Originally posted by
[email protected] 26 2006, 09:53 PM
It is a typical position of Stalinists that Stalinism does not exist, that it is the only "true" continuation of Marxism-Leninism, and that there is no difference between so-called Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism. Of course, there is, since Marxism-Leninism never identifies with the position of "socialism in one country", which is unique only to Stalinists.
Marxism-Leninism branches off into three main divisions. Stalinism, Trotskyism and Maoism. There are some "purist" Marxist-Leninists (like Massoud and Tragic Clown) that don't follow any of the continuations of Marxism-Leninism because there is no need to do so.
I hope that cleared it up?
At any rate, I fall into at least 3 categories on this poll. I put Trotskyist, but I am also a Marxist-Leninist and a Communist.
Stalinism *can't* exist because Stalin didn't contribute anything substantial to marxist theory. When one refers to someone as a "Stalinist", in fact they mean that they support Stalin's policies, or rather what they take to be Stalin's policies, rather than some sort of "Stalinist political ideology" as there is no such thing. This is using the term in a different way than all of the other terms are used. In any case if you use this definition than Mao and virtually all Maoists would also be "Stalinists"; or rather the reverse as there aren't many who 'uphold' Stalin but don't 'uphold' and more closely identify with Mao.
If anything can properly be called "Stalinist" its probably the Anti-Revisionist movement that opposed the Soviet government after Krushchev denounced Stalin in the "Secret Speech."
Maoism is also silly because Mao's contributions were also political rather than theoretical...it should be noted that no one in China calls themselves Maoists. The idea of "maoism" as an ideology originated in Latin America as groups of Marxist-Leninists wanted to apply Mao's guerrilla tactics to local conditions as they thought they were more suitable than say, the party based tactics that Lenin used. However this is not an ideological modification, it is simply a different tactical approach.
Some people in the first world however take "Maoism" as essentially adopting all of Mao's political positions, which is somewhat difficult as he had a long career and changed his mind frequently. Its also highly irrelevent in the current political context.
Only the British trotskyists hold onto Trotskyism seriously i think. The major US and European parties which sided with Trotsky during the split to the fourth internaitonal, have all droped the lable and simply gone with Marxist-Leninist as they don't find it relevant anymore. Trotsky's party in the United States, the Socialist Workers Party USA, and its main successor party, the Workers World Party, for instance, might still have a historical affinity for Trotsky but they don't lable themselves 'Trotskyist' anymore because such a distinction has very little significance today...the times are not what they were and trying to extrapolate what trotsky would think today is both futile and boarders on hero worship.
I also don't think that "Stalinism, Trotskyism and Maoism", even if you grant that they all exist as such, can be said to be "the three main branchs of Marxism-Leninism." Trotskyism has never held political power anywhere, therefore i think it hardly qualifies as a "main division" and supporters of Stalin have been marginalized ever since his faction led at the time by Georgy Malenkov was voted out of office in 1955, if "Stalinism" is a valid description, at all, it ended with Khrushchev (unless you want to count Enver Hoxha as a "Stalinist").
Maoism is powerful in Latin America, India and Nepal, since Maoist "Naxalites" control 30% of Indian territory, Nepali Maoists are finishing their revolution, and many Bolivarians including FARC leaders, the Shining Path and Hugo Chavez self-identify as Maoists (although...since clearly neither the FARC or Hugo Chavez take an anti-revisionist stance on foriegn relations, they clearly understand what this means very differently than first world self described Maoists do).
Euro-Communism is also significant in that it some degree of electoral success in Europe, to a far greater extent than either Maoism or Trotskyism (Euro-Communism being the Marxist-Leninist who oppose both Trotskyism and Anti-Revisionism and support the post-Stalin warsaw pact and Cuba). They have elected officials in France and Germany and form part of the coalition government of Italy for instance.
However, the *MAIN* branch of Marxism-Leninism surely is the internationalist, mutually supportive non-western socialist movement. The Marxist governments in power in Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, China, Venezuela, Moldova, West Bengal, Laos, Moldova, TransDnister and Bolivia all support each other and are interconnected politically, diplomatically, and economically; they don't behave in the sectarian way that some western Marxist-Leninists do because they have more important things to worry about than who prefered which dead early 20th century political leader. They don't worry about what sect they're in, they're all anti-imperialist socialists.