essay on socialism

[peru_anny]

I have an essay to write on Karl Marx and the evolution of socialism. I'm having some trouble understand the difference between Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism, and trotskyism. Can someoen help me understand these things clearly because I'm totally lost. I would really appreaciate this.

[Fistful of Steel]

To my understanding...:
Maoism is a modification of Marxism to apply to the peasants as thought was necessary by Mao in China.
Leninism was Orthodox Marxism, appealing for a dictatorship of the proletariat and an elite vanguard to guide the actions of the masses.
Stalinism advocated the "socialism in one country" policy, and the suppression of political dissidents.
Trotskyism was a theory of permanent revolution, trotskyists consider themselves a restoration of true Marxist principles and renounced the "degenerated worker's state" of Stalin's Soviet Union.

[peru_anny]

Ok heres the thing though, my thesis for this paper is: Karl Marx and his theories of socialism have been appreciated and followed for many years throughout history, although his socialist theories have been founded throughout both the world and history it can be argued that many of these reoccurrences of socialism have veered from the basic theories introduced by Karl Marx.
I have to explain the similarities between Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism but then i have to show their differencs and show how they have changed from the original ideas of Karl Marx

[Fistful of Steel]

Just detail the definitive features of each branch, since the things that are left unsaid they mostly agree on, it's the litte things that differ that make them what they are. Revolutionary vanguard, socialism in one state, peasants as proletariat, et cetera.

[Hit The North]

I recommend that you pick up a copy of 'Marxism After Marx' by David McLellan which gives a good overview of the distinctive features of Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and Maoism.

Be warned, though, that the debate about how these variants depart from Marxist "orthodoxy" is a debate which fuels endless speculation. Mainly because there's a lack of consensus of what the actual "orthodoxy" is.

[Delirium]

Revleft has a page that covers the basic distinctions and theories of marxist offshoots.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786

[LoneRed]

edit-double pos

[LoneRed]

edit-extra post

[LoneRed]

Maoism is a modification of Marxism to apply to the peasants as thought was necessary by Mao in China.

This is kind of right. Mao thought there needed to be a cultural revolution, something we see that needs to happen, he, more so than those in the USSR stressed the potential of the peasants, rather than a broad based armed uprising of the proletarait, insisted on guerilla warfare of the peasants, as was applicable to that specific instance


Leninism was Orthodox Marxism, appealing for a dictatorship of the proletariat and an elite vanguard to guide the actions of the masses.

Sorry, here you are pretty much dead wrong :lol: Have you ever read the Marx quote

"the revolution must be carried out by the working class itself" or something along those lines? apparently not. Firstly dont equate marxism with leninism like many anarchists like to do, instead read some marx, even the Communist Manifesto goes against your point that it is orthodox

the main differences between them are
-Leninism said that workers can only attain trade-union consciousness and that their revolutionary consciousness must be shown to them
-Marxism on the other hand said that the working class is the truly revolutionary class, and that they can achieve revolutionary class consciousness, even if there are circumstances unforseen. I.e. Read Gramsci's accounts on Cultural hegemony and Power, quite a help

Also
-Leninism says that the vanguard, the political elite, the most revolutionary members of the proletariat(not necessarily) will lead the workers to socialism
-Marxism states that the Workers will lead themselves to socialism, yet Marx and Engels both realized that some type of organization was needed, as the workers couldnt just one day achieve communism or have a successful revolution without it
the lack of organization can be best seen in "automonist" organizations.
Many Orthodox Marxists, might possibly use the term Vanguard, but be wary its way different from the leninist concept, look at that one thread in which the anarchists and the commies duked it out, its all there. To marx the "vanguard" was the most class consciouss members of the proletariat(communists). To lenin it was a small revolutionary group that would lead the workers. most of us agree that the majority of the workers must have class consciousness for the revolution to be a success, and guess what, if that happens then they are all a part of the "vanguard" if anyone wishes to use that terminology

Another thing lenin advocated that marx didnt was Democratic centralism. Also check out the revolutionary potential of the peasants, using guerilla warfare with that of an armed working class mass revolution. Leninism is NOT orthodox Marxism




Stalinism advocated the "socialism in one country" policy, and the suppression of political dissidents.


It doesnt advocate the suppression of political dissidents, it just so happened that in the attempts of revolutionizing the soviet economy the reactionary forces in society had to be taken care of.. i.e. kulaks, and such things, it is necessary to purge the petty-bourgeois influence in ALL communist parties, they are nothing but a disease, a disease that only smashes the socialist revolution asunder to fit their aims, one that is reactionary, and must be fought against at all times

Also in order to have a more precise analysis on Stalin, you need to understand the historical conditions at that time, and look at what he did.

Also one problem, the poverty in the USSR was attributed to the capital being taken in to buy more forces of production. i.e. machines, tools, etc.. the money wasnt even put into make more capital and stir the economy like in the US with the C-M-C. It was instead used to buy the forces that would raise the economy up before they could invest it back in. It was either build their economy up and have less for the people, or keep the economy in the shits, and feed the people.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:22 AM

Stalinism advocated the "socialism in one country" policy, and the suppression of political dissidents.


It doesnt advocate the suppression of political dissidents, it just so happened that in the attempts of revolutionizing the soviet economy the reactionary forces in society had to be taken care of.. i.e. kulaks, and such things, it is necessary to purge the petty-bourgeois influence in ALL communist parties, they are nothing but a disease, a disease that only smashes the socialist revolution asunder to fit their aims, one that is reactionary, and must be fought against at all times

Also in order to have a more precise analysis on Stalin, you need to understand the historical conditions at that time, and look at what he did.
Putting down reactionary forces harmful to the revolution while worded nicely is still "suppressing political dissidents".

[LoneRed]

thats not what i was arguing i was saying that you worded it, like it was a key component of "stalinism" when in fact every political movement does it, regardless of whether they proclaim it or not

[Fistful of Steel]

Every political system has it, but under Stalinism it seemed to be a cornerstone of internal policy.

[barista.marxista]

Leninism is not Marxism. That should clear things up for you.