"Leninism" without Trotskyism or Stalinism

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know if being of a rare ideological "breed" is good or bad. Whenever one hears the word "Leninism," there are usually the Trotskyists (so-called "Bolshevik-Leninists") and the Stalinists (so-called "Marxist-Leninists") - not to mention the Maoists and what not.

Last night, I read Severian's elucidation on the differences between Lenin's concept of "revolutionary-democratic revolution" and Trotsky's concept of "permanent revolution" (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63787&view=findpost&p=1292279865) - particularly in regards to the peasantry (while reactionary to outright socialism, they had revolutionary potential in regards to implementing developed capitalism). In fact, he reminded me of when I read Trotsky For Beginners in high school (good cartoon book no matter what your leftist stripe, BTW ;) ) - a page with some cartoon where Lenin and Trotsky were shaking hands and declaring "Long live the world socialist revolution":

"Aha! Trotsky has become a Leninist!"
"There! Lenin has become a Trotskyist!"

[Having just re-read Trotskyism or Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm#s3), this is the ONLY point where Stalin correctly highlighted the differences between the two revolutionaries on without resorting to hyperbolic claims - even though he furthered the national-socialist agenda.]



So, with that consideration and the differences between the original "Leninism" (really little more than Marxism as Lenin interpreted it) and its "successors," who are the "Leninists" on this board?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, it depends... do I count as a Leninist if I agree with Lenin's theory of imperialism but disagree with democratic centralism and his version of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You'd be an economic "Leninist," then (but you'd have to put emphasis on monopoly power and finance capitalism above all else, INCLUDING "colonialism") ;)

[Really, that work of his was where he removed his political hat and put on the economic hat of traditional Marxism very "beautifully."]

[bezdomni]

I am a Marxist-Leninist.

I don't think either Trotsky or Stalin were the true "heirs" of Leninism, so to speak. Trotsky was forming factions within the CPSU and breaking democratic centralism, while Stalin completely failed to properly handle contradictions within the party and among the masses (specifically in his later years).

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You sound a bit Maoist to me, though ("later years"). In their criticisms of Stalin, they point exactly that ("Stalin completely failed" - as if he ever tried). Correct me if I'm grossly wrong, though.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

There is no such thing as Stalinism. Marxism-Leninism was exactly what it says it is. Stalin was not a theoretician, he was a leader and he followed what Marx and Lenin had left in a very strict fashion. Trotskyism or Leninism is a good pamphlet but I don't know what you're talking about Stalin being a "national socialist" that is upsurd. Socialism in one country was just a economic doctrine for collectivization, socialization, and industrialization in the Soviet Union. It was based of the fact that the Soviet Union needed to establish itself or be destroyed and couldn't wait in state capitalism. It was also based off of the total failure of other european revolutions. It became the doctrine for national liberation and determination.

I also agree basically with what SovietPants says about Stalin and contradictions as well as Trotsky and Democratic Centralism. I think Mao had a fairly solid analysis of Stalin and it counted alot of the top down mistakes he made and the mistakes in regards to contradiciton.

I do however think that Stalin was a "heir" of Leninism based on objective historical and materialist analysis.

[RedLenin]

LeftyHenry, can we please avoid turning this into a Stalin vs. Trotsky thread? You believe Stalin and Mao continued Leninism, I believe Trotsky continued Leninism. We will never agree.

The original question of this thread is interesting. I am sure there are some Leninists who neither follow Trotsky or Stalin, but I do not think pure "Leninism" exists in any organized form. I think the main dividing Line between "Trotskyism" and Stalinism is on the permanent revolution. I am not sure what position a plain Leninist would hold on that issue.

[bezdomni]

I am an irregular Maoist, in the sense that I am more tough on Stalin than most Maoists tend to be.

Although I fundamentally agree with Mao's criticisms of Stalin.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:46 am
LeftyHenry, can we please avoid turning this into a Stalin vs. Trotsky thread? You believe Stalin and Mao continued Leninism, I believe Trotsky continued Leninism. We will never agree.

The original question of this thread is interesting. I am sure there are some Leninists who neither follow Trotsky or Stalin, but I do not think pure "Leninism" exists in any organized form. I think the main dividing Line between "Trotskyism" and Stalinism is on the permanent revolution. I am not sure what position a plain Leninist would hold on that issue.
It's almost impossible to talk about modern Leninism without mentioning Stalin and Trotsky.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:46 am
I am sure there are some Leninists who neither follow Trotsky or Stalin, but I do not think pure "Leninism" exists in any organized form.
That's the great ironic tragedy: our "pioneer" advocated such organization, and yet only the "successor" ideologies retained such.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:46 am
LeftyHenry, can we please avoid turning this into a Stalin vs. Trotsky thread? You believe Stalin and Mao continued Leninism, I believe Trotsky continued Leninism. We will never agree.
Without turning this into a Stalin vs. Trotsky thread, I would like to ask: Does it matter any more who was the true "heir" of Leninism?

To my mind, the entire Stalin vs. Trotsky debate became moot in 1991 when the Soviet Union fell. After all, the central practical question lying at the heart of that debate was whether the Soviet Union and other self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist states were actually socialist or not. Since those states no longer exist, that question is a matter of historical interest only. I am sure that, long after the revolution, socialist historians will still be debating the exact nature of the Soviet Union.

As far as I know, all supporters of Stalin argue that the political system he created in the USSR was a necessary response to the historical conditions existing at the time. I've never met anyone who believed that any future socialist society has to follow the Soviet model.

So, other than purely historical questions and the one issue of the permanent revolution, what else are "Stalinists" and "Trotskyists" arguing over today? Their differences have become largely irrelevant, and I see no reason to keep the communist movement divided over them. We need to look more to the future and less to the past. We need to spend less time trying to figure out the exact nature of the USSR and spend more time working for the next revolution, and the next socialist society.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 13, 2007 05:56 am--> (Edric O @ April 13, 2007 05:56 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 05:46 am
LeftyHenry, can we please avoid turning this into a Stalin vs. Trotsky thread? You believe Stalin and Mao continued Leninism, I believe Trotsky continued Leninism. We will never agree.
Without turning this into a Stalin vs. Trotsky thread, I would like to ask: Does it matter any more who was the true "heir" of Leninism?

To my mind, the entire Stalin vs. Trotsky debate became moot in 1991 when the Soviet Union fell. After all, the central practical question lying at the heart of that debate was whether the Soviet Union and other self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist states were actually socialist or not. Since those states no longer exist, that question is a matter of historical interest only. I am sure that, long after the revolution, socialist historians will still be debating the exact nature of the Soviet Union.

As far as I know, all supporters of Stalin argue that the political system he created in the USSR was a necessary response to the historical conditions existing at the time. I've never met anyone who believed that any future socialist society has to follow the Soviet model.

So, other than purely historical questions and the one issue of the permanent revolution, what else are "Stalinists" and "Trotskyists" arguing over today? Their differences have become largely irrelevant, and I see no reason to keep the communist movement divided over them. We need to look more to the future and less to the past. We need to spend less time trying to figure out the exact nature of the USSR and spend more time working for the next revolution, and the next socialist society. [/b]
The problem is that Trotskyism is not an interpretation of Leninism, or and continuation upon it, but a completly seperate and historicly opposed doctrine, and how modern Tortskyites manage to ignore this is beyond me.

[RedLenin]

but a completly seperate and historicly opposed doctrine
That is just wrong. "Trotskyists" agree with all of the theoretical contributions of Lenin; his analysis of imperialism, the need for a vanguard party, etc. We, like Lenin but remarkably unlike Stalin, also defend proletarian internationalism and workers democracy. All that Trotsky did was to defend genuine Marxism and Bolshevism after the death of Lenin.


how modern Tortskyites manage to ignore this is beyond me.
Because you are wrong.


Does it matter any more who was the true "heir" of Leninism?
To a large degree yes. If we are seriously about leading the socialist revolution we need to know what method to follow; Bolshevism or Stalinism? I would contend that only by basing ourselves on the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky can we actually lead a revolution to success.


that question is a matter of historical interest only.
He who does not learn from history will forever be doomed to repeat it. The question of whether workers states have existed is critically important because, if they have, we can learn lessons from them. I would contend that two workers states existed; the Paris Commune and the Soviet state from 1917-1924. If you believe the regimes of Stalin and Hoxha were socialist, your perspective for creating socialism will be totally different.


what else are "Stalinists" and "Trotskyists" arguing over today?
Pretty much everything. Trotskyists, like Lenin, believe that the socialist revolution must be international if it is to succeed. Stalinists believe they can build socialism in one country. Trotskyists, like Lenin, believe that workers democracy is necessary for a healthy workers state. Stalinists believe that as long as the vanguard holds power and is not "revisionist" everything is fine. Most importantly of all, Trotskyists believe in the theory of permanent revolution. Stalinists believe in a form of anti-Leninist two-stageism. "Trotskyism" and Stalinism and diametrically opposed doctrines.

[Aurora]

Trotsky was forming factions within the CPSU and breaking democratic centralism
How do factions break democratic-centralism?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:01 am
Trotsky was forming factions within the CPSU and breaking democratic centralism,
Trotsky was not breaking democratic centralism.He had been more defending democratic part in it from the latter. Even after exiling him he just criticised Comitern's actions but never intended to break/weaken it. The fourth international was formed only after Stalinist Comintern's policies led to the triumph of the Nazis.

He even had the chance to completely overwhelm Troika in 1924 after Lenin's death when he still had the key position in Red Army. He didn't choose it.


while Stalin completely failed to properly handle contradictions within the party and among the masses (specifically in his later years).

On the contrary Stalin brilliantly manipulated the party,the contradiction within it from the beginning.


he problem is that Trotskyism is not an interpretation of Leninism, or and continuation upon it, but a completly seperate and historicly opposed doctrine, and how modern Tortskyites manage to ignore this is beyond me.

If you are saying some thing you should back it up properly. Please backup your argument by how Trotskyism was historically opposed to Leninism ?
__________________________________________________ ________________________

There is nothing called pure Leninism theoretically. It is just plain Marxism applied to practice.

When looking in to the theoretical contradictions between Lenin and Trotsky one has to keep in mind they had different opinion in many matters. But when it came to the struggle in real life both of them had enough flexibility to put their opinion aside and work together. As Severian pointed out in this post (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63787&view=findpost&p=1292279865) in some cases Lenin was correct and in some cases Trotsky was correct. Those who deny this historical fact are the one's who had been throughly dishonest with the actual history.

[manic expression]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, but I would have to side with the analysis of Trotskyism instead of anti-revisionism. I think the USSR was a deformed worker state due to the control of the bureaucracy (and other factors). In my opinion, Cuba is an example of a worker state that has not had the same problem of bureaucracy.

That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm a Trotskyist, however, I just agree with the Trotskyist analysis of certain issues. That being said, I admit that I need to read more of Mao's writings (any suggestions?).

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:46 am
LeftyHenry, can we please avoid turning this into a Stalin vs. Trotsky thread? You believe Stalin and Mao continued Leninism, I believe Trotsky continued Leninism. We will never agree.

The original question of this thread is interesting. I am sure there are some Leninists who neither follow Trotsky or Stalin, but I do not think pure "Leninism" exists in any organized form. I think the main dividing Line between "Trotskyism" and Stalinism is on the permanent revolution. I am not sure what position a plain Leninist would hold on that issue.
I didn't attack trotsky. I simply responded to the OP. My intention wasn't to turn it into that.


I need to read more of Mao's writings (any suggestions?).

Quotations from Mao Tse-tung of course are the best to start. Also On Contradictions and On Practice. Guerrilla warfare (Yu Chi Chan) has been basically a major (if not the) manual for guerrilla warfare, especially in the underdeveloped world and was followed by everyone from Che and Fidel (with adaptations of course) to Ho Chi Minh and Prachanda

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:29 pm
Stalinists believe in a form of anti-Leninist two-stageism. "Trotskyism" and Stalinism and diametrically opposed doctrines.
Wasn't that what Lenin advocated above, though? Interesting how you put that as "anti-Leninist," but the "subtle" difference between allying with the peasantry (Lenin) and leaning on them (Trotsky) in the immediate post-feudalist stages isn't very subtle. OTOH, are peasants still a major class in today's world (South America, for example)?


But when it came to the struggle in real life both of them had enough flexibility to put their opinion aside and work together. As Severian pointed out in this post (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63787&view=findpost&p=1292279865) in some cases Lenin was correct and in some cases Trotsky was correct. Those who deny this historical fact are the one's who had been throughly dishonest with the actual history.

Isn't what I said just above and in the other thread I linked to?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Trotsky was forming factions within the CPSU and breaking democratic centralism,

Thats right Trotsky was, because he knew the Ban on factions was meant to be a temporary measure introduced during the extremely difficult situation in early 20's Russia.

the Democratic part of 'democratic centralism' is supposed to allow for internal party democracy.

And, since it didn't get repealed, when it should have been, democratic centralism ceased to function and was quickly exploited.



The problem is that Trotskyism is not an interpretation of Leninism, or and continuation upon it, but a completly seperate and historicly opposed doctrine, and how modern Tortskyites manage to ignore this is beyond me.

come again?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hammer+April 14, 2007 06:18 am--> (Hammer @ April 14, 2007 06:18 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 03:29 pm
Stalinists believe in a form of anti-Leninist two-stageism. "Trotskyism" and Stalinism and diametrically opposed doctrines.
Wasn't that what Lenin advocated above, though? Interesting how you put that as "anti-Leninist," but the "subtle" difference between allying with the peasantry (Lenin) and leaning on them (Trotsky) in the immediate post-feudalist stages isn't very subtle. OTOH, are peasants still a major class in today's world (South America, for example)?
[/b]
Well you have to look in to the actions of men too.

What RedLenin mentions here is the stagiest theory principle which was applied by the Comintern in China and other countries.

That is in those countries where Industrialisation is weak and the number of workers are in a minority the workers should b subordinated to the nationalist bourgeoisie.

The original proponent of this theory were - Mensheviks . This was one of the prime reasons of the split in the RSDLP between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.
Lenin's theses against this theory along with Permanent Revolution. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/index.htm)

After Lenin's death and consolidation of power in party,state and comintern Stalin followed the Menshevik theory. In China Stalin was opposed to the formation of dual power against the Kuomintang when in reality Chiang has just started to destroy communists in KMT.
Source (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/05/09.htm)

Mao took it even further and called for alliance with National Bouregeoiusie
On the Peoples Democratic Dictatorship (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_65.htm)




But when it came to the struggle in real life both of them had enough flexibility to put their opinion aside and work together. As Severian pointed out in this post (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63787&view=findpost&p=1292279865) in some cases Lenin was correct and in some cases Trotsky was correct. Those who deny this historical fact are the one's who had been throughly dishonest with the actual history.

Isn't what I said just above and in the other thread I linked to?

Yes . But I wanted to add it to my argument too.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:22 am
What RedLenin mentions here is the stage-ist theory principle which was applied by the Comintern in China and other countries.

That is in those countries where Industrialisation is weak and the number of workers are in a minority the workers should be subordinated to the nationalist bourgeoisie.
I stand corrected, then.


Lenin's theses against this theory along with Permanent Revolution.

Wait a minute. "Along with" permanent revolution: are you saying that Lenin was for this, in spite of what Severian and I said before about the revolutionary-democratic revolution? :huh:

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hammer+April 14, 2007 07:46 pm--> (Hammer @ April 14, 2007 07:46 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 11:22 am
What RedLenin mentions here is the stage-ist theory principle which was applied by the Comintern in China and other countries.

That is in those countries where Industrialisation is weak and the number of workers are in a minority the workers should be subordinated to the nationalist bourgeoisie.
I stand corrected, then.


Lenin's theses against this theory along with Permanent Revolution.

Wait a minute. "Along with" permanent revolution: are you saying that Lenin was for this, in spite of what Severian and I said before about the revolutionary-democratic revolution? :huh:[/b]

No I actually I meant Lenin theses against the two stage theory and permanent revolution.

[RedLenin]

I would like to point out that Lenin did actually come around to the theory of Permanent Revolution. His original position was that the proletariat and poor peasantry would come to power in a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry". He felt that, in Russia, the proletariat could only accomplish the bourgeois-democratic tasks. However, the revolution would cause other revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries and, once those revolutions succeeded, the Russian proletariat could move on to the socialist tasks.

Trotsky's theory was that the Russian proletariat, allied with the poor peasantry, must take power and carry out the bourgeois-democratic tasks, but then move on to the socialist tasks. Trotsky also felt that such a revolution would spark other revolutions in advanced countries. Trotsky felt that the proletariat could not stop halfway and only carry out the bourgeois-democratic tasks. In order to maintain it's power, it would be necessary to carry out the socialist tasks as well. So as can be seen, Lenin and Trotsky's theories were very similar.

Now, which theory was actually put into practice? Anyone who is familiar with the Russian Revolution should see that it was Trotsky's theory that was put into practice, very successfully at that. As Lenin and Trotsky had said, the bourgeoisie was totally reactionary and completely unable to carry out the bourgeois-democratic tasks. This was proven by Kerensky's regime. In his April Thesis, Lenin called for the proletariat to take power. The proletariat took power and carried out the bourgeois-democratic tasks and the socialist tasks. The theory of Permanent Revolution was put into practice. Lenin abandoned his slogan of the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" and even criticized other Bolsheviks for continuing to use that slogan. And considering that the Permanent Revolution was put into practice, I think it is safe to say that Lenin came over to the Permanent Revolution as opposed to his old idea.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ From this website, right? (http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=519) Then what of Trotsky's and other Bolsheviks' attempts to militarize the trade unions - and Lenin's staunch opposition (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists)?

[RedLenin]

Lenin was right, Trotsky was wrong. I never said that Lenin and Trotsky never had any disagreements.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:16 pm
Lenin was right, Trotsky was wrong. I never said that Lenin and Trotsky never had any disagreements.
The difference between the two individuals, though, is that, while one did contribute much to revolutionary theory, the other focused on post-revolutionary matters.

[Led Zeppelin]

Trotsky took back most, if not all, of his earlier disagreements with Lenin. Read some of his works, he actually acknowledges that Lenin was right and he was wrong on several occasions.

I used to be a Orthodox Leninist as well, but then I actually read and understood Trotsky, so usually with Orthodox Leninists it's the fact that they haven't read Trotsky that they choose to be one.

[Severian]

Do any of these labels mean anything consistent or definite?

And does it matter what label you use?

For example, I don't use the label "Trotskyist", but that certainly doesn't stop other people from applying it to me. It'd be a full-time job to constantly correct them - if I cared.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:30 am
I would like to point out that Lenin did actually come around to the theory of Permanent Revolution.
That's untrue. Old detailed refutation of the claim that Lenin adopted Permanent Revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50710&st=25&#entry1292092433)

I think your description of Lenin's perspective is not entirely accurate, either: IIRC he was aware that the working class, having taken power, would inevitably have to make inroads on capitalist property. It's just that in the initial period the emphasis would be on the bourgeois-democratic tasks of the revolution.

As in fact happened (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/14.htm)

[Red Menace]

i like this topic.
i do consider myself to be a "leninist"