Political nOOb

[Commie Rat]

wat is MAoism Leninism ,or stalinism wat is the differnece ?

[RedLenin]

These are all authoritarian forms of socialism/communism. Marxists follow marx, maoists follow mao, lenninist follow lennin, stalinists follow stalin. All three of these men were dictators. Very authoritarian. I don&#39;t even consider them to be forms of socialism. It is just state-capitalism where the state oppresses and exploits you. <_<

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

While in some ways I agree with C90x, I think this could be expanded upon slightly.

a) Leninism - Is inspired by the writings of Russian revolutionary &#39;Vladmir Lenin&#39; (Pseudonym). Lenin argued that the working class was not capable of achieving sufficient consciousness to build socialism, and required an elite &#39;vanguard&#39; made up of the most advanced segments of the working class. This vanguard would create a socialist &#39;proletarian dictatorship&#39; on behalf of the working class, and guide it toward socialism.

b) Stalinism - Stalinism, doesn&#39;t properly exist, as Stalin didn&#39;t add much to Marxism. Rather, "Stalinism" typically describes the authoritarian practices that occurred under Stalin&#39;s quasi-dictatorial rule of the USSR. Stalinism is cheifly catagorized by a) defense of Stalin, at least in the context of the USSR, and b) a sick bureacracy-fetish.

c) Maoism (Or Maoism-Leninism) - Expands on the ideas of Marx and Lenin, and &#39;brings in sum new shit&#39;. Mao elaborated on the role of the revolutionary party, and its relationship to the masses, suggested that socialism could grow out of pre-capitalist societies, outlined the idea and tactics of &#39;Prolonged People&#39;s War&#39;, and popularized hillarious terms like "Running Dog".

While I admit to having a certain weak spot for Mao, I really can&#39;t recomend Lenin, Mao, or Stalin as particularly relevent to the average communist in the post-industrial west. Read Vaneigem instead.


Isn&#39;t it strange, at first sight, to see the fury with which &#39;progressives&#39; attack the ruined edifice of free enterprise, as if the capitalists, its official demolition gang, had not themselves already planned its nationalized reconstruction? but it is not so strange, in fact: for the deliberate purpose of keeping all attention fastened on critiques which have already been overtaken by events (after all, anybody can see that capitalism is gradually finding its fulfillment in a planned economy of which the Soviet model is nothing but a primitive form) is to conceal the fact that the only reconstruction of human relationships envisaged is one based upon precisely this economic model, which, because it is obsolete, is available at a knock-down price. Who can fail to notice the alarming persistence with which &#39;socialist&#39; countries continue to organize life along bourgeois lines? Everywhere it&#39;s hats off to family, marriage, sacrifice, work, inauthenticity, while simplified and rationalized homeostatic mechanisms reduce human relationships to &#39;fair&#39; exchanges of deference and humiliation.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 17 2005, 03:51 AM
While in some ways I agree with C90x, I think this could be expanded upon slightly.

a) Leninism - Is inspired by the writings of Russian revolutionary &#39;Vladmir Lenin&#39; (Pseudonym). Lenin argued that the working class was not capable of achieving sufficient consciousness to build socialism, and required an elite &#39;vanguard&#39; made up of the most advanced segments of the working class. This vanguard would create a socialist &#39;proletarian dictatorship&#39; on behalf of the working class, and guide it toward socialism.

b) Stalinism - Stalinism, doesn&#39;t properly exist, as Stalin didn&#39;t add much to Marxism. Rather, "Stalinism" typically describes the authoritarian practices that occurred under Stalin&#39;s quasi-dictatorial rule of the USSR. Stalinism is cheifly catagorized by a) defense of Stalin, at least in the context of the USSR, and b) a sick bureacracy-fetish.

c) Maoism (Or Maoism-Leninism) - Expands on the ideas of Marx and Lenin, and &#39;brings in sum new shit&#39;. Mao elaborated on the role of the revolutionary party, and its relationship to the masses, suggested that socialism could grow out of pre-capitalist societies, outlined the idea and tactics of &#39;Prolonged People&#39;s War&#39;, and popularized hillarious terms like "Running Dog".

While I admit to having a certain weak spot for Mao, I really can&#39;t recomend Lenin, Mao, or Stalin as particularly relevent to the average communist in the post-industrial west. Read Vaneigem instead.


Isn&#39;t it strange, at first sight, to see the fury with which &#39;progressives&#39; attack the ruined edifice of free enterprise, as if the capitalists, its official demolition gang, had not themselves already planned its nationalized reconstruction? but it is not so strange, in fact: for the deliberate purpose of keeping all attention fastened on critiques which have already been overtaken by events (after all, anybody can see that capitalism is gradually finding its fulfillment in a planned economy of which the Soviet model is nothing but a primitive form) is to conceal the fact that the only reconstruction of human relationships envisaged is one based upon precisely this economic model, which, because it is obsolete, is available at a knock-down price. Who can fail to notice the alarming persistence with which &#39;socialist&#39; countries continue to organize life along bourgeois lines? Everywhere it&#39;s hats off to family, marriage, sacrifice, work, inauthenticity, while simplified and rationalized homeostatic mechanisms reduce human relationships to &#39;fair&#39; exchanges of deference and humiliation.
I have some comments on this post by Virgin Molotov Cocktail:

Leninism - While Lenin argued there should be a vanguard, he didn&#39;t mean that the masses couldn&#39;t reach socialist consciousness: in fact without socialist consciousness under the masses in my opinion there could never be socialism. Lenin meant that the vanguard should spread the idea of socialism among the masses and that the link between capitalism and everyday misery should be made clear (just like Marx had mentioned before) and that a socialist alternative should be put forward.

Stalinism - Stalin in fact didn&#39;t write any theoretical additions to Marxism. His policy was known for a centralist bureaucracy and a isolated socialism, although deformed and not STATE CAPITALISM, like cobra90x said, because STATE CAPITALISM doesn&#39;t exist: it was either socialism, where the means of productions are in the hands of the state (before the counter-revolution) or capitalism. There&#39;s nothing in between, capitalism is always a system which is supported by the bourgeois state not by a socialist state so the addition is also unnecessary.

Maoism - Maoism indeed said something more about the role of the revolutionary party, and in a sense this is contrary to original marxist ideas, since the party ceases the exist after the stage of communism (second stage of communism in comparison to socialism, which is the first stage of communism) is achieved: Mao on the other hand spoke of the role of the party in communist society. Mao also didn&#39;t hold the idea of the vanguard and the socialist education of the masses in honor and Mao actually incorporated stalinism with founding a centralist bureaucracy and a isolated position in the world.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by RevolutionarySocialist [email protected] 17 2005, 02:29 PM

Stalinism - Stalin in fact didn&#39;t write any theoretical additions to Marxism. His policy was known for a centralist bureaucracy and a isolated socialism, although deformed and not STATE CAPITALISM, like cobra90x said, because STATE CAPITALISM doesn&#39;t exist: it was either socialism, where the means of productions are in the hands of the state (before the counter-revolution) or capitalism. There&#39;s nothing in between, capitalism is always a system which is supported by the bourgeois state not by a socialist state so the addition is also unnecessary.

Depends on what you mean by Socialism really; Molotov&#39;s means Socialism by worker&#39;s power as well as a planned economy, I agree to that definition as well.

In 1984, the means of production where in the hands of the state, does that make Oceania "Socialist"?

State Capitalism is when the Socialist system, intead of aimed of benefiting the masses; is put into function at the best interests of the new ruling class (i.e the Revolutionary Vanguard), as we saw in the USSR, a new ruling class just replaced the capitalists and assumed complete control over the economy; the working class had no true power at all.

So really, its just a matter of definition, to me, "Socialism" is the true worker&#39;s state along with the means of production under working class control; not some "Revolutionary elite" ruling over it all.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:15 PM

So really, its just a matter of definition, to me, "Socialism" is the true worker&#39;s state along with the means of production under working class control; not some "Revolutionary elite" ruling over it all.
I would consider states like the late USSR to be deformed workers&#39; states as our Commitee for a Workers&#39; International does also.

[Abstrakt]

This is all great guys....But none of these people actually fulfilled Communism...Sometimes making the people worse off then before. These were all ideas, right?

[RevolverNo9]

Can I back up VMC&#39;s reccomendation: Raoul Vaneigem is really excellent, though in my opinion as an analysis of present society is where his work harbours its strength. For theory, Guy Debord is essential.

Er, I don&#39;t see CWI taking over the state any time soon&#33;

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 09:09 PM
This is all great guys....But none of these people actually fulfilled Communism...Sometimes making the people worse off then before. These were all ideas, right?
The Russian and Chinese people were living in middle ages like conditions, when the Communist Parties took control, they industrialized those countries.....from scratch.

I wouldn&#39;t say they were "worse off".