Marxist and Leninist whats the difference

[( R )evolution]

Hello, I am new to communism and I was wondering what are the main difference between Marxism and Leninism. Thank You comrades.

[GLA]

None really, most Marxists just started calling themselves Leninists after he took power. :D

[VictoryOverWar]

this is not true at all.....but i will leave this to someone who is more intelligent then myself on the subject because i would surely get it wrong

[Zingu]

A person who isn't Marxist, duh. :D

[ComradeRed]

A Marxist is someone who looks at society as a division of classes, and history as the evolution of class society. The evolution shows clear trends from primitive equality, to quasi-classes, to dictatorship, to mini-despots. The hypothesis is that the next step is logically advanced equality, or communism.

Marxists argue that this is how class society works, and that capitalism will collapse. However, this doesn't mean that the workers will automatically choose to becomes communist. THere is a struggle and a choice between socialism and barbarism.

Leninists argue that class society "sort of" works that way but "not really" because capitalism "can't" collapse because of imperialism (for some unknowable reason). "Therefore" a "vanguard" party of elite "workers" is "needed" to stimulate the revolution occurring (it's "the only way" according to the Leninists).

[( R )evolution]

Thank You very much ComradeRed. You really cleared up a couple of things.

[WorkerBolshevik]

I dont think that his biased, sarcastic view cleared anything up to be honest. I will assume that you have a basic understanding of Marxism, so let us therefore look at what sets Leninism apart. Leninism is a branch of Marxism which was developed by Lenin and put into place in the early years of the Soviet Union. The basic ideas of it are that a Proletarian Dictatorship over the former opressor classes are neccessary in progression from capitalism to socialism, that the working class can make alliances with other classes such as the peasantry in order to keep power, that Democratic Centralism should exist in the party in government, that though there is a central party the bulk of power should lay in localized Soviets (Communes/trade unions), that global revolution is neccesary, that the party/ government should continue to dissolve from the moment is put into place as it transfers more power to the soviets, and that the revolution can be led by the most politicly advanced workers refered to as Bolsheviks.

Pure Leninism more or less died with the man in 1924, but has continued up to the modern era in two primary ideas. The first is in Trotskyism, which is viewed by non-Stalinist Marxists as a progression of Lenin's ideas (there has been a resurgance in groups calling themselves Leninist rather than the more specific Trotskyite, such as the USA SWP, though these groups are usually still influenced by Trotsky's works). The other modern branch of Leninism is through Stalinism, which asserts itself to be the true progression of Leninism. Stalinism usually focuses on the more authoritarian policies of Leninism, though applies them in the long run rather than Lenin's views of them as very temporary steps, and also increases their totalitarian nature. Based on the works of Lenin, and the developement of Stalinism, most Marxists and neutral historians would agree that Lenin would not approve of Stalinism, and that therefore Stalinism is not really Leninist, although Stalinists and Maoists would disagree.

[VictoryOverWar]

Leninism is a branch of Marxism

hmm that is a streach in itself to say its a branch of Marxism......i would agree they share some ideas but i think Leninism could never be called a branch of Marxism

[WorkerBolshevik]

Lenin does not contridict anything Marx says; Marx never told us exactly how to go about making a revolution or setting up and governing a workers state, nor did Marx ever predict that the revolution would first occur in Russia, as opposed to one of the most advanced capitalist nations. Lenin merely adapted Marxism to the time in which he lived and the conditions which he faced. Whether or not you beleive he was correct, it is absurd to assert that his vision was not a direct evolution from that of Marx.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 02:52 PM
Lenin does not contridict anything Marx says; Marx never told us exactly how to go about making a revolution or setting up and governing a workers state, nor did Marx ever predict that the revolution would first occur in Russia, as opposed to one of the most advanced capitalist nations. Lenin merely adapted Marxism to the time in which he lived and the conditions which he faced. Whether or not you beleive he was correct, it is absurd to assert that his vision was not a direct evolution from that of Marx.
1. The Collected Works of Marx are not some holy book, sometimes Marx got things wrong. It is okay to contradict Marx when he got things wrong.

2. But if we were Communist fundamentalists the Russian Republic greatly broke a commandment of the Prohpet Engels...

...Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[ComradeRed]

Lenin does not contridict anything Marx says; Marx never told us exactly how to go about making a revolution or setting up and governing a workers state, nor did Marx ever predict that the revolution would first occur in Russia, as opposed to one of the most advanced capitalist nations. Well, let's see what Lenin has to say about this.

"...the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts . . . that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot direct exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard . . . Such is the basic mechanism of the dictatorship of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the essentials of transitions from capitalism to communism . . . for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian organisation." [Collected Works, vol. 32, p. 21]

Socialism, as Lenin put it, "is nothing but the next step forward from state capitalist monopoly. In other words, Socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people; by this token it ceases to be capitalist monopoly." [The Threatening Catastrophe and how to avoid it, p. 37]

"we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party . . . we say, 'Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position . . . '" [Collected Works, vol. 29, p. 535]

By 1920, Lenin was arguing that "the correct understanding of a Communist of his tasks" lies in "correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully seize power, when it will be able during and after this seizure of power to obtain support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian toiling masses, and when, thereafter, it will be able to maintain, consolidate, and extend its rule, educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the toilers." Note, the vanguard (the party) seizes power, not the masses. Indeed, he stressed that the "very presentation of the question -- 'dictatorship of the Party or dictatorship of the class, dictatorship (Party) of the leaders or dictatorship (Party) of the masses?' is evidence of the most incredible and hopeless confusion of mind" and "[t]o go so far . . . as to draw a contrast in general between the dictatorship of the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders, is ridiculously absurd and stupid." [Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, p. 35, p. 27 and p. 25]

Oddly Lenin argued "the working class, exclusively by their own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness . . . the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the labour movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of ideas among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia."

This meant that "Social Democratic [i.e. socialist] consciousness . . . could only be brought to them [the workers] from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness." Socialist ideas did not arise from the labour movement but from the "educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." [Essential Works of Lenin, pp. 74-5]

This means that Lenin himself was part of the propertied classes...Hmm.

Bring this all in light of the Communist Manifesto: "a portion of the bourgeois goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole." It notes that the Communists are "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties . . . [and] they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the general results of the proletarian movement." [Selected Works, p. 44 and p. 46]

Somehow Leninists don't seem to match the definition of communists (via Marx and Engels' manifesto), how could any Leninist claim to be a Marxist? Provided that Leninism is consistent with Marxism.


Whether or not you beleive he was correct, it is absurd to assert that his vision was not a direct evolution from that of Marx. Evolution? No, degeneration on the other hand seems more accurate to describe Lenin's excerpts above.


I will assume that you have a basic understanding of Marxism, so let us therefore look at what sets Leninism apart. I think it would be best to describe Marxism then describe Leninism, rather than assuming the fellow knows Marxism.