Marxism, Leninism, Trotsky

[ComradeJunichi]

whats the difference between marxism and leninism? and why is trotsky such a popular figure in communism?

[Ymir]

Marxism is true communism following the teachings of marx, leninism is a slightly warped view of marxism.

Trotsky was a leading figure in the russian communist revolution/civil war. He was one of the "reds" and he was a general of the red army. He wanted to have a global revolution instead of concentrating on just russia, like stalin wanted. So stalin exiled him to siberia and he was killed a while later.

[man in the red suit]

Trotsky is popular because he was a madman.

He wanted to start a world-wide revolution and take over the world. He thought that socialism was a world struggle. Stalin caused him to flee to Mexico where he was killed some time later.

As for Leninism, I was reading one of Lenin's books and it seems to me that Leninism is just Lenin's interpretation of Marxism and his analysis on dialectical materialism and emperio-criticism. Although maybe this is just what he was trying to explain in his book. I'm not sure if IS Leninism. But what do I know? ask Nateddi. He'll tell you that I'm a dumbass and explain to you the real meaning of Leninism.

[Nateddi]

@CJ - You can do a "search" for a topic on the exact same thing. This has been discussed in detail quite a few times before.

@mitrs - you are not a dumbass, don't get so skittish about me and you please. You are correct as compared to ymir (stalin exiled trotsky to mexico, not siberia).

Although I would like you to explain how Trotsky was a mad man about socialism as a world struggle. Frankly, I consider the strife for socialism as a world struggle. Its either capitalism or socialism dominating the world. Once the developing world is emancipated from their chains, the developed (capitalist) countries (US) will have to drop capitalism because it is not a self-sufficient system (the liberated third world will no longer enslave themselves or their resources for outside interests, therefore collapsing profit/imperialist systems).

[man in the red suit]

I kinda disagree with you there.

I don't think that socialism is a world struggle. I think that capitalism is self sufficient, regardless of its negative effects on the working class. I don't think the world will adopt socialism. i believe there are too many countries already satisfied with capitalism, for it to ever fall. i believe that socialism can be put into practice without interference from the capitalist world. Explain to me, if you think I'm missing something.

p.s i don't mean to be skittish, I was just pissed about the thread on me, that you made in the cc.

[Conghaileach]

Name one capitalist country that is be self-sufficient. Every first world country (to my knowledge) depends on resources and production from the third world. I think it's generally agreed that the third world is the most succeptable area of the planet to socialism.

[Nateddi]

@mitrs

I found this to explain well about capitalism being not self sufficient.
http://communist-party.ca/english/html/body_class.html (don't click it yet, finish reading this, an animated classroom starts so you might as well start it when you are done)

Socialism is always interfering on the capitalist world, little by little. Capitalists cannot come to a socialist country and underpay the working people as they can to a puppet country. As socialism develops throughout the world, capitalism will be slowly chocked off from imperial resources; until it needs to try to be self sufficient. When it trys to do that, it needs to exploit once again its own people as it did before in the 19th and early 20th century, before neocolonialism became truly profitable. Than we get back to 19th century style capitalism, where depressions are invevitable and massive class division rises.

(Edited by Nateddi at 4:05 am on July 16, 2002)

[komsomol]

Quote: from CiaranB on 2:26 am on July 16, 2002
Name one capitalist country that is be self-sufficient. Every first world country (to my knowledge) depends on resources and production from the third world. I think it's generally agreed that the third world is the most succeptable area of the planet to socialism.


Exactly! That parallels my theory.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism still has to exploit its own workers, still in the U$ the majority of workers are being exploited, capitalism can never exist without internal and perhaps external exploitation.

[Linksradikaler]

Leninsm is applied Marxism. Marxism is, strictly speaking, not a plan of action. It is a diagnosis and a a prognosis--an educated guess at the direction the disease of capitalist exploitation will go in. Lenin formulated a theory for applying Marx's principles in bringing about revolution.

He explained why revolution cannot happen spontaneously and why the working class must be helped from without by a "vanguard" who act as full-time agitators and propagandists.

Marxism is not gospel truth. Marx predicted, for instance, that revolution would happen first in nations most advanced in industrial capitalism: England, America, Germany. Revolution has happened mainly in relatively backwards countries like China and Russia.

I personally believe Marx underestimated capitalism's ability to change cosmetically and satisfy short-term miseries while remaining unchanged beneath the surface.

[ComradeJunichi]

Hey Linksradikal,
What is an example of capitalism covering up the surface? I'm just wondering, and I always want evidence....

[Linksradikaler]

Here I'm thinking of joint state-private New-Deal type programs designed to get capitalism through periods of crisis. Purely cosmetic, but enough to stave off revolution.

Here are some other examples:
Empowerment Zones
Corporate Charity Spending
Minority Recruiting

Capitalists, because they have the money and media, have PR on their side.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Nateddi on 4:03 am on July 16, 2002
@mitrs

I found this to explain well about capitalism being not self sufficient.
http://communist-party.ca/english/html/body_class.html (don't click it yet, finish reading this, an animated classroom starts so you might as well start it when you are done)

Socialism is always interfering on the capitalist world, little by little. Capitalists cannot come to a socialist country and underpay the working people as they can to a puppet country. As socialism develops throughout the world, capitalism will be slowly chocked off from imperial resources; until it needs to try to be self sufficient. When it trys to do that, it needs to exploit once again its own people as it did before in the 19th and early 20th century, before neocolonialism became truly profitable. Than we get back to 19th century style capitalism, where depressions are invevitable and massive class division rises.

(Edited by Nateddi at 4:05 am on July 16, 2002)



I agree with you to a certain degree. Socialism will cut off capitalisms imperial resources but only if it grows. Socialism is having less apeal to the rest of the people of the world. Socialism is not growing as much as it did in the early 1900s. I thinkthat capitalism, unfortunately has the upper-hand. capitalism has more appeal to the upper class. People are no longer as poor as they used to be. Therefore, it has less apeal. I suppose that you are right in the sense that capitalism is NOT self-sufficient. You win again. I still don't see socialism as a world struggle however. I see capitalism and socialism as ying and yang. Maybe this is the wrong way to view it in your opinion. I believe that there are self sufficient countries and then there are parasitic ones like capitalism, where they must survive by dominating all aspects of their economy in imperialism. I don't think that transforming the world to a socialist paradise will solve all of our problems. Hey, maybe it would, and everything would be great. But do you think that we stand a chance?

oh yeah and that site you suggested was really dumb,
common man! I'm not that stupid! You don't need to educate me through cartoons. Send me a juicy site full of information. I WILL READ IT. I promise.

[Nateddi]

LOL

I didn't think you were dumb, I just found the cartoon a bit funny in an informative way as well.

The fact that socialism isn't appealing now is true, but this is only a passing phase IMO. It took a bad blow in 1989, but its been rising a millimeter a year since 92 or so. NAFTA only started in 93, FTAA 94 (I think), WTO in 95. They allow freer and easier transfer of means of production to member nations. China opened up their labour supply and their land to comercial invasion, thats why we are cool with them. Cuba on the other had didn't, thats why they are being fully blockaded and embarassed.

These agreements have basically opened the gates to imperialism (21st century style); whereas before you had to pay tarriffs to place a factory overseas, such an investment would cost you money and had to be planned well to make sure the cheap labour can pay back the cost of moving. Now the costs are much lower and the floodgate has basically been opened up. Getting to the point, more people will be effected now and movements against it will take place.

Brazil will hold national elections, Lula da Silva, a marxist-leaning leader is gaing great popularity there. Argentina's economy is in shackles; communist-leaning Hugo Chavez is reforming venezuela rapidly; socialists finally getting broader support in eastern europe. The socialists and communists combined had a higher vote total than the winning party in ukraine last election (my home country), hopefully will form a non-sectarian front soon. The KPRF despite setbacks in late winter have seemed very supported in the may day demonstrations in moscow (a generally anticommunist city). They still have the most members in the national assembly and will hopefully give Putin a run for his money in 2004.

Socialism will solve all the problems caused directly by capitalism, and it will reduce the problems which are being fed by capitalism; it simply needs to be sparked up again.

[man in the red suit]

well your post certainly was enlightening. More so than the web site, at least. I agree with you that socialism will gain momentum when it is sparked up again. But my question to you is if you think that this is a good thing?

Don't misinterperet my question. Socialism is the most advanced step forward in human living. But do you believe that the world will be better if we were surounded by socialism? I would like to think so but I think that there may be a balance between the 2 systems. I can't help but think that there may be troubles if the world were to openly embrace socialism as a solution to all of its problems. I personally see it as a solution to those who need it. Some people like Ak, are happy being exploited. there will always be someone who holds a grudge. I think that socialism and capitalism have their apeal. Is it right to combat capitalism world wide?

(Edited by man in the red suit at 5:26 am on July 20, 2002)

[RGacky3]

MITRS in my opinion Capitalism is evil, and the only perpose it could possibaly searve is so that people in socialist countrys can see how well they have it. 99.9999(and a lot more 9's)% of the proletariat or working class hate being exploited. AK is not really exploited.

[man in the red suit]

exactly dude, you already proved my point. Now you have capitalism so that socialists can see how backwards it is and promote socialism. I think capitlaism might have some benefits despite its evil.

[maoist3]

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union exiled Trotsky internally first before he got send out of the country
and ended up in Mexico.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/index.html

has info on the pro-Mao and pro-Stalin view against Trotsky.