Why is Leninist Marxist so popular?

[Black Sheep]

As a marxist current,and as a revolutionary ideology general.

Is it because of the victorious revolution in Russia?

[chegitz guevara]

yep

[Tower of Bebel]

In no specific order:

1. Lenin was a brilliant revolutionary
2. The Russian Revolution, though it had to lean on a peasant society, was in many ways successful
3. Stalin, Mao and Trotsky, who were the leaders of important communist currents, saw themselves as successors of Lenin
4. The Second International collapsed; Lenin tried to rebuild a revolutionary workers' movement
5. Lenin did not create a new and very specific current, he was a theoretician of marxism.

[jake williams]

Marx is popular here at least because with some simplification, he's the father of the revolutionary left - it was in many ways born out of his critique of "reformist" bourgeois socialism.

[Red October]

In many ways, it's because of the "success" of the Russian Revolution and USSR. When the Leninists succeeded in the USSR, it put them in a good position to influence revolutionary movements elsewhere in the world through material, logistical, and political support.

[World Anarchism]

it was in many ways born out of his critique of "reformist" bourgeois socialism.

No, there was no reformism at the time. Reformism was born by Kautsky and the German-Social democrats and the French social-democrats as well in the begining of the 20th century.

At Marx's time there was no scientific socialism, only utopian. That was what Marx and Engels established.


But this was not the OP's question.

The OP asked why is the Leninist current the most popular of all the marxist currents.

In an attempt to answer the question , although a non-Marxist myself , it is because Lenin re-stated and expanded Marxism in a period where the 2nd International was in decay.

In a period where all the Social-Democratic parties were falling to reformism.

And through this re-statement of revolutionary Marxist ideas Lenin won a lot of support especialy after the successfull revolution in Russia.

[jake williams]

No, there was no reformism at the time. Reformism was born by Kautsky and the German-Social democrats and the French social-democrats as well in the begining of the 20th century.
The use of the term is appropriate, but maybe not in " "s because there's been a specific usage adopted I don't really agree with. What he was protesting is very sensibly referred to as "reformism" because that's what it's based on, and the tension between it and Marxism is in important ways similar or even analogous to the tension between orthodox Marxism and, say, the German Social Democrats. Again, I'm speaking in generalities. I think the important idea behind revolutionary leftism and behind Marxism is that present institutions are not appropriate vehicles for fundamental social change.

[Bilan]

No, there was no reformism at the time. Reformism was born by Kautsky and the German-Social democrats and the French social-democrats as well in the begining of the 20th century.

At Marx's time there was no scientific socialism, only utopian. That was what Marx and Engels established.

That is in no way true. Take the Critique of the Gotha Programme as an example.


---

To answer the OP's question, it has alot to do with history. the Russian revolution is one of the key proponents (in some respects).

[Bilan]

I'll add though: one of the biggest hinderances to the growth of communism has been the results of these revolutions - Russia is no exception.
And I don't know what you mean about Leninism being so popular? It's certainly not here.

[Revy]

There's a difference between Marxism-Leninism that is based off of Marx and Lenin, and Marxism-Leninism that is just a fancy name for Stalinism. PSL is more of the Marx & Lenin kind , rather than Stalinist.

I'm not a Leninist though, I'm more of a Marxist-Luxemburgist.

[Vanguard1917]

I'll add though: one of the biggest hinderances to the growth of communism has been the results of these revolutions - Russia is no exception.



Not so much the 'results of revolution' as of the failure of revolution, i.e. of counter-revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Reformism was born by Kautsky and the German-Social democrats.

WTF? It was born by Lassalle and Bernstein, NOT Kautsky.

[LOLseph Stalin]

As a marxist current,and as a revolutionary ideology general.

Is it because of the victorious revolution in Russia?

I'm no expert, but it could have alot to do with the fact that Lenin led the first successful communist revolution. Too bad Stalin went and corrupted it. :thumbdown:

[Plagueround]

I'll add though: one of the biggest hinderances to the growth of communism has been the results of these revolutions - Russia is no exception.


While I don't wish to engage in a "Baby eating Stalinist" vs. "It's all bourgeois lies!" debate, I agree with this. The past revolutions in Russia and other countries, whether or not you believe they were progressive, repressive, regressive, impressive, glorious, tyrannical, or anywhere in between, the damage that their reputation (whether real or propagandized) has done hurts our credibility and image. It's something that you can debate to the end of time, bring up all sorts of conflicting books on the subject, and you're likely to end up with nothing being resolved.

While the past may be able to give us guidance, I find many people are more obsessed with proving what version of the past is correct and less concerned with what we can do in the future.

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't think it's correct to say that Bolshevism is popular because of what happened in Russia - if anything, this would be a reason for people to turn away from Bolshevism because many bourgeois commentators who are part of the academic community have tried to suggest that Stalinism was a direct continuation of the regime that Lenin established after the revolution, and have downplayed the positive results of the revolution. Rather, Bolshevism is popular we because we base our understanding of revolution on the idea that the most radical and politically developed workers need to group together and form a party organization, which can then be used to engage with the rest of the working class by intervening in workplace struggles and spreading agitational material, with the ultimate objective of raising the political level of the workers in preparation for the seizure of power. Other currents lack the same understanding and have also adopted ultra-left stances on several issues (such as a refusal to work inside trade unions) and so are not as strong.

[Incendiarism]

Because both leninists and marxist-leninists have offered the most tangible results(and perhaps many more mistakes).

[Charles Xavier]

Marxism-Leninism popularity on the revolutionary left is most part due to its correct line. Its successes accross the world are proof of its correct line. I don't see anyone with a valid argument against Marxism-Leninism as you would have against trotskyism, maoism, reformism, anarchism and what not.

[Valeofruin]

As a marxist current,and as a revolutionary ideology general.

Is it because of the victorious revolution in Russia?

Because its true, and realistic.

[Valeofruin]

The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression.
Lenin, ("Three Sources an Component Parts of Marxism")

[ComradeOm]

Is it because of the victorious revolution in Russia?In a nutshell - yes. The wave of 'Bolshevikisation' that swept across Europe following 1917 was a direct result of the apparent success of Lenin & Co in Russia. After decades of futile struggle it seemed that finally someone had stumbled onto the secret of successful revolution. Obviously this had considerable appeal. Of course the concurrent failures of a whole range of contemporary ideologies - social-democracy, ultra-leftism, anarchism, Blanquism, French socialism, etc - made it a pretty easy choice

[Sprinkles]

As a marxist current,and as a revolutionary ideology general.

Is it because of the victorious revolution in Russia?

Marxist-Leninism is the euphemism for Stalinism, it is not the same as Leninism despite their claims.

Today most if not all of the Stalinist parties and associated trade unions are either non-existent or merely a shell of their former selves. So it would be rather strange to characterize it as popular, even on this board, which is not even an accurate reflection of the actual composition of the radical left.

[Charles Xavier]

Marxist-Leninism is the euphemism for Stalinism, it is not the same as Leninism despite their claims.

Today most if not all of the Stalinist parties and associated trade unions are either non-existent or merely a shell of their former selves. So it would be rather strange to characterize it as popular, even on this board, which is not even an accurate reflection of the actual composition of the radical left.


Marxism-Leninism is following the line of marx which was expanded on by Lenin not anything else and its an a constantly developing line, because its a science. Marxist-Leninist parties constitute the Majority of the Revolutionary Left.

[Black Sheep]

Because its true, and realistic.
Ok,i thinksuch 'arguments' are not needed.Did you stop and think for a fraction of a second?

If something is popular-->then it is true? Does that even need a refutation?

[Tower of Bebel]

Ok,i thinksuch 'arguments' are not needed.Did you stop and think for a fraction of a second?

If something is popular-->then it is true? Does that even need a refutation?
Well, their "vanguardism" is based on the same idea. The party which theories appear to be true is the vanguard of the working class.

[Valeofruin]

Marxist-Leninism is the euphemism for Stalinism, it is not the same as Leninism despite their claims.

Today most if not all of the Stalinist parties and associated trade unions are either non-existent or merely a shell of their former selves. So it would be rather strange to characterize it as popular, even on this board, which is not even an accurate reflection of the actual composition of the radical left.

North Korea...

[Valeofruin]

Ok,i thinksuch 'arguments' are not needed.Did you stop and think for a fraction of a second?

If something is popular-->then it is true? Does that even need a refutation?

No i didn't stop to think for a second.

Leninism is Marxism in the era of Imperialism.

Why is Marxism popular? Because its true.

History is riddled with class struggles, this is the truth.
Class antagonisms are being simplified more and more into 2 great camps, proletariat and bourgeois, this is true.
The working class is exploited, this is true.
The global nature of the bourgeois, and inevitable decay of capitalism gives rise to Imperialism and Imperialist war, this is true.
Through proletariat revolution we can break the chain of the imperiliast bourgeois and smash their state machinery, this is true.
in place of this state machinery we must build our own state, a proletariat state, this is true.
through social ownership of the means of production, and the supression of the bourgeois we can build socialism, this is true.
Over time, as all remnants of the old bourgeoise society disappear, the state will wither away and eventually be tossed into the dustbin of history, this is true.

With this and so much more being known, it seems the most logical answer to your question is the one i gave, is it not?

Leninism is popular because all who study it become enlightened. Marx Engels Lenin and Stalin, have become such popular figures because they told the workers of the world the truth, and offered real solutions to their problems. Free of Utopic daydreaming, or anything of the like.

So i stick with my answer. Leninism grew so popular because its full of truth.

Don't believe me? Read Marx, Engels, Lenin, and i cannot stress enough the need to read, in todays times, with the opportunists becoming increasingly hostile to him, Stalin.