

As for China, a specificity of the Maoist system was the people's communes, you can look those up.

[David Warner]

I'd like to know how Marxism-Leninism differs in theory from other Socialist ideologies, and how it worked in practice under Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin etc. in the countries it took root.


It's good that I got some... opinions, but I'm looking more about how it fared economically.


Sure, I know what your opinions are. What I want are books, articles etc. on how the Stalinist system functioned and how it's economy fared. Specifics.

1) If you're looking for the official books published by the state itself:
USSR - History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union: (Bolsheviks)
Vietnam - An Outline History of The Vietnam Workers' Party (1930-1975)
China - An Outline History of China by Bai Shouyi

I don't know about Cuba, Laos, Korea, etc.

2) How does it differ from other ideologies? Well, you might find the following books useful --
The German Ideology by Marx
Collected Works Volume 38: Philosophical Notebooks by Lenin
Materialism and Empirio-criticism by Lenin

3) Economic statistics of USSR, etc. are widely available. Just do a simple google search such as this -- tinyurl.c om/prw9hhr

[Tim Redd]

Marxism-Engelsism-Leninism-Maoism with Redd Thought is the Marxism of today. Engels covers areas Marx was too busy to deal with and Mao picks up where Lenin left off. So read the 4 of them to get the real deal feel of what the essence of scientific revolutionary theory and science is about. I pick up where Mao left off. I have brought radically new ideas in political economy, dialectics, and beyond dialectics to analyze dynamics. I have also scientifically related the idea that the local proletarian is subordinate to the world proletarian to the concepts present in general systems theory. See (www.risparty.org (http://www.risparty.org)) for details.

Don't let the anti-science, it's all about thinking whatever you want to think matters most diletantes fool you. It's about keeping an open mind all the while verifying what you read against scientific experience, investiagtion and research.

[BIXX]

Marxism-Engelsism-Leninism-Maoism-Reddism is the Marxism of today. Engels covers areas Marx was too busy to deal with and Mao picks up where Lenin left off. So read the 4 of them to get the real deal feel of what the essence of scientific revolutionary theory and science is about. Redd picks up where Mao left off. (www.risparty.org)

Don't let the anti-science, it's all about thinking whatever you want to think matters most diletantes fool you. It's about keeping an open mind all the while verifying what you read against scientific experience, investiagtion and research.
You're ridiculous.

[Tim Redd]

You're ridiculous.

And revolutionarily loving it. Read what's at www.risparty.org (http://www.risparty.org) for the real deal. Unless you can show that my works there are ridiculous, you have no standing.

Further as a diehard anarchist how would you know what is significant to the science of Marxism-Leninism? Marxism-Leninism is opposed to anarchism in terms of how the strategy of revolution should play out. We Marxist-Engelsist-Leninists-Maoist-Redd Thought'ers believe it's necessary to create and make functional the dictatorship of the proletariat immediately after the seizure of power by the masses, where the masses are mobilized to fight the capitalist roaders in the party and the state government in order to move society to communism that no longer has classes and thus no longer has a political state.

Anarchists naively think that classless and stateless society can be achieved immediately after the seizure of power by the revolution. But in reality you are granting the bourgeoisie the freedom to immediately reestablish capitalist rule because there is no state force to oppose what they want to do. Anarchism embodies the false freedom of capitalism - the right to do what you want. Whereas freedom is actually about doing what is materially necessary to achieve greater group self-determination for the revolutionary masses. Anarchists are living the fantasy of capitalist dreams and not the truly revolutionary life of doing what's necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie after the revolutionary seizure of power from the capitalists.

[Dodo]

Marxism-Engelsism-Leninism-Maoism-Reddism is the Marxism of today

are you serious Redd? I was wondering how old you are and do you honestly feel like people take you seriously?

The way I see it from reading your work, you are not only far from any science or being an authority on Marxism. In fact, you are still not beyond fundamental debates of almost a century ago. What makes you so sure in-yourself unless you have mental issues?
You are making a seriously big claim and I want to know whats behind that.

[BIXX]

Redd is a troll. You can tell by their response to me. Acting like I never researched Marxism Leninism because I'm an anarchist (not true), shameless self-promotion, etc...

[Creative Destruction]

we already have one Bob Avakian. we don't need another.

[Sinister Intents]

And revolutionarily loving it. Read what's at www.risparty.org (http://www.risparty.org) for the real deal. Unless you can show that my works there are ridiculous, you have no standing.

*Yawns*


Further as a diehard anarchist how would you know what is significant to the science of Marxism-Leninism? Marxism-Leninism is opposed to anarchism in terms of how the strategy of revolution should play out. We Marxist-Engelsist-Leninists-Maoist-Redd Thought'ers believe it's necessary to create and make functional the dictatorship of the proletariat immediately after the seizure of power by the masses, where the masses are mobilized to fight the capitalist roaders in the party and the state government in order to move society to communism that no longer has classes and thus no longer has a political state.


Marxism-Leninism isn't a science, but socialism certainly can be scientific, Marxism-Leninism is just Stalinism. The dictatorship of the proletariat, a subject I'm actually neutral on, has shown the dangers it can pose. The social revolutionists that paved the way before the Bolsheviks took power exerted control through the Soviets before the Soviets under went a long process of being stripped down to being puppets of the state. The workers lost all control and the Bolsheviks maintained a hegemonic order over the proletariat rather than the proletariat controlling it's destiny. Rather the DOtP isn't a means to an end, but a means to creating a state that perpetuates itself perhaps indefinitely. In the Soviet Union I feel that the Bolsheviks shouldn't have persecuted those that played a major role in the revolution, if it weren't for the anarchists and other social revolutionists the Soviet Union would never have been most likely.


Anarchists naively think that classless and stateless society can be achieved immediately after the seizure of power by the revolution. But in reality you are granting the bourgeoisie the freedom to immediately reestablish capitalist rule because there is no state force to oppose what they want to do. Anarchism embodies the false freedom of capitalism - the right to do what you want. Whereas freedom is actually about doing what is materially necessary to achieve greater group self-determination for the revolutionary masses. Anarchists are living the fantasy of capitalist dreams and not the truly revolutionary life of doing what's necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie after the revolutionary seizure of power from the capitalists.
[/QUOTE]

Which the anarchists have shown that their methods are very feasible if you would have paid attention to Makhno and the Ukrainian Free Territory which maintained an anarchic society before the Bolsheviks crushed it. The anarchists can and will fight the bourgeoisie off without a state, the worker's will have direct control and counterrevolution rendered an impossibility. You show no understanding of anarchism whatsoever. Come back when you've read some Kropotkin and Malatesta, then we'll talk, until then you're more of an idealist troll that has no historical or philosophical understanding. Anarchists are materialists, not idealists

[Tim Redd]

Marxism-Leninism isn't a science, but socialism certainly can be scientific, Marxism-Leninism is just Stalinism.

I don't understand why Marxism-Leninism isn't a science. When I bases itself upon Marx's scientific investigation of capitalist political economy. Engel's scientific (proof based) philosophical disquisitions and Lenin's experience and study in the midst of Russian revolutionary movement.


The dictatorship of the proletariat, a subject I'm actually neutral on, has shown the dangers it can pose. The social revolutionists that paved the way before the Bolsheviks took power exerted control through the Soviets before the Soviets under went a long process of being stripped down to being puppets of the state.Certainly not puppets of the capitalist state. I thought during the revolution of 1917 they expressed the needs and aims of revolutionary workers movement. The Social Revolutionary (SR) line became less favored than the Bolshevik line after the a protracted period of the workers carrying out the SR line.[/quote]


Rather the DOtP isn't a means to an end, but a means to creating a state that perpetuates itself perhaps indefinitely.Well the dotp must perpetuate itself until a classless society is achieved.


In the Soviet Union I feel that the Bolsheviks shouldn't have persecuted those that played a major role in the revolution, if it weren't for the anarchists and other social revolutionists the Soviet Union would never have been most likely.In Stalin's period many genuine revolutionaries were wrongly persecuted. I see just as many positive things as negative in the Stalin period.


Which the anarchists have shown that their methods are very feasible if you would have paid attention to Makhno and the Ukrainian Free Territory which maintained an anarchic society before the Bolsheviks crushed it. The anarchists can and will fight the bourgeoisie off without a state, the worker's will have direct control and counterrevolution rendered an impossibility. You show no understanding of anarchism whatsoever. Come back when you've read some Kropotkin and Malatesta, then we'll talk, until then you're more of an idealist troll that has no historical or philosophical understanding. Anarchists are materialists, not idealists

I'm not familiar with Makhno, Kropotkin and Malatesta so I'll check them out. I have just read Blanqui and learned positive things about waging barricade based struggle and about how to develop street struggle into an effective overall insurrectionary strategy.

What I find lacking from anarchism is an effective long term (meaning even decades out) strategy and means to transition to truly classless society.

[BIXX]

I'm not familiar with Makhno, Kropotkin and Malatesta so I'll check them out. I have just read Blanqui and learned positive things about waging barricade based struggle and about how to develop street struggle into an effective overall insurrectionary strategy.

What I find lacking from anarchism is an effective long term (meaning even decades out) strategy and means to transition to truly classless society.

Lol, you're unfamiliar with some of anarchism's most important thinkers, and yet you have the audacity to state that it offers no effective long term strategy?

[RedMaterialist]

It's good that I got some... opinions, but I'm looking more about how it fared economically.

Generally speaking, I think, Marx advocated state/national ownership of the large industries. Lenin's NEP planned for national ownership of the "commanding heights of production." Stalin and Mao attempted the ownership of every kind of production. After the Vietnamese defeated the French and US, they for a while also attempted ownership of all production. Beginning around 1980 or so China, after Mao's death, and also Vietnam, reverted to the Leninist system of state ownership of only the major sectors of production.

Now China is about to become the leading economy in the world. Cuba also appears to be going along the same lines. In Western Europe most of the very largest industries are state-owned (Norway owns about 2/3 of the oil production industry and is by some accounts the richest country in the world.)

Although by no means perfect, I would say the Marxist-Leninist economic concept of the state has been pretty successful.