Results 1 to 20 of 153
Sell me on marxism-leninism please
I know that this could turn into a tendency war, but I'd like to ask the non-ml's to hold off until it gets more than 10 posts please. I'm thinking that ml is what I'm more familiar with but that's not saying much. If it's possible could someone give me an intro to what it is and why it's the best before I read Lenin's various works? I'd really appreciate it.
Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand. ~ Karl Marx
formerly Triceramarx
Channel fucking flippers. This isn't entertainment, it's ideology... oh, wait it's RLC.
Neo-Maoist rants: http://marcelthemaoist.blogspot.com The Commie Geek: http://mistax1337.blogspot.com
Even though I am not a Marxist-Leninist. I think the main points of Marxism-Leninism are:
Vanguardism, the part of the population that considers itself to be most class conscious should rule the new state apparatus.
Anti-power of a church. The church often sides with reactionary elements, most notably the catholic, orthodox and protestant church in Europe and Russia. It is of pracitcal importance to stop the power of the church.
Strategic anti-imperialism. (willing to help a national bourgeoisie if it weakens an imperialist power, 'left-wing' nationalism EG Irish republicanism)
The economy is along the lines of national-capitalism (ruled by the vanguard) with a social democratic distribution model.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
No. It's not my job to educate you.
Lenin himself never claimed to be a marxist-leninist. This term was invented by the Stalinist bureaucracy to justify their rule over the Soviet working class. As such, marxism-leninism is more of a justification for the rule of bureaucracy than anything to do with Karl Marx. The best introduction to this theology is by Stalin in his work, The foundations of Leninism. Latter day anti-revisionist MLs claim Khrushchev to have been the revisionist fallen angel who betrayed the holy doctrine of prophet Stalin, thus instantly converting the Soviet Union into an infidel fascist country.I know that this could turn into a tendency war, but I'd like to ask the non-ml's to hold off until it gets more than 10 posts please
Sorry O couldn't wait till post # 10. MLism is pretty much the gateway to leftist politics. Since it has so much history behind it (FSU, Eastern Bloc, Cold war, etc.) it gets the most attention the quickest. It starts off with fascination of Lenin, Stalin, WWII, The Soviet Union, etc. Then it progresses into curiosity about the ideas. Then you adopt those ideas as your own because you have not traversed very far into leftist ideas yet. Once people get a little bit more mature, they slowly realize the futility of MLism but use it as a learning experience to get into other leftist tendencies.
Its great to get people introduced to the left, but the ideas should not be taken seriously. It has its history, and its history is not one of socialism. However, it has the mainstream appeal of the cold war and face of socialism etc. So thats what gets people into the left. I know cause this happened to myself and many a user here.
Yes what promethean is saying is true. Marxism-Leninism is NOT Leninism. Rather it is Stalin's addition to what he deems to be the Marxist and Leninist tradition. Wether you agree with that is up to you. Personally I do think Stalin overlapped with Lenin (less with Marx) on a lot of issues.
Excellent post. Even though I reached my ideology through very weak left-libertarianism -> social democracy -> libertarian-socialism, Marxism-Leninism is the biggest gateway. Although that kind of MLism is usually based on the great man theory of history rather than the strange kind of dialectics real MLism is based on.
edit:
The strange dialectics is perhaps the most important part of MLism. I think it's best if you first get it explained from a ML, like Ismail, and then from me.
Sorry, Stalin fought bureaucratic shit his whole life. The amount of bullshit on this site you would think it's a bunch of farmers not proles!
http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html
http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html
Stalin followed Marx and Lenin, no one goes around calling themselves a Stalinist, yet Trots identify as Trotskyist all of the time. Trotsky and Lenin had more differences than a bird and a fish, and this is can be seen easily by reading the writings of both; for example the years and years up to 1917 that Trotsky spent attacking Lenin and Bolshevism (and then years of trying to create splits in the party after he finally joined)! The fact that people still try to spout this about Trotsky and Lenin as nearly identical twins (or worse Lenin taking up Troskyism!) shit is hilarious.
Neo-Maoist rants: http://marcelthemaoist.blogspot.com The Commie Geek: http://mistax1337.blogspot.com
What differences did Lenin and Trotsky have?
For a "maoist" you sure seem to dislike farmers.
formerly Triceramarx
I didn't say anything about disliking farmers, and not all farmers are peasants living in serfdom. Since when did Maoists support kulaks, huh?
Neo-Maoist rants: http://marcelthemaoist.blogspot.com The Commie Geek: http://mistax1337.blogspot.com
This is an excellent example of the great man theory of history.
lol why because I can show that Stalin HAD a certain position against bureaucratic tendencies in the party? Go put your red herring back in the fish tank, son.
Neo-Maoist rants: http://marcelthemaoist.blogspot.com The Commie Geek: http://mistax1337.blogspot.com
If you want to show me why ml is a good thing, great. Please do. If not, why do you want to start an argument over Stalin that's tangent to the topic?
formerly Triceramarx
If you want to be sold, I can get it for you wholesale.
SELECTED WORKS OF STALIN, ONLY $237.78.
only $200.
RED DAVE
You cannot show that. Stalin was a firm representative of the bureaucratic tendencies. His critiques of the bureaucracy were nothing more than the critiques of a welfare capitalist some critiquing big business leaders who "went too far" while maintaining the rule of capitalism over the working class. If Stalin was a big hero having positions against bureaucratic tendencies in his party, why was Khrushchev such a devious and unbelieving apostate revisionist when he critiqued the same bureaucratic tendencies?
I ask again, Comrade Marcel, what are the differences that Lenin and Trotsky had?
To answer for Marcel, Lenin and Trotsky had several differences over their lives. For one, in 1905, Trotsky was the one who was present in Petrograd and was thus able to have a first-hand experience of the Petrograd Soviet which enabled him to form theories of workers councils as the new form of the workers struggle in a revolution. He was the first to see and propose a socialist revolution in Russia as a real possibility. He was ahead of Lenin and other orthodox Marxists, who followed the doctrines of Plekhanov which allowed only for a bourgeois revolution inside a majority peasant-dominated society. However, through his direct experience as a leader of the 1905 Petrograd Soviet, his studies of Marx, and the correct interpretations of Marxist doctrine, Trotsky was able to devise through deducing the theories of uneven and combined development, a theory of Permanent Revolution, which allowed for the proletariat to carry out the left-over tasks of the bourgeois revolution, left incomplete by the incompetent bourgeoisie. This is what prompts Trotskysists to proclaim that Lenin became a Trostskyist when he saw for a fact that Trotsky was right and a socialist revolution was on the cards for Russia than a purely bourgeois revolution. However ultimately, owing to the realities of the world situation which saw a defeat of the world proletariat in Germany and other places, Trotsky in the end became a loyal oppositionist to Stalinism and so did most Trotskyists, who along with Maoists, continued to be the loyal opposition within Stalinist bureaucratic rule over the proletariat.
Lenin preferred Coke while Trotsky, having lived briefly in the US, preferred Pepsi.
RED DAVE
