Communism? Socialism? Marxism? Leninism? Maoism?

[elCHEvive]

I am fairly new at this. For about a year now I've studied many of these types of governments and movements and yet I still find it hard to see concrete differences. Will somebody please outline the major differences for me? It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[Nateddi]

this topic has been discussed atleast 5 other times

I don't particularly like dubya socialists (spoon fed). dig around for this.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=339 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=339)

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=333 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=333)

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=311 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=311)

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=339 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=339)

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=288 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=288)

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=214 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=214)

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=209 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=209)

many more.

[Marxman]

I can explain briefly about these ideologies. It's my pleasure

Communism - the highest stage of human cultural level. Here all the indications of money cease to exist. The society is classless. The impetus of humanity is based on developing and taking care of humanity. There are no families but a world-wide commune that knows no private property. Everything is everyone's property.

Socialism - a stage before communism. It happens as a byproduct of workers' democracy (first step of all). Here the society is transforming into classless but some levels still exist. Money is present but it's losing its value. Provate property is no more here.

Leninism - the same as communism. In my opinion Leninism actually created the recipe for the firs step for communism in practice. Leninism is based on a communist party that has a centralist democracy, like it was in the Bolshevik party. Leninism is actually Bolshevism (majority). This party acts as an organ/apparatus for a genuine socialist revolution. You can learn all about it if you study the October revolution.

Maoism - this can clearly be compared to Narodniks, which were present at the end of the 19th century in Russia. It's based on some kind of "peasant socialism" that is not only contradictory in practice but in theory also. For Maoists peasants are the key to the socialist revolution, which is nonsense. Mao thought he could made a socialist revolution with peasantry but he was wrong like Narodniks. Narodniks saw in practice that peasants cannot fulfill the socialist revolution. The mentality of peasants is poor compared to the PROLETARIAT. It's the proletariat that is the key to the socialist revolution. Proletariat uses the means of production and makes all kinds of products. But unfortunately means of production in capitalism are being owned by the burgeois and the proletarait must sell their labour to them. Peasants must lean on the proletarait in case of a socialist revolution. Peasants only make food, not products (machinery, tools, tractors, cars, computers, furniture, houses, dishes,...). The proletariat actually provides peasantry with the means for making food. Suffice to say, maoism is based on "peasantry socialism." And by the way, in practice maoism transformed into the most brutal stalinism. Mao Zedong was clearly a big time stalinist with monstrous purges.

(Edited by Marxman at 5:47 pm on Aug. 18, 2002)

[maoist3]

communist--someone who wants to abolish classes:
"from each according to his/her ability, to each
according to his need." No one has achieved
it yet except in the tribal societies of old.

socialist--pertaining to a stage on the way to
communism or a stage in its own right, according
to socialists who want to stop at "from each
according to his/her ability, to each according to
his/her work." (Split of opinion, with
socialists who do not endorse communism.)

Leninist--those believing a party formed from the
advanced section of the proletariat
and utilizing democratic-centralism must establish
their own leadership in Marx's "dictatorship
of the proletariat" as the strategy to go from
capitalism to socialism to communism. Leninists also
start to theorize about the "split in the working class"
and why the movement gets held back by bourgeoisified
workers and their representatives.

Maoism--following on Marx & Lenin, but adding
more theory on the nature of protracted war
against imperialist-backed landlord regimes and
also more on the subject of how capitalism can
come back after establishment of the dictatorship
of the proletariat.

********
With Lenin and Mao in particular, we see that things
that started out as a strategy questions become
"ism" questions, because once proven, people who
resist them become regarded as wishing failure
on the movement. For example, in 1902, a lot of things
could be called strategic or minor differences. But after
certain things work in practice and others don't,
many conclude that those who wish to keep doing
things the old unproven way are in fact infiltrators
trying to wreck the movement.

[Marxman]

Maoism is defnitely nonsens, just like socialism in one country theory by another stalinist STALIN.

I remember a quote from Mao that said Lenin stated that communism still has traces of capitalism! Oh boy, that Mao was more stupid than any stalinist. And how can he even think about making a socialist revolution with peasantry? Didn't he read books about Narodniks?

[maoist3]

Quote: from Marxman on 7:42 pm on Aug. 19, 2002
Maoism is defnitely nonsens, just like socialism in one country theory by another stalinist STALIN.



maoist3 replies for MIM:
It is now 2002 and the most idiotic
and religiously blinded people
calling themselves "Marxist" have not noticed that
it was those following Stalin who IMPLEMENTED
revolutions in more than one country, while
Trotskyists did not.

The proof of their stupidity is that this is the
first argument they use against followers of
Stalin! How can the rest of what they think
be worth listening to?

[peaccenicked]

Mooooaw shit head
Stalin implemented counter revolution and murdered Trotskyists. You are cold hearted brutalised monster.
You know nothing about revolution and what is to fight for human dignity. You know nothing about life. Start thinking fucking fool.

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 1:39 pm on Aug. 22, 2002
Mooooaw shit head
Stalin implemented counter revolution and murdered Trotskyists.

[email protected] replies for MIM: Now playing
racist games with Mao's name, right Peacenicked?
It does not surprise me given that racism is the only
way someone can be remotely close to Trotsky.

Trotsky deserved his assassination.
1) He called for the "liberation" of the Ukraine
just as Nazis were calling for it to unite with
German Ukrainians.
2) He called for civil war in the Soviet Union
when Nazi troops were on the border. He was
a traitor to the socialist fatherland and needed to
be shot.

His racist ideas depended on the generosity of Nazis.
Read his own words:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6B811591

[Edelweiss]

The Maoist propganda drone is back...

[Michael De Panama]

Maoism--following on Marx & Lenin

Maoist3, be an idiot all you want until your heart's content, but don't go around saying obvious stupidities like that Maoism is a following of Marx. Come on, Mao wasn't in the least interested in Marx. You should know better.

It is now 2002 and the most idiotic
and religiously blinded people
calling themselves "Marxist" have not noticed that
it was those following Stalin who IMPLEMENTED
revolutions in more than one country, while
Trotskyists did not.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

I'm sorry, this is seriously stupider than anything I've ever seen on this whole fucking message board. You're not being serious, are you? If so, then that is quite sad.

Do me a favor. Go open a history book and look up who was in charge of the Red Army, smart one.

[Marxman]

Maoist3, you are embarrassing yourself. I've looked at this MIM web page and laughed like a piggy. You said Marx is utopian and yet I see that your MIM follows Marxism. Your MIM is full of contradictory elements and it has no clue about communism. If you don't understand Marx, you don't understand communism and that's period.