Why is it MLM, not MLSM?

[Taboo Tongue]

Why is it that Maoist track back their ideology as Marx-Lenin-Mao instead of Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Mao.
I know Mao saw himself as the heir to orthodox Marxism after Stalin's death so it seems odd to just leave Stalin out of the picture.

Does MLM leave Stalin out for a reason, or just for further shortening of the Jargon?

[Lamanov]

"Marxism-Leninism" is "Stalinism", to there's no need to include "S". "Maoism" is added in order to differentiate themselves with "revisionist" Marxist-Leninists.

But who gives a fuck... :p

[Organic Revolution]

it would make the name to long, making it susceptible to wackness.

[Raúl Duke]

Probably because Mao saw himself as adding on to the theory while, to Mao, Stalin probably did not add anything, or not enough to put his name on to the thing. (i.e. Maoism emphasizes more on peasants then Lenin-Stalin. Ironically, Marx is disdainful of peasants.)

[Dros]

"Stalinism" is not a word used by "Stalinists". We prefer to call ourselves Marxist-Leninsts (or anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist). Marxism-Leninism is the same thing as Stalinism. Stalin never used the term "Stalinism". Mao was adding to and re-envisioning Marxism-Leninism (which includes the contributions of Stalin).

We include Stalin as one of the five main innovators and shapers of Marxist theory and we read Stalin and uphold his period of rule in the USSR. The fact that we don't call our ideology MLSM does not mean we aren't "Stalinists".

[Winter]

Why is it that Maoist track back their ideology as Marx-Lenin-Mao instead of Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Mao.
I know Mao saw himself as the heir to orthodox Marxism after Stalin's death so it seems odd to just leave Stalin out of the picture.

Does MLM leave Stalin out for a reason, or just for further shortening of the Jargon?

Stalin did not exactly add anything new to Marxism-Leninism, Mao did. So we call ourselves Marxist-Leninist-Maoist to show our lineage of thought through these theorists who developed new methods within Marxism.

[Dros]

Stalin did not exactly add anything new to Marxism-Leninism, Mao did. So we call ourselves Marxist-Leninist-Maoist to show our lineage of thought through these theorists who developed new methods within Marxism.

I disagree. Stalin certainly did develop and clarify the ideas of Lenin and add new parts to the science of M-L. He also made several important errors and his theoretical contributions aren't as significant. But he definitely made important contributions to Marxist theory.

[Winter]

I disagree. Stalin certainly did develop and clarify the ideas of Lenin and add new parts to the science of M-L. He also made several important errors and his theoretical contributions aren't as significant. But he definitely made important contributions to Marxist theory.

I didn't intend to make him sound insignificant, because he is very essential.

Stalin did add alot, but I wouldn't consider him a theorists to the extent that Marx, Lenin and Mao were. Lenin and Mao were the ones that made significant contributions due to their enviroments and times. They had to allow Marxism to evolve in order to fit those particular phases of history they lived within. I love Stalin's writings, I see him as developing more into Marxism-Leninism within the Soviet Union's circumstances.

He didn't come up with anything too new, for instance, he didn't have to come up with a theory in order to create socialism in a land plagued by imperialists, instead, he took what Lenin did and expanded. Stalin did clarify alot of concepts of Marxism-Leninism ( Foundations of Marxism-Leninism is great ) and showed that socialism in one country was possible, but he wasn't given the circumstances to come up with new ideas like Mao was. Do you understand where I am getting at?:blink:

You said it best: "Mao was adding to and re-envisioning Marxism-Leninism (which includes the contributions of Stalin). "

[Hiero]

Probably because Mao saw himself as adding on to the theory while, to Mao, Stalin probably did not add anything, or not enough to put his name on to the thing. (i.e. Maoism emphasizes more on peasants then Lenin-Stalin. Ironically, Marx is disdainful of peasants.)

Not really.

Lenin, Stalin and Mao both realised that the peasant majority is something that can't be ignored. Marx is disdainful about peasants because Western Europe capitalism is his main focus of study. The peasantry in his time was being wiped out by modern industrial capitalism. Peasants were freed from their land ties and moved into cities and towns as "free" labours. The remaining peasantry would eventually disolve under capitalism and the individuals incorporated into the system as proleteriat. Having a political movement of peasants would just be reactionary, as it only work to slow the process of their own demise.

Russia and more so China had a huge undeveloped countryside that applying Marx's "disdainful" attitude towards peasantry would make no sense. In China and Russia it couldn't just be assumed that the country side would follow the lead in development of the industrial cities similar to the peasants under capitalism and eventually be incorpated into the socialist system as proleteriat. During the People's war against Japan, the Civil war and the revolution, the peasantry were playing a progressive part in breaking down feudal and colonial society.

Following CCP victory the peasants now play a new role in socialist construction. Just like in the USSR under Lenin and Stalin, the question was how to industrialise the country and eventually have the countryside under a socialist system. They country side was too weak to be socialised, so collectivisation was the method under Stalin and Mao. Mao also noted that there contradictions in the system between peasants and proleteriat. Mao always viewed the revolution as a proleteriat revolution, it is just the peasantry is such a huge force to ignore.

[Lamanov]

Oh, wow. This thread is ingenious.

People should only read you guys and see for themselves how all ML-isms are senseless.

Keep up the good work!

[Winter]

People should only read you guys and see for themselves how all ML-isms are senseless.


Explain please.

[chegitz guevara]

The reason it's not MLSM is because Maoists see Stalinism as a continuation of Leninism, not something new and different. As Mao developed and extended Marxism (at least according to his followers), it makes sense to talk about his contributions as something new and higher.

[Taboo Tongue]

Well thank you all.
I will say that DJ-TC is right on the:

People should only read you guys and see for themselves how all ML-isms are senseless.
I was reading what you guys said about how they had to develop and extend Marxism to fit their time and place. Only problem I see with that is, they lived in a backwards time and place. A time and place not developed enough for Marxism to be even considered. The only reason it was is because foreign Capital was already screwing China so it was an expression of both "We hate capitalism, it gets rid of our peasant way of life, but we still hate the Lords of the land."
It also seemed illogical when the Maoist (in this thread, and outside) speak of a country with a peasant majority having a proletarian revolution. Absolutely senseless, these were bourgeois revolutions. They may have been state-capitalist bourgeois, but they were still bourgeois.

However your input on my question was great. :) Thanks.

[Charles Xavier]

"Marxism-Leninism" is "Stalinism", to there's no need to include "S". "Maoism" is added in order to differentiate themselves with "revisionist" Marxist-Leninists.

But who gives a fuck... :p


I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and I don't think Stalin contributed to theory, he contributed to practice. How can I be a Stalinist?

[Hiero]

It also seemed illogical when the Maoist (in this thread, and outside) speak of a country with a peasant majority having a proletarian revolution. Absolutely senseless, these were bourgeois revolutions. They may have been state-capitalist bourgeois, but they were still bourgeois.

And Mao realised this.

He called it new democracy or bourgeios democratic revolution, new democratic revolution.

It is a rather chauvinist attitude to think that the Chinese Communist didn't understand these problems. It is also really quite contradictory too to claim we don't understand undevelopment hindering proleteriat revolution. On the one hand proleteriat revolution is impossible in these undeveloped countries, so they are bound to fail. Then for instance the Nepalese Maoist get alot of shit for not creating socialism right now and selling out. So then on the other hand they are criticised for not nationalising rice paddy fields in the name of socialism.

Maoism today to me is a mix of pragmatic prepration in regards to material conditions, while uncder guidance of a Marxist-Leninist ideology that does not forgot class struggle.

[Dros]

Explain please.

He's an anarchist and a troll. Why bother?