Marxist-Leninism

[Orange Juche]

What is the difference between Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism?

[Saint-Just]

Joseph Stalin's ideology and that of the USSR in the period he led the Communist Party was Marxism-Leninism and there are no differences in the way in which the USSR practiced socialism in this period and the ideas set out by Lenin previously. Similarly, many other Marxist-Leninist states were founded upon these specific socialist ideals: in China, much of Eastern Europe, smaller Asian nations and in Cuba.

[Orange Juche]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the reply ; - )


"Only forum where right-wingers, cappies, stalinists and other misguided individuals are allowed to post."

Why does it mention "stalinists" in the opposing ideologies forum, though?

[Gunman]

If i aint wrong, i think stalinism is extreme-left

[Orange Juche]

But how would it differ from what Lenin did/had?

[Kez]

Lenin (and trotsky) would have increased the democracy in the soviets, pushed the revolution forward, and fought against any use of private interests (unlike stalin and the kulaks)

[fuerzasocialista]

From my undertsanding, Stalinism is more authoritarian/totalitarian with little or no Marixist-Leninism. In other words, he used Lenin's teachings and legacy as a façade to gain power and kill many, many, many people. Trotsky was on to this but was forced to flee Russia in order to save his own life. Stalinism as far as I'm concerned is just a term for a severe form of dictatorship with no social value other than to make your people suffer.

[feigr]

Not all that much.

[feigr]

Lenin (and trotsky) would have increased the democracy in the soviets, pushed the revolution forward, and fought against any use of private interests (unlike stalin and the kulaks)

Actually, Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts fought ceaselessly against any genuine expression of working-class power. Examples? The war against the Makhnovists, the supression of anti-Bolshevik communist/anarchist papers, the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion, terroristic repression directed 'gainst all radical workers, etc, etc.

[Orange Juche]

Would Cuba be closer to Marxist-Leninism, or Stalinism?

[Comrade Raz]

Would Cuba be closer to Marxist-Leninism, or Stalinism?

Well Che was a marxist-leninist, and he helped to form the Cuban economy in the early years. I would say Castro was closer to marxist-leninism that Stalinism.

[Hate Is Art]

Cuba is Marxist-Leninst.

Calling Stalinism an actual political ideology would be very rash, it is just a Bastardization of the marxist-leninist writings and resulted because of the backwards nature of Russia's economy. Rapid Industrilisation was needed to get the USSR up to speed.

The NEP had also caused a new class, the kulaks, who Stalin wanted to eliminate as he saw it as an offence to Communist society.

Stalin was also very paranoid, almost everyone he knew he invisioned as a threat and an enemy.

Calling Stalinism an actual political philosophy is a mistake, Stalinist are apologists for Stalin's crimes.

[Orange Juche]

Does Marxism-Leninism provide for free speech, freedom to practice religion, and democracy?

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:40 PM
What is the difference between Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism?
The same as the difference between dough and bread :D

[Salvador Allende]

First of all, Stalinism IS Marxism-Leninism. Apparently many people on this board however, favour Trotskyism which is in essence Menshevikism which obviously is in sharp contrast with Marxism-Leninism AKA Bolskevikism.

Marxism-Leninism does provide for freedoms. Freedom of religion is usually allowed as well as many other freedoms. I generally see the following leaders as being Marxist-Leninist: Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Jiang Qing, Ho Chi Minh, Salvador Allende. Also, current movements like in Nepal, Peru, Colombia and Kurdistan are organized along Marxist-Leninist lines.

[Hate Is Art]

Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Jiang Qing, Ho Chi Minh, Salvador Allende.

Stalin? Mao? Kim Il and Kim Jong? Ho Chi? Allende?
You are talking out your bottom matey, Stalin was leninist only to the point where he bastardized everything he did.

Mao was suprise suprise a Maoist, a form of Stalinism (used in the broadest sense of the word) to cater for heavy peasentry countrys. Same goes for Ho Chi.

DRPK is a shit hole, an authortarian state which is as brainwashed as America is free.

Salvador was a demo socialist.

[BOZG]

Allende a Marxist-Leninist, that's hilarious. This is the same man that refused to challenge the capitalist class.

[Chad King]

So Cuba is considered more Marxist-Leninist than Stalinist? I was walking with a friend once, here in South Florida, and he was wearing a Che shirt and a Cuban boucner at a club we walked in front of, stopped us and started talking about how much of a shit hole Cuba has become because of Castro.

He seemed to think that Castro was probably more of a Stalinist in terms of being somewhat of a totalitarian dictator.

Ugh, its 4:15am here, Im tired, otherwise Id get more into it, but Id like to see people here's views on Cuba and Castro.

[fuerzasocialista]

So Cuba is considered more Marxist-Leninist than Stalinist? I was walking with a friend once, here in South Florida, and he was wearing a Che shirt and a Cuban boucner at a club we walked in front of, stopped us and started talking about how much of a shit hole Cuba has become because of Castro.

He seemed to think that Castro was probably more of a Stalinist in terms of being somewhat of a totalitarian dictator.

Ugh, its 4:15am here, Im tired, otherwise Id get more into it, but Id like to see people here's views on Cuba and Castro.


Let me tell you something; One of the reasons I decided to study Socialism and Communism more was because of my experiences with the so called "Cuban-American" population in Miami for the 2 years I lived there. I was already on my way there, but this accelerated the process. Those people are just a bunch of charlatains. The anti-Castro extremists are nothing more than dinosaurs left over from the Batista regime that was in place before the revolution. It became very apparent to me that they wanted to turn Miami (and they've succeeded) into a Batista-style totalitarian county. They run everything and if you're not Cuban and you're not down with that, they'll make your life impossible. Shit, I'm surprised that friend with the Che shirt didn't get shot. Because believe me, they would shoot you right on the spot. I went into Miami thinking that Castro was just as bad as Hitler because of the American propaganda machine but by the time I left Miami-Dade county, I regarded him as a fuckin hero and a true revolutionary.



First of all, Stalinism IS Marxism-Leninism

I just can't go along with that. I think I hear Marx and Lenin rolling over in their graves. Stalinism destroyed Marxist-Leninism in the Soviet Union.

[Hate Is Art]

Agreed There Macorix. You can't any info on the Miami Mafia and it's crimes etc, I live in the UK so I know very little about it.

[Enver Hoxha]

'Stalinism' does not exist. That is if your not into the whole Capitalist thing of smearing someone who even presents the slightest threat to the current status quo with the label 'Stalinist'. They even call George Galloway a 'Stalinist'.

It's a label that has no meaning from a scientific basis, since we have folks like in this thread simply saying 'Oh but I think its just a Totilitarian ideology'. Talk about buying into the western media line of everyone being a 'Stalinist'. Saddam I suppose was a 'Stalinist' (ignoring the fact he killed all the official 'Stalinists'). LOL.

Now this wouldn't be so much of a problem if you people who are not fans of Stalin applied the label of 'Stalinist' in a manner that was even somewhat correct. But since it's applied to all 'Authoritarian regimes' it's very difficult to take the arguement seriously.

Right rant over time to deal with the question.

Marxism-Leninism and 'Stalinism'.

Well first of all the main difference between Marx's theory's and Lenin/Stalin's theory was that Marx was writing at a time when he believed that a revolution was going to come in the (at the time) advanced Industrialised nations of western Europe. Mainly Britain and Germany. However towards the end of his life both Marx and Engels began to see that this might not be the case. They both saw the potential for a Socialist revolution in the Russian Empire and Engels began to see potential in anti-colonial struggles being turned into struggles for Communism.

This is where some dogmatic person might come in and say that since Marx and Engels pinned their hopes in the working classes of western Europe in revolution then that should not of only been the case in the 1920's but even today. It's a fools logic if you follow it, even just ten years after the manifesto was written Marx said some of it was out of date. Also if you wish to be so dogmatic to Marx's writings then acknowledge the quotes on Russia towards the end of his life.

One of main criticisms anti-'Stalinists' of the Trotskyite variety in particular throw at Stalin is that he took a 'anti-Leninist' stance with the theory of Socialism in One Country.

Yet Lenin was the first to say Socialism in One Country was possible. Lenin outlined the steps towards building Socialism in the USSR in the early 1920's and he said that a alliance of the peasants and workers was what was needed for building Socialism.

This doesn't mean that either hope in or commitment and work towards world revolution does not continue. It was Trotsky who turned it into a arguement of one or the other (that it is either Socialism in One Country or World Revolution). Why not try to do both? And if anyone doubts Stalin's commitment to that then they should read his letters to Molotov regarding the British General Strike in 1926.

Also I think the Trotskyites atleast should ask themselves why they are still arguing which they lost of 65 years ago. Even Trotsky admitted that Socialism had been built in the USSR.

And it's clear that some people here need to read what Lenin actually said regarding the theory of 'permanent revolution'. It was far more harsh than anything Stalin ever said against it.

Someone above said that 'Lenin and Trotsky would of increased democracy and pushed the revolution forward' (or something similar, apologies if misquoted). I very much doubt much people on this board were aware of the Trade Union Dispute of 1920-21.

I'll explain it breifly but ofcourse you shouldn't take my word for it so search it up on google. I haven't got the time to be cutting and pasting and finding the material and it's likely the computer will crash if I do. Ask Chairman Mao, this computer is about the only thing proletariat about me.

Anyway it is very revealing since it shows both the anti-'Stalinist' left and those anti-Leninists the real situation. Long story put short is that the USSR in 1921 was not Socialist let alone Communist. It also lacked any real elements of Socialist Democracy and was devastated in a practical sense. This meant that Lenin favoured a certain period of Capitalist development. So the NEP was introduced. As I've said allready during this time Lenin outlined the steps neccessary to build Socialism in the near future. That included an alliance of the poor peasants with the workers against the remaining Capitalist elements.

In the countryside atleast the economy was firmly in the hands of the Kulaks and that was probably the case until the early 1930's. This was because they controlled the grain to the cities. Anyway this was elminated in the collectivisation of the 1930's. I do believe a member above when he says that Trotsky would of pushed the revolution forward and not aloud Capitalists in government is implying that Stalin did precisly this.

Yet this is precisly ignoring why Lenin fabvoured the NEP in the first place. Trotsky favoured continuing the policy of 'War Communism' in the early 1920's. After Lenin's death he immediantly goes on about getting rid of NEP straight away. Trotskyites today repeat this line still ignoring the circumstances of why NEP came about originally and also accussing Stalin of being against Socialism. Yet it's obvious that he wasn't when the facts are looked at.

At the time there were a number of factions in the Bolshevik Party favouring this course or that. Trotsky favoured immediate elmination of NEP while on the other extreme the Rightists led by Bakhurin favoured a permanent NEP and sought to encourange Kulaks for example to 'enrich themselves'. Stalin took a line that was the middle. The usual view that anti-'Stalinists' protray is that Stalin totally sucked up to Bakhurin and then later simply went against Bakhurin for the sake of 'power'.

Yet Stalin actually wrote a letter to Bakhurin saying that their slogan of ''enrich yourselfs' should not be the slogan of Bolsheviks but their slogan should be ''Socialist development''. That was in 1925. Towards the end of the 1920's the revolution in the countryside began to happen, not only had the NEP warn it self out but the Kulaks were a clear threat to Socialist development in the USSR. It was done with the alliance of the peasants and workers from the cities just as Lenin had said.

Anyway back to the actual Trade Unions dispute in 1920-21. It's most common that western historians and anti-Leninists who view themselves as Marxists focus on the role of say the 'left-opposition'. Trotskyites try to portray these events as the beggining of Lenin's battle against a 'Stalinist beaucracy'.

Both are partly true but it's often viewed by both these groups with a uncanny knack for only highlighting what suits them and missing out what doesn't fit into their view of history. This ofcourse happens in everything and us 'Stalinists' no doubt are guilty of the same sometimes but in this case of the Trade Unions dispute it is almost a criminall misrepresentation of what actually went on.

First of all Trotsky was in favour of continuing 'war communism'. This meant the tactics that he had used in the Civil War. Trotsky had and was calling for the use of 'Military Discipline' in factories, Lenin had earlier said that this was 'alienating the workers' and was 'Bonarpartist'. In 1921 Trotsky was favouring a policy of appointing officials to represent workers in the Trade Unions. Lenin and Stalin (and their are quotes to support this) slammed into Trotsky for this and favoured a policy of allowing the workers to chose and elect their own representatives.

In the actual dispute it was Lenin and Stalin who won the arguement and the workers duly elected their represenatives. So what does this show? It shows that Trotsky was the one working against any development of workers democracy and Lenin and also Stalin were working for it. It also shows that the Leninist party was not the monolithic party which operated from top to down as some of the members of this board like to portray.

For examples of workers democracy in the USSR in the 1930's you should read among other articles ''In Defence of Stalinism' '' by Ludo Martens. I've read Anarchist material and other anti-Leninist groups articles and it's often they come up with quotes from Trotsky to support the believe that Leninism is some horrible iron government. Yet in the Trade Unions dispute Lenin and Stalin fought Trotsky tooth and nail over the 'Military Discipline' he wanted to introduce. Not also forgetting that Trotsky and Lenin had argued for decades and ironically Trotsky described Leninism in the same terms folks like Redstar do.

However it is true that in 1921 there were serious faults and flaws in the USSR. It was neither Socialist or really that democratic for workers. Lenin admitted this and highlighted what he thought were the problems. Beaucracy was one of them. He also accussed those that thought you could get rid of beaucracy overnight of living in a dream world. The problem of beaucracy was allways a big one but when Lenin was alive he realised and admitted this and outlined what he thought were the best steps to get rid of it. Stalin also worked to eliminate it when he was alive although obviously both failed in this fight ultimately enourmous progress against it and for Socialism was made.

[Orange Juche]

So what would be the difference between the Socialist Party USA http://sp-usa.org/ (which is what I believe in/Democratic Socialism) and Marxist-Leninism?

[Orange Juche]

??

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 12:45 PM
I just can't go along with that. I think I hear Marx and Lenin rolling over in their graves. Stalinism destroyed Marxist-Leninism in the Soviet Union.
I think marx would have been rolling in his grave had he read state and revoltion.

[Comrade Raz]

Mao was suprise suprise a Maoist, a form of Stalinism (used in the broadest sense of the word) to cater for heavy peasentry countrys. Same goes for Ho Chi.

I wouldnt say that Maoism is that closly linked to Stalinism, in idea it is far less authoritarian that Stalism and Mao was no where near as fucked up as Stalin. Mao did many advantageous things for China. Only pity is he was not followed by another Maoist leader like himself.

[fuerzasocialista]

I think marx would have been rolling in his grave had he read state and revoltion.

I have not had the chance to read Lenin's "The State and Revolution" in its entirety but from the bits and pieces I do remember..... I'm just not sure that Marx would have had a problem with it.



Agreed There Macorix. You can't any info on the Miami Mafia and it's crimes etc, I live in the UK so I know very little about it.

The first thing that you'll most likely hear while in Miami and your talking to a "Cuban-American" is how beautiful Cuba was before the revolution. That right there would have to make you think. These people insisted that Cuba was nothing less than a paradise pre-1959. And I would keep asking to myself and to them "But wasn't Batista a brutal dictator and a fascist? Wasn't the American mob running around Havana running its gambling casinos with the full support of Batista's government? Weren't the Black Cubans being oppressed?" The most common response was "No". And they would go on to tell me how Cuba was very prosperous and that there was no racism in Cuba during Batista's era and so forth. Miami, in my opinion, is pretty segregated. To the Northeast of Dade County you have the Haitian neighborhoods. There are also some Jamaicans, Trinidadians and Barbadians that live in that area. In the North West, around Opa-Locka and vicinity, there are some Dominicans, Black Cubans (I didn't meet very many of them while I was down there) and some Afro-Americans. Hialeah is all Cuban. As is most of Dade County with the exception of the towns of Sweetwater and Westchester where there is a considerable Nicaraguan population (these Nicas as I call them opposed the communist movements in there homeland and won the support of many Cuban-American extremists). There are also many other Latino groups that live in the area. But the point is that if you weren't Cuban, you weren't shit. From my interaction with some of these "Cuban-Americans", I came to find out that many of them and their families actually served in Batista's government. These were the same people that fled Cuba almost immediately after Castro took over. And most of them had money. I'm talking the house(s) in Coral Gables and in Miami Beach, the BMW's, etc. I'll write more later.....

[Chad King]

Yeah, Miami and the surrounding areas can definitely be scary, its not a place to be alone and after dark if youre white... I dont like the city, at all, I never want to go back. Again, I live maybe an hour north of it and dont like being even this close to it...

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 03:30 PM
So what would be the difference between the Socialist Party USA http://sp-usa.org/ (which is what I believe in/Democratic Socialism) and Marxist-Leninism?
The difference between SPUSA and Marxists is that SPUSA use bourgeois ideology to analyse society and have not developed and do not subscribe to a scientific analysis of society and the nature of bourgeois society. Rather, they subscribe to a bourgeois analysis of bourgeois society with some socialist elements such as the recognition of inequality and that humans achieve best through cooperation.

They say that socialism can be brought about by reforming capitalism. They ignore the experience of the masses throughout history; that is the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. They do not see that to create a socialist society a particular class must take complete control of the economic base and destroy the ideas of the old ruling class.

They see democracy as more greatly defined through political participation rather than ownership. But, in fact, those who rule society are those who own the most property and have accumulated the greatest wealth. They also do not see that bourgeois ideology is systemic, that the rich class have an ideology that reflects their interests and creates a specific consciousness where the poorest class accepts its position in society and this ideology pervades through all sectors of society. History is written, schools are run, entertainment is produced all to reflect the bourgeois view of society.

There are many other differences too. e.g. on the nature of imperialism.

The ideology of the SPUSA is part of bourgeois ideology, it exists within bourgeois ideology rather than being a serious analysis of bourgeois society. It is so because they seek to maintain the bourgeois system of society and merely make concessions to workers, an attempt to etiolate the class contradictions in bourgeois society.

[Roses in the Hospital]

'Stalinism' is simply a development of Marxist-Leninism in the same way that Marxist-Lenninsm is a development of Marxism. The imortant question is wether or not, as Stalin claimed, it was an unavoidable development...
Although both men could be described as being totalitarian to a certain degree it could be argued that in Lenin's case it was necessary to be totalitarian in order to guide Russia through the fragile early days of the revolution. It is impossible to tell wether or not Lenin would have 'toned down' his methods to include more freedom and democracy as time went on or if he would continue on into the 'Stalinist' way of government...

[Hate Is Art]

I wouldnt say that Maoism is that closly linked to Stalinism, in idea it is far less authoritarian that Stalism and Mao was no where near as fucked up as Stalin. Mao did many advantageous things for China. Only pity is he was not followed by another Maoist leader like himself

Stalin also developed Russia, Mao did alot of fucked up things and killed alot of people during his cultural revolution, as did Stalin. Maoism is Stalinism for the peasents and countrys with a heavy peasent population.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Gunman+Jun 4 2004, 10:21 PM--> (Gunman @ Jun 4 2004, 10:21 PM) If i aint wrong, i think stalinism is extreme-left [/b]
No, it's extreme right, rather like the South Korean generals who ran that country for so many years as U.S. backed despots. Although Chairman Mao is quite right when he says Lenin and Stalin's policies were the same. In both, all they did was force a bunch of workers to join in "communities" to form "labor unions" where they were forced to work under horrible conditions excessively to carry out developements, while Lenin's goons engaged in a systematic campaign of crushing all worker's organization groups and political organization and that sort of thing. Lenin personally must have hated the very idea of Communism, since his "revolution" helpd restore the Tzar, just under a different title.


Enver [email protected] 6 2004, 03:11 PM
Lenin outlined the steps towards building Socialism in the USSR in the early 1920's and he said that a alliance of the peasants and workers was what was needed for building Socialism. [

This doesn't mean that either hope in or commitment and work towards world revolution does not continue. It was Trotsky who turned it into a arguement of one or the other (that it is either Socialism in One Country or World Revolution). Why not try to do both? And if anyone doubts Stalin's commitment to that then they should read his letters to Molotov regarding the British General Strike in 1926.

Also I think the Trotskyites atleast should ask themselves why they are still arguing which they lost of 65 years ago. Even Trotsky admitted that Socialism had been built in the USSR.

Lenin may have said that but we know not to take that statement seriously, since any statement of Lenin's expressing the need to form an alliance with peasents and workers is clearly bullshit. Lenin (and Trotsky I should add) took upon himself to at first completely undermine, and then outright crush the Factory Committees, which had fought for worker's control more than anyone else had. And everything was decided by "the party," essentially Lenin himself, since his servants and clowns didn't represent anything else. And you keep saying "Socialism," but you just aren't supposed to, since the fundamental value of Socialism is for the liberation of workers. There were movements to do just that, namely the Factory Committees, and Lenin successfully destroyed those movements. That isn't Socialism, it would probably be what you would call Capitalism if it was the United States or Chile or South Korea doing it, which they did.

[Orange Juche]

I believe in: A workers democracy, both democratic control of the economy AND politics. The abolishment of private owned business. Civil rights - the right to free speech and all the other rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.

My problem with Marxist-Leninism is that they dont elect people like Castro and Lenin. They just come into power and stay there. Thats not very democratic. I would be Communist were these leaders elected. Or am I missing something here, misconstruing the facts?

[Comrade Raz]

Maoism is Stalinism for the peasents and countrys with a heavy peasent population.

I disagree. Yes Mao did alot of fucked up things andf the people suffered, but more from starvation through little fault of Mao's than through Maoist opression.

[redbhoy59]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 12:07 AM
My problem with Marxist-Leninism is that they dont elect people like Castro and Lenin. They just come into power and stay there. Thats not very democratic. I would be Communist were these leaders elected. Or am I missing something here, misconstruing the facts?
First of all, Castro IS elected. By the Party. When you have such a great leader as him you don't give him up. And before everyone starts crying about that statement: the members of the party are in turn ELECTED by their co-workers into the party. Each workplace and industry is given x-amout of places in the Party. The number is based on how many workers there are in the given industry/workplace. If a worker wants to run as a party member, he must be determined to be an exemlary worker by his piers. There is more democracy at all levels in Cuba then any western "democracy".

Secondly, how many Afro-cubans do you see running to the US? I personally have never seen any. Since the the Revolution Afro-cubans can hold office, have equal housing and are actually aloud on public beaches. They never where before'59. My point is, as someone stated above, it's mainly the remnants of the old racist ruling class that flee the so called "oppression". The others are just suckered by the US propaganda of the "promised land".

Last thing on Cuba. Cubans have very good free health care, education, social services. 75% of cubans are college educated for free. They have a pharmacutical industry that is admired the world over. They export educated proffesionals all over the "third" world to volunteer services in the true spirit of internationalism. Right now they have over 20,000 doctors, educators and professionals in Venezuela alone.

I could go on like this all day. I've spent a lot of time down their and saw for myself. THE PEOPLE OF CUBA SUPPORT CASTRO AND THE ONGOING REVOLUTION. So how the hell can some on this board critisize their system. Don't get sucked into the negative US capitalist propaganda like many on this board have. Cuba IS SOCIALIST. And in fact it IS a dictatorship. Not of Castro but of the workers. It's a dictatorship of the prolatariat. Marx, Engels, Lenin would have been proud.

Oh, and about the Socialist Party USA. As an ex-member I can honestly say that Chairman Mao was pretty dead on with his above description. Beware.



As Castro says "They can destroy us, but they will never defeat us."

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 7 2004, 08:11 AM
The ideology of the SPUSA is part of bourgeois ideology, it exists within bourgeois ideology rather than being a serious analysis of bourgeois society. It is so because they seek to maintain the bourgeois system of society and merely make concessions to workers, an attempt to etiolate the class contradictions in bourgeois society.
I'm curious what you are basing these statements on, you seem to be describing the Socialist Party USA as if it were a social democratic party.

The SP-USA is a Democratic Socialist, multi-tendency political party ranging from Social Democrats, to Traditional Marxists, Left-Greens, to the libertarian socialists (Anarchists and Left/Council Communists). We orient ourselves around our principles and develop a common program, but our members have various underlying philosophies and views of the world. Solidarity within the party comes from the ability of those with divergent views on some issues to engage in a collective struggle towards social revolution. Here is an excerpt from our Statement of Principles (http://www.sp-usa.org/about/principles.html):


THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control -- a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community.

Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth.

Under capitalist and "Communist" states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under "Communist" states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers.

People across the world need to cast off the systems which oppress them, and build a new world fit for all humanity. Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations. The building of socialism requires widespread understanding and participation, and will not be achieved by an elite working "on behalf of" the people.

There is a revolutionary caucus in the SP-USA (of which I am a part) called the "Debs Tendency." You can check out our website here: http://www.debstendency.org/

[Salvador Allende]

First of all, Allende did challenge them and attempted to make reforms, this is why the bourgeois killed him in the first place.

Secondly, Stalinism did not cause the collapse of the USSR, Stalinism caused the greatest economic miracle and fastest industrial growth in history. Khruschovist revisionism killed the USSR.

Thirdly, You forget that Che Guevara's hero was Koba and that he realized the accomplishments and greatness of Koba's deeds. I don't see how most of you can see the good in Che and not Koba.

Mao himself was a hero and one of a handful of people who continued Marxism-Leninism after Koba's death. So, by trying to destroy the legacy of Koba, you are destroying Marxism-Leninism.

Stalinism IS Marxism-Leninism, it is the continuation of the Bolshevik ideals as opposed to the continuation of the Menshevik ideals which are known as Trotskyism.

[Roses in the Hospital]

Thirdly, You forget that Che Guevara's hero was Koba and that he realized the accomplishments and greatness of Koba's deeds. I don't see how most of you can see the good in Che and not Koba

The difference is that in Che's time the less desirable aspects of the Stalin regime wern't as widely known as they are today. It wasn't untill the '80s that the true extent of Stalin's crimes became public knowledge. I would guess that many of us here would admire Stalin's economic work and other aspects of his regime, and it's simply the millions of people he killed that colour our opinion of him. I'm sure if Che had accsess to all the historical facts as we do then he would be of a similar opinion...

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:07 PM
I believe in: A workers democracy, both democratic control of the economy AND politics. The abolishment of private owned business. Civil rights - the right to free speech and all the other rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.

My problem with Marxist-Leninism is that they dont elect people like Castro and Lenin. They just come into power and stay there. Thats not very democratic. I would be Communist were these leaders elected. Or am I missing something here, misconstruing the facts?
Listen to me!

Marxism is a philosophy that created an entirely different analysis of society to that of all bourgeois philosophies. As such it has a different interpretation of democracy.

You have a bourgeois idea of what makes a society democratic. Therefore, the Marxist idea of democracy is different to the bourgeois idea of democracy. Refer to my post above and the following.

Anything owned by the bourgeois class, even in part, is always bourgeois in nature, the bourgeoisie refuses to submit to the desires and needs of the masses. The working class must create a system where its needs are represented, and there is no room for the ideas of the bourgeoisie since the bourgeoisie only wishes to exploit the masses of people. Therefore, the communist movement does not desire universal free speech, it desires free speech for one class. To do this it must become a dictatorship, the mass class must create a dictatorship, so - the policies of the masses, the free unequivocal speech of the masses and the creativity of the masses - is espoused to liberate the working class and repress the former ruling class.

Democracy can only come through a new class dictatorship. We do not need nor do we desire democracy of the bourgeois. As the working class become a dictatorship of their own construction they become a system solely operated for the liberation and progression of the working class. It is a dictatorship to one class; the bourgeoisie, but a democracy for the owners of this dictatorship; the working class.

In capitalist society, where society is split into classes and people’s interests conflict, one ideology cannot hold undivided sway and it is inevitable that different ideas exist. The imperialists and their mouthpieces claim the existence of these ideas is a source of pride for the “free world”. However, progressive ideas can never develop freely in a capitalist society, where the means of propaganda such a education and the mass media are in the hands of the monopoly capitalists and reactionary rulers.

The reactionary bourgeois ruling class tolerates progressive ideas to some extent, to make capitalist society seem democratic; but when they are considered the slightest threat to its ruling system, it mercilessly oppresses them.

The question you need to ask yourself is which analysis of society do you subscribe to, that of the oppressive ruling class, the bourgeoisie, or the Marxist analysis.

[Orange Juche]

I personally see no difference between oppression of the rich and oppression of the working class. Its still oppression. I am against dictatorships - whether of one person or of a whole class. You can call what I believe in "bougoise" democracy, but I see universal free speech, for example, as essential to true democracy.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 09:33 PM
I have not had the chance to read Lenin's "The State and Revolution" in its entirety but from the bits and pieces I do remember..... I'm just not sure that Marx would have had a problem with it.
I think he would have ridiculed the entire concept of the book, it attempts to use his writings as a guideline to revolution instead of acting based on material reality, the very mistake Marx reproached the young Hegelian with.

[redbhoy59]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:55 AM
I personally see no difference between oppression of the rich and oppression of the working class. Its still oppression. I am against dictatorships - whether of one person or of a whole class. You can call what I believe in "bougoise" democracy, but I see universal free speech, for example, as essential to true democracy.
This is a very admirable view to take. Unfortunatley, the great theorists have shown us and history has proven that the ruling class will NEVER give up power unless it's forced from them. And unless their is a dictatorship of the workers againt the counter-revolutionaries (the current ruling class) they will ALWAYS fight to regain control of power and wealth.

Now don't let the word "dictatorship" freak you out. It means that we'll have to set up certain safe guards so the above doesn't happen. Is dictating to the former oppressors that they can't profit, exploit, and destroy people and families anymore really that horrible and wrong? Will they listen? Many won't, then we have to crack down for the survival of the revolution. I don't know of any successful bloodless revolutions.

I hope that in the future you come to a point when you see that the idea of peaceful co-existence with all people is truely what all leftists want. However, communists know that due to the nature of the oppressors that we're up against it may get ugly and brutal before it gets better.

[SonofRage]

In Russia, however, where the so-called "proletarian dictatorship" has ripened into reality, the aspirations of a particular party for political power have prevented any truly socialistic reconstruction of economy and have forced the country into the slavery of a grinding state-capitalism. The "dictatorship of the proletariat," in which naive souls wish to see merely a passing, but inevitable, transition stage to real Socialism, has today grown into a frightful despotism, which lags behind the tyranny of the Fascist states in nothing.

The assertion that the state must continue to exist until class conflicts, and classes with them, disappear, sounds, in the light of all historical experience, almost like a bad joke. Every type of political power presupposes some particular form of human slavery, for the maintenance of which it is called into being. Just as outwardly, that is, in relation to other states, the state has to create certain artificial antagonisms in order to justify its existence, so also internally the cleavage of society into castes, ranks, and classes is an essential condition of its continuance. The state is capable only of protecting old privileges and creating new ones; in that its whole significance is exhausted.

A new state which has been brought into existence by a social revolution can put an end to the privileges of the old ruling classes, but it can do this only by immediately setting up a new privileged class, which it will require for the maintenance of its rulership. The development of the Bolshevist bureaucracy in Russia under the alleged dictatorship of the proletariat--which has never been anything but the dictatorship of a small clique over the proletariat and the entire Russian people--is merely a new instance of an old historical experience which has repeated itself uncountable times. This new ruling class, which today is rapidly growing into a new aristocracy, is set apart from the great masses of Russian peasants and workers just as clearly as are the privileged castes and classes in other countries from the mass of their peoples.

-Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Ch. 1



The system of production developed in Russia is State socialism. It is organised production, with the State as universal employer, master of the entire production apparatus. The workers are master of the means of production no more than under Western capitalism. They receive their wages and are exploited by the State as the only mammoth capitalist. So the name State capitalism can be applied with precisely the same meaning. The entirety of the ruling and leading bureaucracy of officials is the actual owner of the factories, the possessing class. Not separately, everyone for a part, but together, collectively, they are possessors of the whole. Theirs the function and the task to do what the bourgeoisie did in Western Europe and America : develop industry and the productivity of labor. They had to change Russia from a primitive barbarous country of peasants into a modern, civilized country of great industry. And before long, in often cruelly waged class war between the peasants and the rulers, State-controlled big agrarian enterprises replaced the backward small farms.

-Anton Pannekoek, Workers' Councils, Part 2 Ch. 5

[Orange Juche]

I simply cant agree with a proletarian dictatorship, or with the notion that the only way to defeat capitalists in the end is with these methods. Anything is possible, and as hard as it may be, I think it is possible through the ballot box to have a system change, and that without essential freedoms, socialism is worth nothing.

[Salvador Allende]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:17 AM
I simply cant agree with a proletarian dictatorship, or with the notion that the only way to defeat capitalists in the end is with these methods. Anything is possible, and as hard as it may be, I think it is possible through the ballot box to have a system change, and that without essential freedoms, socialism is worth nothing.
Change through the ballot box is not possible, the bourgeois will not give up their power so easily. Salvador Allende is the example of what happens when a good man attempts to go through the ballot box to bring Marxism-Leninism.

True Socialism has always had the essential freedoms, although many people would argue freedom of religion is not right. North Korea, the USSR and many other Socialist nations (USSR was socialist up until 1953 IMO) had freedom of religion as well as many other freedoms. If you are speaking about freedom to criticize the government, that has always been around in truly Socialist nations the biggest being China under Mao where an entire government campaign was devoted to getting the people to criticize the government so they could see what the people wanted and achieve it.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Salvador Allende+Jun 8 2004, 09:29 PM--> (Salvador Allende @ Jun 8 2004, 09:29 PM)
[email protected] 9 2004, 01:17 AM
I simply cant agree with a proletarian dictatorship, or with the notion that the only way to defeat capitalists in the end is with these methods. Anything is possible, and as hard as it may be, I think it is possible through the ballot box to have a system change, and that without essential freedoms, socialism is worth nothing.
Change through the ballot box is not possible, the bourgeois will not give up their power so easily. Salvador Allende is the example of what happens when a good man attempts to go through the ballot box to bring Marxism-Leninism.

True Socialism has always had the essential freedoms, although many people would argue freedom of religion is not right. North Korea, the USSR and many other Socialist nations (USSR was socialist up until 1953 IMO) had freedom of religion as well as many other freedoms. If you are speaking about freedom to criticize the government, that has always been around in truly Socialist nations the biggest being China under Mao where an entire government campaign was devoted to getting the people to criticize the government so they could see what the people wanted and achieve it. [/b]
1) Like I said, I think anything is possible if you work hard enough, and that change through the ballot box IS possible. Thats just my OPINION though, and its not like Im "right" or "wrong." Just because it didn't work once doesn't mean it wont ever work... and Im not a Marxist-Leninist, Im a democratic socialist.


2) They dont have the freedom to be Capitalist, or Racist. As bad as those things are, who are we to enforce our opinions and say those things are "right" or "wrong." To impose such laws is borderline totalitarian.

[Salvador Allende]

technically, you do have the freedom to be capitalist, many members of the Chinese government in the early stages of Socialism had capitalist tendancies. However, most of these were killed or banned from politics by the masses in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The one man who wasn't killed or banned from politcs forever was Deng Xiaoping who ultimately caused the modern day China, which is the literal complete opposite of China in 1968.

note: China in 1968 was the millions could do everything and the government could literally do nothing to stop them because the police, army and government had no power left because Mao transfered it to the masses. And obviously modern day China is where the government has all power and the people have none.

[Salvador Allende]

the idea is that people have the option to be a capitalist or to worship a god, but eventually, no one will feel the need to or want to.

[redbhoy59]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:40 AM
2) They dont have the freedom to be Capitalist, or Racist. As bad as those things are, who are we to enforce our opinions and say those things are "right" or "wrong." To impose such laws is borderline totalitarian.
Who are we?!?!? We are the workers( I am anyway) and peasants that have been exploited, humiliated, and killed by the capitalist class. We absolutely CAN and MUST impose these "opinions" on the ruling class after the revolution.
They are in direct contrast to the idea of betterment of society for the oppressed.
Therefore they MUST be suppressed.

By saying "who are we to enforce our opinions and say those things are "right" or "wrong." You're implying that the ruling class has a moral argument for the way their system works. If you can't see that they are in fact WRONG then why call yourself a socialist? If you can't see that they are WRONG then why fight against it? You are going to be hard pressed to find any other Dem Socialists that won't say that capitalists are wrong.

And quite frankly I could give a rats ass that we'll be trampling the "basic human rights" of the opressors. They have been unaccountable for their crimes long enough. As far as I and many other revolutionaries are concerned they have already forfieted any future rights by exploiting, abusing and murdering workers and peasants since the capitalist existed.

[Orange Juche]

"If you can't see that they are in fact WRONG then why call yourself a socialist?"

Because its an opinion. It CANNOT, being an opinion and not a fact, be right or wrong. Just simply an opinion. I strongly disagree with capitalism, and am strongly opposed to it, but it is neither "right" or "wrong..." it just is.



"If you can't see that they are WRONG then why fight against it?"

They arent wrong (or right, for that matter). Their opinion is as valid as anyone elses, as (in my opinion) crappy as it may be. I fight against it, because I disagree with it. I believe that it is harmful to the working people, is bad for humanity and the planet.



"You are going to be hard pressed to find any other Dem Socialists that won't say that capitalists are wrong."

I disagree.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:57 PM

Who are we?!?!? We are the workers( I am anyway) and peasants that have been exploited, humiliated, and killed by the capitalist class. We absolutely CAN and MUST impose these "opinions" on the ruling class after the revolution.
Well who decides what is the "correct" view to be imposed on everyone? "What? You want freedom of speech!? You counter-revolutionary! It's Siberia for you!"

No thanks. Socialism will be free, or not at all.

[redbhoy59]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 11:19 AM
Because its an opinion. It CANNOT, being an opinion and not a fact, be right or wrong. Just simply an opinion. I strongly disagree with capitalism, and am strongly opposed to it, but it is neither "right" or "wrong..." it just is.

They arent wrong (or right, for that matter). Their opinion is as valid as anyone elses.



Well, you were the one that introduced to the discussion the idea of "right" or "wrong..." . These are moralistic words. If you insist on having a discussion on morality in politics then you must concede that what Imperialists and capitalists do and how they treat the oppressed masses is in fact WRONG. Exploiting for profit, destroying families, killing those that descent. Are these things not wrong??

It must be very nice to sit back casually and say that you "disagree" with capitalism. and that the oppressors opinion is "valid". You must have it pretty well under their system to not be absolutly irrate at the conditions people are living in under their "valid" opinions.Which turn into oppressive actions.

I truely value your and SonofRage's opinions, however, history has shown that 1) Anarcho-sydicalists have never had a succesful revolution and 2) Democratic Socialists have never accomplished much of anything execept appeasing the oppressors when they are truely counted on by the class that they claim to be fighting for.

I'll take communism any day.

As as the great communist poet and playwright Bertolt Brecht said:

'It is the simple
which is so difficult'

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:10 AM
No thanks. Socialism will be free, or not at all.
Agreed.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+Jun 10 2004, 04:44 AM--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy @ Jun 10 2004, 04:44 AM)
[email protected] 9 2004, 03:10 AM
No thanks. Socialism will be free, or not at all.
Agreed. [/b]
What is meant here by free?

People can't wait for socialism to happen, one has to study the methods by which it can come about.


2) They dont have the freedom to be Capitalist, or Racist. As bad as those things are, who are we to enforce our opinions and say those things are "right" or "wrong." To impose such laws is borderline totalitarian.

People won't choose socialism, it is not inevitable. The societies we live in where racism and capitalism exist will not disappear because racism and capitalism will always be defended by those who prosper from the ideas, those who want to maintain a heirarchical society and their position in that society. As I said in an above post, bourgeois ideology is systemic and being like this it is difficult to destroy. We can say capitalism and racism are wrong because we have scientifically analysed society, if you don't beleive in the scientific validity of socialism you cannot call yourself a socialist.

As I also said before you are a victim of a false (bourgeois) consciousness. The ideas you are putting forward are liberal bourgeois. Your idea 'who are we to enforce our opinions' is liberal dogma. 'I think we ought always to
entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt.' is a quote from Bertrand Russell, a bourgeois liberal. However, the original idea was a Lockean notion (I think), that a rational man holds his ideas with some measure of doubt. Anyway, this idea is nothing to do with socialism or freedom, socialism is a precondition for freedom, and so if society, is not socialist, society is not free.

[Orange Juche]

Meh, I guess Ill just have to disagree.