Closer (in your view) to Leninism ?

[John Lenin]

I am interested in others views on this.

Feel free to elaborate justification for your opinion.

Thanks.

[Holden Caulfield]

i don't think Lenin had the times or conditions to fufill "Leninism", Trotskyism is a continuation of what it is theoretically and what it would have been given time, Trotsky disagreed with Lenin on many occasions but was true to the ideals of marxism

Stalin paid lip service to Leninism to justify what he wanted to do,

Stalinism is the worst parts of what Lenin had to do to secure the revolution against whites and interventionists, twisted into a corrupt, despotic and more ruthless form,

pre-revolution Stalin was a good comrade, but he was no more than a committee man and organiser

[gla22]

Stalin paid lip service to Leninism to justify what he wanted to do,

This seems really self explanatory.

[Winter]

I think history would have turned out way differently when it comes to peoples perceptions of Stalin if he never gained his position.

Say, if Trotsky was in charge of the Soviet Union, the majority of people would be more sympathetic towards Stalin because the western capitalists would know who the biggest threat was. The smear campaign would have been against Trotsky, demonizing his every move, while the majority of modern Leftists would look at Stalin as an outsider figure who could have changed things forever if he were in Trotsky's position.

My point is that when you have the vast majority of the world waging a smear campaign against you, it doesn't matter who you are and what your achievements may have been. Propaganda has been the strongest tool used against the western proletariat.

Saying that, I must prepare for the oncoming onslaught against me... ;)

[John Lenin]

I think history would have turned out way differently when it comes to peoples perceptions of Stalin if he never gained his position.

Saying that, I must prepare for the oncoming onslaught against me... ;)

I respect that position, and feel that it "may" be correct.

I would hope that posters here would respect that view as well and not "bring an onslaught".

[Le Drapeau Noir]

I think history would have turned out way differently when it comes to peoples perceptions of Stalin if he never gained his position.

Say, if Trotsky was in charge of the Soviet Union, the majority of people would be more sympathetic towards Stalin because the western capitalists would know who the biggest threat was. The smear campaign would have been against Trotsky, demonizing his every move, while the majority of modern Leftists would look at Stalin as an outsider figure who could have changed things forever if he were in Trotsky's position.

My point is that when you have the vast majority of the world waging a smear campaign against you, it doesn't matter who you are and what your achievements may have been. Propaganda has been the strongest tool used against the western proletariat.

Saying that, I must prepare for the oncoming onslaught against me... ;)

It does matter who you are and it matters what methods you take to attain and maintain the revolution. In this, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin failed miserably.

Edit: To add Lenin

[Tower of Bebel]

Just like "leninism" "Lenin" can have several meanings. So this may become a futile discussion.

I say Trotsky was closer to Lenin since Stalin had the material conditions against him. Trotsky was less restricted by the aweful conditions in which the Soviet Union had to rebuild itself and the numerous struggles within the bureaucracy. Both Stalin and Trotsky made mistakes but Trotsky was kicked out... so he was less involved with any crualties committed by the Soviet bureaucracy.

Lenin died when the revolution had died; he died at a moment when the (false) policies of the Comintern began to catch up with reality. Maybe he died just in time?

[PigmerikanMao]

Trotsky, though he was far too revisionist. In this, he differed greatly from lenin, even if his line was closer to that than of stalin.

[Kitskits]

This is in the theory section, so it would be correct to state where Stalin deviates from Leninism, where he is theoretically revisionist (if he is) and not just slandering Stalin about repression and authoritarianism, because
a) this is 'great men of history' ideology, because it is like simply stating that the Soviet Union would be better with Trotsky for no apparent reason...
b) you are easy target for Marxist-Leninists because an enormous percentage about anti-soviet stalin era/anti-stalin 'historic facts' are or could be bogus.

I want clear theoretical points where Stalin was revisionist, or clear practical points where he negated the Leninist theory.

[BobKKKindle$]

In theoretical terms, Trotsky upheld Lenin's ideas. Lenin repeatedly emphasized the importance of spreading the revolution to the more advanced states, as he recognized that the revolution would not be able to survive if it was limited to Russia, due to the lack of industrial development (which could only be overcome through the provision of economic support by states which had already endured an extended period of capitalist development) and the threat of invasion by the capitalist bloc. Stalin disregarded this principle and argued that socialism could be developed within the borders of a single country, which directly contradicts Lenin's analysis. Stalin also rejected the principles of democratic centralism by obstructing open discussion inside the party and appointing party officials through administrative decisions from above, which signified a further departure from Lenin, as Lenin always upheld party democracy, even when the party was faced with intense external pressures and difficult conditions.

[Led Zeppelin]

This belongs in History not Theory.

[Led Zeppelin]

It does matter who you are and it matters what methods you take to attain and maintain the revolution. In this, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin failed miserably.

Edit: To add Lenin

And Makhno, Durruti, and virtually every other anarchist, did not? :huh:

[Winter]

Leninism teaches that "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale" (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). This means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat is a force without which the problem of the final victory of Socialism in one country cannot be solved.
This, of course, does not mean that we must sit with folded arms and wait for assistance from outside. On the contrary, this assistance of the international proletariat must be combined with our work to strengthen the defence of our country, to strengthen the Red Army and the Red Navy, to mobilise the whole country for the purpose of resisting military attack and attempts to restore bourgeois relations.




Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and to think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at a military attack upon the U.S.S.R. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that.
No less ridiculous would it be to deny that in the event of the slightest success of military intervention, the interventionists would try to destroy the Soviet system in the districts they occupied and restore the bourgeois system.




Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration? Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country. It follows that this question contains two different problems : 1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and 2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.




We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country. We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries. But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final. But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved. More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country. The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people.




I would like unpleasant things like capitalist encirclement, the danger of military attack, the danger of the restoration of capitalism, etc., to be things of the past. Unfortunately, however, these unpleasant things still exist.


These excerpts were taken from Stalin's letter to Comrade Ivanov, which can be found in its entirety here: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm

The U.S.S.R. had no choice but to advance into an early stage of socialism in order to compete with hostile capitalists countries. Stalin knew if he left the Soviet Union waiting for the rest of the world to start a socialist revolution, his country would be left helpless and without industry. To simply wait for the rest of the world to revolt, without any effort to defend your progress, is idealistic and fatalistic, for it would eventually lead to a violent counter-revolution, taking apart the proletariat victories that were already established. Saying this, I do not see how Stalin betrayed Leninism at all.

[John Lenin]

This belongs in History not Theory.
Actually I meant for it to be in Theory ... as I am interested in how their theories stack up in comparison to Leninism.

[Led Zeppelin]

Actually I meant for it to be in Theory ... as I am interested in how their theories stack up in comparison to Leninism.

That is a theoretical issue that is historical as well, because your question was specifically a historical one, so it belongs in here in my opinion.

[Le Drapeau Noir]

And Makhno, Durruti, and virtually every other anarchist, did not? :huh:

Do you think the Makhnovists failed on their own or could it have been as a result of Bolshevik persecution and destruction? This can be applied to Durruti and the Spanish anarchists as well - the undermining by those that were controlled from Moscow.

Edit: to include Durruti (am in a rush for time)

[Winter]

Stalin.

"The theory of "socialism in one country" did not orginate with Stalin but with Lenin. In 1915, in his article "On the Slogan for a United States of Europe," Lenin argued that "the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone." He foresaw "a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle" internationally that could begin like this in one country: "After expropriating the capitalists and organizing their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world -the capitalists world - attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."

Of course, at the end of World War I most Bolsheviks expected revolution to break out in many of the European capitalist countries. In fact, many of the returning soldiers did turn their guns around. A revolutionary government was established in Hungary and Slovakia. Germany and Bulgaira for a while were covered by soviets of workers, peasants, and soldiers. But counterrevolution swept all these away.

Trotsky and his supporters continued to believe that the proletariat of Europe was ready to make socialist revolution. They also believed that unless this happened, the proletariat would be unable to maintain power in the Soviet Union. They belittled the role of the peasantry as an ally of the Russian proletariat and saw very little potential in the national liberation movements of the predominantly peasant countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Their so-called "Left opposition" put forward the theory of "permanent revolution," which pinned its hopes on an imminant uprising of the industrial proletariat of Europe. They saw the world revolution then spreading outward from these "civilized" countries to the "backward" regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Stalin was not about to give up on socialism in the Soviet Union simply because history was not turning out exactly the way theorists had wanted, with revolution winning out quickly in the most advanced capitalist countries. He saw that the Soviet revolution had indeed been able to maintain itself against very powerful enemies at home and abroad. Beside, the Soviet Union was a vast country whose rich national resources gave it an enormous potential for industrial and social development. He stood for building socialism in this one country and turning it into an inspiration and base area for the oppressed classes and nation throughout the world. He believed that, helped by both the example and material support of a socialist Soviet Union, the tide of revolution would eventually begin rising again, and that, in turn, proletarian revolution in Europe and national liberation struggles in the rest of the world would eventually break the Soviet isolation.

There are two parts to the concept of socialism in one country. Emphasis is usually placed only on the part that says "one country". Equally important is the idea that only socialism, and not communism, can be achieved prior to the time when the victory of the world revoluton has been won. A Communist society would have no classes, no money, no scarcity, and no state, that is, no army, police force, prisons, and courts. There is no such society in the world, and no society claims to be Communist. A socialist society, according to Marxism-Leninism, is the transitional form on the road to communism. Classes and class struggle still exist, all the material needs of the people have not as yet been met, and there is indeed a state, a government of the working class known as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Neither Lenin nor Stalin ever had any illusion that any single country, even one as vast and potentially rich as the Soviet Union, would ever be able to establish a stateless, classless society, while capitalism still had power in the rest of the world. But Stalin, like Lenin, did believe that the Soviet Union could eliminate capitalism, industrialize, extend the power of the working class, and wipe out real material privation all during the period of capitalist encirclement.

To do this, Stalin held, the proletariat would have to rely on the peasantry. He rejected Trotsky's scorn for the Russian peasants and saw them, rather than the European proletariat, as the only ally that could come to the immediate aid of the Russian workers."

Taken from the intro of The Essential Stalin

[OI OI OI]

This is in the theory section, so it would be correct to state where Stalin deviates from Leninism, where he is theoretically revisionist (if he is) and not just slandering Stalin about repression and authoritarianism, because
a) this is 'great men of history' ideology, because it is like simply stating that the Soviet Union would be better with Trotsky for no apparent reason...
b) you are easy target for Marxist-Leninists because an enormous percentage about anti-soviet stalin era/anti-stalin 'historic facts' are or could be bogus.

I want clear theoretical points where Stalin was revisionist, or clear practical points where he negated the Leninist theory.




I have outlined the differences between Stalinism and Leninism on several ocassions.

As Socialism in one country was mentioned already I won't bother with it.

The other is the Stage Theory which states that backwards countries cannot have socialist revolutions and that there should be class collaboration between the proletairat and the capitalists so the capitalists can bring about the capitalist revolution first.

But Lenin and Trotsky argued that the bourgeoisie in backwards countries are tied hand and foot to foreign imperialism so they are not progressive .
So there should be no class collaboration between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

That was proved in Russia (a backwards country) which had a workers revolution !!
In that way Stalinism differs with LEninism and is closer to Menshevism .
The Mensheviks thought that the bourgeoisie is progressive etc.

But events proved both in 1905 and 1917 that the bourgeoisie did not want to overthrow Czarism if their own interests would be at stake due to the awakening of the sleeping beast ie. the proletariat after the monarchy had been ousted!

In that way Stalinism betrayed the proletariat in several occasions .

As a friend from Brazil told me . We would have a revolution if there was no communist party there:lol:

[Louis Pio]

To do this, Stalin held, the proletariat would have to rely on the peasantry. He rejected Trotsky's scorn for the Russian peasants and saw them, rather than the European proletariat, as the only ally that could come to the immediate aid of the Russian workers."


I think this quote shows very well how Stalin differed from both Marx and Lenin to a point were he cannot be considered marxist at all. Of course it's only a quote from some 3. person book but I think it captures Stalins revisionism quite well.

What the author forgots to add is of course also how Stalin later saw the european leaders as better allies than the european workers, good examples are that criminal "popular front" in France and his abandonement of the greek communists after the war.

Btw Anyone seriously interested in the subject should start reading up on the degeneration of the 3. international, there's many books on the subject.
It's a sad case indeed, it went from being a tool of proletarian internationalism under Lenin and Trotsky to being a tool for soviet russian foreign policy untill Stalin eventually closed it down as a gesture to USA and Britain.

[Winter]

I think this quote shows very well how Stalin differed from both Marx and Lenin to a point were he cannot be considered marxist at all. Of course it's only a quote from some 3. person book but I think it captures Stalins revisionism quite well.

The Russian peasants knew first hand of the pains the Czarist regime did to them. Plus, remember in the sentence you quoted it says "immediate aid", not long term aid, as if at no point workers from other countries had no part.


The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population — the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians — in the work of organizing a socialist economy.

Taken from State and Revolution


What the author forgots to add is of course also how Stalin later saw the european leaders as better allies than the european workers, good examples are that criminal "popular front" in France and his abandonement of the greek communists after the war.

The Soviet Union was the primary target of the Nazis. Many of the Soviet Unions military supplies were used up due to battles with Japan on the Eastern front. Stalin had no choice but to side with the lesser of two evils and established the "Percantages agreement" with Churchill which gave Britain a 90% influence in Greece. If Stalin were to break that, he would not have gotten any support from the allies and fascism would have taken Russia. It simply was not in the interests of long term communist revolutions to support the Greek communists at the magnitude many on the ultra left expected him to because not only would Stalin have to deal with Hitler, but the Allies as well.



It's a sad case indeed, it went from being a tool of proletarian internationalism under Lenin and Trotsky to being a tool for soviet russian foreign policy untill Stalin eventually closed it down as a gesture to USA and Britain.

Stalin had to protect the Soviet Union because it was a tool of proletariat internationalism, that's why Stalin had to look out for its best interest for the sake of world communist movements. He didn't have nationalistic intentions to look out for his country alone, but to continue to be the inspiration and supporter for other communist revolutions.

[Dros]

According to Lenin, Stalin.

[Charles Xavier]

Remember you are asking Anarchists, who is a Leninist, Trotsky or Stalin. Many here haven't even read a single article of Lenin, trotsky or stalin.

Trotsky was the one who wanted to spend everyone's blood but his in his "world revolution, where communists go on being imperialists"

[Raúl Duke]

What I wonder is what would have happened if Lenin lasted longer in power...

After all, didn't Stalin repeal the NEP right after he gain power? What's Trotsky's position on the NEP, would he have continued it for some time?

[trivas7]

What I wonder is what would have happened if Lenin lasted longer in power...

These kinds of speculative questions are pointless IMHO.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What I wonder is what would have happened if Lenin lasted longer in power...

After all, didn't Stalin repeal the NEP right after he gain power? What's Trotsky's position on the NEP, would he have continued it for some time?

Actually, Trotsky called for the end of NEP before Stalin broke his alliance with Bukharin. There were four distinct positions at the time: Trotsky (super-industrialization + world revolution), Stalin (super-industrialization + SIOC), Bukharin (NEP + SIOC), and Lenin (world revolution + most likely NEP).

If Lenin, having already engaged in unusually "good" relations with Turkey, had lived for even just three years longer, we would've gotten our answer, given the Scissors Crisis and the Chinese revolution. Methinks he would've had a mixed record here.

[Redmau5]

Stalin (super-industrialization + SIOC)

When did Stalin call for "super-industrialisation" prior to Trotsky's expulsion from the party?

[ajs2007]

When did Stalin call for "super-industrialisation" prior to Trotsky's expulsion from the party?

And when did Trotsky call for "super-industrialisation"?