Which form of Marxism do you subscribe to?

[Salvador Allende]

(note: for the purposes of this topic Stalinism is included even though it isn't a true form of Marxism)

so, which do you follow?
Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Castroism, Stalinism, Khmer Rouge theories.

[God of Imperia]

None of those, but if I had to choose, Marxism, but with a few diffrences
I want tot change this: anarcho-communism
marx had a briliant mind, but there are things in his theory for improvement

[Revolution Hero]

It is tautological to say that Marxism is one of the forms of Marxism; it doesn’t make sense at all.

Moreover, it is wrong to separate Marxism from Leninism, as the latter is the development of the first and Lenin’s theoretical works did not contradict to those of Marx.

The term “Stalinism” is the product of revisionist and anticommunist propaganda. Will you please tell me what theory of “Stalinism” is about? Stalin was Marxist – Leninist, unlike revisionists Khrushchev and Brezhnev. I advise you to read Stalin’s works and analyze the practice of socialist building in the USSR to understand what Joseph Vissarionovich really stood for.

And I wonder what Castroism is…

[Dawood]

Libertarian communist.

[Salvador Allende]

Actually, there are some very key differences in what Lenin believed and what Marx wrote. As for Castroism it is the form of Marxism that is used in Cuba. Stalinism is different from Leninism mainly because of Stalin's actions in killing off Lenin's new economic plan and because Stalinism revolves around more scare-tactics.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Why are all your options Leninist?

[Saint-Just]

Even though its not a true from of Marxism, I'm a 'Stalinist'. Castro is a bit of a 'Stalinist' too.

[God of Imperia]

So one man should have a godlike status and have all the power?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by God of [email protected] 3 2004, 09:04 PM
So one man should have a godlike status and have all the power?
Of course not. Stalin as a god figure with all the power is a myth. There are many documented incidences of the decision making progress in the USSR. Stalin had to talk to experts on all subjects and no decision could be made without the vote of party members, who regularly opposed him.

[God of Imperia]

Didn't Stalin possesed absolute power? Man, then I had this whole wrong image in my head all the time. I still think that he had to much power, even if couldn't do anything without the party members votes ... He was the face of the party, of the soviet union, he had this whole cult going on around him, they did worship him. It seemed to me that he and Louis 14 had a lot in common, besides a slight diffrence in titles and time.

[Revolution Hero]

Salvador Allende:


“There are some very key differences in what Lenin believed and what Marx wrote”.

Will you please name them?


“As for Castroism it is the form of Marxism that is used in Cuba”.

How Castroism is different from Marxism?


“Stalinism is different from Leninism mainly because of Stalin's actions in killing off Lenin's new economic plan”


Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) reached its deadlock in 1928, when State grain procurement crisis arose as the result of kulaks’ reluctance to sell grain to soviet state under low, as they thought, prices, because of which they held back grain till the prices would go up. This crisis led to accelerated collectivization. On the other hand, NEP contained a danger of counterrevolution, as it provided good basis for petty-bourgeoisie to appear. This is another reason why NEP was, as you say, “killed”. By the way, the Communist Party of Soviet Union killed NEP, not Stalin alone; even Bukharin understood the correctness of this measure, though he had been against it at first.



Chairman Mao is completely right about Stalin. Stalin supported collective leadership and liked when members of politburo debated with each other and with him, particularly. Stalin never liked toadies, who agreed with everything he said.

[ComradeRed]

where is a good dictionary that differiantiates maoism from marxism from castroism from etc.

[Blibblob]

Will you please name them?
Here, I will. Marx's communism is, first of all, a stateless society. It is essentially an anarchist state that advocates unity amongst the society. Lennin never even tried for such a state, it was state-socialism, a beaurocratic government where the people had no real power. The soviet revolution was from the top down, not from the bottom up. The Bolsheviks were, for the most part, not the working class. The working class was goaded into a revolution from a feudalist state straight to a socialist state. According to Marx, capitalism had to come first, and socialism is the next logical step(currently being seen within the United States, laws against corporations are becoming more strict). Then the government is removed. But under the socialist state it is the dictatorship of the proles, Russia was a dictatorship of the people who lead the revolution, not the people who deserved it. It was a system doomed from the start. Dictatorships never end well.

How Castroism is different from Marxism?
Castroism is essentially the same as Leninism and Stalinism. And for the Trotskyites, him too. All those damn Soviets. Castro just doesn't execute people, or throw them in working camps.

Chairman Mao is completely right about Stalin. Stalin supported collective leadership and liked when members of politburo debated with each other and with him, particularly. Stalin never liked toadies, who agreed with everything he said.
Regardless of weither or not Stalin and his advisors debated, it was still a dictatorship by the corrupted powerful. While it should have been a leadership by the people. A bloody democracy.


Oh, by the way. I advocate Anarcho-Communism for the distant future. Anarcho-syndicalism slash Democratic-Socialism for the nowish-tomorrow. Since that is obvious... So... that would be Marxism.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Revolution [email protected] 3 2004, 11:37 PM
Salvador Allende:


“There are some very key differences in what Lenin believed and what Marx wrote”.

Will you please name them?
Leninists believe that communism can only be achieved through the dictatorship of the proletariat whereas Marx saw this as only one of several possibilities, in an address to the first internation he even said that communism may be achieved without a violent revolution. The Leninist definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat is different from the Marxist one, Marx used the term to denote the dictatorship of one class over another in a democratic political system whereas Lenin used it to mean the dictatorship of the vanguard party who supposedly represent the interests of the proletariat. The whole idea of a vanguard party has nothing to do with Marxism, it is a concept taken from blanquism. The use of soviets to make up the governent was an idea taken from some early english socialists and anarcho-syndicalists, it is directly opposed to the Marxist idea of communes divided by region rather than by trade. Leninists believe that private property should be nationalised rather than communalised.

[crazy comie]

Trotskeivitism is what i subscribe to..

[commie kg]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 5 2004, 06:08 AM
Trotskeivitism is what i subscribe to..
Is that like Trotskyism and Zinovievism combined into one "ism"? :blink:

I'm a Marxist.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Anarcho-Marxism

[pandora]

“As for Castroism it is the form of Marxism that is used in Cuba”.

How Castroism is different from Marxism?
[/QUOTE]
Castro also incorporated the Constitution of Jose Marti, in his ideology.

[Essential Insignificance]

note: for the purposes of this topic Stalinism is included even though it isn't a true form of Marxism)

so, which do you follow?
Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Castroism, Stalinism, Khmer Rouge theories.

Back, to the original without getting dishevelled with the other dispositions of what is Marxism, and how some of his presumed acolytes, were variants of it.

There are know "sorts" of Marxism…if you like there could be in necessity arranges of communism…Marxism is Marxism.

What must be remained, is just because one calls oneself an "Marxist" does not inturn, condemn there to be an Marxist in the "true" sense.

[elijahcraig]

Let me see...

Labels are to a large extent a form of rhetoric created within the party in order to justify the repression of certain ideas. For instance, the French Intellectuals in the 50s and 60s.

Sacher-Masochism. :lol:

[Guest1]

Anarcho-Communist with very heavy Syndicalist leanings.

I take offense to the fact that you would include an entirely Fascist ideology such as Khmer Rouge in the poll, but no Libertarian-Marxist ideologies such as Anarcho-Marxism or Marxist Syndicalism.

As for those of you taking the pathetic, and highly dogmatic position that "Leninism is Marxism", you should complain to your government about the quality of education you are receiving. <_< If it was, it wouldn&#39;t be a form of Marxism.

Here is a link that makes clear the nuances amongst the various Marxist theories, as well as other important theories:

Che-Lives Dictionary (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21255&st=0)

[crazy comie]

I think your right puting the khumer rouge on is stupid all they evere did was kill kill kill

[Louis Pio]

Stalin supported collective leadership and liked when members of politburo debated with each other and with him, particularly.

Im just wondering why he killed most of the original politberau from the revolution then? Were they all counterrevolutionaries?

[Essential Insignificance]

Im just wondering why he killed most of the original politberau from the revolution then? Were they all counterrevolutionaries?

Indeed, they were…that is in Stalin’s mind, and quess what that’s what counts.

[crazy comie]

Anyone who dissagreed with stalin was an eneamy on stalins mind.

[Essential Insignificance]

Well put "crazy comie"...well put indeed.

[crazy comie]

Stalin also seemed to like minipulating and eploiting pepole wich isn&#39;t really a trait of a good ruler.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 7 2004, 10:19 AM
Anyone who dissagreed with stalin was an eneamy on stalins mind.
I am opposed to such tight dicatatorships like that. In my view, which being very studious I have alot of my own, I think the leader should be regaurded as just another worker. Some people say "the people need a god" but i believe the objective is to extoll the people to the god&#39;s they are.
Stalin, really did have mental problems that his egotism compensated for. he was manic depressive, i feel quite bad for him and though i would have shot him to save those millions of people he was legislating the deaths of, the problem is not quite stalin, but how people like him manage to control us up to this day.

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m thinking about beginning to move threads like this one to Chit-Chat.

Why? Because they don&#39;t really have any theoretical content to speak of.

They merely invite you to "pick a label" for yourself...you don&#39;t even have to justify it. How does that help people learn anything?

For example, someone like Chairman Mao and myself both use the word "Marxist" to describe our views. But over the last year, it&#39;s clear that we disagree on almost every issue of substance. In fact, the only thing we really agree on is opposition to U.S. imperialism...a position we share with the very un-Marxist Noam Chomsky.

So which of us is the "real" Marxist? He says he is. I say I am. What have you learned? Nothing&#33;

On a message board, it&#39;s only when specific theoretical questions are actually discussed in detail that anyone can possibly learn "who is a real Marxist" or "anarchist" or "Stalinist" or whatever.

Anyone can pick any label they like and paste it on themselves...it&#39;s only when they reveal their views as applied to material reality that we can really say whether the label makes any sense.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Roses in the Hospital]

Regardless of what &#39;label&#39; we pick for ourselves, what&#39;s the possibility of us all being able to pull together in order to do something?
Is there any particular faction that you would have a major problem working with in a revolutionary situation?

[redstar2000]

Is there any particular faction that you would have a major problem working with in a revolutionary situation?

Want an honest answer? I pretty much think they all suck...at least at present.

I think what we really need is a completely new revolutionary communist movement (not a fucking party&#33;).

A "revolutionary situation" is still considerably distant...certainly decades away if not longer. Existing groups will presumably change quite a bit (some and perhaps many of them will disappear) and new groups will come into existence.

So it&#39;s a little hard to say who I would cooperate with...in "2036" or "2071".

But I&#39;m very definitely not a worshiper at the "altar of left unity". Rather, I insist that unity has to be based on agreement about "what is to be done". I wouldn&#39;t risk a broken fingernail to put some Stalin-wannabe in place of Bush, for example.

It would be the same old shit.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Maomorethanever726]

I&#39;m a Marxist-anarcho-primatavist.

[antieverything]

ahh...good ole&#39; primitivists...let&#39;s all not work and see what happens&#33;

[ComradeRed]

After an extensive study of the forms of communism, I find none of them particularly appealing individually; however, I consider myself to be just a "revolutionary socialist" or "scientific socialist", but if I must put a more "precise" name to it I guess it&#39;d have to be I believe in libertarian troskyite-maoist-titoism (I just call it ComradeRed-ism :P).

[crazy comie]

I think the big problem is each sect has a million more sects.

[Essential Insignificance]

scientific socialist

I have never ever heard someone submit to himself or herself as a "scientific socialist"…not a bad idea...it makes "sense".

[redstar2000]

Engels wrote a pamphlet once that was called, I think, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. And I have a fuzzy memory to the effect that the term "scientific socialism" was briefly fashionable around the beginning of the last century.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever used the phrase "scientific communism" before.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Revolt!]

I am more Marxist than anything.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 02:02 PM
"scientific communism"

Doesn&#39;t it simply refer to marxism.

[RedAnarchist]

I would probably consider myself an Anarcho-Communist.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 09:02 AM
I would probably consider myself an Anarcho-Communist.
Is that the same as a libreal-communist