Marxist-Leninist vs. Stalinist

[Joby]

Is there a difference in what ORIGINAL Marxiss-Leninists said, and Stalinism? Or is Stalinism the direct heir of Lenin?

I've read that Lenin only intended dictatorship for the immediate period following the revolution, and worker democracy would replace his afterward.

Now, please don't claim that Stalin wasn't extremely authotarian, and I undersatnd that he had to lead the people thru some very drastic times.

Is there a difference in ML philosphy, and Stalinism?

What do you think?

[Janus]

Most Stalinists subscribe to Marxism-Leninism. This is because Stalin never really challenged Lenin's theories and because he never really contributed much theoretically to create any significant divergenence outside of his theory of socialism in one country.

[cenv]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 05:31 am
Is there a difference in what ORIGINAL Marxiss-Leninists said, and Stalinism? Or is Stalinism the direct heir of Lenin?

I've read that Lenin only intended dictatorship for the immediate period following the revolution, and worker democracy would replace his afterward.

Now, please don't claim that Stalin wasn't extremely authotarian, and I undersatnd that he had to lead the people thru some very drastic times.

Is there a difference in ML philosphy, and Stalinism?

What do you think?
Lenin never intended for or advocated any form of authoritarian dictatorship by minority. Lenin actually believe in a much more democratic system than we have in place today, much less a dictatorship by minority -- he argued for the workers' right to recall officials at any given time and for the reduction of officials' wages to the level of an average workman. If you want to get a feel for how radical and democratic the state he envisioned actually was, you should check out the section of his book State and Revolution that talks about the Paris Commune:

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/19...aterev/ch03.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm)

Stalinism is not the direct heir of Leninism by any means. If I had to pick an ideology to call the heir of Leninism, I'd say that Trotskyism is much closer to Leninism than anything else. The views of self-described Trotskyists are very close to those of people that refer to themselves as "Leninists" whereas Stalinists generally advocate a much more authoritarian brand of socialism in addition to downplaying the importance of internationalism in socialism.

[BobKKKindle$]

If you want to get a feel for how radical and democratic the state he envisioned actually was, you should check out the section of his book State and Revolution that talks about the Paris Commune:

I find it highly ironic that you use lenin's acclaim for the commune as evidence for Leninism's support of Socialist Democracy - The Bolshevik party ordered in 1921 for the Kronstadt Uprising - A Revolt that bears many similarities to the Commune in that it was an insurrection by the most militant members of the Solder-Proletarian Class and defied an authoritatarian system - to be brutally crushed through the use of the Red Army. The Kronstadt further proves the betrayal of the February Revolution and Socialism by the Bolsheviks when one notes that the Kronstadt Sailors had originally been the Bolshevik's greatest Supporters.


he argued for the workers' right to recall officials at any given time and for the reduction of officials' wages to the level of an average workman

It was Lenin who called for the Trade Unions to be incorporated into the state Apparatus and for Bourgeois Managers to be reinstated in place of democratic and autonomous worker's committees under War Comunism. Lenin destroyed any possibility of worker's power in Soviet Russia. The use of Bourgeois managers also included the introduction of pay differentials, so you are simply mistaken.

What Leninists - or it might be more accurate to say Lenin and the Bolsheviks - do not recognize is that the nature of the revolution which destroys the Capitalist mode of production will determine the political and economic structure of the society that follows. If a revolution is committed by a small group of Bourgeois intellectuals, a dictatorship will follow with power concentrated in the hands of this group -the Vanguard Party if you will. If, However, the proletariat seize the means of production as a unified class and overthrow Bourgeois Democracy, the Post-Revolutionary Society will represent the full aspirations of Libertarian Socialists. Leninists will of course tell us that the Vanguard contains the 'most militant and class consiousness members of the Proletariat' but history denies this claim, with the possible exceptions of Cuba and Yugoslavia.

[Whitten]

There's no such thing as Stalinism, its just a term thrown arround by Libertarians and Trots to try to discredit the Marxist-Leninists who dont agree with Trotsky's revisionism.

[RedLenin]

Lenin destroyed any possibility of worker's power in Soviet Russia.
I don't think any Leninist would find all of Lenin's actions ideal or just. Leninists take Lenin's contributions to Marxist theory, we do not necessarily agree with everything he did. I agree that, since the seizure of power after the revolution, the revolution was slowly in a process of buerocratic degeneration, culminating in a qualitative leap with Stalin.

I think that Lenin was sincere and did want to see a state run along the lines of what he laid out in "State and Revolution". However, the isolation of Russia, as well as the relentless attacks by imperialists and the bloody civil war, ensured Russia's buerocratic degeneration. It is far too simplistic to blame the authoritarianism of the state in Russia on Lenin being manipulative or authoritarian. The material conditions facing Russia played a much bigger role.

And I don't believe that Stalin continued Leninism at all. Lenin actually called for Stalin to be removed from power in his last testament. Stalin destroyed the internationalism that Lenin so firmly believed in, and crushed any remnants of soviet democracy that still existed in Russia. I think that Trotsky continued Leninism with his theory of the Permanent Revolution and his emphasis on workers democracy.

[Joby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 11:19 am
There's no such thing as Stalinism, its just a term thrown arround by Libertarians and Trots to try to discredit the Marxist-Leninists who dont agree with Trotsky's revisionism.
I didn't mean it in any negative way, just wanted to describe what Stalin believed.


It was Lenin who called for the Trade Unions to be incorporated into the state Apparatus and for Bourgeois Managers to be reinstated in place of democratic and autonomous worker's committees under War Comunism. Lenin destroyed any possibility of worker's power in Soviet Russia. The use of Bourgeois managers also included the introduction of pay differentials, so you are simply mistaken.

So you're saying that what he said before the revolution was just to get power-and once he had it, he wsn't giving it back?

He died in 1924, so I can understand how a dictatorship was needed at that time. But would he have agreed with one being around indefinitely?

[Joby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 05:32 pm

Lenin destroyed any possibility of worker's power in Soviet Russia.
I don't think any Leninist would find all of Lenin's actions ideal or just. Leninists take Lenin's contributions to Marxist theory, we do not necessarily agree with everything he did. I agree that, since the seizure of power after the revolution, the revolution was slowly in a process of buerocratic degeneration, culminating in a qualitative leap with Stalin.

I think that Lenin was sincere and did want to see a state run along the lines of what he laid out in "State and Revolution". However, the isolation of Russia, as well as the relentless attacks by imperialists and the bloody civil war, ensured Russia's buerocratic degeneration. It is far too simplistic to blame the authoritarianism of the state in Russia on Lenin being manipulative or authoritarian. The material conditions facing Russia played a much bigger role.

And I don't believe that Stalin continued Leninism at all. Lenin actually called for Stalin to be removed from power in his last testament. Stalin destroyed the internationalism that Lenin so firmly believed in, and crushed any remnants of soviet democracy that still existed in Russia. I think that Trotsky continued Leninism with his theory of the Permanent Revolution and his emphasis on workers democracy.
Great post. That really outlined a lot of what I had been thinking earlier. About how it was the outside forces tryingo bring the USSR down that made a dictatorship necessary.

Was one necessary all he way thru the cold war?

I'm, just hoping some of the Pro-Stlain posters make an argument. I'd like to hear their side of the sory as well.My view is that hey, the CCCP fell. What can we learn not to do the next time around?

Not having he beuracracy is one

[OneBrickOneVoice]

And I don't believe that Stalin continued Leninism at all. Lenin actually called for Stalin to be removed from power in his last testament. Stalin destroyed the internationalism that Lenin so firmly believed in, and crushed any remnants of soviet democracy that still existed in Russia. I think that Trotsky continued Leninism with his theory of the Permanent Revolution and his emphasis on workers democracy.

Soviet Democracy continued. Read the constitution. The big fuss is that they didn't have as much power. Stalin didn't destroy internationalism. Socialism in One Country wasn't Nationalist, it was just a program of concentration on industrializing the USSR. Trotsky would've done the same.

Lenin didn't write the last testament necessarily. He never signed it like his other works also even if he did he was extremely ill and was quite pissed at Stalin and his wife.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Not having he beuracracy is one

Mao Zedong, who was M/L, criticized this. That was the whole point of the Cultural Revolution: Ridding the party, counrty, and government of beaurcracy and capitalism.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 01:31 am
Is there a difference in what ORIGINAL Marxiss-Leninists said, and Stalinism? Or is Stalinism the direct heir of Lenin?
There are discontinuation theories and continuation theories on whether or not Stalin continued on in the Marxist-Leninist tradition or not, it would depend upon your outlook, and interpretation of theory and historical events.

[Prairie Fire]

:D Wow, I'm not even going to respond to anyone elses post.
Be cautious comarde Joby;you are treading into the thick of sectarian tensions. These individuals get pretty violent at the mere mention of Stalins name.


As for the Anti-revisionist perspective, Marxism-Leninism is not different from Anti-revisionism. Unlike Trotskyists, we do not call ourselves "Stalinists" (partially because it is a slur word), because we do not see Stalin as a seperate School of thought from Lenin. It's kind of like Engles; nobody sees Engles as a seperate school of thought from Marx. Engles elaborated on the theory laid down by Marx.
Stalin elaborated on the theory laid down by Lenin; The only major addition of Stalins to the theory of Leninism was the idea that anti-fascism was a fundamental part of the theory of communism.