Could someone outline where leftist

[drain.you]

Hey,
Basically wondering if someone could outline where leftist views divide into different theories such as Marxism, Lenninism, trotskism, etc.
To me it doesnt seem a clearly defined divide, so could someone help me understand the essential differences between leftist beliefs?

Maybe this post should be in Learning or something, move it if you think appropriate :)

[Djehuti]

Marxism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Leninism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism

Non-leninist marxism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomist_Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationism

Anarchist communism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism

[drain.you]

Hmm...alot of reading there. Can no-one just point out the differences for me? :(

[danny android]

basically there is two major devisions, authoritarian and anti-authoritarian. Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism are all practicly the same thing and are the authoritarian side of things. On the other had you have Anarchism which is anti-authoritarian.

[Guest1]

Basic division:

Marxist: belief that society progresses through revolutions, technologically and socially, and that the state is a necessary tool of the ruling class so long as divisions between classes exist. thus the belief that the state must be used by the working class to defend the revolution until the class conflict has been resolved once and for all. this is referred to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat", where the proletariat democratically controls the state for its own interests alone.

Anarchist: many anarcho-communists adopt marx's analysis of history and capitalism, but consider the state a factor with its own influence on the process. the argument being that if the working class does not destroy the state as a part of the revolutionary process, instead attempting to establish its own power in a state, that state will destroy the revolution and result in oppression and the replacement of one caste of bosses with another.

Beyond that, marxism develops into a few sub-groups:

Leninist-influenced ideologies: can be considered as an attempt to bring marxism from a formulistic and more rigid ideology to one that can incorporate "imperfect" revolutions. ones where the material conditions may not be particularly favourable, but a revolution must occur anyways. such as countries where the bourgeoisie is incapable of establishing democratic capitalism, or make any progressive contributions to the society, and so workers must be the ones to both establish industry, and then continue on to establishing socialism.

Other commonalities are the ideas of strict party organization (which are often misunderstood to apply to society itself).

Non-leninist-influenced ideologies: these are diverse, but tend to be influenced by syndicalist, or anarchist ideas. They tend to have an emphasis on more decentralized organizing, such as council communists, or have a more strict interpretation of Marxism as an ideology that rejects the possibility of revolution in backwards countries resulting in socialism.

From Leninism, a few ideologies sprung forth with varied levels of actual influences from lenin or his ideas.

The basic division amongst "Leninist" ideologies would be between Stalinist-influenced ideologies and Trotskyism.

Stalinist-influenced ideologies: sometimes considered as an expansion of inner party discipline to apply to the society at large, meaning a greater emphasis on more central control and less emphasis on workers' control. most importantly a greater emphasis on nationalism, and the idea of "socialism in one country", that a revolution can succeed for prolonged periods in isolated conditions, and should, rather than applying its resources to spreading revolution elsewhere and emphasizing internationalism. these ideologies also tend to sometimes apply rigid ideas of "stages", as a result of an inability to implement much of the goals of a workers revolution successfully, and thus returning to a formalistic interpretation of marxism and societal processes.

Trotskyism: mostly the rejection of the ideas of "stages" (capitalism first, socialism later as an example), of "socialism in one country", and of the application of party structures to wider society. though this depends on the group, as the 4th international (the organization trotsky organized) collapsed and resulted in many many splits since. The usual analysis of the soviet-style bureaucracy from these groups is that Stalin was the equivalent of Napoleon, in his betrayal of the revolution, but inability to abandon all the gains of the revolution. These group refer to these states as "deformed workers' states". Alternatively, other groups consider the bureaucracy to have been a new capitalist class, hence they refer to these states as "state capitalist". Trotsky's theories on a flowing workers' revolution that combines building up industry and workers' control in one continuous process is referred to as "permanent revolution".

Stalin's model was expanded upon by other groups, such as Maoism, which attemted to apply it to a state with few proletarians, by basing themselves entirely on the peasantry.

Maoism can be considered to have influenced anti-industrial ideologies as well.

There.

That's pretty comprehensive.

[Morpheus]

The above responses only cover the radical left. There is also a reformist left which claims that the current system is basically okay, it just needs some minor adjustments to make things work right & create a more equitable society. Usually these minor adjustments are in the form of things like higher minimum wage laws & better enviromental regulations and are to be achieved by electing a reformist party to power. The Green party is an example of a reformist organization. This differs from anarchists & Marxists, who want to fix the root problem by completely changing the entire socio-economic system.

So there's really three main tendencies: authoritarian (Marxist, usually), anti-authoritarian (anarchist, usually) & reformist. There are also many, many divisions within these broad groupings, not just divisions among Marxists. There are different kinds of anarchists & reformists, too.

[Guest1]

Shit, sorry, I thought he said communist. Which is why I only listed anarcho-communism.

But yes, that list is part of a much larger division, revolutionary vs. reformist, you're right.

I don't know enough about the different schools of anarchism to make a comprehensive explanation of that.

[Morpheus]

There's a good overview of the different types of anarchism at http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secA3.html

[Jimmie Higgins]

With this authoritarian, non-authoritarian framework, would reformists be in the authoriarian catagory?

[danny android]

No, reformists can be either authoritarian or non-authoritarian. Reformists are generaly just reactionary meaning that they want to maintain the curent government but change (reform) it.

[Morpheus]

Technically, reformists are authoritarian because they advocate a social system (the status quo with modifications) that incorporates hierarchical authority as an important aspect. However, if you're talking about the main divisions on the left it's better to think of them as a third branch rather than as a subset of one of the other two groups. The revolutionary authoritarians agree with the reformists that hierarchical authority isn't inherently bad. But the authoritarians believe the current system has to be overthrown, that it can't be fixed, unlike the reformists who think the status quo can be fixed with a few reforms, that a completely different social system isn't necessary. This creates a major difference between the two and a major division on the left. So there's three categories: authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, and reformist.

[Livetrueordie]

No, reformists can be either authoritarian or non-authoritarian. Reformists are generaly just reactionary meaning that they want to maintain the curent government but change (reform) it.
Reformist aren't reactionary...

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 18 2005, 11:23 PM
No, reformists can be either authoritarian or non-authoritarian. Reformists are generaly just reactionary meaning that they want to maintain the curent government but change (reform) it.
They are not "reactionary" - although they wish to keep the basic social structure it would be one of equality with more power for the working class & poor.

BTW - Is anything milder than communism reformist or is it anything milder than socialism that is reformist?

[Guest1]

Reformism is reactionary. It is in opposition to progress, in opposition to workers defending themselves with the means at their disposal.

[Livetrueordie]

Reactionary is wanting reversal. Reformism may not be as radical as revolution, but its not regressive, it is still progressive.

To me a rectionary would like to, at the least, keep things how they are, but a reformist wants change...