Defenitions of the "isms" in Communism.

[R_P_A_S]

could ANYONE give me atlease a brieft description pointing out the differences between each "ism" in communism?

STALINISM
MAOISM
LENINIST
MARXIST
TROTSKY(ism?)

and whatever others there is!..

thank you

[Hannibal_Barca]

Ism is a suffix dude that represents a theory or system.

[Aurora]

No offence meant but couldnt you look them up on wikipedia?

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:50 PM
No offence meant but couldnt you look them up on wikipedia?
none taken. and i have but its always good to get a REAL DISCUSSION going

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:38 PM
could ANYONE give me atlease a brieft description pointing out the differences between each "ism" in communism?

STALINISM
MAOISM
LENINIST
MARXIST
TROTSKY(ism?)

and whatever others there is!..

thank you
RevLeft Dictionary (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)

There is no such thing as Stalinism per se, other than the Stalin's idea that communism could be achieved in one country.

[LSD]

Marxism is the political and theoretial approach laid out by Karl Marx and his successors. In many ways it is synonymous with communism, although it's actually broader than that.

The details are too complex to lay out here, but in simplest terms, political Marxism is materialist and internationalist working-class based organizational class-struggle with the ultimate goal of establishing a classless stateless society.

Since Marx's death, many theoreticians have claimed to be Marx's "successor" or "interpreter", all controversially of course.

Leninism is nothing more than a political philsophy based on the writings and actions of Lenin and his Bolshevik Party, especially following the Russian Revolution. Although based on Marxism, it introduced some novel concepts into the framework, especially with regards to the role of the party, and was the dominant strain of communism during most of the twentieth century.

Simply put, Leninists advocate a disciplined hiearchical party structure organized along principles of "democratic centralism" (think parliamentary cabinet) that will both "lead" and "organize" the proletariat before and during the revolution.

Ostensibly, the Proletariat itself is "not yet capable" of direct self-rule and so requires that the "most revolutionary" of the class "prepare" them for "eventual" self-government.

Therefore, following a successful proletarian insurrection, Leninists see the party as immediately assuming sole power as the "vanguard" and "representatives" of the entire Proletarian class. As a sort of "general staff" of the revolutionary Proletariat, the party will be trained and prepared to assume absolute command.

This command will be organized based on a statist "socialist" approach which generally tends towards a powerful top-heavy institutionalized centralized government with all the standard accessories such as bureaucrats, police forces, and standing professional armies.

Theoretically, the ruling parties of Leninist states are supposed to be democratic and loosely based on republican princples, but practically, Leninist governments have been universally authoritarian and highly corrupt.

Trotskyism is an expansion of Leninism that, basically, views the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1928 as a functional "Worker's State" that was later made "degenerate" by the Stalinist bureaucratic clique. Trotskyists also generally oppose "socialism in one state" and are ardent internationalists.

Stalinism isn't so much an ideology as it is a minor variant of Leninism. Unlike Trotsky, Stalin added very little to the Leninist paradigm and accordingly most "Stalinists" refer to themselves as "Marxist-Leninists".

Like Trotskyists, however, Stalinists defining feature is their historical analysis of the Soviet Union; namely they consider it a successful "Worker's State" all the way up until 1956.

Maoism is basically Agrarian Socialism painted red. It's, ostensibly, yet another variant of Leninism, but it rejects fundamental Leninist conceptions of class dynamics. Unfortunately, it maintains Leninist "iron discipline" and tends to promote absolute party "leadership" and the elevation of the individual "leader" to near God-like prominance.

In many ways Maoism can be compared to Stalinism in that neither one is a truly coherent ideological paradigm so much as they are historical hero-worship.

For more information see the Revolutionary Left Dictionary (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)

[Whitten]

Given the somewhat negetive description of leninism above, I think its only fair to point out that Leninism is completly compatable with democracy, just not multiparty democracy. Most Leninists advocate transparancy in the state and systems of representitive recall.

What was described in the post above would be a better description of the Soviet Union, as established by Lenin, rather than modern leninist theory.

[Forward Union]

No offence but TAT made this thread and stikied it

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

[rouchambeau]

Didn't you bother doing a google search or look it up on wikipedia before comming to us with this?

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by rouchambeau+Oct 7 2006, 02:38 PM--> (rouchambeau @ Oct 7 2006, 02:38 PM)Didn't you bother doing a google search or look it up on wikipedia before comming to us with this?[/b]
Wikipedia, as good as it is, has its flaws. If you are a beginner, Wikipedia really doesn't help that much. Look at the Maoism article, and pretend that you know absolutely nothing about communism.


Originally posted by Maoism on Wikipedia+--> (Maoism on Wikipedia)Maoism or Mao Zedong Thought (Chinese: 毛泽东思想, pinyin: Máo Zédōng Sīxiǎng), is a variant of Marxism-Leninism derived from the teachings of the Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong (Wade-Giles transliteration: "Mao Tse-tung").[/b]


Originally posted by Maoism on Wikipedia
Maoism and its derivatives ardently support the pre-Nikita Khruschev-era Soviet Union and consider the developments of the Secret Speech to have begun that country's "revisionism" and "social-imperialism". It is usually accepted that Maoists follow an anti-revisionist and generally more militant political line than that of the "Peaceful coexistence" advanced by the Soviets and their followers after 1956.


Maoism on [email protected]
aoism emphasizes "revolutionary mass mobilization" (physically mobilizing the vast majority of a population in the struggle for socialism), the concept of New Democracy, and the Theory of Productive Forces as applied to village-level industries independent of the outside world (see Great Leap Forward).

Yes, I realize that you could keep on clicking the various links, and evenutally figure out what Maoism (or any other political ideology) is. However, asking experts on it to explain it simply is a little bit easier.

Also, I'd like to point out that when someone asks a beginner question, and someone answers like this:


Common Response on Revolutionary Left
"Go read some Marx (or some other 300 page book) and come back.

It shows a certain amount of elitism. Seriously, not everyone wants to read a 19th century, 300 page book.

[rouchambeau]

You make some very good points, Red Tendancy. However, there is still www.marxists.org

[2ormore]

the point is.
Can we work together?,do we know what we are fighting for?
post leftism, my arse!!!!!!!!
What is next


<_<

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Ace [email protected] 7 2006, 12:55 AM
Marxism is the political and theoretial approach laid out by Karl Marx and his successors. In many ways it is synonymous with communism, although it&#39;s actually broader than that.

The details are too complex to lay out here, but in simplest terms, political Marxism is materialist and internationalist working-class based organizational class-struggle with the ultimate goal of establishing a classless stateless society.

Well, in abstract formulations, generalizations in particular, this might be the case...

...but...

...there&#39;s just no way to define it as some kind of unified theory/practice, nor to decide upon who such concrete "succesors" of Marx would be.

There&#39;s also a problem in establishing a connection between Karl Marx himself and some propostions in that definition. In example: what could we mean when we say "materialism"? Didn&#39;t Marx call for practical transcendence of both materialism and idealism. Of course, you did say "political Marxism", so we may assume you speak of "Orthodox Marxism" and its every derivate.

This, indeed, is not a very simple question. Au contraire.