"Modern day communists should self describe as Marxist Leninist as the tendency gives the most accurate analysis of Capital(Marxism) and the most successful theory of revolution, Leninism.
Would you agree? Why/why not?
"Modern day communists should self describe as Marxist Leninist as the tendency gives the most accurate analysis of Capital(Marxism) and the most successful theory of revolution, Leninism.
Would you agree? Why/why not?
Other urls found in this thread:
Well, I haven't seen any other tendency that makes as much sense, has the same level of clarity, and has posed a similar threat to capital.
Because Marxist Leninism unironically failed. I don't see much in besides soviet nostalgia. Now, I frequently defend the former socialist states but mein got! they commited some retarded shit.
-Ban of rock music
-Mao's retarded policies [/spoiler]I'm a Dengoid who defends Mao though[/spoiler]
-The "vanguard" party is a joke
-elections which are a joke.
-Press which is a joke
-Economy past the 70s
I probably could go on but that's enough.
I've have become some weird post-leftist armagedon Posadist Dengist Luxemburgist Marxist. If that doesn't make much sense, it will once you open your third eye.Unironically
how is this bad?
such as? I'm not familar
your anti democracy?
well it stopped being Marxist-Leninist after Stalin
Ones who are ML should, because it's accurate.
But generally? No.
Also, even the term "Marxist Leninist" sounds weird and culty or overly academic.
all tendencies should use the analysis of Lenin and whatnot because they are quite factually correct, but that doesn't make anyone who believes Lenin retroactively MLs. Left ideologies tend to be less based on their analysis, which is broadly quite similar from one group to another, but differentiates on how to respond to the analysis provided (even within ideological sects like MLs). These are broad categories of ways people think we should react to the material truths of the world, they are defined by that, not whom they think is correct. It's not like the right where you have Randian types, Friedman types, so on.
No, M-L died in 1991, the left needs to reevaluate our Praxis to be suitable for the twenty-first century. M-L is stuck in the Cold War.
So a neolib with a red flag.
Only if it applies to the material conditions of a country. If not, then they should just keep the communist label.
Real Trotskyism hasn’t been tried.
Sure it has. Weren't Reagan and the Bushes Trotskyites?
even as a Marxist-Leninist this is cringe
no taste for banter, you americans
please, I implore you, how are Regan or Bush Trotskyites?
Yes, because our 2019 advanced capitalism conditions perfectly match those of 1917 Russia. We need to overthrow the pesky tzar!
lmao, Khrushchev changed little to nothing other than winding down the personality cult and restoring real rule of law. "Khrushchovites" were the scapegoats Mao blamed for domestic and foreign policy shifts Stalin made after the "Third Period" Comintern line was ended, since he was too afraid to accuse Stalin himself lest he endanger his own personality cult. Yes the USSR had goofy corn man at the helm instead of an old Bolshevik, but the actual political lines enacted (peaceful coexistence etc.) were the same as in Stalin's late years.
I believe he's just joking there, with the joke being that many prominent neoconservatives used to be Trokskyists
Irving Kristol was the only prominent neocon to be an ex-trot, and even then it was only because he was raised by a trotskyist family and in his own words "never seriously believed it". Trots = Neocons is a red scare meme made up by paleocons in the 1980s to smear their neocon adversaries as "communists", I'm shocked this board fell for it.
This is how I know you have never read anything about Leninism beyond the Wikipedia page
I think we aught to just say we are historical materialist
I don't like when boomers choose what I can listen to.
It doesn't serve any other functions than gibs for party officials.
I'm for democracy. A socialist democracy shouldn't be as democratic as bourgeois one.
To give an anecdote. In Poland they thought it was a good idea to shoot pheasant because they damaged crops. After they were shot, bugs that they ate returned and damaged the crops even more. What did the news say? Muricans throw bugs from planes.
Cornman did jackshit in changing the economy. This absurd blaming of cornman reminds me of FinBol video about his "coup".
yall like Wolff?
Besides that he's good. Introduced me to Marxism so I have a fondness for him.
It's ironic because Kruschev was acrually the last M-L leader of russia imo. The reason M-L's are considered tankies is cuz he was using force to put down a coup which while somewhat legitimate did contain imperial forces within it. No matter what people think of destalinization (I am among the critics btw) it can be considered precisely the kind of strategic long term maneovre to preserve stability that many leaders M-L's praise do. Nearly all the best years of the Soviet diet, society, culture, and foreign relations occurred under Kruschev. While this wasn't necessarily BECAUSE of him if he had been the big revisionist everyone claims this almost certainly wouldn't have occurred on such a significant scale.
Make no mistake, compared to Lenin and Stalin Krushvev is rather banal. But to say he wasn't a Leninist I think is to misinterpret his approach to leadership entirely. Revisionism and economic stagnation didn't creep in significantly until Brezhnev
And Brezhnev wasn't ML then?
Brezhnev I would argue wasn't a revisionist but wasn't really interested in being a Leninist either (IE trying to progress the construction of socialism by realistically responding to the status of global capitalism at the time)
I know this is a problematic comparison and I will elaborate on it if you don't understand what I am trying to say but if Stalin was the Soviet FDR and Kruschev the Soviet Truman than Brezhnev was certainly the Soviet Eisenhower
Counterpoint: Modern day communists shouldn't delude themselves with Stalinist fetishism because it clearly failed to move beyond capitalism only a few years after the revolution.
Just go full Communism right after the destruction of ww1 the absolute brutal civil war subsequent imperialist attacks the Nazi death machine at it's height or the intense cold war full of traitors,spies,psyops and general impealist shittery.
How about full communism after winning WWII? What kind of bag of excuses have you got after that one?
Why are you being retarded but on purpose.
I disagree, we should all be MLM.
That isn't really accurate. In some ways Khrushchev was actually to the "left" of Stalin, e.g. wage differentials were narrowed and state farms were expanded. Malenkov sought further liberalization than Khrushchev was willing to countenance (hence why he attacked economists associated with Malenkov as "Bukharinites.")
Khrushchev's sovnarkhozy proposal certainly was a step toward decentralization, but it was also unpopular and quickly ended after his ouster, and in terms of liberalization it wasn't as significant as the Kosygin reforms proposed a year after Khrushchev's ouster, and which were themselves repealed in the early 70s.
What would you say was the major cause(s) of the massive increase in corruption?
Marxism gives an accurate analysis of capital. Leninism gives a bunch of pamphlets based on other people’s work. In terms of strategy Maoists clearly have the edge. I think it’s idealism to suggest what made the Soviet Union “successful” was the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. The historical conditions were right for revolution. The revolution lasted until it became crushed by revisionism, due to the inner and outer contradictions inherent to the top down down system. When the Soviet Union was sold off this was not because the proletariat wanted it but because the leadership had been allowed to become powerful enough to become private property owners. This is something Leninism (which has lasted any length of time) all around the world has failed to stop really with the exception of Cuba. How on Earth is it materialist to still consider yourself a Leninist when the conditions that gave birth to Leninism do not exist, particularly if you are living in the first world which we all are. The conditions are entirely different.
To add to this, there has never been a revolution with a Marxist Leninist vanguard party in a developed economy
And what exactly does banning rock music do to build socialism?
Corruption was already a thing even under Lenin. The way the Soviet economy work often inadvertently created incentives for it, e.g. factory managers often illicitly obtained raw materials that the plan didn't properly provide for (or the planned materials didn't arrive in time) so as to achieve output targets provided for in said plan.
The black market grew as consumer demands increased at a rate the state couldn't keep up with.
Bribery was widespread as a way to evade punishment or expedite services in everyday life, which naturally had a corrupting influence on the whole of society.
The growth in corrupt practices is associated with Brezhnev because he was notably lax in punishing corrupt officials. But basically corruption emerged as a consequence of problems in the economy. Stalin imposed harsh penalties on those found guilty, and there was a lively anti-corruption campaign under Andropov, but neither succeeded in stamping out corruption because the reasons for it continued to exist.
Interesting, I didn't know it went all the way back. I read about an inverse of what you describe the other day in one of Adam Curtis' blogs that a laundry did a refit once and so produced scrap metal, and from then on the plan always demanded they produce scrap metal, so they'd roam the streets for scrap and purchase it off other places.
Any sort of communism that relies on mass education and mass revolts across border lines is doomed to fail. If a country can't be independently communist than clearly the system won't ever work.
Except I have. But if you think M-L is Marxism, then I know you haven't read any Marx, besides the Manifesto and Critique of the Gotha Program. Read more Marx, because that is actual scientific socialism.
If you've actually read State and Revolution or Imperialism you'd know they are products of their time. Half of S&R is Lenin criticising his contemporaries. Do you think Kautsky being wrong in 1905 somehow advances socialism in the 21st century.
Get real and read Marx.
its a struggle against capitalist subversion
and that worked out good did it the capitalists did not manage to subvert the USSR then?
Maoism isn't much different from Marxist-Leninism though, its either pointless or redundant to make a distinction
It did because the reversion back to capitalism had nothing to do to rock music.
So banning it preventing the music from subverting the USSR
in terms of on the ground organisational strategy it adds a lot such as peoples war. In terms of historical precedent it has been upheld by pretty much every post Mao revolutionary force across the third world.
so you are saying it was effective in stopping the USSR becoming subverted but also it had nothing to do with the USSR being subverted?
i also meant to say yeh fair enough they are pretty similar, but if we are "identifying" as anything in public while organising, which i do not by the way as it is not in the least bit helpful when you are knocking on doors, Maoism has more to offer than traditional leninism, not least its pretty clear the rural peasants are extremely revolutionary and the leninist/marxist fetish for the urban industrial proletariat was mis placed
not agreeing but what he is saying is more akin to 'windows barricade worked cause no enemies entered through the windows, they blew up the front door'
but then you look at how western culture seaped through anyway, there was large movements of people who got together to listen to banned music/look at banned art etc.
So even by this metric it failed
It follows neither Marx nor Lenin. It would be true if it did, but it doesn't, so it's not.
ok but thats not reason enough to separate it from ML. Just like Hoxha
Mao was a good Marxist Leninist with good theories
I'm saying that if the Marxist experts in the USSR at the time felt that rock music would subvert the country with its blatant capitalist propaganda they made the right move by banning it.
Those people were boomers who didn't read.
Except for the fact that academia shifted from marxian economics to western economics, small stuff like that
might as well say lenin was a good marxist with some theories
you're a boomer who doesn't read
Might as well add ism to the name of every half decent marxist and create new ideologies(that aren't much different)
Arguing over Maoism and Leninism is redundant. The difference are so minute that it hardly warrants a new ideology
The difference is huge. Mao was in the right wing of the CCP and his social basis was the “bloc of four classes” not the proletariat whereas Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks has their social basis on an alliance of the proletariat and peasantry with the proletariat at the helm. Also Lenin pushes for permanent revolution in that he and all the great Marxists of the time like Luxemburg and Liebknict understood that the Russian Revolution would inevitably fail if it didn’t start a world socialist revolution. Mao actually allied himself with the US in the 70’s and his and Stalin’s nationalism prevented a cohesive USSR-Chinese planned economy because these two counterrevolutionaries were fundamentally against socialism. Come at me tankies
Read a book. There are criticisms to levy against Stalin and Mao, but betraying socilaism and being "nationalists" isn't one of them. Mentioning Lenin and Luxemburg in the same sentence as if they were somehow of the same mindset is also laughable.
“Let the German Government Socialists cry that the rule of the Bolsheviks in Russia is a distorted expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If it was or is such, that is only because it is a product of the behavior of the German proletariat, in itself a distorted expression of the socialist class struggle. All of us are subject to the laws of history, and it is only internationally that the socialist order of society can be realized. The Bolsheviks have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of historical possibilities. They are not supposed to perform miracles. For a model and faultless proletarian revolution in an isolated land, exhausted by world war, strangled by imperialism, betrayed by the international proletariat, would be a miracle.
What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescencies in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: “I have dared!”
And to you: “Read a book”
By the time Lenin had died, the revolutionary wave in Europe was already dead. He was never going around saying, "we have to go out and fund coups in Europe!!!". He was focusing on the building of socialism in the USSR, which is EXACTLY the work that Stalin continued. Stalin was never a nationalist. He was a PRAGMATIC leader who knew to build socialism in the USSR before worrying about the rest of the movement — NOT THAT HE IGNORED THE MOVEMENT ALTOGETHER.
Such a great socialist that he killed or exiled all the original bolsheviks who made the revolution possible in the first place, equated social democracy with fascism which led to the defeat of the German working class and the rise of hitler, then made a disastrous pact with hitler and when nazi germany attacked made a pact with the capitalists and enforced no strike pledges which led to disastrous defeats of revolutionary movements in countries like India with the 1942 quit India movement(among countless others).
You mean the place that just got a new constitution enshrining private property?
With crap like the NEP? Lenin literally said he was focused on building state capitalism in one of his later speeches.
Okay, fixing the wording: He was focusing on the building of the NEP, for the purposes of progressing towards socialism.
Completely agree OP, that's why I'm an ML.
When 2 MLs get together. They can explain capitalism, it's flaws, and what to replace it with.
Get 2 anarchists together. They'll agree capitalism is flawed but argue over what to replace it with.
Get 2 liberals (this includes reactionaries and fascists, they're all the same) together. They can't even agree what capitalism is, let alone come to the conclusion that it's the problem.
Most of the working class was organized in the SPD. Turning their back on them by labeling these workers as social fascists rather than providing them with leadership in an acute time of crisis led to a disaster which could have been completely prevented. Stalin and the bureaucracy which supported him hold a large chunk of responsibility for the rise of hitler and all the death and destruction that followed
Stalin and the workers of the USSR are the reason your not in a death camp retard.
This is the statement one makes when they have only read Marx ie when they're a newfaggot to communism
You'll get there one day lad
Or to quote a leftcom luxemburgist
>Though Luxemburg and Lenin had set themselves the same task the revolutionary revival of the labour movement sunk in the swamps of reformism, and the overthrow of capitalist society on a world-wide scale – still in their striving toward this goal their ways diverged; and although they always retained respect for each other, they nevertheless remained at odds on decisive questions of revolutionary tactics and on many questions of revolutionary principle. It may be stated here in advance that on many essential points the conceptions of Luxemburg differ from those of Lenin as day from night, or – the same thing – as the problems of the bourgeois revolution from those of the proletarian. All attempts of inconsistent Leninists, from political considerations, to reconcile Lenin with Luxemburg now that both are dead and to erase the opposition between them, in order to derive advantage from both of them, is merely a silly falsification of history which serves no one but the falsifiers and them only temporarily.
Stopped reading there.
Luxemburgs great failure was her inability to grasp in time the necessity of a vanguard party in the mold of the bolsheviks. However on other most important points, of the necessity of the socialist revolution to be based on an international basis they were in complete agreement. In a period where the second international betrayed its Marxist roots, it was Luxemburg, Liebknict, Lenin, and Trotsky who preserved Marxism and thus they must be lumped together as genuine revolutionaries.
literally what reason as a socialist, and a dengist at that, do you have to criticse the Stasi that isn't some western bullshit about "muh evil police watching your every move!!! don't make jokes or your neighbor will dob you in!!!"? there is no genuine reason to single out the Stasi from the hundreds of other security/police organisations not just in the Eastern Bloc, but in practically every other country. the average Ossie had nothing to fear about the Stasi because the Stasi had more important things to do than stalk the millions of individual citizens instead of, i don't know, internal security and cracking down on actual issues? to quote an user from /marx/:
Lenin saw the NEP as a temporary measure to hold together the USSR's war ravaged economy, waiting for international revolution to provide the economic basis for genuine socialism. As he said at a Comintern congress in 1921:
Lenin understood that commercial ties with foreign imperialist states would endanger the goal of international revolution. One of his last actions before his debilitating third stroke was to fight to maintain the state monopoly on foreign trade, against proposals by Stalin and others to allow Nepman capitalists to make deals with the west independently. Lenin was successful in defending the state monopoly on trade. What he did not foresee was that the party itself would be the ones to sell out the interNational Soycialist movement in the interests of trade deals and military alliances with world imperialism.
I wasn't trying to gatekeeo and I certainly wasn't doing anything approaching what Fisher describes in that essay. I was just pointing out that Marx himself while being the foundation isn't the only theorist who should be taken seriously
I could just as easily say he was a proud t of his time as you have about lenin. It's superfluous and betrays a certain dogmatism that comes with people who have just gotten into leftism. It's fine but I'm not going to humor you by pretending you're correct
Huh. And yet, socialist countries such as Cuba and DPRK persist to this day. Maybe Leninism had something to gain from the contribution of Stalin.
I am glad for that, I suppose. It seems out of character for Stalin, though, to be fair.
Which is why I’d say stick with Marxist or communist and attaching some stigma stuffed Lenin or Mao on the end is silly
Except they have not sold of this property to a ruling class which has developed into a capitalist class, it just means some private business can operate on a small scale, most of the economy is either planned, cooperative or a mixture of the two
They persist to this day as state capitalism but have never managed to abolish commodity production properly because they lack the diversity of resources
Tell me where's the: unemployment, capitalist class, market driven economy (no, few markets here and there don't count), etc. There's nothing "capitalist" about Cuba, USSR, and other former socialist states. The ones that are state capitalist would be China and Vietnam.
Here's Garl Marks about the Paris commune
im not saying its a bad thing, its a stage in communist program, but there are still markets, still widespread commodity production for these markets, even though these industries are worker or state managed.
Same with the USSR and China
Markets != capitalism. They existed well before capitalism existed. If it was capitalist you would expect phenomena which can be observed under capitalism, to be observed under socialism. Besides markets (ignoring most of the economy was planned) there isn't much more.
except they existed before capitalism but not as the dominant or as a major part of production. There have been markets under every system to be sure but for the most part under feudalism and ancient modes of production stuff was made for use, with markets as an add on to this. Markets with production for exchange are still a major part of the cuban economy. You can debate the exact prevalence and if that constitues some capitalism. Commodities in Cuba are often made for exchanged and then sold/taxed, just like under a social democracy
and you do observe phenonema like under capitalism, waged labour, a small petit bourgeiose etc
Just like USSR then.
The only reason they are is because it lost most of it's trading partners so it had to privatize a chunk of it's economy to get foreign investment. Most of the economy is still planned. There's a private and a public economy in Cuba, and unlike in China the public one is the main one, taking 70% of the whole economy. I've already posted the quote
exactly, im not saying this is a bad thing
But there's nothing capitalist about that. . . . . . .
It certainly claimed to have achieved socialism.
the USSR also had vast amounts of commodity production and exchange on markets
It didn't though, that was only towards the consumer, there were no b2p markets, the state enterprises delivered and received goods according to plan unlike in yugoslavia.
Literally told you I've read Lenin in my post. Your reading comprehension is atrocious, now I know why you don't read lol