Socialism, Marxism, Maoism and Leninism?

[DisIllusion]

Sorry for sounding like an idiot guys, but I can't find any books about Maoism and Leninism. So I just have a question, what is the difference between those and basic Socialism/Marxism? Any answers would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Led Zeppelin]

It's best to read Lenin himself if you want books about Leninism, I recommend: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm), What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm), The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm), The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/index.htm), Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm) and Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm).

You can buy them all from Amazon.

[DisIllusion]

I've heard a lot of stuff about how Mao and Lenin took advantage of the Revolutions and basically became dictators when the countries were under turmoil and called themselves Marxists.

And by the way thanks for the sources. I'll look them up sometime. :)

[Led Zeppelin]

I've heard a lot of stuff about how Mao and Lenin took advantage of the Revolutions and basically became dictators when the countries were under turmoil and called themselves Marxists.


This could be true about Mao, but most certainly not about Lenin, Russia did not have the material conditions for Socialism, and Lenin died before it did.

[More Fire for the People]

It's not true for Mao either. Mao was a Marxist-Leninist beleiving in a revolutionary vanguard and a proletarian state composed of popularly elected worker-representatives who were recallable at any time.

Mao also encouraged the masses to criticize the Party and the state, he even once said "It's right to rebel."

[Led Zeppelin]

Mao was a Marxist-Leninist beleiving in a revolutionary vanguard and a proletarian state composed of popularly elected worker-representatives who were recallable at any time.


Too bad he only believed in it instead of enacting it.

By the way, do you have proof of him even believing in it?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 24 2005, 09:24 AM

Mao was a Marxist-Leninist beleiving in a revolutionary vanguard and a proletarian state composed of popularly elected worker-representatives who were recallable at any time.


Too bad he only believed in it instead of enacting it.

By the way, do you have proof of him even believing in it?
The Cultural Revolution is a "good" example in the sense that it was a purge of the revisionists from power by the masses themselves. In a way, Mao let them be "too free" as these kids (the Red Guard was ages 15-21) began to ransack teachers houses and assault religious leaders.

Also, some quotes by Mao:
"The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history."

"Every comrade must be helped to understand that as long as we rely on the people, believe firmly in the inexhaustible creative power of the masses and hence trust and identify ourselves with them, we can surmount any difficulty, and no enemy can crush us while we can crush any enemy."

"The Communist Party does not fear criticism because we are Marxists, the truth is on our side, and the basic masses, the workers and peasants, are on our side."

"As for criticism, do it in good time; don't get into the habit of criticizing only after the event."


Chairman: Don't care about the system. Just don't return to school. Just say you want to violate the school system.
Hai-jung: I cannot do that. If I do, I will be criticized.
Chairman: I don't think you will be very capable in the future. You are afraid of being accused of violating the school system, of criticism, of a bad record, of being expelled from school, of failing to get party membership. Why should you be afraid of so many things? The worst that can come to you is expulsion from school. The school should allow the students to rebel. Rebel when you return to school.

[Led Zeppelin]

Interesting quotes, where does it say anything about Mao and his clique being eligible for recall at all times?

[viva le revolution]

Don't try to prove your point with idiotic one-liners. I would expect more from a Leninist. If you can show how Mao was not a real leninist, state your case. The burden of proof is on those who bring up the issue. You stated mao was not leninist, state how.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 24 2005, 09:36 AM
Interesting quotes, where does it say anything about Mao and his clique being eligible for recall at all times?
I actually cannot find a concrete quote where Mao says this but I think it is generally implied with statements like,

"The force at the core leading our cause forward is the Chinese Communist Party. The theoretical basis guiding our thinking is Marxism-Leninism."

If Marxism-Leninism is the guide of the party, then are ideas of popular election and recall not part of Marxism-Leninism?

Mao also had a booklist (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_56.htm) that he suggested people read, including the Civil War in France. Why would he suggest this if he didn't want people to know that recall was a fundamental part of Marxism?

Also, a quote by Maoists, Communist Party of Nepal,

Delegates of the people shall be more responsible because the people will have the right to recall them if they do not function properly.

[Led Zeppelin]

Don't try to prove your point with idiotic one-liners. I would expect more from a Leninist. If you can show how Mao was not a real leninist, state your case. The burden of proof is on those who bring up the issue. You stated mao was not leninist, state how.


I prove my point with "one-liners" when "one-liners" are required, you can't say that Mao "believed in something" without having proof for it, that is called logic, something which you are evidently void of.


I actually cannot find a concrete quote where Mao says this but I think it is generally implied with statements like,


I can find a concrete quote where Lenin says this, even one in which Stalin says it, but that doesn't really matter, Stalin said it, but did he enact it? No, did he ever have the intention of enacting it? No, the same with Mao.


If Marxism-Leninism is the guide of the party, then are ideas of popular election and recall not part of Marxism-Leninism?

A party is not Marxist-Leninist when it claims to be, was the Russian Communist party Marxist-Leninist under Kruschev? No, yet they claimed to be Marxist-Leninist.


Mao also had a booklist that he suggested people read, including the Civil War in France. Why would he suggest this if he didn't want people to know that recall was a fundamental part of Marxism?


I don't know nor do I care, the point is that he didn't enact it, and had no intention of enacting it, that is partly why China is Capitalist now.


Also, a quote by Maoists, Communist Party of Nepal,

I can't really know what the Communist party of Nepal will do when they come into power, but I doubt they will enact this, I will be surprised if they do.

[viva le revolution]

Way to side step the issue. You still have not stated how Mao was not a marxist-leninist.

[Led Zeppelin]

Stop wasting my time by posting if what you post is useless, I asked Diego Armando if he could find quotes of Mao saying that he supported (or believed in) a proletarian state composed of popularly elected worker-representatives who were recallable at any time, he has yet to provide one.

And as I said above, it doesn't matter if he could find one or not, Mao did not enact it.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 25 2005, 08:08 AM
Stop wasting my time by posting if what you post is useless, I asked Diego Armando if he could find quotes of Mao saying that he supported (or believed in) a proletarian state composed of popularly elected worker-representatives who were recallable at any time, he has yet to provide one.

And as I said above, it doesn't matter if he could find one or not, Mao did not enact it.
I confess, I am having difficulty finding such a quote but I am not one of those people who fondle myself over Quotations of Mao Tse-Tung. If Mao did not come out and directly say that the proletarian state would be composed of populary elected worker-representatives that are recallable at any time then modern Maoists need to do so.

[Led Zeppelin]

Ok, but do other Maoists agree with you on this? Does any other Maoist party agree with you on this? If not, then it is only logical to conclude that either they or you are not "real" Maoists.

You are the first Maoist that I have heard of that supports a proletarian state composed of popularly elected worker-representatives who are recallable at any time.

[More Fire for the People]

That is either because most "Maoists" think Mao was just really cool rather than focusing on his theoritical contributions. To an extent I disagree on Mao that revolutions will first occur in the Third World as I believe that a protracted people's war will be most effective where revolutions are possible, regardless of their location. In this sense, I am a “revisionist”. I am primarily a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist because it is the “nearest” line to mine.

[DisIllusion]

I don't know, personally I think Mao was just trying to drum up some of the enthusiasm people had for the original Revolution when he brought up the Cultural Revolution. Why did they burn so much priceless history when within 40 years the country would basically be capitalist again?

[Comrade Corinna]

I think almost every Communist leader has an "ism." I guess pretty much each is Communism, but with aspects of it unique to their own system.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:32 AM
I don't know, personally I think Mao was just trying to drum up some of the enthusiasm people had for the original Revolution when he brought up the Cultural Revolution. Why did they burn so much priceless history when within 40 years the country would basically be capitalist again?
History? Who cares about the history when the future is waiting? The Cultural Revolution was an economic and social disaster for China. Together with the Great Leap Forward it perfectly demonstrates the idiocy of Mao.

[Livetrueordie]

Why bother with Mao... eh well mark2mao.com has some stuff for you

[Zeruzo]

i dont think mark2mao will give much information.
I personally prefer http://www.marX2mao.com

[Lamanov]

Works:

M-L gave you some of Lenin's works, although I have to tell you that State&Revolution will not give you any answers to what's Leninism.

Leninism or Marxism? by Rosa Luxemburg (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm)
Russian Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm)

Check out Left Communists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/index-history.htm#leftism)

Threads:

"Vanguard", 12. Sep. 2005. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40056)
"Maoism", 7.July 2005. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34985)
"Leninism", 8. June 2005. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35417)


You really shouldn't bother with Maoism (which is just a form of Stalinism). Any (or most) of their marxist critiques can do you good, as long as you understand their non-marxist/anti-marxist and historical essence.

[Clarksist]

Here is the easiest way to put it:

Socialism: An economic ideology where the state owns the means of production, and the workers have democratic control over the state.

Marxism: The leftist ideology, that says that humans are veolving socially through different economic progressions, and that the ultimate form is communism. From out current capitalist state, we will move through a socialist and then a communist revolution.

Maoism: A dissent from Marxism-Leninism, where peasants are emphasized, and where there is strong leadership, which works to destroy itself.

Leninism: A Marxist off-shoot, which states that the communist revolution will come from the third world. Because of this, Leninists find it necessary to have democratic centrism and state capitalism to build up infrastructure.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:01 PM

Marxism: The leftist ideology, that says that humans are veolving socially through different economic progressions, and that the ultimate form is communism. From out current capitalist state, we will move through a socialist and then a communist revolution.
Theory!

Ideology is bad! Bad, bad, bad!

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by Zingu+Oct 26 2005, 04:36 PM--> (Zingu @ Oct 26 2005, 04:36 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 10:01 PM

Marxism: The leftist ideology, that says that humans are veolving socially through different economic progressions, and that the ultimate form is communism. From out current capitalist state, we will move through a socialist and then a communist revolution.
Theory!

Ideology is bad! Bad, bad, bad! [/b]
Perhaps, but Marxists are known for being a bit... dogmatic and idealistic.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Maoism: A dissent from Marxism-Leninism, where peasants are emphasized, and where there is strong leadership, which works to destroy itself.


There is some evidence that Maoism was not really a Marxist-Leninist inspired theory, rather it was a Trotskyist inspired theory. Things like the idea of constant evolving revolution present in both Trotskyism and Maoism do add weight to these claims.

There are probably some comrades here who know a lot more about this line of thought than me and could explain the links between Trotskyism and Maoism a lot better than I could.


Perhaps, but Marxists are known for being a bit... dogmatic and idealistic.

From my own personal experience I would say Marxists are the least dogmatic of all the various Communist sects and that Leninists tend to be the most dogmatic, closely followed by Maoists.

[DisIllusion]

I always did view Maoism as a bit like Stalinism, but that's also because I'm from Taiwan, where being born makes you a commie-hater. I actually do believe in Marxism and am a firm supporter in the ideal that with anarchism, comes free communism at it's best, but I never did like the Chinese take on Communism.

And by the way, thanks for all the information comrades. :)

[Clarksist]

There is some evidence that Maoism was not really a Marxist-Leninist inspired theory, rather it was a Trotskyist inspired theory.


I can see the relation, but Mao often talked about his belief that Stalin was a good "Marxist-Leninist" leader, he was only wrong on a few things, which Mao then based his theories on how to improve.

Also, it is called Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

But, I guess the Trotsky route also works. I don't believe that either path is much different in the outcome of what Maoism is, than the other. Potatoh / Potatah


From my own personal experience I would say Marxists are the least dogmatic of all the various Communist sects and that Leninists tend to be the most dogmatic, closely followed by Maoists.


Maoism and Leninism being tributaries of the Marxist current, I would say they would bundle together.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I can see the relation, but Mao often talked about his belief that Stalin was a good "Marxist-Leninist" leader, he was only wrong on a few things, which Mao then based his theories on how to improve.

Also, it is called Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

But, I guess the Trotsky route also works. I don't believe that either path is much different in the outcome of what Maoism is, than the other. Potatoh / Potatah

Mao's support and admiration of Stalin does somewhat discredit the Trotsky link. However if I'm not wrong Trotsky was the first Communist Mao read. Therefore his ideas on theory could well have been hugely influenced by Trotsky and his views on the structure of a country based on Stalin's ideas. Theres also some debate about whether Mao was a Marxist. Though I agree most of this is pretty useless and doesn't really change much, though it is quite interesting.


Maoism and Leninism being tributaries of the Marxist current, I would say they would bundle together

As a Marxist with no attachments I do take some sectarian offence to this. :lol:

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 12:43 AM
From my own personal experience I would say Marxists are the least dogmatic of all the various Communist sects and that Leninists tend to be the most dogmatic, closely followed by Maoists.
Oi. We found a theory that works, well in a way, so there's no harm in sticking with it :P

The reason Leninists tend to be slightly... dogmatic is because we have Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists and every other -ist claiming that they represent the best of Lenin's teachings. Well they don't. And I personally dislike it when Lenin is compared to the likes of them. So you’ll excuse us if we tend to be slightly protective of the man’s legacy.

Plus his theory of imperialism is of staggeringly important to Marxist thought today ;)

[Scars]

<<There is some evidence that Maoism was not really a Marxist-Leninist inspired theory, rather it was a Trotskyist inspired theory. Things like the idea of constant evolving revolution present in both Trotskyism and Maoism do add weight to these claims.>>

There&#39;s a quote from Mao that went along the lines of:

"We do not support the ideology of permenant revolution, we simply advocate striking when the iron is hot"

The main cause of Dogmatism is because of historical greviances, as well as historic hatreds based around single figures. I think there would be far more productive discussions regarding theroy if it wasn&#39;t Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyitism, Castroism but Vanguardist Marxism, Peasant Marxism, Internationalist Marxism and Guerrilla Marxism (or somthing like that); that way you focus on theory, as opposed to historical baggage. I also thing that articles should be circulated without the author being identified, that way it would cut down on bias caused by pre-conseived notions that people have. For instance, most anti-Stalin people will never have read anything that Stalin wrote, or listened to anything that Stalin said simply because it&#39;s Stalin and Stalin is the big old boogie man of doom. The same thing goes for peopel who are anti-Trotsky, many of them have never read anything by Trotsky simply because he&#39;s the arch traitior bastard of doom.

Personally I&#39;d like to set up some sort of group that anyone could join, where texts would be circulated without titles or author names and then people of various tendencies could speak honestly about their thoughts on the piece and the things that it proposes, instead of just seeing a name and clicking into Stalin/Trotsky/Anarchist/Ultra-Leftist/Whatever-Bashing mode.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:36 AM
I&#39;ve heard a lot of stuff about how Mao and Lenin took advantage of the Revolutions and basically became dictators when the countries were under turmoil and called themselves Marxists.

And by the way thanks for the sources. I&#39;ll look them up sometime. :)
The nonsense of Lenin being an "evil dictator" is shattered in Ted Grant&#39;s work, Russia: From Revolution to Counterrevolution. (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp).

Leninism is basically the carrying on and contiunal of Marxism; Lenin had made discoveries and important updates to Marxism. Trotskyism is essentially the carrying on of Leninism, as Trotsky had analyzed Fascism and Stalinism, and he defended Marxism against Stalinist distortion of it.

From DisIllusion:


I always did view Maoism as a bit like Stalinism, but that&#39;s also because I&#39;m from Taiwan, where being born makes you a commie-hater. I actually do believe in Marxism and am a firm supporter in the ideal that with anarchism, comes free communism at it&#39;s best, but I never did like the Chinese take on Communism.

And by the way, thanks for all the information comrades. smile.gif

Maoism is essentially a form of Stalinism. It invovles a bureaucratic stratum hovering over a workers state, of which is deformed under Stalinist rule (it has abolished capitalism and such, progressive things, but at the same time, the bureaucratic stratum paralyzes and suppresses the workers, denying them freedom and empowerment).

A good place for a starting point in analyzing Marxism is at http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm