What are the differences between leninism...

[betterredthandead]

Hello, im new

Could you give me a discription of the differnt types of communism

ie trotskyism, leninism etc

[MrDoom]

There is only one type of communism.

How we get there, is the reason for sectarian splits.

As for Trotskyism, it is more or less a restoration of classical Leninism, as I understand.

[Forward Union]

Revleft dictionary (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

A marxist lenninist thinks that a small centeralized party is needed during and after the revolution to act for the working class. Then applying the "dictatorship of the proleteriats" (socialism) before communism is established.

[Vargha Poralli]

Communism - An Idealogy of achieving a classless egalitarian society.

Marxism - An materialist idealogy for achieving communism as theorised by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels through class analysis.

Leninism - An extension to Marxism practiced by Lenin and Bolsheviks during the revolutions in Russia for achieving communism.

Trotskyism - Originally used as to condemn any Marxist who is opposed to policies of Comintern under Stalin later self applied to many groups who claim to follow Leon Trotsky's theoretical contributions to Marxism.

Maoism - A form of Leninism followed by Mao Zedong to suit to the material conditions of China at that time.

[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)

[TC]

Marxism - Marxism is position that includes economic, social, political, and historical theory of Historical Materialism, which is to say, the theory of history and society that the material conditions and means of production determine the social organization and ideology of societies and social change is brought about by class struggle over the means of production; as well as the political program of Marx and Engels for proletarian revolution, namely the overthrow of the bourgeois state and establishment of a workers state with a collective monopoly on the means of production and capital.


Marxianism - Marx and Engel's economic and social theory without their political programn.


Leninism/Marxism-Leninism - Marxism with the additional theory of Imperialism, Labour Aristocracy, whereby the bourgeois in order to protect their capital, employ economic and political tactics to decrease class polarization in the imperial centres (the most advanced capitalist states), exporting the class contradictions abroad to their colonies; meaning that class conflict would become most intense at the margins of capitalism rather than at its core as Marx expected.

Note: There is a great deal if misinformation about what Lenin introduced to Marxism on this particular forum. Marx in both writing and practice adopted the tactic of a vanguard party with the aim of establishing a workers state before Lenin, Marx and not Lenin broke with the Anarchists in the first international long before the soviet revolution.


Trotskyism - Marxism-Leninism plus Trotsky's version of the theory of Permanent Revolution, specifically a rejection of the view that pre-industrial society must pass through two stages, a bourgeois revolution followed by a proletarian revolution (termed 'stageism') and Trotsky's theory that such pre-industrial societies could not build socialism in one country without expanding their economic basis into the industrialized world (i.e. a Russian revolution would only succeed in building socialism if a German revolution followed and so forth); and it holds that the Soviet government after Trotsky's exile was run by a bureaucratic clique that subverted soviet democracy without changing property and class relations.


Stalinism - not an ideology but primarily used as a term of slander applied by certain members (mostly british) of the Fourth International against other Marxists who they believe support or participate in Left-Bonapartism as a generalized theory of bureaucracy in workers states.

The term "stalinist" can also be used for Stalin's faction in the Soviet government, or to anti-revisionist but non-maoist marxist-leninists, without necessarily being slanderous.


Mao Zedong Thought - Marxism-Leninism plus Mao's tactical and theoretical contributions, including the tactic of Protracted People's War as a means of staging revolution by liberating increasingly large areas of the countryside through guerrilla tactics while establishing elements of parallel government and revolutionary expropriations until the central government has little effective state power; the theory of social imperialism and the rejection of Khrushchev secret speech against Stalin and the soviet political and economic reforms made by his government as counter-revolutionary (termed 'revisionism' by adherents of Mao Zedong Thought) and cultural revolution.


Maoism/Marxism-Leninism-Maoism - Mao Zedong Thought applied outside of China, accepting the interpretation of Mao Zedong Thought held by the radical (gang of four) wing of the Chinese Communist Party during Mao rather than the reformist or moderate wing's interpretation and focusing on the Maoist revolutionary tactic of protracted people's war rather than Mao's economic or diplomatic contributions.

[TC]

LSD, you're not offering actual definitions; you're offering your interpretations which come from your particular political ideology and are in no way widely recognized, at least not outside of this forum. Its politically irresponsible to misrepresent hte content of your posts that way.




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.


Nope LSD, thats your propaganda not Leninism; Lenin's party organization was designed to carry out the military aspects of revolution against incredible state repression so that the working class as a whole could rule itself democratically.

The belief was that the proletariat simply needed a professional force to finish off the professional force of the bourgeois and aristocracy, not to "rule" them.



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.


The vanguard of a class is simply the element that is engaged in direct organized class struggle and "Leninists" see no such thing, you are again asserting a totally incorrect bullshit slander. The proletarian party is merely a tool of working class organization just as other parties are tools of bourgeois political organization.



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.


Its easier to document that of anarchist organizations in practice.



Maoism is basically Agrarian Socialism painted red. It's, ostensibly, yet another variant of Leninism, but it rejects fundamental Leninist conceptions of class dynamics.

No. It doesn't. You're just making stuff up.


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.



Also bullshit. In fact Maoists emphasis self-criticism and open criticism of the chinese communist party and acknowlege that Mao Zedong made terrible economic and political errors, to elevate Mao to "god-like prominance" would be decidedly un-maoist. Mao himself was removed from office as a result of his failure in the Great Leap Forward and constantly contended with political opposition from both the left and the right of the chinese communist party as well as the other parties in china; there was no paramount leader at all in China for most of Mao's political career and he clearly wasn't it for the last two decades of his life, in the manner that Stalin for instance operated as a paramount leader with a cult of personality.

[LSD]

LSD, you're not offering actual definitions; you're offering your interpretations

When it comes to controversial political questions like these, there are no universal definitions.

I provided my definitions, g.ram provided his, you provided yours. I imagine others will provide theirs as well.

The "truth" is probably somwhere in between. But only someone of incredible arrogance would declare their intepretations to be "actual" while everyone else's is biased.


Its politically irresponsible to misrepresent hte content of your posts that way.

You "represented" your post exactly the same way I did mine, TC. So if I'm "politically irresponsible", I guess you are too.


Nope LSD, thats your propaganda not Leninism; Lenin's party organization was designed to carry out the military aspects of revolution against incredible state repression so that the working class as a whole could rule itself democratically.

Really? Then why didn't the party immediately disband following the revolution ...or following the conclusion of the civil war?

The "military aspects of revolution" were completed, so how come the party not only maintained its power but expanded it?

Every time that Leninists have successfully waged a revolution, it subsequently immediately transitioned into a position of state power. So clearly, the Leninist party is about more than "military aspects".

In fact, you're probably the only person who would claim that Leninism does not have a postrevolutionary role for the party. 'Cause even the most ardent Soviet apologist can't seriously deny that the Bolshevik Party (later CPSU) was the central authority of the Soviet Union.

Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is a secondary issue. There are certainly plenty of people on this site along who advocate that kind of one-party state.

But to deny that Leninism advocates the rule of the party ...well, that's just plain a-historical.


The proletarian party is merely a tool of working class organization just as other parties are tools of bourgeois political organization.

Yeah, like I said, "the ruling parties of Leninist states are supposed to be democratic and loosely based on republican princples", but it would be disengenous to not also point out that that has not been the case ever.

And nothing you said has contradicted my basic contention, namely that Leninism views the Proletariat as not yet capable of direct self-rule. If it did, it wouldn't need to set up the kind of authoritarian structure that Lenin did.

And, yeah, I get the theory. The line has to be maintained, reaction has to be fought, the best and most advanced of the class should lead the way, etc... but no matter how you spin it, it ultimately comes back to the proletariat not being ready to rule itself.

Whether that's true or not is obviously highly controversial.


Its easier to document that of anarchist organizations in practice.

What on earth are you talking about?

You can't seriously be denying the rampant corruption of historical "socialist" states, can you? And what do "anarchist organizations" have to do with this discussion?

As of yet, there haven't even been any prolonged anarchist socities, certainly not any that lasted more than a few years, if that. So it still remains to be seen what would happen if it were given a fair chance.

Leninism, however, has been tried literally dozens of times, often lasting for decades. So we have a fairly good idea of what happens when that kind of power is vested in the "revolutionary party": it corrupts.

Not that that's particularly suprising, even from a Marxist perspective if makes sense. When you elevate any group of people that high and give them such control over the economic and social forces of a society, you nescessarily change their relations to production and therefore their class.

So whatever you want to call the bureaucrats who ran the Soviet Union, it's pretty much unavoidable that they were not "ordinary workers" and that their actions were not primarily shaped by the democratic expression of the Soviet People.


No. It doesn't. You're just making stuff up.

Leninism, for all its faults, is still predicated on the Marxist concept of the proletariat as the revolutionary class. Maoism effectively junks that analysis and replaces it with Agrarian Socialist dressed up in Stalinist rhetoric.

So while the Mao often spoke of a working class, the revolutionaary CCP was lead by, composed of, and organized for, peasants.

That's not a "bad thing" per se, but it certainly belies any notions of "communism". The Chinese peasntry had every right to rise up against their oppressors, both foreign and domestic, but semi-feudal peasants cannot set up a "dictatorship of the proletariat", no matter what definition of that phrase one adheres to.

That's why despite its grandiose self-assesment, the PRC was so fiercely anti-worker and anti-communist. And it's why its early policies have such a strong tinge of anti-urabanism and anti-intellectualism.

The Chinese proletariat certainly existed, but it constituted a microscopic part of the general Chinese population and an even smaller part of the CCP. The role that it played in the PRC was therefore primarily tokenistic; a convenient excuse for the CCP to rule uniltaterally.

Personally, I'm even somewhat retiscent to call Maoism Agrarian Socialism, Mao was far too cruel to the peasantry to be fairly labeled any sort of socialist. But Agrarian Socialism comes the closest to explaining Maoism's agrarian anti-worker roots in the fewest words.


Also bullshit. In fact Maoists emphasis self-criticism and open criticism of the chinese communist party

Yeah, and people carried around the Little Red Book 'cause it was just so damn brilliant.

I supose that's plausible, though, after all Mao was the reddest, reddest, red sun of them all... :rolleyes:


Mao himself was removed from office as a result of his failure in the Great Leap Forward and constantly contended with political opposition from both the left and the right of the chinese communist party as well as the other parties in china

Mussilini was removed from office too. I suppose that means that fascism doesn't glorify the leader?

Look, all "great leaders" contend with political opposition, the point is that it's always done quietly and within the political establishment.

Elements of the CCP may have occasionaly challenged Mao's positions, but the general public sure as hell didn't. And that's certainly not because they agreed with everything he was doing!

[Dimentio]

A bit OT maybe, but is'nt one reason for the continuous defeats of anarchists that they are so badly organised?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:59 pm
A bit OT maybe, but is'nt one reason for the continuous defeats of anarchists that they are so badly organised?
In Russia, yes. Most other places, no. The notion of anarchists being opposed to organization or being bad organizers, etc. is largely bourgeois propaganda.

[Severian]

Definitions aren't true or false; they're useful or useless; exact or vague.

And as LSD says, on political questions different definitions reflect different political ideas. For example, super-free-market people define "socialism" as any kind of government regulation at all.

I'd add also: all these political labels are of historical origin and mostly describe people's positions on historical questions. They don't necessarily tell you what people do in politics today and tomorrow.

A couple past threads with some useful debate on this:
What is Trotskyism? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40806&st=0&#entry1291942537) - with a post where I look at the different positions held by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin on one important strategic question.

What is Stalinism? - class basis of a political trend (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41124)

A debate over Leninist vs Stalinist concepts of "leadership" (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39826)

About the controversial concept of the vaguard party:
What is the vanguard of the working class anyway? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=37699&st=25&#entry1291899644)

What is the purpose of a "vanguard party" (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32950)
Debate on "Leninism&Vanguard (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40056)

One more suggestion: go back to the originals whenever possible, not to secondhand versions. If you want to know what Lenin advocated, read Lenin. Etc.

[bezdomni]

One more suggestion: go back to the originals whenever possible, not to secondhand versions. If you want to know what Lenin advocated, read Lenin. Etc.

That doesn't make a lick of sense! :rolleyes:

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:46 am

One more suggestion: go back to the originals whenever possible, not to secondhand versions. If you want to know what Lenin advocated, read Lenin. Etc.

That doesn't make a lick of sense! :rolleyes:
Why is that?

[Black Dagger]

I think SP is being sarcastic.

[Janus]

Mao himself was removed from office as a result of his failure in the Great Leap Forward
This partial withdrawl was more or less done on his own initiative.


and constantly contended with political opposition from both the left and the right of the chinese communist party as well as the other parties in china;
:lol: What other parties? The CCP is the main party in China.


there was no paramount leader at all in China for most of Mao's political career and he clearly wasn't it for the last two decades of his life
He wasn't the paramount leader in the early 60's but he certainly was able to consolidate enough control over the Party after the deposal of Liu that he was able to regain his position after the Cultural Revolution.


That's why despite its grandiose self-assesment, the PRC was so fiercely anti-worker and anti-communist.
Currently, yes. But before the Deng period then no.


And it's why its early policies have such a strong tinge of anti-urabanism and anti-intellectualism.
I'm not aware of any anti-urban policies in the CCP's early days except for maybe the restriction of movement into the cities,etc. but the anti-intellectual strain has always been part of Chinese history in that Chinese leaders have always seen intellectuals as threats towards ideological unity and their ideological dominance.


Mao was far too cruel to the peasantry to be fairly labeled any sort of socialist.
His policies definitely placed a major burden on the population and particularly the peasantry during the GLF however this is offbalanced by the positive results that his other policies contributed towards the people's welfare.

But Agrarian Socialism comes the closest to explaining Maoism's agrarian anti-worker roots in the fewest words.
Maoism has no anti-worker roots, these anti-worker tendencies only developed in countries in which the movement leaders played on the anti-urban sentiments of the rural people to gain greater political control which is what happened in Cambodia.

[trivas7]

A bit OT maybe, but is'nt one reason for the continuous defeats of anarchists that they are so badly organised?

"Badly organized", anarchist -- redundant, no? :ohmy:

[Dros]

"Badly organized", anarchist -- redundant, no? :ohmy:

Thread necromancy = fail, no?

But generally, you are correct.:laugh: