Results 1 to 20 of 74
Negativity towards Marxist-Leninists
I neither support Marxist-Leninists, or oppose them (I don't know much at all about them). But I am awfully curious why there's so much negativity towards them. Is it because of how they governed the Soviet Union, or have they completely abandoned Marx's core theories?
Shouldn't we be united not divided in our drive to communism?
PS. I think we should keep this civil. I don't want anyone getting in trouble.
Previously known as MarceauWorkers of All Countries, Unite!
Because people misunderstand scientific socialism.
[FONT=Arial Narrow]"Body tissue deprived of life energy turns cancerous. Cancer is the hysteria of cells condemned to death. Cancer and fascism are closely related. Fascism is the frenzy of sexual cripples. The swastika owes its magnetism to being a symbol of two bodies locked in genital embrace. It all stems from a longing for love. Comrades, make love joyously and without fear."
[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]Khrushchev: "It’s interesting, isn’t it? I’m of working class origin while your family were landlords."
Zhou: "Yes, and we each betrayed our class!"[/FONT]
You hit the nail on the head, all criticisms of Marxist-Leninism or it's associated regimes are merely misunderstandings of "scientific Socialism," you're right.
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
anarchists and marxist-leninists fought and killed eachother in the past and according to the list of groups those are the two biggest tendency groups on this website so it makes sense for them not to get along well.
Well the primary issue is that most people don't believe that the Marxist-Leninists(known by most as Stalinists) created socialism in the Soviet Union. Usually the view varies between Marxism-Leninism creating a bureaucratic parody of socialism which was out of the control of the workers, or what is more common these days is the view that the Soviet Union and its satellites were merely state capitalist or just another capitalist state with superficial and pseudo-revolutionary slogans and appearances.I neither support Marxist-Leninists, or oppose them (I don't know much at all about them). But I am awfully curious why there's so much negativity towards them. Is it because of how they governed the Soviet Union, or have they completely abandoned Marx's core theories?
Shouldn't we be united not divided in our drive to communism?
PS. I think we should keep this civil. I don't want anyone getting in trouble.
Once you see it from this context, it's not hard to imagine why most people are opposed to Marxist-Leninists: They don't see them as communists at all, but rather as counter-revolutionaries or social-democrats(depending on who you ask). So the real questions ends up being why would communists want to unite with people who(in their opinion) strive for capitalism as opposed to socialism?
To a newcomer, I can understand that it might be pretty confusing that so many different groups all supposedly fighting for the same goal can be opposed to each other; but as you learn more, you will realize that there are some very good reasons as to why these divides exist.
Saying that marxist-leninists are communist is like claiming that Hitler was merely a charming patriot. In both cases they see things in a very distorted way. In both cases it is hard not to oppose such a "vision".
because they belong to the museum
Formerly dada
[URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
I think that it's a little too simplistic to think of it that way. We are in fact communists and it's not distorted in any way to agree with the theories of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha along side multiple other revolutionaries and it certainly doesent deserve makeing ridiculace analogies compairimg us to Hitlerites. Perhaps some of the misunderstanding about anti- revisionist Marx-Leninism are due to the ideology at one time being able to challenge the most powerful capitalist countries in the world and presenting a very serious threat to their way of life. It would be foolish of corse to blame all the concerns srrounding Marx-Leninism on western propaganda, bad things have in fact happened in countries led by Marx-leninists but still neither in the severity nor context that capitalists or many people here would like you to belive. Revisionists too have played their part in staining the name of Marx-Leninism but they too cannot be blamed entirely.
but to return to your orginal post OP: I have great respect for people here who have the guts to disagree with me however when things deteriate to the point of stereotyping, name calling and out right lying sometimes I find it necessary to defend my beliefs. The negativity here roots from several things one of which being ability for people spit out witty one liners rather than actualy debate the topic at hand. (and perhaps it's worth saying this goes for all tendencies and that we should really do something about it)
Last edited by Comrade Samuel; 27th May 2012 at 13:29.
Comrade Samuel: The defender of truth, justice and the un-American way.
When they submit soviets to bolshevik party end " communism " Soviets lead the two revolutions that lead bolsheviks to power and the they got backstabbed by Lenine and his thugs.
Last edited by Movimento Sem Terra; 27th May 2012 at 00:45.
funny thing, i work at a museum
FKA Vacant
"snook up behind him and took his koran, he said sumthin about burnin the koran. i was like DUDE YOU HAVE NO KORAN and ran off." - Jacob Isom, Amarillo Resident.
This thread really has nowhere to go but down in a sectarian hell-storm of nonsense.
To the OP: The short and sweet answer is because Rev-Left is filled with many different tendencies which conflict with one another on ideological outlook.Currently I would say R-L has more Left Communists and Anarchists so that is why there are more attacks on them (but such would be different pending on what forum you went to and R-L itself has its ups and downs).
To the rest: I'll keep this thread open some time more but I have a feeling I am going to regret it.
Contribute today and help facilitate the spread of revolutionary knowledge.
because its easier to hate on the leading revolutionary ideology in the world than it is to put aside liberal prejudices in the search for truth
Formerly zenga zenga !
The reason there is negativity toward Marxism-Leninism, comes from the massive amounts of bourgeois propaganda on one hand. And we have ultra-lefts and trots who take a stance of complete unreality and anti-communism on the other.
Just because they think they know better than the Bolsheviks in the USSR, or Albanian under Hoxha, or Romania under Ceausescu.
You don't, you weren't there, you are only applying your revisionist ideas to the situations.
Well I'd say it's true of any political ideology really. It can really devolve into "us versus them" for about any ideological difference.
I don't really hate on Marxist-Leninists but I dislike their methods to achieve socialism. To be honest, I probably hate on democratic socialists/social democrats more than I hate on other socialists outside of my tendency. Marxism and anarchism are like ice-cream flavors to me and I like both. I like a scoop of chocolate and vanilla in my bowl of ice-cream and that's what forms my ideology.
Adventures of a Pagan Anarchist
I see you haven't beat idiots in the head with that sack of door knobs. Get to work slack ass.
To address your question properly it's required to make two distintions: firstly the opposition between Anarchists and Marxists in general, secondly the opposition between ML's and other currents within Marxism as Left Communism for instance.I neither support Marxist-Leninists, or oppose them (I don't know much at all about them). But I am awfully curious why there's so much negativity towards them. Is it because of how they governed the Soviet Union, or have they completely abandoned Marx's core theories?
Shouldn't we be united not divided in our drive to communism?
PS. I think we should keep this civil. I don't want anyone getting in trouble.
The first one is very commonly known: while the anarchists believe that we can achieve communism without passing through phases or stages, dismantling immediately the state, the Marxists advocate that to achieve communism we must pass through some stages (the DOTP, Socialism) before reaching the last phase which is communism.
The second is much more complex than the first. In my opinion, the main divergence here lies in the interpretation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. While Marxist-Leninists believe that USSR represented the DOTP, the Left-communists and other anti-bolshevik Marxists currents saw it as a distortion of Marx conception of DOTP which is supposed to be a workers democracy and not the dictatorship of one party. To them the Commune of Paris represented the DOTP (backed by Engels who consider the Commune as an example of DOTP). To Left Communists the Russian revolution was socialist until the soviets were submitted to the dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party.
To Marxists the DOTP is the first stage after the socialist revolution which makes impossible any unity here since both conceptions of DOTP aren't reconcilable.
Because people still think this is 1927 and feel the need to take sides.
Because it's easy to hate on something that has actually been there for a prolonged period of time and which thus was allowed the opportunity to fail. Contrary to ideologies which have never failed cause they have never been.
“We think too small, like the frog at the bottom of the well. He thinks the sky is only as big as the top of the well. If he surfaced, he would have an entirely different view.” - Mao Tse-Tung
| NCPN | Voorwaarts! | WFDY |
It should also be remembered that upwards of 90% of the MLs we get around here are middle-class teenagers who get their politics from Wikipedia, which slants things even further against them.
The socialism/communism distinction is a Kautskyist innovation. Not all Marxists uphold it.
Including Marxist Leninists.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
EDIT: Sorry, wrong post place. Ignore this. Kinda drunk.
Last edited by Brosa Luxemburg; 27th May 2012 at 02:30. Reason: lsdfk
"The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited...Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism-the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction-but of a world of horrors." -At Daggers Drawn
"Our strategy is therefore the following: to establish and maintain a series of centers of desertion, or poles of secession, of rallying points. For runaways. For those who leave. A series of places where we can escape from the influence of a civilization that is headed for the abyss." -Tiqqun, Call
COMMUNISM !