Marxist-Leninism

[Rawthentic]

I have been wondering are "Marxist-Leninists" only the Stalinists, Maoists, Castroists, (some Trots), etc? In other words, if I agree with Marx's and Lenin's theories, can I call myself a Marxist-Leninist while not being Stalinist or Trotskyist (and of course considering we live in the era of imperialism)?

I considered this more after reading this site: Communist Voice (http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/#Where%20we%20stand)

[Barry]

Stalinism, Maoism and Castroism all have their different interpertations of Marxism and Leninism, i would only call myself one of these groups if i agreed with all their policies. Stalinism is quite different from marxism, a high level of beurocracy and a dictatorship for example

[The Author]

I am a Marxist-Leninist who upholds the Soviet Union up to the Khrushchevite counter-revolution, and then I look at it very critically. I uphold the People's Republic of China until Dengist revisionism liquidated the socialist mode of production. I also uphold Socialist Albania and Socialist Vietnam until revisionist rot corrupted them. And finally, I uphold the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (while many argue they advocate a nationalist theory, Juche happens to have a Marxist-Leninist origin, and this is why I look favorably on the D.P.R.K., though criticize them as well in instances of their personality cult view of the Kims, how they did not concentrate enough on agriculture and could have grown crops suited to their latitudes and climates) and Socialist Cuba (though I criticize how Cuba made serious mistakes in the past, namely: pursuing sugar monoculture, not developing enough large-scale production to remove their dependence on the U.S.S.R.- although the blame also falls on the Khrushchevites as well) as of currently, and look positively on Belarus and Venezuela, yet reserve some serious criticisms as to the political and economic character of both countries.

I hate to divide the theory into tendencies of "Castroism," "Hoxhaism," "Maoism," "Orthodox Leninism," and especially "Stalinism." Different material conditions in different countries in different periods of history called for different methods. There is no "one-size fits all" formula to how to approach communism: that is dogma. I look positively on the Trots and the Anarchists as fighters towards the common goal of stateless communism; it's only the theoretical question of how to get there and the historical actions of their leaders that bothers me.


dictatorship for example

Define "dictatorship." All Marxists subscribe to a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Trotskyism is not Marxism-Leninism!

[PigmerikanMao]

I'm sorry, but no, trotskyism is simple revisionism. In no way is trotskyism Marxist Leninism. :huh:

[The Author]

If the above two posts are directed towards me, I agree that Trotskyism is not Marxism-Leninism but one of the trends of revisionism. That is why I said, "it's only the theoretical question of how to get there and the historical actions of their leaders that bothers me." I don't have any problem against Trots personally (or Anarchists either).

[R_P_A_S]

go to church for fuck sakes with all your damn "ISMS" :lol:

[Random Precision]

I have been wondering are "Marxist-Leninists" only the Stalinists, Maoists, Castroists, (some Trots), etc? In other words, if I agree with Marx's and Lenin's theories, can I call myself a Marxist-Leninist while not being Stalinist or Trotskyist (and of course considering we live in the era of imperialism)?

I considered this more after reading this site: Communist Voice (http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/#Where%20we%20stand)

(emphasis mine)

Trotskyism, if that term indeed has any meaning, is not only a Marxist-Leninist ideology, but is considered by those who accept it to be the continuation and development of orthodox Leninism. The term "Marxism-Leninism" just happens to have been co-opted by Stalinists and Maoists.

And I wish you wouldn't use the term "Trots". Just a pet peeve of mine, regardless of any associated slander it might contain.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I think we should avoid using the term "Trot". It causes an unnecessary level of conflict.

And, Comrade CriticizeEverythingAlways, I agree with everything you said, except the issue of North Korea.

I view Juche as a serious deviation from Marxism-Leninism, and I feel that it arose as a result of specific social conditions in North Korea. North Korea is not a dictatorship of the proletariat any more. The ruling-party, led by Kim Jong-Il, has successfully established itself as a national-bourgeois ruling-class.

As such, North Korea has long ceased to be a dictatorship of the proletariat. However, I support North Korean resistance to First World imperialism, as I would support any other Third-world power resisting Imperialism (Iran for instance).

[Rawthentic]

Well thats all splendid comrades, but can someone reply to my former post?

I see myself as a non-Trotskyist, non-Stalinist (or Maoist) Marxist-Leninist who opposes capitalism in all its forms. I put Marx's and Lenin's theories together and get "Marxism-Leninism." Oh, and I see the October Revolution as the only proletarian revolution in history.

[Panda Tse Tung]

To directly respond to the question:

Yes, you can label yourself a Marxist-Leninist without having to use sub-labels such as Maoism, Hoxhaism, Trotskyism or whateverism. They are many times contributions to the Marxist-Leninist theory (arguably right or not that does not mater).

Of course i think you wont hold such a 'label' for long cause you will be confronted with questions such as 'at what point did the Soviet Union degenerate' and especially 'why did the Soviet Union degenerate'. And the response you will have towards such specific historical questions mostly determines your later development towards a certain current (as happened with me). Because these historical questions also partly determine the ideology you develop around it. For example, Maoists are in support of a Cultural Revolution. A theory that developed out of the dispute between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China (Of course i could go more in-depth on this, but i doubt there is a necessity at this point).

[Rawthentic]

Well yes when confronted with such questions I would formulate my positions according to what I think happened.

I never try to reject anything completely, I think it is important to take from something what is necessary and discard what is not necessary or useful.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 31, 2007 02:40 pm
I have been wondering are "Marxist-Leninists" only the Stalinists, Maoists, Castroists, (some Trots), etc? In other words, if I agree with Marx's and Lenin's theories, can I call myself a Marxist-Leninist while not being Stalinist or Trotskyist (and of course considering we live in the era of imperialism)?

I considered this more after reading this site: Communist Voice (http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/#Where%20we%20stand)
That link was in my profile, and it took you this long to visit that site? "Shame" on you, sir! ;) :D

The term "Marxist-Leninist" sounds almost agglutinative that it doesn't sound good. A select few around here prefer the term "Leninist Marxist" (affirming the Marxist roots while subscribing primarily to Lenin's interpretations of said roots).

Last, but not least, to be a genuine "Leninist Marxist," you'd have to be very critical of the Bolshevik era, as well (you should start with the sellout of the Finnish proletariat). I daresay that "Leninist Marxism" (revolutionary Marxism in general) is further left of official Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism), Bolshevik-Leninism (Trotskyism), and Maoism than many of us here think (while not necessarily going as far left as the left-communists).

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2

[Rawthentic]

Actually, I had visited that site a lot sooner before.

And of course, everyone here knows that I am highly critical of the Bolshevik-era.

I suppose I am looking for a label that can I best identify with, and Hammer's 'Leninist Marxism' seems to fit that, as I am very political close to Hammer.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Hammer+August 01, 2007 10:37 pm--> (Hammer @ August 01, 2007 10:37 pm)
Voz de la Gente [email protected] 31, 2007 02:40 pm
I have been wondering are "Marxist-Leninists" only the Stalinists, Maoists, Castroists, (some Trots), etc? In other words, if I agree with Marx's and Lenin's theories, can I call myself a Marxist-Leninist while not being Stalinist or Trotskyist (and of course considering we live in the era of imperialism)?

I considered this more after reading this site: Communist Voice (http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/#Where%20we%20stand)
That link was in my profile, and it took you this long to visit that site? "Shame" on you, sir! ;) :D

The term "Marxist-Leninist" sounds almost agglutinative that it doesn't sound good. A select few around here prefer the term "Leninist Marxist" (affirming the Marxist roots while subscribing primarily to Lenin's interpretations of said roots).

Last, but not least, to be a genuine "Leninist Marxist," you'd have to be very critical of the Bolshevik era, as well (you should start with the sellout of the Finnish proletariat). I daresay that "Leninist Marxism" (revolutionary Marxism in general) is further left of official Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism), Bolshevik-Leninism (Trotskyism), and Maoism than many of us here think (while not necessarily going as far left as the left-communists).

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2 [/b]
With Hammer's definition in mind, "Leninist Marxist" seems to fit better than "Marxist-Leninist" (considering I don't subscribe to 'stalinist' principles). Leninist Marxist fits better, will use that.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is a somewhat difficult issue as both Trotskists and Stalinists argue that Lenin was in full agreement with the interpretations and policies associated with these respective ideologies and use quotes from Lenin's works to support this position.


Oh, and I see the October Revolution as the only proletarian revolution in history.

I don't want to divert the focus of this thread, but how then, would you describe the Spanish Revolution of 1936? The resulting society is often cited as an example of workers' self management (WSM) and liberation - what was the class character of this society?

[RGacky3]

I don't want to divert the focus of this thread, but how then, would you describe the Spanish Revolution of 1936? The resulting society is often cited as an example of workers' self management (WSM) and liberation - what was the class character of this society?


That revolutoin did'nt follow really Marxist ideology, and it was'nt done strictly by Marxists, but it definately was a true workers revolution (both peasent and proletarian).

Also I've heard Castroist before, but I never really knew it was an actualy ideology, just something that Capitalist Media can label anything Latin American and Leftist :P.

Although I"m not at all an expert on the subject, I have heard Stalinists use Marxist-Leninist to discribe themselves as if it was an exclusive term for them, but I've also heard the term used many times by Leninists who oppose Stalin, so I guess it just depends who your talking too.

[McCaine]

The real answer is, what does it matter? Whether or not a given theory is "real" such-and-so-ism is only of historical and philosophical interest, and not even much of that. It is surely of no practical importance? So unless you can show why in a specific case we have a reason to care about this question, I don't see why you should worry about it.

[Herman]

"Hmm... Which shall I choose?"

"Sir, have you tried out our trotskyism?"

"No, I haven't"

"Here"

"Hmm... I don't know, I don't like Trotsky too much..."

"How about some Stalinism or maoism?"

"They're... not what i'm looking for..."

"Hmm... perhaps you'd like some of our original marxism-leninism?"

"Sounds good. I'd rather take the original"

I call this play, "Shopping for ideologies".

[black magick hustla]

"Trotskyism" and "Anti-revisonism" are labels that arose from historical circumstances and are irrelevant anymore.

Its just a way of slinging shit at each other for things that don't exist anymore.

[McCaine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:29 pm
"Trotskyism" and "Anti-revisonism" are labels that arose from historical circumstances and are irrelevant anymore.

Its just a way of slinging shit at each other for things that don't exist anymore.
Finally someone here who talks some sense.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:29 pm
"Trotskyism" and "Anti-revisonism" are labels that arose from historical circumstances and are irrelevant anymore.

Its just a way of slinging shit at each other for things that don't exist anymore.
Actually, whether you call yourself a Trotskyist or Anti-Revisionist changes your perspective on the current-day situation (and the possible future-situation). And is thus very important.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 18, 2007 01:05 pm
Actually, whether you call yourself a Trotskyist or Anti-Revisionist changes your perspective on the current-day situation (and the possible future-situation). And is thus very important.
Yes, I agree on this point. How you see the past affects how you see the present and future, you can't just dismiss one and keep the rest. However, I have not given up hope on future cooperation (although it is unlikely at this time).

[McCaine]

Originally posted by No. 2+October 18, 2007 01:05 pm--> (No. 2 @ October 18, 2007 01:05 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 06:29 pm
"Trotskyism" and "Anti-revisonism" are labels that arose from historical circumstances and are irrelevant anymore.

Its just a way of slinging shit at each other for things that don't exist anymore.
Actually, whether you call yourself a Trotskyist or Anti-Revisionist changes your perspective on the current-day situation (and the possible future-situation). And is thus very important. [/b]
Does it? It is an indication of your views on certain historical issues. But for practically all practical matters, especially in the developed world, it should make no difference at all. Why should Stalinists and Trotskyists fight when there is a strike to be supported, or a candidate to be chosen for elections, or a protest march to be organized? For all these things and many more, whether you think Piatakov really went to the Bristol Hotel years after it ceased to exist makes no difference at all.

[Scientific]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:28 pm
Stalinism, Maoism and Castroism all have their different interpertations of Marxism and Leninism, i would only call myself one of these groups if i agreed with all their policies. Stalinism is quite different from marxism, a high level of beurocracy and a dictatorship for example
Stalin was bureaucratic what a great language! If Stalin was bureaucratic then What is Marxism – Leninism? I know this time world’s revisionist power is up that is why they are crying about Stalin because they want to follow Khrushev. We and like me people know the power of Stalin which worked for working class that is why we have written in defense of Stalin.

[MarxSchmarx]

For all these things and many more, whether you think Piatakov really went to the Bristol Hotel years after it ceased to exist makes no difference at all.

Amen brother. Another example. Differences of interpretation of the liquidation of Bakharin seem to be our Achille's heel. I can understand legitimate arguments about whether contemporary Cuba is truly revolutionary or has just perpetuated class society, but COME ON!

McCaine is right on the money. In contemporary developed societies, whether Stalin merely continued the Czarist tradition, betrayed the revolution, or upheld Marxist-Leninism is largely irrelevant.

Now, when it comes to visions of "What is to be done" in the global north, as far as I can tell most Marxist-Leninists agree. Where there is legitimate disagreement is among "Marxist-Leninists", social democrats, and anarchists/Left Marxists. There is a real conundrum that does have serious unresolved issues. But within each of these tendencies, disagreements tend to be matters of degree rather than substance.

My advice to the OP is call yourself whatever the hey you want. But be wary of groups that say "Accept (instert favorite idealogue); or else!"

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:04 am
I'm sorry, but no, trotskyism is simple revisionism. In no way is trotskyism Marxist Leninism. :huh:
Ummm.... In what way? If you actually understood Trotsky or Lenin, you would see that Trotsky was a great Leninist and an outstanding Bolshevik whose revolutionary life should be an inspiration. About "trotskyism", what do you mean by this word? It has certainly been used by revisionists. But Trotsky's actually writings are very communist if you took a moment to understand them. In some ways, Trotsky is very similar to Mao (ie Permanent Revolution and continued class struggle). The actual tenets of Trotsky's ideology are completely consistent with Marxism-Leninism. They are certainly more consistent than Stalin's interpretation.